# CHAPTER 2 Issue Category: Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (SNODA) Pages 5268 - 5757

Response to Public Comments Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters

November 14, 2010

40 CFR Part 131 Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596

This document is part of a larger documentChapter 2 - Comment Documents Extension 

# SNODA.I - EXTENSION No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5268Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization 

# SNODA.II - STREAM REGIONALIZATION Comment ID 2504-2.001.003

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District b) The District concurs with the three major items addressed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) recent letter requesting more information for this NODA process (see Bartlett, A. [FDEP] letter to Salvaterra, D. [EPA], August 10, 2010). The lack of information to explain the stream regionalization process for setting total nitrogen (TN) values is of particular concern. With the author of the original work (FDEP) questioning on how their methodologies and data have been used, the District recommends the EPA reconsider the current approach for TN criteria until EPA can coordinate more closely with the FDEP and fully addressing their concerns. Throughout the rule, EPA continues to focus on both total phosphorus (TP) and TN criteria for all streams, rivers, and lakes even though local knowledge of these aquatic systems indicate otherwise (e.g., Lake Okeechobee, see http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/everglades/lakeo_tmdl.htm ). With the current interpretation of TN regionalization, EPA is potentially developing erroneous TN criteria within incorrect geographical regions. It is essential that derived TN criteria be shown to have ecological significance in the regions they are applied. Because both TN and TP are positively correlated with biological endpoints (e.g., chlorophyll a) in lakes, the simple empirical relationships (correlations) currently being employed by EPA are not sufficient to show cause-effect relationships between TN and designated uses. Numerous and serious implications exist for criteria being developed and implemented incorrectly. For example, we remain concerned how TN criteria may negatively influence the implementation of current restoration activitiesthroughout Florida (e.g., Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, please see EPA docket reference EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596-1476.2; page 47). We recommend the EPA not only revisit the TN regionalization in streams but also the applicability and correctness of TN criteria proposed for the freshwater lakes portion of the rule. 

# Response

Comment ID: 2504-2.001.003 Response: EPA received one comment on this section. This comment was organized with others into general themes and a response prepared. This set of comments concerns EPA’s classification effort and the revision to the proposed NWR to split the Panhandle into West and East regions and restrict the size of the West Central. EPA received mostly support for splitting the Panhandle and many comments concerned about the restriction in the size of the West Central and in classification in general. The first set of comments addressed the lack of consideration for more site-specific, especially physical, factors in classifying

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5269Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
streams, and commenters cited recent papers indicating more geomorphic bases for classifying streams in Florida (e.g., functional process zones) that yield more classes. EPA agrees that there are a variety of ways to classify streams that would result in any number of different stream classes. However, for the purposes of deriving nutrient criteria, the process has to weigh the specificity of more and more site-specific factors generating finer classification against the reality of data availability, resource constraints to implement monitoring under any resulting classification, and the sufficiency of a parsimonious classification in deriving defensible criteria. This is true of deriving any criterion, not just numeric nutrient criteria and EPA will continue to use the NWRs for described in the Supplemental Notice for the final rule. EPA agrees that its own guidance lays out a variety of classification options, all of which were meant to provide states with the flexibility to choose from amongst these and other scientifically defensible options. A common and peer-reviewed classification framework has always been ecoregions and bioregions, as reflected in EPA’s own ecoregional 304(a) recommended criteria. Ecoregions capture a variety of the very factors recommended for use by commenters: geology, soil types, vegetation, land cover, climate, and hydrology, among others. That is why EPA considered ecoregions as part of the classification effort. The NWRs used in the final rule refined ecoregions based on smaller scale differences in regional geology and observed water chemistry - again consistent with EPA guidance (see final rule TSD) - among other factors. Commenters recommended alternative classification scenarios (e.g., Rosgen, functional process zones, etc.). These are all potential candidates, but are more experimental or less proven. EPA’s regional approach starts with ecoregions, uses biological considerations, regional geology, and observed patterns in chemistry. EPA considers this approach to be appropriate and scientifically defensible. See final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received several comments that the TN regionalization was incorrect and that it should be a two-region model rather than a five-region model. EPA disagrees. EPA decided 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. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion. 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); meaning that neither the two NWR model nor the five NWR model is more defensible than the other. As a result, because EPA found either model to be protective of applicabledesignated uses and based upon sound scientific rationale, and for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the colimiting nature of TN and TP amply detailed in the scientific literature (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007) and detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD, EPA has decided that a similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5270Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
EPA received many comments on the restricted boundary for the West Central. One comment suggested that the West Central boundary was unclear and was not in the docket. EPA disagrees. A map and GIS coverage of the Supplemental Notice NWRs were provided in the docket and indicate where the modified West Central boundary would be. This is evidenced by the large number of comments that actually applied this data in their responses. Another comment suggested that new phosphorus sediment/geology information (Terziotti et al. 2010) suggests that an expanded area of the West Central is more defensible. EPA disagrees. EPA reviewed the USGS publication and determined that the inability to discriminate human/non-human effects, the resolution, and the untested nature of the information preclude its application by EPA. The authors acknowledge that the maps resulting from the sediment samples cannot discriminate human and non-human sources. Given the long history of phosphorus mining and landscape disturbance in the region, the inability to discriminate such sources does not favor the application of that work to improving discrimination of natural expectations for elevated TP in streams. The geologic maps used by EPA in revising the regionalization as described in the Supplemental Notice and detailed in the final rule TSD, however, are not subject to the same effect and are the most defensible basis upon which EPA revised the West Central boundary. Other comments argued that well data from the region indicate that some peripheral areas excluded from the West Central (e.g., Sarasota Bay) ought to be reincorporated into the West Central. Again, EPA disagrees and argues that in the absence of evidence that such phenomena are not indeed linked to human disturbance in the region that has impacted surface flow and groundwater TP concentrations, the most defensible basis for the revised NWR is the immutable geology underlying the region, which is most consistent with EPA’s revised West Central boundary. Similarly, some argued that Charlotte Harbor should be in the West Central. In fact, most of the Charlotte Harbor watershed, especially the Peace and Myakka drainages, are in the West Central as the commenter recommends. Small coastal tributaries south of the Peace River are not in the West Central as the most substantial evidence available to EPA, the underlying geology, did not support its inclusion in the West Central. Other comments argued that the West Central or high TP region should be expanded to include much of the Peninsula where phosphorus-rich geology exists. EPA disagrees. EPA must weigh the watershed basis of its classification with the other classification factors. Much of the outcrops mentioned in these comments cross small parts of watersheds and sub-watersheds that subsequently do not exhibit the level of coincident differences in stream TP concentrations as witnessed in the West Central, North Central, and Panhandle East Regions. A few comments argued that the West Central was expanded to include some drainages, especially peripheral drainages. EPA disagrees. The West Central was not expanded over the proposed rule, rather, it was restricted. It always extended to the watershed boundaries of the drainages noted. This is consistent with EPA’s adherence to a watershed-based element in its classification. Two comments in particular suggested that human-impacted areas (Alachua County and urban Pinellas areas) should be included in higher TP areas because of this disturbance. EPA disagrees. The goal of the classification is to isolate natural differences in instream nutrient expectation and not to confound that with anthropogenic sources. The goal is to establish natural reference expectations for nutrients that inherently protect designated uses. Confusing such an approach with anthropogenic factors would inherently bias nutrient expectations upward. Concern over expectations of criteria for human-modified waters should be dealt with in the context of designated uses, since the authors are ostensibly arguing that the same uses should not be expected of these waterbodies as for natural waterbodies. To date, FDEP has not made such a difference explicit in their use classification.

References Terziotti, S., A.B. Hoos, D.A. Harned, and A.M. Garcia. 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5271Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization 

# SNODA.II.A - GENERAL Comment ID 2452-1.001.003

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. In regards to the revised stream region boundaries, there is logic in increasing the number of watersheds in order to be more representative of the diverse nature of Florida's waters. However, this does not address the fundamental flaw in EPA's procedure of basing limits on nutrients in healthy streams rather than developing the science to determine the cause-and-effect relationship between nutrient concentrations and actual stream health. This approach penalizes the systems in northwest Florida because of the hard work and expense we have already incurred to keep our streams in excellent condition. 

# Comment ID 2454-1.001.007

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System Okaloosa County recommends that EPA revisit their approach to NNC and develop an approach that considers the entire envelope of characteristics of a waterbody and their potential to result in a detrimental environmental response to elevate levels of nutrients and not base these criteria on the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus alone. 

# Comment ID 2456.001.002

Author Name: DeBogory P. Organization: South Walton Utility Co., Inc. We still believe that using statistics to determine nutrient limits across large regions is not a sound, rational way to determine nutrient criteria. Florida's water bodies are each unique, and developing regional standards fails to account for the individual characteristics of Florida's important surface waters. In addition, by EPA's own admission, using statistical methods "does not definitively demonstrate that exceeding the threshold"..."results in harm (impairment) to the aquatic life in a particular waterbody." Separating the Florida Panhandle into two regions does not alter that fact. 

# Comment ID 2460-1.001.004

Author Name: Thompson C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5272Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
Organization: Buckeye Florida, L.P. The region beginning with the Aucilla River (WBID 3310) drainage basin east should be combined with the proposed North Central region for total nitrogen (TN) criteria. 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.001

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC On August 3rd 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 148, pg. 45579) concerning the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. The Supplemental Notice requests comments on potential revisions to the proposed NNC methodology, including revised Nutrient Watershed boundaries, use of a benchmark distribution approach to stream criteria similar to one previously proposed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the potential use of alternative water quality models to derive downstream protection values for lakes. This document focuses on technical comments pertaining to EPA's request for comments regarding the possible use of a benchmark stream distribution approach to derive stream criteria. 

# Comment ID 2499-1.001.002

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. II. REGIONALIZATION SCHEME In our original comments we suggested that EPA divide the state into four phosphorus nutrient regions with boundaries broadly based on the delineations of the phosphate bearing formations as depicted on the Geologic Map of Florida (2000). We are pleased to see that EPA is including and using the Geologic Map as part of its analysis. However, since the time the proposed rule was published the United States Geological Survey has published a report entitled: Mapping Watershed Potential to Contribute Phosphorus from Geologic Materials to Receiving Streams, Southeastern United States, Scientific Investigations Map 3102.[1] The spatial pattern of bed sediment phosphorus concentrations described in the report is offered as a surrogate for the potential for geologic materials in the watershed to contribute to in-stream levels of phosphorus.[2] However, the report also notes that while useful for this purpose, the surrogate relationship is weakened by not accounting for variability in headwater streams in frequency of flushing, occurrence of low dissolved oxygen conditions and aquatic plant processing. Not surprisingly, the mapping of bed stream sediment largely coincides with the Florida Geologic Map and, in general, supports EPA's regionalization scheme. We believe the primary usefulness of this map may be in identifying specific streams with naturally occurring very low phosphorus concentrations (for example, some streams in the Northeastern area of the state) that lie within nutrient regions for which EPA is establishing phosphorus criteria that is considerably

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5273Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization higher than currently existing phosphorus levels in these streams. Florida law requires extra protection for waters that presently have very low phosphorus (and nitrogen) concentrations: (13) The Department finds that excessive nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) constitute one of the mostsevere water quality problems facing the State. It shall be the Department's policy to limit the introduction of maninduced nutrients into waters of the State. Particular consideration shall be given to the protection from further nutrient enrichment of waters which are presently high in nutrient concentrations or sensitive to further nutrient concentrations and sensitive to further nutrient loadings. Also, particular consideration shall be given to the protection from nutrient enrichment of those presently containing very low nutrient concentrations: less than 0.3 milligrams per liter total nitrogen or less than 0.04 milligrams per liter total phosphorus. Rule 62-302.300(13), Fla. Admin. Code. Therefore, EPA should establish a process, like the site specific alternative criteria process, which can be used to expeditiously establish, in accordance with the requirements of Florida law, more stringent site specific criteria for naturally low phosphorus (and low nitrogen) waters. [1] This report is attached as Appendix 1. [2] App. 1 at 1. The authors also note that the data in the report might be useful for developing numeric nutrient



# Comment ID 2503-1.001.033

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries This guidance is so basic that it seems astonishing that EPA made no attempt to describe some well-known stream types within Florida. EPA did lump calcareous spring runs with spring heads, separated them from other stream types in Florida, but this neglects other important heterogeneity likely to affect nutrient limnology. For example, the Panhandle contains an unusually high concentration of streams that are formed by a somewhat globally uncommon process called groundwater sapping, often described as "steephead ravines" (Schumm et al, 1995). These ravines flow perennially with clear water sourced from the surrounding surficial sandy aquifer. Although both have perennial clear flow, steepheads differ from calcareous spring runs, which are sourced from the artesian limestone aquifer, and these streams have different aquatic biota, water chemistry, and riparian corridor vegetation that can greatly affect their sensitivity to nutrients. The panhandle also has a major continental river with relatively high alluvial washloads and powerful flow regimes supporting a broad alluvial floodplain (the Apalachicola River). This region has numerous blackwater streams with high color levels that limit light penetration (Myers and Ewel, 1990). In general, steepheads, blackwater streams, and washload rivers have fundamentally different capacities for light penetration and therefore inherently different sensitivities to nutrient enrichment. Forcing systems with such fundamentally different limnology into a single so-called homogenous "Panhandle" stream class is scientifically invalid, because they have characteristics subject to different dose-response sensitivity and thresholds for biological impairment. The heterogeneity of Florida streams within EPA's Peninsular and West-Central NWRs has been well documented in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5274Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization Kiefer (2010), based on threshold differences in their hydrobiogeomorphology. Fifteen natural kinds of streams are found in these two regions as classified after examination of more than 120 variables existing along a hierarchy of scale including the watershed, valley and floodplain, reach, and in-stream habitat patches. It is a basic tenet of stream limnology that the kinds of riparian system characteristics identified in the Kiefer (2010) classification (watershed geology/physiography, watershed soils, landscape setting, valley geomorphology, hydrology and hydraulics, floodplain habitat, channel fluvial geomorphology, in-stream habitat) are typically associated with different nutrient processes and biological sensitivity (EPA 2000). Most stream limnology textbooks cover the related scientific concepts thoroughly (e.g. Thorpe, et al, 2008; Allan, 1995; and Gordon et al, 2004). The most modern of these, Thorpe, et al (2008), describes a Functional Process Zone (FPZ) approach for characterizing the physical, biological, and water quality processes in streams as they occur within distinct habitat patches that typically exist at scales between traditional valley and reach scales. Each FPZ typically has abrupt longitudinal transitions in fluvial form and associated biogeochemical processes. FPZs can serve to define classes of streams that generally sort along broad distributional gradients at different positions in the drainage network, but that can be repeated along a valley. Abrupt transitions, and the potential to repeat along the channel continuum, separate the FPZ concept from increasingly outdated classification approaches viewing all streams as belonging to a gradual cline existing along a continuum of form and function in a downstream direction (e.g., Vannote, et al, 1980). Although FPZ concepts differ from continuum concepts, FPZs can and often do exist along recognizable thresholds of drainage area scale and position along the drainage network. In Florida, some FPZs are more commonly found in headwater portions of valleys while others are clearly more strongly associated with the lower positions of larger rivers (Kiefer, 2010). FPZ approaches are consistent with river style classification approaches now widely used in sub-tropical and tropical Australia (Brierly and Fryirs, 2000; Erskine, et al, 2005; Saynor, et al, 2008) and in Florida (Kiefer, 2010). This is an important distinction, because such streams have different hydrology-biological associations driven largely by their pronounced wet and dry seasons. Florida's peninsular drainage networks are somewhat unique in that they are occupied by numerous in-line wetlands and lakes that interrupt what would otherwise be a dendritic network of channels. Such drainage networks are referred to as "deranged". Warm-latitude deranged networks are most common in tropical savannas. Peninsular Florida's dry- and wet-seasonality falls within the range of climatic conditions reported for these types of ecoregions (Henry, et al, 1994). Kelly (2004) identified three main river hydrology zones in the state for non-spring run streams; a peninsular zone that has a unimodal summer wet season flow pulse associated with distinct wet and dry seasons (the Southern Zone), a continental zone that has a more equitable monthly rainfall pattern and a tendency toward highest flow during the spring (the Northern Zone), and a transitional area between these two regimes with a bimodal flow pattern. The Southern River (peninsular) flow pattern could be described, roughly, as commencing south of an imaginary line drawn from the mouth of the Suwannee River to Saint Augustine. These differences in climate and stream flow are important because systems draining a given watershed sized in the continental zone are more likely to have longer annual flow durations than those in the peninsular zone. In other words, as a general rule of thumb, smaller watersheds in the continental zone can support more perennial streams than their peninsular counterparts. This difference is further enhanced in the Panhandle because that region receives, on average, about 25% more annual rainfall than the peninsula, which is enough to substantially alter that region's fluvial geomorphology (Metcalf, et al, 2009). Continental drainage networks are more dendritic (less deranged) than those of the peninsula as well. These differences in rainfall distribution, flow regime, and drainage networks call for different stream classifications. This means that EPA's proposed inclusion of streams in all of or parts of Baker, Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Clay, Alachua, Putnam, Marion, and Levy Counties as part

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5275Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization of the Peninsular NWR lumps streams with very different hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics likely to affect their nutrient limnology and this outcome illustrates an underlying problem with EPA's simplistic approach to stream classification based mainly on the geographic distribution of TN:TP ratios. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure. Kelly, M., 2004. Florida River Flow Patterns and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. See original comment letter. Streams draining larger basins with nearly perennial flow tend to occur in lower (downstream) portions of the drainage network versus headwater streams. Within a given physiographic landscape, a stream channel's position in the drainage network can be described by Strahler's stream order, a commonly used index (Strahler, 1957). In this system, the uppermost headwater streams are designated as first-order. Where two first-order systems join, they form a second-order channel. A third-order system is attributed where two second order streams come together. Where two third-order streams join, a fourth-order system occurs and so on. Stream ordering is a simplified short-hand way of communicating not only position in the drainage network, but in general terms, also provides information related to basin size, channel dimension, and hydropattern, because stream order is roughly correlated with those factors within an appropriately designated climate and physiographic region (Leopold, et al, 1964; Gregory and Walling, 1973; Knighton, 1998). Streams draining Florida's flatwoods communities have greater concentrations of first and second-order channels in their headwater areas versus streams draining xeric ridge complexes and most of these flatwoods systems are parts of chains-of-wetlands in relatively undisturbed watersheds (Kiefer, 2010). Many Florida headwater streams are not mapped at the 1:24,000 used in the National Hydrographic Database (NHD) (Tighe, 1988). Most mapped headwaterstreams are not named in Florida. Third and fourth-order streams in flatwoods basins could generally be viewed as midorder streams (many with names ending in "Creek"), and fifth-order and higher systems in the flatwoods are the largest and most perennial systems (typically named "Rivers"). It is important to note that stream order associations with other landscape variables (e.g. drainage area) and with riparian corridor variables (e.g. stream flow duration and channel dimension) are dependent on certain physiographic aspects that affect the runoff versus groundwater flow regimes of watersheds in Florida. Stream order, by itself, by no means serves as an adequate way to properly classify streams in Florida. Kiefer (2010) defined a peninsular Florida stream region as an area located south of the Suwannee River and north of the southern rim of Lake Okeechobee. Within this region, Kiefer (2010) found that the percentage of poorly drained NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups (as defined by NRCS, 2007) in the watershed provides important threshold information for hydropattern and sediment transport characteristics that effect drainage density, stream order, and key attributes of how channel hydrology, biology and geomorphology relate to drainage area. In addition to artesian spring runs, which are not discussed here, two main stream physiographies occur in peninsular Florida, 1) those that drain predominantly poorly drained D soils of the flatwoods, versus (2) those that drain comparatively well-drained xeric "highlands" such as scrubby flatwoods, sand-pine scrub, and long-leaf pine sandhills with significant inclusions of A and C soil types. Drainage density, flow duration, floodplain geomorphology, sediment transport regimes and interpretations of these variables in association with either drainage area or Strahler Order differ significantly between these watershed types (Kiefer, 2010). Proper watershed classifications cannot be reliably delineated for low-order streams solely by the ecoregions as mapped for Florida by Griffith, et al (1994), or as proposed now on an even coarser scale by EPA bynutrient region, because such coarsely defined boundaries invariably include some combination of headwater and midorder streams draining predominantly xeric knolls and some draining predominantly wetter flatwoods basins

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5276Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization demonstrated to fundamentally effect stream corridor hydrology, geomorphology, and water color (Kiefer, 2010). 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.034

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries In addition to fluvial geomorphology, water color also differs substantially among various types of Florida streams in association with their watershed characteristics (FNAI, 1990; Myers and Ewel, 1990; Beck, 1965). Blackwater or "colored" streams (greater than 40 PCUs) are more common throughout Florida than clear water streams (less than 40 PCUs). Colored streams have periphyton communities that are insensitive to nutrients, with a somewhat inclusive but potentially small sensitivity in their phytoplankton communities to inorganic nitrogen (EPA 2010b, Appendix B-11). Colored waters should not be considered a sole determinate of stream class, because such water quality dominates seven natural kinds of streams draining flatwoods basins in peninsular Florida (including also the West-Central NWR), and colored water routinely dominates the wet-season flows of an additional three natural kinds of streams that drain sandy xeric watersheds (the so-called "highlands"of Florida) (Kiefer, 2010). These 10 kinds of blackwater streams differ in their positions along the drainage network, channel width and depth, floodplain-channel interactions, floodplain soil composition, flow duration and spells, degree of groundwater influence on hydrology and on biological communities, sediment transport capacity, and seasonal color. This suite of characteristics is likely to have profound effects on the aspects of stream limnology that govern the potential sensitivity of the riparian and aquatic biology to nutrients (Alan, 1995; Thorpe, et al, 2008). For example, headwater blackwater streams are typically fully-canopied by trees and other woody vegetation and exhibit naturally high levels of routine oxygen stress and sensitivity to natural dry seasons and drought effects that structure the aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. These stressors are natural, reflecting the proximity of these sites to their headwater wetlands. That fact, plus their high color, makes the lack of light penetration the governing factor in their lack of algal community response to nutrients. Crisman (personal communication) is wrapping up a study of Florida headwater streams and their associations with various kinds of headwater waterbodies (e.g. marshes, swamps, lakes) and has drawn a preliminary conclusion that the macroinvertebrate communities of such streams reflect the communities of their non-lotic headwaters, typically for the first 150 meters of the headwater stream. Many headwater streams are not much longer than 150 meters and such sites would seldom be occupied by the kinds of flow-loving (rheophilic) organisms that score well on an SCI. Meier (1990) provided an excellent case study of this sort of functional threshold change along a headwater Florida stream valley. He described changes in channel form, bed materials, hydrology, water quality and aquatic biota of Blues Creek, at Gainesville. Meier found fundamentally different water quality and aquatic biota in the headwater portions of Blues Creek versus that of its mid-reaches where flow duration and volumes increased due to groundwater seepageabout 1 km downstream of the more seasonally intermittent headwater zone. Ortho-P was highest in the groundwaterinfluenced zone, averaging 0.7 mg/L versus 0.1 mg/L in the headwater zone. Macroinvertebrates sensitive to pollution and often used as indicators of biological integrity (Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa and filterers) were generally absent from the comparatively low-phosphorus headwater zone and were significantly more abundant in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5277Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization the groundwater zones with higher phosphorus concentrations. The aquatic fauna was clearly more sensitive to factors other than available phosphorus concentrations. In this case, the mean dissolved oxygen was lower in the headwater zone and the coefficient of variation was higher. It is likely this natural oxygen stress structured the headwater macroinvertebrate community. Hammond (2009) found that the range of diel oxygen values was a better predictor of biological impairment than nutrient concentrations alone. The use of diel oxygen variability may be a promising metric to use, but it does not appear the study design attempted to determine under what conditions such stress may actually be natural by stream type. The available evidence strongly indicates that more research is necessary to determine exactly how streams should be classified, especially headwater streams, in order to separate those that have biological outcomes inherently independent of nutrients versus those that are indeed sensitive. While the Blues Creek case is illustrative, it is merely one example of some key general concepts for Florida streams that EPA failed to properly account. Kiefer (2010) found that the FPZ concept applied very well to Florida streams. In fact, even a casual inspection of Florida drainage networks reveals quite an abundance of fluvial forms on the peninsula, some of which are known to differ in their aquatic biota (especially phytoplankton, periphyton, canopy cover, macroinvertebrates, and fish), their DO regimes, flow regimes, water color, and that are therefore also likely to variably respond to a variety of natural and human-induced stressors, including nutrient loads. Kiefer (2010) demonstrated a method by which Florida streams can be easily classified using just a handful of readily determined variables in a hierarchical approach. Most of these classes associate with watershed soil drainage characteristics, valley slope, and drainage area. Certain kinds of 1st and 2nd Order streams draining watersheds less than a few square miles also require knowledge of channel shape and entrenchment (similar to the shape-based channel classification of Rosgen, 1996) and their position in the drainage network. To provide an idea of how EPA's (2000) guidance to classify streams accords with observations of stream form and function in Florida as it might affect nutrient sensitivity within a region, we can examine several example sites from different Kiefer classes of streams on the peninsula. Figure 1 and 2 show two narrow headwater streams with high color flow draining small watersheds in the flatwoods. Their flow is intermittent (Figures 9a-c). It would be very difficult to change the low trophic status of these streams by nutrient addition because their trophy and saprosity are structured in association with physical variables such as shade and color-induced light limitation, lack of hard substrate for periphyton attachment (sand beds), shallow water and limited flow durations not conducive to algal production. Consumers are limited by the harsh dissolved oxygen regimes and low pH from the adjacent wetland waters, because all of these wetlands occupy chains-of-wetlands. Flow regimes seldom last long enough to support 90-day spells necessary to favor flow-loving stream macroinvertebrates and as a result these kinds of streams are less likely to pass SCIs (Table 1). Figure 4 depicts one kind of headwater stream in the highlands. This site has a channel bed that is generally well above the surficial aquifer and as a result of that and its small watershed, it only flows ephemerally (Figure 9g.). It has acidic, colored water when it flows and seldom reaches a 90-day flow spell duration. This site presents a very harsh hydrological environment for algal communities and macroinvertebrates and is unlikely to exhibit any trophic status response to nutrient enrichment despite the fact that it is not light limited by canopy closure. Figure 5 shows a highlands low-order stream that flows seasonally and is heavily canopied. It is likely to have similar

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5278Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization algal trophic status and sensitivity to that of the heavily canopied blackwater streams in the flatwoods described earlier. However, due to its lower position in a xeric sandy highlands landscape, it receives more sustained baseflow than even much larger, flashier flatwoods basins (compare to Grasshopper Slough Run on Table 1). As a result it is more likely to seasonally support SCI-style (rheophilic) macroinvertebrate assemblages. Figure 6 shows a nearly perennial headwater seepage stream in the highlands. Because this channel is located close to the deeply entrenched Tiger Creek bottomlands, and it is surrounded by sandhills and scrub that promote groundwater recharge and discharge coupling, this little stream typically flows with clear water year round during most years. It is light limited by shading and less so by wet season rises in color. It is not as hydrologically limited as other headwater streams with respect to supporting SCI-style macroinvertebrates (Table 1). It presents a gentle environment for macroinvertebrates and a harsh environment for algae. To shift the trophic status of this stream would likely require a combination of clearing of the woody vegetation on its banks and an increase in dry season nutrient loads. Figures 3, 7 and 8 depict larger perennial streams that all present the excellent year-round hydrologic conditions for rheophilic macroinvertebrates. All 3 of these sites allow for some light penetration due to canopy gaps but none are wide enough to allow for very high amounts. The flatwoods site, the Manatee River, has generally high to intermediate color year round. Large highlands rivers also typically flow with high color during the wet season when they receive much wetland overflow (Figure 7), but they differ from flatwoods streamsduring the dry season when their water budget is dominated by groundwater baseflow from the surficial aquifer that is mostly clear (Figure 8). Flatwoods and highlands streams also have very different floodplains based on differences in their wet season hydrology and fluvial forces. The flatwoods streams flow with more power, creating larger floodplains and have increased surface area for floodplain interactions affecting water quality during the wet season, while the highlands streams have smaller floodplains and a higher proportion of their annual water volume is contained within the main channel, with less opportunity to exchange nutrients and carbon with the floodplain compared to flatwoods streams. In essence, EPA's two proposed approaches ignore EPA's own guidance, and basic scientific tenets of stream nutrient limnology, regarding physical and trophic stream classification prior to setting NNC. Proper stream classification in Florida requires unique considerations regarding climate zones, geologic zones, and several watershed, valley and reach-scale variables within each geoclimactic zone that have demonstrated substantial threshold associations with stream morphology, hydrology, biology, and water quality. EPA has merely made some progress on delineating some of the geoclimactic zones (but has not been entirely convincing in that regard either). The problem with this lack of sufficient classification is akin to that of setting one speed limit for all classes of highway... school zones and Interstates alike.

1.2 Inadequate and Non-Representative Sample from the General Population of Streams Both of EPA's proposed reference approaches rely on a site selection process that begins with inclusion of only sites that score at least a 40 on the FDEP's SCI. EPA has also provided a definition of streams to which the proposed NNC will apply. This definition: "Stream" means 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. is so broad that it will include all natural stream types in Florida and some unnatural open waterbodies too. Given EPA's

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5279Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization intention to regulate all types of streams, it is imperative that the methods used to derive NNC thresholds include representative samples from all types of streams. However, it is clear that the databases of streams used by FDEP to develop, calibrate, and validate the SCI do not reflect anything approaching a representative sample of natural Florida streams. For example, at least 75% of the streams in the nation are 1st Order systems (Leopold, et al, 1964), and Florida is no exception to this trend with about 75% of the total number of streams occupying headwater positions in the drainage network (Tighe, 1988). Existing data from within the proposed EPA West-Central NWR were used to explore the distribution of streams by order at two different mapping scales in comparison to the kinds of streams used by FDEP to develop and calibrate the SCI from that same region (Figures 10a-c). About 95% of the natural streams in the region were 1st and 2nd Order, while more than 90% of FDEPs SCI study sites used to develop the 75% thresholds by EPA for NNCs were 3rd Order and higher. This raises two significant questions. First, why avoid incorporating the most common streams in the state into the biocriteria testing? And second, based on this avoidance, how can one possibly extrapolate findings derived from the sample of the population of larger streams to the under-represented low-order streams in the population? The only way this could be justified is if headwater streams are simply scaled down replicas of major mid-order streams and rivers. This is assuredly not the case as described herein and as further supported in considerable detail throughout the modern history of scientific literature concerning stream limnology and fluvial geomorphology. The "75-175 Count Database" was important for the development and calibration of the SCI, and it was this database of 176 streams that FDEP relied upon to assess potential drainage area dependency on the results of SCI scores (Fore, et al, 2007). FDEP concluded that drainage area did not influence the results. This database appeared to include some streams with watersheds small enough to be associated with first-order streams. BCI used available highly-detailed stream maps to determine that 99 percent of true headwater streams in areas typical of west-central Florida drain watersheds smaller than 1.7 square miles (Figure 11). Keep in mind that the 99th percentile of headwater streams likely represents something close to 75 percent of the total population of all streams. Using the 99th percentile (1.7 square miles) as a screen for headwater streams in FDEP's database, we found 16 sites out of the 176 (9%) sampled fit this small drainage basin category. Of these 16 sites, only five were within areas that have peninsular climate (Figure 12). The remaining 11 sites were in continental climate zones that receive more equitable monthly rainfall and, for the panhandle, substantially more total rainfall than the peninsula. As a result of climactic differences, peninsular low-order streams draining flatwoods are more likely to have flow spells not conducive to the 90-day durations necessary to meet SCI sampling protocols and are more likely to achieve lower SCI scores versus those of the continent. This means that the odds of a perfectly natural and healthy low-order stream failing an SCI are likely to increase for such streams as one move onto the peninsula. SCI metrics and thresholds developed predominantly from non-peninsular Florida low-order streams cannot reliably be extrapolated to these kinds of systems. Of the five sites that fell within the peninsular climate zone, all were substantially impaired based on their high Human Disturbance Gradient (HDG) and Land Development Index (LDI) scores (Table 2). In fact, none of them could fairly be called natural streams but instead were drainage ditches. Consequently, the FDEP database used by Fore, et al (2007), to conclude that the SCI metrics and thresholds applied to streams of all drainage area sizes, is misleading. It is misleading because that database was taken from a population of streams that not only grossly underrepresented low-order streams draining small watersheds, the paucity of peninsular Florida small stream basins represented did not include any low-order streams in anything remotely

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5280Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization resembling a natural condition. This means that the SCI, and any screening for NNC based upon it, cannot be reliably extrapolated to the majority (roughly 75% or more) of streams on the peninsula (including most of EPA's proposed Peninsula and West-Central NWRs). The SCI seems to clearly favor rheophilic biota living in perennial streams with sustained flows with high enough velocities to maintain good oxygenation. Of the 10 metrics selected for scoring the SCI, 7 of them favor rheophilic organisms living in perennial streams,

1. Trichoptera taxa 2. Ephemeroptera taxa 3. % Filterers 4. Long-lived taxa (> 1yr aquatic life-cycle) 5. Sensitive taxa 6. % Very tolerant taxa (decreases score) 7. Clinger taxa while only 3 of the metrics are somewhat independent of sustained, strong flows,

1. Total taxa 2. % Dominance 3. % Tanytarsini This essentially means that the SCI, whether inadvertently or deliberately, was established to apply primarily to types of streams with perennial or nearly perennial flow. That rules out its proper application to the majority of streams in Peninsular and West Central Florida. Seemingly consistent with this observation, FDEP SCI SOPs require that streams must be flowing with normal discharge for at least 90 consecutive days prior to sampling (FDEP 2007). FDEP, in Fore, et al (2007) cautions that "natural drought will cause dry or stagnant flow conditions which may affect SCI scores." Most streams in Florida are non-perennial streams that experience dry and stagnant conditions more often than not, even during non-drought conditions. 

# Comment ID 2504-1.001.002

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Comments Overview

• Stream Regionalization: The District recommends more specificity in regional characterization for derivation of numeric criteria where warranted by sound scientific information (e.g., geological formations). Further site-specific information needs to be included for the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region. The District also has overall concerns with the total nitrogen regional approach throughout the state.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5281Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2503-1.001.034, 2452-1.001.003 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. The first sets of comments related to reference site selection. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the 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. Moreover, 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. EPA considers the Reference Approach and the process by which the criteria described in final rule to be replicable; EPA has replicated its criteria using the methods described in the final rule TSD several times to confirm this. Another comment suggested that the change in nitrogen criteria as a result of changing reference criteria was evidence of the arbitrary nature. EPA disagrees with this assertion because, as stated in the proposed rule, final rule TSD, and Supplemental Notice, there are multiple ways to select reference populations and each will affect the resulting numbers. This is a function of sample size among other factors. Some change in values was expected, but the outcome value was not the basis for the Reference Approach selection. Rather, the use of the most defensible set of reference site selection criteria was. A last comment suggested that the long history of human disturbance in the West Central makes any reference site process there arbitrary. 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 proposed and final 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. As a result, the process is meant to identify sites with the least disturbance, even in a landscape as altered as the West Central. The confidence in the extent to which the final reference population generated reflects that which supports designated uses informs the selection of an appropriate percentile. EPA agrees with the commenter that the West Central has undergone substantial disturbance. As a result, 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5282Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as notedabove for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmarks population of reference sites. 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. EPA considered these and other comments. 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. EPA agrees that 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 is isolation for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites for the SCI approach in the West Central, and for the benchmark approach, applied in the final rule and described in the Supplemental Notice for all regions outside the West Central, a suite of screens was used including corridor land use, watershed land used, nitrate concentrations, aerial photography analysis, and site level investigation as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. Other comments argued that the sample size was insufficient to develop stream criteria, particularly for small and intermittent headwater streams. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA is developing criteria to apply to Class I and III waters, reflected by the population of Class I and III waters that the State of Florida has sampled, presumably as a basis of their monitoring and characterization of the population of sites they consider reflective of that Class. If there is evidence of substantial difference in the function and, therefore, use of small or intermittent streams, then that difference could and possibly should be directed to the process of use classification. Also, the final rule provides flexibility for 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 for a specific waterbody. 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 wants to confirm that low DO in and of itself was not the basis for removal of a site. Rather, sites listed for DO impairment were the basis for the DO screen, independent of biological condition. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5283Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. EPA received comments on other screens. Some commenters questioned the application of the LDI. Some suggested the watershed should have been considered instead of just the corridor. EPA considered these comments and agrees and applied a watershed-based LDI as well, where available, as detailed in the screening process for the final rule and detailed in the final rule TSD. Still others argued that the watershed LDI was redundant with the corridor LDI. EPA considered this and other comments and disagrees, as it is well demonstrated that a variety of land uses contribute nutrients to streams through flowpaths that either move under (groundwater) or through (stormwater conveyances) riparian corridors with little or no effect of riparian condition on nutrient mitigation. For this reason is keeping the watershed LDI screen in the benchmark approach for the final rule. Other commenters disagree with the use of a different LDI screening value for the watershed (LDI = 3) than the corridor (LDI = 2). EPA considered this and disagrees detailed in the proposed rule TSD that the watershed LDI value of 3 was correlated with a corridor LDI value of 2, which explains the selection of the watershed LDI value of 3. EPA also notes that this value is not associated with appreciable additional expected disturbance according to the LDI factor table outlined in Brown and Vivas 2005. For this reason, EPA has kept the two distinct LDI values for use in the respective screens for the benchmark approach in the final rule. Other criticized the use of the BPJ screen, arguing that it was poorly documented and arbitrary. EPA disagrees and refers the commenter to the proposed rule TSD, final preamble, and final rule TSD where the process for evaluating the elements that compose the BPJ score are detailed and supported. EPA is keeping the BPJ screen in the final rule benchmark approach process. Others argued that the assumption that the absence of a BPJ score presumed impact. EPA disagrees with this comment and believes the BPJ screen was an important element and took the precautionary step with this screen of presuming that the absence of a value should not be assumed to indicate acceptable conditions, which has been extended to the final rule screening process as well. For the final rule, EPA assumed the same with the LDI corridor < 2 score as well. In addition, for the final rule, CWA section 303(d) screens were applied universally and “NA” values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the nitrate, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation. Therefore only values = 1 for these screens were excluded. EPA received comments that the survey of aerial photographs may have missed some stressors. EPA agrees that this may have happened, but because this screen was combined with the number of screens being applied, including corridor and watershed LDI values based on automated satellite imagery interpretation, this is unlikely. Even so, the possibility of this effect argues for the use of a margin of error associated with percentile selection to allow that some truly nutrient impacted sites may enter the final reference population. For this reason, EPA is applying the 90th percentile of the benchmark population WBID average nutrient concentrations for regions outside the West Central for the final rule. Similarly, EPA received comments that the use of field verification of a random selection of benchmark candidate sites was inappropriate. EPA disagrees. The same commenter supported the BPJ screens and this random survey was one component of the BPJ process along with many other components that informed the BPJ screening score including the survey of aerial photos and regional scientist site knowledge. For this reason, EPA is keeping that component of the approach for the final rule. EPA received comments that the nitrate value used was alternatively too high or too low, depending on the commenter. EPA disagrees. EPA selected this value (0.35 mg/L) as a screen because it had been shown to be associated with impacts to flowing water systems in Florida associated with springs and had been applied by FDEP as an indication of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment. Other commenters suggested that the use of a nitrate concentration automatically

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5284Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
skewed the nitrogen values. EPA acknowledges that the use of such a screen might skew the nitrogen distribution, but notes that this is not likely because this screen could not be applied to all sites due to missing data, that nitrate often composed a small portion of the nitrogen pool, that this screen was used as much as an indication of anthropogenic disturbance given natural nitrate concentrations, and that this concentration had already been demonstrated as detrimental to some Florida flowing water systems. EPA is, therefore, keeping this value of nitrate in as a screen for the final rule and this is further elaborated in the final rule TSD. Other commenters suggested that an SCI screening value was inappropriate since it had not been shown to be linked to nutrients. EPA disagrees and has demonstrated in several documents including the final rule TSD that the SCI does actually show a significant relationship to nutrients, albeit imprecise. EPA also documented in detail the selection of the value of 40. In addition,EPA has used this screen not only for its linkage to nutrients but also because it helps define an acceptable population of leastdisturbed sites as those with healthy biological condition. Average WBID SCI values less than 40 would indicate potentially compromised environmental conditions that would preclude the use of such a WBID as a least-disturbed environmental site supportive of designated uses. For these reasons, EPA is retaining the use of the SCI as a screen in both the benchmark and SCI approaches for the final rule, which is detailed in the final rule TSD. Finally, under the theme of reference site selection, EPA received comments that supported the use of the benchmark approach combined with biological screening. EPA agrees and for the final rule is applying the benchmark approach with SCI screens and 303(d) screening steps added to further strengthen the defensibility of the resultant population as least-disturbed. EPA was not able to apply the benchmark screening method in the West Central because there were too few available WBIDs that passed the benchmark screens to estimate any percentile reliably. As a result, EPA used the SCI/303(d) screening approach described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBID-averages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used in the SCI approach used in the West Central. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. See the final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received other comments again supporting the benchmark approach but with minimum observations for each average. EPA disagrees that a minimum number of observations is necessary to estimate annual WBID averages to derive the criteria. The basis for this is that EPA considered distributions composed of annual averages computed from a minimum of 4 samples and from all available samples, and determined that some additional imprecision was introduced in the estimates of annual averages, in particular WBIDs with fewer than samples. However, by including all samples, more WBIDs were included in the reference distribution, which increased EPA's confidence in estimates of the 90th percentiles of the benchmark distributions. Hence, additional imprecision in averages computed for individual WBIDs was outweighed by increased confidence in the entire benchmark distribution. The development of the WBID-average is discussed in detail in the final rule TSD. EPA defers to FDEP for defining appropriate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that estimate annual average nutrient concentrations accurately enough for compliance monitoring. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5285Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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, including the use of chlorophyll response variables, 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. 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 and EPA supports the application of stressor-response models for developing SSAC where adequate site-specific chl-a data are available. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable Federal numeric criteria. The next theme in comments that EPA received relevant to the Reference Reach Approach was the insufficiency of data both for developing West Central criteria and for calculating EPA’s benchmark criteria. For the final rule, EPA decided to use the benchmark screening approach to identify least-disturbed streams and select the 90th percentile of WBID-averages from each NWR except the West Central. In the West Central, EPA agrees with comments that one WBID was insufficient to derive criteria for the West Central using the benchmark screening approach. As a result, and as supported by several comments, EPA used theSCI/303(d) screening method described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBIDaverages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach for the West Central, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used there. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially with the long history of human disturbance in the West Central, as noted by several commenters. As a result, EPA used the 75th percentile instead of the 90th of WBID-average nutrient concentrations for deriving nutrient criteria in the West Central for the final rule. EPA received a recommendation for the West Central to recalculate criteria there using the LDI, chl-a and diel DO data, and EPA notes that such data are not available for deriving regional criteria and disagrees that such an approach would provide more defensible criteria. With regards to comments that insufficient data or information were provided to replicate the benchmark values, EPA disagrees and points out that the Agency provided all the data to derive the values included in the Supplemental Notice along with detailed notes on how to do that, and also internally verified that the criteria published in the Supplemental Notice could be calculated using the description and data provided. However, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that make it even easier still for the public to replicate final values from the raw data provided. One commenter questioned why some sites in the “allstr00” file were not in the “sites01.final” file. All sites from the “allstr00” file for which EPA had coordinates, WBID, and region information were included in the “sites01.final” file. The same commenter asked what to do with NA values. The instructions indicated which rules are used for exclusion. Section 303(d) screens were applied universally and NA values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the NOx, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5286Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation, and so these screens were principally used to discard these impacts where they were known to exist. Similarly, the commenter questioned how to create a WBID-year label, but the process for creating a WBID-year label was explained in the instructions. Also, the same commenter claimed the nutrient regions were not available when, in fact, that information was included in the “sites01.final’ file. Lastly, the same commenter asked how to remove WBIDs with fewer than 4 observations which was described and is a standard operation in any spreadsheet software. EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that may make it easier for concerned parties to replicate final values from the raw data provided. The last theme relative to the Reference Approach relates to how criteria were determined. The first comment along this line argued that overlap between the benchmark and all-site populations argues against the use of a percentile of the benchmark as protective. EPA disagrees with this comment. Overlap may indicate that the all sites population is in better condition than expected and/or it may also indicate that the benchmark population contains more disturbance than expected. Similarly, the comment recommended using an extreme percentile (99.9th %) of all sites to avoid listing “pristine” sites. There is a supposition that this selection process is identifying “pristine” sites and this is not the case. EPA has not made that assertion. This process identifies least-disturbed sites, but sites that still contain disturbance. It is, therefore, not surprising and logical that the benchmark and all-sites populations overlap. Indeed, it is possible that screens that remove certain sites based on precautionary selection may exclude streams thatindeed do not manifest elevated nutrient concentrations. The process is meant to be protective in its selection of most likely leastdisturbed sites that support designated uses. But it is possible that the selection process will not remove sites truly impaired by nutrients. The concern over this possibility is the basis for the percentile selected and is a function of EPA’s confidence in the screening process, which is higher for the benchmark approach than the SCI approach, thus the use of the 75th percentile in the West Central based on the SCI approach and the 90th percentile everywhere else using the benchmark approach. EPA also received comments that the 75th percentile was unjustified for use in the West Central. As described above, the 75th percentile was justified in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach; screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used for example. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. Lastly, EPA received comments that fluctuation in the proposed criteria for the West Central is evidence of policy and not science being used to select the criteria. EPA disagrees with this comment. The fluctuations in candidate criteria values is due to changes in selection of the most defensible population of values to use in this region, exacerbated by sample size issues. Given the disturbance in this region, only a small number of appropriate sites were available to use. EPA has calculated percentiles using estimates of central tendency and variance. The central limit theorem of statistics indicates that the estimation of these parameters becomes more precise as sample size increases. Therefore, changes to small sample sizes are expected to have larger effects on the percentile estimates than changes in larger sample sizes. It is for this reason that EPA decided to use the largest population of defensible reference sites possible for the West Central - the SCI-based population. In addition, it is known that more disturbed landscapes present more variable water chemical conditions (e.g., Peters et al. 1997), so again it is not surprising that the West Central should exhibit more variability given the long history of disturbance in that region, as observed by several commenters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5287Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Comment IDs: 2503-1.001.033, 2503-1.001.034, 2460-1.001.004, 2504-1.001.002, 2499-1.001.002 Response: This set of comments concerns EPA’s classification effort and the revision to the proposed NWR to split the Panhandle into West and East regions and restrict the size of the West Central. EPA received mostly support for splitting the Panhandle and many comments concerned about the restriction in the size of the West Central and in classification in general. The first set of comments addressed the lack of consideration for more site-specific, especially physical, factors in classifying streams, and commenters cited recent papers indicating more geomorphic bases for classifying streams in Florida (e.g., functional process zones) that yield more classes. EPA agrees that there are a variety of ways to classify streams that would result in any number of different stream classes. However, for the purposes of deriving nutrient criteria, the process has to weigh the specificity of more and more site-specific factors generating finer classification against the reality of data availability, resource constraints to implement monitoring under any resulting classification, and the sufficiency of a parsimonious classification in deriving defensible criteria. This is true of deriving any criterion, not just numeric nutrient criteria and EPA will continue to use the NWRs for described in the Supplemental Notice for the final rule. EPA agrees that its own guidance lays out a variety of classification options, all of which were meant to provide states with the flexibility to choose from amongst these and other scientifically defensible options. A common and peer-reviewed classification framework has always been ecoregions and bioregions, as reflected in EPA’s own ecoregional 304(a) recommended criteria. Ecoregions capture a variety of the very factors recommended for use by commenters: geology, soil types, vegetation, land cover, climate, and hydrology, among others. That is why EPA considered ecoregions as part of the classification effort. The NWRs used in the final rule refined ecoregions based on smaller scale differences in regional geology and observed water chemistry - again consistent with EPA guidance (see final rule TSD) - among other factors. Commenters recommended alternative classification scenarios (e.g., Rosgen, functional process zones, etc.). These are all potential candidates, but are more experimental or less proven. EPA’s regional approach starts with ecoregions, uses biological considerations, regional geology, and observed patterns in chemistry. EPA considers this approach to be appropriate and scientifically defensible. See final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received several comments that the TN regionalization was incorrect and that it should be a two-region model rather than a five-region model. EPA disagrees. EPA decided 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. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5288Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); meaning that neither the two NWR model nor the five NWR model is more defensible than the other. As a result, because EPA found either model to be protective of applicabledesignated uses and based upon sound scientific rationale, and for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the colimiting nature of TN and TP amply detailed in the scientific literature (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007) and detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD, EPA has decided that a similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. EPA received many comments on the restricted boundary for the West Central. One comment suggested that the West Central boundary was unclear and was not in the docket. EPA disagrees. A map and GIS coverage of the Supplemental Notice NWRs were provided in the docket and indicate where the modified West Central boundary would be. This is evidenced by the large number of comments that actually applied this data in their responses. Another comment suggested that new phosphorus sediment/geology information (Terziotti et al. 2010) suggests that an expanded area of the West Central is more defensible. EPA disagrees. EPA reviewed the USGS publication and determined that the inability to discriminate human/non-human effects, the resolution, and the untested nature of the information preclude its application by EPA. The authors acknowledge that the maps resulting from the sediment samples cannot discriminate human and non-human sources. Given the long history of phosphorus mining and landscape disturbance in the region, the inability to discriminate such sources does not favor the application of that work to improving discrimination of natural expectations for elevated TP in streams. The geologic maps used by EPA in revising the regionalization as described in the Supplemental Notice and detailed in the final rule TSD, however, are not subject to the same effect and are the most defensible basis upon which EPA revised the West Central boundary. Other comments argued that well data from the region indicate that some peripheral areas excluded from the West Central (e.g., Sarasota Bay) ought to be reincorporated into the West Central. Again, EPA disagrees and argues that in the absence of evidence that such phenomena are not indeed linked to human disturbance in the region that has impacted surface flow and groundwater TP concentrations, the most defensible basis for the revised NWR is the immutable geology underlying the region, which is most consistent with EPA’s revised West Central boundary. Similarly, some argued that Charlotte Harbor should be in the West Central. In fact, most of the Charlotte Harbor watershed, especially the Peace and Myakka drainages, are in the West Central as the commenter recommends. Small coastal tributaries south of the Peace River are not in the West Central as the most substantial evidence available to EPA, the underlying geology, did not support its inclusion in the West Central. Other comments argued that the West Central or high TP region should be expanded to include much of the Peninsula where phosphorus-rich geology exists. EPA disagrees. EPA must weigh the watershed basis of its classification with the other classification factors. Much of the outcrops mentioned in these comments cross small parts of watersheds and sub-watersheds that subsequently do not exhibit the level of coincident differences in stream TP concentrations as witnessed in the West Central, North Central, and Panhandle East regions. A few comments argued that the West Central was expanded to include some drainages, especially peripheral drainages. EPA disagrees. The West Central was not expanded over the proposed rule, rather, it was restricted. It always extended to the watershed boundaries of the drainages noted. This is consistent with EPA’s adherence to a watershed-based element in its classification. Two comments in particular suggested that human-impacted areas (Alachua County and urban Pinellas areas) should be included in higher TP areas because of this disturbance. EPA disagrees. The goal of the classification is to isolate natural differences in instream nutrient expectation and not to confound that with anthropogenic sources. The goal is to establish natural reference expectations for nutrients that inherently protect designated uses. Confusing such an approach with anthropogenic factors would inherently bias nutrient expectations upward. Concern over expectations of criteria for human-modified waters should be dealt with in the context of designated uses, since the authors are ostensibly arguing that the same uses should not be expected of these

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5289Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
waterbodies as for natural waterbodies. To date, FDEP has not made such a difference explicit in their use classification.

Comment IDs: 2454-1.001.007, 2456.001.002 Response: EPA also received comments that nutrient criteria are not predictive of stream health and that, therefore, site-specific criteria should be developed. 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). EPA disagrees with the assertions made in comments that the influence of local factors negates the ability of EPA to utilize the reference condition approach and that regional reference approach based criteria will not protect the diversity and unique characteristics of waters that vary within regions. 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. EPA would not rule out site-specific criteria refinement in the future 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.

Comment ID: 2497-2.001.001 Response: The comments above did not include arguments or questions requiring response, but are acknowledged here as being read and considered.

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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5290Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. Brown, M.T. and M.B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289­ 309. 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., 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5291Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. Peters, N.E., Buell, G.R., and Frick, E.A., 1997, Spatial and temporal variability in nutrient concentrations in surface waters of the Chattahoochee River Basin near Atlanta, Georgia, USA: in Webb, Bruce, ed., Freshwater Contamination, IAHS Publication 243, IAHS Fifth Scientific Assembly, Rabat, Morocco. 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. Terziotti, S., A.B. Hoos, D.A. Harned, and A.M. Garcia. 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet. 

# SNODA.II.B - PANHANDLE Comment ID 2452-1.001.004

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. Our concerns are clearly demonstrated in the latest proposed TP limit for the Panhandle West region of 0.03 mg/I. There is currently no technology which has been demonstrated capable of meeting this limit on a consistent basis. In

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5292Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization addition, EPA has grossly underestimated the cost to employ the best available technology. And, as stated in our previous comments, actual data collected over a 10-year period by our facility shows the pristine waters upstream of our slow-rate land application site do not meet either the proposed TN or TP criteria. 

# Comment ID 2454-1.001.003

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System The current proposal would establish NNC standards for rivers and streams in the Western Panhandle of .04 mg/L for Phosphorus and 0.62 mg/L for Nitrogen. These proposed new criteria represent a 33% increase and a 26% decrease in the previously proposed allowable levels of Phosphorus and Nitrogen respectively. EPA fails to present any scientific basis that a 26% reduction in the numeric criteria for nitrogen, below that which they originally had proposed, is necessary to protect the intended uses and classifications of the rivers and streams in the Western Panhandle. It only demonstrates that EPA's process is arbitrary and based on a desired result and not an observed or measured environmental response. Therefore, EPA's entire approach to NNC appears to Okaloosa County to be invalid with respect to the meaning, intent, and legal requirements of the Clean Water Act. 

# Comment ID 2454-1.001.005

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System Okaloosa County fails to understand how the Florida Panhandle, where the benchmark waters represent the lowest levels of measured nutrients in the State of Florida, can receive the most severe and restrictive standards for the State of Florida; or how, upon establishment of these standards, 25% of the "minimally disturbed" waters among the benchmark set, in the western panhandle will be declared impaired. According to FDEP, the original proposal would have resulted in 40%of the waters in the Panhandle being declared impaired. Since the current proposal would reduce the allowable level of nitrogen by 26%, this will only increase the number of waters declared impaired, beyond those in the benchmark set, without benefit of ground-truthing of the results. We feel that this approach is an abrogation of EPA's obligation to exercise unquestionable due diligence in order to declare a waterbody impaired. It leads us to believe that the real objective is to capture as many of our streams as possible, declaring them impaired so that the authority granted by the Act can be extended beyond the limits of the waters of the United States. 

# Comment ID 2460-1.001.003

Author Name: Thompson C. Organization: Buckeye Florida, L.P.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5293Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

CommentsThe revised stream region boundaries based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorusrich geological formations in Florida are insufficient to account for further naturally occurring differences in flowing streams within the proposed Panhandle East region. Due to insufficient delineation of regions and identification of waterbody types, the proposed criteria for the Panhandle East region would identify the Econfina River (WBID 3402) as impaired for total nitrogen, even though the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 4 has historically identified the Econfina River as a reference stream and recently approved total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for the Fenholloway River based upon the Econfina River's health.



# Comment ID 2460-1.001.005

Author Name: Thompson C. Organization: Buckeye Florida, L.P. Support The flowing streams of the eastern half of the proposed Panhandle East region are blackwater streams that exhibit naturally occurring color similar to the proposed North Central region (Kaufman, M.I., 1969, Revised 1975). The source of this water color in many cases is naturally occurring humic materials, which also contributes organic nutrient forms to the water column. These colored water bodies also show naturally occurring low dissolved oxygen levels that are inversely proportional to their color. It is our understanding that one of the "screens" used by USEPA to select sites for use in the derivation of the proposed criteria eliminated sites due to low dissolved oxygen. Excluding these naturally occurring blackwater stream sites have biased the proposed criterion for TN. The Econfina River (WBID 3402), a blackwater stream in the eastern half of the proposed Panhandle East region that will be identified as impaired for nutrients if the criteria are implemented, has long been the reference stream used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and USEPA Region 4 for restoration efforts associated with the Fenholloway River (WBID 3473):

• In 1994, FDEP completed a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) which evaluated the feasibility of changing the classification of the Fenholloway River from Class V, with designated uses of navigation, utility and industrial uses to Class III, which supports recreation and a well balanced population of fish and wildlife. The Econfina River was used as the reference control stream to identify impacts on Fenholloway River water and sediment quality, along with structural and functional impacts on the biota of the Fenholloway River. The conclusions of the UAA were approved by USEPA Region 4 and subsequently the Fenholloway River was reclassified to Class III on January 1, 1998. • In 1998/1999, at the request of USEPA Region 4's Water Management Division (WMD), the Science and Ecosystem Support Division conducted a water quality study of the Fenholloway River to assist the WMD in establishing a basis for nutrient permit limits that would better protect the flora and fauna of the Fenholloway River. The Econfina River was the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5294Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization control reference stream for the study (USEPA, 2000). • USEPA Region 4 completed a TMDL for dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, unionized ammonia, and dioxin in the Fenholloway River (USEPA, 2007). For this TMDL, USEPA indicates "The healthy habitat and water quality observed in the Econfina as well as similar land use make the Econfina River an ideal reference stream for developing the DO and BOD TMDLs in the Fenholloway River." • USEPA Region 4 completed a TMDL for nutrients in the Fenholloway River (USEPA, 2009). For this TMDL, USEPA indicates "The healthy habitat and water quality observed in the Econfina as well as similar land use make the Econfina River an ideal reference stream for developing an appropriate target chl-a concentration for the Fenholloway River TMDLs." HydroQual, Inc. developed the attached Figures 1-4 to compare Econfina and St. Marks Rivers TN and total phosphorus (TP) data to the proposed criteria. The horizontal lines in these figures represent the proposed nutrientcriteria for the Panhandle East region and the 90th percentile value from the data. These figures used available instream nutrient and flow data to develop a flow-concentration relationship for each river and then developed the long term probability distribution from the actual flow and the flow-concentration relationship. It makes no ecological sense that the Econfina River with 3 of 3 stream condition indices (SCI) greater than 52 since 2006, indicating a "healthy" status, should need to reduce TN by 0.38 mg/l to achieve the proposed criterion. While the St. Marks River with 2 of 4 SCIs less than 17 since 2006, indicating a "poor" status, be allowed to increase TN by 0.51 mg/l and still achieve the criterion. Clearly these two streams should not be in the same criteria category and also highlight the need to build in cause and effect relationships into the proposed nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 2487-1.001.005

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Additionally, there appear to be no definable reasons as to why the Agency is proposing to delineate its proposed stream total nitrogen (TN) criteria within the same proposed, revised Panhandle region it has developed for total phosphorus (TP) criteria, aside from the simple act of trying to remain "consistent." 

# Comment ID 2494-1.001.005

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition Sixth, the arbitrary nature of EPA's proposed criteria is further underscored by the Agency's decisions as to which percentile portions of the dataset to use in developing those criteria. EPA suggests, in its new benchmark approach, that it would set criteria based on the 90th percentile for all waters except those in the West Central region, where it would use the 75th percentile. The stated basis for using a different percentile for the West Central region is that there are less data for that region. However, EPA provides absolutely no reason why the claimed lack of sufficient data justifies the choice of the 75th percentile, rather than some other level. In fact, the most logical course of action would

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5295Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization have been to extrapolate from the Agency's findings as to other regions. If, as EPA apparently believes, the data that it evaluated for the other regions shows that the 90th percentile is sufficiently protective, then it would seem that the same would probably be true for the one remaining region. Yet instead, EPA uses the lower amount of data to arbitrarily impose a much lower percentile level (and, as a result, a much more stringent criterion), without any analysis to show that that region's waters would necessarily require this more stringent criterion. This arbitrary decision shows that the Agency's approach is purely theoretical, with no grounding in reality. The EPA proposal simply cannot pass muster as a set of scientifically and legally defensible water quality standards for the State of Florida. 

# Comment ID 2504-2.001.001

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District 1) Stream Regionalization a) The District recommends more specificity in regional characterization for derivation of numeric criteria where warranted by sound scientific information (e.g., geological formations). For example, the District supports the EPA's new nutrient watershed regions proposed for the Panhandle (East and West). 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2454-1.001.003, 2454-1.001.005, 2494-1.001.005 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. The first sets of comments related to reference site selection. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the 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. Moreover, 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. EPA considers the Reference Approach and the process by which the criteria described in final rule to be replicable; EPA has replicated its criteria

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5296Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
using the methods described in the final rule TSD several times to confirm this. Another comment suggested that the change in nitrogen criteria as a result of changing reference criteria was evidence of the arbitrary nature. EPA disagrees with this assertion because, as stated in the proposed rule, final rule TSD, and Supplemental Notice, there are multiple ways to select reference populations and each will affect the resulting numbers. This is a function of sample size among other factors. Some change in values was expected, but the outcome value was not the basis for the Reference Approach selection. Rather, the use of the most defensible set of reference site selection criteria was. A last comment suggested that the long history of human disturbance in the West Central makes any reference site process there arbitrary. 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 proposed and final 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. As a result, the process is meant to identify sites with the least disturbance, even in a landscape as altered as the West Central. The confidence in the extent to which the final reference population generated reflects that which supports designated uses informs the selection of an appropriate percentile. EPA agrees with the commenter that the West Central has undergone substantial disturbance. As a result, for the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as notedabove for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmarks population of reference sites. 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. EPA considered these and other comments. 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. EPA agrees that 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 is isolation for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites for the SCI approach in the West Central, and for the benchmark approach, applied in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5297Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
the final rule and described in the Supplemental Notice for all regions outside the West Central, a suite of screens was used including corridor land use, watershed land used, nitrate concentrations, aerial photography analysis, and site level investigation as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. Other comments argued that the sample size was insufficient to develop stream criteria, particularly for small and intermittent headwater streams. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA is developing criteria to apply to Class I and III waters, reflected by the population of Class I and III waters that the State of Florida has sampled, presumably as a basis of their monitoring and characterization of the population of sites they consider reflective of that Class. If there is evidence of substantial difference in the function and, therefore, use of small or intermittent streams, then that difference could and possibly should be directed to the process of use classification. Also, the final rule provides flexibility for 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 for a specific waterbody. 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 wants to confirm that low DO in and of itself was not the basis for removal of a site. Rather, sites listed for DO impairment were the basis for the DO screen, independent of biological condition. 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. EPA received comments on other screens. Some commenters questioned the application of the LDI. Some suggested the watershed should have been considered instead of just the corridor. EPA considered these comments and agrees and applied a watershed-based LDI as well, where available, as detailed in the screening process for the final rule and detailed in the final rule TSD. Still others argued that the watershed LDI was redundant with the corridor LDI. EPA considered this and other comments and disagrees, as it is well demonstrated that a variety of land uses contribute nutrients to streams through flowpaths that either move under (groundwater) or through (stormwater conveyances) riparian corridors with little or no effect of riparian condition on nutrient mitigation. For this reason is keeping the watershed LDI screen in the benchmark approach for the final rule. Other commenters disagree with the use of a different LDI screening value for the watershed (LDI = 3) than the corridor (LDI = 2). EPA considered this and disagrees detailed in the proposed rule TSD that the watershed LDI value of 3 was correlated with a corridor LDI value of 2, which explains the selection of the watershed LDI value of 3. EPA also notes that this value is not associated with appreciable additional expected disturbance according to the LDI factor table outlined in Brown and Vivas 2005. For this reason, EPA has kept the two distinct LDI values for use in the respective screens for the benchmark approach in the final rule. Other criticized the use of the BPJ screen, arguing that it was poorly documented and arbitrary. EPA disagrees and refers the commenter to the proposed rule TSD, final preamble, and final rule TSD where the process for evaluating the elements that compose the BPJ score are detailed and supported. EPA is keeping the BPJ screen in the final rule benchmark approach process. Others argued that the assumption that the absence of a BPJ score presumed impact. EPA disagrees with this comment and believes the BPJ screen was an important element and took the precautionary step with this screen of presuming that the absence of a value should not be assumed to indicate

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5298Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
acceptable conditions, which has been extended to the final rule screening process as well. For the final rule, EPA assumed the same with the LDI corridor < 2 score as well. In addition, for the final rule, CWA section 303(d) screens were applied universally and “NA” values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the nitrate, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation. Therefore only values = 1 for these screens were excluded. EPA received comments that the survey of aerial photographs may have missed some stressors. EPA agrees that this may have happened, but because this screen was combined with the number of screens being applied, including corridor and watershed LDI values based on automated satellite imagery interpretation, this is unlikely. Even so, the possibility of this effect argues for the use of a margin of error associated with percentile selection to allow that some truly nutrient impacted sites may enter the final reference population. For this reason, EPA is applying the 90th percentile of the benchmark population WBID average nutrient concentrations for regions outside the West Central for the final rule. Similarly, EPA received comments that the use of field verification of a random selection of benchmark candidate sites was inappropriate. EPA disagrees. The same commenter supported the BPJ screens and this random survey was one component of the BPJ process along with many other components that informed the BPJ screening score including the survey of aerial photos and regional scientist site knowledge. For this reason, EPA is keeping that component of the approach for the final rule. EPA received comments that the nitrate value used was alternatively too high or too low, depending on the commenter. EPA disagrees. EPA selected this value (0.35 mg/L) as a screen because it had been shown to be associated with impacts to flowing water systems in Florida associated with springs and had been applied by FDEP as an indication of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment. Other commenters suggested that the use of a nitrate concentration automatically skewed the nitrogen values. EPA acknowledges that the use of such a screen might skew the nitrogen distribution, but notes that this is not likely because this screen could not be applied to all sites due to missing data, that nitrate often composed a small portion of the nitrogen pool, that this screen was used as much as an indication of anthropogenic disturbance given natural nitrate concentrations, and that this concentration had already been demonstrated as detrimental to some Florida flowing water systems. EPA is, therefore, keeping this value of nitrate in as a screen for the final rule and this is further elaborated in the final rule TSD. Other commenters suggested that an SCI screening value was inappropriate since it had not been shown to be linked to nutrients. EPA disagrees and has actually demonstrated in several documents including the final rule TSD that the SCI does actually show a significant relationship to nutrients, albeit imprecise. EPA also documented in detail the selection of the value of 40. In addition,EPA has used this screen not only for its linkage to nutrients but also because it helps define an acceptable population of leastdisturbed sites as those with healthy biological condition. Average WBID SCI values less than 40 would indicate potentially compromised environmental conditions that would preclude the use of such a WBID as a least-disturbed environmental site supportive of designated uses. For these reasons, EPA is retaining the use of the SCI as a screen in both the benchmark and SCI approaches for the final rule, which is detailed in the final rule TSD. Finally, under the theme of reference site selection, EPA received comments that supported the use of the benchmark approach combined with biological screening. EPA agrees and for the final rule is applying the benchmark approach with SCI screens and 303(d) screening steps added to further strengthen the defensibility of the resultant population as least-disturbed. EPA was not able to apply the benchmark screening method in the West Central because there were too few available WBIDs that passed the benchmark screens to estimate any percentile reliably. As a result, EPA used the SCI/303(d) screening approach described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBID-averages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach, and screens designed to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5299Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used in the SCI approach used in the West Central. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. See the final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received other comments again supporting the benchmark approach but with minimum observations for each average. EPA disagrees that a minimum number of observations is necessary to estimate annual WBID averages to derive the criteria. The basis for this is that EPA considered distributions composed of annual averages computed from a minimum of 4 samples and from all available samples, and determined that some additional imprecision was introduced in the estimates of annual averages, in particular WBIDs with fewer than samples. However, by including all samples, more WBIDs were included in the reference distribution, which increased EPA's confidence in estimates of the 90th percentiles of the benchmark distributions. Hence, additional imprecision in averages computed for individual WBIDs was outweighed by increased confidence in the entire benchmark distribution. The development of the WBID-average is discussed in detail in the final rule TSD. EPA defers to FDEP for defining appropriate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that estimate annual average nutrient concentrations accurately enough for compliance monitoring. 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, including the use of chlorophyll response variables, 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. 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 and EPA supports the application of stressor-response models for developing SSAC where adequate site-specific chl-a data are available. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The next theme in comments that EPA received relevant to the Reference Reach Approach was the insufficiency of data both for developing West Central criteria and for calculating EPA’s benchmark criteria. For the final rule, EPA decided to use the benchmark screening approach to identify least-disturbed streams and select the 90th percentile of WBID-averages from each NWR except the West Central. In the West Central, EPA agrees with comments that one WBID was insufficient to derive criteria for the West Central using the benchmark screening approach. As a result, and as supported by several comments, EPA used the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5300Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
SCI/303(d) screening method described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBIDaverages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach for the West Central, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used there. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially with the long history of human disturbance in the West Central, as noted by several commenters. As a result, EPA used the 75th percentile instead of the 90th of WBID-average nutrient concentrations for deriving nutrient criteria in the West Central for the final rule. EPA received a recommendation for the West Central to recalculate criteria there using the LDI, chl-a and diel DO data, and EPA notes that such data are not available for deriving regional criteria and disagrees that such an approach would provide more defensible criteria. With regards to comments that insufficient data or information were provided to replicate the benchmark values, EPA disagrees and points out that the Agency provided all the data to derive the values included in the Supplemental Notice along with detailed notes on how to do that, and also internally verified that the criteria published in the Supplemental Notice could be calculated using the description and data provided. However, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that make it even easier still for the public to replicate final values from the raw data provided. One commenter questioned why some sites in the “allstr00” file were not in the “sites01.final” file. All sites from the “allstr00” file for which EPA had coordinates, WBID, and region information were included in the “sites01.final” file. The same commenter asked what to do with NA values. The instructions clearly indicated which rules are used for exclusion. Section 303(d) screens were applied universally and NA values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the NOx, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation, and so these screens were principally used to discard these impacts where they were known to exist. Similarly, the commenter questioned how to create a WBID-year label, but the process for creating a WBID-year label was fairly straightforward and clearly explained in the instructions. Also, the same commenter claimed the nutrient regions were not available when, in fact, that information was included in the “sites01.final’ file; EPA is unsure why this commenter did not see that information there. Lastly, the same commenter asked how to remove WBID with fewer than 4 observations which was, in fact, described and is straightforward operation in any spreadsheet software. Again, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that may make it even easier for concerned parties to replicate final values from the raw data provided. The last theme relative to the Reference Approach relates to how criteria were determined. The first comment along this line argued that overlap between the benchmark and all-site populations argues against the use of a percentile of the benchmark as protective. EPA disagrees with this comment. Overlap may indicate that the all sites population is in better condition than expected and/or it may also indicate that the benchmark population contains more disturbance than expected. Similarly, the comment recommended using an extreme percentile (99.9th %) of all sites to avoid listing “pristine” sites. There is a supposition that this selection process is identifying “pristine” sites and this is not the case. EPA has not made that assertion. This process identifies least-disturbed sites, but sites that still contain disturbance. It is, therefore, not surprising and logical that the benchmark and all-sites populations overlap. Indeed, it is possible that screens that remove certain sites based on precautionary selection may exclude streams thatindeed do not manifest elevated nutrient concentrations. The process is meant to be protective in its selection of most likely leastdisturbed sites that support designated uses. But it is possible that the selection process will not remove sites truly impaired by nutrients. The concern over this possibility is the basis for the percentile selected and is a function of EPA’s confidence in the screening process, which is higher for the benchmark approach than the SCI approach, thus the use of the 75th percentile in the West Central based on the SCI approach and the 90th percentile everywhere else using the benchmark approach.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5301Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

EPA also received comments that the 75th percentile was unjustified for use in the West Central. As described above, the 75th percentile was justified in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach; screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used for example. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. Lastly, EPA received comments that fluctuation in the proposed criteria for the West Central is evidence of policy and not science being used to select the criteria. EPA disagrees with this comment. The fluctuations in candidate criteria values is due to changes in selection of the most defensible population of values to use in this region, exacerbated by sample size issues. Given the disturbance in this region, only a small number of appropriate sites were available to use. EPA has calculated percentiles using estimates of central tendency and variance. The central limit theorem of statistics indicates that the estimation of these parameters becomes more precise as sample size increases. Therefore, changes to small sample sizes are expected to have larger effects on the percentile estimates than changes in larger sample sizes. It is for this reason that EPA decided to use the largest population of defensible reference sites possible for the West Central - the SCI-based population. In addition, it is known that more disturbed landscapes present more variable water chemical conditions (e.g., Peters et al. 1997), so again it is not surprising that the West Central should exhibit more variability given the long history of disturbance in that region, as observed by several commenters.

Comment IDs: 2460-1.001.003, 2460-1.001.005, 2487-1.001.005, 2504-2.001.001 Response: This set of comments concerns EPA’s classification effort and the revision to the proposed NWR to split the Panhandle into West and East Regions and restrict the size of the West Central. EPA received mostly support for splitting the Panhandle and many comments concerned about the restriction in the size of the West Central and in classification in general. The first set of comments addressed the lack of consideration for more site-specific, especially physical, factors in classifying streams, and commenters cited recent papers indicating more geomorphic bases for classifying streams in Florida (e.g., functional process zones) that yield more classes. EPA agrees that there are a variety of ways to classify streams that would result in any number of different stream classes. However, for the purposes of deriving nutrient criteria, the process has to weigh the specificity of more and more site-specific factors generating finer classification against the reality of data availability, resource constraints to implement monitoring under any resulting classification, and the sufficiency of a parsimonious classification in deriving defensible criteria. This is true of deriving any criterion, not just numeric nutrient criteria and EPA will continue to use the NWRs for described in the Supplemental Notice for the final rule. EPA agrees that its own guidance lays out a variety of classification options, all of which were meant to provide states with the flexibility to choose from amongst these and other scientifically defensible options. A common and peer-reviewed classification framework has always been ecoregions and bioregions, as reflected in EPA’s own ecoregional 304(a) recommended criteria. Ecoregions capture a variety of the very factors recommended for use by commenters: geology, soil types, vegetation, land cover, climate, and hydrology, among others. That is why EPA considered ecoregions as part of the classification effort. The NWRs used in the final rule refined ecoregions based on smaller scale differences in regional geology and observed water chemistry - again consistent with EPA guidance (see final rule TSD) - among other factors. Commenters recommended alternative classification scenarios (e.g., Rosgen, functional process zones, etc.). These are all potential

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5302Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
candidates, but are more experimental or less proven. EPA’s regional approach starts with ecoregions, uses biological considerations, regional geology, and observed patterns in chemistry. EPA considers this approach to be appropriate and scientifically defensible. See final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received several comments that the TN regionalization was incorrect and that it should be a two-region model rather than a five-region model. EPA disagrees. EPA decided 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. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion. 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); meaning that neither the two NWR model nor the five NWR model is more defensible than the other. As a result, because EPA found either model to be protective of applicabledesignated uses and based upon sound scientific rationale, and for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the colimiting nature of TN and TP amply detailed in the scientific literature (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007) and detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD, EPA has decided that a similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. EPA received many comments on the restricted boundary for the West Central. One comment suggested that the West Central boundary was unclear and was not in the docket. EPA disagrees. A map and GIS coverage of the Supplemental Notice NWRs were provided in the docket and indicate where the modified West Central boundary would be. This is evidenced by the large number of comments that actually applied this data in their responses. Another comment suggested that new phosphorus sediment/geology information (Terziotti et al. 2010) suggests that an expanded area of the West Central is more defensible. EPA disagrees. EPA reviewed the USGS publication and determined that the inability to discriminate human/non-human effects, the resolution, and the untested nature of the information preclude its application by EPA. The authors acknowledge that the maps resulting from the sediment samples cannot discriminate human and non-human sources. Given the long history of phosphorus mining and landscape disturbance in the region, the inability to discriminate such sources does not favor the application of that work to improving discrimination of natural expectations for elevated TP in streams. The geologic maps used by EPA in revising the regionalization as described in the Supplemental Notice and detailed in the final rule TSD, however, are not subject to the same effect and are the most defensible basis upon which EPA revised the West Central boundary. Other comments argued that well data from the region indicate that some peripheral areas excluded from the West

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5303Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
Central (e.g., Sarasota Bay) ought to be reincorporated into the West Central. Again, EPA disagrees and argues that in the absence of evidence that such phenomena are not indeed linked to human disturbance in the region that has impacted surface flow and groundwater TP concentrations, the most defensible basis for the revised NWR is the immutable geology underlying the region, which is most consistent with EPA’s revised West Central boundary. Similarly, some argued that Charlotte Harbor should be in the West Central. In fact, most of the Charlotte Harbor watershed, especially the Peace and Myakka drainages, are in the West Central as the commenter recommends. Small coastal tributaries south of the Peace River are not in the West Central as the most substantial evidence available to EPA, the underlying geology, did not support its inclusion in the West Central. Other comments argued that the West Central or high TP region should be expanded to include much of the Peninsula where phosphorus-rich geology exists. EPA disagrees. EPA must weigh the watershed basis of its classification with the other classification factors. Much of the outcrops mentioned in these comments cross small parts of watersheds and sub-watersheds that subsequently do not exhibit the level of coincident differences in stream TP concentrations as witnessed in the West Central, North Central, and Panhandle East regions. A few comments argued that the West Central was expanded to include some drainages, especially peripheral drainages. EPA disagrees. The West Central was not expanded over the proposed rule, rather, it was restricted. It always extended to the watershed boundaries of the drainages noted. This is consistent with EPA’s adherence to a watershed-based element in its classification. Two comments in particular suggested that human-impacted areas (Alachua County and urban Pinellas areas) should be included in higher TP areas because of this disturbance. EPA disagrees. The goal of the classification is to isolate natural differences in instream nutrient expectation and not to confound that with anthropogenic sources. The goal is to establish natural reference expectations for nutrients that inherently protect designated uses. Confusing such an approach with anthropogenic factors would inherently bias nutrient expectations upward. Concern over expectations of criteria for human-modified waters should be dealt with in the context of designated uses, since the authors are ostensibly arguing that the same uses should not be expected of these waterbodies as for natural waterbodies. To date, FDEP has not made such a difference explicit in their use classification.

Comment ID: 2452-1.001.004 Response: 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5304Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. 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. EPA also received a comment that the cost of meeting low TP criteria in the Panhandle West would be too great. The criteria development process focuses on identifying criteria that are scientifically defensible and that will protect designated uses. The consideration of cost does not play a role in developing criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5305Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Comment ID: 2504-2.001.001 Response: EPA received a variety of supportive comments of different options that are acknowledged here. Some commenters supported the revised Panhandle regionalization into the Panhandle West and East Regions. Others supported the revised West Central Region, the use of the FDEP benchmark approach and the 90th percentile. Lastly, one commenter supported more stringent criteria for the West Central adding that the disturbance in that region should not be the basis for relaxed criteria there.

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. Brown, M. T. and M. B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289-309. 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 2-5306Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. Peters, N.E., Buell, G.R., and Frick, E.A., 1997, Spatial and temporal variability in nutrient concentrations in surface waters of the Chattahoochee River Basin near Atlanta, Georgia, USA: in Webb, Bruce, ed., Freshwater Contamination, IAHS Publication 243, IAHS Fifth Scientific Assembly, Rabat, Morocco. 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5307Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Terziotti, S., A.B. Hoos, D.A. Harned, and A.M. Garcia. 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet. 

# SNODA.II.C - WEST CENTRAL (BONE VALLEY) Comment ID 2446-1.001.007

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Fifth, while the proposed revisions adjust the boundaries of the Bone Valley (now called the West Central) region, it is not evident from the material provided precisely where the new boundaries lie. The Federal Register notice references a map of the state and a GIS file contained in the docket, see 75 Fed. Reg. 45,581 (Aug. 3, 2010), but the scale of the map contained in the docket is not sufficiently detailed to identify the specific regional boundaries of any particular waterbody, and the docket does not provide GIS data. Finally, Mosaic is surprised that EPA is proposing such a substantial tightening of the criteria for the Bone Valley -- the only region which will be subject to substantially more stringent criteria under the proposed revisions. We earnestly believed that we had succeeded in securing a constructive dialogue with the Agency about why the proposed Rule needed to be more flexible and less stringent, without compromising environmental protection, in relation to the Bone Valley, in particular. 

# Comment ID 2455-1.001.002

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Government, Florida Section III.A. Stream Regionalization (Federal Register Vol 75, No. 148. Pg 45581) 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). We do not concur, however, with the removal of the Sarasota Bay coastal watershed from the West Central (Bone Valley) NWR. Manatee County supports inclusion of this watershed in the West Central NWR for the following reasons: o Management Implications - Different nutrient water quality criteria between two geographic regions located within the same governmental jurisdiction presents management challenges as well as legal implications. Manatee County (and the City of Bradenton) may be required to adopt stormwater ordinances applicable to portions of its jurisdiction, along boundaries that may subdivide private property. This position is made more tenuous by the inherent variability of watershed boundaries in urban settings.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5308Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization o Inter-Watershed Drainage - Two drainage subbasins bordering both the Sarasota Bay and Manatee River watersheds (Cedar Hammock and Gap Creek) have flow components that drain surface runoff to the receiving waterbodies of both major watersheds. The hydrologic divide within these subbasins varies depending on hydrologic conditions. The phosphate-rich surface waters associated with the Bone Valley formation region should not be considered confined to the Manatee River Watershed in these low-lying coastal areas. 

# Comment ID 2457-2.001.002

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa STREAMS - Stream Regionalization In January, EPA defined five Nutrient Watershed Regions: Panhandle, North Central, Peninsula, Bone Valley (West Central), and South. This regionalization may be revised in several important ways with regard to streams in southwest Florida. In the first iteration, EPA proposed the West Central (AKA "Bone Valley") region as defined by the dotted portions in Figure 1. The revised Bone Valley designation is highlighted in green and the peninsula region is colored in blue. Therefore, in the old regionalization scheme the dotted portion would also be green. FDEP provided a map of Florida geologic stratigraphy which is overlain on this map in Figure 2. FDEP used the geographic distribution of the Peace River Formation and Bone Valley member to delineate a homogenous nutrient region. The area was delineated 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 principal difference between the EPA and FDEP delineations is the inclusion of much of Sarasota County coastal watershed as part of the Bone Valley while the EPA has removed this area from the Bone Valley and classified it as Peninsula (Figure 3). The FDEP stratigraphy is overlain on this map in Figure 4. The USGS has provided a contour map of sediment phosphorous potentially affecting stream phosphorus concentration (Terziotti et. al., 2010: Figure 5). It is clear from this map that phosphorus rich sediments are widely distributed throughout much of southwest Florida including its coastal watersheds. This assessment is more in line with EPA's original geographic boundaries than its revised boundaries that isolate the coastal watersheds and Pinellas County and classify them as part of the peninsula region. The Lower Caloosahatchee River basin is also phosphorous rich as depicted in the USGS map. The area removed from the Bone Valley in the EPA's latest delineation (stipled area in Figure 6.) has some of the highest concentrations in Florida and the southeastern United States.
Conclusion Based on the information provided above, it is our recommendation that the EPA not alter its original delineations with respect to the Bone Valley region. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. EPA regionalization of the West Central (aka "Bone Valley") showing old region (dotted) and new boundary (green). See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5309Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. EPA stream regions (old and new) with the geologic stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. FDEP's Bone Valley stream region (dotted) with EPA new region overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. FDEP Bone Valley region (dotted) with stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. USGS map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment in the southeastern US. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. USGS soils map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment with EPA region boundaries overlayed. See original comment letter.



# Comment ID 2471-1.001.002

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City I. STREAMS
A. Stream Regionalization In the January 26, 2010 Proposed Rule, EPA defined five Nutrient Watershed Regions: Panhandle, North Central, Peninsula, Bone Valley (West Central), and South. This regionalization may be revised in several important ways with regard to streams in southwest Florida. In the first iteration, EPA proposed the West Central (AKA "Bone Valley") region as defined by the dotted portions in Figure 1. The revised Bone Valley designation is highlighted in green and the peninsula region is colored in blue. Therefore, in the old regionalization scheme the dotted portion would also be green. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") provided a map of Florida geologic stratigraphy, which is overlain on this map in Figure 2. FDEP used the geographic distribution of the Peace River Formation and Bone Valley member to delineate a homogenous nutrient region. The area was delineated 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 principal difference between the EPA and FDEP delineations is the inclusion of much of Sarasota County coastal watershed as part of the Bone Valley while the EPA has removed this area from the Bone Valley and classified it as Peninsula (Figure 3). The FDEP stratigraphy is overlain on this map in Figure 4. The USGS has provided a contour map of sediment phosphorous potentially affecting stream phosphorus concentration (Terziotti et. al., 2010: Figure 5). It is clear from this map that phosphorus rich sediments are widely distributed

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5310Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization throughout much of southwest Florida including its coastal watersheds. This assessment is more in line with EPA's original geographic boundaries than its revised boundaries that isolate the coastal watersheds and Pinellas County and classify them as part of the peninsula region. The Lower Caloosahatchee River basin is also phosphorous rich as depicted in the USGS map. The area removed from the Bone Valley in the EPA's latest delineation (stipled area in Figure 6.) has some of the highest concentrations in Florida and the southeastern United States.
Conclusion Based on the information provided above, it is our recommendation that the EPA not alter its original delineations with respect to the Bone Valley region. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. EPA regionalization of the West Central (aka "Bone Valley") showing old region (dotted) and new boundary (green). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. EPA stream regions (old and new) with the geologic stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. FDEP's Bone Valley stream region (dotted) with EPA new region overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. FDEP Bone Valley region (dotted) with stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. USGS map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment in the southeastern US. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. USGS soils map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment with EPA region boundaries overlayed. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2472-1.001.002

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County I. STREAMS
A. Stream Regionalization In the January 26, 2010 Proposed Rule, EPA defined five Nutrient Watershed Regions: Panhandle, North Central, Peninsula, Bone Valley (West Central), and South. This regionalization may be revised in several important ways with regard to streams in southwest Florida. In the first iteration, EPA proposed the West Central (AKA "Bone Valley") region as defined by the dotted portions in Figure 1. The revised Bone Valley designation is highlighted in green and the peninsula region is colored in blue. Therefore, in the old regionalization scheme the dotted portion would also be green.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5311Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") provided a map of Florida geologic stratigraphy, which is overlain on this map in Figure 2. FDEP used the geographic distribution of the Peace River Formation and Bone Valley member to delineate a homogenous nutrient region. The area was delineated 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 principal difference between the EPA and FDEP delineations is the inclusion of much of Sarasota County coastal watershed as part of the Bone Valley while the EPA has removed this area from the Bone Valley and classified it as Peninsula (Figure 3). The FDEP stratigraphy is overlain on this map in Figure 4. The USGS has provided a contour map of sediment phosphorous potentially affecting stream phosphorus concentration (Terziotti et. al., 2010: Figure 5). It is clear from this map that phosphorus rich sediments are widely distributed throughout much of southwest Florida including its coastal watersheds. This assessment is more in line with EPA's original geographic boundaries than its revised boundaries that isolate the coastal watersheds and Pinellas County and classify them as part of the peninsula region. The Lower Caloosahatchee River basin is also phosphorous rich as depicted in the USGS map. The area removed from the Bone Valley in the EPA's latest delineation (stipled area in Figure 6.) has some of the highest concentrations in Florida and the southeastern United States.
Conclusion Based on the information provided above, it is our recommendation that the EPA not alter its original delineations with respect to the Bone Valley region. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. EPA regionalization of the West Central (aka "Bone Valley") showing old region (dotted) and new boundary (green). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. EPA stream regions (old and new) with the geologic stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. FDEP's Bone Valley stream region (dotted) with EPA new region overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. FDEP Bone Valley region (dotted) with stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. USGS map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment in the southeastern US. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. USGS soils map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment with EPA region boundaries overlayed. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2473-1.001.002

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5312Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa I. STREAMS
A. Stream Regionalization In the January 26, 2010 Proposed Rule, EPA defined five Nutrient Watershed Regions: Panhandle, North Central, Peninsula, Bone Valley (West Central), and South. This regionalization may be revised in several important ways with regard to streams in southwest Florida. In the first iteration, EPA proposed the West Central (AKA "Bone Valley") region as defined by the dotted portions in Figure 1. The revised Bone Valley designation is highlighted in green and the peninsula region is colored in blue. Therefore, in the old regionalization scheme the dotted portion would also be green. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") provided a map of Florida geologic stratigraphy, which is overlain on this map in Figure 2. FDEP used the geographic distribution of the Peace River Formation and Bone Valley member to delineate a homogenous nutrient region. The area was delineated 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 principal difference between the EPA and FDEP delineations is the inclusion of much of Sarasota County coastal watershed as part of the Bone Valley while the EPA has removed this area from the Bone Valley and classified it as Peninsula (Figure 3). The FDEP stratigraphy is overlain on this map in Figure 4. The USGS has provided a contour map of sediment phosphorous potentially affecting stream phosphorus concentration (Terziotti et. al., 2010: Figure 5). It is clear from this map that phosphorus rich sediments are widely distributed throughout much of southwest Florida including its coastal watersheds. This assessment is more in line with EPA's original geographic boundaries than its revised boundaries that isolate the coastal watersheds and Pinellas County and classify them as part of the peninsula region. The Lower Caloosahatchee River basin is also phosphorous rich as depicted in the USGS map. The area removed from the Bone Valley in the EPA's latest delineation (stipled area in Figure 6.) has some of the highest concentrations in Florida and the southeastern United States.
Conclusion Based on the information provided above, it is our recommendation that the EPA not alter its original delineations with respect to the Bone Valley region. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. EPA regionalization of the West Central (aka "Bone Valley") showing old region (dotted) and new boundary (green). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. EPA stream regions (old and new) with the geologic stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. FDEP's Bone Valley stream region (dotted) with EPA new region overlain. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5313Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. FDEP Bone Valley region (dotted) with stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. USGS map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment in the southeastern US. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. USGS soils map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment with EPA region boundaries overlayed. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2474-1.001.002

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville I. STREAMS
A. Stream Regionalization In the January 26, 2010 Proposed Rule, EPA defined five Nutrient Watershed Regions: Panhandle, North Central, Peninsula, Bone Valley (West Central), and South. This regionalization may be revised in several important ways with regard to streams in southwest Florida. In the first iteration, EPA proposed the West Central (AKA "Bone Valley") region as defined by the dotted portions in Figure 1. The revised Bone Valley designation is highlighted in green and the peninsula region is colored in blue. Therefore, in the old regionalization scheme the dotted portion would also be green. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") provided a map of Florida geologic stratigraphy, which is overlain on this map in Figure 2. FDEP used the geographic distribution of the Peace River Formation and Bone Valley member to delineate a homogenous nutrient region. The area was delineated 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 principal difference between the EPA and FDEP delineations is the inclusion of much of Sarasota County coastal watershed as part of the Bone Valley while the EPA has removed this area from the Bone Valley and classified it as Peninsula (Figure 3). The FDEP stratigraphy is overlain on this map in Figure 4. The USGS has provided a contour map of sediment phosphorous potentially affecting stream phosphorus concentration (Terziotti et. al., 2010: Figure 5). It is clear from this map that phosphorus rich sediments are widely distributed throughout much of southwest Florida including its coastal watersheds. This assessment is more in line with EPA's original geographic boundaries than its revised boundaries that isolate the coastal watersheds and Pinellas County and classify them as part of the peninsula region. The Lower Caloosahatchee River basin is also phosphorous rich as depicted in the USGS map. The area removed from the Bone Valley in the EPA's latest delineation (stipled area in Figure 6.) has some of the highest concentrations in Florida and the southeastern United States.
Conclusion

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5314Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Based on the information provided above, it is our recommendation that the EPA not alter its original delineations with respect to the Bone Valley region. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. EPA regionalization of the West Central (aka "Bone Valley") showing old region (dotted) and new boundary (green). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. EPA stream regions (old and new) with the geologic stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. FDEP's Bone Valley stream region (dotted) with EPA new region overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. FDEP Bone Valley region (dotted) with stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. USGS map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment in the southeastern US. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. USGS soils map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment with EPA region boundaries overlayed. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2476-1.001.002

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services Sarasota County response to each of these questions can be summarized as follows: 1. We recommend against revising EPA's original delineations of the Bone Valley Region. 

# Comment ID 2479-1.001.002

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission I. STREAMS
A. Stream Regionalization In the January 26, 2010 Proposed Rule, EPA defined five Nutrient Watershed Regions: Panhandle, North Central, Peninsula, Bone Valley (West Central), and South. This regionalization may be revised in several important ways with

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5315Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization regard to streams in southwest Florida. In the first iteration, EPA proposed the West Central (AKA "Bone Valley") region as defined by the dotted portions in Figure 1. The revised Bone Valley designation is highlighted in green and the peninsula region is colored in blue. Therefore, in the old regionalization scheme the dotted portion would also be green. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") provided a map of Florida geologic stratigraphy, which is overlain on this map in Figure 2. FDEP used the geographic distribution of the Peace River Formation and Bone Valley member to delineate a homogenous nutrient region. The area was delineated 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 principal difference between the EPA and FDEP delineations is the inclusion of much of Sarasota County coastal watershed as part of the Bone Valley while the EPA has removed this area from the Bone Valley and classified it as Peninsula (Figure 3). The FDEP stratigraphy is overlain on this map in Figure 4. The USGS has provided a contour map of sediment phosphorous potentially affecting stream phosphorus concentration (Terziotti et. al., 2010: Figure 5). It is clear from this map that phosphorus rich sediments are widely distributed throughout much of southwest Florida including its coastal watersheds. This assessment is more in line with EPA's original geographic boundaries than its revised boundaries that isolate the coastal watersheds and Pinellas County and classify them as part of the peninsula region. The Lower Caloosahatchee River basin is also phosphorous rich as depicted in the USGS map. The area removed from the Bone Valley in the EPA's latest delineation (stipled area in Figure 6.) has some of the highest concentrations in Florida and the southeastern United States.
Conclusion Based on the information provided above, it is our recommendation that the EPA not alter its original delineations with respect to the Bone Valley region. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. EPA regionalization of the West Central (aka "Bone Valley") showing old region (dotted) and new boundary (green). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. EPA stream regions (old and new) with the geologic stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. FDEP's Bone Valley stream region (dotted) with EPA new region overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. FDEP Bone Valley region (dotted) with stratigraphy overlain. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. USGS map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment in the southeastern US. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. USGS soils map depicting phosphorus rich bed sediment with EPA region boundaries overlayed. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5316Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization



# Comment ID 2480-2.001.005

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. Although that region has naturally phosphorus-rich soils (U.S. EPA 2010, e.g. p. 4193), its streams have also sustained major impacts from extensive urbanization, reflected by high P concentrations. According to FDEP (2010b, p.8), "EPA's [previous] 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]." Because FDEP's analysis based upon the Bone Valley bioregion used streams with less anthropogenic nutrient enrichment, as I previously commented, FDEP's suggested nutrient criteria for the Bone Valley bioregion should be adopted by U.S. EPA. 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.002

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District A. Stream Regionalization and Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation (page 45581, supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment)

1. SWFWMD does not support the revised stream region boundary in the West Central region. The newly revised boundary for the West Central (formerly Bone Valley) region was expanded in three areas and contracted in a fourth: a northern expansion that includes portions of south-central Pasco County, Cypress Creek watershed and a small area in northwestern Polk County; an expansion that includes a portion of northeastern Polk County that encompasses the Winter Haven Ridge and associated lakes; an expansion into an area of eastern Hardee County/western Highlands County that includes tributaries to the Charlie Creek watershed; and a contraction along the coast. Using best available geologic information (Southwest Florida Water Management District 2010) and the literature referenced by the USEPA, there is no justification, based on the occurrence of phosphatic sediments, to expand the boundary in the aforementioned areas nor is there geologic information to support shifting the western margin to exclude the coastal area. South-Central Pasco County/Northwest Polk County: Geologic descriptions of well borehole lithologic samples from 22 wells were reviewed for the presence of phosphatic sediments. For the majority (91%) of the wells evaluated in this region, there was no phosphate observed or described in the samples. Winter Haven Ridge: The region shown on the proposed revised boundary that includes the Winter Haven Ridge is east of the mapped extent of the near-surface Hawthorn Group and is also not in the historical mining region of the Central Florida Phosphate District. In 11 of 27 well logs, only minor amounts (1%-2%) of phosphate sand and gravel were present in the sediment overlying the Hawthorn Group. There was no phosphate identified in the remaining 16 well logs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5317Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Eastern Hardee/Western Highlands Counties: Available geologic data from well sites in this region indicate low percentages of near-surface phosphatic sediments. Of the 17 well logs evaluated, 11 (65%) indicated no phosphate content, and the remaining 6 sites contained minor amounts (1%-2%) of phosphate in the near-surface sediments. West Coast: Although much of this region is west of the mapped extent of Hawthorn Group sediments, near surface sediments containing variable percentages of phosphate do occur, especially on or near the present-day coastline. Of the 67 well logs evaluated for occurrence of phosphate, 41 sites (61%) contained phosphate, and 16 locations had phosphate percentages greater than 5%.

2. SWFWMD requests clarification regarding information used to alter the boundaries of the West Central (formerly Bone Valley) nutrient region. It's unclear, based on the limited information published in the Notice of Data Availability, the reasons for the expansion in the northern and eastern portions and the contraction in the coastal margin of the West Central nutrient region. 

# Comment ID 2482-3.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Introduction The revised boundary for the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Nutrient Watershed Region referenced in the August 3, 2010 EPA notice contains substantial modifications to the boundary previously commented on and presented to the EPA in the comment submittal on April 26, 2010. This newly revised boundary was expanded in three areas: a northern expansion that includes regions of south-central Pasco County and the Cypress Creek watershed and a small area in northwestern Polk County; a region of northeastern Polk County that encompasses the Winter Haven Ridge and associated lakes; and in eastern Hardee County and a small part of western Highlands County that includes tributaries to the Charlie Creek watershed. The boundary was also revised to exclude watersheds along the gulf coastal region of Manatee, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. Information provided to the Federal Register docket by the EPA to support some of the proposed revisions include geological references for the Hawthorn Group and the most recent geologic map of the state of Florida along with the accompanying text for the state geologic map containing lithologic descriptions of the Hawthorn Group formations. The following analysis conducted by the SWFWMD provides clarification and further evaluation of the distribution of phosphate-bearing Hawthorn Group sediments in the previously described revised boundary margins. The four proposed boundary revisions were further evaluated using available geologic information from well boring logs to determine the presence of near-surface sediments containing phosphate mineral deposits. These phosphatic sediments are typically associated with occurrences of upper Hawthorn Group sediments of the Peace River Formation and the Bone Valley Member, and the Arcadia Formation which also includes the less phosphatic Tampa Member. Concentrations of phosphate minerals in these sediments and formations are highly variable, with estimates ranging from 1% to 2% up to 10% or higher. The areal distribution and depth below land surface of these phosphatic sediments

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5318Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization are also highly variable. Using best available geologic information and the literature references noted by the EPA, there is no justification, based on the occurrence of phosphatic sediments, to expand the three boundary areas, and the geologic information also does not support shifting the western margin to exclude the fourth area. Details of the data evaluation and literature citations are presented below for the four areas, with accompanying attachments of the locations and evaluations of the selected well data indicating the presence and estimated percentage of phosphate sand or gravel described in the samples. Copies of the well logs for each area evaluated are also included in the attached information. South-Central Pasco County/Northwest Polk County Geologic descriptions of well borehole lithologic samples from 22 wells were reviewed for the presence of phosphatic sediments. For the majority (91%) of the wells evaluated in this region, there was no phosphate observed or described in the samples. One of the sample locations included a minor amount (1%) of phosphate sand present, and another site contained up to 7% phosphatic sediments. The Geologic Map of the State of Florida (Scott 2001) depicts Hawthorn Group units in two localities. A restricted outcrop of Tampa Member (Arcadia Formation) is mapped in the Cypress Creek watershed in central Pasco County. The Tampa Member is described as a less phosphatic unit of the Hawthorn Group, with percentages of phosphate grains typically less than 3% (Scott 1988, page 70). Also a narrow tongue of Peace River Formation (Bone Valley Member) is shown on the state geologic map extending into the northwestern corner of Polk County. The Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation is typically highly phosphatic, and two well logs available in that area confirm the presence of 1% to 7% phosphate sand and gravel in the near-surface sediments (generally less than or equal to 20 feet below land surface). Winter Haven Ridge The region shown on the proposed revised boundary that includes the Winter Haven Ridge is east of the mapped extent of the near-surface Hawthorn Group and is also not in the historical mining region of the Central Florida Phosphate District. Lithologic descriptions from available well logs indicate that phosphorus-bearing sediments of the Hawthorn Group occur at depths of 40 feet to over 100 feet below land surface. In eleven of 27 well logs, only minor amounts (1%-2%) of phosphate sand and gravel are present in the sediment overlying the Hawthorn Group. There was no phosphate identified in the remaining 16 well logs. The upper Hawthorn group sediments are buried beneath Pliocene and Pleistocene ridge deposits, which are mostly non-phosphatic, so typically there is no direct contact with surface waters and phosphate deposits in the shallow substrate. Odum (1953) also generally indicates lower phosphorus concentrations in surface waters across this region. Many large paleo-sinkhole lakes are present on the Winter Haven Ridge. A survey of available lake bathymetry (Polk County Water Atlas, http://www.polk.wateratlas.usf.edu /) shows the lakes are relatively shallow and the lake basins would not typically be in contact with Hawthorn Group sediments. The top of the Hawthorn Group beneath the Winter Haven Ridge ranges from about 40 feet below land surface to as deep as 110 feet below land surface, depending on topographic elevation. However, lakes in this region may be in contact with sediments containing minor amounts (less than 5%) of phosphate contained in the overlying ridge deposits that the lakes intersect. Eastern Hardee/Western Highlands Counties Available geologic data from well sites in this region also indicate low percentages of near-surface phosphatic

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5319Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization sediments. Of the 17 well logs evaluated, eleven or 65% indicated no phosphate content, and the remaining six sites only contained minor amounts (1%-2%) of phosphate in the near-surface sediments. Localized deposits containing higher accumulations of phosphatic sediments may occur, but the area is significantly east of the mapped Hawthorn Group extent depicted on the state geologic map. Depths to the top of the Hawthorn Group sediments, or first occurrence of phosphate in the well samples ranges from 30 feet to 100 feet below land surface, depending mostly on topographic elevation. Most streams in this region are of low relief with shallow cut channels that typically would not be in contact with phosphate-rich sediments.
West Coast The western gulf coastal region considered for the proposed boundary revision includes the southwestern coastal margin of Manatee County south of the Manatee River, all of the coastlines for Sarasota County and Charlotte County, including the eastern shoreline of Charlotte Harbor. Although much of this region is west of the mapped extent of Hawthorn Group sediments, near surface sediments containing variable percentages of phosphate do occur, especially on or near the present-day coastline. Of the 67 well logs evaluated for occurrence of phosphate, 41 sites or 61% contained phosphate, and 16 locations had phosphate percentages greater than 5%. Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments overlying the Hawthorn Group commonly contain phosphatic sediments derived from the erosion and re-deposition of materials from the upper Hawthorn Group. Coastal barrier islands and beaches in Sarasota County and western Charlotte County also have abundant phosphate sand which is actively being reworked and deposited along the present-day coastline. There is ample geologic evidence to include all or substantial portions of the gulf-coastal watersheds in the proposed West Central stream nutrient region. However the eastern shoreline of Charlotte Harbor, south of the Peace River, does not warrant inclusion and the proposed revised boundary correctly excludes this area. Most of the sites where geologic samples from wells were evaluated did not contain near-surface phosphate sediments.
Attachments Overlay map of original proposed EPA West Central (Bone Valley) Nutrient Watershed Region with EPA proposed revised West Central region, and locations of well sites evaluated for phosphate sediments. Tables of well sites with geologic evaluations for the Central Pasco/NW Polk County region, the Winter Haven Ridge region, the Eastern Hardee/Western Highlands Counties region, and the West Coast region. Copies of lithologic logs used to evaluate the occurrences of phosphate sediments in the areas under review in this analysis. 

# Comment ID 2482.001.002

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District In brief, our comments address the following issues:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5320Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

- The District has extensive geologic data that suggest the need for additional refinements to the boundary of the West Central (formerly Bone Valley) stream nutrient region. 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.008

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc.

- EPA proposes to apply the 75th percentile for benchmark sites in the West Central region because there is less data available. A review of the dataset provided with the NODA confirms that the proposed criterion is based on 9 geometric annual averages from 1 WBID. This dataset is insufficient to derive any criterion and is contrary to EPA's Guidelines for deriving water quality criteria. It is not enough that the criterion is the best estimate given the available data. Criteria should be derived "only if adequate appropriate data are available to provide reasonable confidence that it is a good estimate." (Guidelines @ 5) If EPA determines that the "benchmark" dataset is appropriate for deriving numeric nutrient criteria using a statistical distribution of the data, although not scientifically defensible, then it should not establish any criteria for the West Central region until sufficient data are available. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.002

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC While Mosaic has endeavored to work cooperatively with EPA to help refine and improve the proposed Rule (not withstanding our fundamental disagreements with certain basic premises and concepts in EPA's whole approach to the subject), we are compelled here to register our strong objection and opposition to certain of the proposals contained in the NODA.[1] EPA is proposing a new approach to instream protection values ("IPVs") that would impose severely more restrictive nutrient levels in the newly-designated West Central region[2] without any credible technical justification whatsoever, but based instead on data from a single stream segment that is not representative of the underlying geology of the ecoregion, and derived using inappropriate screens and parameters. In light of the fundamental technical and methodological flaws in EPA's new benchmark streams approach, Mosaic urges that the Agency either follow its original reference streams approach at the 95th percentile (as proposed in our comments of April 23, 2010)[3] or defer setting IPVs for the West Central region until EPA can propose either a technically defensible reference waters approach or an approach based on a demonstrable dose-response relationship between nutrient levels and stream health.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5321Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
[1] Mosaic is earnest in its commitment to be a constructive participant in this and other EPA rulemaking. Candidly, and in regret, the Company could find no ready "fixes" or modifications to the misguided or unfounded NODA proposals that would render them worthy of support and deserving of promulgation. [2] Under EPA's proposed changes in regional boundaries in the NODA, the proposed West Central region is similar but not identical to the boundaries of the Bone Valley region established in the proposed Rule. These differences are potentially significant, and are inadequately explained in the NODA. Both the Bone Valley region and the West Central region contain the areas of Florida with high natural phosphate concentrations and which are a national center of phosphate mining and fertilizer production. [3] Mosaic has previously stated our objection to the use of the reference streams approach for setting numeric nutrient criteria. See Mosaic's Comments, April 23, 2010 at 21-27. However, to the extent that the Agency is committed to setting numeric nutrient criteria in the absence of a demonstrated dose response relationship, Mosaic contends that the Agency's original reference stream approach at the 95th percentile is protective of Florida's streams and is more technically defensible than the proposal in the NODA or the IPVs of the proposed Rule based on the 75th percentile. See id. at 27-32. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.006

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC A. Basing West Central Criteria on Data From a Single WBID is Technically Invalid The criteria EPA proposed in the NODA for the West Central region are based on data from a single stream segment (identified by Water Body Identification number or "WBID").The data from this WBID are in turn based on 3 WBID-yearsfor TN (out of a total population of 823 WBID-years) and 8 WBID-years for TP (out of a total data set of 933 WBIDyears)[10], taken from only 2 locations on a single WBID. Basing the criteria for an entire region of Florida -- covering almost 5,000 square miles, with more than 676 WBIDs and 12,788 WBID stations -- on this extremely limited data set from a single stream flatly contravenes EPA guidance and accepted statistical practice. EPA's use of a single WBID as the basis for regional nutrient criteria is inconsistent with EPA's own guidance in several respects. First, EPA guidance calls for classifying streams by stream type, trophic state or other criteria in order to account for morphological characteristics that affect nutrients in streams, before designating reference waters. These stream classes would account for the different characteristics of headwater streams, the extent to which streams meander or follow straight courses, the extent to which streams flow through wetlands, and differences in velocity, channelization, canopy and substrate.[11] The reference waters should be designated for each class of stream prior to establishing specific criteria for the region. However, EPA's benchmark approach fatally made no attempt to classify streams before establishing the population of reference waters. Second, EPA guidance calls for a minimum of three streams per class within an ecoregion.[12] EPA not only did not use three per class, it used a single stream for the entire region, in the case of the West Central region, without regard to recognized stream classes. EPA does not explain in the NODA or in its supporting documents why it believes broadly

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5322Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization setting regional criteria from a single stream would be appropriate, despite its obvious contravention of EPA's own governing guidance. Additionally, use of a single WBID to form the basis for an entire ecoregion violates general principles of statistics. Use of a single WBID limits the "inference space" of the EPA criteria for the West Central region. (Inference space is the extent to which the results for any given sample can apply to an entire population.) In order for non-sampled locations to be representative of the sampled locations, each non-sampled location must have been a viable alternate sampling location in the sampling design. Because EPA has radically limited the types of streams in its reference population and selected a stream that is not geologically representative of the region (see discussion below and in the attached Technical Support Document), it also limited the inference space of its proposed benchmark criteria to only those streams that completely share the same criteria as this one stream: i.e., small tributaries, characterized by slow-moving slough systems that are located in and downstream of moderately elevated natural phosphorus areas. To dramatize the point: the WBID selected by the EPA is a 3rd Order stream; however 95% of all streams in the West Central Region are 1st and 2nd Order streams that cannot be represented by the WBID selected.[13] The inference space does not include open large rivers with large watersheds, small tributaries with greater slopes or groundwater input than is typical of coastal sloughs, channelized systems or streams draining from or running through the high phosphorus geology that constitutes the majority of the West Central region. Additionally, EPA's proposal does not consider or account for the higher uncertainty associated with such a small sample size. Using such a small sample size, there is low probability of correctly estimating the 75th percentile of the region. For example, removing (or adding) just one sample from the population has a very large impact on the confidence of percentile estimates. (See attached TSD for further discussion of this issue.)
B. The WBID Selected by EPA Is Not Geologically Representative of the West Central Region The single WBID selected by EPA as the basis for establishing criteria in the West Central region is not representative of the broader geology of this region. EPA guidance explicitly calls for selecting and classifying reference streams that have "comparable characteristics."[14] These characteristics include the geology of the region.[15] EPA further acknowledged the importance of setting criteria based on the specific geology of each ecoregion in the proposed Rule, and even noted that the ecoregions were designated to account for "the geographic areas of the State . . . having phosphorus-rich soils and geology, such as the Bone Valley and the northern Suwannee River watershed." See 75 Fed. Reg. 4,174, 4,193 (January 26, 2010). However, EPA did not follow this guidance here. The sole West Central regional WBID EPA used (WBID 1978, located on Deer Prairie Creek) lies outside of the very phosphorus-rich regions of the West Central region that lead EPA to define it as a distinct region. The naturally-occurring high phosphorus regions of the West Central region of Florida have been mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey ("USGS") in a 2010 study. The USGS map indicates the areas of greatest bed-sediment phosphorus concentration, i.e., those exhibiting greater than 650 ppm.[16] Similarly, a map of regional geological patterns developed by the Florida Industry and Phosphate Research Council also identifies the high phosphorus-bearing areas of the state.[17] WBID 1978 lies significantly outside of the high phosphorus concentration areas on both maps. This data shows that the WBID selected by EPA to be the basis for setting criteria for the West Central region is not representative of the much larger area that is higher in natural phosphate concentration. In effect, EPA is selecting a single WBID representing 1,148 square miles of lower concentration phosphorus to set criteria for 2,454 square miles of higher concentration phosphorus. Based on EPA's own guidance on the need to select geologically representative streams as reference waters, this approach is technically invalid.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5323Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

EPA's decision to use a single, geologically unrepresentative WBID to set West Central regional criteria is made even more questionable by the fact that the Agency had other, readily available and more robust data demonstrating "benchmark" conditions in this region but did not use it. Mosaic provided such data in its April 23, 2010 comments. Studies conducted by Environmental Research and Design for FDEP in 2009 to support a proposed Florida Statewide Stormwater Rule analyzed runoff from 10 state parks to assess the biological conditions of natural runoff. The results, which included two sampling locations in the West Central region, indicated natural runoff levels of TN and TP higher than the criteria proposed in the original proposed Rule for numerous habitat categories. See Mosaic comments, page 25, and attachment 2 (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1217.2 and 1217.5). Similar results were reached in studies from 1978 and 1979, showing that water flows from native habitat in Mosaic's Pine Level Tract naturally contain TN levels higher than the proposed Rule. See id. at 26 and Attachment 3 (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1217.6). This data, which shows that higher nutrient levels are based on the natural geography of the region, is inexplicably neither referenced nor discussed in the NODA. The evidence for higher natural levels of nutrients in the West Central region is reinforced by groundwater data in the mining regions of the West Central region. Due to the shallow depth to the surficial aquifer in Florida, many streams are influenced by groundwater inputs from this aquifer. Thus, groundwater flowing through the West Central region would contribute to the overall concentrations of total phosphorus as the water flows through the phosphate-rich matrix. Groundwater in undisturbed mining areas does not contain concentrations of phosphorus resulting from mining or other residential or commercial activities, so it is a useful indicator of unimpacted surface water. Thus, data on groundwater flowing in the high phosphorus mining areas of the West Central region is a more robust and representative indicator of natural water quality levels in this area than is a single surface water WBID outside of this area. Total phosphorus data collected from seventeen surficial aquifer wells for 1 year in an undisturbed area of Hardee County show the geometric mean of this aquifer to be 0.91 mg/l. This data demonstrates that groundwater has total phosphorus levels higher than the levels for WBID 1978, higher than the levels prescribed in the proposed Rule for the Bone Valley, and more than twice as high as the levels prescribed for the West Central region in the NODA. (See Attached Analysis of Data on Groundwater from Pioneer Tract, 1978 and 1979). To reiterate, this data is representative of natural water conditions in the region; it is not in any way a measure of the level of nutrient concentrations that represents a risk to the biological health of a stream or that in any way impairs designated uses. In sum, EPA has set nutrient criteria for the West Central region using a single WBID from outside of the region's central phosphate areas, and has ignored other data showing higher natural nutrient levels. EPA need not rely solely on WBID 1978 to set criteria for the West Central region for the simple reason that EPA has more and better data which it can utilize. EPA should either revise its proposal to incorporate this additional data, or explain why its proposal to use a single WBID is more technically sound than deriving criteria from the broader available set of data. As it stands, EPA's approach lacks technical foundation and cannot be the basis for setting appropriate and protective levels. [10] A WBID- year is the average of all data from all stations and sampling events from a single WBID for one year. [11] Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams, U.S. E.P.A., Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, EPA-822-B-00-002, July 2000, Chapter 2. [12] Id. at 54, 95.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5324Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

[13] Stream order is a hierarchy for classifying streams based on their strength and position in a stream system. The smallest tributaries in a system are first order streams; the stream receiving the flow from a first order stream is a second order stream. Larger branches which receive only first and second order tributaries are third order. See http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html#S

. [14] Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual, Rivers and Streams, U.S. E.P.A., Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, EPA-822-B-00-002, July 2000 at xiii. [15] Id. [16] Terziotti, Silvia, Hoos, A.B., Harned, D.A., and Garcia, A.M., 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet. [17] Regional Study of Land Use Planning and Reclamation, Final Report, Prepared by the Central Florida Regional Planning Council, under grant from Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Publication No. 04-041-085, August 1990; page 4 (available at http://www1.fipr.state.fl.us/fipr/fipr1.nsf/129fc2ac92d337ca85256c5b00481502/24aef668235c8f0485256b2f0056bbaf!O penDocument). 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.008

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC E. EPA Needs to Defer West Central IPVs and Develop an Alternative Approach Based on a More Robust Data Set and Methodology. Because of its numerous technical flaws, EPA cannot reasonably rely on its proposed benchmark approach as a basis for setting nutrient criteria for the West Central region. EPA should develop a more technically sound methodology, and should integrate more and better data as the bases for criteria in the West Central region. To do so, EPA should defer setting criteria for the West Central region until it can develop a credible methodology and make its underlying analysis fully available for stakeholder review and comment. Mosaic specifically proposes that EPA defer setting these criteria until the second phase of this rulemaking. A one year delay is not unreasonable, in light of the 20-plus year history of state and federal efforts to establish nutrient criteria in Florida. Moreover, EPA has already deferred portions of this rulemaking addressing streams and flowing waters for South Florida and coastal and estuary DPVs, based on public comment and the need for more rigorous scientific review of its underlying proposals. EPA's proposed IPVs for the West Central region similarly require greater technical development and review before they can be credibly proposed and promulgated. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.013

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5325Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC The data set provided in the docket for the development of the new IPVs did not include the detailed information necessary to determine how specific values for West Central region were derived. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.017

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC The absence of a technically viable approach to setting numeric nutrient criteria in the West Central region, as evinced in the proposed benchmark approach -- especially when EPA has available more and better quality data than the single unrepresentative WBID on which it based West Central regional criteria -- demands that EPA pause and rethink its haste under a negotiated settlement deadline. 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.002

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC EPA's revised benchmark stream proposal is not sufficiently robust or scientifically defensible to derive accurate and protective nutrient criteria for Florida streams. This is especially true for the West Central (formerly termed "Bone Valley") Nutrient Watershed Region, where apparently only one benchmark stream was used to represent the entire region. 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.006

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC The use of a single stream WBID for deriving nutrient criteria for the West Central region does not follow EPA's recommendations for implementing the reference condition approach. Chapters 4 and 7 of the EPA Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 2000a) provide guidance on implementing the reference approach to setting criteria, stating at least three minimally impaired reference systems should be identified for each stream class (pg. 54 and 95). This is supported in a case study presented by EPA in Appendix A of the Technical Guidance Manual describing efforts to derive numeric nutrient criteria in Tennessee using the reference stream approach and stating the minimum requirement is three reference streams per sub-ecoregion (EPA 2000a, pg. A-4). Thus, EPA has recognized the need to include multiple reference streams per stream class in order to set defensible criteria; however the benchmark distribution methodology

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5326Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization proposed for Florida does not reflect this. Using a single reference stream to represent not only multiple classes of streams but all streams in a region is not supported by EPA's technical guidance documents and results in criteria for the West Central region that are not scientifically defensible. Compared to other Nutrient Watershed Regions, the West Central benchmark stream sample size used for the proposed criteria is extremely small (Figure 2, Table 1). For the West Central region total nitrogen criteria, only three numbers (WBID-years as explained in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) were used to determine criteria, out of the 823 values available in the unfiltered dataset. For total phosphorus, the number of WBID-years used was eight, still only 1 percent of the 933 available for the region. In contrast, for other regions of similar total land area (North Central and Panhandle East), EPA used between 10 percent and 15 percent of the available data from the benchmark dataset, despite having hundreds fewer WBID-years available in the unfiltered dataset (400-600 versus 800-900 in the West Central region). In addition to the very small sample size chosen by EPA for the West Central region, the single benchmark stream that was chosen is not geologically representative. The primary reason that the West Central region was delineated as separate from the rest of peninsular Florida by FDEP and EPA is that the geology of the area is characterized by high concentrations of ore-grade phosphorus deposits. Therefore, natural surface water concentrations of phosphorus in the West Central region, as well as in the high phosphorus North Central and Panhandle East regions, should generally be higher than in the Peninsula region. However, the one benchmark site chosen for the West Central region by EPA is not representative of the predominate geology of the region, as shown by a recent report from the USGS (Terziotti et al. 2010). The objective of the USGS study was to provide estimates of contributions of phosphate from erosion of naturally occurring phosphate in sediment. As part of the study, they produced a map of average phosphorus concentrations in streambed sediments (Figure 3) based on sediment concentrations collected at minimally disturbed sites over a time period of 30 years (Figure 4). As seen in Figure 4, the West Central region was well represented in the USGS study, and Figure 3 shows that the majority of the West Central region is characterized by very high average sediment phosphorus concentrations (>650 ppm). However, Deer Prairie Creek, the one benchmark WBID chosen by EPA, is not geologically representative of the region, as it falls outside of that high phosphorus area (Figure 3). Any proposed criteria based on a single stream that lies in an area with significantly less potential sediment phosphorus contributions will result in a number that significantly underestimates the true natural concentration of phosphorus in the region's surface waters. In addition, EPA has proposed the same phosphorus criterion for both the West Central region and the North Central Region, which has more reference sites identified. However, the West Central region has proportionally more area with very high bed sediment phosphorus concentrations than the North Central Region (Figure 5) and should accordingly be presumed to have higher total phosphorus criteria. This provides more evidence that the currently proposed EPA benchmark nutrient criteria for the West Central region are inappropriate and should not be used for regulatory purposes. Original Comment Letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Benchmark Stream Total Dataset and Selected Stations. See original comment letter. Original Comment Letter contains additional information in Table 1. Summary of Dataset Used for EPA's proposed Benchmark Numeric Nutrient Criteria. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5327Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Original Comment Letter contains additional information in Figure 3. Benchmark Stream Selected Stations and USGS Mean Value of Bed-Sentiment Phosphorus Concentrations. See original comment letter.Original Comment Letter contains additional information in Figure 4. Locations of stream sites sampled for bedsediment phosphorus concentrations in the southeastern United States (adapted from Terziotti et al. 2010). See original comment letter. Original Comment Letter contains additional information in Figure 5. Percent of EPA Florida Nutrient Watershed Regions in Each Class of USGS Estimates of Sediment Phosphorus Concentrations (Terziotti et al. 2010). See original comment letter. In addition to the benchmark stream approach not identifying geologically or morphologically representative sites for the West Central region, using only one site to represent almost 5000 sq mi of area is not supported by general statistical principles. The use of a single stream severely limits the inference space of the EPA criteria for the West Central region. Inference space is defined as "the populations from which samples were drawn and the population to which the results of a study apply" (Willis et al. 2009). The concept of inference space in statistics governs how broadly the results from a particular sample can apply to a larger group. In order for non-sampled locations to be considered covered by the inference of the sample, each location must have been a viable alternate sampling location in the sampling design. Inference space has been brought up in the past during peer review of other EPA studies, such as the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2007) review of EPA studies evaluating the impacts of wood surface coatings. In the minutes of the panel's review of EPA's study, reviewers question that the sampling design, including the number and location of samples, was adequate to meet EPA's stated objective to apply the results of that particular study to all wood treated by the chemical in question, and they caution EPA in its use of broad statements that seem to apply a limited inference space to a broader population. The inference space of the EPA benchmark approach to numeric nutrient criteria was intentionally limited to the following types of streams to attempt to represent natural biological conditions:

1. "Least-disturbed" streams with a Land Development Index score of less than two in the corridor and less than 3 in the watershed. 2. Streams that are not listed as impaired for dissolved oxygen or nutrients. 3. Streams with healthy macroinvertebrate communities according to the FDEP SCI. 4. Streams with average nitrate-nitrite concentrations of less than 0.35 mg/L. 5. Streams without known significant anthropogenic influence according to "best professional judgment." In the West Central region, however, these intentional limitations (especially LDI and "best professional judgment") put on the available dataset have resulted in only one stream being selected to represent the whole region. In EPA's benchmark approach, streams in the most geologically representative area of the West Central region were effectively not considered as sampling locations because of a predominant landuse in the region (mining), and therefore are not within the inference of the selected benchmark stream. This severely limits the potential inference of the benchmark method in the West Central region to only be applicable to small tributaries characterized by slow-moving slough systems (wetlands) that are located in and downstream of moderately elevated natural phosphorus areas (on the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5328Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization outside of the previously identified areas of highest concentrations of phosphorus in the West Central region). The inference space would not include the following types of streams: open large rivers with large watersheds, small tributaries with greater slopes or groundwater input than is typical of a coastal slough, channelized systems, streams within or draining from the high phosphorus area that is the majority of the West Central region, etc. In addition to limiting the inference space over which the West Central region benchmark criteria could be applied, the use of such a small sample size to estimate a 75th percentile and nutrient criteria does not consider the higher uncertainty associated with that estimate in the West Central region. EPA chose the 75th rather than the 90th percentile to be more conservative because of a smaller sample size, but the numbers that resulted from this analysis have little certainty in either direction, making the benchmark approach inappropriate for this region. With such a small sample size (3-8 WBID-years), the probability of correctly estimating the 75th percentile of the region (or of even just one site) is very low. To investigate the effects of small sample size on the uncertainty of properly characterizing the distribution of the underlying data set, we resampled the data used by EPA for each region in its benchmark approach (Resampling Stats TM for Excel, statistics.com , 2010). For each region, we randomly resampled the distribution of datapoints with replacement, omitting around 10% of the WBID-years for each of 100 trials (1 to 7 WBID-years depending on region sample size). The 100 trials were used to calculate 95% confidence intervals around the estimate of the lognormal 75th and 90th percentiles of each region (similar to EPA's calculations). Figures 6 and 7 show the relative uncertainty in the 75th and 90th percentile estimates for each of the five Nutrient Watershed Regions. In sum, removing just one sample from the West Central region distribution makes a very large difference in the confidence of the percentile estimates, leaving substantial doubts as to the accuracy of this methodology. Original Comment Letter contains additional information in Figure 6. 95 percent Confidence Intervals (Resampling Stats TM for Excel) of the 75th Percentile Estimates of Total Phosphorus Values for each Nutrient Watershed Region from EPA's Benchmark Stream Dataset. See original comment letter. Original Comment Letter contains additional information in Figure 7. 95 percent Confidence Intervals (Resampling Stats TM for Excel) of the 90th Percentile Estimates of Total Phosphorus Values for each Nutrient Watershed Region from EPA's Benchmark Stream Dataset. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2497-3.001.001

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Historically, surface water and groundwater data are collected in areas of the West Central region prior to mining activities as part of establishing baseline conditions and completing mining permit applications. As such, P.E. LaMoreaux & Associates compiled the Hydrologic Monitoring Program Farmland Industries Property, Hardee County in April 1979 and April 1980. This data included groundwater monitoring data for Farmland Industries (Farmland) Pioneer Tract, a tract of property that remains unmined today. Data from this report was used for consumptive use permit applications as well as for pre-mining permit applications and included total phosphorus data from 17 surficial, 1 intermediate, and 1 floridan aquifer wells.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5329Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

A review of the surficial aquifer data show that naturally occurring total phosphorus levels in the groundwater fluctuate between a minimum of 0.01 mg/L to a maximum of 5.2 mg/L, excluding data anomalies. The geometric mean of the data is 0.91 mg/L, a value well above the total phosphorus concentrations proposed by EPA in January 2010 as well as in the August 2010 NODA. Groundwater in the surficial aquifer system is unconfined and subject to water table fluctuations based on rainfall. Most of the water that enters the system through recharge areas moves quickly along short flow paths and discharges as base flow to streams.[1] Groundwater flowing through the phosphate rich areas of the West Central region can contribute to base flow conditions in streams thus contributing to overall concentrations of total phosphorus discharged by the stream. Groundwater data collected from the Pioneer Tract represent an undisturbed mining area. Groundwater in undisturbed mining areas does not contain concentrations of phosphorus resulting from mining or other residential or commercial activities, so it is a useful indicator of unimpacted water. Data for groundwater flowing in the high phosphorus mining areas of the West Central region is a robust and representative indicator for natural water quality levels in this area for both surficial aquifer groundwater as well as surface water flow. Original comment letter contains additional information in form of untitled map. See original comment letter. [1] Groundwater Atlas of the United States, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Surficial Aquifer System, HA 730-G, USGS Website address: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/G-text2.html 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.009

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection B. Delineation of the West Central Region EPA inappropriately modified the boundaries of the West Central (Bone Valley) TP region that were originally proposed by FDEP. EPA moved the boundary of the West Central region, an area of naturally very high phosphorus, to include portions of stream drainage areas that are outside of the Hawthorne Formation and that would be expected to have significantly lower natural TP concentrations than streams that actually drain the Bone Valley Hawthorne Formation. The decision to move the boundary to include streams with naturally lower TP could result in under-protective criteria for those streams if it were not for the fact that values above reference-based criteria have not been linked to impairment in Florida streams. It is our understanding that EPA made this change so that all portions of a watershed were in the same nutrient region, however we do not believe it is appropriate to do so given that the geology is different in portions of the watershed. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.003

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5330Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Summary of Major Issues Addressed On April 27, 2010, CF provided substantial comments to EPA on the Agency's notice of proposed rulemaking, Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, published January 26, 2010. Today, CF is raising a number of important issues for EPA's consideration in response to the request for public comment concerning the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability (NODA), published on August 3, 2010.

1. The revised Bone Valley/West Central nutrient watershed region is inadequate to properly capture all phosphorousrich waters associated with Central Florida Phosphate Region. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.010

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Proposed Alternative Nutrient Regions EPA has proposed a new West Central Region in lieu of the Bone Valley Region previously presented in the draft rule as published in January 2010. The latest iteration of EPA's nutrient region intended to encompass naturally phosphorous-rich waters appears to rely upon stratigraphy alone without a scientific understanding of the gochemcial and sediment transport influence of phosphate deposits beyond stratigraphic lines. The influence of phosphate deposits in the region, whether delineated as the Bone Valley, the Southern Extension, or combined phosphorous bearing units of the Hawthorne Group goes well beyond any line drawn on a stratigraphic chart. Accordingly, EPA's revised boundary is inadequate and fails to capture significant portions of the phosphate rich central Florida region. Flora and fauna in phosphate rich waters, even if those waters flow from but are not located in the Hawthorne Group, have nonetheless developed and flourished in a nutrient rich environment. It is arbitrary at best to assign such waters to the Peninsula Region and ignore the fact that healthy and desirable biological communities exist in waters high in total phosphorus that are not necessarily cleanly within the confines of a geologic formation or map delineation.[1] There appears to be some public uncertainty as to what comprises the Bone Valley region and where to draw the line as to the scope and reach of unconsolidated clastic phosphate deposits in west central Florida. DEP developed its own Bone Valley nutrient region and objected to that proposed by EPA in its January rule as too broad. At the same time, the Southwest Florida Water Management District submitted comments in response to the proposed rule suggesting that EPA's concept of what constitutes the Bone Valley was too restrictive.[2] SWFWMD properly notes that the nutrient region influenced by the Bone Valley should include waters flowing out of the Bone Valley because "the contributing areas delivering water to receiving bodies will have elevated TP levels." The District's position is consistent with that of CF noted above. A recent publication by the USGS confirms that a significant portion of the State of Florida, and particularly west central Florida, has naturally high bed sediment phosphorus that directly affects ambient total

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5331Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization phosphorus concentrations in surface waters.[3] A fair reading of the USGS publication suggests that the influence of these phosphate deposits is widespread and not subject to precise stratigraphic confinement. In sum, CF does not believe that the August 3rd supplemental notice of data availability properly captures the total area influenced by elevated phosphorus concentrations in west central Florida and that the proposed West Central Florida nutrient region--and the scope of its influence upon water quality--must be correctly defined.

[1] One effect of revising the proposed Bone Valley Region to the proposed West Central Region in developing regional nutrient criteria is to shift the Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor watersheds from the Bone Valley Region to the Peninsula Region, even though these watersheds are known to be directly influenced by phosphorus rich sediments and waters originating in the Bone Valley and Southern Extension. [2] Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1836. [3] Mapping Watershed Potential to Contribute Phosphorus from Geologic Materials to Receiving Streams, Southeastern United States. Terziotti, Silvia, Hoos. A. B., Harned, D.A., and Garcia, A. M., 2010, U. S. Department of Interior, U. S. Geological Survey. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.013

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Insufficient Data to Establish Bone Valley/West Central Region Nutrient Criteria As noted, EPA excluded waters that did not "attain" Florida's default dissolved oxygen criterion although DEP had clearly demonstrated that the depressed DO in the benchmark waters was naturally occurring and not related to "elevated" nutrient concentrations. In short, EPA presumes a cause-and-effect relationship between low dissolved oxygen and some arbitrary level of TP or TN that EPA considers elevated notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. The result of EPA's policy over science approach was to eliminate all but one sampling station in one reference water from the Bone Valley/West Central Florida nutrient region. EPA cannot legitimately assert that this one reference water, and the limited data therefrom, provides a sufficient scientific basis to establish numeric nutrient criteria applicable across the entire Bone Valley/West Central Florida nutrient region. EPA compounds this error by applying the 75th percentile--in lieu of the 90th percentile under consideration in other nutrient regions--because of a lack of data! Again, the fact that EPA's own numbers vary by over 50% from January to August of 2010 confirms that EPA does not have the data or a sound methodology for establishing numeric nutrient criteria for the Bone Valley/West Central Florida nutrient region. Like the South Florida canals, the Bone Valley waters must be taken off the fast track for finalization in October of this year. EPA simply does not have sufficient information to support any version of its proposed criteria for the phosphorus rich Bone Valley. EPA has again failed to adhere to its own guidance in proposing the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters as published in its Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5332Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization Aquatic Organisms and their Uses, PB85-227049. EPA's 1985 guidance counsels: Criteria should attempt to provide a reasonable and adequate amount of protection with only a small possibility of considerable overprotection or underprotection. It is not enough that a national criterion be the best estimate that can be obtained using available data; it is equally important that a criterion be derived only if adequate appropriate data are available to provide reasonable confidence that it is a good estimate. Therefore, these National Guidelines specify certain data should be available if a numerical criterion is to be derived. If all the required data are not available, usually a criterion should not be derived. On the other hand, the availability of all required data does not ensure that a criterion can be derived. As noted above, a number of policy decision have resulted in EPA culling out all but one stream in the Bone Valley from which EPA has attempted to derive region-wide numeric nutrient criteria. EPA's guidance makes very clear that if the requisite data are not available, a numeric criterion cannot be derived; and even if all necessary data are available, that condition does not guarantee that a numeric criterion can be derived. This is exactly the situation faced by EPA is this instance. There simply is no way to derive numeric nutrient criteria for the Bone Valley/West Central Florida region with the data available.[10] As noted by EPA: "Rather than try to reinterpret a criterion that is neither useful or valid, it is better to develop a more appropriate way of stating criteria."[11] (Emphasis added). Interpreting Florida's narrative criterion for the Bone Valley cannot be done on a regional basis and certainly not based upon stratigraphic features. Conditions unique to this phosphate rich portion of the State mandate that numeric endpoints for nitrogen and phosphorus be developed waterbody by waterbody.

[10] EPA also notes: "Criteria must be used in a manner that is consistent with the way in which they were derived if the intended level of protection is to be provided in the real world." "A statement of a criterion as a number that is not to be exceeded at any time or place is not acceptable because few, if any, people who use criteria would take it literally and few, if any, toxicologists would defend a literal interpretation." [11] Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and their Uses, PB85-227049 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.037

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 2.0 REFERENCE APPROACHES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR SCIENTIFICALLY DEFENSIBLE IN THE BONE VALLEY The West-Central Florida nutrient watershed region (WCF-NWR), an area defined by its water-quality associations with the phosphatic geology of a region often called the "Bone Valley," has a history of such widespread alterations that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5333Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization have affected or are likely to have affected nutrient water quality concentrations and dynamics to such a degree that the use of reference stream approaches, certainly as proposed by EPA, is so highly confounded as to be impractical or even impossible to meaningfully apply. Due to the widespread nature of human alterations, this NWR requires more careful consideration of the identification of water quality needs and goals, hierarchical classification of rivers and streams first by type and then by trophic status, selection of variables for monitoring nutrients, design of a sampling program tailored to the streams and rivers of this region, and implementation of data collection and analyses before setting criteria (see EPA 2000 for more detail concerning each of these steps). These steps are requisite for all regions, but must be carefully followed in the West Central region because natural steam corridors or systems lacking the potential for significant alterations in their nutrient regimes are largely absent, especially in what were likely to have been the two rivers and tributaries with the highest natural loads -- the Peace and Alafia systems. The bed of much of the Peace River and portions of other nearby streams were placer mined starting in 1888, with as many as 23 companies operating between Bartow and Arcadia removing about 100,000 tons of phosphate pebble and gravel a year (Hoyer Millar 1892, Schrader 1891). This process lasted for nearly a decade (BCI 2009). The upper river's planform has been changed from a multi-threaded system to a single channel to promote navigation via a combination of this dredging and due to sustained desnagging efforts during the 1970s through the present (BCI 2009). The Peace and Alafia Rivers have lost many of their tributaries to early mining practices engaged prior to passage of wetland protections and the Clean Water Act. It is impossible to know exactly how high natural nutrient concentrations were in these two river corridors based solely on existing nutrient concentrations and on some of their most phosphate rich tributaries, because they no longer exist in anything approaching their natural condition. The most heavily mined parts of the West Central phosphatic region exist mainly in association with the Peace River and Alafia River corridors. The reason these areas were mined first and foremost was because they had the highest concentrations of shallow, nutrient-rich ore that were eroded over thousands of years from ore bearing strata in the watershed and transported downstream and distributed throughout the associated riverine sediments. This means that the remaining reasonably intact and un-mined streams in EPA's proposed West Central and Bone Valley NWRs are generally restricted to the fringes around this Alafia and Peace River valley core and are likely to have lower in-stream nutrient concentrations than the streams that were directly affected by historic mining. Some evidence for this exists. Odum (1953) reported dissolved P concentrations generally 3 to 10 times higher for the Peace River, Payne Creek, and Alafia Rivers versus those of more peripheral areas of the mineralized region such as Horse Creek, Charlie Creek, Myakka River, Little Manatee River, Manatee River, and Hillsborough River. While the Peace and Alafia had already been affected by mining activities at that time, Payne Creek was largely unaffected and had a reported dissolved P concentration of 2.2 ppm. The mean value of TP for streams in the phosphate district of Florida was determined by Odum to be 0.878 ppm (n = 18). Odum also reported that 10 streams consisting of "small, humic watered creeks, draining phosphatic formations, no pollution, generally acid" had a mean P concentration of 0.413 with a range of 0.141 to 1.5 ppm. This small data set suggests that naturally occurring P levels existed at least as high as 1.5 mg/L even in small, short, poorly entrenched streams in the core of the region prior to mining and agricultural impacts suggesting that very high P levels were not confined only to the major rivers. Larger, more incised channels, like Payne Creek, could have naturally reached even higher values (in excess of 2 mg/L). It seems arbitrary to set standards in this region based mainly on statistically-derived reference approaches based on reference or benchmark sites on the periphery of the region under the assumption that they typify the full range of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5334Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

natural and desirable conditions. Also, we again note that EPA managed to include only a single site for use in the benchmark streams approach from within the WCF-NWR and find this scientifically and mathematically invalid. Moreover, that site, Deer Prairie Creek, is located in the Myakka River watershed and is clearly outside of the core of the highest phosphate concentration zones.

2.1 Suggested Alternative Because the region lacks unaltered streams in what was once the highest phosphorus-bearing valleys of the region, Steps 1 and 2 in EPA (2000) must be more carefully considered in order to establish meaningful goals for the proper development of NNC to provide anti-degradation and restoration standards for the streams of the West Central NWR. Once these objectives are set, then a plan of study to more prudently engage Steps 3 through 6 can be developed and implemented. This should be accomplished in a manner that heavily emphasizes the use of predictive relationships and nutrient/algal thresholds for setting NNC as discussed for Step 7 (EPA 2000). Gore, et al (2006) recommended using the SWAT and PHABSIM models to try to improve understanding of pre-disturbance water quality, hydrology and fish habitat conditions for the Peace River under two different hydrologic phases related to natural 30-year wet and dry cycles. It would seem difficult to impossible to set meaningful NNC for that valley without engaging in goal setting and modeling. Until this is done, setting NNC in this region as proposed cannot be justified based solely on statistical analysis of a small subset of the existing and historic stream conditions in this unique, highly altered region.



# Comment ID 2504-2.001.002

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District However, the new boundaries depicted for the original Bone Valley region (now called West Central) need further review and modifications. We support the recommendations of the local watershed experts (the Southwest Florida Water Management District, SWFWMD) for the more appropriate boundary for this region (see Moore, D. [SWFWMD] letter to EPA Water Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596D, August 31, 2010). 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2503-1.001.037, 2497-1.001.013, 2488-1.001.008, 2497-1.001.002, 2497-1.001.006, 2497-1.001.008, 2497­ 1.001.017, 2497-2.001.002, 2497-2.001.006, 2503-1.001.013 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. The first sets of comments related to reference site selection. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5335Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the 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. Moreover, 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. EPA considers the Reference Approach and the process by which the criteria described in final rule to be replicable; EPA has replicated its criteria using the methods described in the final rule TSD several times to confirm this. Another comment suggested that the change in nitrogen criteria as a result of changing reference criteria was evidence of the arbitrary nature. EPA disagrees with this assertion because, as stated in the proposed rule, final rule TSD, and Supplemental Notice, there are multiple ways to select reference populations and each will affect the resulting numbers. This is a function of sample size among other factors. Some change in values was expected, but the outcome value was not the basis for the Reference Approach selection. Rather, the use of the most defensible set of reference site selection criteria was. A last comment suggested that the long history of human disturbance in the West Central makes any reference site process there arbitrary. 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 proposed and final 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. As a result, the process is meant to identify sites with the least disturbance, even in a landscape as altered as the West Central. The confidence in the extent to which the final reference population generated reflects that which supports designated uses informs the selection of an appropriate percentile. EPA agrees with the commenter that the West Central has undergone substantial disturbance. As a result, 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. 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. 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 2-5336Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. EPA considered these and other comments. 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. EPA agrees that 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 is isolation for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites for the SCI approach in the West Central, and for the benchmark approach, applied in the final rule and described in the Supplemental Notice for all regions outside the West Central, a suite of screens was used including corridor land use, watershed land used, nitrate concentrations, aerial photography analysis, and site level investigation as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. Other comments argued that the sample size was insufficient to develop stream criteria, particularly for small and intermittent headwater streams. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA is developing criteria to apply to Class I and III waters, reflected by the population of Class I and III waters that the State of Florida has sampled, presumably as a basis of their monitoring and characterization of the population of sites they consider reflective of that Class. If there is evidence of substantial difference in the function and, therefore, use of small or intermittent streams, then that difference could and possibly should be directed to the process of use classification. Also, the final rule provides flexibility for 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 for a specific waterbody. . 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 wants to confirm that low DO in and of itself was not the basis for removal of a site. Rather, sites listed for DO impairment were the basis for the DO screen, independent of biological condition. 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. EPA received comments on other screens. Some commenters questioned the application of the LDI. Some suggested the watershed should have been considered instead of just the corridor. EPA considered these comments and agrees and applied a watershed-based LDI as well, where available, as detailed in the screening process for the final rule and detailed in the final rule TSD. Still others argued that the watershed LDI was redundant with the corridor LDI. EPA considered this and other comments and disagrees, as it is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5337Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
well demonstrated that a variety of land uses contribute nutrients to streams through flowpaths that either move under (groundwater) or through (stormwater conveyances) riparian corridors with little or no effect of riparian condition on nutrient mitigation. For this reason is keeping the watershed LDI screen in the benchmark approach for the final rule. Other commenters disagree with the use of a different LDI screening value for the watershed (LDI = 3) than the corridor (LDI = 2). EPA considered this and disagrees detailed in the proposed rule TSD that the watershed LDI value of 3 was correlated with a corridor LDI value of 2, which explains the selection of the watershed LDI value of 3. EPA also notes that this value is not associated with appreciable additional expected disturbance according to the LDI factor table outlined in Brown and Vivas 2005. For this reason, EPA has kept the two distinct LDI values for use in the respective screens for the Benchmark approach in the final rule. Other criticized the use of the BPJ screen, arguing that it was poorly documented and arbitrary. EPA disagrees and refers the commenter to the proposed rule TSD, final preamble, and final rule TSD where the process for evaluating the elements that compose the BPJ score are detailed and supported. EPA is keeping the BPJ screen in the final rule benchmark approach process. Others argued that the assumption that the absence of a BPJ score presumed impact. EPA disagrees with this comment and believes the BPJ screen was an important element and took the precautionary step with this screen of presuming that the absence of a value should not be assumed to indicate acceptable conditions, which has been extended to the final rule screening process as well. For the final rule, EPA assumed the same with the LDI corridor < 2 score as well. In addition, for the final rule, CWA section 303(d) screens were applied universally and “NA” values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the nitrate, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation. Therefore only values = 1 for these screens were excluded. EPA received comments that the survey of aerial photographs may have missed some stressors. EPA agrees that this may have happened, but because this screen was combined with the number of screens being applied, including corridor and watershed LDI values based on automated satellite imagery interpretation, this is unlikely. Even so, the possibility of this effect argues for the use of a margin of error associated with percentile selection to allow that some truly nutrient impacted sites may enter the final reference population. For this reason, EPA is applying the 90th percentile of the benchmark population WBID average nutrient concentrations for regions outside the West Central for the final rule. Similarly, EPA received comments that the use of field verification of a random selection of benchmark candidate sites was inappropriate. EPA disagrees. The same commenter supported the BPJ screens and this random survey was one component of the BPJ process along with many other components that informed the BPJ screening score including the survey of aerial photos and regional scientist site knowledge. For this reason, EPA is keeping that component of the approach for the final rule. EPA received comments that the nitrate value used was alternatively too high or too low, depending on the commenter. EPA disagrees. EPA selected this value (0.35 mg/L) as a screen because it had been shown to be associated with impacts to flowing water systems in Florida associated with springs and had been applied by FDEP as an indication of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment. Other commenters suggested that the use of a nitrate concentration automatically skewed the nitrogen values. EPA acknowledges that the use of such a screen might skew the nitrogen distribution, but notes that this is not likely because this screen could not be applied to all sites due to missing data, that nitrate often composed a small portion of the nitrogen pool, that this screen was used as much as an indication of anthropogenic disturbance given natural nitrate concentrations, and that this concentration had already been demonstrated as detrimental to some Florida flowing water systems. EPA is, therefore, keeping this value of nitrate in as a screen for the final rule and this is further elaborated in the final rule TSD. Other commenters suggested that an SCI screening value was inappropriate since it had not been shown to be linked to nutrients. EPA disagrees and has demonstrated in several documents including the final rule TSD that the SCI does actually show a significant relationship to nutrients, albeit imprecise. EPA also documented in detail the selection of the value of 40. In addition,EPA has used this screen not only for its linkage to nutrients but also because it helps define an acceptable population of least11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5338Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
disturbed sites as those with healthy biological condition. Average WBID SCI values less than 40 would indicate potentially compromised environmental conditions that would preclude the use of such a WBID as a least-disturbed environmental site supportive of designated uses. For these reasons, EPA is retaining the use of the SCI as a screen in both the benchmark and SCI approaches for the final rule, which is detailed in the final rule TSD. Finally, under the theme of reference site selection, EPA received comments that supported the use of the benchmark approach combined with biological screening. EPA agrees and for the final rule is applying the benchmark approach with SCI screens and 303(d) screening steps added to further strengthen the defensibility of the resultant population as least-disturbed. EPA was not able to apply the benchmark screening method in the West Central because there were too few available WBIDs that passed the benchmark screens to estimate any percentile reliably. As a result, EPA used the SCI/303(d) screening approach described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBID-averages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used in the SCI approach used in the West Central. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. See the final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received other comments again supporting the benchmark approach but with minimum observations for each average. EPA disagrees that a minimum number of observations is necessary to estimate annual WBID averages to derive the criteria. The basis for this is that EPA considered distributions composed of annual averages computed from a minimum of 4 samples and from all available samples, and determined that some additional imprecision was introduced in the estimates of annual averages, in particular WBIDs with fewer than samples. However, by including all samples, more WBIDs were included in the reference distribution, which increased EPA's confidence in estimates of the 90th percentiles of the benchmark distributions. Hence, additional imprecision in averages computed for individual WBIDs was outweighed by increased confidence in the entire benchmark distribution. The development of the WBID-average is discussed in detail in the final rule TSD. EPA defers to FDEP for defining appropriate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that estimate annual average nutrient concentrations accurately enough for compliance monitoring. 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, including the use of chlorophyll response variables, 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 2-5339Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. 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 and EPA supports the application of stressor-response models for developing SSAC where adequate site-specific chl-a data are available. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The next theme in comments that EPA received relevant to the Reference Reach Approach was the insufficiency of data both for developing West Central criteria and for calculating EPA’s benchmark criteria. For the final rule, EPA decided to use the benchmark screening approach to identify least-disturbed streams and select the 90th percentile of WBID-averages from each NWR except the West Central. In the West Central, EPA agrees with comments that one WBID was insufficient to derive criteria for the West Central using the benchmark screening approach. As a result, and as supported by several comments, EPA used theSCI/303(d) screening method described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBIDaverages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach for the West Central, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used there. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially with the long history of human disturbance in the West Central, as noted by several commenters. As a result, EPA used the 75th percentile instead of the 90th of WBID-average nutrient concentrations for deriving nutrient criteria in the West Central for the final rule. EPA received a recommendation for the West Central to recalculate criteria there using the LDI, chl-a and diel DO data, and EPA notes that such data are not available for deriving regional criteria and disagrees that such an approach would provide more defensible criteria. With regards to comments that insufficient data or information were provided to replicate the benchmark values, EPA disagrees and points out that the Agency provided all the data to derive the values included in the Supplemental Notice along with detailed notes on how to do that, and also internally verified that the criteria published in the Supplemental Notice could be calculated using the description and data provided. However, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that make it even easier still for the public to replicate final values from the raw data provided. One commenter questioned why some sites in the “allstr00” file were not in the “sites01.final” file. All sites from the “allstr00” file for which EPA had coordinates, WBID, and region information were included in the “sites01.final” file. The same commenter asked what to do with NA values. The instructions indicated which rules are used for exclusion. Section 303(d) screens were applied universally and NA values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the NOx, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation, and so these screens were principally used to discard these impacts where they were known to exist. Similarly, the commenter questioned how to create a WBID-year label, but the process for creating a WBID-year label was explained in the instructions. Also, the same commenter claimed the nutrient regions were not available. That information was included in the “sites01.final’ file. Lastly, the same commenter asked how to remove WBID with fewer than 4 observations which was described and is a standard operation in any spreadsheet software. Again, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that may make it even easier for concerned parties to replicate final values from the raw data provided. The last theme relative to the Reference Approach relates to how criteria were determined. The first comment along this line argued

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5340Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
that overlap between the benchmark and all-site populations argues against the use of a percentile of the benchmark as protective. EPA disagrees with this comment. Overlap may indicate that the all sites population is in better condition than expected and/or it may also indicate that the benchmark population contains more disturbance than expected. Similarly, the comment recommended using an extreme percentile (99.9th %) of all sites to avoid listing “pristine” sites. There is a supposition that this selection process is identifying “pristine” sites and this is not the case. EPA has not made that assertion. This process identifies least-disturbed sites, but sites that still contain disturbance. It is, therefore, logical that the benchmark and all-sites populations overlap. Indeed, it is possible that screens that remove certain sites based on precautionary selection may exclude streams that indeed do not manifest elevated nutrient concentrations. The process is meant to be protective in its selection of most likely least-disturbed sites that support designated uses. But it is possible that the selection process will not remove sites truly impaired by nutrients. The concern over this possibility is the basis for the percentile selected and is a function of EPA’s confidence in the screening process, which is higher for the benchmark approach than the SCI approach, thus the use of the 75th percentile in the West Central based on the SCI approach and the 90th percentile everywhere else using the benchmark approach. EPA also received comments that the 75th percentile was unjustified for use in the West Central. As described above, the 75th percentile was justified in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach; screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used for example. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. Lastly, EPA received comments that fluctuation in the proposed criteria for the West Central is evidence of policy and not science being used to select the criteria. EPA disagrees with this comment. The fluctuations in candidate criteria values is due to changes in selection of the most defensible population of values to use in this region, exacerbated by sample size issues. Given the disturbance in this region, only a small number of appropriate sites were available to use. EPA has calculated percentiles using estimates of central tendency and variance. The central limit theorem of statistics indicates that the estimation of these parameters becomes more precise as sample size increases. Therefore, changes to small sample sizes are expected to have larger effects on the percentile estimates than changes in larger sample sizes. It is for this reason that EPA decided to use the largest population of defensible reference sites possible for the West Central - the SCI-based population. In addition, it is known that more disturbed landscapes present more variable water chemical conditions (e.g., Peters et al. 1997), so again it is not surprising that the West Central should exhibit more variability given the long history of disturbance in that region, as observed by several commenters.

Comment IDs: 2446-1.001.007, 2455-1.001.002, 2457-2.001.002, 2471-1.001.002, 2472-1.001.002, 2473-1.001.002, 2474­ 1.001.002, 2476-1.001.002, 2479-1.001.002, 2482-1.001.002, 2482-3.001.001, 2482.001.002, 2504-2.001.002, 2497-3.001.001, 2498-2.001.009, 2503-1.001.003, 2503-1.001.010 Response: This set of comments concerns EPA’s classification effort and the revision to the proposed NWR to split the Panhandle into West and East Regions and restrict the size of the West Central. EPA received mostly support for splitting the Panhandle and many comments concerned about the restriction in the size of the West Central and in classification in general. The first set of comments addressed the lack of consideration for more site-specific, especially physical, factors in classifying

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5341Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
streams, and commenters cited recent papers indicating more geomorphic bases for classifying streams in Florida (e.g., functional process zones) that yield more classes. EPA agrees that there are a variety of ways to classify streams that would result in any number of different stream classes. However, for the purposes of deriving nutrient criteria, the process has to weigh the specificity of more and more site-specific factors generating finer classification against the reality of data availability, resource constraints to implement monitoring under any resulting classification, and the sufficiency of a parsimonious classification in deriving defensible criteria. This is true of deriving any criterion, not just numeric nutrient criteria and EPA will continue to use the NWRs for described in the Supplemental Notice for the final rule. EPA agrees that its own guidance lays out a variety of classification options, all of which were meant to provide states with the flexibility to choose from amongst these and other scientifically defensible options. A common and peer-reviewed classification framework has always been ecoregions and bioregions, as reflected in EPA’s own ecoregional 304(a) recommended criteria. Ecoregions capture a variety of the very factors recommended for use by commenters: geology, soil types, vegetation, land cover, climate, and hydrology, among others. That is why EPA considered ecoregions as part of the classification effort. The NWRs used in the final rule refined ecoregions based on smaller scale differences in regional geology and observed water chemistry - again consistent with EPA guidance (see final rule TSD) - among other factors. Commenters recommended alternative classification scenarios (e.g., Rosgen, functional process zones, etc.). These are all potential candidates, but are more experimental or less proven. EPA’s regional approach starts with ecoregions, uses biological considerations, regional geology, and observed patterns in chemistry. EPA considers this approach to be appropriate and scientifically defensible. See final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received several comments that the TN regionalization was incorrect and that it should be a two-region model rather than a five-region model. EPA disagrees. EPA decided 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. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion. 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); meaning that neither the two NWR model nor the five NWR model is more defensible than the other. As a result, because EPA found either model to be protective of applicabledesignated uses and based upon sound scientific rationale, and for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the colimiting nature of TN and TP amply detailed in the scientific literature (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007) and detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD, EPA has decided that a similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5342Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
EPA received many comments on the restricted boundary for the West Central. One comment suggested that the West Central boundary was unclear and was not in the docket. EPA disagrees. A map and GIS coverage of the Supplemental Notice NWRs were provided in the docket and indicate where the modified West Central boundary would be. This is evidenced by the large number of comments that actually applied this data in their responses. Another comment suggested that new phosphorus sediment/geology information (Terziotti et al. 2010) suggests that an expanded area of the West Central is more defensible. EPA disagrees. EPA reviewed the USGS publication and determined that the inability to discriminate human/non-human effects, the resolution, and the untested nature of the information preclude its application by EPA. The authors acknowledge that the maps resulting from the sediment samples cannot discriminate human and non-human sources. Given the long history of phosphorus mining and landscape disturbance in the region, the inability to discriminate such sources does not favor the application of that work to improving discrimination of natural expectations for elevated TP in streams. The geologic maps used by EPA in revising the regionalization as described in the Supplemental Notice and detailed in the final rule TSD, however, are not subject to the same effect and are the most defensible basis upon which EPA revised the West Central boundary. Other comments argued that well data from the region indicate that some peripheral areas excluded from the West Central (e.g., Sarasota Bay) ought to be reincorporated into the West Central. Again, EPA disagrees and argues that in the absence of evidence that such phenomena are not indeed linked to human disturbance in the region that has impacted surface flow and groundwater TP concentrations, the most defensible basis for the revised NWR is the immutable geology underlying the region, which is most consistent with EPA’s revised West Central boundary. Similarly, some argued that Charlotte Harbor should be in the West Central. In fact, most of the Charlotte Harbor watershed, especially the Peace and Myakka drainages, are in the West Central as the commenter recommends. Small coastal tributaries south of the Peace River are not in the West Central as the most substantial evidence available to EPA, the underlying geology, did not support its inclusion in the West Central. Other comments argued that the West Central or high TP region should be expanded to include much of the Peninsula where phosphorus-rich geology exists. EPA disagrees. EPA must weigh the watershed basis of its classification with the other classification factors. Much of the outcrops mentioned in these comments cross small parts of watersheds and sub-watersheds that subsequently do not exhibit the level of coincident differences in stream TP concentrations as witnessed in the West Central, North Central, and Panhandle East regions. A few comments argued that the West Central was expanded to include some drainages, especially peripheral drainages. EPA disagrees. The West Central was not expanded over the proposed rule, rather, it was restricted. It always extended to the watershed boundaries of the drainages noted. This is consistent with EPA’s adherence to a watershed-based element in its classification. Two comments in particular suggested that human-impacted areas (Alachua County and urban Pinellas areas) should be included in higher TP areas because of this disturbance. EPA disagrees. The goal of the classification is to isolate natural differences in instream nutrient expectation and not to confound that with anthropogenic sources. The goal is to establish natural reference expectations for nutrients that inherently protect designated uses. Confusing such an approach with anthropogenic factors would inherently bias nutrient expectations upward. Concern over expectations of criteria for human-modified waters should be dealt with in the context of designated uses, since the authors are ostensibly arguing that the same uses should not be expected of these waterbodies as for natural waterbodies. To date, FDEP has not made such a difference explicit in their use classification.

Comments IDs: 2480-2.001.005, 2480-2.001.002 Response: EPA received a variety of supportive comments of different options that are acknowledged here. Some commenters supported the revised Panhandle regionalization into the Panhandle West and East Regions. Others supported the revised West

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5343Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
Central Region, the use of the FDEP benchmark approach and the 90th percentile. Lastly, one commenter supported more stringent criteria for the West Central adding that the disturbance in that region should not be the basis for relaxed criteria there.

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. Brown, M. T. and M. B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289-309. 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., 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5344Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. Peters, N.E., Buell, G.R., and Frick, E.A., 1997, Spatial and temporal variability in nutrient concentrations in surface waters of the Chattahoochee River Basin near Atlanta, Georgia, USA: in Webb, Bruce, ed., Freshwater Contamination, IAHS Publication 243, IAHS Fifth Scientific Assembly, Rabat, Morocco. 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. Terziotti, S., A.B. Hoos, D.A. Harned, and A.M. Garcia. 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5345Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization 

# SNODA.II.D - 5 NUTRIENT WATERSHED REGIONS FOR TN AND TP Comment ID 2447-1.001.002

Author Name: Bartlett D. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
1. Nutrient Watershed Regions: The notice of data availability proposed using the same nutrient watershed regions for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). The reasoning behind the delineation of the regions for TP is fairly clear. The reasoning for TN is not apparent. The notice states that EPA decided to use the same TP regions for TN because "differences in the resulting TN criteria based on these stream classification schemes were minor and the approaches were comparable." The Docket does not contain any information to help the Department and the public understand this statement and subsequently review the application of nutrient watershed regions to TN. Please provide the technical reasoning behind this statement and the supporting analysis so the State can properly comment. 

# Comment ID 2461.001.002

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport Following are additional comments from Elizabeth Wong on the EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, dated August 3, 2010.

1. Item 1 - Revision of Nutrient Region Map The very small map provided in the EPA August 3, 2010 document, needs to be larger in order to determine the exactly boundaries of the six (6) nutrient regions. It appears that the majority of the City of North Port's boundary lies within the West Central region, with only a small portion of the City's Thomas Ranch (West Villages Improvement District) annexed area in the Peninsula region. However, the extent of the Thomas Ranch area in the Peninsula region is unclear. 

# Comment ID 2463-1.001.002

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation Stream Regionalization The EPA proposal to use phosphorus-rich geological formations for new watershed delineations using five regions is an improvement over the previous proposal. This approach will enhance the regional specificity of the proposed numeric

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5346Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization nutrient criteria. However, we strongly advise the EPA to adopt the latest watershed delineation published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),[1] which is clearly the best available science in this area. This USGS study focused on collecting geochemical data from bed-sediment samples from streams in relatively undisturbed watersheds. As a result, this delineation would better describe the potential for a watershed to contribute phosphorus to streams from weathering and erosion of surficial geologic materials than the current US-EPA proposal. The USGS map divides Florida in seven regions, and these are markedly different from the regions proposed by the US-EPA. The main difference is located north and west of lake Okeechobee. Lastly, we think that the decision to use the same watershed delineation for total phosphorus (TP) and for total nitrogen (TN) should be explained and scientifically justified.

[1] Terziotti, S; Hoos, A. B.; Harned, D. A. and Garcia, A. M. 2010. Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102. 

# Comment ID 2466-2.001.002

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County COMMENTS Revised Stream Region Boundaries In this notice, EPA is requesting comment on revised stream region boundaries based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations in Florida. The EPA is requesting comment concerning changes to the boundaries of the earlier proposed stream regions. The map provided in the supplemental docket materials (Scott, et al., 2001) and the accompanying text (Scott, 2001) indicate that significant phosphate-rich Hawthorn group (Th and Ths) surficial soils are found in the Peninsula region, which has a relatively low (0.10 mg/L) proposed TP standard compared to other phosphate-rich Hawthorne Group soils (e.g., Thp and Thpb) like in the West Central (previously Bone Valley) (0.73 mg/L) region. EPA should also consider a recently released and extensive USGS study (Terziotti, et al., 2010) of the phosphorus content of natural stream sediments. Figure 1 (Figure 5 from the report) provides an illustration of TP concentrations "collected in undisturbed, headwater streams." These data clearly indicate that natural bedded sediments contain significant TP in many areas of the state besides the Bone Valley. Several areas in the Peninsular region have significant natural TP in stream sediments. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Mean Bed-Sediment Concentrations of Phosphorus Measured in the SE United States. See original comment letter. While the contours generally follow the mapping of the Hawthorn in Scott, et al. (2001), there are additional naturally phosphate-rich regions that Scott, et al. depict as "Undifferentiated Pleistocene/Holocene" (Qu).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5347Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization While the new information provided by the USGS study and large sampling data set may assist EPA in better determining appropriate regionalization for streams for expected natural TP concentrations, both the mapping of the Hawthorn (Scott, et al., 2001) and the mapping of expected bedded sediment concentrations in streams (Terziotti, et al., 2010) suggest several difficulties with applying the regionalization approach based on large-scale watersheds. Streams within watersheds can be expected to have greatly varying natural TP concentrations depending on their relationship and their tributaries' relationship to the Hawthorn sediments. The selection of the reference streams in each nutrient region will necessarily produce values that are underprotective for many streams in the region and overprotective of others. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.009

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Yet as indicated by the August 3, 2010 NODA, the development of numeric nutrient criteria appears to be proceeding without a quantitative estimate of the potential for flowing water bodies that currently meet designated uses to be incorrectly declared "impaired." In light of the high degree of uncertainty in the stressor response relationships observed in the Florida data, a quantitative characterization of decision error rates as described in NCASI's previous comments is needed. The revised regionalization scheme presented in the August 3, 2010 NODA should be evaluated for its ability to reduce variation in nutrient-response relationships for the purpose of improving the reliability of the stressor criteria in protecting designated uses. As noted by EPA, geological features can have an important influence on water quality and the determination of appropriate criteria, and the revised proposal by EPA may represent an improvement to the underlying classification of data used in criteria development. However, because the effectiveness of the proposed criteria in predicting designated use attainment developed using both regionalization schemes has not been evaluated, the basis for selecting one option over another, or a different alternative is incomplete and insufficient. We encourage EPA to review NCASI's previous comments and provide estimates of designated use attainment decision errors rates associated with all proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 2470-1.001.002

Author Name: Cunningham T. Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities GRU's primary recommendation on the current request for comments is the following:

1. GRU strongly urges EPA to include Alachua County in the North Central Region because of the naturally elevated phosphorus levels found in surficial soils in Alachua County Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) is located within a geologic region that is rich in phosphatic soils found in the Hawthorn Group. These natural formations are at or near the land surface along the Cody Scarp and in areas of central and eastern Alachua County. In addition, human activities within the GRU service area such as ditching and erosion

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5348Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization have exposed more phosphorus laden materials in and around the urban creeks. Sweetwater Branch, which is located in the downtown urban area of Gainesville has a demonstrably increased level of phosphorus due to the above factors. Alachua County Environmental Protection Department performed samples in 2008-2009 and found that less than 1% of the samples in the urban creeks would meet the proposed criteria for phosphorus. According to their studies, essentially all the local creeks would fail to meet the proposed criteria. It is probably impossible to significantly improve the phosphorus levels as in-stream erosion and stormwater continue to increase phosphorus loading. The phosphorus concentration in Sweetwater Branch is well above the proposed revised phosphorus levels naturally occurring in this water body. The Main Street Water Reclamation Facility (MSWRF) discharges directly into Sweetwater Branch, and according to the revised proposal is located within the Peninsula Section which has an extremely low phosphorus concentration criteria (0.11 mg/L) that is significant lower than the natural background phosphorus in this area. A variety of interests have concurred with this position in regards to the elevated naturally occurring phosphorus levels including Alachua County Environmental Protection Department and members of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria Technical Advisory Committee. 

# Comment ID 2475-1.001.003

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District
1. Revision of stream nutrient region boundaries In the January 2010 notice, EPA proposed to classify Florida's streams into four regions for application of NNC: Panhandle, Bone Valley, Peninsula, and North Central. In the August 2010 notice EPA requested comments on a revision of the stream regions that would divide the Panhandle region into two regions: Panhandle West and Panhandle East. Although this modification improves the basis for numeric nutrient criteria in Florida's panhandle it will not correct deficiencies previously noted by the District (see comments submitted April 28, 2010 in reference to Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) for streams in the peninsula region. The District reiterates herein that a finer regionalization is needed for peninsular streams in order to provide a scientifically sound basis for development of NNC. Further, the District continues to urge adoption of stream criteria that are based on site-specific requirements of downstream lentic and estuarine waters. 

# Comment ID 2480-2.001.002

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. The first of these topics concerns revision of stream nutrient region boundaries, based upon additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2009a,b) and U.S. EPA (2010b; also Federal Register 2010) originally used bioregions to establish nutrient regions in the state (Figure 1A). The revised nutrient ecoregions suggested for use in developing numeric nutrient criteria (Figure 1B) are described as more accurately accounting for watershed delineations and geological

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5349Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization variations in phosphorus-rich parent materials for watershed soils. 

# Comment ID 2483-1.001.002

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee DELINEATION OF STREAM NUTRIENT REGIONS

1. The COT supports the addition of the Panhandle East Nutrient Watershed Region so that development of the proposed criteria more clearly reflects the natural background conditions and nutrient concentrations. In our April 26, 2010 comments to EPA on the January 26, 2010 proposed rule, we specifically requested that EPA consider additional eco-regions in the Panhandle to address broad-based soil and geological characteristics that affect nutrient concentrations. It is clearly neither responsible nor reasonable to propose criteria for a region where water quality from the natural community would typically produce higher Total Phosphorus (TP) or Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations than those proposed. We were encouraged to hear that EPA recognized the importance of the geological influences on TP concentrations from data presented by the COT and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). We support EPA's conclusion to create an additional Panhandle East region.



# Comment ID 2487-1.001.004

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Stream Regionalization and Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation It is commendable that the Agency has attempted, albeit poorly, to broaden its regionalization of streams to more accurately account for and incorporate into its proposed criteria the natural presence and variability of nitrogen and phosphorus throughout the state of Florida. The primary approach, however, still utilizes a broad brush, generalized approach which invariably ignores the extreme diversity of the state's myriad and extensive network of fresh waters and aquatic ecosystems and continues to rely on a methodology which does not include the use of biological indicators as a means to identify and measure nutrient-induced cause and effect relationships.



# Comment ID 2488-1.001.004

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5350Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization Each request for comment is summarized below along with PotashCorp's review and comment.

- Revised Stream Boundaries The Supplemental Notice included revised regional boundaries for stream criteria. The revised regional boundaries divided the Panhandle Region into two distinct regions (Panhandle East and Panhandle West) and refined the watershed boundaries for the Peninsula and West Central (originally referred to at the Bone Valley region in the January 26, 2010 proposal) regions. The North Central Region encompassing the Suwannee River Watershed was not altered from the January 26, 2010 proposal. PCS Phosphate - White Springs operates within the North Central Region. PotashCorp supports EPA's decision not to alter the North Central Region. 

# Comment ID 2489-1.001.002

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg EPA requested comment on three main topics: 1) The revision of stream nutrient region boundaries that are based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations in Florida. Response: Review of the Soil Survey of Pinellas County published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation Service describes two (2) specific geologic layers within Pinellas County as containing phosphate pebbles. Particularly, phosphatic clays and pebbles are located in the Hawthorn layer and in the surficial aquifer system which are in direct contact with groundwater that may discharge to our streams and lakes. EPA should further consider the geology of Pinellas County and its association with naturally occurring phosphorous before finalizing the boundaries. Additionally, placing Pinellas County in the Peninsula Grouping along with interior areas of the state is a concern since highly urbanized Pinellas County water quality is being compared to undeveloped areas of the state for total nitrogen (TN). Comparing TN levels for undeveloped areas with highly urbanized areas is not appropriate, and it is not practical to expect equivalent TN concentrations to be achieved in our altered environment. St. Petersburg has a long standing commitment to improving local water quality through the implementation of water quality improvement projects, regulating local development, and through participation in the successful Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Water quality of surrounding waters has responded positively to the City's efforts and the efforts of stakeholders within the region. Grouping of this region with other regions of the peninsular Florida may not be appropriate and should be reconsidered based on urbanization. 

# Comment ID 2490-1.001.003

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5351Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation COMMENTS Revised Stream Region Boundaries In this notice, EPA is requesting comment on revised stream region boundaries based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations in Florida. The EPA is requesting comment concerning changes to the boundaries of the earlier proposed stream regions, including dividing the Panhandle region into a Panhandle West (less phosphorus-rich) and Panhandle East (more phosphorus-rich) along watershed boundaries with the Panhandle West / Panhandle East boundary along the eastern edge of the Apalachicola basin. This division does appear to locate the largest areas of surficial Hawthorn formation into Panhandle East, according to the map provided in the supplemental docket materials (Scott et al., 2001). Both the map and the accompanying text (Scott, 2001) indicate that significant phosphate-rich Hawthorn group (Th and Ths) surficial soils are found in the Peninsula region, which has a relatively low (0.10 mg/L) proposed TP standard compared to other phosphate-rich Hawthorne Group soils (e.g., Thp and Thpb) like in the West Central (previously Bone Valley) (0.73 mg/L) region. EPA should also consider a recently released and extensive USGS study (Terziotti et al., 2010) of the phosphorus content of natural stream sediments. Figure 1 (Figure 5 from the report) provides an illustration of TP concentrations "collected in undisturbed, headwater streams." These data clearly indicate that natural bedded sediments contain significant TP in many areas of the state besides the Bone Valley. Several areas in the Peninsular region and portions of Panhandle West and East also have significant natural TP in stream sediments. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Mean Bed-Sediment Concentrations of Phosphorus Measured in the SE United States. See original comment letter. While the contours generally follow the mapping of the Hawthorn in Scott et al. (2001), there are additional naturally phosphate-rich regions that Scott et al. depict as "Undifferentiated Pleistocene/Holocene" (Qu). While the new information provided by the USGS study and large sampling data set may assist EPA in better determining appropriate regionalization for streams for expected natural TP concentrations, both the mapping of the Hawthorn (Scott et al., 2001) and the mapping of expected bedded sediment concentrations in streams (Terziotti et al., 2010) suggest several difficulties with applying the regionalization approach based on large-scale watersheds. Streams within watersheds can be expected to have greatly varying natural TP concentrations depending on their relationship and their tributaries' relationship to the Hawthorn sediments. The selection of the reference streams in each nutrient region will necessarily produce values that are underprotective for many streams in the region and overprotective of others.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5352Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization 

# Comment ID 2491-1.001.002

Author Name: Wallace T. Organization: Town of Orchid WHEREAS, Florida's watershed based process of establishing numeric nutrient criteria is superior to the EPA's generalized approach, which does not take into account the unique characteristics of Florida's many thousands of rivers, streams and estuaries; and 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.005

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County COMMENTS Revised Stream Region Boundaries In this notice, EPA is requesting comment on revised stream region boundaries based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations in Florida. The EPA is requesting comment concerning changes to the boundaries of the earlier proposed stream regions includingdividing the Panhandle region into a Panhandle West (less phosphorus-rich) and Panhandle East (more phosphorusrich) along watershed boundaries with the Panhandle West / Panhandle East boundary along the eastern edge of the Apalachicola basin. This division does appear to locate the largest areas of surficial Hawthorn formation into Panhandle East, according to the map provided in the supplemental docket materials (Scott, et al., 2001). Both the map and the accompanying text (Scott, 2001) indicate that significant phosphate-rich Hawthorn group (Th and Ths) surficial soils are found in the Peninsula region, which has a relatively low (0.10 mg/L) proposed TP standard compared to other phosphate-rich Hawthorne Group soils (e.g., Thp and Thpb) like in the West Central (previously Bone Valley) (0.73 mg/L) region. EPA should also consider a recently released and extensive USGS study (Terziotti, et al., 2010) of the phosphorus content of natural stream sediments. Figure 1 (Figure 5 from the report) provides an illustration of TP concentrations "collected in undisturbed, headwater streams." These data clearly indicate that natural bedded sediments contain significant TP in many areas of the state besides the Bone Valley. Several areas in the Peninsular region and portions of Panhandle West and East also have significant natural TP in stream sediments. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Mean Bed-Sediment Concentrations of Phosphorus Measured in the SE United States. See original comment letter. While the contours generally follow the mapping of the Hawthorn in Scott, et al. (2001), there are additional naturally phosphate-rich regions that Scott, et al. depict as "Undifferentiated Pleistocene/Holocene" (Qu).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5353Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

While the new information provided by the USGS study and large sampling data set may assist EPA in better determining appropriate regionalization for streams for expected natural TP concentrations, both the mapping of the Hawthorn (Scott, et aI., 2001) and the mapping of expected bedded sediment concentrations in streams (Terziotti, et aI., 2010) suggest several difficulties with applying the regionalization approach based on large-scale watersheds. Streams within watersheds can be expected to have greatly varying natural TP concentrations depending on their relationship and their tributaries' relationship to the Hawthorn sediments. The selection of the reference streams in each nutrient region will necessarily produce values that are underprotective for many streams in the region and overprotective of others. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.002

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division EPA requested comment on three main topics: 1) The revision of stream nutrient region boundaries that are based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations in Florida. Response: Placing Pinellas County within the Peninsula Region (Map 1) ignores two crucial elements of its soil composition. First, the Soil Survey of Pinellas County describes a phosphatic Hawthorn layer underlying much of the county (Map 2). This is further documented in Whitmore et. al. (1995), which states that Lake Seminole in Pinellas County is underlain by a phosphatic Hawthorn layer. The West Central region was delineated based on inherent differences in natural factors that contribute to higher nutrient concentrations in its streams (phosphate rich soils, geology, and hydrology). Pinellas County's soil composition should similarly be taken into account to accurately reflect regional differences. Second, urbanized regions face non-natural factors that contribute to higher nutrient concentrations in their stream regions (altered soils, geology and hydrology). These factors should be considered in developing nutrient criteria. The Peninsula Region is a large heterogeneous region in terms of soils, geology and hydrology. Further sub-division is reasonable to realistically reflect the highly altered conditions in urbanized areas. Original comment letter contains additional information in Map 1 - EPA Proposed Nutrient Regions. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Map 2 - Generalized geologic map showing location of cross sections in Pinellas County (Pinellas County Soil Survey, 2003 - available from http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/FL103/0/Pinellas.pdf ). See original comment letter. In summary, the nutrient regions are too broadly defined and should be narrowed to account for regional variability. This would alleviate the need for costly Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) development. The County recommends that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5354Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization 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 use of limited financial resources to alleviate perceived water quality problems that may not in fact be a problem.



# Comment ID 2496-1.001.009

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division In Summary: Pinellas County's position is that the proposed nutrient regions need further refinement to include the geological data presented in this report, as well as the consideration that urban areas face special challenges in nutrient concentrations due to altered geology and hydrology. Taking these considerations into account when evaluating regional characteristics will improve the numeric nutrient criteria development process. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.012

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Second, EPA has failed to provide data, explanations, or both for significant aspects of its wholly new proposals. For example, the GIS data necessary to determine with specificity the newly proposed regional boundaries are not in the docket. 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.004

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC While Mosaic agrees with EPA's use of the Nutrient Watershed Regions to delineate naturally occurring geologic differences in nutrient concentrations, this alone is not sufficient to classify streams according to EPA's Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and streams (EPA 2000a). In chapter 2, the Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 2000a) provides recommendations for classifying streams to aid in setting defensible criteria stating: "River and stream types (and reaches within these waterbodies) are too diverse to set one criterion for all stream/river types. However, it is not necessarily feasible or recommended to develop site-specific criteria for every stream reach within the U.S. Morphological and fluvial characteristics of a stream influence many facets of its behavior. Streams with

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5355Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization similar morphologies may have similar nutrient capacities or similar responses to nutrient loadings. Rivers and streams are very diverse within ecoregions. Reaches within one stream can have a distinct morphology. The geomorphology of a river or stream - its shape, depth, channel materials - affects the way that waterbody receives, processes, and distributes nutrients. Nutrient cycling processes that occur upstream affect communities and processes downstream by altering the form and concentration of nutrients and organic matter in transport (nutrient spiraling); these effects can befurther intensified by patch dynamics (Mulholland et al. 1995). The spatial scales which most influence upstreamdownstream linkages are the geomorphology-controlled patterns observed at the landscape scale and the nutrientcycling-controlled patterns observed at the stream reach scale (Mulholland et al. 1995). Therefore, to set appropriate criteria for rivers and streams in an ecoregion, streams must be classified by their morphological characteristics at both the landscape and stream reach scale, with an emphasis on those characteristics most likely to affect nutrient cycling." 

# Comment ID 2498-1.001.005

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3. The Nutrient Watershed Regions for total nitrogen should not be the same as the Regions for total phosphorus. There was no information in the docket to explain EPA's proposal, but the Department has provided information to inform a more scientifically accurate delineation of Nutrient Watershed Regions for total nitrogen. Using the same Nutrient Watershed Regions that were used for Total Phosphorus is not a proper application of the reference stream approach and can lead to either under- or over-protection of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.005

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection C. Delineation of Nutrient Watershed Regions for Total Nitrogen EPA's proposed rule and associated docket includes one chapter of the TSD that discusses the methodology for developing a regionalization scheme; however that methodology only includes the data and analysis for regionalization of the total phosphorus criteria, not total nitrogen (TN). The NODA, and its associate docket, only contained the following statement, "EPA considered different approaches to classifying Florida's streams for application of TN criteria, such as the four Nutrient Watershed Regions discussed in the January 2010 proposal and two regions as originally suggested by FDEP. However, differences in the resulting TN criteria based on these stream classification schemes were minor and the approaches were comparable." There was no data or analysis that described how EPA came to this conclusion. As a result, the Department was unable to determine how EPA reached this conclusion. Without providing any additional analysis or explanation, the Department simply cannot comment on the proposed regionalization scheme for TN (other than opining that the scheme does not appear to be derived on any recognized scientific basis). FDEP notes the strong relationship between TN, color, and proportion of drainage basin wetlands, and suggests that EPA propose criteria based on these relationships.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5356Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization



# Comment ID 2498-2.001.008

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection II. Nutrient Watershed Regions
A. Delineation of the TN Regions EPA proposed distinct Total Phosphorus (TP) regions based on geological evidence (areas where the presence of the high phosphate Hawthorne Formation influenced stream concentrations). With no further justification, EPA then used the same regions to establish Total Nitrogen (TN) criteria. FDEP has conclusively demonstrated that non-anthropogenic TN concentrations are most influenced by the percent area of wetlands in the drainage basin because wetlands naturally discharge water high in humic acid substances, color, and organic nitrogen. Therefore, TN regions should be based on percent wetlands or stream color, and should not arbitrarily follow the TP regions, which were most influenced by geology. FDEP conducted geospatial analysis to illustrate that the phosphorus regions were not appropriate. Figures 1 and 2 depict TP and TN concentrations in streams throughout Florida, respectively. [There were no sampling sites located in the South Florida Region so the Krige results should not be relied upon in that area of the State.] Note the lack of similarity between the TP concentrations (which are influenced by the Hawthorne Formation) and the TN concentrations (which are influenced by wetlands).Generally, it appears that TN concentrations throughout much of the Peninsula are higher than to those in nonPeninsula regions. However, the Krige also identifies pockets of differing TN concentrations in small areas within those areas as well. When you observe each station, it appears that overall TN concentrations may be more driven by local, waterbody specific conditions related to wetland influence rather than overall geographic areas. The stream color map clearly shows locations of major wetland systems (Fisheating Creek and Peace River wetlands, Green Swamp, Okeefenokee and Pinhook Swamps, San Pedro Bay, etc.) characteristic of certain areas of the State. As stated previously, wetlands contribute both color and TN to adjacent stream systems. It should be emphasized that the reference stream color and TN spatial distribution does not coincide with the TP regions based on the geologic Hawthorne Formation, and EPA needs to approach TN differently than TP to account for the influence of wetlands. Original comment letter contains additional information in FIGURE 1. Krige of Total Phosphorus concentrations in Florida Streams. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in FIGURE 2. Krige of Total Nitrogen concentrations in Florida Streams. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in FIGURE 3. Krige of stream color (PCU), which is largely influenced by wetlands. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in FIGURE 4. Box plots of benchmark TN values in EPA's proposed nutrient regions. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5357Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

Box plots of TN values in EPA's proposed nutrient regions (which are actually based on geologic formations that influence TP) are shown in Figure 4. Note that there is overlap in all regions with a general difference in the Panhandle. The data presented above indicate that EPA's decision to base TN regions on factors that only influence TP is clearly flawed. FDEP originally proposed that TN regions be aggregated to account for the generally lower concentrations in the panhandle, but now believe that is it more accurate to link criteria to the percent wetlands expected to affect the waterbody in question, which alternatively could be measured as color. The TN Krige might lead you to believe that there are geographic differences, but the more determinant factor is the local influence of wetlands on a given waterbody. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.038

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 3.0 INCORRECT DELINEATION OF PHOSPHORUS RICH NUTRIENT WATERSHED BOUNDARIES EPA (2010b) states that its intent was to "develop a regional stream nutrient classification approach that reflected the understanding that upstream water quality affects downstream water quality." EPA's proposed August 2010 revision tothe previously developed January 2010 West-Central NWR appears to eliminate Charlotte Harbor from the WestCentral NWR. Omitting Charlotte Harbor from the West-Central NWR delineation is contrary to EPA's stated objective for developing NWRs. Charlotte Harbor's water quality functions have been more greatly influenced by freshwater inflows from the Peace River than any other source of combination of water sources (McPherson, et al, 1996; Montgomery, et al, 1991). This estuary clearly belongs to the same NWR as the Peace River. We agree that the January version of the NWR boundaries required revision to correct certain deficiencies in the accuracy of the watershed delineations. For example, the Hillsborough River delineation crisscrossed known divides and incorporated non-phosphoric spring runs into the West-Central delineation. Some similar kinds of errors may still persist elsewhere in various places along the West-Central boundary in the August and January versions. We recommend that EPA acquire the basin boundary delineations used in various Watershed Management Plans by the SWFWMD and SFWMD and use these to define land-surface nutrient region boundaries first. Then these surface boundaries should be carefully compared to dry and wet season phreatic surface divides for the surficial and intermediate aquifers to determine if any streams and their potential recharge source areas should be added based on their potential to provide groundwater baseflow from formations in contact with the phosphatic geology or soil profiles. Care should be taken to exclude from consideration any potential reference sites with substantial dilution by waters sourced from low-phosphatic media (e.g., most limestone aquifer spring runs).


# Response

Comment ID: 2487-1.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5358Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. The first sets of comments related to reference site selection. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the 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. Moreover, 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. EPA considers the Reference Approach and the process by which the criteria described in final rule to be replicable; EPA has replicated its criteria using the methods described in the final rule TSD several times to confirm this. Another comment suggested that the change in nitrogen criteria as a result of changing reference criteria was evidence of the arbitrary nature. EPA disagrees with this assertion because, as stated in the proposed rule, final rule TSD, and Supplemental Notice, there are multiple ways to select reference populations and each will affect the resulting numbers. This is a function of sample size among other factors. Some change in values was expected, but the outcome value was not the basis for the Reference Approach selection. Rather, the use of the most defensible set of reference site selection criteria was. A last comment suggested that the long history of human disturbance in the West Central makes any reference site process there arbitrary. 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 proposed and final 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. As a result, the process is meant to identify sites with the least disturbance, even in a landscape as altered as the West Central. The confidence in the extent to which the final reference population generated reflects that which supports designated uses informs the selection of an appropriate percentile. EPA agrees with the commenter that the West Central has undergone substantial disturbance. As a result, for the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as notedabove for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5359Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. 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. EPA considered these and other comments. 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. EPA agrees that 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 is isolation for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites for the SCI approach in the West Central, and for the benchmark approach, applied in the final rule and described in the Supplemental Notice for all regions outside the West Central, a suite of screens was used including corridor land use, watershed land used, nitrate concentrations, aerial photography analysis, and site level investigation as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. Other comments argued that the sample size was insufficient to develop stream criteria, particularly for small and intermittent headwater streams. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA is developing criteria to apply to Class I and III waters, reflected by the population of Class I and III waters that the State of Florida has sampled, presumably as a basis of their monitoring and characterization of the population of sites they consider reflective of that Class. If there is evidence of substantial difference in the function and, therefore, use of small or intermittent streams, then that difference could and possibly should be directed to the process of use classification. Also, the final rule provides flexibility for 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 for a specific waterbody. . 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 wants to confirm that low DO in and of itself was not the basis for removal of a site. Rather, sites listed for DO impairment were the basis for the DO screen, independent of biological condition. 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5360Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

EPA received comments on other screens. Some commenters questioned the application of the LDI. Some suggested the watershed should have been considered instead of just the corridor. EPA considered these comments and agrees and applied a watershed-based LDI as well, where available, as detailed in the screening process for the final rule and detailed in the final rule TSD. Still others argued that the watershed LDI was redundant with the corridor LDI. EPA considered this and other comments and disagrees, as it is well demonstrated that a variety of land uses contribute nutrients to streams through flowpaths that either move under (groundwater) or through (stormwater conveyances) riparian corridors with little or no effect of riparian condition on nutrient mitigation. For this reason is keeping the watershed LDI screen in the benchmark approach for the final rule. Other commenters disagree with the use of a different LDI screening value for the watershed (LDI = 3) than the corridor (LDI = 2). EPA considered this and disagrees detailed in the proposed rule TSD that the watershed LDI value of 3 was correlated with a corridor LDI value of 2, which explains the selection of the watershed LDI value of 3. EPA also notes that this value is not associated with appreciable additional expected disturbance according to the LDI factor table outlined in Brown and Vivas 2005. For this reason, EPA has kept the two distinct LDI values for use in the respective screens for the benchmark approach in the final rule. Other criticized the use of the BPJ screen, arguing that it was poorly documented and arbitrary. EPA disagrees and refers the commenter to the proposed rule TSD, final preamble, and final rule TSD where the process for evaluating the elements that compose the BPJ score are detailed and supported. EPA is keeping the BPJ screen in the final rule benchmark approach process. Others argued that the assumption that the absence of a BPJ score presumed impact. EPA disagrees with this comment and believes the BPJ screen was an important element and took the precautionary step with this screen of presuming that the absence of a value should not be assumed to indicate acceptable conditions, which has been extended to the final rule screening process as well. For the final rule, EPA assumed the same with the LDI corridor < 2 score as well. In addition, for the final rule, CWA section 303(d) screens were applied universally and “NA” values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the nitrate, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation. Therefore only values = 1 for these screens were excluded. EPA received comments that the survey of aerial photographs may have missed some stressors. EPA agrees that this may have happened, but because this screen was combined with the number of screens being applied, including corridor and watershed LDI values based on automated satellite imagery interpretation, this is unlikely. Even so, the possibility of this effect argues for the use of a margin of error associated with percentile selection to allow that some truly nutrient impacted sites may enter the final reference population. For this reason, EPA is applying the 90th percentile of the benchmark population WBID average nutrient concentrations for regions outside the West Central for the final rule. Similarly, EPA received comments that the use of field verification of a random selection of benchmark candidate sites was inappropriate. EPA disagrees. The same commenter supported the BPJ screens and this random survey was one component of the BPJ process along with many other components that informed the BPJ screening score including the survey of aerial photos and regional scientist site knowledge. For this reason, EPA is keeping that component of the approach for the final rule. EPA received comments that the nitrate value used was alternatively too high or too low, depending on the commenter. EPA disagrees. EPA selected this value (0.35 mg/L) as a screen because it had been shown to be associated with impacts to flowing water systems in Florida associated with springs and had been applied by FDEP as an indication of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment. Other commenters suggested that the use of a nitrate concentration automatically skewed the nitrogen values. EPA acknowledges that the use of such a screen might skew the nitrogen distribution, but notes that this is not likely because this screen could not be applied to all sites due to missing data, that nitrate often composed a small portion of the nitrogen pool, that this screen was used as much as an indication of anthropogenic disturbance given natural nitrate concentrations, and that this concentration had already been demonstrated as detrimental to some Florida flowing water systems.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5361Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
EPA is, therefore, keeping this value of nitrate in as a screen for the final rule and this is further elaborated in the final rule TSD. Other commenters suggested that an SCI screening value was inappropriate since it had not been shown to be linked to nutrients. EPA disagrees and has actually demonstrated in several documents including the final rule TSD that the SCI does actually show a significant relationship to nutrients, albeit imprecise. EPA also documented in detail the selection of the value of 40. In addition,EPA has used this screen not only for its linkage to nutrients but also because it helps define an acceptable population of leastdisturbed sites as those with healthy biological condition. Average WBID SCI values less than 40 would indicate potentially compromised environmental conditions that would preclude the use of such a WBID as a least-disturbed environmental site supportive of designated uses. For these reasons, EPA is retaining the use of the SCI as a screen in both the benchmark and SCI approaches for the final rule, which is detailed in the final rule TSD. Finally, under the theme of reference site selection, EPA received comments that supported the use of the benchmark approach combined with biological screening. EPA agrees and for the final rule is applying the benchmark approach with SCI screens and 303(d) screening steps added to further strengthen the defensibility of the resultant population as least-disturbed. EPA was not able to apply the benchmark screening method in the West Central because there were too few available WBIDs that passed the benchmark screens to estimate any percentile reliably. As a result, EPA used the SCI/303(d) screening approach described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBID-averages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used in the SCI approach used in the West Central. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. See the final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received other comments again supporting the benchmark approach but with minimum observations for each average. EPA disagrees that a minimum number of observations is necessary to estimate annual WBID averages to derive the criteria. The basis for this is that EPA considered distributions composed of annual averages computed from a minimum of 4 samples and from all available samples, and determined that some additional imprecision was introduced in the estimates of annual averages, in particular WBIDs with fewer than samples. However, by including all samples, more WBIDs were included in the reference distribution, which increased EPA's confidence in estimates of the 90th percentiles of the benchmark distributions. Hence, additional imprecision in averages computed for individual WBIDs was outweighed by increased confidence in the entire benchmark distribution. The development of the WBID-average is discussed in detail in the final rule TSD. EPA defers to FDEP for defining appropriate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that estimate annual average nutrient concentrations accurately enough for compliance monitoring. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5362Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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, including the use of chlorophyll response variables, 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. 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 and EPA supports the application of stressor-response models for developing SSAC where adequate site-specific chl-a data are available. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The next theme in comments that EPA received relevant to the Reference Reach Approach was the insufficiency of data both for developing West Central criteria and for calculating EPA’s benchmark criteria. For the final rule, EPA decided to use the benchmark screening approach to identify least-disturbed streams and select the 90th percentile of WBID-averages from each NWR except the West Central. In the West Central, EPA agrees with comments that one WBID was insufficient to derive criteria for the West Central using the benchmark screening approach. As a result, and as supported by several comments, EPA used theSCI/303(d) screening method described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBIDaverages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach for the West Central, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used there. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially with the long history of human disturbance in the West Central, as noted by several commenters. As a result, EPA used the 75th percentile instead of the 90th of WBID-average nutrient concentrations for deriving nutrient criteria in the West Central for the final rule. EPA received a recommendation for the West Central to recalculate criteria there using the LDI, chl-a and diel DO data, and EPA notes that such data are not available for deriving regional criteria and disagrees that such an approach would provide more defensible criteria. With regards to comments that insufficient data or information were provided to replicate the benchmark values, EPA disagrees and points out that the Agency provided all the data to derive the values included in the Supplemental Notice along with detailed notes on how to do that, and also internally verified that the criteria published in the Supplemental Notice could be calculated using the description and data provided. However, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that make it even easier still for the public to replicate final values from the raw data provided. One commenter questioned why some sites in the “allstr00” file were not in the “sites01.final” file. All sites from the “allstr00” file for which EPA had coordinates, WBID, and region information were included in the “sites01.final” file. The same commenter asked what to do with NA values. The instructions clearly indicated which rules are used for exclusion. Section 303(d) screens were applied universally and NA values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the NOx, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation, and so these screens were principally used to discard these impacts where they were known to exist. Similarly, the commenter questioned how to create a WBID-year label, but the process for creating a WBID-year label was fairly straightforward and clearly explained in the instructions. Also, the same commenter claimed the nutrient regions were not available when, in fact,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5363Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
that information was included in the “sites01.final’ file; EPA is unsure why this commenter did not see that information there. Lastly, the same commenter asked how to remove WBID with fewer than 4 observations which was, in fact, described and is straightforward operation in any spreadsheet software. Again, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that may make it even easier for concerned parties to replicate final values from the raw data provided. The last theme relative to the Reference Approach relates to how criteria were determined. The first comment along this line argued that overlap between the benchmark and all-site populations argues against the use of a percentile of the benchmark as protective. EPA disagrees with this comment. Overlap may indicate that the all sites population is in better condition than expected and/or it may also indicate that the benchmark population contains more disturbance than expected. Similarly, the comment recommended using an extreme percentile (99.9th %) of all sites to avoid listing “pristine” sites. There is a supposition that this selection process is identifying “pristine” sites and this is not the case. EPA has not made that assertion. This process identifies least-disturbed sites, but sites that still contain disturbance. It is, therefore, not surprising and logical that the benchmark and all-sites populations overlap. Indeed, it is possible that screens that remove certain sites based on precautionary selection may exclude streams thatindeed do not manifest elevated nutrient concentrations. The process is meant to be protective in its selection of most likely leastdisturbed sites that support designated uses. But it is possible that the selection process will not remove sites truly impaired by nutrients. The concern over this possibility is the basis for the percentile selected and is a function of EPA’s confidence in the screening process, which is higher for the benchmark approach than the SCI approach, thus the use of the 75th percentile in the West Central based on the SCI approach and the 90th percentile everywhere else using the benchmark approach. EPA also received comments that the 75th percentile was unjustified for use in the West Central. As described above, the 75th percentile was justified in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach; screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used for example. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. Lastly, EPA received comments that fluctuation in the proposed criteria for the West Central is evidence of policy and not science being used to select the criteria. EPA disagrees with this comment. The fluctuations in candidate criteria values is due to changes in selection of the most defensible population of values to use in this region, exacerbated by sample size issues. Given the disturbance in this region, only a small number of appropriate sites were available to use. EPA has calculated percentiles using estimates of central tendency and variance. The central limit theorem of statistics indicates that the estimation of these parameters becomes more precise as sample size increases. Therefore, changes to small sample sizes are expected to have larger effects on the percentile estimates than changes in larger sample sizes. It is for this reason that EPA decided to use the largest population of defensible reference sites possible for the West Central - the SCI-based population. In addition, it is known that more disturbed landscapes present more variable water chemical conditions (e.g., Peters et al. 1997), so again it is not surprising that the West Central should exhibit more variability given the long history of disturbance in that region, as observed by several commenters.

Comment IDs: 2447-1.001.002, 2463-1.001.002, 2498-1.001.005, 2498-2.001.005, 2498-2.001.008, 2447-1.001.002, 2463­ 1.001.002, 2498-1.001.005, 2498-2.001.005, 2498-2.001.008, 2497-1.001.012, 2461.001.002, 2503-1.001.038, 2470-1.001.002, 2489-1.001.002, 2496-1.001.002, 2496-1.001.009, 2475-1.001.003, 2463-1.001.002, 2466-2.001.002, 2490-1.001.003, 2493­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5364Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

1.001.005, 2497-2.001.004 Response: This set of comments concerns EPA’s classification effort and the revision to the proposed NWR to split the Panhandle into West and East Regions and restrict the size of the West Central. EPA received mostly support for splitting the Panhandle and many comments concerned about the restriction in the size of the West Central and in classification in general. The first set of comments addressed the lack of consideration for more site-specific, especially physical, factors in classifying streams, and commenters cited recent papers indicating more geomorphic bases for classifying streams in Florida (e.g., functional process zones) that yield more classes. EPA agrees that there are a variety of ways to classify streams that would result in any number of different stream classes. However, for the purposes of deriving nutrient criteria, the process has to weigh the specificity of more and more site-specific factors generating finer classification against the reality of data availability, resource constraints to implement monitoring under any resulting classification, and the sufficiency of a parsimonious classification in deriving defensible criteria. This is true of deriving any criterion, not just numeric nutrient criteria and EPA will continue to use the NWRs for described in the Supplemental Notice for the final rule. EPA agrees that its own guidance lays out a variety of classification options, all of which were meant to provide states with the flexibility to choose from amongst these and other scientifically defensible options. A common and peer-reviewed classification framework has always been ecoregions and bioregions, as reflected in EPA’s own ecoregional 304(a) recommended criteria. Ecoregions capture a variety of the very factors recommended for use by commenters: geology, soil types, vegetation, land cover, climate, and hydrology, among others. That is why EPA considered ecoregions as part of the classification effort. The NWRs used in the final rule refined ecoregions based on smaller scale differences in regional geology and observed water chemistry - again consistent with EPA guidance (see final rule TSD) - among other factors. Commenters recommended alternative classification scenarios (e.g., Rosgen, functional process zones, etc.). These are all potential candidates, but are more experimental or less proven. EPA’s regional approach starts with ecoregions, uses biological considerations, regional geology, and observed patterns in chemistry. EPA considers this approach to be appropriate and scientifically defensible. See final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received several comments that the TN regionalization was incorrect and that it should be a two-region model rather than a five-region model. EPA disagrees. EPA decided 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. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5365Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); meaning that neither the two NWR model nor the five NWR model is more defensible than the other. As a result, because EPA found either model to be protective of applicabledesignated uses and based upon sound scientific rationale, and for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the colimiting nature of TN and TP amply detailed in the scientific literature (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007) and detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD, EPA has decided that a similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. EPA received many comments on the restricted boundary for the West Central. One comment suggested that the West Central boundary was unclear and was not in the docket. EPA disagrees. A map and GIS coverage of the Supplemental Notice NWRs were provided in the docket and indicate where the modified West Central boundary would be. This is evidenced by the large number of comments that actually applied this data in their responses. Another comment suggested that new phosphorus sediment/geology information (Terziotti et al. 2010) suggests that an expanded area of the West Central is more defensible. EPA disagrees. EPA reviewed the USGS publication and determined that the inability to discriminate human/non-human effects, the resolution, and the untested nature of the information preclude its application by EPA. The authors acknowledge that the maps resulting from the sediment samples cannot discriminate human and non-human sources. Given the long history of phosphorus mining and landscape disturbance in the region, the inability to discriminate such sources does not favor the application of that work to improving discrimination of natural expectations for elevated TP in streams. The geologic maps used by EPA in revising the regionalization as described in the Supplemental Notice and detailed in the final rule TSD, however, are not subject to the same effect and are the most defensible basis upon which EPA revised the West Central boundary. Other comments argued that well data from the region indicate that some peripheral areas excluded from the West Central (e.g., Sarasota Bay) ought to be reincorporated into the West Central. Again, EPA disagrees and argues that in the absence of evidence that such phenomena are not indeed linked to human disturbance in the region that has impacted surface flow and groundwater TP concentrations, the most defensible basis for the revised NWR is the immutable geology underlying the region, which is most consistent with EPA’s revised West Central boundary. Similarly, some argued that Charlotte Harbor should be in the West Central. In fact, most of the Charlotte Harbor watershed, especially the Peace and Myakka drainages, are in the West Central as the commenter recommends. Small coastal tributaries south of the Peace River are not in the West Central as the most substantial evidence available to EPA, the underlying geology, did not support its inclusion in the West Central. Other comments argued that the West Central or high TP region should be expanded to include much of the Peninsula where phosphorus-rich geology exists. EPA disagrees. EPA must weigh the watershed basis of its classification with the other classification factors. Much of the outcrops mentioned in these comments cross small parts of watersheds and sub-watersheds that subsequently do not exhibit the level of coincident differences in stream TP concentrations as witnessed in the West Central, North Central, and Panhandle East Regions. A few comments argued that the West Central was expanded to include some drainages, especially peripheral drainages. EPA disagrees. The West Central was not expanded over the proposed rule, rather, it was restricted. It always extended to the watershed boundaries of the drainages noted. This is consistent with EPA’s adherence to a watershed-based element in its classification. Two comments in particular suggested that human-impacted areas (Alachua County and urban Pinellas areas) should be included in higher TP areas because of this disturbance. EPA disagrees. The goal of the classification is to isolate natural differences in instream nutrient expectation and not to confound that with anthropogenic sources. The goal is to establish natural reference expectations for nutrients that inherently protect designated uses. Confusing such an approach with anthropogenic factors would inherently bias nutrient expectations upward. Concern over expectations of criteria for human-modified waters should be dealt with in the context of designated uses, since the authors are ostensibly arguing that the same uses should not be expected of these

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5366Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
waterbodies as for natural waterbodies. To date, FDEP has not made such a difference explicit in their use classification.

Comment ID: 2467-1.001.009 Response: The next theme under which EPA received comments relate to implementing the criteria. The first set of comments argue that setting criteria using the methods proscribed would result in unacceptable impairment decision rates, i.e., many “pristine” waters being listed as impaired. 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 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. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5367Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. EPA also received a comment that the cost of meeting low TP criteria in the Panhandle West would be too great. The criteria development process focuses on identifying criteria that are scientifically defensible and that will protect designated uses. The consideration of cost does not play a role in developing criteria.

Comment IDs: 2483-1.001.002, 2488-1.001.004 Response: EPA received a variety of supportive comments of different options that are acknowledged here. Some commenters supported the revised Panhandle regionalization into the Panhandle West and East Regions. Others supported the revised West Central Region, the use of the FDEP benchmark approach and the 90th percentile, and the North Central regionalization. Lastly, one commenter supported more stringent criteria for the West Central adding that the disturbance in that region should not be the basis for relaxed criteria there.

Comment IDs: 2480-2.001.002, 2491-1.001.002 Response: The comments above did not include arguments or questions requiring response, but are acknowledged here as being read and considered.

References Biggs, B.J.F. 2000. Eutrophication of streams and rivers: dissolved nutrient-chlorophyll relationships for benthic algae. Journal of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5368Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. Brown, M. T. and M. B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289-309. 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., 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5369Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. Peters, N.E., Buell, G.R., and Frick, E.A., 1997, Spatial and temporal variability in nutrient concentrations in surface waters of the Chattahoochee River Basin near Atlanta, Georgia, USA: in Webb, Bruce, ed., Freshwater Contamination, IAHS Publication 243, IAHS Fifth Scientific Assembly, Rabat, Morocco. 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. Terziotti, S., A.B. Hoos, D.A. Harned, and A.M. Garcia. 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet. 

# SNODA.II.E - ADJUSTED CRITERIA BASED ON NEW REGIONALIZATIONS Comment ID 2446-1.001.003

Author Name: Voyles J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5370Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC For example, the proposed revisions include an entirely new approach to lake downstream protective values that was not addressed nor considered in the proposed Rule. Additionally, the proposed revisions substitute an entirely new set of reference streams for those used by EPA in the proposed Rule. Providing comment on this approach will require reviewing the streams EPA is now proposing as reference streams, the basis on which these streams were selected, and the methodology EPA used to derive criteria from these streams. Comment on the proposed revisions will also require assessing the wholly new impacts of the proposed revisions on numerous Mosaic operations in the Bone Valley.



# Comment ID 2454-1.001.004

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System EPA's August 3rd notice states "Streams within each of these regions (Panhandle, Bone Valley, Peninsula and North Central) reflect similar geographical characteristics including phosphorus rich soils, nutrient concentrations and nutrient ratios." If in fact this is the case, why then would EPA propose a standard for nitrogen in the North Central part of the state that is 300% less restrictive than that which is proposed for the Western Panhandle? Again this anomaly does not appear to us to be supported by the need to protect the intended use and classification of these waters or to prevent a negative environmental response as is required by the Clean Water Act in order to declare a water body impaired. These discrepancies in this subsequent notice further undermine the credibility of EPA's entire approach to establishment of numeric nutrient criteria in Florida. 

# Comment ID 2454-1.001.006

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System Obviously, based on the information and data provided by EPA, the proposed criteria can vary by as much as 300% across the state with the same or similar environmental result. Does the environment vary in its characteristics by 300% across the State? In our opinion it could not vary to that degree. Therefore, the value of the criteria in protecting the intended use and classification of these waterbodies is questionable.How could a standard that is 300%less stringent achieve the same or similar result? How on the basis of a single "nontoxic" parameter such as nitrogen could a waterbody be declared impaired without an examination of the complete envelope of parameters which describes the health and character of that water, to include the hydrology, biology and chemistry of that waterbody. It is Okaloosa County's opinion that in order to declare a waterbody impaired on the basis of nutrients alone is to do so out of ignorance and politics, not science.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5371Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.005

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority Stream Regionalization Refinements to the nutrient watershed regions involved splitting the Panhandle NWR into an east and west region with modifications to the Peninsula/West Central boundary. In general, these further refinements seem supported by the information provided for the Hawthorne Group and also by the available nutrient data used to develop the criteria as presented in Table 1. That is, the splitting of the Panhandle NWR seems to further delineate differences within the original Panhandle NWR for all parameters, except TN, based on the values being greater than 20% different than the original Panhandle NWR value. For TN, there was not much difference after splitting the Panhandle NWR and also there were small differences in TN among all 5 of the revised NWRs. The data suggest that two NWR regions may be applicable for TN - a Panhandle region and a combined Peninsula region merging the North Central, Peninsula and West Central NWRs. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. NWR Median Parameter Values. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2468-1.001.003

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC For example, 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. The criteria proposed in EPA's original rulemaking for the Escambia River are a Total Nitrogen (TN) of 0.824 mg/l and a Total Phosphorus (TP) of 0.043 mg/l. The suggested new approaches reduce the TP criterion to a value in the range of 0.03 - 0.04 mg/l (HydroQual, September 1, 2010). It is possible that these changes would cause the river to exceed the criterion and be considered impaired, which is contrary to any indications of nutrient related impairments in the Escambia River based on the FDEP 303(d) list of impaired waters for Group 4 Basins. This is just one example of how EPA's proposed approach fails to consider any causal relationship between nutrients present in a system and effects on that system and illustrates the need to consider a more site specific, science-based approach in establishing nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.004

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. The EPA should consider, as proposed by FDEP, that verification be made of designated uses attainment prior to the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5372Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization implementation of the criteria for any stream. Such verification should not be limited to biological heath of the stream. Such additional information is required under EPA regulation, specifically 131.11 (b) (2). "... (2) Establish narrative criteria or criteria based upon biomonitoring methods where numerical criteria cannot be established or to supplement numerical criteria." The FDEP proposed regulations in 2009, although problematic in other areas, provided a verification step prior to implementing numeric nutrient criteria. EPA should also provide such a verification step to insure that the criteria are not unnecessarily overprotective. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.010

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection III. Methods for Criteria Development
A. EPA's Updated Criteria contain in the NODA Are Incomplete Criteria must include magnitude, frequency, and duration components. EPA's NODA only included magnitude expressions for the SCI approach and benchmark approach. Without specified expressions of duration and frequency, the magnitude component of the criteria is inordinately vague, and it is virtually impossible to calculate the associated Type I or Type II errors. As EPA is aware, magnitude is a measure of how much of a pollutant may be present in the water without an unacceptable adverse effect. Duration is a measure of the averaging period of the magnitude, and frequency relates to how often the magnitude/duration expression may be exceeded without adverse effects. It is preferred to derive the criterion through a cause-effect relationship. The magnitude, duration, and frequency can then be set at a level that would protect a majority of the sensitive aquatic organisms inhabiting the system. Absent a demonstrated cause-effect relationship and using a reference condition approach, the magnitude, duration, and frequency should be set at a level designed to maintain the data distribution of the reference system, accounting for natural temporal variability. "Reference-based" approaches are predicated on the premise that the continued maintenance of nutrient levels (the data distribution) associated with healthy biological conditions will fully support the designated use and will protect and support those uses into the future. However, it must be emphasized that exceeding a criterion derived from a "reference-based approach" does not automatically mean that deleterious biological responses, or use impairment, will occur. A criterion derived using a reference distribution has no direct link to any observed cause and effect relationship, and as such, it generally has low Type II errors (assessing the waterbody as healthy when it is not). It can only be concluded that maintaining the reference distribution will preserve the uses associated with that distribution. Therefore, the frequency and duration components must be established as additional descriptors of the reference condition datadistribution. Specifically, these components should be part of a statistical test designed to determine whether the long11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5373Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization term distribution has shifted upward from the reference distribution. It is critical to account for the natural variability surrounding the criteria expression and to control for statistical errors. Earlier FDEP comments suggested an appropriate magnitude, duration, and frequency for nutrient criteria derived using a reference stream approach. Previous proposals, such as U.S. EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal for Florida streams describe the frequency and duration component of a numeric nutrient criterion as, "the annual geometric mean for a waterbody shall not surpass the reference site 75th percentile more than one time in a three-year period." The problem with this approach is that it results in an unacceptably high Type I error rate for waterbodies with long-term geometric mean concentrations near the 75th percentile. In fact, a waterbody with long-term geometric mean at the 75th percentile would be expected to exceed this test 50 % of the time. EPA's omission of frequency and duration expressions from the NODA prevents FDEP from further assessing the appropriateness of the criteria derived using the two approaches presented, and specifically, from calculating the Type I and Type II statistical errors associated with the magnitude expression. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.012

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries If indeed EPA or DEP were accurately interpreting Florida's narrative nutrient criterion, there should be very little or no difference in the number each agency derives. The numbers vary with policy decisions made by each agency. For example, DEP originally considered a TP criterion for the Bone Valley of 0.715 mg/l; that number was reduced to 0.415 mg/l when a policy decision was made to apply the 75th percentile to a frequency distribution of total phosphorus data in lieu of the 90th percentile. The policy decision was prompted by EPA's concern over the scarcity of data from minimally disturbed reference sites within the Bone Valley. In January of this year, EPA proposed a TP criterion of 0.739 mg/l for the Bone Valley using its SCI-based reference water approach and applying the 75th percentile to derive its criterion from a frequency distribution of total phosphorus data. In its August 3rd supplemental notice, EPA is now proposing a TP criterion of 0.35 mg/l purportedly applying DEP's benchmark approach to deriving stream criteria and using the 75th percentile--again due to a lack of data from reference waters within the Bone Valley.[6] However, EPA's benchmark criterion for TP proposed in August of 2010 is different from the benchmark criterion considered by DEP in 2009. Once again, policy not science determined the number. EPA chose to exclude nutrient data from DEP benchmark waters within the Bone Valley region wherever dissolved oxygen concentrations did not consistently meet or exceed Florida's default criterion of 5.0 mg/l. EPA excluded data from these minimally disturbed waters even though DEP was able to demonstrate that the depressed DO in the benchmark waters was a natural condition and not related to ambient nutrient concentrations.[7] The impact of this policy decision was to reduce EPA's proposed TP criterion for the Bone Valley by more than half between January 14th and August 3rd of this year.[8] If indeed EPA and DEP were truly interpreting Florida's narrative nutrient criterion to derive numeric endpoints--relying only upon science--the resulting numbers would not vary significantly and certainly would not ping-pong up and down

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5374Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization with each shift in policy.[9] The following table, summarizing the various numbers EPA and DEP have considered for the Bone Valley/West Central Florida nutrient region, illustrates the point. Original comment letter contains additional information in table comparing multiple proposed TN and TP benchmarks for the Bone Valley/West Central Florida nutrient region. See original comment letter. The question is not whether EPA or DEP feel sufficiently comfortable with their data to set a certain nutrient concentration applying a certain percentile. The question is: what nutrient concentration or nutrient load must be maintained to prevent an imbalance of natural populations of flora and fauna? No variation of a reference water approach allows EPA or DEP to answer this question.

[6] The August 3rd notice fails to provide any information as to the proposed frequency or duration associated with the numbers resulting from EPA's application of DEP's benchmark approach. [7] See CF Comments Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2423 to 2426.9. Dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5.0 mg/l do not equate to TN or TP as a causative factor. [8] The TN criterion proposed on August 3rd (1.3 mg/l) is approximately 30% lower than the TN criterion proposed as protective of designated uses in January of this year (1.798 mg/l). In its August 3rd supplemental notice, EPA explains the basis for its adjusting the nutrient regions based upon the distribution of phosphorus deposits but there is no explanation as to the adjustment for TN. [9] Incredulously, EPA's TP criterion for the Bone Volley based upon the benchmark approach (0.35 mg/l) is significantly less than that proposed by Earthjustice (0.530 mg/l) in its initial comments to the January 14, 2010, proposed rule. See Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1919.1, Comments by Earthjustice. EPA's proposed criterion is 34% lower than that suggested by the same environmental organizations that filed the suit that prompted EPA to proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. This underscores the fact that any number based upon a reference water approach is meaningless and nothing more than a product of data manipulation, policy choices and assumptions. 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2468-1.001.003, 2503-1.001.012 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. The first sets of comments related to reference site selection. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5375Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. Moreover, 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. EPA considers the Reference Approach and the process by which the criteria described in final rule to be replicable; EPA has replicated its criteria using the methods described in the final rule TSD several times to confirm this. Another comment suggested that the change in nitrogen criteria as a result of changing reference criteria was evidence of the arbitrary nature. EPA disagrees with this assertion because, as stated in the proposed rule, final rule TSD, and Supplemental Notice, there are multiple ways to select reference populations and each will affect the resulting numbers. This is a function of sample size among other factors. Some change in values was expected, but the outcome value was not the basis for the Reference Approach selection. Rather, the use of the most defensible set of reference site selection criteria was. A last comment suggested that the long history of human disturbance in the West Central makes any reference site process there arbitrary. 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 proposed and final 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. As a result, the process is meant to identify sites with the least disturbance, even in a landscape as altered as the West Central. The confidence in the extent to which the final reference population generated reflects that which supports designated uses informs the selection of an appropriate percentile. EPA agrees with the commenter that the West Central has undergone substantial disturbance. As a result, for the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as notedabove for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmarks population of reference sites. 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 2-5376Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
stressors. EPA considered these and other comments. 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. EPA agrees that 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 is isolation for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites for the SCI approach in the West Central, and for the benchmark approach, applied in the final rule and described in the Supplemental Notice for all regions outside the West Central, a suite of screens was used including corridor land use, watershed land used, nitrate concentrations, aerial photography analysis, and site level investigation as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. Other comments argued that the sample size was insufficient to develop stream criteria, particularly for small and intermittent headwater streams. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA is developing criteria to apply to Class I and III waters, reflected by the population of Class I and III waters that the State of Florida has sampled, presumably as a basis of their monitoring and characterization of the population of sites they consider reflective of that Class. If there is evidence of substantial difference in the function and, therefore, use of small or intermittent streams, then that difference could and possibly should be directed to the process of use classification. Also, the final rule provides flexibility for 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 for a specific waterbody. . 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 wants to confirm that low DO in and of itself was not the basis for removal of a site. Rather, sites listed for DO impairment were the basis for the DO screen, independent of biological condition. 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. EPA received comments on other screens. Some commenters questioned the application of the LDI. Some suggested the watershed should have been considered instead of just the corridor. EPA considered these comments and agrees and applied a watershed-based LDI as well, where available, as detailed in the screening process for the final rule and detailed in the final rule TSD. Still others argued that the watershed LDI was redundant with the corridor LDI. EPA considered this and other comments and disagrees, as it is well demonstrated that a variety of land uses contribute nutrients to streams through flowpaths that either move under

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5377Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
(groundwater) or through (stormwater conveyances) riparian corridors with little or no effect of riparian condition on nutrient mitigation. For this reason is keeping the watershed LDI screen in the benchmark approach for the final rule. Other commenters disagree with the use of a different LDI screening value for the watershed (LDI = 3) than the corridor (LDI = 2). EPA considered this and disagrees detailed in the proposed rule TSD that the watershed LDI value of 3 was correlated with a corridor LDI value of 2, which explains the selection of the watershed LDI value of 3. EPA also notes that this value is not associated with appreciable additional expected disturbance according to the LDI factor table outlined in Brown and Vivas 2005. For this reason, EPA has kept the two distinct LDI values for use in the respective screens for the benchmark approach in the final rule. Other criticized the use of the BPJ screen, arguing that it was poorly documented and arbitrary. EPA disagrees and refers the commenter to the proposed rule TSD, final preamble, and final rule TSD where the process for evaluating the elements that compose the BPJ score are detailed and supported. EPA is keeping the BPJ screen in the final rule benchmark approach process. Others argued that the assumption that the absence of a BPJ score presumed impact. EPA disagrees with this comment and believes the BPJ screen was an important element and took the precautionary step with this screen of presuming that the absence of a value should not be assumed to indicate acceptable conditions, which has been extended to the final rule screening process as well. For the final rule, EPA assumed the same with the LDI corridor < 2 score as well. In addition, for the final rule, CWA section 303(d) screens were applied universally and “NA” values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the nitrate, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation. Therefore only values = 1 for these screens were excluded. EPA received comments that the survey of aerial photographs may have missed some stressors. EPA agrees that this may have happened, but because this screen was combined with the number of screens being applied, including corridor and watershed LDI values based on automated satellite imagery interpretation, this is unlikely. Even so, the possibility of this effect argues for the use of a margin of error associated with percentile selection to allow that some truly nutrient impacted sites may enter the final reference population. For this reason, EPA is applying the 90th percentile of the benchmark population WBID average nutrient concentrations for regions outside the West Central for the final rule. Similarly, EPA received comments that the use of field verification of a random selection of benchmark candidate sites was inappropriate. EPA disagrees. The same commenter supported the BPJ screens and this random survey was one component of the BPJ process along with many other components that informed the BPJ screening score including the survey of aerial photos and regional scientist site knowledge. For this reason, EPA is keeping that component of the approach for the final rule. EPA received comments that the nitrate value used was alternatively too high or too low, depending on the commenter. EPA disagrees. EPA selected this value (0.35 mg/L) as a screen because it had been shown to be associated with impacts to flowing water systems in Florida associated with springs and had been applied by FDEP as an indication of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment. Other commenters suggested that the use of a nitrate concentration automatically skewed the nitrogen values. EPA acknowledges that the use of such a screen might skew the nitrogen distribution, but notes that this is not likely because this screen could not be applied to all sites due to missing data, that nitrate often composed a small portion of the nitrogen pool, that this screen was used as much as an indication of anthropogenic disturbance given natural nitrate concentrations, and that this concentration had already been demonstrated as detrimental to some Florida flowing water systems. EPA is, therefore, keeping this value of nitrate in as a screen for the final rule and this is further elaborated in the final rule TSD. Other commenters suggested that an SCI screening value was inappropriate since it had not been shown to be linked to nutrients. EPA disagrees and has actually demonstrated in several documents including the final rule TSD that the SCI does actually show a significant relationship to nutrients, albeit imprecise. EPA also documented in detail the selection of the value of 40. In addition,EPA has used this screen not only for its linkage to nutrients but also because it helps define an acceptable population of leastdisturbed sites as those with healthy biological condition. Average WBID SCI values less than 40 would indicate potentially

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5378Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
compromised environmental conditions that would preclude the use of such a WBID as a least-disturbed environmental site supportive of designated uses. For these reasons, EPA is retaining the use of the SCI as a screen in both the benchmark and SCI approaches for the final rule, which is detailed in the final rule TSD. Finally, under the theme of reference site selection, EPA received comments that supported the use of the benchmark approach combined with biological screening. EPA agrees and for the final rule is applying the benchmark approach with SCI screens and 303(d) screening steps added to further strengthen the defensibility of the resultant population as least-disturbed. EPA was not able to apply the benchmark screening method in the West Central because there were too few available WBIDs that passed the benchmark screens to estimate any percentile reliably. As a result, EPA used the SCI/303(d) screening approach described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBID-averages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used in the SCI approach used in the West Central. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. See the final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received other comments again supporting the benchmark approach but with minimum observations for each average. EPA disagrees that a minimum number of observations is necessary to estimate annual WBID averages to derive the criteria. The basis for this is that EPA considered distributions composed of annual averages computed from a minimum of 4 samples and from all available samples, and determined that some additional imprecision was introduced in the estimates of annual averages, in particular WBIDs with fewer than samples. However, by including all samples, more WBIDs were included in the reference distribution, which increased EPA's confidence in estimates of the 90th percentiles of the benchmark distributions. Hence, additional imprecision in averages computed for individual WBIDs was outweighed by increased confidence in the entire benchmark distribution. The development of the WBID-average is discussed in detail in the final rule TSD. EPA defers to FDEP for defining appropriate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that estimate annual average nutrient concentrations accurately enough for compliance monitoring. 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, including the use of chlorophyll response variables, 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5379Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. 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 and EPA supports the application of stressor-response models for developing SSAC where adequate site-specific chl-a data are available. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The next theme in comments that EPA received relevant to the Reference Reach Approach was the insufficiency of data both for developing West Central criteria and for calculating EPA’s benchmark criteria. For the final rule, EPA decided to use the benchmark screening approach to identify least-disturbed streams and select the 90th percentile of WBID-averages from each NWR except the West Central. In the West Central, EPA agrees with comments that one WBID was insufficient to derive criteria for the West Central using the benchmark screening approach. As a result, and as supported by several comments, EPA used theSCI/303(d) screening method described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBIDaverages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach for the West Central, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used there. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially with the long history of human disturbance in the West Central, as noted by several commenters. As a result, EPA used the 75th percentile instead of the 90th of WBID-average nutrient concentrations for deriving nutrient criteria in the West Central for the final rule. EPA received a recommendation for the West Central to recalculate criteria there using the LDI, chl-a and diel DO data, and EPA notes that such data are not available for deriving regional criteria and disagrees that such an approach would provide more defensible criteria. With regards to comments that insufficient data or information were provided to replicate the benchmark values, EPA disagrees and points out that the Agency provided all the data to derive the values included in the Supplemental Notice along with detailed notes on how to do that, and also internally verified that the criteria published in the Supplemental Notice could be calculated using the description and data provided. However, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that make it even easier still for the public to replicate final values from the raw data provided. One commenter questioned why some sites in the “allstr00” file were not in the “sites01.final” file. All sites from the “allstr00” file for which EPA had coordinates, WBID, and region information were included in the “sites01.final” file. The same commenter asked what to do with NA values. The instructions clearly indicated which rules are used for exclusion. Section 303(d) screens were applied universally and NA values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the NOx, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation, and so these screens were principally used to discard these impacts where they were known to exist. Similarly, the commenter questioned how to create a WBID-year label, but the process for creating a WBID-year label was fairly straightforward and clearly explained in the instructions. Also, the same commenter claimed the nutrient regions were not available when, in fact, that information was included in the “sites01.final’ file; EPA is unsure why this commenter did not see that information there. Lastly, the same commenter asked how to remove WBID with fewer than 4 observations which was, in fact, described and is straightforward operation in any spreadsheet software. Again, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that may make it even easier for concerned parties to replicate final values from the raw data provided. The last theme relative to the Reference Approach relates to how criteria were determined. The first comment along this line argued

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5380Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
that overlap between the benchmark and all-site populations argues against the use of a percentile of the benchmark as protective. EPA disagrees with this comment. Overlap may indicate that the all sites population is in better condition than expected and/or it may also indicate that the benchmark population contains more disturbance than expected. Similarly, the comment recommended using an extreme percentile (99.9th %) of all sites to avoid listing “pristine” sites. There is a supposition that this selection process is identifying “pristine” sites and this is not the case. EPA has not made that assertion. This process identifies least-disturbed sites, but sites that still contain disturbance. It is, therefore, not surprising and logical that the benchmark and all-sites populations overlap. Indeed, it is possible that screens that remove certain sites based on precautionary selection may exclude streams thatindeed do not manifest elevated nutrient concentrations. The process is meant to be protective in its selection of most likely leastdisturbed sites that support designated uses. But it is possible that the selection process will not remove sites truly impaired by nutrients. The concern over this possibility is the basis for the percentile selected and is a function of EPA’s confidence in the screening process, which is higher for the benchmark approach than the SCI approach, thus the use of the 75th percentile in the West Central based on the SCI approach and the 90th percentile everywhere else using the benchmark approach. EPA also received comments that the 75th percentile was unjustified for use in the West Central. As described above, the 75th percentile was justified in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach; screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used for example. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. Lastly, EPA received comments that fluctuation in the proposed criteria for the West Central is evidence of policy and not science being used to select the criteria. EPA disagrees with this comment. The fluctuations in candidate criteria values is due to changes in selection of the most defensible population of values to use in this region, exacerbated by sample size issues. Given the disturbance in this region, only a small number of appropriate sites were available to use. EPA has calculated percentiles using estimates of central tendency and variance. The central limit theorem of statistics indicates that the estimation of these parameters becomes more precise as sample size increases. Therefore, changes to small sample sizes are expected to have larger effects on the percentile estimates than changes in larger sample sizes. It is for this reason that EPA decided to use the largest population of defensible reference sites possible for the West Central - the SCI-based population. In addition, it is known that more disturbed landscapes present more variable water chemical conditions (e.g., Peters et al. 1997), so again it is not surprising that the West Central should exhibit more variability given the long history of disturbance in that region, as observed by several commenters.

Comment IDs: 2454-1.001.004, 2454-1.001.004, 2462-1.001.005 Response: This set of comments concerns EPA’s classification effort and the revision to the proposed NWR to split the Panhandle into West and East Regions and restrict the size of the West Central. EPA received mostly support for splitting the Panhandle and many comments concerned about the restriction in the size of the West Central and in classification in general. The first set of comments addressed the lack of consideration for more site-specific, especially physical, factors in classifying streams, and commenters cited recent papers indicating more geomorphic bases for classifying streams in Florida (e.g., functional process zones) that yield more classes. EPA agrees that there are a variety of ways to classify streams that would result in any

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5381Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
number of different stream classes. However, for the purposes of deriving nutrient criteria, the process has to weigh the specificity of more and more site-specific factors generating finer classification against the reality of data availability, resource constraints to implement monitoring under any resulting classification, and the sufficiency of a parsimonious classification in deriving defensible criteria. This is true of deriving any criterion, not just numeric nutrient criteria and EPA will continue to use the NWRs for described in the Supplemental Notice for the final rule. EPA agrees that its own guidance lays out a variety of classification options, all of which were meant to provide states with the flexibility to choose from amongst these and other scientifically defensible options. A common and peer-reviewed classification framework has always been ecoregions and bioregions, as reflected in EPA’s own ecoregional 304(a) recommended criteria. Ecoregions capture a variety of the very factors recommended for use by commenters: geology, soil types, vegetation, land cover, climate, and hydrology, among others. That is why EPA considered ecoregions as part of the classification effort. The NWRs used in the final rule refined ecoregions based on smaller scale differences in regional geology and observed water chemistry - again consistent with EPA guidance (see final rule TSD) - among other factors. Commenters recommended alternative classification scenarios (e.g., Rosgen, functional process zones, etc.). These are all potential candidates, but are more experimental or less proven. EPA’s regional approach starts with ecoregions, uses biological considerations, regional geology, and observed patterns in chemistry. EPA considers this approach to be appropriate and scientifically defensible. See final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received several comments that the TN regionalization was incorrect and that it should be a two-region model rather than a five-region model. EPA disagrees. EPA decided 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. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion. 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); meaning that neither the two NWR model nor the five NWR model is more defensible than the other. As a result, because EPA found either model to be protective of applicabledesignated uses and based upon sound scientific rationale, and for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the colimiting nature of TN and TP amply detailed in the scientific literature (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007) and detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD, EPA has decided that a similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. EPA received many comments on the restricted boundary for the West Central. One comment suggested that the West Central boundary was unclear and was not in the docket. EPA disagrees. A map and GIS coverage of the Supplemental Notice NWRs were

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5382Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
provided in the docket and indicate where the modified West Central boundary would be. This is evidenced by the large number of comments that actually applied this data in their responses. Another comment suggested that new phosphorus sediment/geology information (Terziotti et al. 2010) suggests that an expanded area of the West Central is more defensible. EPA disagrees. EPA reviewed the USGS publication and determined that the inability to discriminate human/non-human effects, the resolution, and the untested nature of the information preclude its application by EPA. The authors acknowledge that the maps resulting from the sediment samples cannot discriminate human and non-human sources. Given the long history of phosphorus mining and landscape disturbance in the region, the inability to discriminate such sources does not favor the application of that work to improving discrimination of natural expectations for elevated TP in streams. The geologic maps used by EPA in revising the regionalization as described in the Supplemental Notice and detailed in the final rule TSD, however, are not subject to the same effect and are the most defensible basis upon which EPA revised the West Central boundary. Other comments argued that well data from the region indicate that some peripheral areas excluded from the West Central (e.g., Sarasota Bay) ought to be reincorporated into the West Central. Again, EPA disagrees and argues that in the absence of evidence that such phenomena are not indeed linked to human disturbance in the region that has impacted surface flow and groundwater TP concentrations, the most defensible basis for the revised NWR is the immutable geology underlying the region, which is most consistent with EPA’s revised West Central boundary. Similarly, some argued that Charlotte Harbor should be in the West Central. In fact, most of the Charlotte Harbor watershed, especially the Peace and Myakka drainages, are in the West Central as the commenter recommends. Small coastal tributaries south of the Peace River are not in the West Central as the most substantial evidence available to EPA, the underlying geology, did not support its inclusion in the West Central. Other comments argued that the West Central or high TP region should be expanded to include much of the Peninsula where phosphorus-rich geology exists. EPA disagrees. EPA must weigh the watershed basis of its classification with the other classification factors. Much of the outcrops mentioned in these comments cross small parts of watersheds and sub-watersheds that subsequently do not exhibit the level of coincident differences in stream TP concentrations as witnessed in the West Central, North Central, and Panhandle East regions. A few comments argued that the West Central was expanded to include some drainages, especially peripheral drainages. EPA disagrees. The West Central was not expanded over the proposed rule, rather, it was restricted. It always extended to the watershed boundaries of the drainages noted. This is consistent with EPA’s adherence to a watershed-based element in its classification. Two comments in particular suggested that human-impacted areas (Alachua County and urban Pinellas areas) should be included in higher TP areas because of this disturbance. EPA disagrees. The goal of the classification is to isolate natural differences in instream nutrient expectation and not to confound that with anthropogenic sources. The goal is to establish natural reference expectations for nutrients that inherently protect designated uses. Confusing such an approach with anthropogenic factors would inherently bias nutrient expectations upward. Concern over expectations of criteria for human-modified waters should be dealt with in the context of designated uses, since the authors are ostensibly arguing that the same uses should not be expected of these waterbodies as for natural waterbodies. To date, FDEP has not made such a difference explicit in their use classification.

Comment IDs: 2498-2.001.010, 2454-1.001.006, 2486-1.001.004 Response: The next theme under which EPA received comments relate to implementing the criteria. The first set of comments argue that setting criteria using the methods proscribed would result in unacceptable impairment decision rates, i.e., many “pristine” waters being listed as impaired. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5383Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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 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. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5384Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization
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. EPA also received a comment that the cost of meeting low TP criteria in the Panhandle West would be too great. The criteria development process focuses on identifying criteria that are scientifically defensible and that will protect designated uses. The consideration of cost does not play a role in developing criteria.

Comment ID: 2446-1.001.003 Response: EPA disagrees that the public had too little time in which to review the information contained in the supplemental notice. The three items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice did not introduce entirely new regulatory approaches, an entirely new set of criteria, or an entirely new methodology that warranted more than 30 days of review. As evidence of the reasonableness of the amount of time provided to the public to comment on EPA's supplemental notice, the Agency received 72 public comments on its supplemental notice, many of which contained substantive input on the information contained in the supplemental notice. EPA released the supplemental notice in order to request further comment on possible revisions related to specific approaches and issues identified in the January 2010 proposal. As stated above, the items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice were not wholesale changes to the approaches described at proposal, only refinements. EPA reminds the commenter that the Agency only sought comment on the items presented in its supplemental notice and did not solicit comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposed rule. The approaches EPA is finalizing, as described in the final rule technical support document (TSD), are very similar to those described in its proposed rule TSD. EPA provided additional clarification and detail in its final rule TSD in response to the many constructive comments it received in response to its January 2010 proposal and August 2010 supplemental notice. EPA believes that the 30-day public comment period associated with the Agency’s supplemental notice provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the notice and associated materials in order to provide meaningful public comment to EPA. In addition, EPA believes that the 90-day public comment period associated with the proposal, in conjunction with the public hearings (a total of 13 public hearing sessions were held in 6 different cities throughout the State), provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the proposed regulation and provide meaningful public comment to EPA.

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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5385Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

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. Brown, M. T. and M. B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289-309. 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., 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5386Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Stream Regionalization

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. Peters, N.E., Buell, G.R., and Frick, E.A., 1997, Spatial and temporal variability in nutrient concentrations in surface waters of the Chattahoochee River Basin near Atlanta, Georgia, USA: in Webb, Bruce, ed., Freshwater Contamination, IAHS Publication 243, IAHS Fifth Scientific Assembly, Rabat, Morocco. 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. Terziotti, S., A.B. Hoos, D.A. Harned, and A.M. Garcia. 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5387Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria 

# SNODA.III - ALTERNATE APPROACHES FOR STREAM CRITERIA Comment ID 2447-1.001.003

Author Name: Bartlett D. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2. Stream Criteria: EPA is requesting comment on two potential approaches to deriving stream criteria, but neither approach contains information regarding what final criteria would be derived by the procedures. Specifically, the proposed criteria contained in the notice of data availability do not contain the required averaging period (duration) or the allowable frequency of exceedance (frequency). [See Florida Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby, Inc., Save our Suwannee, Inc., et al. v. EPA, et al., 386 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2004).] The Division has looked over the compilation of the data and may be able to make presumptions regarding the duration component, but cannot draw any conclusions regarding frequency. Please provide the duration and frequency associated with the proposed concentrations produced by these methods so that the Florida citizenry can be fully informed when preparing comments. 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.002

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council In the Florida Utility Groups' original comments submitted on April 26, 2010, the Florida Utility Groups objected to the derivation of numeric nutrient stream criteria using a reference water approach for several reasons, two of which were: 1) there was no proven dose-response or cause-and-effect relationship between the observed biological conditions and the measured nutrient concentrations; 2) the selection of a cutoff point along a frequency distribution of nutrient data (e.g., the 75th percentile) would immediately result in impairment determinations for twenty-five percent of the near pristine or minimally disturbed waters selected to set the criteria. Whether EPA employs its SCI-based reference water approach or the benchmark method, both utilize a reference condition approach to setting nutrient water quality criteria and neither is scientifically defensible. Under either approach, Florida will be spending billions of dollars to "restore" waters that are not impaired and not in need of restoration. 

# Comment ID 2450-1.001.002

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. In the FCG's original comments submitted on April 26, 2010, the FCG objected to the derivation of numeric nutrientstream criteria using a reference water approach for several reasons, two of which were: 1) there was no proven dose11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5388Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria response or cause-and-effect relationship between the observed biological conditions and the measured nutrient concentrations; 2) the selection of a cutoff point along a frequency distribution of nutrient data (e.g., the 75th percentile) would immediately result in impairment determinations for twenty-five percent of the near pristine or minimally disturbed waters selected to set the criteria. Whether EPA employs its SCI-based reference water approach or the benchmark method, both are a reference water approach to setting water quality criteria and neither is scientifically defensible. Under either approach, Florida will be spending millions and millions of dollars to "restore" waters that are not impaired and not in need of restoration. 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.004

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority A. Stream Regionalization and Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation Our comments on the revised stream regionalization and alternative approaches to deriving stream total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) criteria should first be put into context with our view on the overall criteria derivation approach, irrespective of regionalization or alternatives. The current method employed to derive stream nutrient criteria is to identify a minimally impacted or biologically healthy dataset, separate into nutrient watershed regions, develop annual geometric means by WBID, rank the geometric means from lowest to highest, and select either the 75th or 90th percentile as the criteria (i.e., the reference stream distribution method). This method was outlined in the original EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams [1] as one approach to developing stream nutrient criteria. The other recommended criteria development methods involved the use of trophic classification systems; use of models; examination of system biological attributes to assess the relationships among nutrients and algal variables; or use of published nutrient/algal thresholds. Of the many methods recommended, the current approach used for developing stream criteria in Florida is the one that does not correlate cause and effect as it relates to nutrient levels and algal or other response variables. Therefore, we do not believe the current reference stream distribution method approach to developing nutrient criteria is valid because it does not link cause (nutrient concentrations) to effects (algal or other response variables). It is simply a statistical value derived from a dataset without a link to the effects caused by this value (i.e., it is not an effects based water quality criteria). [1] USEPA, 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. EPA-822-B-00-002, July 2000.



# Comment ID 2462-1.001.009

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority Summary Comments on EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5389Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

HydroQual's comments on the EPA documents provided with the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability related to nutrient criteria development in the State of Florida are presented below. Our comments are based on the documents available for review, analysis of the available data and results presented in this document.

1. We do not believe the current reference stream distribution method approach to developing nutrient criteria is valid because it does not link cause (nutrient concentrations) to effects (algal or other response variables). It is simply a statistical value derived from a dataset without a link to the effects caused by this value (i.e., it is not an effects based water quality criteria).



# Comment ID 2467-1.001.004

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

• Neither of the alternatives discussed in the August 3, 2010 NODA incorporate available information on stream biological condition into a criterion framework that can reduce the potential for designated use attainment decision errors. Therefore, designated use attainment decision error rates resulting from the implementation of the proposed criteria for TN and TP are likely to be unnecessarily high. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.010

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Comment #2: Neither of the alternatives discussed in the August 3, 2010 NODA incorporate available information on stream biological condition into a criterion framework that can reduce the potential for designated use attainment decision errors. Therefore, designated use attainment decision error rates resulting from the implementation of the proposed criteria for TN and TP are likely to be unnecessarily high. A means to incorporate biological evidence of stream impairment status directly into the criterion, such as EPA has proposed for lakes, is needed to reduce the likelihood that nutrient concentrations below the criterion incorrectly indicate unimpaired conditions, and criterion exceedances incorrectly indicate impaired conditions. Comments previously filed by NCASI and others point out the importance of including nutrient response variable data, i.e., nutrient related biological condition information, in consideration of criteria that are intended to protect designated uses of surface waters. NCASI illustrated the reduction in designated use decision error rates resulting from the "modified criterion" approach proposed by EPA for Florida lakes. NCASI further commented that the reasons for not using such an approach for flowing waters were not given by EPA. This comment applies equally to the August 3, 2010 NODA: EPA still has not explained why a "modified criterion" approach incorporating biological response data has been proposed for lakes but not for rivers. At present this decision appears to be arbitrary and a result of inadequate systematic planning

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5390Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria applied to the criteria development process. We encourage EPA to consider designated use attainment decision error rates in their evaluation of the proposed nutrient criteria, and to evaluate the utility of a "modified criterion" approach such as was proposed for lakes on January 26, 2010 for flowing waters. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.002

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. Reference Stream Approach The FPPAEA, its members, and technical consultants have previously provided substantial comments on the technical and legal flaws associated with EPA's approach for developing total nitrogen and phosphorous criteria for flowing waters in Florida. The FPPAEA believes that the changes in the nutrient watershed regions do not correct the serious technical flaws associated with a reference stream or benchmark stream approach. The FPPAEA continues to have concerns over this approach and the fact that a relationship between the biological health of a stream and nutrient levels cannot be established. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.006

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.

- Neither of the alternatives discussed in the August 3, 2010 NODA incorporate available information on stream biological condition into a criterion framework that can reduce the potential for designated use attainment decision errors. Therefore, designated use attainment decision error rates resulting from the implementation of the proposed criteria for TN and TP are likely to be unnecessarily high. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.004

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Overall, the EPA 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 shift focus away from meaningful water quality improvement projects and programs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5391Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.008

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Proposed Alternative Reference Stream Selection CriteriaMosaic believes the most appropriate methodology for deriving numeric nutrient criteria for Florida is based on a doseresponse relationship between nutrient concentrations and some biological response variable. However, if a reference stream approach is to be used, Mosaic believes the approach for selecting reference streams with which to develop criteria can at least be improved by making the filtering process more scientifically defensible and robust. Mosaic proposes reference stream selection filters that are more in line with EPA's definition of reference streams described in its Nutrient Criteria Guidance Manual (EPA 2000a). EPA defines a reference stream as "relatively undisturbed" and exhibiting "natural biological integrity" (EPA 2000a). Following EPA's recommendation in its Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 2000a), the first step is to incorporate a stream classification structure such as the one described by Kiefer (2010) to allow for consideration of the various morphological characteristics of streams in a region. After additional filters are applied (described below), a minimum of three reference streams should be selected per stream class, according to guidance provided by EPA (EPA 2000a). Once the stream regions and classes have been chosen, the potential reference stream could be filtered using an approach that utilizes similar criteria as were described in Mosaic's proposal for an expedited SSAC previously submitted to EPA on August 9, 2010 (EPA-HQ-QW-2009-0596-2444). The first level of site selection should be based on on a corridor LDI score less than 2. Several evaluations have indicated the LDI is an accurate predictor of biological health across waterbody types and that healthy well-balanced biological systems are much more likely to occur at sites with LDI scores less than 2.0 (FDEP 2006). Furthermore, Hammond (2009) found LDI was positively correlated with nutrient concentrations and negatively correlated with SCI score in a study of 26 Tampa Bay area streams. Thus, using corridor LDI scores as a reference site selection filter will do much to identify sites that are both relatively undisturbed, and subject to minimal anthropogenic effects. To further eliminate potential reference sites that may have anthropogenic influence, reference streams within each stream class and region should be screened by response variables that can be reasonably expected to be related to nutrient concentrations. Reference streams should be selected as those with an annual average chlorophyll a concentration less than 20 ug/L and an annual average diel dissolved oxygen range of less than 3.0 mg/L. Technical justification for including these criteria is provided in Mosaic's correspondence to EPA concerning the expedited SSAC process (EPA-HQ-QW-2009-0596-2444). This set of criteria provide greater confidence that the pool of reference streams selected will be representative of the region and stream class, as well as exhibiting natural biological integrity in light of the nutrient levels present within them. Because the selection criteria proposed by Mosaic provide reasonable assurance that selected streams will meet the definition of reference stream (relatively undisturbed and exhibiting natural biological integrity), it is appropriate to set criteria for each stream class based on the 90th or 95th percentile distribution of data. In addition, EPA should

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5392Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria include a biological validation within the language of the final numeric nutrient criteria, an idea strongly supported by FDEP. Streams that are deemed potentially impaired under the numeric nutrient criteria should be subject to a biological validation process before the criteria are applied to the stream or to dischargers into the stream. If the streams are validated as healthy, they would not be added to the impaired list at that time. Validation should be in the form of two consecutive healthy SCI scores (> 40) or another approved standardized methodology to determine stream biological integrity. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.012

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2. SCI Based Approach Comments Beyond the lack of a duration and frequency component, the SCI based magnitudes proposed by EPA were inadequate due to data sufficiency issues and the omission of several healthy wetland-influenced reference sites (naturally low in DO and high in TN). Based on these factors, FDEP concluded that the resulting nutrient data distribution compiled using the SCI based approach is non-representative of the resource. Figures 5 and 6 show the number and percent of the of TP and TN samples, respectively, that EPA used to develop the SCI data distribution. The fact that 60% of the sites were represented by only a single data point is a severe limitation of EPA's SCI approach. It cannot be demonstrated that a single nutrient data point is representaive of a given streams nutrient condition,much less when extraploted to be representaive of an entire region. Earlier comments provides by FDEP demonstrated the volatility of nutrient conditions in minimally disturbed streams that occur due to natural conditions. Original comment letter contains additional information in FIGURE 5. Number of samples EPA used to calculate geometric mean concentrations. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in FIGURE 6. Percent of samples of EPA used to calculate geometric mean concentrations. See original comment letter. Additionally, this construct makes it virtually impossible to derive a duration component to the magnitude of the criteria. One would assume that if the data distribution was derived using a long term average, then the criteria would be expressed as a long term average. However, given that the "long term average" was calculated using different amounts of data representing different time periods (some being a single sample), there is no logical means to derive a duration component to the criteria. This basic limitation makes it virtually impossible to derive nutrient criteria with all necessary magnitude, duration, and frequency components. When deriving criteria using the benchmark approach, FDEP ensured that each WBID had a minimum of four data points per year and constructed the data distribution on annual geometric means. This decision was made after investigating the effect that the number of samples per station had on the overall data distribution, and FDEP concluded that four samples in a given year was appropriate. This also provides for a logical outgrowth of the magnitude and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5393Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria duration component of the criteria. FDEP strongly recommends that EPA use the benchmark approach, providing for a minimum data sufficiency requirement, and including of all healthy sites (including those with naturally low DO and naturally high nutrients). 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.005

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 3. All of the Agency's various proposals for establishing numeric nutrient criteria for streams are fatally flawed, as each relies on the manipulation of data that are inversely proportional to represented classes of streams in Florida, particularly within the Bone Valley/West Central region. Moreover, EPA has ignored the critical importance of stream classification as a foundational step in identifying and addressing fundamental characteristic differences that must be taken into account in the development and establishment of appropriate nutrient water quality standards. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.028

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries INTRODUCTION EPA has proposed two alternatives to set Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) for in-stream protective values (IPV) in Florida streams. The first of EPA's proposed alternatives, the SCI-Based Approach, is based on a statistical evaluation of a series of sites selected based on their biological integrity as scored on FDEP's Stream Condition Index (SCI) (EPA 2010b). FDEP determined that SCI scores of 35 or higher indicate a healthy stream (Fore et al, 2007). EPA used an SCI score of 40 to assure that the sites included were minimally disturbed. Then EPA removed all sites listed on the 303(d) list as impaired for nutrients or dissolved oxygen, despite the fact that they were deemed healthy by the SCI. Additional conservatism was added by only including streams estimated to be within the 75th percentile of the remaining healthy systems in the EPA database. EPA conducted a very limited categorization of Florida streams based mainly on their TN:TP ratios and then delineated four Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR) in January 2010 and proposed an alternative with five NWRs this August. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.030

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Both of EPA's proposed alternatives are variants of "reference condition" methods as described by EPA (2006, 2000). Such methods ideally seek streams with a "Reference Condition for Biological Integrity," which are sites approaching a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5394Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria completely natural or pristine condition undisturbed by human activity. Reference Condition streams are typically so rare that the results gleaned from them can not be reliably extrapolated across a region. Instead, EPA provides a conceptual reference dubbed "Minimally Disturbed Condition." Such streams have minimum human disturbance but are not significantly affected by it. EPA (2006) also defines another condition category that can be used to establish NNC, when sufficient geographically-relevant Minimally Disturbed Conditions cannot be established. This is the "Best Potential Condition," and it represents the highest possible biological condition deemed achievable through the implementation of best management practices and other rehabilitation activities. In some cases, the Best Potential Condition may fall somewhat short of full biological integrity. EPA (2006 and 2000) also describe a "Least Disturbed Condition" for regions so impacted that the best that can be accomplished is to identify the waterbodies with the lowest amount of disturbance, but that fall short of biological integrity. Conceptually, establishing NNC based on sites meeting the Minimally Disturbed Condition threshold is appealing in its simplicity of derivation and inherently conservative approach to establishing thresholds protective of the environment. The premise is that a statistical analysis of the range of nutrient concentrations encountered in data collected from natural, unimpacted streams can be used to set safe NNC inherently protective of the environment, because these are the ambient concentrations that the aquatic flora and fauna have adapted to over long-time frames. A key underlying assumption to EPA's proposed methods is that dose-response or stressor-response thresholds need not be identified, because the streams studied reflect a natural balance of limnological conditions for the region. Both of EPA's proposed methods for setting IPVs in Florida rest on such an assumption. BCI is providing comments related to some serious shortcomings and limitations related to both of EPA's proposed approaches and also is providing an alternative approach for EPA's consideration. The first major problem is that both of the proposed reference condition approaches failed to properly and fully implement EPA's own NNC guidance (for example as provided in EPA, 2000; EPA, 2006: and EPA, 2010a). The reasons for this observation are described in Section 1, and some recommendations for how to better proceed are provided. The most fundamental scientific shortcoming of EPA's proposed approach is a lack of dose-response and stressor-threshold analyses. Setting NNC based only upon a statistically derived subset of ambient nutrient concentrations is unacceptable, in large part, because it automatically establishes criteria that nature does not meet. In various places in these comments, BCI suggests using ambient nutrient concentration data as part of the scientific approach for understanding the trophic status of various types of Florida streams. This is mainly suggested as a means to properly classify streams prior to attempting to set NNC, because the failure to classify streams based on their physical characteristics and trophic status is the second fundamental problem with EPA's proposed approach. Under no circumstances should the recommended use of ambient nutrient concentration databe taken out of context. BCI believes that the any reference approach conducted without scientific stressor-response threshold investigations is scientifically incomplete, and will lead to arbitrary andunfair regulatory policy that provides an unnecessary and substantial cost to the public. Dose-response and stressorthreshold analyses, applied to properly defined stream classifications, are necessary to assure that capricious thresholds are not set, while still achieving ambient nutrient concentrations necessary to protect the designated use and ecological integrity of regulated waterbodies. The second major problem is that Minimally Disturbed Conditions, as defined by and screened for by EPA in both proposed approaches, are unlikely to ever reflect the full range of natural variability in nutrient concentrations in the natural streams of the West Central NWR. The reasons for this observation are described in Section 2, and a recommended alternative approach is recommended for this region.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5395Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria Section 3 addresses EPA's proposed delineation of the West-Central NWR. Due to the brevity of the NODA comment period, insufficient time was available to fully review the detailed results of the proposed delineations, but some of the more basic problems with the method are discussed. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.031

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 1.0 EPA'S TWO PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ARE SCIENTIFICALLY INADEQUATE AND IMPROPER APPLICATIONS OF THE REFERENCE APPROACH FOR SETTING NNC The problems center on significant shortcomings concerning the applicability of the SCI metrics and biological integrity thresholds (as used by EPA to screen for Minimally Disturbed Conditions) to the most common types of streams in the state, especially various types of non-perennial, intermittently flowing headwater streams. EPA failed to follow fundamentally important guidance asserted in EPA (2000) to properly classify streams prior to setting NNC. This particular problem and others related to EPA's application of specific methods for the Peninsular and West-Central regions are discussed. In general, EPA has failed to demonstrate stressor-response sensitivity of stream biological function with nutrients in Florida.

1.1 Failure to Follow EPA Guidance to Properly Classify Streams Before Setting NNC EPA conducted a very limited categorization of Florida streams based mainly on TN:TP ratios and then delineated four or five Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR) based on the geographic distribution of streams within different nutrient ratio categories. EPA's Florida stream geographical assignments were intended as a process for "classifying streams and rivers into relatively homogenous groups," and EPA claims that this reflects a classification based upon "inherent differences in the natural factors that influence nutrient concentration in streams (e.g. geology, soil composition, and/or hydrology") (EPA, 2010b). This claim is false because EPA failed to consider substantial differences that occur within the soils, hydrology, and biology among several natural kinds of stream types within each of EPA's proposed NWRs that are integral to how these systems have adapted to ambient nutrient regimes, how nutrients spiral through thesesystems, and how sensitive these systems are likely to be to nutrient enrichment or depletion. The result of EPA's overreliance on geography and amalgamated nutrient ratios was that only one type of stream was assigned to each NWR, despite the fact that each NWR encompasses large areas of the state containing a wide diversity of heterogeneous natural stream types, each with varying hydrology, geomorphology, and biological characteristics. While categorizing streams into geographic regions based on TN:TP ratios is a good start for identifying basic nutrient regions, it is not the type of classification system called for in EPA's own guidance and required for development of scientifically valid stream NNC. EPA (2000), Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams, outlines nine (9) key steps for nutrient criteria development. The suggested alternatives herein are intended to remedy EPA's failure to properly apply at least three of these key provisions based on existing conditions in the WCF-NWR. Deficiencies exist concerning the implementation of Step 1, "Identify water quality needs and goals with regard to managing nutrient enrichment problems," Step 2, "Classify rivers and streams first by type, and then by trophic status," and Step 7, "Develop criteria

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5396Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria based on reference conditions and data analysis." 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.036

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 1.3 Failure to Properly Follow EPA Guidance to Identify Stressor-Response Variables EPA (2000 and 2010a) provide considerable narrative explaining that reference approaches alone are generally insufficient for setting NNC and that, by some combination of applicable literature, data analysis, and modeling, EPA should add scientific merit to statistically-derived reference-based values by demonstrating reasonable cause-and-effect or stressor-response outcomes related to nutrients and biological communities. EPA has seemingly used the FDEP SCI as a surrogate for establishing nutrient-specific stressor-response indicators. This would be fine, except that the SCI was developed and calibrated to detect trends in multiple stressors, and it is a poor metric for evaluating biological integrity of significant classes of streams. The SCI was tested against LDI scores, HDG scores, and a Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) (Fore, et al, 2007). By all accounts, it seems to respond very well as an indicator of overall human disturbance for the types of streams it was developed to assess (generally larger natural, perennial streams with minimal daily DO fluctuations). The SCI was not specifically developed to tease out the effects of nutrient stressors on stream macroinvertebrates, and no alternate multi-metric approach for doing so has been offered by EPA using any of FDEPs abundant macroinvertebrate data. Nor has EPA offered any stressor-response studies using available periphyton data and phytoplankton data as recommended by EPA (2000). Instead EPA seems to be relying on information depicted on Figure 2-30 in EPA (2010b), which includes two graphs showing very strong correlations between calculated nutrient loadings and LDI scores, and then on Figure 2-32, which shows that certain LDI score groupings also associate well with SCI categories. The chain of logic appears to be that high LDI associates with high nutrient loads; high nutrient loads are bad; and that because high LDI-categories also associate with lower SCI categories, NNC can therefore be based on sites screened by their SCI scores for sites with LDI scores of 2 or less. This chain of logic begs two questions:

1. Why not just look directly for stressor-response associations between algal indicators as recommended by EPA (2000)? 2. If macroinvertebrate multi-metric approaches were necessary to screen sites for nutrient stress in Florida, why not revise the metrics and threshold scores to those most tightly associated with nutrient concentrations, after controlling for physical and toxic stressors unrelated to nutrients? Having raised those two issues, let's move back to one of the links that EPA's chain of logic is based upon. EPA Figure 2-30 was taken from Brown and Vivas (2003). Brown and Vivas (2003) developed this graph from their study of a single watershed, the St. Marks basin, located in the Florida panhandle. Applying the results from this case study to other watersheds, particularly those like the North Central and West Central basins with naturally high TP loads, would be highly inappropriate. Also, Brown and Vivas (2003) developed these graphs to study relationships of calculated nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5397Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria loads and LDI scores related to 118 depressional wetlands. It is important to understand that the data shown by EPA does not directly relate to streams. Furthermore, the LDI is a land development index based on weighted-area calculations using GIS Florida Land Use and Cover Code (FLUCCS) coverage around each wetland, and the nutrient loads were based on event means concentration data that are then calculated as a total load based on a weighted-area calculation using GIS FLUCCS coverage in each wetland's watershed. In other words, both variables are derivatives of weighted-area FLUCC-codes calculations that likely have significant autocorrelation. Such mathematical derivations can spuriously inflate perception of an association between two variables. It would be better to look for mathematically independent statistical associations between high LDI watersheds and direct measures of stream nutrient concentrations. Using SCI, LDI, and TP data available to us from FDEP's BCG validation sites, BCI did just that and found no correlation between TP and LDI in streams from that database even after ensuring an absence of potentially confounding high-nutrient sites from the West Central and North Central NWRs (Figure 14a). EPA in Appendix B-8 of EPA (2010b) actually found a weak negative trend in TP versus LDI in the Bone Valley. In fact, for each nutrient in each NWR, EPA (2010b) Appendix B-8 reported at best weak trends. This raises significant doubt that use of LDI scores less than 2 as part of an SCI-based site-screening exercise somehow acts as a surrogate for a bonafide scientific nutrient stressor-bioresponse study. We also determined that this BCG database showed a valid negative correlation between LDI and SCI scores (Figure 14b). Based on our review of Fore, et al (2007) this latter result was expected. Assuming the LDI is a strong predictor of general human disturbance, this result suggests that so is the SCI. Keep in mind that the LDI is an indicator of a very broad array of human alterations to the landscape based on their energy investments and was not developed to be a direct indicator of nutrient stress, although some land use alterations certainly can and do increase nutrient loads to streams. Like the LDI, the SCI was developed to be an integrated indicator of a wide variety of stressors and was not developed to specifically or independently address nutrient stress. FDEP has looked for simple measures relating nutrients to stream algal biomass and also looked to derive taxonomic nutrient indices based on diatoms in Florida streams used in their SCI program. EPA (2010b) Appendix B-11 reviewed FDEP's periphyton-nutrient study and drew the following conclusions,

1. Periphyton thickness was not correlated to TP. 2. Periphyton thickness was positively correlated to nitrate-nitrite, negatively correlated to canopy cover, and negatively correlated to water color. 3. Color effects were confounded by their natural associations with canopy cover, nitrate-nitrate concentrations, and TP concentrations. 4. Algal thicknesses are strongly light-limited in most Florida streams. 5. Higher color is naturally associated with higher total nutrients. 6. Colored streams had lower nitrate-nitrite concentrations and lower algal thicknesses than clear streams. 7. Associations between chl-a and algal thickness occurred only in streams with low canopy cover. 8. TN was associated with benthic algal thickness only in clear streams. 9. TN was associated with chl-a in colored streams, but not in clear streams. 10. TP may have had a weak signal with chl-a. 11. Colored, canopied streams are limited by light, not nutrients. 12. Algal thickness responded weakly to TN, TIN, and TNP (TP+TN) in clear (<40 PCU), unshaded streams (<40%

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5398Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria canopy cover). 13. Impairment signals were suggested when >50% of a transect had algal thickness at least 20 mm (about 1/16th of an inch). 14. Stream classification should account for clear streams versus colored. We agree with number 14 in the list above, that color should be a significant factor in any Florida stream classification. Some types of natural Florida streams have color regimes that vary with season (high color in the wet season and low color in the dry). This should also be taken into account. Other than splitting out one type of clear stream, spring runs, EPA has not classified stream NNC based on color. The general lack of TP effects on Florida stream algal biomass is a striking conclusion. It is known that some larger, more sluggish rivers such as the lower St. Johns and the Caloosahatchee have harmful algal blooms in response to artificial TP loads, however, FDEP's research suggests that most Florida stream types are robustly "buffered" against such effects. Characteristics of shade, color, shifting sandy beds, and flushing that can limit algal production are easily classified and could be used as part of a classification system for determining which kinds of Florida streams require which kinds of nutrient standards and at what thresholds (e.g.,NNC for TN, TIN, TP, and/or TNP, or even none of the above, depending on variables related to channel width, depth, color, etc.). Although less convenient, this would be vastly better and more effective than trying to set a single TN and a single TP value that applies equally to all streams. FDEP was unable to derive a multi-metric stream diatom index (SDI) for Florida streams in association with nutrient concentrations (EPA 2010b, Appendix B-3). In fact a team of diatom experts incorrectly attributed diatom composition to human disturbance levels (BCG) that were actually occurring due to natural variations in stream pH. Simply classifying the streams by a single pH threshold (6.5 units) did not solve the problem. Diatoms have proven to be powerful indicators of trophic status in flowing waters elsewhere. Perhaps proper classification of Florida streams based on more than one physical variable would help to stratify sites into those that diatom responses could be derived within, but for now one is left to conclude that not only the algal biomass of Florida streams, but also their algal composition are rather insensitive to nutrient concentrations. Suggested Alternative:

- Explicitly Limit IPVs to the Classes of Streams Adequately Sampled

- Develop Proper Stream Classifications Within Each NWR Before Setting IPVs In essence, no streams, except perhaps perennially-flowing clear streams with relatively open canopies, have been properly documented by EPA as having an explicit sensitivity to nutrient concentrations, and in that case only to certain forms of inorganic nitrogen. It might be feasible for EPA to define a class of perennial stream (flow duration with most years allowing 12 months of uninterrupted flow to support long-lived taxa), of low color (<40 PCU), wide enough to prevent canopy closure greater than 40%, for which nitrate and nitrite NNCs can be set. All streams not meeting that definition must wait for more research before any NNC can be scientifically supported and justified. It is possible that some of the other types of natural streams in Florida are also sensitive to nutrient enrichment, but until EPA follows its own guidance and properly classifies streams, the necessary stressor-response investigations are likely to remain highly confounded, non-existent, or weak as they did in EPA (2010b) Appendix B-1. Naturally-occurring limits

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5399Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria on trophic shifts caused by or associated with such characteristic as flow duration, seasonal flood pulses, wetland DO sags, nutrient spiraling, shade, pH, color, grazing and sand transport vary so significantly among the natural kinds ofstreams in Florida that the effects of nutrient enrichment can be easily lost. It is no small wonder that such stressorresponse effects have not emerged in the absence of stratifying streams by natural kinds. If after classification, EPA and FDEP continue to find a lack of nutrient stressor-response for one or more classes of streams, then the NNC should not be set for those classes and certainly should not be based on an arbitrarily assigned statistical distribution taken from the available ambient data. Perhaps the majority (greater than 75%) of healthy, natural, non-perennial streams in Florida are unlikely to routinely pass the SCI thresholds that were used by EPA to set "reference" nutrient conditions on both proposed methods. EPA's proposed methods are scientifically insufficient for extrapolation to most Florida streams and did not adequately follow applicable and prudent EPA guidance for setting stream NNC. For these reasons, we recommend abandoning EPA's existing proposals until EPA classifies Florida streams properly and verifies stressor-response thresholds specific to nutrient stress by stream type. 

# Comment ID 2504-1.001.003

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation: The District continues to have technical concerns regarding the lack of biological response with the proposed nutrient criteria developed with the reference approach. If a reference approach is used, we support the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's approach but only if a biological validation step is included in rule implementation. 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2497-2.001.008, 2498-2.001.012, 2449-1.001.002, 2462-1.001.004, 2462-1.001.009, 2467-1.001.004, 2486­ 1.001.002, 2496-1.001.004, 2503-1.001.030, 2503-1.001.036, 2504-1.001.003 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. The first sets of comments related to reference site selection. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the 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. Moreover, 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5400Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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. EPA considers the Reference Approach and the process by which the criteria described in final rule to be replicable; EPA has replicated its criteria using the methods described in the final rule TSD several times to confirm this. Another comment suggested that the change in nitrogen criteria as a result of changing reference criteria was evidence of the arbitrary nature. EPA disagrees with this assertion because, as stated in the proposed rule, final rule TSD, and Supplemental Notice, there are multiple ways to select reference populations and each will affect the resulting numbers. This is a function of sample size among other factors. Some change in values was expected, but the outcome value was not the basis for the Reference Approach selection. Rather, the use of the most defensible set of reference site selection criteria was. A last comment suggested that the long history of human disturbance in the West Central makes any reference site process there arbitrary. 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 proposed and final 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. As a result, the process is meant to identify sites with the least disturbance, even in a landscape as altered as the West Central. The confidence in the extent to which the final reference population generated reflects that which supports designated uses informs the selection of an appropriate percentile. EPA agrees with the commenter that the West Central has undergone substantial disturbance. As a result, for the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as notedabove for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmarks population of reference sites. 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. EPA considered these and other comments. 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. EPA agrees that 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5401Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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 is isolation for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites for the SCI approach in the West Central, and for the benchmark approach, applied in the final rule and described in the Supplemental Notice for all regions outside the West Central, a suite of screens was used including corridor land use, watershed land used, nitrate concentrations, aerial photography analysis, and site level investigation as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. Other comments argued that the sample size was insufficient to develop stream criteria, particularly for small and intermittent headwater streams. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA is developing criteria to apply to Class I and III waters, reflected by the population of Class I and III waters that the State of Florida has sampled, presumably as a basis of their monitoring and characterization of the population of sites they consider reflective of that Class. If there is evidence of substantial difference in the function and, therefore, use of small or intermittent streams, then that difference could and possibly should be directed to the process of use classification. Also, the final rule provides flexibility for 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 for a specific waterbody. 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 wants to confirm that low DO in and of itself was not the basis for removal of a site. Rather, sites listed for DO impairment were the basis for the DO screen, independent of biological condition. 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. EPA received comments on other screens. Some commenters questioned the application of the LDI. Some suggested the watershed should have been considered instead of just the corridor. EPA considered these comments and agrees and applied a watershed-based LDI as well, where available, as detailed in the screening process for the final rule and detailed in the final rule TSD. Still others argued that the watershed LDI was redundant with the corridor LDI. EPA considered this and other comments and disagrees, as it is well demonstrated that a variety of land uses contribute nutrients to streams through flowpaths that either move under (groundwater) or through (stormwater conveyances) riparian corridors with little or no effect of riparian condition on nutrient mitigation. For this reason is keeping the watershed LDI screen in the benchmark approach for the final rule. Other commenters disagree with the use of a different LDI screening value for the watershed (LDI = 3) than the corridor (LDI = 2). EPA considered this and disagrees detailed in the proposed rule TSD that the watershed LDI value of 3 was correlated with a corridor LDI value of 2, which explains the selection of the watershed LDI value of 3. EPA also notes that this value is not associated with appreciable additional expected disturbance according to the LDI factor table outlined in Brown and Vivas 2005. For this reason, EPA has kept the two distinct LDI values for use in the respective screens for the benchmark approach in the final rule. Other criticized the use of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5402Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
the BPJ screen, arguing that it was poorly documented and arbitrary. EPA disagrees and refers the commenter to the proposed rule TSD, final preamble, and final rule TSD where the process for evaluating the elements that compose the BPJ score are detailed and supported. EPA is keeping the BPJ screen in the final rule benchmark approach process. Others argued that the assumption that the absence of a BPJ score presumed impact. EPA disagrees with this comment and believes the BPJ screen was an important element and took the precautionary step with this screen of presuming that the absence of a value should not be assumed to indicate acceptable conditions, which has been extended to the final rule screening process as well. For the final rule, EPA assumed the same with the LDI corridor < 2 score as well. In addition, for the final rule, CWA section 303(d) screens were applied universally and “NA” values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the nitrate, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation. Therefore only values = 1 for these screens were excluded. EPA received comments that the survey of aerial photographs may have missed some stressors. EPA agrees that this may have happened, but because this screen was combined with the number of screens being applied, including corridor and watershed LDI values based on automated satellite imagery interpretation, this is unlikely. Even so, the possibility of this effect argues for the use of a margin of error associated with percentile selection to allow that some truly nutrient impacted sites may enter the final reference population. For this reason, EPA is applying the 90th percentile of the benchmark population WBID average nutrient concentrations for regions outside the West Central for the final rule. Similarly, EPA received comments that the use of field verification of a random selection of benchmark candidate sites was inappropriate. EPA disagrees. The same commenter supported the BPJ screens and this random survey was one component of the BPJ process along with many other components that informed the BPJ screening score including the survey of aerial photos and regional scientist site knowledge. For this reason, EPA is keeping that component of the approach for the final rule. EPA received comments that the nitrate value used was alternatively too high or too low, depending on the commenter. EPA disagrees. EPA selected this value (0.35 mg/L) as a screen because it had been shown to be associated with impacts to flowing water systems in Florida associated with springs and had been applied by FDEP as an indication of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment. Other commenters suggested that the use of a nitrate concentration automatically skewed the nitrogen values. EPA acknowledges that the use of such a screen might skew the nitrogen distribution, but notes that this is not likely because this screen could not be applied to all sites due to missing data, that nitrate often composed a small portion of the nitrogen pool, that this screen was used as much as an indication of anthropogenic disturbance given natural nitrate concentrations, and that this concentration had already been demonstrated as detrimental to some Florida flowing water systems. EPA is, therefore, keeping this value of nitrate in as a screen for the final rule and this is further elaborated in the final rule TSD. Other commenters suggested that an SCI screening value was inappropriate since it had not been shown to be linked to nutrients. EPA disagrees and has actually demonstrated in several documents including the final rule TSD that the SCI does actually show a significant relationship to nutrients, albeit imprecise. EPA also documented in detail the selection of the value of 40. In addition,EPA has used this screen not only for its linkage to nutrients but also because it helps define an acceptable population of leastdisturbed sites as those with healthy biological condition. Average WBID SCI values less than 40 would indicate potentially compromised environmental conditions that would preclude the use of such a WBID as a least-disturbed environmental site supportive of designated uses. For these reasons, EPA is retaining the use of the SCI as a screen in both the benchmark and SCI approaches for the final rule, which is detailed in the final rule TSD. Finally, under the theme of reference site selection, EPA received comments that supported the use of the benchmark approach combined with biological screening. EPA agrees and for the final rule is applying the benchmark approach with SCI screens and 303(d) screening steps added to further strengthen the defensibility of the resultant population as least-disturbed. EPA was not able

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5403Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
to apply the benchmark screening method in the West Central because there were too few available WBIDs that passed the benchmark screens to estimate any percentile reliably. As a result, EPA used the SCI/303(d) screening approach described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBID-averages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used in the SCI approach used in the West Central. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. See the final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received other comments again supporting the benchmark approach but with minimum observations for each average. EPA disagrees that a minimum number of observations is necessary to estimate annual WBID averages to derive the criteria. The basis for this is that EPA considered distributions composed of annual averages computed from a minimum of 4 samples and from all available samples, and determined that some additional imprecision was introduced in the estimates of annual averages, in particular WBIDs with fewer than samples. However, by including all samples, more WBIDs were included in the reference distribution, which increased EPA's confidence in estimates of the 90th percentiles of the benchmark distributions. Hence, additional imprecision in averages computed for individual WBIDs was outweighed by increased confidence in the entire benchmark distribution. The development of the WBID-average is discussed in detail in the final rule TSD. EPA defers to FDEP for defining appropriate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that estimate annual average nutrient concentrations accurately enough for compliance monitoring. 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, including the use of chlorophyll response variables, 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. 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 and EPA supports the application of stressor-response models for developing SSAC where adequate site-specific chl-a data are available. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5404Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
The next theme in comments that EPA received relevant to the Reference Reach Approach was the insufficiency of data both for developing West Central criteria and for calculating EPA’s benchmark criteria. For the final rule, EPA decided to use the benchmark screening approach to identify least-disturbed streams and select the 90th percentile of WBID-averages from each NWR except the West Central. In the West Central, EPA agrees with comments that one WBID was insufficient to derive criteria for the West Central using the benchmark screening approach. As a result, and as supported by several comments, EPA used theSCI/303(d) screening method described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBIDaverages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach for the West Central, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used there. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially with the long history of human disturbance in the West Central, as noted by several commenters. As a result, EPA used the 75th percentile instead of the 90th of WBID-average nutrient concentrations for deriving nutrient criteria in the West Central for the final rule. EPA received a recommendation for the West Central to recalculate criteria there using the LDI, chl-a and diel DO data, and EPA notes that such data are not available for deriving regional criteria and disagrees that such an approach would provide more defensible criteria. With regards to comments that insufficient data or information were provided to replicate the benchmark values, EPA disagrees and points out that the Agency provided all the data to derive the values included in the Supplemental Notice along with detailed notes on how to do that, and also internally verified that the criteria published in the Supplemental Notice could be calculated using the description and data provided. However, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that make it even easier still for the public to replicate final values from the raw data provided. One commenter questioned why some sites in the “allstr00” file were not in the “sites01.final” file. All sites from the “allstr00” file for which EPA had coordinates, WBID, and region information were included in the “sites01.final” file. The same commenter asked what to do with NA values. The instructions clearly indicated which rules are used for exclusion. Section 303(d) screens were applied universally and NA values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the NOx, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation, and so these screens were principally used to discard these impacts where they were known to exist. Similarly, the commenter questioned how to create a WBID-year label, but the process for creating a WBID-year label was fairly straightforward and clearly explained in the instructions. Also, the same commenter claimed the nutrient regions were not available when, in fact, that information was included in the “sites01.final’ file; EPA is unsure why this commenter did not see that information there. Lastly, the same commenter asked how to remove WBID with fewer than 4 observations which was, in fact, described and is straightforward operation in any spreadsheet software. Again, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that may make it even easier for concerned parties to replicate final values from the raw data provided. The last theme relative to the Reference Approach relates to how criteria were determined. The first comment along this line argued that overlap between the benchmark and all-site populations argues against the use of a percentile of the benchmark as protective. EPA disagrees with this comment. Overlap may indicate that the all sites population is in better condition than expected and/or it may also indicate that the benchmark population contains more disturbance than expected. Similarly, the comment recommended using an extreme percentile (99.9th %) of all sites to avoid listing “pristine” sites. There is a supposition that this selection process is identifying “pristine” sites and this is not the case. EPA has not made that assertion. This process identifies least-disturbed sites, but sites that still contain disturbance. It is, therefore, not surprising and logical that the benchmark and all-sites populations overlap. Indeed, it is possible that screens that remove certain sites based on precautionary selection may exclude streams that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5405Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
indeed do not manifest elevated nutrient concentrations. The process is meant to be protective in its selection of most likely leastdisturbed sites that support designated uses. But it is possible that the selection process will not remove sites truly impaired by nutrients. The concern over this possibility is the basis for the percentile selected and is a function of EPA’s confidence in the screening process, which is higher for the benchmark approach than the SCI approach, thus the use of the 75th percentile in the West Central based on the SCI approach and the 90th percentile everywhere else using the benchmark approach. EPA also received comments that the 75th percentile was unjustified for use in the West Central. As described above, the 75th percentile was justified in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach; screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used for example. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. Lastly, EPA received comments that fluctuation in the proposed criteria for the West Central is evidence of policy and not science being used to select the criteria. EPA disagrees with this comment. The fluctuations in candidate criteria values is due to changes in selection of the most defensible population of values to use in this region, exacerbated by sample size issues. Given the disturbance in this region, only a small number of appropriate sites were available to use. EPA has calculated percentiles using estimates of central tendency and variance. The central limit theorem of statistics indicates that the estimation of these parameters becomes more precise as sample size increases. Therefore, changes to small sample sizes are expected to have larger effects on the percentile estimates than changes in larger sample sizes. It is for this reason that EPA decided to use the largest population of defensible reference sites possible for the West Central - the SCI-based population. In addition, it is known that more disturbed landscapes present more variable water chemical conditions (e.g., Peters et al. 1997), so again it is not surprising that the West Central should exhibit more variability given the long history of disturbance in that region, as observed by several commenters.

Comment IDs: 2503-1.001.005, 2503-1.001.031, 2503-1.001.036 Response: This set of comments concerns EPA’s classification effort and the revision to the proposed NWR to split the Panhandle into West and East Regions and restrict the size of the West Central. EPA received mostly support for splitting the Panhandle and many comments concerned about the restriction in the size of the West Central and in classification in general. The first set of comments addressed the lack of consideration for more site-specific, especially physical, factors in classifying streams, and commenters cited recent papers indicating more geomorphic bases for classifying streams in Florida (e.g., functional process zones) that yield more classes. EPA agrees that there are a variety of ways to classify streams that would result in any number of different stream classes. However, for the purposes of deriving nutrient criteria, the process has to weigh the specificity of more and more site-specific factors generating finer classification against the reality of data availability, resource constraints to implement monitoring under any resulting classification, and the sufficiency of a parsimonious classification in deriving defensible criteria. This is true of deriving any criterion, not just numeric nutrient criteria and EPA will continue to use the NWRs for described in the Supplemental Notice for the final rule. EPA agrees that its own guidance lays out a variety of classification options, all of which were meant to provide states with the flexibility to choose from amongst these and other scientifically defensible options. A common and peer-reviewed classification framework has always been ecoregions and bioregions, as reflected in EPA’s

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5406Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
own ecoregional 304(a) recommended criteria. Ecoregions capture a variety of the very factors recommended for use by commenters: geology, soil types, vegetation, land cover, climate, and hydrology, among others. That is why EPA considered ecoregions as part of the classification effort. The NWRs used in the final rule refined ecoregions based on smaller scale differences in regional geology and observed water chemistry - again consistent with EPA guidance (see final rule TSD) - among other factors. Commenters recommended alternative classification scenarios (e.g., Rosgen, functional process zones, etc.). These are all potential candidates, but are more experimental or less proven. EPA’s regional approach starts with ecoregions, uses biological considerations, regional geology, and observed patterns in chemistry. EPA considers this approach to be appropriate and scientifically defensible. See final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received several comments that the TN regionalization was incorrect and that it should be a two-region model rather than a five-region model. EPA disagrees. EPA decided 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. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion. 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); meaning that neither the two NWR model nor the five NWR model is more defensible than the other. As a result, because EPA found either model to be protective of applicabledesignated uses and based upon sound scientific rationale, and for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the colimiting nature of TN and TP amply detailed in the scientific literature (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007) and detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD, EPA has decided that a similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. EPA received many comments on the restricted boundary for the West Central. One comment suggested that the West Central boundary was unclear and was not in the docket. EPA disagrees. A map and GIS coverage of the Supplemental Notice NWRs were provided in the docket and indicate where the modified West Central boundary would be. This is evidenced by the large number of comments that actually applied this data in their responses. Another comment suggested that new phosphorus sediment/geology information (Terziotti et al. 2010) suggests that an expanded area of the West Central is more defensible. EPA disagrees. EPA reviewed the USGS publication and determined that the inability to discriminate human/non-human effects, the resolution, and the untested nature of the information preclude its application by EPA. The authors acknowledge that the maps resulting from the sediment samples cannot discriminate human and non-human

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5407Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
sources. Given the long history of phosphorus mining and landscape disturbance in the region, the inability to discriminate such sources does not favor the application of that work to improving discrimination of natural expectations for elevated TP in streams. The geologic maps used by EPA in revising the regionalization as described in the Supplemental Notice and detailed in the final rule TSD, however, are not subject to the same effect and are the most defensible basis upon which EPA revised the West Central boundary. Other comments argued that well data from the region indicate that some peripheral areas excluded from the West Central (e.g., Sarasota Bay) ought to be reincorporated into the West Central. Again, EPA disagrees and argues that in the absence of evidence that such phenomena are not indeed linked to human disturbance in the region that has impacted surface flow and groundwater TP concentrations, the most defensible basis for the revised NWR is the immutable geology underlying the region, which is most consistent with EPA’s revised West Central boundary. Similarly, some argued that Charlotte Harbor should be in the West Central. In fact, most of the Charlotte Harbor watershed, especially the Peace and Myakka drainages, are in the West Central as the commenter recommends. Small coastal tributaries south of the Peace River are not in the West Central as the most substantial evidence available to EPA, the underlying geology, did not support its inclusion in the West Central. Other comments argued that the West Central or high TP region should be expanded to include much of the Peninsula where phosphorus-rich geology exists. EPA disagrees. EPA must weigh the watershed basis of its classification with the other classification factors. Much of the outcrops mentioned in these comments cross small parts of watersheds and sub-watersheds that subsequently do not exhibit the level of coincident differences in stream TP concentrations as witnessed in the West Central, North Central, and Panhandle East Regions. A few comments argued that the West Central was expanded to include some drainages, especially peripheral drainages. EPA disagrees. The West Central was not expanded over the proposed rule, rather, it was restricted. It always extended to the watershed boundaries of the drainages noted. This is consistent with EPA’s adherence to a watershed-based element in its classification. Two comments in particular suggested that human-impacted areas (Alachua County and urban Pinellas areas) should be included in higher TP areas because of this disturbance. EPA disagrees. The goal of the classification is to isolate natural differences in instream nutrient expectation and not to confound that with anthropogenic sources. The goal is to establish natural reference expectations for nutrients that inherently protect designated uses. Confusing such an approach with anthropogenic factors would inherently bias nutrient expectations upward. Concern over expectations of criteria for human-modified waters should be dealt with in the context of designated uses, since the authors are ostensibly arguing that the same uses should not be expected of these waterbodies as for natural waterbodies. To date, FDEP has not made such a difference explicit in their use classification.

Comment IDs: 2447-1.001.003, 2449-1.001.002, 2450-1.001.002, 2467-1.001.010, 2486-1.001.006, 2497-2.001.008 Response: The next theme under which EPA received comments relate to implementing the criteria. The first set of comments argue that setting criteria using the methods proscribed would result in unacceptable impairment decision rates, i.e., many “pristine” waters being listed as impaired. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5408Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5409Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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. EPA also received a comment that the cost of meeting low TP criteria in the Panhandle West would be too great. The criteria development process focuses on identifying criteria that are scientifically defensible and that will protect designated uses. The consideration of cost does not play a role in developing criteria.

Comment ID: 2503-1.001.028 Response: The comments above did not include arguments or questions requiring response, but are acknowledged here as being read and considered

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. Brown, M.T. and M.B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289­ 309. 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 2-5410Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

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. Peters, N.E., G.R. Buell, and E.A. Frick. 1997. Spatial and temporal variability in nutrient concentrations in surface waters of the Chattahoochee River Basin near Atlanta, Georgia, USA: in Webb, Bruce, ed., Freshwater Contamination, IAHS Publication 243, IAHS Fifth Scientific Assembly, Rabat, Morocco. 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 2-5411Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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. Terziotti, S., A.B. Hoos, D.A. Harned, and A.M. Garcia. 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet. 

# SNODA.III.A - BENCHMARKS Comment ID 2446-1.001.005

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Third, our preliminary review of the docket has already identified certain obstacles to undertaking an informed, expeditious review. For example, the docket does not appear to contain any explanation or rationale for why EPA considers its new proposal for benchmark streams technically superior to its original proposal for reference waters. EPA states that this proposal is in response to comment, but does not cite to the comments in the docket that purportedly justify the proposed changes, nor does EPA offer any technical justification for its new approach. To the extent that EPA is relying on the FDEP July 2009 proposal for the proposed revisions, the Agency's decision to make this proposal now is unexplained. EPA had access to this information and to the FDEP proposal before it issued the proposed Rule. EPA does not explain why, barely two months before the Rule is scheduled to be issued in final form, it changed its position and suddenly reverts back to a proposal that EPA in essence rejected in January of 2010. 

# Comment ID 2457-2.001.003

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa STREAMS - Benchmark Distribution Approach The EPA has also provided additional information on and seeks comment on an alternative approach originally proposed by FDEP called the Benchmark Distribution Approach to set numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The Benchmark Distribution Approach is essentially a more conservative iteration of the previously used reference system approach described by EPA in the original proposed rule. Additional criteria are imposed on the reference system data to attempt to ensure anthropogenic influences are minimized and professional judgment is introduced to define a set of "minimally disturbed" streams. Therefore, there are now three sets of potential criteria proposed for Florida streams which are summarized in Table 1.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5412Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. List of potential criteria proposed by EPA for Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Florida streams. See original comment letter. The justification for the benchmark distribution approach is based on the rationale that the nutrient regime associated with minimally disturbed sites, which are partially characterized by healthy aquatic communities, is inherently protective of the healthy, well balanced designated use. Several subjective steps are taken to identify sites as "minimally disturbed" to serve as benchmark distribution sites. In fact, so many conditions were imposed that only 4 sites in the Bone Valley passed the criteria necessary to be included in the benchmark distribution for this region. Yet, the distribution of these 4 stations was used to develop numeric nutrient criteria that are being proposed as regulatory criteria for an area roughly 10 percent of the entire State of Florida. As for the reference system approach, there is a general lack of scientific rationale for justifying the benchmark distribution approach as an effective tool to establish limiting criteria for all streams within a given region. The use of such criteria as outlined in the TSD to identify benchmark sites predetermines that these sites will be different from thepopulation of streams to be governed by the criteria irrespective of the biologic health of those streams. No stressorresponse relationship is established and no relationships are developed between nutrients and biological responses. That benchmark sites were chosen as sites with high SCI scores and low LDI scores does not mean that high SCI scores do not exist in areas with higher LDI scores; however, no information is provided from which to deduce this. At minimum intra and inter regional comparisons of benchmark sites and non-benchmark sites should be provided for all characteristics recorded describing stream attributes so that the reader can be assured that the streams are similar with respect to conditions other than anthropogenic influences. These plots would be helpful in assessing differences among all streams within a region as well as streams across regions. It is not acceptable to simply infer that healthy sites, as chosen subjectively, will represent conditions that will fully support designated uses or conversely, that those sites not meeting the criteria for the benchmark distribution result in impaired waterbodies. It must be established that the benchmark distribution is representative of the general population of streams on which inferences are being made. This means that the stream characteristics must be similar in terms of non-anthropogenically influenced features which might confound the relationships such as stream velocities, canopy cover, bed sediment structure, and habitat characteristics affecting the SCI values. Obviously, the LDI scores alone segregate the benchmark distribution from the general population of streams. More evidence is needed that streams not qualifying for the benchmark distribution are impaired as implied by this approach. Given that the benchmark sites represent healthy aquatic systems that have been carefully selected to represent pristine conditions, it does not appear necessary to select any value other than the maximum observed value with the benchmark distribution. If the EPA is insistent on using this approach to establish criteria, we disagree with selecting any value other than the maximum value of the distribution as the proposed criterion. Certainly, the fact that only four sites were used in the Bone Valley reduces confidence that this distribution is even representative of the population of Benchmark sites. Therefore, the maximum value should be used if the EPA insists upon this method.
Conclusion

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5413Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria The benchmark distribution approach has only established that the FDEP was able to select a subset of Florida streams having high SCI scores based on streams having high SCI scores (>40) among other criteria. The method was overly conservative, and no justification was provided that the benchmark sites could be used to infer any information about the general population of streams within a region. Comparisons should have included a more rigorous assessment of how anthropogenic effects resulted in elevated nutrient concentrations which resulted in reduced biological communities as was inferred in the application of this approach. Currently, there is little supporting evidence that the benchmark distribution is relevant to anything other than the sites where the samples were collected. 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.006

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation The nutrient dataset provided with the EPA Supplemental Data was processed according to the "Deriving Nutrient Criteria for the Benchmark Population" method, which includes filtering sampling sites in the raw dataset based on: a riparian corridor landscape development index (LDI); FDEP best professional judgment (BPJ); EPAs 303(d) list; a watershed LDI; nitrate/nitrite levels; and a stream condition index (SCI). The filtering of the raw dataset (about 284,000 data points) to create the benchmark population resulted in about 63,000 TN data points and about 80,000 TP data points. After creating annual geometric means by WBID with more than four data points per WBID-year results in about 2,700 data points to develop the TN criteria and about 3,200 data point for the TP criteria. The resulting sampling sites are presented in Figure 1 and indicate the limited number of sites used to develop the nutrient criteria for the entire State of Florida. For instance, there are three sites available in WBID 537 (out of 721) in the West Central NWR that resulted in three TN and eight TP data points (WBID-year>4) for developing the nutrient criteria in this region. Table 2 presents the number of available sites (benchmark population) used for the criteria development along with the total number of available sites (entire dataset). Regardless of the small number of sites used to develop the criteria (less than 10% of the total), the requirement that criteria reflect cause and effect relationships is relatively absent in the filtering of the data. In addition, selection of the benchmark population does not account for any site-specific factors that may or may not result in water quality impairments at a given nutrient concentration. The benchmark dataset was also analyzed to develop the probability distributions used by EPA in determining the nutrient criteria by NWR. Figures 2 (TN) and 3 (TP) present the benchmark population nutrient data (geometric means with WBID-year>4) as probability distributions for the five NWRs. The filled circles are the benchmark population and the open circles are the entire dataset with the vertical dashed lines representing either the 90th percentile or the 75th percentile (West Central NWR only). From the benchmark population, the nutrient criteria were developed from the log mean and log standard deviation of the distributions as presented in Tables 3 (TN) and 4 (TP). These tables also present the maximum nutrient concentrations in each NWR along with the 99.9th percentile concentration as determined from the distributions. Given that the benchmark population represents minimally impacted or relatively pristine water bodies, using a 90th percentile (or 75th percentile) implies that 10-25% of the benchmark waters will be impaired using the new criteria. An alternative approach to follow using the benchmark population is to select the maximum value or by using the observed distribution, select a high percentile (e.g., 99.9th percentile) that reflects the potential for higher values to be observed in the future. Tables 3 and 4 present these higher nutrient concentrations using either the maximum observed or 99.9th percentile. This would ensure that the highest quality water bodies are not

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5414Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria determined to be impaired under the revised nutrient criteria. It should be noted, that this alternate approach of selecting a maximum or high percentile value from the distributions still does not ensure that the effects of nutrient loading are protected. That is, a high nutrient concentration could result in no nutrient-related effects or in severe nutrient effects because the reference stream distribution method does not link cause and effect when setting the nutrient criteria. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. Nutrient Sites available & Used. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3. EPA Revised TN Criteria, Maximum and 99.9th Percentile. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 4. EPA Revised TP Criteria, Maximum and 99.9th Percentile. See original comment letter. As a sensitivity, the nutrient distributions from the entire data set (WBID-year>4) are also presented in Figures 2 and 3 (open circles) to compare the differences in nutrient concentration distributions between the two datasets. In general, there are differences between the datasets in some of the NWRs, but whether they are statistically significant is the key question. Even though there are differences. some of the NWRs show similar nutrient distributions between the benchmark population and entire dataset (e.g., North Central, Peninsula and West Central for TN, and Panhandle West, North Central and West Central for TP). This suggests that the reference stream distribution method is not valid and the benchmark population is not a good indicator of minimally impacted or impacted water bodies and, therefore, should not be used for setting nutrient criteria. Again, it should be noted that this approach for setting nutrient criteria does not consider cause and effect between nutrient Concentration and nutrient response. 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.010

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority
2. The benchmark dataset developed by EPA and used to develop the revised nutrient criteria result in a limited number of sites used to develop the nutrient criteria for the entire State of Florida. Regardless of the small number of sites used to develop the criteria (less than 10% of the total), the requirement that criteria reflect cause and effect relationships is relatively absent in the filtering of the data. In addition, selection of the benchmark population does not account for any site-specific factors that may or may not result in water quality impairments at a given nutrient concentration.
3. An alternative approach to follow using the benchmark population is to select the maximum value or by using the observed distribution, select a high percentile (e.g., 99.9th percentile) that reflects the potential for higher values to be observed in the future. This would ensure that the highest quality water bodies are not determined to be impaired under the revised nutrient criteria. It should be noted, that this alternate approach of selecting a maximum or high percentile value from the distributions still does not ensure that the effects of nutrient loading are protected. That is, a high nutrient concentration could result in no nutrient-related effects or in severe nutrient effects because the reference stream

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5415Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria distribution method does not link cause and effect when setting the nutrient criteria.

4. Even though there are differences, some of the NWRs show similar nutrient distributions between the benchmark population and entire dataset (e.g., North Central, Peninsula and West Central for TN; and Panhandle West, North Central and West Central for TP). This suggests that the reference stream distribution method is not valid and the benchmark population is not a good indicator of minimally impacted or impacted water bodies and, therefore, should not be used for setting nutrient criteria. Again, it should be noted that this approach for setting nutrient criteria does not consider cause and effect between nutrient concentration and nutrient response. 

# Comment ID 2466-2.001.003

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Using the Benchmark Distribution Approach as an Alternative to Proposed EPA Approach EPA is also requesting comment on basing the TN and TP criteria for the nutrient watershed regions on a combination of the 75th and 90th percentile values (depending on regions) of the benchmark sites outlined in the alternate approach as proposed. For this request, EPA used its original approach and revised the proposed TN and TP criteria using the 75th percentile of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from sites with healthy biological conditions for the new proposed regions. EPA has requested comments on an alternative approach that uses the original FDEP-proposed benchmark stream approach that would base the criteria for streams on the 90th percentile of concentration values (75th in the West Central) for minimally disturbed sites. Table 1 provides a comparison of the resultant criteria values. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Comparison of Resultant Criteria for Original EPA Approach Applied to Proposed Nutrient Regions to Alternate Approach. See original comment letter. While EPA has presented an alternative approach for the development of Instream Protective Values (IPVs) for Florida's streams, the new approach still does not address the problems inherent in any approach that uses reference streams to develop water quality standards that are intended to protect the human uses and biological integrity of the individual waterbodies: a) The use of a reference approach for the determination of numeric nutrient criteria for streams has issues based upon the lack of a cause-and-effect relationship between biological health and nutrient concentrations in Florida's streams. b) The reference approach use of the 75th percentile in the West Central Region 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. c) Stream criteria (and the regionalization) do not account for the variation in stream types in Florida. For example, this approach does not adequately consider blackwater/wetland-dominated systems, which have naturally low DO and high

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5416Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

nutrient concentrations. d) In the development of the reference stations, EPA eliminated sites that were listed for impairment for DO and stations that were listed for nutrient impairment even if they showed healthy biology through SCI scores. This is not scientifically defensible and is inconsistent with the proposed methodology. By arbitrarily removing these systems, the final proposed criteria values are skewed. This is particularly true for those streams that are strongly associated with wetlands and can be expected to be naturally low in DO and high in organic nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.005

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

• EPA has not made the underlying data available in a manner that can be readily evaluated. Members of the public are required to recreate the data set that EPA is working from, unnecessarily increasing the potential for misunderstandings and disagreements that hinder the public commenting process. EPA should provide all data sets involved in their criteria decisions, including initial, intermediate, and final data sets used in criteria development.

• We repeat our previous comment regarding the removal of sites from consideration as reference sites where impairments have been attributed to low dissolved oxygen: sites should not be removed if low DO is naturally occurring. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.011

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Comment #3: EPA has not made the underlying data available in a manner that can be readily evaluated. Members of the public are required to recreate the data set that EPA is working from, unnecessarily increasing the potential for misunderstandings and disagreements that hinder the public commenting process. EPA should provide all data sets involved in their criteria decisions, including initial, intermediate, and final data sets used in criteria development. In the federal docket file on "Deriving Nutrient Criteria for the Benchmark Populations" (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2441; issued August 3, 2010) EPA describes a process for identifying the final populations of benchmark sites from which the percentiles are calculated for developing proposed nutrient criteria in Florida. NCASI staff have reviewed the information in the docket specific to the datasets and associated filters or "screens" used by EPA and have found the process described by the agency to be inadequate for the purpose of fully evaluating the proposed criteria within the 30­ day period allowed. After a thorough review of all information provided in the docket, it appears that specific pieces of key information, including a final list of sites used for deriving the criteria and the values used to calculate the proposed criteria, are not provided. It is likely that, with adequate time, the process described could be followed to generate information that would be the same as EPA's output, but it is unclear why the agency has not simply provided the final dataset from which the proposed criteria are directly derived. This simple step would greatly improve the transparency of EPA's criteria-setting process.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5417Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

The following points are made to highlight specific questions and concerns regarding the datasets and the process described by EPA in the docket.

1. The allstr00 file provides a comprehensive account of all sites and observations considered in the derivation process, but does not provide a clear indication of which specific records were used in the derivation of TN and TP criteria.

2. It is unclear as to why some sites were not included in the final list of sites considered even though they meet the selection criteria in all seven of the site and WBID screens. Specifically, there are 23 sites that are not included in the final population of benchmark sites listed in the ‘sites01.final.txt' data file (i.e., EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2440.9.txt) and there is no information to account for the omission of these sites.
3. EPA's description of the data screens includes vague language (e.g., "merged") and does not provide instructions that are clear enough to replicate the process the agency used to assemble the final list of sites from which the proposed criteria are derived. For example, the WBID screens associated with steps 5-8 do not include instructions on what to do with WBIDs for which no documentation is available (i.e., N/A) as shown in step 4. If WBIDs with no documentation should be included, EPA should also provide an explanation as to why it is reasonable to do so. For example, do WBIDs that are not present in the 303(d) screen indicate no water quality assessment has been done and what explanation does the agency have for including or excluding these WBIDs?

4. EPA's description of the data screens does not include information on the site-level SCI screen. This screen is referenced in the notes as ‘s.sci.site.org.txt' and is included in the docket as a separate file (i.e., EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596-2440.7.txt), but there are no instructions on whether or not to apply the screen. If the site-level SCI screen is applied, it is unclear as to why there are 376 records in this screen that have no site number (i.e., ‘ORG_Station') associated with the ‘SCI.excl' value.

5. The procedure outlined on page 2 of Deriving Nutrient Criteria for the Benchmark Population (EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596-2441.pdf) provides general information on the process used to derive the criteria based on the benchmark data set. However, the following components related to the outcome of the procedure (or the procedure itself) are not present in the docket:

• The new unique identifiers based on the WBID and the year in which samples were collected.

• The nutrient regions associated with each site or WBID.

• A list of specific sites that were not used based on insufficient data (i.e., <4 samples).

• The average TN & TP data used in the derivation of criteria. Comment #4: We repeat our previous comment regarding the removal of sites from consideration as reference sites where impairments have been attributed to low dissolved oxygen: sites should not be removed if low DO is naturally occurring. One of the "screens" used by EPA to select sites for use in the derivation of the proposed criteria eliminates sites with impairments due to low dissolved oxygen (apparently defined as DO less than 5.0 mg/L, the state water quality criterion for Class III waters). Section 8 of the previous NCASI comments 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5418Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria mg/L of DO). The literature suggests several potential causes of naturally low DO in streams, and points out that other characteristics of these streams such as their nutrient concentrations still reflect natural conditions. Thus, excluding these sites may bias the final criteria values. 

# Comment ID 2469-1.001.002

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau Federation (FFBF) 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 has 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-and-effect relationship exists between two variables. Without predictable cause-and-effect relationships there is no evidence that nutrient reduction will result in predictable environmental improvement.[2] 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. 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 leads to 25% of benchmark streams being declared impaired. 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.[3] [2] Id. at 36. [3] Id. at 58. 

# Comment ID 2471-1.001.003

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City B. Benchmark Distribution Approach The EPA has also provided additional information and seeks comment on an alternative approach originally proposed by FDEP called the Benchmark Distribution Approach to set numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The Benchmark Distribution Approach is essentially a more conservative iteration of the previously used reference system approach described by EPA in the original proposed rule. Additional criteria are imposed on the reference system data to attempt to ensure anthropogenic influences are minimized and professional judgment is introduced to define a set of "minimally disturbed" streams. Therefore, there are now three sets of potential criteria proposed for Florida streams which are summarized in Table 1.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5419Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. List of potential criteria proposed by EPA for Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Florida streams. See original comment letter. The justification for the benchmark distribution approach is based on the rationale that the nutrient regime associated with minimally disturbed sites, which are partially characterized by healthy aquatic communities, is inherently protective of the healthy, well balanced designated use. Several subjective steps are taken to identify sites as "minimally disturbed" to serve as benchmark distribution sites. In fact, so many conditions were imposed that only 4 sites in the Bone Valley passed the criteria necessary to be included in the benchmark distribution for this region. Yet, the distribution of these 4 stations was used to develop numeric nutrient criteria that are being proposed as regulatory criteria for an area roughly 10 percent of the entire State of Florida. As for the reference system approach, there is a general lack of scientific rationale for justifying the benchmark distribution approach as an effective tool to establish limiting criteria for all streams within a given region. The use of such criteria as outlined in the Technical Support Document to identify benchmark sites predetermines that these sites will be different from the population of streams to be governed by the criteria irrespective of the biologic health of those streams. No stressor-response relationship is established and no relationships are developed between nutrients and biological responses. That benchmark sites were chosen as sites with high SCI scores and low LDI scores does not mean that high SCI scores do not exist in areas with higher LDI scores; however, no information is provided from which to deduce this. At minimum intra and inter regional comparisons of benchmark sites and non-benchmark sites should be provided for all characteristics recorded describing stream attributes so that the reader can be assured that the streams are similar with respect to conditions other than anthropogenic influences. These plots would be helpful in assessing differences among all streams within a region as well as streams across regions. It is not acceptable to simply infer that healthy sites, as chosen subjectively, will represent conditions that will fully support designated uses or conversely, that those sites not meeting the criteria for the benchmark distribution result in impaired waterbodies. It must be established that the benchmark distribution is representative of the general population of streams on which inferences are being made. This means that the stream characteristics must be similar in terms of nonanthropogenically influenced features which might confound the relationships such as stream velocities, canopy cover, bed sediment structure, and habitat characteristics affecting the SCI values. Obviously, the LDI scores alone segregate the benchmark distribution from the general population of streams. More evidence is needed that streams not qualifying for the benchmark distribution are impaired as implied by this approach. Given that the benchmark sites represent healthy aquatic systems that have been carefully selected to represent pristine conditions, it does not appear necessary to select any value other than the maximum observed value with the benchmark distribution. If the EPA is insistent on using this approach to establish criteria, we disagree with selecting any value other than the maximum value of the distribution as the proposed criterion. Certainly, the fact that only four sites were used in the Bone Valley reduces confidence that this distribution is even representative of the population of Benchmark sites. Therefore, the maximum value should be used if the EPA insists upon this method.
Conclusion The benchmark distribution approach has only established that the FDEP was able to select a subset of Florida streams

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5420Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria having high SCI scores based on streams having high SCI scores (>40) among other criteria. The method was overly conservative, and no justification was provided that the benchmark sites could be used to infer any information about the general population of streams within a region. Comparisons should have included a more rigorous assessment of how anthropogenic effects resulted in elevated nutrient concentrations which resulted in reduced biological communities as was inferred in the application of this approach. Currently, there is little supporting evidence that the benchmark distribution is relevant to anything other than the sites where the samples were collected. 

# Comment ID 2472-1.001.003

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County B. Benchmark Distribution Approach The EPA has also provided additional information and seeks comment on an alternative approach originally proposed by FDEP called the Benchmark Distribution Approach to set numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The Benchmark Distribution Approach is essentially a more conservative iteration of the previously used reference system approach described by EPA in the original proposed rule. Additional criteria are imposed on the reference system data to attempt to ensure anthropogenic influences are minimized and professional judgment is introduced to define a set of "minimally disturbed" streams. Therefore, there are now three sets of potential criteria proposed for Florida streams which are summarized in Table 1. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. List of potential criteria proposed by EPA for Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Florida streams. See original comment letter. The justification for the benchmark distribution approach is based on the rationale that the nutrient regime associated with minimally disturbed sites, which are partially characterized by healthy aquatic communities, is inherently protective of the healthy, well balanced designated use. Several subjective steps are taken to identify sites as "minimally disturbed" to serve as benchmark distribution sites. In fact, so many conditions were imposed that only 4 sites in the Bone Valley passed the criteria necessary to be included in the benchmark distribution for this region. Yet, the distribution of these 4 stations was used to develop numeric nutrient criteria that are being proposed as regulatory criteria for an area roughly 10 percent of the entire State of Florida. As for the reference system approach, there is a general lack of scientific rationale for justifying the benchmark distribution approach as an effective tool to establish limiting criteria for all streams within a given region. The use of such criteria as outlined in the Technical Support Document to identify benchmark sites predetermines that these sites will be different from the population of streams to be governed by the criteria irrespective of the biologic health of those streams. No stressor-response relationship is established and no relationships are developed between nutrients and biological responses. That benchmark sites were chosen as sites with high SCI scores and low LDI scores does not mean that high SCI scores do not exist in areas with higher LDI scores; however, no information is provided from which to deduce this. At minimum intra and inter regional comparisons of benchmark sites and non-benchmark sites should

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5421Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria be provided for all characteristics recorded describing stream attributes so that the reader can be assured that the streams are similar with respect to conditions other than anthropogenic influences. These plots would be helpful in assessing differences among all streams within a region as well as streams across regions. It is not acceptable to simply infer that healthy sites, as chosen subjectively, will represent conditions that will fully support designated uses or conversely, that those sites not meeting the criteria for the benchmark distribution result in impaired waterbodies. It must be established that the benchmark distribution is representative of the general population of streams on which inferences are being made. This means that the stream characteristics must be similar in terms of non-anthropogenically influenced features which might confound the relationships such as stream velocities, canopy cover, bed sediment structure, and habitat characteristics affecting the SCI values. Obviously, the LDI scores alone segregate the benchmark distribution from the general population of streams. More evidence is needed that streams not qualifying for the benchmark distribution are impaired as implied by this approach. Given that the benchmark sites represent healthy aquatic systems that have been carefully selected to represent pristine conditions, it does not appear necessary to select any value other than the maximum observed value with the benchmark distribution. If the EPA is insistent on using this approach to establish criteria, we disagree with selecting any value other than the maximum value of the distribution as the proposed criterion. Certainly, the fact that only four sites were used in the Bone Valley reduces confidence that this distribution is even representative of the population of Benchmark sites. Therefore, the maximum value should be used if the EPA insists upon this method.
Conclusion The benchmark distribution approach has only established that the FDEP was able to select a subset of Florida streams having high SCI scores based on streams having high SCI scores (>40) among other criteria. The method was overly conservative, and no justification was provided that the benchmark sites could be used to infer any information about the general population of streams within a region. Comparisons should have included a more rigorous assessment of how anthropogenic effects resulted in elevated nutrient concentrations which resulted in reduced biological communities as was inferred in the application of this approach. Currently, there is little supporting evidence that the benchmark distribution is relevant to anything other than the sites where the samples were collected. 

# Comment ID 2473-1.001.003

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa B. Benchmark Distribution Approach The EPA has also provided additional information and seeks comment on an alternative approach originally proposed by FDEP called the Benchmark Distribution Approach to set numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The Benchmark Distribution Approach is essentially a more conservative iteration of the previously used reference system approach described by EPA in the original proposed rule. Additional criteria are imposed on the reference system data to attempt to ensure anthropogenic influences are minimized and professional judgment is introduced to define a set of "minimally disturbed" streams. Therefore, there are now three sets of potential criteria proposed for Florida streams which are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5422Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

summarized in Table 1. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. List of potential criteria proposed by EPA for Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Florida streams. See original comment letter. The justification for the benchmark distribution approach is based on the rationale that the nutrient regime associated with minimally disturbed sites, which are partially characterized by healthy aquatic communities, is inherently protective of the healthy, well balanced designated use. Several subjective steps are taken to identify sites as "minimally disturbed" to serve as benchmark distribution sites. In fact, so many conditions were imposed that only 4 sites in the Bone Valley passed the criteria necessary to be included in the benchmark distribution for this region. Yet, the distribution of these 4 stations was used to develop numeric nutrient criteria that are being proposed as regulatory criteria for an area roughly 10 percent of the entire State of Florida. As for the reference system approach, there is a general lack of scientific rationale for justifying the benchmark distribution approach as an effective tool to establish limiting criteria for all streams within a given region. The use of such criteria as outlined in the Technical Support Document to identify benchmark sites predetermines that these sites will be different from the population of streams to be governed by the criteria irrespective of the biologic health of those streams. No stressor-response relationship is established and no relationships are developed between nutrients and biological responses. That benchmark sites were chosen as sites with high SCI scores and low LDI scores does not mean that high SCI scores do not exist in areas with higher LDI scores; however, no information is provided from which to deduce this. At minimum intra and inter regional comparisons of benchmark sites and non-benchmark sites should be provided for all characteristics recorded describing stream attributes so that the reader can be assured that the streams are similar with respect to conditions other than anthropogenic influences. These plots would be helpful in assessing differences among all streams within a region as well as streams across regions. It is not acceptable to simply infer that healthy sites, as chosen subjectively, will represent conditions that will fully support designated uses or conversely, that those sites not meeting the criteria for the benchmark distribution result in impaired waterbodies. It must be established that the benchmark distribution is representative of the general population of streams on which inferences are being made. This means that the stream characteristics must be similar in terms of nonanthropogenically influenced features which might confound the relationships such as stream velocities, canopy cover, bed sediment structure, and habitat characteristics affecting the SCI values. Obviously, the LDI scores alone segregate the benchmark distribution from the general population of streams. More evidence is needed that streams not qualifying for the benchmark distribution are impaired as implied by this approach. Given that the benchmark sites represent healthy aquatic systems that have been carefully selected to represent pristine conditions, it does not appear necessary to select any value other than the maximum observed value with the benchmark distribution. If the EPA is insistent on using this approach to establish criteria, we disagree with selecting any value other than the maximum value of the distribution as the proposed criterion. Certainly, the fact that only four sites were used in the Bone Valley reduces confidence that this distribution is even representative of the population of Benchmark sites. Therefore, the maximum value should be used if the EPA insists upon this method.
Conclusion

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5423Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

The benchmark distribution approach has only established that the FDEP was able to select a subset of Florida streams having high SCI scores based on streams having high SCI scores (>40) among other criteria. The method was overly conservative, and no justification was provided that the benchmark sites could be used to infer any information about the general population of streams within a region. Comparisons should have included a more rigorous assessment of how anthropogenic effects resulted in elevated nutrient concentrations which resulted in reduced biological communities as was inferred in the application of this approach. Currently, there is little supporting evidence that the benchmark distribution is relevant to anything other than the sites where the samples were collected. 

# Comment ID 2474-1.001.003

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville B. Benchmark Distribution Approach The EPA has also provided additional information and seeks comment on an alternative approach originally proposed by FDEP called the Benchmark Distribution Approach to set numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The Benchmark Distribution Approach is essentially a more conservative iteration of the previously used reference system approach described by EPA in the original proposed rule. Additional criteria are imposed on the reference system data to attempt to ensure anthropogenic influences are minimized and professional judgment is introduced to define a set of "minimally disturbed" streams. Therefore, there are now three sets of potential criteria proposed for Florida streams which are summarized in Table 1. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. List of potential criteria proposed by EPA for Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Florida streams. See original comment letter. The justification for the benchmark distribution approach is based on the rationale that the nutrient regime associated with minimally disturbed sites, which are partially characterized by healthy aquatic communities, is inherently protective of the healthy, well balanced designated use. Several subjective steps are taken to identify sites as "minimally disturbed" to serve as benchmark distribution sites. In fact, so many conditions were imposed that only 4 sites in the Bone Valley passed the criteria necessary to be included in the benchmark distribution for this region. Yet, the distribution of these 4 stations was used to develop numeric nutrient criteria that are being proposed as regulatory criteria for an area roughly 10 percent of the entire State of Florida. As for the reference system approach, there is a general lack of scientific rationale for justifying the benchmark distribution approach as an effective tool to establish limiting criteria for all streams within a given region. The use of such criteria as outlined in the Technical Support Document to identify benchmark sites predetermines that these sites will be different from the population of streams to be governed by the criteria irrespective of the biologic health of those streams. No stressor-response relationship is established and no relationships are developed between nutrients and biological responses. That benchmark sites were chosen as sites with high SCI scores and low LDI scores does not

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5424Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria mean that high SCI scores do not exist in areas with higher LDI scores; however, no information is provided from which to deduce this. At minimum intra and inter regional comparisons of benchmark sites and non-benchmark sites should be provided for all characteristics recorded describing stream attributes so that the reader can be assured that the streams are similar with respect to conditions other than anthropogenic influences. These plots would be helpful in assessing differences among all streams within a region as well as streams across regions. It is not acceptable to simply infer that healthy sites, as chosen subjectively, will represent conditions that will fully support designated uses or conversely, that those sites not meeting the criteria for the benchmark distribution result in impaired waterbodies. It must be established that the benchmark distribution is representative of the general population of streams on which inferences are being made. This means that the stream characteristics must be similar in terms of nonanthropogenically influenced features which might confound the relationships such as stream velocities, canopy cover, bed sediment structure, and habitat characteristics affecting the SCI values. Obviously, the LDI scores alone segregate the benchmark distribution from the general population of streams. More evidence is needed that streams not qualifying for the benchmark distribution are impaired as implied by this approach. Given that the benchmark sites represent healthy aquatic systems that have been carefully selected to represent pristine conditions, it does not appear necessary to select any value other than the maximum observed value with the benchmark distribution. If the EPA is insistent on using this approach to establish criteria, we disagree with selecting any value other than the maximum value of the distribution as the proposed criterion. Certainly, the fact that only four sites were used in the Bone Valley reduces confidence that this distribution is even representative of the population of Benchmark sites. Therefore, the maximum value should be used if the EPA insists upon this method.
Conclusion The benchmark distribution approach has only established that the FDEP was able to select a subset of Florida streams having high SCI scores based on streams having high SCI scores (>40) among other criteria. The method was overly conservative, and no justification was provided that the benchmark sites could be used to infer any information about the general population of streams within a region. Comparisons should have included a more rigorous assessment of how anthropogenic effects resulted in elevated nutrient concentrations which resulted in reduced biological communities as was inferred in the application of this approach. Currently, there is little supporting evidence that the benchmark distribution is relevant to anything other than the sites where the samples were collected. 

# Comment ID 2476-1.001.003

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services
2. We do not see supporting evidence for use of the benchmark distribution as proposed. 

# Comment ID 2479-1.001.009

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5425Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission B. Benchmark Distribution Approach The EPA has also provided additional information and seeks comment on an alternative approach originally proposed by FDEP called the Benchmark Distribution Approach to set numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The Benchmark Distribution Approach is essentially a more conservative iteration of the previously used reference system approach described by EPA in the original proposed rule. Additional criteria are imposed on the reference system data to attempt to ensure anthropogenic influences are minimized and professional judgment is introduced to define a set of "minimally disturbed" streams. Therefore, there are now three sets of potential criteria proposed for Florida streams which are summarized in Table 1 Original Comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. List of potential criteria proposed by EPA for Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Florida streams. Please see original comment. The justification for the benchmark distribution approach is based on the rationale that the nutrient regime associated with minimally disturbed sites, which are partially characterized by healthy aquatic communities, is inherently protective of the healthy, well balanced designated use. Several subjective steps are taken to identify sites as "minimally disturbed" to serve as benchmark distribution sites. In fact, so many conditions were imposed that only 4 sites in the Bone Valley passed the criteria necessary to be included in the benchmark distribution for this region. Yet, the distribution of these 4 stations was used to develop numeric nutrient criteria that are being proposed as regulatory criteria for an area roughly 10 percent of the entire State of Florida. As for the reference system approach, there is a general lack of scientific rationale for justifying the benchmark distribution approach as an effective tool to establish limiting criteria for all streams within a given region. The use of such criteria as outlined in the Technical Support Document to identify benchmark sites predetermines that these sites will be different from the population of streams to be governed by the criteria irrespective of the biologic health of those streams. No stressor-response relationship is established and no relationships are developed between nutrients and biological responses. That benchmark sites were chosen as sites with high SCI scores and low LDI scores does not mean that high SCI scores do not exist in areas with higher LDI scores; however, no information is provided from which to deduce this. At minimum intra and inter regional comparisons of benchmark sites and non-benchmark sites should be provided for all characteristics recorded describing stream attributes so that the reader can be assured that the streams are similar with respect to conditions other than anthropogenic influences. These plots would be helpful in assessing differences among all streams within a region as well as streams across regions. It is not acceptable to simply infer that healthy sites, as chosen subjectively, will represent conditions that will fully support designated uses or conversely, that those sites not meeting the criteria for the benchmark distribution result in impaired waterbodies. It must be established that the benchmark distribution is representative of the general population of streams on which inferences are being made. This means that the stream characteristics must be similar in terms of non-anthropogenically influenced features which might confound the relationships such as stream velocities, canopy cover, bed sediment structure, and habitat characteristics affecting the SCI values. Obviously, the LDI scores alone segregate the benchmark distribution from the general population of streams. More evidence is needed that streams

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5426Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria not qualifying for the benchmark distribution are impaired as implied by this approach. Given that the benchmark sites represent healthy aquatic systems that have been carefully selected to represent pristine conditions, it does not appear necessary to select any value other than the maximum observed value with the benchmark distribution. If the EPA is insistent on using this approach to establish criteria, we disagree with selecting any value other than the maximum value of the distribution as the proposed criterion. Certainly, the fact that only four sites were used in the Bone Valley reduces confidence that this distribution is even representative of the population of Benchmark sites. Therefore, the maximum value should be used if the EPA insists upon this method.
Conclusion The benchmark distribution approach has only established that the FDEP was able to select a subset of Florida streams having high SCI scores based on streams having high SCI scores (>40) among other criteria. The method was overly conservative, and no justification was provided that the benchmark sites could be used to infer any information about the general population of streams within a region. Comparisons should have included a more rigorous assessment of how anthropogenic effects resulted in elevated nutrient concentrations which resulted in reduced biological communities as was inferred in the application of this approach. Currently, there is little supporting evidence that the benchmark distribution is relevant to anything other than the sites where the samples were collected. 

# Comment ID 2480-2.001.004

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5427Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

(vii) Verify a random sample of sites by field groundtruthing. FDEP (2010b,c) 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% 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. However, these seven steps used by FDEP may not have resulted in selection of streams that are "least disturbed" because:

- 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?
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 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).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5428Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria 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. 2010c, 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 (2010c, 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 [West Central] 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. 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, especially for N forms that can travel long distances, such as nitrate. Therefore, I support U.S. EPA's (2010a) use of reference (minimally impacted) streams rather than FDEP's "least disturbed" segments except in the West Central Region. 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.003

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 3. USEPA should use the "benchmark distribution approach" for determining biologically healthy sites rather than the previously proposed "reference condition approach," and should use the 90th percentile of the distribution of benchmark sites as the threshold for the proposed criteria for all regions, including West Central. For streams that are above the 90th percentile, it is recommended that evidence of impairment be documented through biological surveys. The "benchmark distribution approach" utilized by the FDEP is a more appropriate method than the "reference condition approach". The "benchmark distribution approach" uses minimally disturbed sites rather than true reference sites, and incorporates the Landscape Development Intensity Index. Surveys of benchmark sites have demonstrated that they are biologically healthy. USEPA's "reference condition approach" 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 that do not interfere with the health of stream/river ecosystems. Thus, use of the "reference condition approach" as a threshold is overprotective for determining biologically healthy sites. 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.006

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5429Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

5. SWFWMD requests clarification regarding the additional quality assurance data screen. Is USEPA excluding the low dissolved oxygen (DO) streams that are considered "healthy" (natural DO depression) according to FDEPs Stream Condition Index methodology? What does the screening process entail for site exclusion? 

# Comment ID 2482.001.003

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District

- The District continues to support the use of the benchmark approach for determining biologically healthy sites for the development of river/stream criteria. 

# Comment ID 2483-1.001.003

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee STREAM CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITH TWO APPROACHES: SCI-BASED AND BENCHMARK DISTRIBUTION

2. As noted previously by other stakeholders, as well as EPA and FDEP, the reference stream method is not the preferred approach to establish criteria as it can result in excessive Type I errors. The COT finds that the use of the benchmark distribution approach using the 90th percentile values for TN and TP, however, represents the most practical route to minimize the flaw of this method. The COT has stated previously to EPA and the FDEP that the reference stream approach is not a preferred method for establishing water quality standards. Inherent with this method is a result that produces a subset of the reference streams that would not meet the proposed criteria. That is a flaw that must be considered when all of the stakeholders are responsible for the fiscal consequences. We realize that neither the EPA nor FDEP has been able to demonstrate a dose-response correlation for nutrients and biological degradation in streams, therefore the reference stream approach is one of the few options left. In lieu of a dose-response correlation, it is imperative that the standards are developed using the next best scientific approaches that would produce practical criteria for stakeholders to work toward. If EPA chooses to develop the nutrient criteria, via the benchmark stream method, the COT believes it is reasonable to assume that if additional water quality screens are applied to the data and the 90th percentile value is selected this would eliminate more of the Type I errors, where natural streams that should meet the criteria would be deemed impaired. By using the benchmark approach and subsetting the data into the additional Panhandle East Region, the COT concurs that the values for TN and TP 0.97 mg/L and 0.11 mg/L respectively are reasonable, attainable and protective of downstream water quality. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.007

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5430Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.

- EPA has not made the underlying data available in a manner that can be readily evaluated. Members of the public are required to recreate the data set that EPA is working from, unnecessarily increasing the potential for misunderstandings and disagreements that hinder the public comment process. EPA should provide all data sets involved in their criteria decisions, including initial, intermediate, and final data sets used in criteria development.

- Previous comments regarding the removal of sites from consideration as reference sites are repeated: where impairments have been attributed to low dissolved oxygen, sites should not be removed from consideration as reference sites if low DO is naturally occurring. 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.006

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc. The August 3, 2010 proposal includes a number of specific requests for comment. PotashCorp's general comment that the proposed approach is not scientifically defensible applies to each of these comment requests. Specific comments on EPA's request are provided below:

- With regard to the alternative "benchmark" approach, PotashCorp notes that this alternative further restricts the original database to exclude streams with elevated levels of TP and TN that otherwise would be considered biologically healthy. This is particularly true for the adjustment excluding sites with nitrate/nitrite concentrations greater than 0.35 mg/L. Without a mechanistic relationship demonstrating why this adjustment is appropriate, it arbitrarily skews the distribution to lower TN concentrations. The other adjustments included in the benchmark approach also exclude streams with higher nutrient concentrations due to arbitrary considerations independent of biological health. In the January 26, 2010 proposal, EPA established its position that elevated nutrient concentrations impair stream aquatic life and streams with a SCI equal to or greater than 40 are not impaired for aquatic life. By definition, these streams are not impaired due to nutrients and flags excluding stream data based on LDIs, BPJ and NOX are arbitrary. Therefore, PotashCorp objects to the benchmark approach.

- PotachCorp further notes that the data for Swift Creek were excluded from the baseline dataset based on a 303(d) listing flag. This listing is in error. FDEP recently corrected this listing to indicate that Swift Creek (WBlD 3375) was not impaired for dissolved oxygen, nutrients, or suspended solids. Based on this revision, data for Swift Creek should be included in EPA's baseline database and the distributional analysis for the North Central region should be recalculated to reflect these data. 

# Comment ID 2490-1.001.004

Author Name: Burges L.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5431Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation Using the Benchmark Distribution Approach as an Alternative to Proposed EPA Approach EPA is also requesting comment on basing the TN and TP criteria for the nutrient watershed regions on a combination of the 75th and 90th percentile values (depending on regions) of the benchmark sites outlined in the alternative approach at proposal. For this request, EPA used its original approach and revised the proposed TN and TP criteria using the 75th percentile of TN and TP concentrations from sites with healthy biological conditions for the new proposed regions. EPA has requested comments of an alternative approach that uses the original FDEP-proposed benchmark stream approach that would base the criteria for streams on the 90th percentile of concentration values (75th in the West Central) for minimally disturbed sites. Table 1 provides a comparison of the resultant criteria values. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Comparison of Resultant Criteria for Original EPA Approach Applied to Proposed Nutrient Regions to Alternative Approach. See original comment letter. EPA has presented an alternative approach for the development of IPVs for Florida's streams.The new approach still does not address the following problems inherent in any approach that uses reference streams to develop water quality standards that are intended to protect the human uses and biological integrity of the individual waterbodies:

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-and-effect relationship between biological health and nutrient concentrations in Florida's streams. 2. The reference approach use of the 75th 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. 3. Stream criteria (and the regionalization) do not account for the variation in stream types in Florida. For example, this approach does not adequately consider blackwater/ wetland-dominated systems, which have naturally low DO and high nutrient concentrations. 4. In the development of the reference stations, EPA eliminated sites that were listed for impairment for DO and stations that were listed for nutrient impairment even if they showed healthy biology through SCI scores. This is not scientifically defensible and is inconsistent with the proposed methodology. By arbitrarily removing these systems, the final proposed criteria values are skewed. This is particularly true for those streams that are strongly associated with wetlands and can be expected to be naturally low in DO and high in organic nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 2492-1.001.004

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies In the August 3 Notice, EPA outlines two changes to its approach for deriving the stream criteria for Florida relating to delineation of the stream regions for which EPA has developed reference condition criteria and the potential application of a 'benchmark distribution approach' for certain stream regions within the state. While EPA sought comment in the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5432Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria January 2010 proposal on the benchmark distribution approach, which had been used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in developing draft nutrient criteria in 2009, EPA relied on its standard reference condition approach when establishing the proposed criteria values. Now, in the Notice, EPA states that it is considering using the benchmark method to establish criteria for certain waters, and sets forth proposed numeric criteria that the Agency derived using that method. The benchmark method, however, is merely a 'modified reference condition approach' and suffers from the same fundamental problem - it is not based on a cause-and-effect relationship. NACWA has been a vocal critic of the reference condition approach to nutrient criteria development since the late 1990s for this reason. The statistical percentiles employed can only represent the properties of a data distribution. Without further analysis of any associated in-stream effects, it is impossible to determine whether the environmental conditions associated with meeting a reference condition-based criterion would actually protect designated uses. NACWA and other stakeholders, including the Florida DEP, have suggested that bioassessments be done before applying such nutrient criteria to a particular waterbody to ensure that the statistics are relevant to the waterbody in question. Florida DEP actually included this as an element of its proposed use of the benchmark distribution approach. NACWA believes that including such a biological confirmatory step in the Florida criteria would be consistent with other state approaches and would help prevent unnecessary expenditures where biological conditions are not impacted and ensure that controls are put in place when there is an impact. 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.006

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Using the Benchmark Distribution Approach as an Alternative to Proposed EPA Approach EPA is also requesting comment on basing the TN and TP criteria for the nutrient watershed regions on a combination of the 75th and 90th percentile values (depending on regions) of the benchmark sites outlined in the alternate approach at proposal. For this request, EPA used its original approach and revised the proposed TN and TP criteria using the 75th percentile of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from sites with healthy biological conditions for the new proposed regions. EPA has requested comments of an alternative approach that uses the original FDEP-proposed benchmark stream approach that would base the criteria for streams on the 90th percentile of concentration values (75th in the West Central) for minimally disturbed sites. Table 1 provides a comparison of the resultant criteria values. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Comparison of Resultant Criteria for Original EPA Approach Applied to Proposed Nutrient Regions to Alternate Approach. See original comment letter. While EPA has presented an alternative approach for the development of IPVs for Florida's streams, the new approach still does not address the problems inherent in any approach that uses reference streams to develop water quality standards that are intended to protect the human uses and biological integrity of the individual waterbodies:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5433Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria a) The use of a reference approach for the determination of numeric nutrient criteria for streams has issues based upon the lack of a cause-and-effect relationship between biological health and nutrient concentrations in Florida's streams. b) The reference approach use of the 75th 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. c) Stream criteria (and the regionalization) do not account for the variation in stream types in Florida. For example, this approach does not adequately consider blackwater/wetland-dominated systems, which have naturally low DO and high nutrient concentrations. Pasco County has numerous waterbodies that fit into this category such as Trout Creek, Cypress Creek, and New River. d) In the development of the reference stations, EPA eliminated sites that were listed for impairment for DO and stations that were listed for nutrient impairment even if they showed healthy biology through SCI scores. This is not scientifically defensible and is inconsistent with the proposed methodology. By arbitrarily removing these systems, the final proposed criteria values are skewed. This is particularly true for those streams that are strongly associated with wetlands and can be expected to be naturally low in DO and high in organic nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 2494-1.001.004

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition II. USE OF "BENCHMARK DISTRIBUTION" APPROACH In developing the stream criteria that it proposed earlier this year, EPA used the "reference site" approach. At that time, EPA specifically rejected use of the "benchmark distribution" approach that had been used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in developing draft nutrient criteria in 2009. However, EPA did, in the January 26 notice, ask for comment on use of the DEP process. Now, in the NODA, EPA states that it is "considering" using the benchmark distribution method to establish criteria, and sets forth proposed numeric criteria that it derived using that method. This new proposal from the Agency has several fundamental flaws: First, EPA provides no explanation for why it has decided that the benchmark approach, which it specifically decided not to use in its initial proposal, now is acceptable for use in deriving criteria. Second, EPA fails to recognize that the benchmark approach suffers from the same basic problem as the reference site method, as identified in the FWQC comments on EPA's initial proposal: neither method is based on a cause-and-effect relationship between specific pollutant levels and discernible adverse impacts on aquatic populations. Therefore, as set forth in those initial comments, EPA does not have the legal or technical basis to develop binding criteria under the Clean Water Act. Third, EPA does not mention that the DEP approach was purposely overprotective. As a result, DEP has argued that under its approach, Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) are unnecessary, since the criteria would protect

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5434Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria downstream uses. In the NODA, EPA apparently intends to use the benchmark approach to develop criteria, and then impose the DPVs in addition, making the already strict criteria even stricter. That is simply inconsistent with the original basis for the DEP method. Fourth, EPA also does not mention a critical element of the original DEP approach: a specific requirement that before a waterbody could be considered impaired for nutrients, there must be an independent assessment of biological information, to determine if there is, in fact, a real impairment to the biotic community. That connection to the real world in the DEP approach was specifically endorsed by the Agency's own Science Advisory Board in its recent report on development of nutrient criteria.[1] EPA could easily include such a requirement in its stream criteria; it has allowed States (such as Ohio) to write their water quality standards to include such a biological element, so that numeric criteria are not considered independently, but rather in a weight-of-evidence process that considers biological information. Any criteria developed in this rulemaking should contain that critical biological requirement. Fifth, because of the way in which criteria are developed under the benchmark and reference approaches, the resulting criteria are arbitrary, having nothing to do with actual levels of impairment, but rather with the specific reference sites and percentiles used in the calculation. For example, possible criteria that EPA calculated for the Peninsula region, under the various approaches and percentiles being considered by the Agency, range from 0.088 mg/L (using the benchmark approach and the 75th percentile) to 0.19 mg/L (using the reference approach and the 90th percentile). The higher of those two criteria is 120% higher than the lower criteria, for the same waters, depending solely on arbitrary judgment choices made by the Agency as to method and percentile. That underscores the lack of factual basis for the criteria.

[1] Swackhamer, Deborah L. and Meyer, Judith L. "SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Development." April 27, 2010. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/E09317EC14CB3F2B85257713004BED5F/$File/EPA-SAB-10-006

­ unsigned.pdf 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.005

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC
2. Comments on Use of Benchmark Approach for Instream Protective Values The West Central region is the only region in which the proposed criteria have been reduced substantially from the criteria in the proposed Rule. While the criteria proposed in the NODA were either the same or higher than in the proposed Rule for most ecoregions,[9] in the West Central region the criterion for TN decreased from 1.80 mg/l to 1.30 mg/l (a reduction of 28 percent), and the criterion for TP decreased from 0.73 mg/l to 0.35 mg/l (a reduction of more than 50 percent). Neither the NODA nor the supporting documents in the docket provides an analysis by EPA showing that the criteria in the proposed Rule were inadequate or unprotective. Indeed, the NODA does not even contain a general discussion of why the benchmark streams approach is technically superior to the reference waters approach in the proposed Rule.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5435Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

In addition to this complete absence of justification for EPA's proposed new approach to stream criteria, and more specifically the lack of any justification for the substantial reduction in the criteria proposed for the West Central ecoregion, EPA's approach includes numerous significant technical flaws and gaps. Any one of these would raise serious questions regarding the technical validity of EPA's approach, but taken together they demonstrate that EPA's proposal lacks the core element of sufficient scientific grounding to constitute valid rulemaking. The proposal should be withdrawn. [9] The NODA divided the former Panhandle region into two regions, Panhandle East and Panhandle West. The criteria for Panhandle East are slightly higher than in the previous Panhandle region, while the criteria for Panhandle West are lower than for the previous Panhandle region. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.007

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC C. The Methodology EPA Used to Screen the Population of WBIDs to Obtain its Single Benchmark WBID is Technically Invalid and Contrary to EPA Guidance. EPA applied numerous invalid screening parameters that unnecessarily excluded potentially viable WBIDs from the benchmark population. For example, EPA, relying heavily on data generated by FDEP,[18] excluded at least 10 WBIDs from the benchmark set merely because they lacked any statement, positive or negative, regarding the best professional judgment ("BPJ") of the reviewer of the stream.[19] Apparently, EPA relied on this absence of an indication to exclude a stream without either undertaking its own evaluation of the WBID or reviewing with FDEP why it had not provided any BPJ indication. In effect, EPA treated all WBIDs lacking a BPJ indication as though some qualified professional actually exercised affirmative judgment that a WBID should be rejected. EPA put forward no reasoned basis for operating on the basis of this misassumption. Also, EPA used an average SCI score of greater than 40 as a screen for excluding benchmark streams, as it used in the proposed Rule. As we noted in our comments on the proposed Rule, there is no verified relationship between SCI and nutrients.[20] While SCI may be a valid measure of overall stream biological health, absent specific evidence linking nutrient concentrations to SCI, this is an invalid basis to exclude streams. Most relevant to this discussion is that EPA not only relied on SCI, but relied on it in a manner that likely distorted the results. EPA screened WBIDs based on the average of all SCI data points for a WBID. In effect, this means that a WBID may have been excluded based on an outlier SCI score from a site that may have been disproportionately sampled. Since EPA has not provided the raw data for its screening process, we are unable to determine if this averaging process excluded otherwise viable benchmark streams, and if so how many. EPA's benchmark approach also inappropriately used a nitrate-nitrite criteria of greater than 0.35 mg/l as a screen. This criterion was established in the proposed rule for springs, spring runs and clear streams. See proposed 40 C.F.R. §131.43(c)(3). As we discussed in our initial Rulemaking Comments, the nitrate-nitrite criterion was derived from data for springs and spring runs, and was not appropriate for extension to clear streams, much less all streams. See Mosaic

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5436Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria Comments at 34-37, and Attachment 5. The relationship between NOx and periphyton was not significant in colored streams, which constitute the vast majority of the population of streams in the West Central region. Accordingly, its use as a screening criteria for selecting benchmark streams is inappropriate and without foundation. The benchmark approach also inappropriately uses low dissolved oxygen ("DO") (less than 5mg/l) as a screen, determined by a DO impairment listing on EPA's 303(d) list. Several of the streams that were rejected based on low DO or nutrient impairment were streams with an Landscape Development Index ("LDI") of less than 2, indicating that the stream is undisturbed. [21] If a stream is recognized as undisturbed, then there is no basis to conclude that a low DO measurement is due to the presence of nutrients, and most likely means that the low DO is not linked to anthropogenic sources at all. Indeed, if EPA was seeking to identify "undisturbed" benchmarks, it is unclear why EPA would exclude such streams simply because they have low DO. Rejecting such streams arbitrarily skews the results of a benchmark analysis, without technical justification or achieving greater environmental protection. EPA offers no explanation or justification for this curious application of low DO as a screen for undisturbed streams. Similarly, EPA's benchmark approach applies two distinct screens for LDI. EPA used both a corridor screen, which rejected any stream with an LDI of greater than 2 in the corridor surrounding a stream; and also a watershed screen that rejected any stream with an LDI of greater than 3 for the entire watershed within which the stream is located.[22] There is no evident value to using two distinct LDI scores as screens. If EPA is trying to exclude disturbed waterbodies, than it should determine what level of disturbance is important and use the indicator that best measures that disturbance. Indeed, FDEP in developing its benchmark approach in its July 2009 proposal used a corridor LDI screen but not a watershed LDI screen.[23] EPA provides no justification for using multiple redundant LDI screens, nor does the Agency provide background information describing the size or definition of the watersheds it used as the basis for the watershed LDI. As a result, it is impossible to verify or to critique the technical validity of EPA's application or selection of watershed LDIs.
D. EPA Used FDEP's Benchmark Streams Approach But Excluded Elements of FDEP's Approach that were Essential to its Overall Technical Viability EPA's proposed benchmark streams approach is apparently borrowed from a benchmark proposal from FDEP. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 4,196; see also FDEP July 2009. However, EPA's proposal in the NODA, without explanation, omits or disregards two critical aspects of the FDEP numeric nutrient criteria proposal: (1) FDEP's use of biological validation to ensure that the criteria are only applied to streams that are in fact unhealthy; and (2) FDEP's explicit rejection of EPA's proposal to further reduce stream criteria through DPVs. FDEP, in its July 2009 proposal and in its comments to EPA on EPA's rulemaking, incorporates a biological validation of a waterbody to ensure that it is in fact unhealthy before applying numeric nutrient criteria.[24] FDEP -- after much study -- deemed the validation essential given the uncertainties inherent in setting nutrient criteria, and in order to ensure that resources are not wasted on reducing nutrient levels where such reductions are unnecessary.[25] This validation is particularly critical given the recognized lack of a demonstrable dose-response relationship between nutrient concentrations and stream health. Yet, EPA makes no reference in the NODA either to the technical merits of biological validation or to the obvious fact that it was an inherent element of the FDEP proposal. Similarly, FDEP has stated repeatedly that DPVs are unnecessary for setting numeric nutrient criteria, and has specifically and publicly rejected EPA's DPV proposals. For example, FDEP has stated that its proposed IPVs are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5437Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria "inherently protective of downstream uses."[26] FDEP has also stated that since its IPVs 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."[27] FDEP states specifically that in phosphorus rich areas of the state, such as the Bone Valley, "it appears to be more appropriate to address the lake TP (total phosphorus) target by taking into consideration the high natural TP concentration in the areas instead of just defaulting to a scheme based only on the colored-clear-alkaline- acidic lake classification method."[28] EPA's benchmark stream proposal is part of an overall NNC framework that ignores or rejects these two critical elements of FDEP's approach. EPA has borrowed part of FDEP's proposal, but has rejected the elements that made it more reasoned and functional. EPA has, in essence, borrowed a single leg from FDEP's tripod and is trying to use it to support a table. Not surprisingly, the table cannot stand. [18] See EPA-HQ-OQ-2009-0596-2441; see also correspondence between Dana Thomas, EPA and Entrix, August 24, 2010. [19] Id. [20] See Mosaic comments at 24, fn. 20. (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1217.2) [21] LDI is an index of intensity of human land use based on non renewable energy flow. See EPA Technical Support Document, January 2010, p. 2-32. [22] EPA -HQ-OW-2009-0596-0441. [23] Analysis of Land Disturbance Approach for FDEP's Benchmark WBIDs, Technical Support Document, Appendix B10, U.S. E.P.A. January 2010. [24] FDEP Comments on Streams Criteria, April 2010, pp. 17-18; (available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm ) [25] Id. at 58-62. [26] Id. at 2. [27] Id. at 1. [28] Id. at 18. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.010

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5438Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria One option EPA should consider during this one year period is to identify reference streams using an alternative methodology. Mosaic encourages EPA to consider a three part test for identifying undisturbed and biologically healthy streams: LDI corridor scores of less than 2; annual average chlorophyll a values of less than 20 ug/l; and annual average DO diel ranges of less than 3.0 mg/l.[30] Such a screen is more likely to identify biologically healthy streams, which could become the basis for a more viable reference stream population. Mosaic further advocates that any criteria based on reference streams selected in this manner also be subject to a biological validation, such as an SCI score greater than 40, before the criteria would apply. Additionally, the scientific defensibility and robustness of the reference approach would be greatly enhanced by including a proper stream classification scheme as previously described in these comments and the accompanying TSD. Following stream classification, a minimum of three reference streams per stream class should be selected, according to EPA guidance. (While Mosaic does not generally support a reference stream approach, the Agency seems committed to basing nutrient criteria on some kind of reference approach, and this proposal is far superior to reliance on a single, unrepresentative WBID to set criteria for the entire West Central region.) Alternatively, if EPA for whatever reason insists that it must set West Central regional criteria now, technical flaws notwithstanding, Mosaic urges use of EPA's reference stream approach in the proposed Rule, but based on the 95th percentile, as advocated in Mosaic's comments.[31] The reference approach used 26 WBIDs, and used WBIDs based on SCI scores over 40. While, as noted, Mosaic has serious reservations about the singular use of SCI scores as a basis for setting nutrient criteria, this methodology at least would reflect a reliance on some reference population of healthy water bodies, rather than a hasty search for minimally disturbed waterbodies that resulted in using a single WBID being employed as the basis for criteria for the phosphate mining region of the State. [30] This proposal is discussed in greater detail in the attached TSD. For the technical justification for using chlorophyll a values of less than 20 and annual average diel DO ranges of less than 2, see Mosaic Correspondence of August 5, 2010, and accompanying TSD, (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2444.1 and 2444.3). [31] Mosaic Comments, April 23, 2010 at 27-32 (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1217.2). 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.014

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC The docket did not provide critical information on how certain WBIDs were rejected based on BPJ, or on the parameters for the watersheds that were the basis for the watershed LDI screen. In certain cases, Mosaic was only able to obtain the information necessary to reproduce EPA's proposed benchmark criteria after multiple extended email exchanges with EPA staff. 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.003

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5439Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria EPA's failure to provide an adequate stream classification structure, use a reasonable number of representative reference streams, and include primary response variables (chlorophyll a and/or turbidity) that can be linked to nutrients significantly precludes the ability to derive scientifically defensible nutrient criteria for Florida streams. Under these conditions, the proposed criteria cannot appropriately account for geological, morphological, and fluvial characteristics that affect how a stream behaves or responds with respect to nutrients. Adequate Stream Classification Structure First and foremost, the EPA proposed benchmark stream approach fails to adhere to clear and reasonable recommendations provided in EPA's own Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 2000a) for setting nutrient criteria in streams. 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.005

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC A major deficiency in the proposed benchmark stream distribution approach is that it does not include any attempt to classify stream types within a region as described above. Stream classification was also strongly encouraged in EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations; Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria; River and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XII (EPA 2000b, pg 16). This failure results in nutrient criteria in each region that are too broad to account for the stream processes that affect nutrient concentrations and loading, as well as their potential effect on the stream. Using a distributional approach of benchmark conditions without any stream classification structure invariably results in criteria that are overprotective for some stream types and may be underprotective for others. Based on EPA's own analysis of the importance of stream classification, the currently proposed benchmark distribution approach cannot result in defensible nutrient criteria within an region. The 2000 EPA guidance manual dictates the need for appropriate stream classification to ensure proper consideration of factors that can affect nutrient dynamics and responses. The manual points to a methodology developed by Rosgen for physically classifying streams, but there is no indication that EPA attempted to use the Rosgen approach to classify Florida streams. There are known limitations to applying the Rosgen methodology in Florida, but recent research by experienced Florida stream practitioners at the University of Florida has led to dramatically improved approaches to classifying streams in peninsular Florida (Kiefer 2010). This classification system identifies some 15 different stream types in three major classes in the Florida peninsula ("flatwoods," "highlands," and "spring run" streams). It considers watershed size, valley slope and various aspects of channel configuration. It also emphasizes the substantially different degrees of interaction of streamflows with overland flow and groundwater based upon the soils and topographic patterns in a watershed. The modern approach also points not only to the presence, but to the prevalence and importance of factors like instream roots and vegetation, detritus, organic substrates, and muck in defining various types of natural lotic systems in Florida. Such factors as physical stream class and instream biological and/or organic material have the potential to affect, if not drive, the behavior and expression of nutrients and, thus, should be specifically considered as part of the development of nutrient criteria, especially if only a small proportion of streams are to be used as benchmarks for the overall population.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5440Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

Ignoring the variability of physical characteristics of stream types across Florida precludes the ability to develop rigorous and defensible nutrient criteria. This oversight is particularly pronounced in the West Central region, where only one system, Deer Prairie Creek, appears to have been used as a benchmark for the rest of the region. This conveyance system represents only one physical stream type in the region, and cannot adequately represent the diversity of stream types across the rest of the region. Figure 1 provides an aerial view of several miles of Deer Prairie Creek upstream of the sampling locations which yielded the data values used by EPA. Original Comment Letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Course of Deer Prairie Creek upstream of the primary water quality monitoring point on the north side of Interstate 75 in Sarasota County, Florida. See original comment letter. The majority of the upstream portion of this conveyance system is a series of numerous connected marsh wetlands with no defined channel, similar to other WBIDs in the area (Big Slough, Shiny Town Slough, Mossy Island Slough). Therefore, nutrient dynamics in a large proportion of the conveyance system would be expected to behave like in a wetland system rather than a stream system. In addition, although a large portion of the watershed may be minimally disturbed, closer inspection of aerial imagery indicates that this system flows directly through a large agricultural area about one mile upstream of the sampling location. The watercourse is also only a few hundred meters from a residential area, and the sampling point is immediately adjacent to a major interstate highway, so it is not necessarily representative of streams without agriculture or residential development in their drainage basin, as might be envisioned for a benchmark system. This system is not similar to streams across the region that have defined channels for most or all of their lengths, nor of systems that have different velocities, canopy cover, available substrates, topographic relief, baseflow contributions, or other physical characteristics that would determine the response of these streams to nutrients. In short, it is only representative of one stream type, where that type is not typical of streams in the West Central region. And to the extent that EPA was attempting to select a stream system representative of minimally impacted conditions, it did not necessarily achieve that goal. Reasonable Number of Representative Streams The benchmark streams approach currently proposed by EPA fails to result in a reasonable number of representative streams in the West Central region. As discussed above, the proposed process identifies a single stream, Deer Prairie Creek, as the only benchmark stream to represent the almost 5,000 square miles that comprise the West Central region. The single stream is not representative of the majority of streams in the West Central region, both because of the physical characteristics described above, as well as the well-documented geological variability of the region. Because the data used to propose the West Central region's numeric nutrient criteria are limited in both sample size and inference space, the benchmark stream method is not is not sufficiently robust or scientifically defensible to derive accurate and protective nutrient criteria for Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.007

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5441Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria Primary Response Variables In multiple places, the EPA Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 2000a) describes the need to include primary response variables (chlorophyll a and turbidity) to determine nutrient enrichment for criteria development. Chapter 1 states that four primary water quality variables that must be addressed are TN, TP, chl a as an estimate of algal biomass, and turbidity (EPA 2000a, pg. 13). Further, when discussing the characterization of reference streams in Chapter 4, the Guidance Manual says "Reference reaches should be identified for each nutrient ecoregion in the State or Tribal lands and then characterized with respect to nutrient concentrations, algal biomass levels, algal community composition and associated environmental conditions including turbidity, light, and substrata as well as factors that are affected by algae, such as DO and pH" (EPA 2000a, pg. 54). The proposed benchmark stream distribution approach does not include any response variables that can be attributed to nutrient enrichment such as chlorophyll a. The only biologically based benchmark criteria included in the EPA proposed methodology is an average of SCI scores for a given stream. However, many comments submitted to EPA, including those from Mosaic, have shown that SCI scores are not reliably related to nutrient concentrations in streams. Therefore, EPA's proposed benchmark methodology does not include any measure of biological response that can be directly attributed to nutrients to determine when a stream may be exhibiting ecological evidence of nutrient enrichment. Stream criteria based on a methodology that excludes any nutrient response variable cannot be expected to be uniformly protective of waterbodies or scientifically defensible.
Discussion of EPA's Benchmark Selection Filters The EPA Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 2000a) defines reference reaches as "relatively undisturbed stream segments that can serve as examples of the natural biological integrity of a region." EPA's proposed benchmark distribution approach utilizes six filters for selecting benchmark stream reaches within a region: 1) corridor LDI score of less than 2; 2) best professional judgment of district biologists; 3) not listed as impaired on EPA's 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen or nutrients; 4) watershed LDI score of less than 3; 5) nitrate+nitrite concentrations less than 0.35 mg/L; and 6) average SCI score greater than 40 (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2441). This set of benchmark selection filters are not collectively appropriate for generating a benchmark population of streams that are representative of "reference" conditions with respect to nutrients. The Landscape Development Intensity Index (LDI) is a land use based index of potential human disturbance derived by calculating the non renewable energy flow through the system (Brown and Vivas 2005). Studies have shown the LDI to be an effective index of human disturbance (Fore et al 2007 and Mack 2006). The LDI has also been shown to be an effective predictor of stream macroinvertebrate integrity (FDEP 2006, Fore 2004, Hammond 2009). For the purposes of identifying undisturbed streams within the benchmark stream distribution context, a corridor LDI score of less than 2 seems appropriate and is also supported by FDEP (FDEP 2006). However, EPA's use of an additional LDI screen (watershed LDI < 3) is not necessary. In the April 2010 "FDEP Comments on Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams" (FDEP 2009), FDEP comments on the relative utility of the corridor LDI and watershed LDI approaches for selecting reference streams. FDEP states that the LDI corridor approach is supported by scientific literature on riparian buffer zones and their effects on reducing nutrients, the statistical analysis that FDEP performed between SCI and LDI, as well as the analysis performed by EPA's contractor that compared the corridor LDI with other LDI measures. Based on these comments, it is clear that including an additional watershed-level filter on the proposed benchmark dataset provides no additional benefit for the purposes of setting numeric nutrient criteria. The second major filter used by EPA to select benchmark streams was "best professional judgment" (BPJ). While the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5442Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria use of BPJ can be an invaluable tool for linking science to policy and regulation, its use here in the selection of benchmark sites is not sufficiently transparent to allow for a determination of how it was specifically applied. We are aware that FDEP called upon various staff members across the state to provide input regarding suitable streams to serve as reference systems, but we are not aware of the specific determinations they were asked to make. EPA's use of BPJ and the absence of a complete record raises numerous questions: (1) was the BPJ referenced by EPA provided by EPA staff, or was it adopted from FDEP?; (2) what specific questions were posed in seeking the BPJ, and is there stream-by-stream documentation of the responses from staff who provided them?; (3) Was the BPJ determination specifically linked to the process of nutrient criteria development, or was the request more generic in nature?; (4) was there a training or calibration process for all staff asked to provide BPJ to help ensure uniformity in addressing the requested determinations?; (5) what professional qualifications were required of individuals asked to provide BPJ?; (6) how much familiarity with a stream did an individual need to demonstrate to be qualified to provide BPJ for that stream?; (7) for any given stream that was included or excluded based on BPJ, was there more than one individual who provided BPJ?; and (8) was there a QA/QC process for checking the BPJ conclusion for a given stream before it was removed from the set of benchmark streams?. Lacking the answers to these questions, we are not able to assess whether the BPJ process employed by EPA in deriving benchmark sites is adequate for its employment in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. EPA also filtered potential benchmark sites based on a 2009 EPA-approved 303(d) list of impaired Florida streams. The use of this list, rather than the FDEP-approved 303(d) list, resulted in the exclusion of several benchmark streams that were included by FDEP in its benchmark approach. FDEP, in its April 2010 comments to EPA (FDEP 2009), stated that "much of the information EPA relied on was based on the 1998 303(d) list approved by EPA, which included many listings that were not based in reliable scientific evaluation and data." Futhermore, FDEP asserts that many of the streams on the EPA list are listed as impaired for parameters that do not necessarily indicate that the streams should not be included as benchmark or reference sites. For example, although EPA assumed that streams with dissolved oxygen levels below the standard were affected by anthropogenic nutrient inputs, FDEP asserts that many Florida fresh waters have naturally low dissolved oxygen environments, with locally-adapted flora and fauna and no impact on the designated use. Therefore, the presence of a stream on a 303d list based simply on measurements of low dissolved oxygen should not disqualify that stream from being a potential reference or benchmark site. With additional investigation, FDEP has identified streams with naturally low dissolved oxygen and has removed them from its own 303(d) lists. In fact, the single WBID used by EPA for the West Central region benchmark criteria was once listed as impaired for nutrients, but has been subsequently approved by EPA for delisting based on the determination that the condition was natural [1]. Therefore, EPA should not use the 303(d) impaired water list as a hard filter to eliminate potential reference sites, but should instead further investigate listed sites to ensure that the perceived impairment is the result of anthropogenic influence rather than natural conditions. It is our belief that this would make available a much larger and more representative set of streams in Florida, and in the West Central region. The NOx benchmark stream filter was developed using data collected for springs and spring runs and appears to be scientifically supported and robust for springs and spring runs, but it is inappropriate to extend this criterion to all streams as a method of selecting benchmark streams for criteria development. From both field and laboratory investigations, there is a strong relationship in springs between nitrate concentrations and the growth and abundance of certain periphyton algal species, so the value derived by EPA (0.35 mg/L) appears to be reasonably well supported for use in springs and spring runs. However, EPA has provided no scientific, biological, or statistical evidence that a 0.35 mg/L NOx criterion for all streams is indicative of a benchmark system. The NOx criterion for springs and spring runs is based on relationships observed between NOx concentrations and algal thickness in water with color less than 40 PCU

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5443Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria and canopy cover of less than 40 percent ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.26 ). It is inappropriate to assume the same relationship exists in all streams. Appendix B-11 of EPA's Technical Support Document for Numeric Nutrient Criteria development ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.26 ) indicates there was no statistically significant relationship between algal thickness and NOx concentrations in colored streams. Thus, while the 0.35 mg/L NOx criterion may be appropriate for determining nutrient enrichment in springs and spring runs with color less than 40 PCU, EPA has provided no basis that this criterion should apply to colored streams (> 40 PCU). Because EPA did not provide a measure of stream classification based on color in the proposed benchmark approach, there is no justification for universally including the NOx criterion as a parameter for selecting benchmark streams. [1] http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/documents/fl303d_%20partialapproval_decision_docs051410.pdf 

# Comment ID 2498-1.001.002

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The Department appreciates EPA's consideration of criteria derived based·on a data from minimally disturbed streams (benchmark distribution approach). We are confident that it is the best method available that accounts for natural contributions of phosphorus from geological formations and organic nitrogen from wetlands. However, the Department reiterates that EPA should not disqualify minimally disturbed streams as legitimate candidates simply because they experience low dissolved oxygen conditions. This is a natural phenomenon in the State of Florida related to the subtropical climate, and influence of wetlands and ground water. The Department also reiterates the need to couple reference-based approaches with appropriate implementation procedures (like biological confirmation) to account for the method's lack of a cause and effect relationship. The Department submitted comments supporting these positions during the previous comment period. The Department has three major comments in response to the NODA issued by EPA. Other comments are provided in the Department's comment document submitted to the docket. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.011

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection B. Reference Stream Approaches

1. Benchmark Approach Comments Given the lack of a nutrient dose-response relationship, FDEP supports the minimally disturbed benchmark approach for criteria development, but only if the shortcomings of the approach are adequately addressed through implementationprovisions such as using a response based verification when assessing conditions. Criteria derived using reference11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5444Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria based approaches are inherently protective of the resource, provided the following are true: -Waterbodies within the population exhibit full support of a healthy, well-balanced community (which DEP demonstrated); -The reference waterbodies are similar and comparable to the target population to which they will be compared (appropriate regionalization); and -The nutrient regime (distribution) is sufficiently characterized, including the full range of temporal and spatial variability (appropriate frequency and duration, and data sufficiency). Benchmark criteria proposed in draft regulations by FDEP were fully consistent with the above factors, with the exception of the frequency component because the Department proposed an exceedance frequency of no more than one exceedance in a three-year period. This frequency component was revisited in comments provided earlier by the FDEP on EPA's proposed rules. FDEP has determined that it is more appropriate to target a long term central tendency with an associated 40-60% exceedance frequency. DEP's main concern with EPA's application of the "benchmark 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 a cause-effect relationship indicating impairment. With one exception (i.e., nitrate in clear streams), the results of FDEP's 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 consistent dose-response relationship. Therefore, if the reference site approach is used, additional mechanisms must be included to avoid arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory actions. These mechanisms would include using an upper distribution of the data to establish a threshold to account for natural contributions from geology (TP) and wetlands (TN), controlling for Type I errors, and the incorporation of response based (biological) validation of nutrient impairments. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.013

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Benchmark Criteria are Inherently Protective of Downstream Waters 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. Therefore, Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) for lakes and estuaries are not necessary if EPA relies on the benchmark approach to establish stream criteria.
C. EPA Should Not Eliminate Sites Due to Natural Low DO EPA incorrectly excluded several of FDEP's nutrient benchmark sites because they exhibited naturally low dissolved

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5445Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria oxygen (DO), even though the sites passed the SCI and their respective watersheds primarily consisted of wetlands. As previously described to EPA, Florida's fresh waters are exposed to temperate to subtropical climates, and many originate in low DO environments, such as swamps and groundwater aquifers. These sources are naturally low in DO, and have natural daily and seasonal fluctuations in DO 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. DEP conducted a Dissolved Oxygen Study to characterize the causes of naturally low DO levels to more clearly define "natural conditions." Counter to the premise that sites with higher human disturbance (and nutrients) are associated with lower DO, the results of the DO Study 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 from DEP's DO Study. See original comment letter. 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 historically acknowledged that Florida has naturally low DO, and has approved several Site Specific Alternative Criteria for DO in Florida waters. The Florida 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. Unfortunately, when FDEP adopted its current DO criteria in 1986, EPA recommended ecologically relevant language regarding an acceptable departure (10%) 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 DO, numerous natural waters were identified on the Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) list for low DO. However, EPA's 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen document included language within the Conclusions section related to naturally-occurring low DO (EPA 440/5-86-003). Based this language, the 1986 Water Quality Criteria document 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 excluded when developing a reference site population. By excluding perfectly healthy, but naturally low DO reference sites, the reference site distribution is no longer representative of the full range of Florida waters that support a healthy, well balanced aquatic community. Because many of these wetland influenced, naturally low DO waters also have naturally elevated levels of color, TOC, and organic nitrogen, exclusion of these sites can result in shifting the TN distribution downward, resulting in excessive Type I errors. Figures 7, 8, and 9 illustrate the relationships between average DO levels and total organic carbon & color, respectively. As the TOC concentration increases, the natural level of nitrogen in the stream increases (see Figure 7). Also, as color

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5446Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria from wetlands increases, the average DO condition of the water decreases. Therefore, to assure that the full range of natural nutrients is considered in the derivation of numeric nutrient 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. On the contrary, EPA should include these naturally low DO sites and recalculate the criteria based on the full reference site distribution. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 7. Relationship between TN concentration and TOC concentration. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 8. Relationship between TOC concentration and DO concentration. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 9. Relationship between average diel DO and color range. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.014

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection D. Application of the Benchmark Approach in the Bone Valley Region EPA included only a single reference stream, which had very few observations, to derive TP criteria for the entire West Central Region, which is 4,845 square miles (12,572 square km). It is difficult to argue that this single stream, Deer Prairie Creek, is representative the entire region, especially considering that its location is peripheral to the main phosphatic deposits, meaning its TP concentrations would likely be lower than the rest of the region. Additionally, Deer Prairie Creek, a small second order stream, would not be representative of the larger systems in the area (third to sixth order streams). USGS recently published a study entitled, "Mapping Watershed Potential to Contribute Phosphorus from Geologic Materials to Receiving Streams, Southeastern United States." The authors (Terziotta et al. 2010) demonstrated that the mean sediment bed concentrations of phosphorus were very high, in general, throughout the Florida peninsula to the Big Bend region, but were extraordinarily elevated in the West Central Region (up to 18,150 ppm). It has been well established that the leaching of sediment phosphatic material results in high water column TP concentrations. Rather than relying on only a single reference site for the area, FDEP suggests that EPA investigate this evidence and work with the USGS to develop "background" TP concentrations in the West Central region. TP criteria developed in this manner would be much more representative of the region than what EPA has proposed (a single reference stream). EPA should also evaluate whether the SCI approach given the data limitations could also be considered representative of the river/stream conditions in the West Central region.
E. Applicability of Benchmark Criteria to Intermittent Streams An issue has been raised as to whether it is appropriate to apply criteria derived using the Benchmark or SCI

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5447Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria approaches to intermittent streams. To evaluate the significance of this issue, using the National Hydrography Dataset, FDEP counted 8,880 miles of intermittent streams and 20,967 miles of perennial streams/rivers. Intermittent streams comprise approximately 30% of all the stream miles in Florida. Appendix B contains a description of how stream miles were counted. Intermittent streams tend to flow for only portions of each year, and therefore, chronic desiccation is a prime stressor that significantly restricts the resident aquatic community. Because of the influence of desiccation, there is currently no quantified biological expectation for intermittent streams. Also, there is not an applicable bio-assessment method for these streams since the SCI methodology requires a minimum of three months of verified antecedent flow conditions. This makes documentation of healthy condition virtually impossible. Additionally, deriving criteria for intermittent streams from data collected from perennial systems may not be appropriate. Nutrient concentrations of intermittent streams are often reflective of different climactic conditions and different sources (surface vs. ground water contributions) so information collected from perennial stream may not be sufficiently similar for application as a reference stream. The averaging period of the criteria can is also a factor because applying a long term average concentration criteria to a waterbody that does not contain water over that term may not be appropriate. Using the SCI approach, the data set was representative of long term conditions. Using the Benchmark approach, the data set was representative of annual average conditions. 

# Comment ID 2499-1.001.003

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. III. BENCHMARK SITE APPROACH Earthjustice supports EPA's use of a benchmark distribution approach which is consistent with the reference condition approach approved by EPA's 2000 peer-reviewed guidance document. We particularly approve of the use of the Stream Condition Index as a means of eliminating streams as benchmark sites due to degraded biological conditions, and the use of the watershed LDI (in addition to a corridor LDI) to eliminate sites within disturbed watersheds (which was one of our previously expressed concerns). We make the following specific points.
A. Frequency Distribution Analysis We obtained benchmark data sets from EPA for phosphorus and nitrogen. Those data sets are attached as Appendices 2 and 3. We converted the log transformed data back into normal data by using the Excel function recommended by EPA, divided the data sets into regions and ran a frequency distribution analysis for TP and TN for each region using the Excel frequency distribution function. (Appendices 4 and 5). The results we obtained through this analysis are shown below: Original comment letter contains additional information in two Tables on p. 3 entitled Proposed Instream Criteria: Total

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5448Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria Phosphorus and Proposed Instream Criteria: Total Nitrogen. See original comment letter. The criteria established is lower in almost all categories. Earthjustice supports the calculation of data using the least data transformation necessary and therefore proposes that EPA confirm the results obtained by Earthjustice and propose those numbers as the TP and TN criteria.
B. West Central Region Issues

1. Phosphorus Criteria Because of its highly disturbed nature, the West Central Region, which has been actively mined for phosphate for nearly a century, contains very few streams in a comparative natural condition which could make use of the benchmark distribution approach problematic. However, EPA does have data from Howard T. Odum's study in 1953 which can be used to analyze the validity of EPA's criteria[3]. For example, Odum found TP levels in Charlie Creek and Horse Creek (then unmined tributaries of the Peace River) of 280 and 273 ppb.[4] Both of these creeks lie in the middle of some of the richest phosphate deposits in Florida as depicted on the Florida Geologic Map and yet have relatively low TP concentrations in their natural condition. Similarly, the Hillsborough River, which lies within the West Central Region, registered TP readings of 18, 97, 107, 160, and 220 ppb.[5] EPA has established the TP criteria for the West Central Region at the 75th percentile of the available data for benchmark sites which is 350 ppb. Based on historical data from undisturbed streams in the West Central Region, this is certainly not an overly stringent criteria. The fact that there are extraordinarily high phosphorus readings in the area can be accounted for by the presence of disturbed mine sites in the region as described in the USGS Study on bed sediment phosphorus.[6] High phosphorus data associated with mined phosphate lands is irrelevant for the purpose of determining numeric nutrient criteria using a reference stream approach. While it is unfortunate that Florida has allowed the streams in this watershed to be degraded by mining activities, the fact that streams in this region are heavily degraded does not excuse EPA from developing numeric nutrient criteria using the best available data which includes Odum's data from the 1950s.

2. Nitrogen Criteria For similar reasons, there are very few data points for total nitrogen in the West Central Region. Unlike phosphorus levels, there is not at this juncture a compelling reason for separating out nitrogen levels in the West Central Region from nitrogen levels in the Peninsula Region.[7] Therefore, we recommend that EPA combine the data from the West Central Region with the Peninsula Region which produces a much larger TN data set for the frequency distribution analysis. It also has the advantage of allowing use of the 90th percentile for nitrogen throughout the combined regions. To the extent that naturally occurring in-stream nitrogen levels are shown to be higher or lower through analysis of long term monitoring data, a more specific TN criteria can be adopted on a site specific basis to address this issue. We have performed this analysis on EPA's TN benchmark data set and the 90th percentile for combined TN from the Peninsula and West Central Regions would be 1.486, using our frequency distribution analysis as described supra in Section III.A.[8] [3] The Odum Study was attached as Exhibit B to the Comments of Dr. Wise which were submitted on behalf of Earthjustice and are discussed in Dr. Wise's comments at page 2. [4] An FDEP map showing the extent of phosphate mining up to 1950 is attached as Appendix 6. The report from which

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5449Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
this map is taken is available at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/waterman/peaceriver/files/may-overview.pdf

. [5] Exh. B to Comments of Bill Wise, p. 12. [6] App. 1, pp. 10-11. [7] Virtually the entirety of the Peninsula of Florida falls within Ecoregion XII, Level III Ecoregion 75 by EPA as shown on the map attached as Appendix 7 (from EPA Report 822-B-00-021: Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XII (December 2000)). [8] We have attached a spreadsheet showing this analysis as Appendix 8.



# Comment ID 2500-1.001.002

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida EPA proposes to use either a Benchmark Distribution Approach set out in the August 3, 2010 notice or the approach set out in its January 26, 2010 notice. Neither approach expresses a cause and effect relationship between nutrient concentrations and biological response variables. There is a high degree of natural diversity and a large variety of site specific conditions that shape ambient nutrient water quality and the resulting impacts on a wide range of aquatic ecosystems. Too many lakes, springs, streams and rivers that support healthy and well functioning aquatic ecosystems will be deemed impaired. This will cause an unwarranted expenditure of effort, time and money on a healthy, well functioning aquatic ecosystem. Both approaches result in some proportion of the very water used to set the criteria being declared impaired. This contradiction is unacceptable and must be resolved before numeric nutrient criteria are adopted. The final determination of whether a water body is impaired should be based on a biological validation process and not a numeric standard created without demonstrating a definitive cause and effect relationship between dosage-response to water body health. 

# Comment ID 2502-1.001.004

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute II. USE OF "BENCHMARK" APPROACH In developing the stream criteria that it proposed earlier this year, EPA used the "reference site" approach. At that time, EPA specifically rejected use of the "benchmark distribution" approach that had been used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in developing draft nutrient criteria in 2009. However, EPA did, in the Jan. 26 notice, ask for comment on use of the DEP process. Now, in the NODA, EPA states that it is "considering" using the benchmark method to establish criteria, and sets forth proposed numeric criteria that it derived using that method. This

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5450Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria new proposal from the Agency has several fundamental flaws:

1. EPA provides no explanation for why it has decided that the benchmark approach, which it specifically decided not to use in its initial proposal, now is acceptable for use in deriving criteria.

2. EPA fails to recognize that the benchmark approach suffers from the same basic problem as the reference site method, as identified in the TFI comments on EPA's initial proposal: neither method is based on a cause-and-effect relationship. Further, no scientific justification was provided that the selected waterbodies are representative of the population of waterbodies within a bioregion, or that nutrient conditions within these reference waterbodies will be protective of healthy, well-balanced populations of fish and wildlife within all of the waterbodies within a bioregion. Therefore, as set forth in those initial comments, EPA does not have the legal or technical basis to develop binding criteria under the Clean Water Act.
3. EPA guidance recommends that water quality criteria contain three components, including magnitude, duration and frequency. However, the new "benchmark" approach in the NODA only discusses the allowable magnitude, and makes no mention of either the frequency or duration components. These components must be specified to allow full consideration of the proposed changes to the criteria. Specification of appropriate frequency and duration components should be based on a strong understanding of the relationship between dose and response. This is not possible for EPA's proposed approach to setting criteria, since EPA has conceded that there are no consistently observed relationships between nutrient concentrations and environmental response for Florida waters. When specifying duration and frequency components, EPA should give consideration to the DEP recommendation that stream criteria should be expressed as a five-year arithmetic mean of the annual geometric means, not to be surpassed during any five-year period. As noted by DEP, this concept is consistent with the assessment period approved by EPA as part of the Florida Impaired Waters Rule.

4. EPA does not mention that the DEP approach was purposely overprotective. As a result, DEP has argued that under its approach, DPVs are unnecessary, since the criteria would protect downstream uses. In the NODA, EPA apparently intends to use the benchmark approach to develop criteria, and then impose the DPVs in addition, making the already strict criteria even stricter. That is simply inconsistent with the original basis for the DEP method.

5. EPA also does not mention a critical element of the original DEP approach: a specific requirement that before a waterbody could be considered impaired for nutrients, there must be an independent assessment of biological information, to determine if there is, in fact, a real impairment to the biotic community. That connection to the real world in the DEP approach was specifically endorsed by the Agency's own Science Advisory Board in its recent report on development of nutrient criteria.[1] EPA could easily include such a requirement in its stream criteria; it has allowed States (such as Ohio) to write their water quality standards to include such a biological element, so that numeric criteria are not considered independently, but rather in a weight-of-evidence process that considers biological information. Any criteria developed in this rulemaking should contain that critical biological requirement. In addition, any final rule should contain provisions for establishment of biological indicators to be used in impairment confirmation or for determination of eligibility for a site-specific alternative criterion (or other relief mechanism). The establishment of such indicators should be through a scientifically defensible, peer-reviewed process. If through use of such indicators a waterbody is shown to be healthy, other factors such as the LDI, BPJ, 303(d) listing status, etc. that have been used to exclude waterbodies from EPA's database should not be applicable.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5451Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

6. Because of the way in which criteria are developed under the benchmark and reference approaches, the resulting criteria are arbitrary, having nothing to do with actual levels of impairment, but rather with the specific reference sites and percentiles used in the calculation. For example, phosphorus criteria developed for the Peninsula region range from 0.088 mg/L (using the benchmark approach and the 75th percentile) to 0.19 mg/L (using the reference approach and the 90th percentile). The higher of those two criteria is 120 percent greater than the lower criteria, for the same waters, depending solely on judgment choices made by the Agency as to method and percentile. That underscores the lack of factual basis for the criteria.

[1] Swackhamer, Deborah L. and Meyer, Judith L. "SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Development." April 27, 2010. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/E09317EC14CB3F2B85257713004BED5F/$File/EPA-SAB-10-006

­ unsigned.pdf 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.004

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries
2. The proposed alternative benchmark approach method for setting nutrient criteria continues to be fundamentallyflawed and scientifically unsupportable; any reference method should be abandoned in lieu of a demonstrable doseresponse or stressor-response methodology. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.011

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Alternative Benchmark Approach Suffers Same Flaws as EPA SCI-Based Method In CFs comments submitted on April 28th of this year, CF objected to the derivation of stream criteria using a reference water approach for two principal reasons: 1) there is no dose-response or cause-and-effect relationship between the observed biological conditions and the observed nutrient concentrations; 2) the selection of a cutoff point along a frequency distribution of nutrient data (e.g., the 75th percentile) immediately renders impaired (and need of restoration) the same near pristine or minimally disturbed waters selected to set the criteria associated with the remaining 25% of the data. Whether EPA employs its SCI-based reference water approach or DEP's benchmark method, both are a reference water approach to setting water quality criteria and neither is scientifically defensible.[4] Because there is no causal link between the response variable employed (e.g. the SCI) and the observed nutrient concentrations, the number selected as "the" criterion varies with the method applied and is easily manipulated by

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5452Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria screening the underlying data. This deficiency in employing a reference water approach is evident from the great variation in the numbers EPA and DEP have proposed[5] as the respective agency's interpretation of Florida's existing narrative nutrient criterion.

[4] Chapter 2 of EPA's Technical Support Document unambiguously documents the fact that there is no relationship between TP or TN and the SCI. See Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.2. Figure 2-34 at page 2-79 notes "the lack of correlation between SCI and TN throughout the range of benchmark sites." Figure 2-35 at page 2-80 notes "the lack of correlation between SCI and TP throughout the range of benchmark sites." This lack of correlation is fatal to the use of the benchmark sites to develop numeric nutrient criteria. If there is no relationship between the SCI and TN or TP, criteria derived from a frequency distribution of nutrient data filtered by a minimum SCI are meaningless. [5] It is important to note that DEP never formally proposed its criteria but presented draft criteria for public comment without adopting the criteria or taking the draft criteria before the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) which overseas and approves DEP's development of environmental standards. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.016

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries EPA's tailored application of DEP's benchmark approach is simply another iteration of an invalid reference water methodology. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.029

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries The second of EPA's proposed alternatives, the Benchmark Distribution Approach, is intended to be even more conservative by relying on a special suite of sites that FDEP established as being among the best-of-the-best remaining stream corridors in Florida. Like the Distribution approach, the Benchmark approach proposed by EPA relies heavily on the use of FDEP's SCI as an indicator of healthy biological condition. These benchmark sites were thoroughly vetted by FDEP biologists over many years. EPA tacked on additional restrictive inclusionary criteria, including additional subjective aerial photo examinations and interviews with local FDEP District staff. EPA's additional criteria resulted in narrowing FDEP's benchmarks even further. The EPA sites are far from being equitability distributed among the NWRs. For example, the West-Central NWR is represented only by a single site.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5453Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.032

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Step 7 of EPA (2000) provides three general approaches for developing NNC criteria, (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 status 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). EPA's proposed reference and benchmark approaches focus heavily on the first approach with inadequate support from the other two approaches. This fundamentally weakens the scientific validity. Initial criteria are supposed to be "verified and calibrated by comparing criteria of the system of study to nutrients, chl-a, and turbidity values in waterbodies of known condition to ensure that the system of interest operates as expected. A weight of evidence approach that combines any of all of the three approaches above will produce criteria of greater scientific validity... Calibration and review of criteria may lead to refinements of either derivation techniques or the criteria themselves." (emphasis is as produced in the original manuscript, EPA, 2000). EPA (2000) provides that stream classification (Step 2) should precede setting NNC because "stream types are too diverse to set one criterion for all stream/river types." The document recommends "Therefore, to set appropriate criteria... streams must be classified by their morphological characteristics at both the landscape and stream reach scale, with an emphasis on those characteristics most likely to effect nutrient cycling." The guidance document recommends classifying streams based on their physical factors and trophic status. Recommended physical factors can include fluvial geomorphology (including Rosgen metrics), stream order, hydrology, and underlying geology. The guidance manual also states that "classification of trophic state in stream systems is most appropriately based on algal biomass and secondarily on nutrients." 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.035

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries We also examined the geographic distribution of the original 64 FDEP Benchmark sites and EPA's subsequent reduction of them, resulting in EPA's Benchmark Approach for setting NNC (Figure 13). The distribution is troubling in its inclusion of only 13 sites in EPA's proposed Peninsular NWR, given that Kiefer (2010) has documented the presence of 10 different stream types in that region. This means that not all of the stream types can possibly be adequately represented statistically from the Benchmark sample. What is even worse, perhaps to the point of astonishing, is that EPA appears to be proposing to set in-stream protective NNC for the entire West Central NWR based on a single 3rd Order stream sampling site. That would be like establishing a speed limit for every road based on observations made on a single road in central Florida, from interstate highways to residential cul-de-sacs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5454Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

The result would be under protective of many roads and overprotective of just as many roads. In short, the result would be (and in this case is) unsupportable. A sample of one is not a sample; it is a case study and its results only apply to that case. 

# Comment ID 2504-2.001.004

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District 2) Alternative Approaches to Stream Criteria Derivation As stated in our original comments submitted on April 28, 2010 (EPA docket reference EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 1476.2; page 26), the District maintains the EPA has not adequately assessed several critical assumptions necessary to set defensible water quality criteria using a reference approach. In addition, the EPA has not demonstrated a link between its proposed nutrient criteria and a biological response using the reference approach (EPA docket reference EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1476.2; pages 26 and 27). The District does support the FDEP benchmark approach (with the 90th percentile) if a reference condition is used, but we again emphasize the need for a biological validation step in the implementation process (EPA docket reference EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1476.2; page 27). 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2457-2.001.003, 2462-1.001.006, 2462-1.001.010, 2446-1.001.005, 2466-2.001.003, 2467-1.001.005, 2467­ 1.001.011, 2469-1.001.002, 2471-1.001.003, 2472-1.001.003, 2473-1.001.003, 2474-1.001.003, 2479-1.001.009, 2480-2.001.004, 2482-1.001.006, 2486-1.001.007, 2488-1.001.006, 2490-1.001.004, 2493-1.001.006 2497-1.001.007, 2497-2.001.005, 2497­ 2.001.007, 2497-1.001.010, 2497-1.001.014, 2498-1.001.002, 2498-2.001.011, 2498-2.001.013, 2499-1.001.003, 2500-1.001.002, 2502-1.001.004, 2503-1.001.004, 2503-1.001.011, 2503-1.001.016, 2503-1.001.029, 2503-1.001.035 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. The first sets of comments related to reference site selection. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the 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. Moreover, 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5455Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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. EPA considers the Reference Approach and the process by which the criteria described in final rule to be replicable; EPA has replicated its criteria using the methods described in the final rule TSD several times to confirm this. Another comment suggested that the change in nitrogen criteria as a result of changing reference criteria was evidence of the arbitrary nature. EPA disagrees with this assertion because, as stated in the proposed rule, final rule TSD, and Supplemental Notice, there are multiple ways to select reference populations and each will affect the resulting numbers. This is a function of sample size among other factors. Some change in values was expected, but the outcome value was not the basis for the Reference Approach selection. Rather, the use of the most defensible set of reference site selection criteria was. A last comment suggested that the long history of human disturbance in the West Central makes any reference site process there arbitrary. 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 proposed and final 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. As a result, the process is meant to identify sites with the least disturbance, even in a landscape as altered as the West Central. The confidence in the extent to which the final reference population generated reflects that which supports designated uses informs the selection of an appropriate percentile. EPA agrees with the commenter that the West Central has undergone substantial disturbance. As a result, for the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as notedabove for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified Benchmarks population of reference sites. 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. EPA considered these and other comments. 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. EPA agrees that 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5456Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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 is isolation for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites for the SCI approach in the West Central, and for the Benchmark approach, applied in the final rule and described in the Supplemental Notice for all regions outside the West Central, a suite of screens was used including corridor land use, watershed land used, nitrate concentrations, aerial photography analysis, and site level investigation as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. Other comments argued that the sample size was insufficient to develop stream criteria, particularly for small and intermittent headwater streams. EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA is developing criteria to apply to Class I and III waters, reflected by the population of Class I and III waters that the State of Florida has sampled, presumably as a basis of their monitoring and characterization of the population of sites they consider reflective of that Class. If there is evidence of substantial difference in the function and, therefore, use of small or intermittent streams, then that difference could and possibly should be directed to the process of use classification. Also, the final rule provides flexibility for 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 for a specific waterbody. 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 wants to confirm that low DO in and of itself was not the basis for removal of a site. Rather, sites listed for DO impairment were the basis for the DO screen, independent of biological condition. 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. EPA received comments on other screens. Some commenters questioned the application of the LDI. Some suggested the watershed should have been considered instead of just the corridor. EPA considered these comments and agrees and applied a watershed-based LDI as well, where available, as detailed in the screening process for the final rule and detailed in the final rule TSD. Still others argued that the watershed LDI was redundant with the corridor LDI. EPA considered this and other comments and disagrees, as it is well demonstrated that a variety of land uses contribute nutrients to streams through flowpaths that either move under (groundwater) or through (stormwater conveyances) riparian corridors with little or no effect of riparian condition on nutrient mitigation. For this reason is keeping the watershed LDI screen in the Benchmark approach for the final rule. Other commenters disagree with the use of a different LDI screening value for the watershed (LDI = 3) than the corridor (LDI = 2). EPA considered this and disagrees detailed in the proposed rule TSD that the watershed LDI value of 3 was correlated with a corridor LDI value of 2, which explains the selection of the watershed LDI value of 3. EPA also notes that this value is not associated with appreciable additional expected disturbance according to the LDI factor table outlined in Brown and Vivas 2005. For this reason, EPA has kept the two distinct LDI values for use in the respective screens for the Benchmark approach in the final rule. Other criticized the use of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5457Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
the BPJ screen, arguing that it was poorly documented and arbitrary. EPA disagrees and refers the commenter to the proposed rule TSD, final preamble, and final rule TSD where the process for evaluating the elements that compose the BPJ score are detailed and supported. EPA is keeping the BPJ screen in the final rule Benchmark approach process. Others argued that the assumption that the absence of a BPJ score presumed impact. EPA disagrees with this comment and believes the BPJ screen was an important element and took the precautionary step with this screen of presuming that the absence of a value should not be assumed to indicate acceptable conditions, which has been extended to the final rule screening process as well. For the final rule, EPA assumed the same with the LDI corridor < 2 score as well. In addition, for the final rule, CWA section 303(d) screens were applied universally and “NA” values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the nitrate, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation. Therefore only values = 1 for these screens were excluded. EPA received comments that the survey of aerial photographs may have missed some stressors. EPA agrees that this may have happened, but because this screen was combined with the number of screens being applied, including corridor and watershed LDI values based on automated satellite imagery interpretation, this is unlikely. Even so, the possibility of this effect argues for the use of a margin of error associated with percentile selection to allow that some truly nutrient impacted sites may enter the final reference population. For this reason, EPA is applying the 90th percentile of the Benchmark population WBID average nutrient concentrations for regions outside the West Central for the final rule. Similarly, EPA received comments that the use of field verification of a random selection of Benchmark candidate sites was inappropriate. EPA disagrees. The same commenter supported the BPJ screens and this random survey was one component of the BPJ process along with many other components that informed the BPJ screening score including the survey of aerial photos and regional scientist site knowledge. For this reason, EPA is keeping that component of the approach for the final rule. EPA received comments that the nitrate value used was alternatively too high or too low, depending on the commenter. EPA disagrees. EPA selected this value (0.35 mg/L) as a screen because it had been shown to be associated with impacts to flowing water systems in Florida associated with springs and had been applied by FDEP as an indication of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment. Other commenters suggested that the use of a nitrate concentration automatically skewed the nitrogen values. EPA acknowledges that the use of such a screen might skew the nitrogen distribution, but notes that this is not likely because this screen could not be applied to all sites due to missing data, that nitrate often composed a small portion of the nitrogen pool, that this screen was used as much as an indication of anthropogenic disturbance given natural nitrate concentrations, and that this concentration had already been demonstrated as detrimental to some Florida flowing water systems. EPA is, therefore, keeping this value of nitrate in as a screen for the final rule and this is further elaborated in the final rule TSD. Other commenters suggested that an SCI screening value was inappropriate since it had not been shown to be linked to nutrients. EPA disagrees and has actually demonstrated in several documents including the final rule TSD that the SCI does actually show a significant relationship to nutrients, albeit imprecise. EPA also documented in detail the selection of the value of 40. In addition,EPA has used this screen not only for its linkage to nutrients but also because it helps define an acceptable population of leastdisturbed sites as those with healthy biological condition. Average WBID SCI values less than 40 would indicate potentially compromised environmental conditions that would preclude the use of such a WBID as a least-disturbed environmental site supportive of designated uses. For these reasons, EPA is retaining the use of the SCI as a screen in both the Benchmark and SCI approaches for the final rule, which is detailed in the final rule TSD. Finally, under the theme of reference site selection, EPA received comments that supported the use of the Benchmark approach combined with biological screening. EPA agrees and for the final rule is applying the Benchmark approach with SCI screens and 303(d) screening steps added to further strengthen the defensibility of the resultant population as least-disturbed. EPA was not able

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5458Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
to apply the Benchmark screening method in the West Central because there were too few available WBIDs that passed the Benchmark screens to estimate any percentile reliably. As a result, EPA used the SCI/303(d) screening approach described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBID-averages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used in the SCI approach used in the West Central. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. See the final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received other comments again supporting the Benchmark approach but with minimum observations for each average. EPA disagrees that a minimum number of observations is necessary to estimate annual WBID averages to derive the criteria. The basis for this is that EPA considered distributions composed of annual averages computed from a minimum of 4 samples and from all available samples, and determined that some additional imprecision was introduced in the estimates of annual averages, in particular WBIDs with fewer than samples. However, by including all samples, more WBIDs were included in the reference distribution, which increased EPA's confidence in estimates of the 90th percentiles of the Benchmark distributions. Hence, additional imprecision in averages computed for individual WBIDs was outweighed by increased confidence in the entire Benchmark distribution. The development of the WBID-average is discussed in detail in the final rule TSD. EPA defers to FDEP for defining appropriate Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that estimate annual average nutrient concentrations accurately enough for compliance monitoring. 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, including the use of chlorophyll response variables, 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. 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 and EPA supports the application of stressor-response models for developing SSAC where adequate site-specific chl-a data are available. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5459Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
The next theme in comments that EPA received relevant to the Reference Reach Approach was the insufficiency of data both for developing West Central criteria and for calculating EPA’s Benchmark criteria. For the final rule, EPA decided to use the Benchmark screening approach to identify least-disturbed streams and select the 90th percentile of WBID-averages from each NWR except the West Central. In the West Central, EPA agrees with comments that one WBID was insufficient to derive criteria for the West Central using the Benchmark screening approach. As a result, and as supported by several comments, EPA used theSCI/303(d) screening method described in the proposed rule to calculate final criteria for the West Central based on WBIDaverages of WBIDs passing the SCI and 303(d) screens and used the 75th percentile value. The 75th percentile was used in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach for the West Central, and screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used there. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially with the long history of human disturbance in the West Central, as noted by several commenters. As a result, EPA used the 75th percentile instead of the 90th of WBID-average nutrient concentrations for deriving nutrient criteria in the West Central for the final rule. EPA received a recommendation for the West Central to recalculate criteria there using the LDI, chl-a and diel DO data, and EPA notes that such data are not available for deriving regional criteria and disagrees that such an approach would provide more defensible criteria. With regards to comments that insufficient data or information were provided to replicate the Benchmark values, EPA disagrees and points out that the Agency provided all the data to derive the values included in the Supplemental Notice along with detailed notes on how to do that, and also internally verified that the criteria published in the Supplemental Notice could be calculated using the description and data provided. However, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that make it even easier still for the public to replicate final values from the raw data provided. One commenter questioned why some sites in the “allstr00” file were not in the “sites01.final” file. All sites from the “allstr00” file for which EPA had coordinates, WBID, and region information were included in the “sites01.final” file. The same commenter asked what to do with NA values. The instructions clearly indicated which rules are used for exclusion. Section 303(d) screens were applied universally and NA values simply indicated an absence of impairment just as a 0 value did. For the NOx, SCI and LDI watershed scores, only limited data were available, so the exclusion of NA values would have reduced the sample size too much for estimation, and so these screens were principally used to discard these impacts where they were known to exist. Similarly, the commenter questioned how to create a WBID-year label, but the process for creating a WBID-year label was fairly straightforward and clearly explained in the instructions. Also, the same commenter claimed the nutrient regions were not available when, in fact, that information was included in the “sites01.final’ file; EPA is unsure why this commenter did not see that information there. Lastly, the same commenter asked how to remove WBID with fewer than 4 observations which was, in fact, described and is straightforward operation in any spreadsheet software. Again, EPA considered these comments in providing intermediate and final tables for the final rule TSD that may make it even easier for concerned parties to replicate final values from the raw data provided. The last theme relative to the Reference Approach relates to how criteria were determined. The first comment along this line argued that overlap between the Benchmark and all-site populations argues against the use of a percentile of the Benchmark as protective. EPA disagrees with this comment. Overlap may indicate that the all sites population is in better condition than expected and/or it may also indicate that the Benchmark population contains more disturbance than expected. Similarly, the comment recommended using an extreme percentile (99.9th %) of all sites to avoid listing “pristine” sites. There is a supposition that this selection process is identifying “pristine” sites and this is not the case. EPA has not made that assertion. This process identifies least-disturbed sites, but sites that still contain disturbance. It is, therefore, not surprising and logical that the Benchmark and all-sites populations overlap. Indeed, it is possible that screens that remove certain sites based on precautionary selection may exclude streams that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5460Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
indeed do not manifest elevated nutrient concentrations. The process is meant to be protective in its selection of most likely leastdisturbed sites that support designated uses. But it is possible that the selection process will not remove sites truly impaired by nutrients. The concern over this possibility is the basis for the percentile selected and is a function of EPA’s confidence in the screening process, which is higher for the Benchmark approach than the SCI approach, thus the use of the 75th percentile in the West Central based on the SCI approach and the 90th percentile everywhere else using the Benchmark approach. EPA also received comments that the 75th percentile was unjustified for use in the West Central. As described above, the 75th percentile was justified in the West Central because of reduced confidence that the SCI-based population reflected least-disturbed conditions. Fewer screens were used in the SCI approach; screens designed to detect corridor and watershed disturbance were not used for example. This led EPA to conclude that there was more uncertainty with the SCI-based population, especially in the West Central Region with a long history of human disturbance as noted by several commenters, thereby justifying the 75th percentile instead of the 90th. Lastly, EPA received comments that fluctuation in the proposed criteria for the West Central is evidence of policy and not science being used to select the criteria. EPA disagrees with this comment. The fluctuations in candidate criteria values is due to changes in selection of the most defensible population of values to use in this region, exacerbated by sample size issues. Given the disturbance in this region, only a small number of appropriate sites were available to use. EPA has calculated percentiles using estimates of central tendency and variance. The central limit theorem of statistics indicates that the estimation of these parameters becomes more precise as sample size increases. Therefore, changes to small sample sizes are expected to have larger effects on the percentile estimates than changes in larger sample sizes. It is for this reason that EPA decided to use the largest population of defensible reference sites possible for the West Central - the SCI-based population. In addition, it is known that more disturbed landscapes present more variable water chemical conditions (e.g., Peters et al. 1997), so again it is not surprising that the West Central should exhibit more variability given the long history of disturbance in that region, as observed by several commenters.

Comment IDs: 2497-2.001.003, 2497-2.001.005, 2503-1.001.032, 2498-1.001.002, 2498-2.001.013, 2498-2.001.014 Response: This set of comments concerns EPA’s classification effort and the revision to the proposed NWR to split the Panhandle into West and East Regions and restrict the size of the West Central. EPA received mostly support for splitting the Panhandle and many comments concerned about the restriction in the size of the West Central and in classification in general. The first set of comments addressed the lack of consideration for more site-specific, especially physical, factors in classifying streams, and commenters cited recent papers indicating more geomorphic bases for classifying streams in Florida (e.g., functional process zones) that yield more classes. EPA agrees that there are a variety of ways to classify streams that would result in any number of different stream classes. However, for the purposes of deriving nutrient criteria, the process has to weigh the specificity of more and more site-specific factors generating finer classification against the reality of data availability, resource constraints to implement monitoring under any resulting classification, and the sufficiency of a parsimonious classification in deriving defensible criteria. This is true of deriving any criterion, not just numeric nutrient criteria and EPA will continue to use the NWRs for described in the Supplemental Notice for the final rule. EPA agrees that its own guidance lays out a variety of classification options, all of which were meant to provide states with the flexibility to choose from amongst these and other scientifically defensible options. A common and peer-reviewed classification framework has always been ecoregions and bioregions, as reflected in EPA’s

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5461Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
own ecoregional 304(a) recommended criteria. Ecoregions capture a variety of the very factors recommended for use by commenters: geology, soil types, vegetation, land cover, climate, and hydrology, among others. That is why EPA considered ecoregions as part of the classification effort. The NWRs used in the final rule refined ecoregions based on smaller scale differences in regional geology and observed water chemistry - again consistent with EPA guidance (see final rule TSD) - among other factors. Commenters recommended alternative classification scenarios (e.g., Rosgen, functional process zones, etc.). These are all potential candidates, but are more experimental or less proven. EPA’s regional approach starts with ecoregions, uses biological considerations, regional geology, and observed patterns in chemistry. EPA considers this approach to be appropriate and scientifically defensible. See final rule TSD for more detail. EPA received several comments that the TN regionalization was incorrect and that it should be a two-region model rather than a five-region model. EPA disagrees. EPA decided 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. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion. 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); meaning that neither the two NWR model nor the five NWR model is more defensible than the other. As a result, because EPA found either model to be protective of applicabledesignated uses and based upon sound scientific rationale, and for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the colimiting nature of TN and TP amply detailed in the scientific literature (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007) and detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD, EPA has decided that a similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. EPA received many comments on the restricted boundary for the West Central. One comment suggested that the West Central boundary was unclear and was not in the docket. EPA disagrees. A map and GIS coverage of the Supplemental Notice NWRs were provided in the docket and indicate where the modified West Central boundary would be. This is evidenced by the large number of comments that actually applied this data in their responses. Another comment suggested that new phosphorus sediment/geology information (Terziotti et al. 2010) suggests that an expanded area of the West Central is more defensible. EPA disagrees. EPA reviewed the USGS publication and determined that the inability to discriminate human/non-human effects, the resolution, and the untested nature of the information preclude its application by EPA. The authors acknowledge that the maps resulting from the sediment samples cannot discriminate human and non-human

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5462Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
sources. Given the long history of phosphorus mining and landscape disturbance in the region, the inability to discriminate such sources does not favor the application of that work to improving discrimination of natural expectations for elevated TP in streams. The geologic maps used by EPA in revising the regionalization as described in the Supplemental Notice and detailed in the final rule TSD, however, are not subject to the same effect and are the most defensible basis upon which EPA revised the West Central boundary. Other comments argued that well data from the region indicate that some peripheral areas excluded from the West Central (e.g., Sarasota Bay) ought to be reincorporated into the West Central. Again, EPA disagrees and argues that in the absence of evidence that such phenomena are not indeed linked to human disturbance in the region that has impacted surface flow and groundwater TP concentrations, the most defensible basis for the revised NWR is the immutable geology underlying the region, which is most consistent with EPA’s revised West Central boundary. Similarly, some argued that Charlotte Harbor should be in the West Central. In fact, most of the Charlotte Harbor watershed, especially the Peace and Myakka drainages, are in the West Central as the commenter recommends. Small coastal tributaries south of the Peace River are not in the West Central as the most substantial evidence available to EPA, the underlying geology, did not support its inclusion in the West Central. Other comments argued that the West Central or high TP region should be expanded to include much of the Peninsula where phosphorus-rich geology exists. EPA disagrees. EPA must weigh the watershed basis of its classification with the other classification factors. Much of the outcrops mentioned in these comments cross small parts of watersheds and sub-watersheds that subsequently do not exhibit the level of coincident differences in stream TP concentrations as witnessed in the West Central, North Central, and Panhandle East Regions. A few comments argued that the West Central was expanded to include some drainages, especially peripheral drainages. EPA disagrees. The West Central was not expanded over the proposed rule, rather, it was restricted. It always extended to the watershed boundaries of the drainages noted. This is consistent with EPA’s adherence to a watershed-based element in its classification. Two comments in particular suggested that human-impacted areas (Alachua County and urban Pinellas areas) should be included in higher TP areas because of this disturbance. EPA disagrees. The goal of the classification is to isolate natural differences in instream nutrient expectation and not to confound that with anthropogenic sources. The goal is to establish natural reference expectations for nutrients that inherently protect designated uses. Confusing such an approach with anthropogenic factors would inherently bias nutrient expectations upward. Concern over expectations of criteria for human-modified waters should be dealt with in the context of designated uses, since the authors are ostensibly arguing that the same uses should not be expected of these waterbodies as for natural waterbodies. To date, FDEP has not made such a difference explicit in their use classification.

Comment IDs: 2462-1.001.006, 2466-2.001.003, 2480-2.001.004, 2490-1.001.004, 2492-1.001.004, 2493-1.001.006, 2494­ 1.001.004, 2497-1.001.007, 2498-1.001.002, 2500-1.001.002, 2502-1.001.004, 2504-2.001.004 Response: The next theme under which EPA received comments relate to implementing the criteria. The first set of comments argue that setting criteria using the methods proscribed would result in unacceptable impairment decision rates, i.e., many “pristine” waters being listed as impaired. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5463Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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 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. 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 2-5464Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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. EPA also received a comment that the cost of meeting low TP criteria in the Panhandle West would be too great. The criteria development process focuses on identifying criteria that are scientifically defensible and that will protect designated uses. The consideration of cost does not play a role in developing criteria.

Comment ID: 2498-2.001.014 Response: EPA received comments that intermittent streams should not be included under these stream criteria. EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters (e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region. There is no difference in the current Class I or Class III designated uses for intermittent or perennial streams. 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 for intermittent streams, then it is not appropriate for EPA to make a distinction in the numeric translation of the protective narrative criterion. Note that the final rule provides flexibility for 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 for a specific waterbody.

Comment ID: 2446-1.001.005 Response: EPA disagrees that the public had too little time in which to review the information contained in the supplemental notice. The three items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice did not introduce entirely new regulatory approaches, an entirely new set of criteria, or an entirely new methodology that warranted more than 30 days of review. As evidence of the reasonableness of the amount of time provided to the public to comment on EPA's supplemental notice, the Agency received 72 public comments on its supplemental notice, many of which contained substantive input on the information contained in the supplemental notice. EPA released the supplemental notice in order to request further comment on possible revisions related to specific approaches and issues identified in the January 2010 proposal. As stated above, the items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice were not wholesale changes to the approaches described at proposal, only refinements. EPA reminds the commenter that the Agency only sought comment on the items presented in its supplemental notice and did not solicit comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposed rule. The approaches EPA is finalizing, as described in the final rule technical support document (TSD), are very similar to those described in its proposed rule TSD. EPA provided additional clarification and detail in its final rule TSD in response to the many constructive comments it received in response to its January 2010 proposal and August 2010 supplemental notice. EPA believes that the 30-day public comment period associated with the Agency’s supplemental notice provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the notice and associated materials in order to provide meaningful public comment to EPA. In addition, EPA

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5465Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
believes that the 90-day public comment period associated with the proposal, in conjunction with the public hearings (a total of 13 public hearing sessions were held in 6 different cities throughout the State), provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the proposed regulation and provide meaningful public comment to EPA.

Comment IDs: 2482.001.003, 2482-1.001.003, 2483-1.001.003, 2499-1.001.003 Response: EPA received a variety of supportive comments of different options that are acknowledged here. Some commenters supported the revised Panhandle regionalization into the Panhandle West and East Regions. Others supported the revised West Central Region, the use of the FDEP Benchmark approach and the 90th percentile. Lastly, one commenter supported more stringent criteria for the West Central adding that the disturbance in that region should not be the basis for relaxed criteria there.

Comment IDs: 2476-1.001.003, 2497-1.001.005 Response: The comments above did not include arguments or questions requiring response, but are acknowledged here as being read and considered.

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. Brown, M. T. and M. B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289-309. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5466Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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., 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. Peters, N.E., Buell, G.R., and Frick, E.A., 1997, Spatial and temporal variability in nutrient concentrations in surface waters of the Chattahoochee River Basin near Atlanta, Georgia, USA: in Webb, Bruce, ed., Freshwater Contamination, IAHS Publication 243, IAHS Fifth Scientific Assembly, Rabat, Morocco. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5467Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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. Terziotti, S., A.B. Hoos, D.A. Harned, and A.M. Garcia. 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet. 

# SNODA.III.B - 75TH V. 90TH PERCENTILE Comment ID 2446-1.001.009

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC We developed additional specific proposals to enhance the process for Site Specific Alternative Criteria, and provided specific information, at your request, regarding the impact of the proposed criteria on the Bone Valley at the 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles of EPA's proposed reference stream approach. We think Mosaic, as the party most likely to be the most effected by any criteria set for the Bone Valley, has made a compelling case for adoption of the 95th percentile for the full set of original reference streams for the Bone Valley. We see nothing in the record -- especially in light of Mosaic's comments -- that would justify taking a more stringent approach in the Bone Valley, certainly before Mosaic's comments have been fully considered on their merits. Yet, EPA is now proposing an entirely new and far more limited set of reference streams, and singling out the Bone Valley alone for application of the 75th rather than the 90th percentile. We find this odd and anomalous in light of the constructive dialog in which we were engaged. 

# Comment ID 2452-1.001.005

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. In regards to the proposal that EPA use 75th and 90th percentile values of nutrient concentrations in healthy streams as

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5468Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria protective, if the concentrations were measured in streams which showed no signs of degradation, why reduce those concentrations further? Would not these values be protective of streams? In fact, higher concentrations could be protective. The problem is that EPA does not know what concentrations would be protective of individual streams because they have not developed the science required to make these determinations, i.e., they have not established the cause-effect relationship for any of the streams in Florida. In order to proceed in a manner supported by science, this cause-effect relationship would have to be determined for individual streams. 

# Comment ID 2453.001.001

Author Name: Lawrence K. Organization: Osceola County Osceola County has no comment on the revised stream nutrient region boundaries. The County continues to support the comments and outstanding concerns generated and presented by the Florida Stormwater Association (FSA) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) regarding the consideration of deriving stream criteria using the 75th percentile and criteria for Downstream Protection Values.Moreover, Osceola County agrees with the findings of Douglas J. Durbin in his Expert Declaration filed for case 4:08-cv00324-RH-WCS on October 5, 2009 which states that the decision for choosing the 75th versus the 90th percentile is arbitrary, not scientifically based and "innapropriate for deriving criteria that will be employed in a regulatory context". 

# Comment ID 2458-1.001.004

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association Comments on Supplemental Information The August 3, 2010, notice suggests changes in the nutrient regions in Florida and also includes the potential for use of a 90th percentile for most nutrient regions in Florida to set the numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters. While use of the 90th percentile with the reference stream approach is significantly better than use of the 75th percentile in a highly vetted reference approach, EPA has not addressed the fundamental flaw in this process: There is no proven scientific relationship between nutrient loading into a flowing stream and biological responses. Therefore, using EPA's own analysis, the control of nutrient concentration in flowing waters (e.g. streams) does not have an environmental benefit in the flowing water itself. Until this issue is resolve, all modifications of the reference site approach is cosmetic and falsely promises an environmental benefit that can not be scientifically demonstrated. 

# Comment ID 2461.001.003

Author Name: Wong E.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5469Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
Organization: City of Northport
2. Item 2 - 75th Percentile or 90th Percentile With the proposed new tables of criteria, please clarify if the nutrient concentration criteria are still based on the Annual Geometric Means not to be surpassed more than once in a three-year period? For the North Port area within the West Central region, the City respectfully ask that EPA stay with the concentrations based on the 75th percentile for Biologically Healthy Sites, i.e. 0.73 mg/L for Total Phosphorus and 1.80 mg/L for Total Nitrogen. The much lower concentrations based on the 90th percentile for Minimally Disturbed Sites, i.e. 0.35 mg/L for Total Phosphorus and 1.30 mg/L for Total Nitrogen, at this point is not justified. Numeric nutrient criteria should be based on biological health of the specific basin watershed such as the Big Slough Watershed as in the case of the City of North Port, and not some criteria based on minimally disturbed sites of a much larger watershed area such as the West Central region. 

# Comment ID 2463-1.001.003

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation Alternative Benchmark Distribution Approach The 90th percentile is insufficient for recovery of impaired systems The Everglades Foundation vehemently opposes the proposed change from the 75th percentile of the benchmark distribution to the 90th percentile when setting the nutrient criteria. There is a strong scientific basis for choosing the 75th percentile when attempting to recovery an impaired ecosystem by reducing nutrient loading. The dose-response relationship of a recovering but impaired will almost certainly not be the reverse of the impairment process. A hysteresis effect will likely govern the recovery, [2, 3] and recovery will require a threshold below that which would cause impairment. The 75th percentile would be a minimum standard where recovery is the objective The Everglades Foundation supports a protective threshold that recovers impaired water bodies, which the proposed change to the 90th percentile will not do. It is theoretically possible for the 90th percentile benchmark to be applicable when protecting a pristine and un-impacted watershed. But the evidence from the Everglades Protection Area suggests that it may well be insufficient even in protecting pristine wetlands. The 90th percentile was used in the Everglades Protection Area as the criterion, and nutrient loadings remained in the 87-89th percentile for decades, although there was incontrovertible evidence of nutrient enrichment.[4] The 90th percentile is simply too insensitive as a criterion for protection. 90% threshold increases loadings and not explained or justified Based on the information presented, the change from the 75th to the 90th percentile also results in significantly higher nutrient loading. As an example, increases of about 39 % and 28 % are observed for the TN numeric criterion in the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5470Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria Peninsula and the North Central regions, respectively, when increasing the level from the 75th to 90th percentile. These two regions should be carefully examined because of the widespread anthropogenic phosphorus and nitrogen pollution (agriculture, cattle farms and dairies). The change from the 75th to the 90th percentile was rationalized by the claim was a better selection of reference sites (minimally disturbed areas with healthy ecosystems) warranted the higher value. First, there is no scientific evidence presented to support this claim. Second, if it were true, then one would not expect the dramatic increase in phosphorus and nitrogen loadings that were the result of this change. Thus, we find little credible scientific evidence to support the change.

[2] Reynolds, S. S., 2002. Resilience in aquatic ecosystems--hysteresis, homeostasis, and health. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 5(1):3-17. [3] Sas, H., 1989. Lake restoration by reduction of nutrient loading: Expectations, experiences, extrapolations. Academia Verlag Richarz, St. Augustin, Germany. 497 p. [4] SFWMD, 2008. Technical Oversight Committee meetings. Quality Assessment Report for Water Quality Monitoring. Reports.



# Comment ID 2463-1.001.005

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation We instead focused on the last step for the selection of the TP and TN nutrient criteria at the 90th percentile using the data published by the EPA. Some of our results (Figure 1) do not agree with the published numeric nutrient criteria. As an example, the values we obtained for the North Central Region using a Lognormal distribution fitting procedure are 0.28 mg/L for TP and 1.80 mg/L for TN to be compared to 0.35 mg/L for TP and 1.90 mg/L for TN (the US-EPA values).

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Lognormal distribution functions related to the TP and TN in the North Central Region. See original comment letter. The same value shift was observed for the nitrogen criterion for the Panhandle West and the Peninsula, although to a lesser extent. A graphic determination of the criteria (no fitting procedure) will lead to even lower values: TP (North Central)= 0.27 mg/L; TN (North Central)= 1.73 mg/L; TN (Panhandle West)= 0.58 mg/L; TN (West Central)= 1.17 mg/L. We are also concerned that the determination of the TN and TP nutrient criteria for the West Central (graphic or using a fitting procedure) is not very accurate because of the lack of data points (8 for phosphorus and 3 for nitrogen). The EPA should re-check their published numbers in the supplemental data document and explain their fitting procedure. 

# Comment ID 2466-2.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5471Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County The two approaches appear to produce extremely similar values for TP (except where the 75th percentile is arbitrarily applied in the Bone Valley (West Central)). Increasing the percentile (to the 90th) would bring the two approaches closer together, showing them to be two lines of evidence for the development of the criteria. It is unclear why the availability of less data should result in the reduction. If only one stream in a region was considered "healthy" or "minimally disturbed" and all other streams in the region are expected to be managed to the conditions of that waterbody, why shouldn't the actual conditions of that waterbody be applied as the standard? The FDEP approach (90th percentile) accounts for some level of human degradation of the streams, but the EPA approach would result in 25% of natural streams in the state requiring TMDLs for one or more nutrients. 

# Comment ID 2475-1.001.004

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District
2. Continued consideration of deriving stream nutrient criteria by using the 75th percentile of the total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from sites with healthy biological condition but also consideration of basing criteria on the 90th percentile of minimally disturbed sites. In its previous comments, the District concluded that that stream NNC based on the 75th percentile would allow eutrophication of the majority of colored and uncolored streams within the District. Raising the threshold for the criteria from the 75th to the 90th percentile would increase the number of streams subject to permissible eutrophication. The "minimally disturbed" data set includes, in the opinion of District reviewers, a number of streams with potential anthropogenic impact. Enrichment of streams with nitrogen or phosphorus runs counter to District and State efforts to reduce the trophic status of nutrient-impaired water bodies and to prevent harmful eutrophication of Florida's healthy water bodies. The District continues to find EPA's NNC for streams to be inappropriate and refers EPA to its previous comments regarding stream NNC. 

# Comment ID 2477.001.003

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority The NODA requests "comment on the benchmark distribution approach." Referring to comments provided in response to EPA's Proposed Rule, EPA notes that EPA "is considering using the combination of the 75th and 90th percentile values (depending on regions) based on benchmark sites, with additional data quality screens applied." CCUA would fall into one of the regions where EPA is proposing to use the 90th percentile benchmark. According to the NODA, CCUA would be subject to the following criteria: 1.67 mg/L for TN and 0.11 mr/L for TP.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5472Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

EPA's proposed change from using 75th percentile benchmark concentrations to using 90th percentile benchmark concentrations for most nutrient regions in the state of Florida provides some improvement by reducing the number of unimpacted reference sites that would be deemed as impaired; however, this change fails to address the larger problem, namely that the cause-effect relationship between nutrient concentrations and environmental response is still being ignored by EPA. Just as there was no scientific basis (i.e. no cause-effect relationship between nutrient concentrations and environmental response) for EPA originally selecting the 75th percentile, as outlined in the Proposed Rule, no justification is provided for switching to the 90th percentile. In addition, the NODA results in drastically different calculated concentrations compared to the original Proposed Rule in response to changes in how reference sites were defined. The calculated 90th percentile TP values for Peninsula region (whose boundaries changed very little in the latest revision) provide a prime example. The 90th percentile TP value for the Peninsula region calculated using the distributional statistics originally provided in Table 2-4 of EPA's Technical Support Document (defined in CCUA's comment to the Proposed Rule) results in a concentration of 0.19 mg!1. The 90th percentile TP value for the Peninsula region provided in the NODA is 0.11 mg!1. This wide fluctuation in criterion values (the original method produces a value 79% higher than the new method) in response to a subjective decision of how reference sites are defined further demonstrates the arbitrary nature in which these criteria are being chosen. 

# Comment ID 2480-2.001.003

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. The writing below addresses the second and third topics as follows: Second Topic Continued consideration of deriving river/stream criteria using the 75th percentile of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from sites with healthy biological conditions (original EPA proposed approach), but also consideration of an alternative approach that would base the criteria for streams on the 90th percentile of concentration values (75th in the West Central) of minimally disturbed sites (original FDEP proposed benchmark stream approach): Original comment contains additional information in Table 1. Comparison of nutrient concentrations using the two approaches - biologically healthy sites (75th percentile - U.S. EPA reference approach) versus minimally disturbed sites (90th percentile, except 75th percentile in the West Central region - FDEP benchmark approach). From FDEP (2010a). Note that comparative information was not included for the South region. See original comment letter. Except for the West Central region (which is roughly the same area as the Bone Valley bioregion discussed in my previous comments), TP concentrations from the two approaches compare well, but TN concentrations differ substantially and are lower using U.S. EPA's reference approach except in the Panhandle West (Table 1). This general outcome was expected because, with exception of the West Central region, U.S. EPA's reference approach (use of the 75th percentile of TN and TP concentrations from sites with health biological conditions) is a more sound and protective

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5473Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria approach than FDEP's benchmark stream approach, explained as follows. 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.004

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 designated uses. Regardless of whether the USEPA decides to use the proposed reference condition approach instead of the more scientifically robust benchmark approach, SWFWMD recommends that the 90th percentile of reference/benchmark sites be used for determining impairment in all regions. 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 2482.001.004

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District

- The District continues to recommend the use of the 90th percentile of benchmark sites for the development of river/stream criteria for all stream nutrient regions, including the West Central. 

# Comment ID 2487-1.001.006

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Regarding the proposed bench mark distribution using both the 75th and 90th percentile values, it would appear that the West Central Region is being assigned the 75th percentile based solely on the fact that less data was available. This approach, at best, seems arbitrary and capricious, reinforcing the need for a sound, scientific approach based on cause and effect relationships. The fact that the EPA defaulted to a percentile distribution due to lack of available data only reflects the hurried nature of this criteria, reminding us that these rules are not being formulated and driven by defensible science, but instead by the schedule of a mandated consent decree.



# Comment ID 2488-1.001.005

Author Name: Brom M.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5474Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc.

- Alternative Approach to TP, TN Criteria Calculations EPA is considering using a combination of the 75th and 90th percentiles values to calculate stream criteria values, using the data for Florida's Benchmark sites. EPA's original proposal derived criteria values for streams using a dataset which included stream segments that were not identified on Florida's 303(d) list and which were also classified as supporting a healthy biological community (i.e., stream condition index (SCI) equal to or greater than 40) as documented in the Federal Register notice for the initial proposal. 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. To derive the instream protection values under this approach, EPA first assembled the available nutrient concentrations and biological response data for streams in Florida. EPA used FDEP's data from the IWR and STORET 66 databases and identified sites where SCI scores were 40 and higher. 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. EPA grouped the remaining sites (hereafter, biologically healthy sites) according to its nutrient watershed regions (Panhandle, Bone Valley, Peninsula, and North Central). For each nutrient watershed region, EPA compiled nutrient data (TN and TP concentrations) associated with the biologically healthy sites, and calculated distributional statistics for annual average TN and TP concentrations. (75 FR 4194-4195; January 26, 2010). The originally proposed numeric nutrient criteria values were established at the 75th percentile concentrations of TP and TN from EPA's baseline data set. The Benchmark sites are a subset of EPA's baseline dataset wherein sampling stations were excluded from the initial dataset based on: land cover information (Landscape Development Index (LDI) > 2), best professional judgment assessment by Florida DEP, watershed landscape development (LDI > 3), and nitrate/ nitrite concentration > 0.35 mg/L. EPA specifically requested comment on the revised stream criteria using the previously proposed approach (applied to the revised regions) as well as utilization of the benchmark distribution approach (90th Percentile for all regions except the West Central region) and 75th Percentile (West Central region only, due to less data availability). Neither the previous approach (baseline dataset, 75th percentile distributional statistics) nor the benchmark distribution approach (benchmark database, 90th or 75th percentile distributional statistics) can be used to set scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. The absence of a reliable stressor-response relationship makes any such approach arbitrary. EPA's Guidelines on the derivation of water quality criteria[1] require that water quality criteria must ensure use protection "with a small probability of considerable overprotection or underprotection" (Guidelines @ 5). EPA's Office of Research and Development has also provided additional background documentation regarding what should constitute an acceptable approach used in criteria development. ("Using Field Data and Weight of Evidence to Develop Water Quality Criteria," Cormier et aI, 2008 SETAC). That document specifies the following with respect to criteria derivation: Development of numeric WQC is based on 3 basic assumptions: First, causal relationships exist between agents and environmental effects. Second, these causal relationships can be quantitatively modeled. Finally, if exposures to the causal agent remain within a range predicted by the quantitative model, unacceptable affects will not occur and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5475Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria designated uses will be safeguarded. Therefore, for criteria to be valid there must be evidence that the criteria are based on reasonably consistent and scientifically defensible causal relationships. (Emphasis supplied) The Guidelines requirement can only be met if a causal, mechanistic relationship exists between the stressor and the use impairment as noted by Cormier et al. (2008) and the EPA Science Advisory Board in its recent review of EPA draft guidance on empirical methods for deriving numeric nutrient criteria. However, EPA and FDEP have acknowledged that such a relationship has not been identified. FDEP determined cause and effect relationships to be insufficiently robust for establishing numeric thresholds. ... EPA also concluded that a scientifically defensible cause and effect relationship could not be demonstrated with the available data. (75 FR 4215) The guidelines requirement concerning considerable overprotection is particularly relevant to the establishment of a numeric nutrient criterion for nitrogen in freshwater streams. EPA acknowledges that "Water bodies can differ significantly in their sensitivity to nutrient in general and to TN specifically. Although not universally true, freshwaters are generally phosphorus-limited and thus more sensitive to enrichment because nitrogen is present in excess." (75 FR 4207) Given this expectation, the establishment of numeric criteria for TN is unnecessary and contrary to EPA's own guidance. Although EPA claims that this statistical distribution approach can be used to identify an appropriate threshold for providing protection of aquatic life designated uses (i.e., SCI equal to or greater than 40), no information is provided to demonstrate that the proposed thresholds bear any relationship to the use being protected. Consequently, there is no percentile from the distribution data that can be identified as an appropriate threshold for providing protection of aquatic life designated uses. This should be apparent based on a consideration of the proposed criteria. The North Central region criteria are proposed as TP: 0.35 - 0.36 mg/L and TN: 1.48 - 1.90 mg/L. These threshold concentrations cannot limit plant growth, the root cause of nutrient related use impairment, but do support healthy biological conditions in streams as determined by EPA. EPA's approach would identify all stream segments exceeding the TP or TN criterion as nutrient impaired, including the 10 - 25 percent of the streams from benchmark or baseline stations, respectively, that exceed the distribution-based thresholds. That is, streams specifically identified by FDEP and EPA as biologically healthy sites would now be considered nutrient impaired (i.e., unable to support the aquatic designated use). Such an approach is illogical, illegal, and scientifically indefensible. Any adopted numeric nutrient criteria must include a requirement that, prior to finding that a site is nutrient impaired based on the final numeric values for TP or TN, a separate determination must also be made independently demonstrating that the stream segment is actually biologically impaired due to nutrients. This will require the development and formal adoption of biological indicators that can be used to make this determination. Such an approach could avoid problems encountered with the current approach wherein stream segments have been improperly classified as nutrient impaired based on a statistical analysis of dissolved oxygen data. Implementation of properly established biological indicators should also preclude the use of other factors such as the land development index or 303(d) listing status to exclude waterbody segments from the database of healthy waterbodies or from consideration for SSAC development. Percentile selection for criteria development using the statistical distribution approach is arbitrary and contrary to Florida Law. PotashCorp and The Fertilizer Institute, of which PotashCorp is a member, commented extensively on the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5476Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria scientific defensibility of the distribution approach for establishing numeric nutrient criteria as proposed on January 26, 2010. Those comments are incorporated here by reference.

[1] USEPA 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.007

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc.

- If the statistical distribution approach is pursued as the basis for final nutrient criteria in Florida, the stream criteria should be based on EPA's baseline database, as this database consists of biologically healthy streams (i.e., attaining designated uses for aquatic life), and the 90th or higher percentile concentration should be chosen as the basis for establishing a threshold numeric nutrient criterion for phosphorus. No numeric nutrient criterion should be established for nitrogen.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5477Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria 

# Comment ID 2489-1.001.003

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg 2) The continued consideration of deriving river/stream criteria by using the 75th percentile of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from sites with healthy biological conditions (original EPA proposed approach), but also consideration of an alternative approach that would base the criteria for streams on the 90th percentile of concentration values (75th in the West Central) of minimally disturbed sites (original FDEP proposed benchmark stream approach). Response: Pinellas County is an urbanized community and establishing standards based on undeveloped streams and lakes does not afford the City of St. Petersburg the flexibility to address water quality concerns where needed. The City has participated in developing the Reasonable Assurance Plan for Tampa Bay and is committed to its requirements. It is recommended that EPA utilize the Reasonable Assurance Plan for this region. As to the two (2) methods proposed, the City prefers the method that provides the most flexibility to the City. It is imperative that local government expend the limited funds available to develop and implement appropriate water quality improvement goals and projects that serve to protect the environment. 

# Comment ID 2490-1.001.005

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation The two approaches appear to produce extremely similar values for TP (except where the 75th percentile is arbitrarily applied in the Bone Valley (West Central). Increasing the percentile (to the 90th) would bring the two approaches closer together, showing them to be two lines of evidence for the development of the criteria. It is unclear why the availability of less data should result in the reduction. If only one stream in a region was considered "healthy" or "minimally disturbed" and all other streams in the region are expected to be managed to the conditions of that waterbody, why shouldn't the actual conditions of that waterbody be applied as the standard? The FDEP approach (90th percentile) accounts for some level of human degradation of the streams, but the EPA approach would result in 25% of natural streams in the state requiring TMDLs for one or more nutrients. 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.007

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County The two approaches appear to produce extremely similar values for TP (except where the 75th percentile is arbitrarily

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5478Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria applied in the Bone Valley (West Central). Increasing the percentile (to the 90th ) would bring the two approaches closer together, showing them to be two lines of evidence for the development of the criteria. It is unclear why the availability of less data should result in the reduction. If only one stream in a region was considered "healthy" or "minimally disturbed" and all other streams in the region are expected to be managed to the conditions of that waterbody, why shouldn't the actual conditions of that waterbody be applied as the standard? The FDEP approach (90th percentile) accounts for some level of human degradation of the streams, but the EPA approach would result in 25% of natural streams in the state requiring TMDLs for one or more nutrients. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.003

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 2) The continued consideration of deriving river/stream criteria by using the 75th percentile of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from sites with healthy biological conditions (original EPA proposed approach), but also consideration of an alternative approach that would base the criteria for streams on the 90th percentile of concentration values (751h in the West Central) of minimally disturbed sites (original FDEP proposed benchmark stream approach). Original comment letter contains additional information in a Table of proposed option based on 75th percentile concentration vs. 90th percentile concentration . See original comment letter. Response: As stated, Pinellas County's geology is characterized by a phosphatic Hawthorn layer that contributes to the phosphorous loading to the regions lakes and streams. If Pinellas County remains in the Peninsula Region, it will be facing nearly 100% impairment based on proposed nutrient criteria for either 75th percentile SCI healthy sites or 90th percentile SCI minimally disturbed sites. Furthermore, the criteria do not take into account the intense urbanization effect on stream nutrient concentrations. Man-made or highly altered systems cannot be compared to minimally disturbed systems and cannot be restored to those conditions. Pinellas County's geology and urban landscape warrant a more scientifically based regional classification.



# Comment ID 2502-1.001.005

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute
7. The arbitrary nature of EPA's proposed criteria is further underscored by the Agency's decisions as to which percentile portions of the dataset to use in developing those criteria. EPA suggests, in its new benchmark approach, that it would use the 90th percentile for all waters except those in the West Central region, where it would use the 75th percentile. The basis for that difference is that there are less data for that region. However, EPA provides absolutely no

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5479Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria reason why the claimed lack of sufficient data justify the choice of the 75th percentile, rather than some other level. In fact, the most logical course of action would have been to extrapolate from the Agency's findings as to other regions. If, as EPA apparently believes, the data that it evaluated for the other regions shows that the 90th percentile is sufficiently protective, then it would seem that the same would probably be true for the one remaining region. Yet instead, EPA uses the lower amount of data to arbitrarily impose a much lower and more stringent level, without any analysis to show that that region's waters would necessarily require this to be protective. Again, this shows that the Agency's approach is purely theoretical, with no grounding in reality. That is simply not sufficient for this proposal to pass muster as a set of scientifically and legally defensible water quality standards for the state of Florida. 

# Response

Comment ID: 2446-1.001.009 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 75th percentile is too stringent for the West Central (formerly the Bone Valley described at EPA’s proposal). EPA’s decision for the 75th percentile of TN and TP from the SCI Population for the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR) is based on the Agency’s inability to develop a statistical distribution from its stream reference population, i.e., benchmark population. EPA found that for the West Central NWR a statistical distribution could not be constructed based on the benchmark population due to the occurrence of one reference WBID. Mathematically, EPA could not identify any percentile from this limited data set. Thus as an alternative, EPA relied upon the SCI Population from which the 75th percentile was selected. EPA did not, in its final rule, take a global position for or against a particular percentile, but rather based its decisions on the best available scientific information. The Agency based its judgment of the 75th percentile on its ability and confidence to identify streams that reflect minimally-impacted conditions, a process which is described in greater detail in the final rule TSD. It is unclear to EPA what reference population the commenter is suggesting EPA should compute the 95th percentile for when the commenter refers to the reference population as “the full set of original reference streams for the Bone Valley”.

Comment ID: 2452-1.001.005 Response: EPA did not, in its final rule, take a global position for or against a particular percentile, but rather based its decisions on the best available scientific information . The Agency based its judgment of the 75th percentile on its ability and confidence to identify streams that reflect minimally-impacted conditions, a process which is described in greater detail in the final rule TSD. Furthermore, EPA disagrees that it must rely only on stressor-response approaches to derive numeric nutrient criteria for final rule. EPA disagrees that no evidence supporting a cause and effect model was considered or observed. EPA considered a wide variety of information in deriving nutrient criteria for Florida. This included consideration of a large number of stressor-response relationship models using observed data. These analyses produced significant models for both algal and macroinvertebrate responses and the results are detailed in the proposed TSD. These relationships had variable and relatively low precision in streams, but were statistically significant. The variability was an element in the decision to rely more heavily on reference condition approaches for streams criteria derivation, but EPA disagrees that no cause and effect relationships were demonstrated. Moreover, there is a well established and sizeable body of scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies, that has unequivocally

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5480Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
established a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in streams, including an effect on the balance of 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 deduces from this body of scientific knowledge, corroborated by significant relationships observed in Florida consistent with this knowledge, that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and biological responses exists in Florida and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement.

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. 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. 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. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5481Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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.

Comment ID: 2453.001.001 Response: In light of the commenter’s support for comments made by other entities, EPA refers the commenter to the Agency’s response to those comments (i.e., Florida Stormwater Association, the South Florida Water Management District, and Douglas J. Durbin). EPA points out to the commenter that the Agency selected the 90th percentile for TN and TP for all Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs), with the exception of the West Central NWR. In the case of the West Central NWR, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 75th percentile is arbitrary, not science-based, or appropriate for deriving criteria. EPA’s decision for the 75th percentile of TN and TP from the SCI Population for the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR) is based on the Agency’s inability to develop a statistical distribution from its stream reference population, i.e., benchmark population. EPA found that for the West Central NWR a statistical distribution could not be constructed based on the benchmark population due to the occurrence of one reference WBID. Mathematically, EPA could not identify any percentile from this limited data set. Thus as an alternative, EPA relied upon the SCI Population from which the 75th percentile was selected. EPA did not, in its final rule, take a global position for or against a particular percentile, but rather based its decisions on the best available scientific information at the time. The Agency based its judgment of the 75th percentile on its ability and confidence to identify streams that reflect minimally-impacted conditions, a process which is described in greater detail in the final rule TSD.

Comment ID: 2458-1.001.004 Response: EPA disagrees that it must rely only on stressor-response approaches to derive numeric nutrient criteria for final rule. EPA disagrees that no evidence supporting a cause and effect model was considered or observed. EPA considered a wide variety of information in deriving nutrient criteria for Florida. This included consideration of a large number of stressor-response relationship models using observed data. These analyses produced significant models for both algal and macroinvertebrate responses and the results are detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD. These relationships had variable and relatively low precision in streams, but were statistically significant. The variability was an element in the decision to rely more heavily on reference condition approaches for streams criteria derivation, but EPA disagrees that no cause and effect relationships were demonstrated. Moreover, there is a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5482Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
well established and 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 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 deduces from this body of scientific knowledge, corroborated by significant relationships observed in Florida consistent with this knowledge, that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and biological responses exists in Florida and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement.

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. 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. 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. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5483Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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.

Comment ID: 2461.001.003 Response: EPA clarifies for the commenter that the final stream criteria are expressed as an annual geometric mean not to be exceeded more than once in three years. EPA refers the commenter to the final rule TSD to determine which Nutrient Watershed Region the commenter is in and the final rule for what stream TN and TP criteria would govern the streams of interest to the commenter.

Comment ID: 2463-1.001.003 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 90th percentile for stream TN and TP criteria are not justified. EPA refers the commenter to the final rule TSD where the Agency explains its scientific rationale for selecting the 90th percentile. In general, EPA points out to the commenter that the decision to select the 90th percentile stems from the Agency’s ability and confidence to identify streams that exhibit minimally-disturbed conditions. Although EPA has confidence that the selection criterion of low land use disturbance properly identifies reference conditions, EPA could not rule out all potential human-related impacts at these sites. Thus, EPA concluded that its stream reference population (i.e., benchmark population) reflected least-disturbed conditions and selected the 90th percentile rather than the 100th percentile. EPA does not agree with the commenter that criteria based on the 90th percentile will lead to unacceptably high nutrient loads. While it is true that a criteria based on the 75th percentile would be a lower criteria than one based on the 90th percentile, EPA has determined that the 90th percentile of this distribution is protective of the designated use of Florida streams in most regions. Furthermore, EPA points out to the commenter that flexibility exists under Florida law to develop site-specific criteria that may more accurately reflect the local conditions at a given stream.

Comment ID: 2463-1.001.005

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5484Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
Response: EPA does not understand what a “log-normal fitting procedure” is as referred to by the commenter. EPA provided in its proposed rule TSD and final rule TSD the mathematical procedure for calculating the proposed and final rule TN and TP criteria. EPA replicated its proposed and final rule criteria following the Agency’s procedure using the data provided in the docket.

Comment ID: 2475-1.001.004 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 90th percentile for stream TN and TP criteria would lead to eutrophication of colored and uncolored streams. EPA refers the commenter to the final rule TSD where the Agency explains its scientific rationale for selecting the 90th percentile. In general, EPA points out to the commenter that the decision to select the 90th percentile stems from the Agency’s ability and confidence to identify streams that exhibit minimally-impacted conditions. Although EPA has confidence that the selection criterion of low land use disturbance properly identify reference conditions, EPA could not rule out all potential human-related impacts at these sites. However, EPA considers its screening process of the benchmark population as having removed to a large degree any stream sites that have signs of anthropogenic nutrient impacts (e.g., EPA screened out sites with NO3+NO2 concentrations greater that 0.35 mg/L and were on Clean Water Act 303(d) list for nutrients or dissolved oxygen). Thus, EPA concluded that its stream reference population (i.e., benchmark population) reflected least-disturbed conditions and selected the 90th percentile rather than the 100th percentile. EPA does not agree with the commenter that criteria based on the 90th percentile will lead to unacceptably high nutrient loads. While it is true that a criteria based on the 75th percentile would be a lower criteria than one based on the 90th percentile, EPA has determined that the 90th percentile of this distribution is protective of the designated use of Florida streams in most regions. Furthermore, EPA points out to the commenter that flexibility exists under Florida law to develop site-specific criteria that may more accurately reflect the local conditions at a given stream.

Comment ID: 2477.001.003 Response: EPA recognizes that there were differences in the stream TN and TP criteria published at proposal and its Supplemental Notice of Data Availability (SNODA) and Request for Comment. However, EPA provided the scientific basis for these criteria in its proposed rule TSD and articulated the reasons for differences in its August 2010 SNODA. These differences do not reflect subjective decision-making by the Agency, but rather are grounded in the best available scientific information at the time. EPA’s scientific basis for its final stream criteria are described in further detail in its final rule TSD. EPA disagrees that no evidence supporting a cause and effect model was considered or observed. EPA considered a wide variety of information in deriving nutrient criteria for Florida. This included consideration of a large number of stressor-response relationship models using observed data. These analyses produced significant models for both algal and macroinvertebrate responses and the results are detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD. These relationships had variable and relatively low precision in streams, but were statistically significant. The variability was an element in the decision to rely more heavily on reference condition approaches for streams criteria derivation, but EPA disagrees that no cause and effect relationships were demonstrated. Moreover, there is a well established and 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 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 2-5485Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Slavik et al. 2004, Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010). EPA deduces from this body of scientific knowledge, corroborated by significant relationships observed in Florida consistent with this knowledge, that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and biological responses exists in Florida and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement.

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. 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. 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. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5486Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
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.

Comment ID: 2480-2.001.003 Response: The commenter asserts that the 75th percentile of the SCI Population is “a more sound and protective approach than FDEP’s benchmark stream approach”. EPA points out to the commenter that EPA further screened the benchmark population beyond what FDEP had described in its approach using the benchmark population. For example, EPA screened out any Benchmark sites that were on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list for nutrients or dissolved oxygen. EPA also screened out any Benchmark sites that had SCI scores less than 40, similar to the approach the Agency took for identifying the SCI Population. Therefore, EPA concluded that the benchmark population reflected least-disturbed conditions from which numeric nutrient criteria could be derived. EPA’s scientific rationale for selecting the 90th percentile from the benchmark population is further detailed in the final rule TSD.

Comment ID: 2482-1.001.004 Response: EPA appreciates the commenter’s support for the 90th percentile of the benchmark population. However, EPA disagrees that biological confirmation is legally or scientifically supportable. With regards to the requirement for biological validation, EPA disagrees that independent biological validation is necessary. EPA does not require dependent proof of biological impairment for any other existing aquatic life water quality criterion; such dependent proof is unnecessary when establishing concentrations that are intended to be protective of aquatic life. EPA believes that it is important to make impairment decisions based on levels of TN and/or TP that are established as independent criteria to provide protection for lakes before adverse biological conditions manifest themselves. Furthermore, EPA believes that the intent of water quality standards as described in CWA section 303(c) is to be preventative in a way that would restore and maintain water quality, not only to be reactive once impairments have been observed. EPA also notes that reliance upon biological responses as the arbiter of a listing may provide a false sense of security and preventiveness by the water quality criteria. It is the Agency's scientific understanding that there are confounding factors that may prevent a biological response in time and space in a particular waterbody, but the response may be present at that same space during another time when the confounding factors are removed or may be present in another space when water flows downstream where the confounding factors are absent. Additionally, there can be lag time between nutrient concentration and response -- a concentration that is measured at a particular time is not necessarily the concentration that caused the response. Waiting until a biological response is present and detected is not protective of designated uses, and is not consistent with the objective of the Clean Water Act that provides for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5487Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

waters.

Comment ID: 2482.001.004 Response: EPA appreciates the commenter’s support for the 90th percentile from the benchmark population. However, EPA disagrees that the 90th percentile from the benchmark population should apply for the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region. EPA’s decision for the 75th percentile of TN and TP from the SCI Population for the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR) is based on the Agency’s inability to develop a statistical distribution from its stream reference population, i.e., benchmark population. EPA found that for the West Central NWR a statistical distribution could not be constructed based on the benchmark population due to the occurrence of one reference WBID. Mathematically, EPA could not identify any percentile from this limited data set. Thus as an alternative, EPA relied upon the SCI Population from which the 75th percentile was selected. EPA did not, in its final rule, take a global position for or against a particular percentile, but rather based its decisions on the best available scientific information at the time. The Agency based its judgment of the 75th percentile on its ability and confidence to identify streams that reflect minimally-impacted conditions, a process which is described in greater detail in the final rule TSD.

Comment ID: 2487-1.001.006 Response: EPA’s decision for the 75th percentile of TN and TP from the SCI Population for the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR) is based on the Agency’s inability to develop a statistical distribution from its stream reference population, i.e., benchmark population. EPA found that for the West Central NWR a statistical distribution could not be constructed based on the benchmark population due to the occurrence of one reference WBID. Mathematically, EPA could not identify any percentile from this limited data set. Thus as an alternative, EPA relied upon the SCI Population from which the 75th percentile was selected. EPA did not, in its final rule, take a global position for or against a particular percentile, but rather based its decisions on the best available scientific information at the time. The Agency based its judgment of the 75th percentile on its ability and confidence to identify streams that reflect minimally-impacted conditions, a process which is described in greater detail in the final rule TSD. EPA considered a wide variety of information in deriving nutrient criteria for Florida. This included consideration of a large number of stressor-response relationship models using observed data. These analyses produced significant models for both algal and macroinvertebrate responses and the results are detailed in the proposed and final rule TSD. These relationships had variable and relatively low precision in streams, but were statistically significant. The variability was an element in the decision to rely more heavily on reference condition approaches for streams criteria derivation, but EPA disagrees that no cause and effect relationships were demonstrated. Moreover, there is a well established and 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 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 deduces from this body of scientific knowledge, corroborated by significant relationships observed in Florida consistent with this knowledge, that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and biological responses exists in Florida and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5488Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

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. 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. 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. 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5489Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

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.

Comment ID: 2488-1.001.005 Response: EPA does not agree that the "absence of a reliable stressor-response approach makes any such approach arbitrary". EPA's obligation is to establish levels of pollutants that protect designated uses, and the reference site approach is one such method for establishing these protective levels (U.S. EPA 2000). EPA also does not agree with the view that causal relationships between nutrients and ecological effects in streams have not been shown. Many studies have established that excess nutrients cause substantial changes to stream biological communities. Furthermore, EPA observed a statistically significant relationships between nutrient concentrations and a macroinvertebrate stream condition index in Florida (see final rule TSD), but determined that the relationship was not precise enough to directly inform criteria derivation. EPA also does not agree that its approach to deriving stream criteria is “illegal, illogical, scientifically indefensible, and contrary to Florida law”. EPA based its final criteria for streams on the best available science and is consistent with its previously published guidance regarding numeric nutrient criteria for streams (U.S. EPA 2000). EPA points the commenter to the final rule TSD for more information regarding the Agency’s scientifically-based approaches to derive numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s streams. EPA disagrees that the final criteria should rely solely upon observing biological impairments. EPA does not believe this approach to be is legally or scientifically supportable. With regards to the requirement for biological validation, EPA disagrees that independent biological validation is necessary. EPA does not require dependent proof of biological impairment for any other existing aquatic life water quality criterion; such dependent proof is unnecessary when establishing concentrations that are intended to be protective of aquatic life. EPA believes that it is important to make impairment decisions based on levels of TN and/or TP that are established as independent criteria to provide protection for lakes before adverse biological conditions manifest themselves. Furthermore, EPA believes that the intent of water quality standards as described in CWA section 303(c) is to be preventative in a way that would restore and maintain water quality, not only to be reactive once impairments have been observed. EPA also notes that reliance upon biological responses as the arbiter of a listing may provide a false sense of security and preventiveness by the water quality criteria. It is the Agency's scientific understanding that there are confounding factors that may prevent a biological response in time and space in a particular waterbody, but the response may be present at that same space during another time when the confounding factors are removed or may be present in another space when water flows downstream where the confounding factors are absent. Additionally, there can be lag time between nutrient concentration and response -- a concentration that is measured at a particular time is not necessarily the concentration that caused the response. Waiting until a biological response is present and detected is not protective of designated uses, and is not consistent with the objective of the Clean Water Act that provides for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.

References:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5490Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

U.S. EPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. EPA-822-B-00-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Comment ID: 2488-1.001.007 Response: It is unclear to EPA what the comment is referring to with respect to “EPA’s baseline database”, and thus cannot respond to this aspect of the comment. EPA disagrees that TN criteria are not necessary. EPA points out that its policy, and supporting scientific rationale, for deriving numeric nutrient criteria for both causal variables, TN and TP, is well-established (U.S. EPA 2000a, U.S. EPA 2000b, Grubbs 2001, Grumbles 2007). EPA’s position has been further supported by independent, nationally recognized scientists who concluded that prevention of eutrophication can best be achieved by controlling both nitrogen and phosphorus (U.S. EPA SAB 2007, Paerl, H.W. 2009, Conley et al. 2009). EPA refers the commenter to these documents for more detail on EPA’s scientifically-based position regarding dual nitrogen and phosphorus criteria.

References: U.S. EPA. 2000a. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA822-B-00-001.

U.S. EPA. 2000b. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. EPA-822-B-00-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Grubbs, G. 2001. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to Directors of State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Development and Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water Quality Standards. November 14, 2001. Grumbles, B.H. 2007. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards. May 25, 2007.

Comment ID: 2489-1.001.003 Response: EPA points out that it derived numeric nutrient criteria consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA) implementing regulations at 131.11(a)(1). Taking into account other factors such as economics, for example, or a “Reasonable Assurance Plan” as the commenter suggests would be outside of the scope of the CWA and EPA’s CWA implementing regulations. EPA points out to the commenter that water quality standards contain flexibility with respect to variances and changes to designated use that the commenter may choose to pursue.

Comment IDs: 2466-2.001.004, 2490-1.001.005, 2493-1.001.007

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5491Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 75th percentile is arbitrary for the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). EPA’s decision for the 75th percentile of TN and TP from the SCI Population for the West Central NWR is based on the Agency’s inability to develop a statistical distribution from its stream reference population, i.e., benchmark population. EPA found that for the West Central NWR a statistical distribution could not be constructed based on the benchmark population due to the occurrence of one reference WBID. Mathematically, EPA could not identify any percentile from this limited data set. Thus as an alternative, EPA relied upon the SCI Population from which the 75th percentile was selected. EPA did not, in its final rule, take a global position for or against a particular percentile, but rather based its decisions on the best available scientific information at thetime. The Agency based its judgment of the 75th percentile on its ability and confidence to identify streams that reflect minimallyimpacted conditions, a process which is described in greater detail in the final rule TSD. EPA disagrees with the assertion that 25% of “natural” streams would require a TMDL. First, EPA did not conclude that its reference population reflected natural conditions; rather the Agency concluded that the Benchmark and SCI Populations reflected least-disturbed conditions. Second, listing of waters under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) does not necessarily result in a TMDL. EPA refers the commenter to the Agency’s implementing regulations for CWA 303(d).

Comment ID: 2496-1.001.003 Response: EPA refers the commenter to the final rule TSD to determine what stream Nutrient Watershed Region the commenter is in. EPA cannot judge at this time whether the commenter is correct that 100% of streams would be impaired if the commenter’s streams are in the Peninsula. EPA defers to the State’s assessment and listing programs, authorized under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d), to draw that conclusion. EPA disagrees that further classification of streams is warranted at this time. If there is evidence to suggest further classification, then the commenter may pursue site-specific criteria provided under Florida law.

Comment ID: 2502-1.001.005 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 75th percentile is arbitrary for the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). EPA’s decision for the 75th percentile of TN and TP from the SCI Population for the West Central NWR is based on the Agency’s inability to develop a statistical distribution from its stream reference population, i.e., benchmark population. EPA found that for the West Central NWR a statistical distribution could not be constructed based on the benchmark population due to the occurrence of one reference WBID. Mathematically, EPA could not identify any percentile from this limited data set. Thus as an alternative, EPA relied upon the SCI Population from which the 75th percentile was selected. EPA did not, in its final rule, take a global position for or against a particular percentile, but rather based its decisions on the best available scientific information at thetime. The Agency based its judgment of the 75th percentile on its ability and confidence to identify streams that reflect minimallyimpacted conditions, a process which is described in greater detail in the final rule TSD. EPA disagrees with the assertion that 25% of “natural” streams would require a TMDL. See final preamble and TSD for more detail. EPA also does not agree that its approach to deriving stream criteria is not legally or scientifically defensible. EPA based its final criteria for streams on the best available science and is consistent with its previously published guidance regarding numeric nutrient criteria for streams (U.S. EPA 2000). EPA points the commenter to the final rule TSD for more information regarding the Agency’s

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5492Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Alternate Approaches for Stream Criteria
scientifically-based approaches to derive numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s streams.

References:

U.S. EPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. EPA-822-B-00-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5493Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs 

# SNODA.IV - LAKES - DPVS Comment ID 2496-1.001.011

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Additionally, downstream protection values should not be applied upstream due to lack of better alternatives. There needs to be strong science that ties water quality to a biological response in both the tributary and the receiving waters. 

# Comment ID 2498-1.001.004

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2. The Department would like to reiterate that downstream protection values established for the protection of Lakes is neither legally nor scientifically necessary, and presents an undue burden on the Department and EPA. Standards adopted for the protection of each waterbody type meets the intent of EPA regulations. The adoption of In-Stream Protection Values (IPVs) derived using minimally disturbed sites provides inherent protection of downstream waterbodies. If Streams attain the IPVs derived this way, then the nutrient delivery to the downstream lakes should be considered protective of any lake's minimally disturbed condition. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.004

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection B. Duration and Frequency of the Proposed Criteria for Streams for the Downstream Protection of Lakes The docket associated with EPA's proposal and NODA contains no data or methods for deriving or supporting the duration and frequency components of stream water quality criteria for the downstream protection of lakes, otherwise referred to as Downstream Protection Values (DPVs). In fact, the NODA and its associated docket do not even mention duration and frequency. As stated in EPA's proposal, "Aquatic life water quality criteria contain three components: Magnitude, duration, and frequency." The Department suggests that each component is of equal importance and the data and information supporting EPA's analysis for duration and frequency should be made available for public comment as was the data and analysis for magnitude.EPA's proposed rule using the Vollenweider equation appeared to apply the same duration and frequency used for instream protection values as the duration and frequency for downstream protection values. However, there is no discussion, analysis, data, or literature provided or sited to assist the public in the review of this proposal. The TSD

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5494Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs does not even mention duration and frequency of DPVs, but simply talks about deriving the total phosphorus concentration (magnitude). Without providing any information or discussion, it is impossible to properly evaluate the proposal. The Department raised this issue in our earlier comments because the application of a steady state model is incompatible with the in-stream protection value's duration and frequency, a clearly unsupported and erroneous result. However, EPA has yet to provide any information for review. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.015

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection IV. DPV Approach to Lakes
A. The Downstream Protection Value provision is legally and scientifically unnecessary. 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 neither necessary nor possible to implement. A valid interpretation is that the State's collective 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 methods needed to create the link between upstream and downstream is lacking. This last part is critical because the scientific merits of any proposal must be weighed when deciding whether the perception of necessity to adopt DPVs outweighs the weaknesses contained in the science. 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. The In-Stream Protection Values (IPVs) as proposed by EPA in the notice of data availability using the Benchmark distribution approach were derived using minimally disturbed sites with respect to nutrients. Therefore, if streams attain the IPVs derived this way, then the nutrient delivery to the downstream lakes would be considered protective of the lake's minimally disturbed or naturally expected trophic state/condition. Nutrient concentrations in minimally disturbed streams will not cause increased eutrophication in downstream lakes, account for fate and transport in streams, and ultimately provide inherent protection. The Department strongly encourages EPA to review the literature and understand that all lakes that receive flow from streams are undergoing natural eutrophication. Therefore, stream contribution of nutrients that are not anthropogenically elevated would be a part of that natural process.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5495Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs 

# Comment ID 2500-1.001.003

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida With regard to downstream protective values, the proposal assumes that it is necessary to develop a value in addition to values for the streams. If stream values are set appropriately then the downstream waters should be protected without the need for a separate downstream protection value. 

# Comment ID 2501-1.001.003

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland In its Review of Proposed Criteria for Protection of Downstream Lakes (comments submitted to EPA on April 28th 2010 and available from www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm ), FDEP provides clear evidence that it is not necessary for each and every criterion established by a State to be protective of downstream waters. The FDEP document states "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" (FDEP 2010). Furthermore, application of an appropriate means to set instream protection values inherently protects the natural condition of any downstream lakes. FDEP states "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" (FDEP 2010). In addition, in the event a lake is determined to be impaired under the lakes criteria, alternate nutrient loads would be assigned to upstream sources under the TMDL program. Therefore, only lakes determined to be impaired might be required to institute lower nutrient loads from upstream sources, if in fact the nutrient loading responsible for the impairment is found to originate from stream inflows. Logically, it is not necessary to set lower nutrient loads to upstream sources of lakes that are not identified as impaired. In non-impaired lakes, the in-stream protection values are inherently protective of the nutrient condition of the downstream lake. The City of Maitland supports FDEP's analysis of lake DPVs and believes setting separate criteria to protect downstream lakes is unnecessary. The amount of data collection and analysis required to determine lake DPVs using the BATHTUB, WASP, Vollendwieder, or other models amounts to a great expense of time and resources to develop criteria that have not been shown to be any more protective or necessary than the instream protective values for streams, particularly for lakes not directly showing nutrient impairment. Resources that might be invested in data gathering and modeling efforts would be better spent in other areas to protect, restore, and improve water resources. In summary, the City respectfully requests that EPA omit downstream protection values for lakes from its proposed rule. The originally proposed rule and the supplemental notice, if adopted as proposed, will substantially increase the number

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5496Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs of Florida lakes deemed impaired, forcing the implementation of time consuming and costly restoration measures that may not provide measurable ecological benefits, shifting resources away from water bodies actually in need of scarce water resource management and funding. The City encourages EPA to continue to work with FDEP and the myriad of stakeholders in Florida to take the time necessary to develop scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.007

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries
5. It is inappropriate to apply any models developed using general empirical relationships for temperate US lake systems, such as BATHTUB and WASP, to the derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida systems.
6. If protective criteria are developed for Florida lakes, and protective stream criteria are developed for streams, the need to develop Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) is totally unnecessary. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.025

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Thus, in this situation, a more mechanistic/deterministic model such as HSPF or WASP would most likely work better for simulating the system. However, another problematic aspect of the empirical model becomes evident: the fact that the empirical chlorophyll a/total phosphorus relationship does not work in lakes dominated by macrophytes, where large amount of refractory organic phosphorus and nitrogen, unavailable for supporting phytoplankton growth, render such empirical relationships invalid. Essentially all of these models are loading models, and have no place in developing statewide numeric nutrient criteria. BATHTUB, WASP, HSPF and other tools available such as ecological models like AQUATOX, have tremendous value in developing load characteristics for individual systems with associated biological response and should be part of the TMDL process for determining individual load-response relationships, which can then be used to develop specific numeric nutrient criteria for lakes, streams and estuaries. However, there is no one model that can be applied to the diversity of Florida systems to come up with adequate statewide nutrient criteria applicable to all systems. It is an understandable goal, but an invalid concept. These results confirm the statements SER made previously that models based on empirical relationships derived for temperate lakes are woefully inadequate to develop nutrient criteria for Florida systems. The use of these models for deriving numeric nutrient criteria for large groups of lakes in Florida is misguided, totally invalid scientifically and poor public policy. Comments on Downstream Protection Concept

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5497Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

EPA's efforts to establish downstream protective values (DPV's) for Florida lake systems are also misguided. If protective lake criteria are developed for Florida lakes, and protective stream criteria are also developed, the need to develop a Downstream Protective Value is totally unnecessary. It is an artificial construct that is redundant and which really serves no useful regulatory function. As stated in our previous comments, "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 2504-1.001.004

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Downstream Protection Values for Lakes: The District believes the downstream protection values proposed for lakes to address downstream effects from streams and rivers are essentially the Clean Water Act's Total Maximum Daily Load process (TMDL). The District suggests that EPA focus on those receiving waterbodies that demonstrate scientifically based dose-response relationships (e.g., lakes) and use the TMDL process to define the loads in upstream tributary waters to meet the downstream criteria and designated uses. 

# Comment ID 2504-2.001.005

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District 3) Downstream Protection Values for Lakes The District believes the downstream protection values (DPVs) proposed for lakes to address downstream effects from streams and rivers are essentially the Clean Water Act's (CWA's) Total Maximum Daily Load process (TMDL). The TMDL process uses watershed modeling (such as BATHTUB) to define nutrient loads in upstream waters to protect downstream uses in lakes and estuaries. We believe the EPA has proposed to refer to these loads instead as DPVs within the numeric nutrient criteria development process. In addition to the lack of a biological response mentioned above (item number 2), this juxtaposing of water quality standards and the TMDL process has the added effect of mixing the components of the CWA's regulatory process in a confusing manner for watershed stakeholders.The District suggests the EPA focus on those receiving waterbodies that demonstrate scientifically based doseresponse relationships (e.g., lakes), and use the TMDL process to define the loads in upstream tributary waters to meet the downstream criteria and designated uses. This process also would alleviate the need in the current EPA proposal

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5498Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs (in the NODA) to apply the lake criteria as the criteria for upstream waters where there is insufficient data for modeling. The District does not support this premise. Instead, we submit the TMDL process would account for the need for more data and information gathering to implement scientifically sound modeling techniques. In addition, TMDLs meet the requirement to "provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters" specified in 40 CFR 131.10(b). This approach has been used by EPA in other watersheds including the Chesapeake Bay and the seven contributing States ( http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl /). The District also recommends the EPA investigate dose-response relationships for upstream flowing waters, and consider approaches developed with sound scientific rationale. For example, criteria have been proposed for New Zealand streams using algal biomass and diversity as the biological endpoints (see Snelder, Ton H., Barry F.J. Biggs and Mark A. Weatherhead, 2004). Nutrient concentration criteria and characterization of patterns in trophic state for rivers in heterogeneous landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 40(1):1-13.). In addition, the District highly recommends the EPA follow guidance received from the your Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) in a recent report that details some augmentation of EPA's draft dose response methodologies (see Figure 1, page xv, SAB's Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2009) Augmented for Review of Nutrient Criteria Guidance, http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/E09317EC14CB3F2B85257713004BED5F/$File/EPA-SAB-10

­ 006-unsigned.pdf). 

# Response

Comment ID: 2496-1.001.011 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that DPVs should not be applied upstream. EPA takes the view that to ensure the protection of downstream waters, which are lakes in the final rule, numeric criteria should apply upstream of the lake for which DPVs are derived through the approaches described in the Agency’s Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (SNODA) and final rule. EPA’s interpretation of where DPVs apply spatially is supported by EPA’s implementing regulations of the Clean Water Act at 40 CFR 131.10(b), which stipulate: “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."

Comment IDs: 2498-1.001.004, 2498-2.001.015, 2500-1.001.003, 2501-1.001.003, 2503-1.001.025� 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). EPA has insisted that downstream water protection be ensured as described in the Agency’s proposed rule and SNODA, pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Clean Water Act at 40 CFR 131.10(b), which stipulate: “In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5499Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
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." Furthermore, 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-disturbed” or natural conditions. Such assertions must assume that EPA’s stream criteria approach was based on identifying “minimally-disturbed” or natural stream references sites. EPA does not conclude that such assumptions have been met (see final rule TSD) and thus cannot conclude that its stream criteria, as described in final rule, reflect “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions. EPA found no evidence that “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions existed in the reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found that there were numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions non-existent. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. Beyond the corridor LDI approach (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds using watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of the sites were actually listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment.

U.S. EPA 2007. Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by the EPA Science Advisory Board. U.S. 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 ID: 2498-2.001.004 Response: The duration and frequency components of the DPVs are identical to the instream criteria: duration is the annual geometric mean concentration, and frequency is not to be exceeded more than once in three years. In the case of DPVs that are expressed as loads, the magnitude of the annual load would be specified, and it would be specified that this magnitude would not be exceeded more than once every three years.

Comment IDs: 2503-1.001.007, 2503-1.001.025� Response: Comments imply that BATHTUB and WASP are “general empirical” models or relationships. EPA believes this

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5500Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
characterization is misleading. BATHTUB is a semi-empirical model that combines mass balance calculations with regressionderived (empirical) representations of nutrient sedimentation and algal growth. WASP is a deterministic, mass-balance model that is largely process-based, although it contains some empirical representations. EPA also disagrees with comments charactering BATHTUB and WASP as “loading models.” EPA believes that this is incorrect. Both models are lake response models that convert external loads to internal concentrations. Comments also state that an “empirical chl-a/total phosphorus relationship does not work in lakes dominated by macrophytes, where large amount of refractory organic phosphorus and nitrogen, unavailable for supporting phytoplankton growth, render such empirical relationships invalid.” EPA notes that macrophyte dominance can weaken the relationship between planktonic chl- a concentration and total nutrient concentrations; however, this factor does not preclude the model from empirically relating TP to chl-a. EPA also notes that BATHTUB predicts TN, TP, and chl-a concentrations, and that inlake criteria for each of these measures need to be met independently. Further, the inlake chl-a criteria are consistent with the inlake TN and TP criteria in the absence of macrophyte dominance. Thus, BATHTUB can be used to assess DPVs consistent with meeting TN and TP criteria even in systems where the nutrient cycling is predominantly governed by macrophytes rather than planktonic algae.

Comment ID: 2503-1.001.025� Response: EPA disagrees with comments that assert that BATHTUB and WASP have not been peer reviewed. BATHTUB and WASP are well-known and well-cited in the water quality modeling literature. EPA refers the commenter to the following list of peer-reviewed journal articles related to BATHTUB and WASP:

BATHTUB citations: Baniukiewicz, A., and D. Gilbert. 2004. Nutrient TMDL for Lake Hunter. Florida Dept of Environmental Protection, Southwest District. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl Gao, X., 2006. Nutrient and Unionized Ammonia TMDLs for Lake Jesup, WBIDs 2981 and 2981A. Florida Dept of Environmental Protection, Central District, Middle St. Johns Basin. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl Gao, X., and D. Gilbert. 2003. Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load for Orange Lake, Alachua County, Florida. Watershed Assessment Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3555 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl Gao, X., and D. Gilbert. 2006. Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load For Trout Lake, Lake County, Florida. Watershed Assessment Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3555 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl James, W.F., J.W. Barko, H.L. Eakin, and P.W. Sorge. 2002. Phosphorus budget and management strategies for an urban Wisconsin lake. Lake and Reservoir Management 18(2): 149-163. James, W.F., A. Dechamps, N. Turyk, and P. McGinley. 2007. Contribution of Potamogeton crispus Decay to the Phosphorus Budget of McGinnis Lake, Wisconsin. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199. ERDC/TN APCRP-EA-15. Shelley, Z., D. Gilbert, K. Petrus. 2005. Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrient TMDLs for Lake Hancock and Lower Saddle Creek (WBID 1623L & 1623K). Florida Department Of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5501Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
Watershed Management, Southwest District, Lake Hancock Basin, Peace River Planning Unit. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl Mankin, K.R., S. H. Wang, J. K. Koelliker, D. G. Huggins, and F. de Noyelles. 2003. Watershed-lake water quality modeling: Verification and application. J. Soil and Water Conservation 58(4): 188-197. Muhammetoglu, A., H. Muhammetoglu, S. Oktas, L. Ozgokcen and S. Soyupak. 2005. Impact Assessment of Different Management Scenarios on Water Quality of Porsuk River and Dam System - Turkey. Water Resources Management (2005) 19: 199-210. Robertson D.M., and W. J. Rose. 2008. Water Quality, Hydrology, and Simulated Response to Changes in Phosphorus Loading of Butternut Lake, Price and Ashland Counties, Wisconsin, with Special Emphasis on the Effects of Internal Phosphorus Loading in a Polymictic Lake. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5053. http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Smltzer, E. and S. Quinn. 1996. A phosphorus budget, model, and load reduction strategy for Lake Champlain. Lake and Reservoir Management. 12(3): 381-393 Wang, S.H., D.G. Huggins, L. Frees, C.G. Volkman, N.C. Lim, D.S. Baker, V. Smith and F. Denoyelles, Jr.. 2005. An integrated modeling approach to total watershed management: Water quality and watershed assessment of Cheney reservoir, Kansas, USA. Water Air Soil Poll. XX(y): 1-19. Yoko, S., R. Axler, M. McDonald and D. Wilcox. 1997. Recovery of a mine pit lake from aquacultural phosphorus enrichment: model predictions and mechanisms. Ecological Engineering 8(3): 195-218.

WASP citations: James, R.T., J. Martin, T. Wool, and P. F. Wang. 1997. A sediment resuspension and water quality model of Lake Okeechobee. J. American Water Resources Association. 33(3): 661-680. James, R.T., V.J. Bierman, M.J. Erickson, and S.C. Hinz. 2005. The Lake Okeechobee water quality model (LOWQM) enhancements, calibration, validation and analysis. Lake and Reservoir Management 21(3): 231-260. Kiesling, R.L., A.M.S. McFarland, and L.M. Hauck. 2001. Nutrient Targets for Lake Waco and North Bosque River: Developing Ecosystem Restoration Criteria. Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas. Pauer, J.J., K.W. Taunt, W.Melendez, R.G. Kreis, Jr., and A.M. Anstead. 2007. Resurrection of the Lake Michigan Eutrophication Model, MICH1. J. Great Lakes Res. 33:554-565. Petrus, K.. 2007. TMDL Report. Nutrient TMDL for the Winter Haven Southern Chain of Lakes (WBIDs 1521, 1521D, 1521E, 1521F, 1521G, 1521H, 1521J, 1521K). Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of Watershed Management, Southwest District • Sarasota Bay-Peace-Myakka Basins Reckhow, K.H. 1999. Water quality prediction and probability network models. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56(7): 1150-1158 Stansbury, J., and D.M. Admiraal 2004. Modeling to evaluate macrophyte induced impacts to dissolved oxygen in a tailwater reservoir. J. American Water Resources Association. 40(6): 1483-1497. Steinman, A.D., and B.H. Rosen. 2000. Lotic-lentic linkages associated with Lake Okeechobee, Florida. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19(4): 733-741.

Comment IDs: 2504-2.001.005, 2504-1.001.004 Response: EPA agrees that the modeling approaches create nutrient budgets in the same way they do for TMDLs. But in the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5502Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
present context the DPV models create the nutrient budgets before the lake is deemed to be impaired (pursuant to the Clean Water Act section 303(d) and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 130.7 so as to prevent impairment, and thus the need for development of a TMDL. The advantage of doing the modeling 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 permits must be prepared, or later when the water is found to be impaired and in need of a TMDL.”

References: Grumbles, B.H. 2007. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards. May 25, 2007.

Comment ID: 2504-2.001.005 Response: EPA points out that stream IPVs were based on EPA’s reference distribution approach, as opposed to dose-response relationships. EPA's approach and supporting rationale are described in the final rule and TSD. 

# SNODA.IV.A - BATHTUB REPLACING VOLLENWEIDER Comment ID 2447-1.001.004

Author Name: Bartlett D. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3. Downstream Protection of Lakes: The EPA is considering the use of the BATHTUB model for deriving criteria for the protection of downstream lakes. The Division supports EPA's movement towards a modeling approach, but more clarification is needed to fully understand how to comment on the application of BATHTUB or WASP for this purpose. Would the model be used to assure attainment of lake Chlorophyll a, or would it also be used to ensure attainment of TP and TN criteria? How would the criteria associated with the model output be expressed? 

# Comment ID 2452-1.001.006

Author Name: Stephens G.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5503Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. In regards to the use of the BATHTUB model to determine concentrations protective of the downstream lakes, we offer no comment. We do not have the technical ability in stream modeling to offer meaningful comments. 

# Comment ID 2457-2.001.004

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa LAKES - Downstream Protective Values As part of the proposed rulemaking in January, EPA proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes. EPA seeks comments on alternative approaches to the use of this model to establish downstream protective values (DPVs) for lakes and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. As part of the supplemental notice of data availability, EPA is seeking comment specifically on the use of the BATHTUB and WASP (Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program) models for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes. Additionally, comment is sought on allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and on providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. The Vollenweider model relates lake TP concentration to the TP concentration necessary in incoming streams to support the lake criterion (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976). The model requires input of lake-specific fraction of inflow due to stream flow and lake-specific hydraulic retention time. For the proposed rule, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from stream flow and for hydraulic retention time for use when lake-specific input values are not readily available. This approach results in downstream protection criteria for TP in streams flowing into lakes which are based on the preset values provided by EPA. As noted by EPA, the proposed rule does offer the flexibility to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for fraction of inflow from streamflow and hydraulic retention time, as long as the data supporting these inputs are sufficiently robust and well-documented. EPA is considering requiring the use of BATHTUB, or a model other than BATHTUB when determined appropriate by FDEP or EPA, for deriving stream criteria for both TP and TN protective of downstream lakes. The stream criteria for protection of downstream lakes would then be the more stringent of the instream TN and TP criteria values or those derived from model application. The use of the Vollenweider model using preset values provided by EPA results in stream TP criteria for downstream lake protection which are not lake-specific. No TN criteria are developed using this model. Although it may be

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5504Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs appropriate to consider use of other mechanistic or empirical models to establish lake-specific stream TN and TPcriteria, it is likely that for many of Florida's approximately 7,700 lakes, the data necessary to employ the more dataintensive models are not available. Obviously, sufficient data must be available to apply water quality models such as BATHTUB (Walker, 2004) or WASP (Wool et al., 2001) (Table 2). It is important to have data appropriate for model calibration and validation, to ensure model robustness across a range of hydrologic conditions. Both models utilize mass balances that account for advective transport, diffusive transport, and nutrient sedimentation. Both utilize empirical relationships to predict water quality conditions. The empirical relationships in BATHTUB were developed and tested specifically for reservoir applications. The empirical relationships in WASP are applicable to estuaries, streams, and lakes, but require more user-input rate coefficients specific to the particular water body type being simulated. Inputs to and outputs from the models are provided in the table below. As seen when comparing input data needs, the WASP model application requires a significantly more intensive effort for development. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. BATHTUB and WASP input data needs. See original comment letter. The BATHTUB model applies a series of empirical eutrophication models to lakes and reservoirs. The model performssteady-state water and nutrient balance calculations, and utilizes a spatially segmented hydraulic network in a onedimensional branched network accounting for advective and diffusive transport and nutrient sedimentation. Water quality conditions, including TP, TN, chlorophyll a, transparency, and oxygen depletion are predicted using empirical relationships derived from reservoir-specific data, and repeated model execution to estimate sensitivity to inputs. The model provides steady-state evaluations of eutrophication water quality, such that short-term responses aren't explicitly evaluated. 

# Comment ID 2457-2.001.006

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. There are more than 7,000 lakes in the state, and the time and effort required to develop models for each lake would be prohibitive. Given the input requirements of these models, model development would likely include data collection over relatively long time periods (years), and would certainly include assumptions regarding some rate processes for model parameterization. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and loading data exist, necessary assumptions would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results, but instead increase the uncertainty in the model output. It would be most appropriate to evaluate all available lake and associated tributary stream data to arrive at defensible unifying principles, perhaps specific to lake classes and/or lake ecoregions. An existing classification system exists, developed in a cooperative effort involving the EPA, FDEP, and University of Florida researchers. Lakes were grouped into 47 regions by similarities in physiography, geology, soils, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and climate (Griffith et al., 1997). The classification system was created to provide a framework to allow development of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5505Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs management plans for groups of lakes with similar characteristics. It seems most reasonable to utilize this classification system, or potentially some other agreed upon system, to empirically evaluate the links among water quality constituents within lake groups and influent water quality from tributaries, and derive stream criteria for TN and TP protective of downstream lakes. The robustness of an empirical evaluation of these relationships is partially dependent on the availability of lake region-specific data. The state water quality database should contain sufficient data for analysis, although this may involve combining some lake regions if deemed appropriate.
Conclusion Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and nutrient loading data exist, necessary assumptions with regard to other key model input data would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results relative to the Vollenweider model. Rather, there may be increased uncertainty in the model output depending upon the validity of the assumptions made in exercising the more complex models. Care must be taken to avoid the often made assumption that more complex models necessarily provide better answers. 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.007

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority B. Downstream Protection of Lakes EPA is proposing to require the use of the BATHTUB (semi-empirical) model rather than the Vollenweider loading model to develop downstream protection values (DPV) for lakes. The BATHTUB model applies empirical eutrophication models to morphometrically complex lakes and reservoirs. In addition, they are also proposing that other scientifically defensible models or approaches, such as the WASP model, can be used to develop DPVs. The decision to use the BATHTUB model or other suitable models is to allow more site-specific information to be used in the development of DPVs. In general, we agree with and support EPA in the use of modeling or other technically defensible approaches that maximize the use of site-specific information and that allow for the proper linkage between nutrient loads or concentrations and nutrient effects, as can be determined through the use of well calibrated and applied water quality models, such as BATHTUB, WASP or other modeling tools. Although the BATHTUB model employs empirical relationships to determine lake or reservoir eutrophication-related water quality conditions (i.e., TN, TP, chlorophyll-a, transparency, hypolimnetic oxygen depletion), the empirical relationships may or may not be entirely applicable to the water body being studied. For this reason, the BATHTUB model builds in "calibration factors" to modify the empirical relationships for matching (calibrating) the model to observed data. For instance, in an application of the BATHTUB model to four southeastern reservoirs [2] (Allatoona Lake, Walter F. George Lake, Lake Sidney Lanier and West Point Lake) the "calibration factors" ranged from 0.1-9.3 in order to calibrate the models to observed TN, TP and chlorophyll-a data (the default value is 1.0). The point is not to highlight how much the "calibration factor" needed to be changed, but to highlight the fact that the BATHTUB model must be calibrated with site-specific data in order to develop a scientifically defensible tool from which to develop DPVs

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5506Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs for lakes. Otherwise, the resulting DPVs can include a significant amount of error based on applying the built-in BATHTUB empirical relationships. This is true of any water quality model and is why site-specific information must be used in relating nutrient loads or concentrations to effects in water bodies and also in nutrient criteria development. [2] Kennedy, R.H., 1995. Application of the BATHTUB Model to Selected Southeastern Reservoirs. Technical Report EL-95-14, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. April 1995. 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.011

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority
5. In general, we agree with and support EPA in the use of modeling or other technically defensible approaches that maximize the use of site-specific information and that allow for the proper linkage between nutrient loads or concentrations and nutrient effects, as can be determined through the use of well calibrated and applied water quality models, such as BATHTUB, WASP or other modeling tools.
6. Although the BATHTUB model employs empirical relationships to determine lake or reservoir eutrophicationrelated water quality conditions, the empirical relationships may or may not be entirely applicable to the water body being studied. To this end, a "calibration factor" is used to modify the results to match observed data that highlights the fact that the BATHTUB model must be calibrated with site-specific data in order to develop a scientifically defensible tool from which to develop DPVs for lakes. Otherwise, the resulting DPVs can include a significant amount of errorbased on applying the built-in BATHTUB empirical relationships. This is true of any water quality model and is why sitespecific information must be used in relating nutrient loads or concentrations to effects in water bodies and also in nutrient criteria development. 

# Comment ID 2463-1.001.007

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation Downstream Protection Value Model The Everglades Foundation supports a protective approach for maintaining water quality standards for downstream waters. In previous comments, we did raise some concerns with regarding the Vollenweider model and its assumptions to establish criteria for protecting downstream receiving waters. We urged the US-EPA to use the adequate model to protect the downstream lakes and to choose scientifically sound criteria. The US-EPA now proposes to use the BATHTUB model. Generally, the BATHTUB model, which calculates the nutrient and water mass balances while accounting for nutrient sedimentation to determine the eutrophication response, could be a satisfactory model to establish the upstream

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5507Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVsnutrient criteria to protect the downstream water bodies. However, the BATHTUB model has many sub-routines or submodels,[8] and depending on the examined criterion and the chosen parameter (phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorophyll a), the results could differ significantly. Since the US-EPA did not publish either the selected sub-models or the obtained results, it is difficult to comment on this issue. Thus, we ask the US-EPA for more specifics on how the BATHTUB model will be used to determine the numeric nutrient criteria.

[8] Walker, W. W., 1996. Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction: User Manual. US Corps of Engineers. pp 4-7:4-13. 

# Comment ID 2466-2.001.006

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Comments to the first EPA proposal (January Federal Register Notice) pointed out the severe limitations and deficiencies with using the EPA-modified Vollenweider equation for the protection of lakes from excess TP. The proposal to use the BATHTUB model instead is not only a substantial improvement but it allows for the determination of a DPV value for either TN or TP (whichever is limiting) at the lake-stream boundary (assuming that the BATHTUB model is properly calibrated and appropriate for the subject lake). However, the approach suffers from many of the same problems as the January 2010 proposal, including: a) The specification of a one-size-fits-all model for all systems is inappropriate. b) A steady-state or time-dependant receiving water model (such as WASP or BATHTUB) can only calculate the concentration of TP or TN at the boundary (i.e., the lake-stream interface) that will maintain the in-lake nutrient concentration at or below the general or lake-specific standard. It will not provide a DPV for locations further upstream. c) Lack of justification for the need for stream DPVs in the first place. While the BATHTUB model (or WASP) can be expected to provide improved results over the use of the previously suggested modified Vollenweider equation, it still seems unnecessary and problematic to actually specify the model to be used. Every lake system is unique and requires consideration of the most appropriate tool(s) for modeling the system. While the latest proposal allows for the use of alternative and more complex models (when data are available), the BATHTUB model is to be applied in most cases and will certainly be applied with a set of largely unquestioned and generalized assumptions that will likely not be appropriate in many cases. Additionally, if set up properly and calibrated to the lake system, the BATHTUB model has been shown to be useful in predicting chlorophyll a concentrations in lakes and reservoirs from stream inputs. Presumably, EPA hopes to use the same model to adjust the nutrient input concentrations so that in-lake concentrations of chlorophyll a (or TN or TP) are managed below the lake standard. However, the model cannot provide watershed managers with the appropriate in- stream concentrations at any other point in the stream drainage beyond the point where it enters the lake. The DPVs determined are not appropriate to stream reaches further upstream, and do not account for attenuation of TP and TN within stream segments through settling, biological uptake, etc. This means that the BATHTUB model will be of limited use in determining stream DPVs because they can only realistically be applied to the point where the stream flows into

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5508Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

the lake. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.006

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

• The BATHTUB model provides a reasonable approach for estimating acceptable nutrient loadings to Florida lakes and reservoirs, and represents an improvement over the use of the Vollenweider model. However, its application in specific situations must be approached carefully with opportunities for stakeholder review, and options for more detailed mechanistic modeling must also be readily available. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.012

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Comment #5: The BATHTUB model provides a reasonable approach for estimating acceptable nutrient loadings to Florida lakes and reservoirs, and represents an improvement over the use of the Vollenweider model. However, its application in specific situations must be approached carefully with opportunities for stakeholder review, and options for more detailed mechanistic modeling must also be readily available. In general, we support the use of BATHTUB as a "first line" analysis tool for estimating allowable nutrient loadings to downstream lakes and reservoirs in Florida for the following reasons:

• The BATHTUB model has a greater capability to incorporate site specific factors into the analysis than the Vollenweider equation.

• The model represents an "intermediate approach" between simple empirical equations and mechanistic water quality models. Thus, its use appears reasonable when a detailed site specific analysis is not justified.

• The model does appear able to consider only bioavailable nutrient forms for eutrophication predictions.

• The model possesses an error analysis module that can be useful for assessing the uncertainty associated with model predictions. Several additional factors must be considered regarding EPA's proposed use of the BATHTUB model to support the development of DPVs. First, BATHTUB requires less input data than mechanistic models; however, a certain level of data quality is still necessary for successful application of the model. The available data should be thoroughly assessed for quality in general and also specific to the needs of the BATHTUB model. In addition, the impact of input data variability should be demonstrated as part of the model application through BATHTUB's error analysis procedures. Further, while BATHTUB is a screening level empirical model and in general requires less expertise to apply than mechanistic models, several modeling decisions including specifying input values, defining segments, and selecting the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5509Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs proper eutrophication sub-models can have significant effects upon resulting predictions. Additionally, BATHTUB has been developed so that it may be applied with very little or no model calibration. While this feature increases its ease of use, it also increases the likelihood for erroneous results. It is critical then that the BATHTUB modeling process is transparent and that there is an opportunity for review and comment by stakeholders as part of the modeling process. Finally, BATHTUB may be useful as an "intermediate approach" for estimating the downstream impacts of nutrients; however, it is likely not an appropriate model in all situations. Clear procedures and guidance for determining when more sophisticated mechanistic models are appropriate should be developed. 

# Comment ID 2471-1.001.004

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City II. LAKES - Downstream Protective Values As part of the proposed rulemaking in January, EPA proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes. EPA seeks comments on alternative approaches to the use of this model to establish downstream protective values (DPVs) for lakes and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. As part of the NODA, EPA is seeking comment specifically on the use of the BATHTUB and WASP (Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program) models for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes. Additionally, comment is sought on allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and on providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. The Vollenweider model relates lake TP concentration to the TP concentration necessary in incoming streams to support the lake criterion (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976). The model requires input of lake-specific fraction of inflow due to stream flow and lake-specific hydraulic retention time. For the proposed rule, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from stream flow and for hydraulic retention time for use when lake-specific input values are not readily available. This approach results in downstream protection criteria for TP in streams flowing into lakes which are based on the preset values provided by EPA. As noted by EPA, the Proposed Rule does offer the flexibility to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for fraction of inflow from streamflow and hydraulic retention time, as long as the data supporting these inputs are sufficiently robust and well-documented. EPA is considering requiring the use of BATHTUB, or a model other than BATHTUB when determined appropriate by FDEP or EPA, for deriving stream criteria for both TP and TN protective of downstream lakes. The stream criteria for protection of downstream lakes would then be the more stringent of the instream TN and TP criteria values or those derived from model application. The use of the Vollenweider model using preset values provided by EPA results in stream TP criteria for downstream

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5510Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs lake protection which are not lake-specific. No TN criteria are developed using this model. Although it may be appropriate to consider use of other mechanistic or empirical models to establish lake-specific stream TN and TPcriteria, it is likely that for many of Florida's approximately 7,700 lakes, the data necessary to employ the more dataintensive models are not available. Obviously, sufficient data must be available to apply water quality models such as BATHTUB (Walker, 2004) or WASP (Wool et al., 2001) (Table 2). It is important to have data appropriate for model calibration and validation, to ensure model robustness across a range of hydrologic conditions. Both models utilize mass balances that account for advective transport, diffusive transport, and nutrient sedimentation. Both utilize empirical relationships to predict water quality conditions. The empirical relationships in BATHTUB were developed and tested specifically for reservoir applications. The empirical relationships in WASP are applicable to estuaries, streams, and lakes, but require more userinput rate coefficients specific to the particular water body type being simulated. Inputs to and outputs from the models are provided in the table below. As seen when comparing input data needs, the WASP model application requires a significantly more intensive effort for development. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. BATHTUB and WASP input data needs. See original comment letter. The BATHTUB model applies a series of empirical eutrophication models to lakes and reservoirs. The model performssteady-state water and nutrient balance calculations, and utilizes a spatially segmented hydraulic network in a onedimensional branched network accounting for advective and diffusive transport and nutrient sedimentation. Water quality conditions, including TP, TN, chlorophyll a, transparency, and oxygen depletion are predicted using empirical relationships derived from reservoir-specific data, and repeated model execution to estimate sensitivity to inputs. The model provides steady-state evaluations of eutrophication water quality, such that short-term responses aren't explicitly evaluated. 

# Comment ID 2471-1.001.006

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. There are more than 7,000 lakes in the state, and the time and effort required to develop models for each lake would be prohibitive. Given the input requirements of these models, model development would likely include data collection over relatively long time periods (years), and would certainly include assumptions regarding some rate processes for model parameterization. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and loading data exist, necessary assumptions would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results, but instead increase the uncertainty in the model output. It would be most appropriate to evaluate all available lake and associated tributary stream data to arrive at defensible unifying principles, perhaps specific to lake classes and/or lake ecoregions. An existing classification system exists, developed in a cooperative effort involving the EPA, FDEP, and University of Florida researchers. Lakes were grouped into 47 regions by similarities in physiography, geology, soils, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and climate

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5511Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs (Griffith et al., 1997). The classification system was created to provide a framework to allow development of management plans for groups of lakes with similar characteristics. It seems most reasonable to utilize this classification system, or potentially some other agreed upon system, to empirically evaluate the links among water quality constituents within lake groups and influent water quality from tributaries, and derive stream criteria for TN and TP protective of downstream lakes. The robustness of an empirical evaluation of these relationships is partially dependent on the availability of lake region-specific data. The state water quality database should contain sufficient data for analysis, although this may involve combining some lake regions if deemed appropriate.
Conclusion Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and nutrient loading data exist, necessary assumptions with regard to other key model input data would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results relative to the Vollenweider model. Rather, there may be increased uncertainty in the model output depending upon the validity of the assumptions made in exercising the more complex models. Care must be taken to avoid the often made assumption that more complex models necessarily provide better answers. The Vollenweider, BATHTUB, and WASP models are all acceptable, however FDEP and EPA should consider the availability of site specific data in lieu of assumptions when deciding whether or not to require the use of the more complex models. 

# Comment ID 2472-1.001.004

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County II. LAKES - Downstream Protective Values As part of the proposed rulemaking in January, EPA proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes. EPA seeks comments on alternative approaches to the use of this model to establish downstream protective values (DPVs) for lakes and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. As part of the NODA, EPA is seeking comment specifically on the use of the BATHTUB and WASP (Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program) models for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes. Additionally, comment is sought on allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and on providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. The Vollenweider model relates lake TP concentration to the TP concentration necessary in incoming streams to support the lake criterion (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976). The model requires input of lake-specific fraction of inflow due to stream flow and lake-specific hydraulic retention time. For the proposed rule, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from stream flow and for hydraulic retention time for use when lake-specific input values are not readily available.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5512Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs This approach results in downstream protection criteria for TP in streams flowing into lakes which are based on the preset values provided by EPA. As noted by EPA, the Proposed Rule does offer the flexibility to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for fraction of inflow from streamflow and hydraulic retention time, as long as the data supporting these inputs are sufficiently robust and well-documented. EPA is considering requiring the use of BATHTUB, or a model other than BATHTUB when determined appropriate by FDEP or EPA, for deriving stream criteria for both TP and TN protective of downstream lakes. The stream criteria for protection of downstream lakes would then be the more stringent of the instream TN and TP criteria values or those derived from model application. The use of the Vollenweider model using preset values provided by EPA results in stream TP criteria for downstream lake protection which are not lake-specific. No TN criteria are developed using this model. Although it may be appropriate to consider use of other mechanistic or empirical models to establish lake-specific stream TN and TPcriteria, it is likely that for many of Florida's approximately 7,700 lakes, the data necessary to employ the more dataintensive models are not available. Obviously, sufficient data must be available to apply water quality models such as BATHTUB (Walker, 2004) or WASP (Wool et al., 2001) (Table 2). It is important to have data appropriate for model calibration and validation, to ensure model robustness across a range of hydrologic conditions. Both models utilize mass balances that account for advective transport, diffusive transport, and nutrient sedimentation. Both utilize empirical relationships to predict water quality conditions. The empirical relationships in BATHTUB were developed and tested specifically for reservoir applications. The empirical relationships in WASP are applicable to estuaries, streams, and lakes, but require more user-input rate coefficients specific to the particular water body type being simulated. Inputs to and outputs from the models are provided in the table below. As seen when comparing input data needs, the WASP model application requires a significantly more intensive effort for development. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. BATHTUB and WASP input data needs. See original comment letter. The BATHTUB model applies a series of empirical eutrophication models to lakes and reservoirs. The model performssteady-state water and nutrient balance calculations, and utilizes a spatially segmented hydraulic network in a onedimensional branched network accounting for advective and diffusive transport and nutrient sedimentation. Water quality conditions, including TP, TN, chlorophyll a, transparency, and oxygen depletion are predicted using empirical relationships derived from reservoir-specific data, and repeated model execution to estimate sensitivity to inputs. The model provides steady-state evaluations of eutrophication water quality, such that short-term responses aren't explicitly evaluated. 

# Comment ID 2472-1.001.006

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5513Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. There are more than 7,000 lakes in the state, and the time and effort required to develop models for each lake would be prohibitive. Given the input requirements of these models, model development would likely include data collection over relatively long time periods (years), and would certainly include assumptions regarding some rate processes for model parameterization. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and loading data exist, necessary assumptions would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results, but instead increase the uncertainty in the model output. It would be most appropriate to evaluate all available lake and associated tributary stream data to arrive at defensible unifying principles, perhaps specific to lake classes and/or lake ecoregions. An existing classification system exists, developed in a cooperative effort involving the EPA, FDEP, and University of Florida researchers. Lakes were grouped into 47 regions by similarities in physiography, geology, soils, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and climate (Griffith et al., 1997). The classification system was created to provide a framework to allow development of management plans for groups oflakes with similar characteristics. It seems most reasonable to utilize this classification system, or potentially some other agreed upon system, to empirically evaluate the links among water quality constituents within lake groups and influent water quality from tributaries, and derive stream criteria for TN and TP protective of downstream lakes. The robustness of an empirical evaluation of these relationships is partially dependent on the availability of lake region-specific data. The state water quality database should contain sufficient data for analysis, although this may involve combining some lake regions if deemed appropriate.
Conclusion Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and nutrient loading data exist, necessary assumptions with regard to other key model input data would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results relative to the Vollenweider model. Rather, there may be increased uncertainty in the model output depending upon the validity of the assumptions made in exercising the more complex models. Care must be taken to avoid the often made assumption that more complex models necessarily provide better answers. 

# Comment ID 2473-1.001.004

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa II. LAKES - Downstream Protective Values As part of the proposed rulemaking in January, EPA proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes. EPA seeks comments on alternative approaches to the use of this model to establish downstream protective values (DPVs) for lakes and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. As part of the NODA, EPA is seeking comment specifically on the use of the BATHTUB and WASP (Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program) models for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes. Additionally,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5514Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs comment is sought on allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and on providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. The Vollenweider model relates lake TP concentration to the TP concentration necessary in incoming streams to support the lake criterion (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976). The model requires input of lake-specific fraction of inflow due to stream flow and lake-specific hydraulic retention time. For the proposed rule, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from stream flow and for hydraulic retention time for use when lake-specific input values are not readily available. This approach results in downstream protection criteria for TP in streams flowing into lakes which are based on the preset values provided by EPA. As noted by EPA, the Proposed Rule does offer the flexibility to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for fraction of inflow from streamflow and hydraulic retention time, as long as the data supporting these inputs are sufficiently robust and well-documented. EPA is considering requiring the use of BATHTUB, or a model other than BATHTUB when determined appropriate by FDEP or EPA, for deriving stream criteria for both TP and TN protective of downstream lakes. The stream criteria for protection of downstream lakes would then be the more stringent of the instream TN and TP criteria values or those derived from model application. The use of the Vollenweider model using preset values provided by EPA results in stream TP criteria for downstream lake protection which are not lake-specific. No TN criteria are developed using this model. Although it may be appropriate to consider use of other mechanistic or empirical models to establish lake-specific stream TN and TPcriteria, it is likely that for many of Florida's approximately 7,700 lakes, the data necessary to employ the more dataintensive models are not available. Obviously, sufficient data must be available to apply water quality models such as BATHTUB (Walker, 2004) or WASP (Wool et al., 2001) (Table 2). It is important to have data appropriate for model calibration and validation, to ensure model robustness across a range of hydrologic conditions. Both models utilize mass balances that account for advective transport, diffusive transport, and nutrient sedimentation. Both utilize empirical relationships to predict water quality conditions. The empirical relationships in BATHTUB were developed and tested specifically for reservoir applications. The empirical relationships in WASP are applicable to estuaries, streams, and lakes, but require more user-input rate coefficients specific to the particular water body type being simulated. Inputs to and outputs from the models are provided in the table below. As seen when comparing input data needs, the WASP model application requires a significantly more intensive effort for development. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. BATHTUB and WASP input data needs. See original comment letter. The BATHTUB model applies a series of empirical eutrophication models to lakes and reservoirs. The model performssteady-state water and nutrient balance calculations, and utilizes a spatially segmented hydraulic network in a onedimensional branched network accounting for advective and diffusive transport and nutrient sedimentation. Water quality conditions, including TP, TN, chlorophyll a, transparency, and oxygen depletion are predicted using empirical relationships derived from reservoir-specific data, and repeated model execution to estimate sensitivity to inputs. The model provides steady-state evaluations of eutrophication water quality, such that short-term responses aren't explicitly

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5515Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

evaluated. 

# Comment ID 2473-1.001.006

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. There are more than 7,000 lakes in the state, and the time and effort required to develop models for each lake would be prohibitive. Given the input requirements of these models, model development would likely include data collection over relatively long time periods (years), and would certainly include assumptions regarding some rate processes for model parameterization. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and loading data exist, necessary assumptions would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results, but instead increase the uncertainty in the model output. It would be most appropriate to evaluate all available lake and associated tributary stream data to arrive at defensible unifying principles, perhaps specific to lake classes and/or lake ecoregions. An existing classification system exists, developed in a cooperative effort involving the EPA, FDEP, and University of Florida researchers. Lakes were grouped into 47 regions by similarities in physiography, geology, soils, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and climate (Griffith et al., 1997). The classification system was created to provide a framework to allow development of management plans for groups of lakes with similar characteristics. It seems most reasonable to utilize this classification system, or potentially some other agreed upon system, to empirically evaluate the links among water quality constituents within lake groups and influent water quality from tributaries, and derive stream criteria for TN and TP protective of downstream lakes. The robustness of an empirical evaluation of these relationships is partially dependent on the availability of lake region-specific data. The state water quality database should contain sufficient data for analysis, although this may involve combining some lake regions if deemed appropriate.
Conclusion Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and nutrient loading data exist, necessary assumptions with regard to other key model input data would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results relative to the Vollenweider model. Rather, there may be increased uncertainty in the model output depending upon the validity of the assumptions made in exercising the more complex models. Care must be taken to avoid the often made assumption that more complex models necessarily provide better answers. 

# Comment ID 2474-1.001.004

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 2-5516Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

II. LAKES - Downstream Protective Values As part of the proposed rulemaking in January, EPA proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes. EPA seeks comments on alternative approaches to the use of this model to establish downstream protective values (DPVs) for lakes and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. As part of the NODA, EPA is seeking comment specifically on the use of the BATHTUB and WASP (Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program) models for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes. Additionally, comment is sought on allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and on providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. The Vollenweider model relates lake TP concentration to the TP concentration necessary in incoming streams to support the lake criterion (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976). The model requires input of lake-specific fraction of inflow due to stream flow and lake-specific hydraulic retention time. For the proposed rule, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from stream flow and for hydraulic retention time for use when lake-specific input values are not readily available. This approach results in downstream protection criteria for TP in streams flowing into lakes which are based on the preset values provided by EPA. As noted by EPA, the Proposed Rule does offer the flexibility to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for fraction of inflow from streamflow and hydraulic retention time, as long as the data supporting these inputs are sufficiently robust and well-documented. EPA is considering requiring the use of BATHTUB, or a model other than BATHTUB when determined appropriate by FDEP or EPA, for deriving stream criteria for both TP and TN protective of downstream lakes. The stream criteria for protection of downstream lakes would then be the more stringent of the instream TN and TP criteria values or those derived from model application. The use of the Vollenweider model using preset values provided by EPA results in stream TP criteria for downstream lake protection which are not lake-specific. No TN criteria are developed using this model. Although it may be appropriate to consider use of other mechanistic or empirical models to establish lake-specific stream TN and TPcriteria, it is likely that for many of Florida's approximately 7,700 lakes, the data necessary to employ the more dataintensive models are not available. Obviously, sufficient data must be available to apply water quality models such as BATHTUB (Walker, 2004) or WASP (Wool et al., 2001) (Table 2). It is important to have data appropriate for model calibration and validation, to ensure model robustness across a range of hydrologic conditions. Both models utilize mass balances that account for advective transport, diffusive transport, and nutrient sedimentation. Both utilize empirical relationships to predict water quality conditions. The empirical relationships in BATHTUB were developed and tested specifically for reservoir applications. The empirical relationships in WASP are applicable to estuaries, streams, and lakes, but require more user-input rate coefficients specific to the particular water body type being simulated. Inputs to and outputs from the models are provided in the table below. As seen when comparing input data needs, the WASP model application requires a significantly more intensive effort for development.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5517Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. BATHTUB and WASP input data needs. See original comment letter. The BATHTUB model applies a series of empirical eutrophication models to lakes and reservoirs. The model performssteady-state water and nutrient balance calculations, and utilizes a spatially segmented hydraulic network in a onedimensional branched network accounting for advective and diffusive transport and nutrient sedimentation. Water quality conditions, including TP, TN, chlorophyll a, transparency, and oxygen depletion are predicted using empirical relationships derived from reservoir-specific data, and repeated model execution to estimate sensitivity to inputs. The model provides steady-state evaluations of eutrophication water quality, such that short-term responses aren't explicitly evaluated. 

# Comment ID 2474-1.001.006

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. There are more than 7,000 lakes in the state, and the time and effort required to develop models for each lake would be prohibitive. Given the input requirements of these models, model development would likely include data collection over relatively long time periods (years), and would certainly include assumptions regarding some rate processes for model parameterization. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and loading data exist, necessary assumptions would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results, but instead increase the uncertainty in the model output. It would be most appropriate to evaluate all available lake and associated tributary stream data to arrive at defensible unifying principles, perhaps specific to lake classes and/or lake ecoregions. An existing classification system exists, developed in a cooperative effort involving the EPA, FDEP, and University of Florida researchers. Lakes were grouped into 47 regions by similarities in physiography, geology, soils, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and climate (Griffith et aI., 1997). The classification system was created to provide a framework to allow development of management plans for groups of lakes with similar characteristics. It seems most reasonable to utilize this classification system, or potentially some other agreed upon system, to empirically evaluate the links among water quality constituents within lake groups and influent water quality from tributaries, and derive stream criteria for TN and TP protective of downstream lakes. The robustness of an empirical evaluation of these relationships is partially dependent on the availability of lake region-specific data. The state water quality database should contain sufficient data for analysis, although this may involve combining some lake regions if deemed appropriate.
Conclusion Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and nutrient loading data exist, necessary assumptions with regard to other key model input data would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results relative to the Vollenweider model. Rather, there may be increased uncertainty in the model output depending upon the validity of the assumptions made in exercising the more complex

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5518Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs models. Care must be taken to avoid the often made assumption that more complex models necessarily provide better answers. 

# Comment ID 2475-1.001.005

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District 3. Using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving Downstream Protection Values (DPVs).

The District finds that use of the BATHTUB model does not correct the fundamental problem inherent in usinggeneralized estimates of model parameters as previously proposed by EPA. Stream NNC should be based on sitespecific data for the receiving waterbody and should be set at levels that will protect downstream lentic waters from deleterious eutrophication. It is the District's position that with the use of appropriate, site-specific inputs, a wide variety of models can be used to estimate the DPVs. 

# Comment ID 2476-1.001.008

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services 3. We do not see supporting evidence that the BATHTUB model would improve the derivation of the downstream protection values. 

# Comment ID 2479-1.001.010

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission II. LAKES - Downstream Protective Values As part of the proposed rulemaking in January, EPA proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes. EPA seeks comments on alternative approaches to the use of this model to establish downstream protective values (DPVs) for lakes and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. As part of the NODA, EPA is seeking comment specifically on the use of the BATHTUB and WASP (Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program) models for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes. Additionally, comment is sought on allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and on providing for an

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5519Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. The Vollenweider model relates lake TP concentration to the TP concentration necessary in incoming streams to support the lake criterion (Vollenweider, 1975, 1976). The model requires input of lake-specific fraction of inflow due to stream flow and lake-specific hydraulic retention time. For the proposed rule, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from stream flow and for hydraulic retention time for use when lake-specific input values are not readily available. This approach results in downstream protection criteria for TP in streams flowing into lakes which are based on the preset values provided by EPA. As noted by EPA, the Proposed Rule does offer the flexibility to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for fraction of inflow from streamflow and hydraulic retention time, as long as the data supporting these inputs are sufficiently robust and well-documented. EPA is considering requiring the use of BATHTUB, or a model other than BATHTUB when determined appropriate by FDEP or EPA, for deriving stream criteria for both TP and TN protective of downstream lakes. The stream criteria for protection of downstream lakes would then be the more stringent of the instream TN and TP criteria values or those derived from model application. The use of the Vollenweider model using preset values provided by EPA results in stream TP criteria for downstream lake protection which are not lake-specific. No TN criteria are developed using this model. Although it may be appropriate to consider use of other mechanistic or empirical models to establish lake-specific stream TN and TPcriteria, it is likely that for many of Florida's approximately 7,700 lakes, the data necessary to employ the more dataintensive models are not available. Obviously, sufficient data must be available to apply water quality models such as BATHTUB (Walker, 2004) or WASP (Wool et al., 2001) (Table 2). It is important to have data appropriate for model calibration and validation, to ensure model robustness across a range of hydrologic conditions. Both models utilize mass balances that account for advective transport, diffusive transport, and nutrient sedimentation. Both utilize empirical relationships to predict water quality conditions. The empirical relationships in BATHTUB were developed and tested specifically for reservoir applications. The empirical relationships in WASP are applicable to estuaries, streams, and lakes, but require more user-input rate coefficients specific to the particular water body type being simulated. Inputs to and outputs from the models are provided in the table below. As seen when comparing input data needs, the WASP model application requires a significantly more intensive effort for development. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. BATHTUB and WASP input data needs. See original letter. The BATHTUB model applies a series of empirical eutrophication models to lakes and reservoirs. The model performssteady-state water and nutrient balance calculations, and utilizes a spatially segmented hydraulic network in a onedimensional branched network accounting for advective and diffusive transport and nutrient sedimentation. Water quality conditions, including TP, TN, chlorophyll a, transparency, and oxygen depletion are predicted using empirical relationships derived from reservoir-specific data, and repeated model execution to estimate sensitivity to inputs. The model provides steady-state evaluations of eutrophication water quality, such that short-term responses aren't explicitly evaluated.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5520Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs



# Comment ID 2479-1.001.012

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. There are more than 7,000 lakes in the state, and the time and effort required to develop models for each lake would be prohibitive. Given the input requirements of these models, model development would likely include data collection over relatively long time periods (years), and would certainly include assumptions regarding some rate processes for model parameterization. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and loading data exist, necessary assumptions would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results, but instead increase the uncertainty in the model output. It would be most appropriate to evaluate all available lake and associated tributary stream data to arrive at defensible unifying principles, perhaps specific to lake classes and/or lake ecoregions. An existing classification system exists, developed in a cooperative effort involving the EPA, FDEP, and University of Florida researchers. Lakes were grouped into 47 regions by similarities in physiography, geology, soils, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and climate (Griffith et aI., 1997). The classification system was created to provide a framework to allow development of management plans for groups of lakes with similar characteristics. It seems most reasonable to utilize this classification system, or potentially some other agreed upon system, to empirically evaluate the links among water quality constituents within lake groups and influent water quality from tributaries, and derive stream criteria for TN and TP protective of downstream lakes. The robustness of an empirical evaluation of these relationships is partially dependent on the availability of lake region-specific data. The state water quality database should contain sufficient data for analysis, although this may involve combining some lake regions if deemed appropriate.
Conclusion Application of models such as BATHTUB and WASP to establish site-specific stream criteria for downstream protection of lakes is technically feasible, but logistically untenable, for all Florida lakes. Even for lakes for which sufficient water quality and nutrient loading data exist, necessary assumptions with regard to other key model input data would not lead to reduced uncertainty in the model results relative to the Vollenweider model. Rather, there may be increased uncertainty in the model output depending upon the validity of the assumptions made in exercising the more complex models. Care must be taken to avoid the often made assumption that more complex models necessarily provide better answers. 

# Comment ID 2480-2.001.006

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5521Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
Third Topic Application of additional river/stream criteria for the protection of downstream lakes (Downstream Protection Values, DPVs), based upon: a) Using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria ­ As an overview comment about this issue, U.S. EPA should be commended for its efforts to address the important goal of developing nutrient criteria to protect downstream Florida lake waters from excessive phosphorus in inflowing streams. Nutrient criteria to protect the designated uses of downstream waters are required under Federal regulations (40 CFR 131.10(b). Moreover, U.S. EPA (2010a) recognized that the proposed nutrient criteria for protection of lakes are, in some cases, more stringent than the proposed criteria for inflowing streams. Only ~20% of Florida's more-than 7000 lakes have a stream flowing into them; most Florida lakes are shallow and the greatest contributors of the total volume are precipitation and groundwater (Fernald and Purdum 1998). Thus, the criterion would be limited to about 20% of Florida's lakes. Additional protection of these downstream lakes is needed: Although FDEP (2009b, 2010c) has instead recommended a benchmark approach with "minimally disturbed sites" as inherently protective of downstream lakes, that approach generally is not sufficiently protective, with exception of the West Central region, considering the points raised above. Inclusion of TN as well as TP criteria is important to protect downstream lakes - To develop draft nutrient criteria to protect downstream lakes, U.S. EPA (2010a,b) first considered only phosphorus (TP). Inclusion of both TP and TN criteria, as put forth for public comment by U.S. EPA (2010a), is critically important for protecting the designated uses of downstream lakes. Both N and P are important in controlling algal blooms, including cyanobacteria, in lakes and reservoirs (Wetzel 2001, Touchette et al. 2007). Toxic cyanobacteria thrive in nutrient-polluted waters, and toxin production has been enhanced under such conditions (Burkholder 2002, 2009 and references therein). For example, Burns (2007) described a massive Microcystis/ Cylindrospermopsis bloom documented by the St. Johns Water Management District that extended from Lake George to the brackish mouth of the lower St. Johns River, with large rafts of toxic algal scum slowly transported north through the city of Jacksonville, and microcystin cyanotoxin concentrations as high as 1,400 ug/L. One human death was reported during the bloom event from recreational contact with the surface algal scums (Burns 2007). For comparison, the World Health Organization (2003) has suggested a recreational guideline of 10-20 ug microcystin-LR/L as "moderate risk", and above 20 ug microcystin-LR/L as "high risk". Once nitrogen criteria are developed to protect downstream waters, the N and P criteria should each "stand alone" to protect downstream Florida lakes: If one of the parameters is exceeded, then the system should be characterized as in violation of the nutrient water quality standards. The BATHTUB model should be used rather than the modified Vollenweider equation to derive TP and TN criteria ­ In the "Vollenweider equation approach," U.S. EPA (2010a) modified a phosphorus loading model equation from Vollenweider (1975, 1976), which explicitly considers the effects of both hydraulic loading and residence time on phosphorus concentration (Havens et al. 2001). It should be noted that Vollenweider (1968) recognized the importance of both N and P in eutrophication, and his model or variations from it have applied to predicting concentrations of both nutrients (e.g. Osborne 1980). The modified equation relates a lake TP concentration criterion to an in-stream concentration needed to support the lake criterion to protect the designated use of the lake water. Importantly, two

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5522Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs major assumptions of the modified equation used by U.S. EPA (2010a,b) are that rainfall exceeds evaporation in Florida lakes, and that stream inflow cannot be larger than the lake outflow. In addition, the equation treats all external phosphorus loading as input by one main stream. Limitations of the Vollenweider equation approach are as follows:

- The equation can only be used for lakes that meet its major assumptions regarding precipitation/ evaporation and inflow/outflow volumes. As noted by FDEP (2010d), in some lakes during some years, annual evaporation rate from the lake surface can exceed annual precipitation. Moreover, in some highly managed lakes such as Lake Okeechobee, total stream inflow can exceed outflow. Where well-documented, robust site-specific data show that the assumptions for U.S. EPA's (2010a) model do not fit the lake, the general equation cannot be applied.

- Because lake-specific input values to this equation are not available for some lakes, U.S. EPA provided "preset values" for the percent contribution from stream flow and the hydraulic residence time. These values were based on peer-reviewed published literature (Gao 2006, Steward and Lowe 2010). U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4198) selected 50% stream flow contribution and 0.2 years (~2.5 months) retention time as "realistic and representative preset values to provide a protective outcome for Florida lakes, in the absence of site-specific data." Such an approach for preset values is problematic because stream flow contributions and retention times can vary substantially in Florida waters. As exemplified by FDEP's (2010d) analysis of the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, the percent contribution from stream flow can range from 6 to 90% and the hydraulic retention time varies from 0.026 to 2.6 years, depending on the year, thussubstantially different from the preset values. In recognition of the problem, U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4198) stated that welldocumented, robust site-specific values, wherever available, can be used instead of these preset values.

- Application of the Vollenweider equation would require modifying the settling/loss term in the general equation. U.S. EPA (2010a) acknowledged that Florida lakes tend to be shallow with sometimes-substantial internal loadings, and that a more detailed model of P sedimentation/loss would be desirable but likely would require site-specific data. This problem could be partly addressed by modifying the general equation to reverse the sign on the settling/loss term so that it becomes a net source (or zero) term (U.S. EPA 2010a, p.4198). If well-documented, robust site-specific data are available, they should be used in place of the P sedimentation/loss term in the general equation.

- This approach considers loadings only from a single major stream. U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4199) suggested that for lakes with substantial direct surface runoff, the water volume contribution could be "included as part of the fraction of inflow considered to be streamflow." The P from this direct runoff should also be considered as an input to the equation. In cases where more than one major stream flows into a given lake, the additional flow and P contributions from these streams should be input into the equation as well.

- P loss or uptake during stream transport also is not considered. U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4198) acknowledged that the net outcome of P movement downstream is nutrient spiraling and, accordingly, various peer-reviewed publications have described losses of P with distance downstream from a given source. Thus, with application of the modified Vollenweider equation, draft nutrient criteria should be applied only to segments nearest to the lake being considered.

- The most serious criticism of the "Vollenweider equation approach" is that it would provide more stringent (protective) criteria for lakes with short hydraulic residence times, and higher P criteria for lakes with longer residence times - when the opposite is needed (Wetzel 2001). This problem arises because the Vollenweider model is a mass-balance model; it does not address the effects of P loading on lake water quality.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5523Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs BATHTUB, in contrast, is a water quality model for lakes and reservoirs that simulates conditions related to eutrophication (nutrient over-enrichment). This model, considered relatively easy to use (Borah et al. 2006), can estimate average loads seasonally or over an annual cycle, and its calculations account for advective/diffusive transport as well as nutrient sedimentation (Walker 1986, Borah et al. 2006; and http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/pdfs/BATHTUB.pdf ). BATHTUB predicts TP and TN (as well as chlorophyll a, light transparency, and hypolimnetic oxygen) using empirical relationships derived from assessments of the lake or reservoir data. It can discern effects of non-algal turbidity on transparency and algal responses to nutrients. BATHTUB also provides uncertainty estimates with the predicted trophic state variables. A supporting program, FLUX, allows estimation of tributary nutrient loadings from concentration data and continuous flow records. A second supporting program, PROFILE, facilitates analysis of within-lake water quality data. While BATHTUB is superior to the mass-balance Vollenweider equation for deriving TN and TP criteria, like all models it has limitations: It assumes steady-state conditions between nutrient loading, transparency, hydrology, and eutrophication response variables. Data requirements include watershed characteristics, water mass transport and nutrient loads, lake or reservoir morphometry and empirical data for water quality parameters. Although this model can estimate nutrient loads based on rating curves (correlations between concentrations and flows), it is commonly used along with a loading model (Borah et al. 2006). As noted above, the FLUX program requires concentration data, at least from grab samples, as well as continuous flow records, and the PROFILE program requires vertical profiles of water quality data. I support the use of BATHTUB by U.S. EPA in deriving numeric nutrient criteria to protect downstream lakes in Florida from nutrient over-enrichment. Compliance issues remain as a concern: U.S. EPA should require that compliance be based on seasonal medians from data collected at least monthly; a minimum annual sample size should be specified; locations for where measurements are taken should also be specified; and the TN and TP criteria should be applied independently (see my previous comments for further explanation). 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.007

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District B. Downstream Protection of Lakes (page 45582, supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment)
6. SWFWMD agrees that the BATHTUB model is superior to the Vollenweider equation for deriving both Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) criteria to protect downstream lakes. The BATHTUB model has proven effective in the development of the nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load for Lake Parker (USEPA 2006). Since BATHTUB model applications are limited to steady-state evaluations of relationships between nutrient loadings, transparency, hydrology, and eutrophication responses on a one year time step, responses to variables other than nutrients as well as short-term responses cannot be explicitly evaluated with this model. Additionally, well-mixed conditions must be present for each defined segment. However, even with these limitations, BATHTUB is far superior to the Vollenweider equation at representing site-specific conditions that will be used to determine downstream protective criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5524Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs 

# Comment ID 2482.001.005

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District

- The District agrees that the BATHTUB model is superior to the Vollenweider equation for the development of downstream protective values. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.011

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. Downstream Protection Values and Modeling The EPA has requested comments regarding the use of the BATHTUB model for protection of downstream lakes. The FPPAEA has many technical concerns associated with this request for comment due to the insufficiency of information provided by the EPA. The EPA failed to provide the public with how the model would be used (e.g. protection of a Chlorophyll-a criterion), protection of biological health, attainment of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorous criterion. In addition, the EPA failed to provide information or methodology on how modeling (that is to be protective of designated uses based on data sets over long time frames) would be translated into criteria that could be implemented into a permit for a point source or used as a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of a best management practices for non-point sources. The modeling results would produce unacceptably high Type I error rates if not properly applied. The FPPAEA cannot properly evaluate or comment on the modeling approaches suggested by the EPA without substantially more data and information. 

# Comment ID 2487-1.001.007

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Downstream Protection of Lakes The BATHTUB model appears to be an improvement from the limited Vollenweider model due to its inclusion and utilization of more input variables. It appears, however, that this model does not take into account groundwater interaction and its influence on lakes.



# Comment ID 2488-1.001.009

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5525Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc.

- Lake Issues EPA proposed to replace the Vollenweider Equation with a lake water quality model, such as BATHTUB or WASP, to calculate scientifically defensible downstream protection values that would apply to all stream segments upstream of the lake if the model-based concentration was more stringent than the instream criteria. The rule would require that the criteria for protection of downstream lakes would be the more stringent of the instream TP and TN criteria value or the concentration of TP and TN derived from application of BATHTUB. EPA is also considering additional rule language that would specifically authorize FDEP or EPA to use a model other than BATHTUB when either determines it would be appropriate to use another scientifically defensible technical model or approach that demonstrates protection of downstream lakes. EPA is also requesting comment on including a provision in this section of the rule that would provide that if data are not readily available to derive a TN or TP downstream protection value (using a model), the lake criteria values for TN and TP would be used if they are more stringent than the instream values. With regard to the use of these models, in a letter to Ms. Danielle Salvaterra, dated August 10, 2010, FDEP asked for clarification on how the models would be used -- would the models be used to assure attainment of lake chlorophyll-a criteria or would they be used to ensure attainment of TP and TN criteria. In response, EPA stated that the models can be used to assure attainment of all applicable standards (chlorophyll-a, TP, and TN). This response confirms that each criterion applies independently regardless of actual environmental need. This approach is not reasonable as the object of nutrient regulation is to control excessive plant growth. No nutrient downstream protection value is required if the chlorophyll-a target is met with less restrictive nutrient concentrations. As noted above, downstream protection values are intended to apply to all stream segments upstream of a lake. PotashCorp notes that this approach is not scientifically defensible. The model calculates the load entering the lake, not the concentration in any stream segment upstream of the lake. Downstream protection values, calculated using a scientifically defensible water quality model, should only apply, at most, to the stream segment discharging to the lake. The Federal Register notice noted that "Reliance on a watershed-based classification approach reflects theunderstanding that upstream water quality affects downstream water quality." (75 FR 45581) Lakes in the phosphorusrich geological areas are expected to have higher phosphorus concentrations than lakes in low phosphorus areas. The lake categories need to be expanded to account for regional geology as was done for streams. Phosphorous reclaimed (man-made) lakes, in particular, need to be categorized separately since the geology associated with these lakes is unlike that for other lakes. In addition, shallow lakes and lakes dominated by macrophytes, which cannot be properly simulated using the BATHTUB model, require separate classification and modeling tools. EPA should recognize that the designated uses are not the same for all lakes even though they all may fall under Class III. Many lakes, especially phosphate reclaimed lakes, are intended to be fishing lakes. Higher nutrients in these lakes are actually desirable to support sustainable populations of game and forage fish. The chlorophyll-a thresholds specified in the initial proposal are not necessary to ensure designate use attainment in this type of waterbody. Consequently, the rule should consider these alternative uses and establish alternative criteria for these natural conditions.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5526Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

In its response to the FDEP, EPA noted that the results from BATHTUB (or another scientifically defensible model) would be used to evaluate compliance with the lake criteria established using the statistical distribution approach. This approach is not scientifically defensible. If a scientifically defensible model (e.g., one that is properly calibrated to predict chlorophyll-a response to nutrient load) is developed site-specifically for a lake, it would be arbitrary to ignore the results of that model relating chlorophyll-a concentration to nutrient loads entering the lake. Model calibration may indicate that background concentrations are sufficient to cause maximum phytoplankton growth that is uninfluenced by additional nutrient load. Under those circumstances a site-specific determination should be made that nutrient criteria are not required in accordance with 40 CFR 131.10(g)(1). Natural conditions are not intended to be regulated under state law of the Clean Water Act. Moreover, model calibration may indicate that phytoplankton response/dissolved oxygen level does not respond to a specific parameter (e.g., TN). Under such circumstances, a site-specific determination should be made that a criterion value is not required for that parameter. The BATHTUB model, or any other lake modeling framework, cannot be used to assess acceptable nutrient loads unless the model is properly calibrated to accurately represent conditions and responses of the lake. This requires, under Federal Procedures, that EPA peer review the use of this method for its intended application, but this had not occurred. The BATHTUB model, in particular, is inappropriate for evaluating lakes dominated by macrophytes (typically shallow lakes) and other lakes common to Florida that have characteristics unlike the lakes upon which the BATHTUB model was developed. Concerns with the application of the BATHTUB model to Florida lakes are discussed in detail in the comments provided by CF Industries on this rule proposal and are incorporated by reference here. This fundamental requirement to have a properly calibrated lake model implies that the necessary data will not be readily available. Even so, lake criteria values developed using the distribution approach should not be applied as downstream protection values if a lake is not exceeding its chlorophyll-a objective. If the chlorophyll-a objective is being achieved, there is no scientifically defensible basis to claim that upstream nutrient loads must be reduced. Moreover, attainment of the chlorophyll-a objective should confirm that nutrient impairment is not occurring, regardless of the TP and TN concentrations observed in the lake. Models developed for reservoirs and northern lakes will likely not be suitable for reclaimed lakes in Florida. They are designed as required by the Florida Bureau of Mine Reclamation (BoMR) rules, a portion of which are provided below.
62C-16.0051 Reclamation and Restoration Standards. (6) Wetlands and Water Bodies. The design of created wetlands and water bodies shall be consistent with health and safety practices, maximize beneficial contributions within local drainage patterns, provide aquatic and wetland wildlife habitat values, and maintain downstream water quality by preventing erosion and providing nutrient uptake. Water bodies should incorporate a variety of emergent habitats, a balance of deep and shallow water, fluctuating water levels, high ratios of shoreline length to surface area and a variety of shoreline slopes. (a) At least 25% of the highwater surface area of each water body other than streams shall consist of an annual zone of water fluctuation to encourage emergent and transition zone vegetation. If the area meets the definition of a wetland in Rule 62C-16.0021, F.A.C., then it will also meet the requirements of subsection (4) above. In the event that sufficient shoreline configurations, slopes, or water level fluctuations cannot be designed to accommodate this requirement, this deficiency shall be met by constructing additional wetlands adjacent to and hydrologically connected to the water body.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5527Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs (b) Other than streams, at least 20% of the low water surface shall consist of a zone between the annual low water line and six feet below the annual water line to provide fish bedding areas and submerged vegetation zones The reclaimed lakes have a relatively large percentage (at least 25%) in shallow areas designed to foster plant growth. The vegetation can be either emergent herbaceous plants or wetland trees such as cypress. The models proposed by EPA do not appear to have algorithms or other mechanisms to account for the uptake and essentially permanent storage, in the case of trees, by such high percentages of vegetative areas. EPA should clearly address the problems with calibrating or modifying the proposed models to account for the design requirements and actual morphology and configuration of phosphate reclaimed lakes. 

# Comment ID 2489-1.001.004

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg 3) The application of additional river/stream criteria for the protection of downstream lakes, known as "Downstream Protection Values" (DPVs), based upon: a) Using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria, Response: Modeling is an appropriate approach for determining both TP and TN, however, no specific opinion can be offered on the proposed model. 

# Comment ID 2490-1.001.007

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation Comments to the first EPA proposal pointed out the severe limitations and deficiencies with using the EPA-modified Vollenweider equation for the protection of lakes from excess TP. The proposal to use the BATHTUB model instead is not only a substantial improvement but it allows for the determination a DPV value for either TN or TP (whichever is limiting) at the lake-stream boundary (assuming that the BATHTUB model is properly calibrated and appropriate for the subject lake. However, the approach suffers from many of the same problems as the January 2010 proposal, including:

1. The specification of a one-size-fits-all model for all systems is inappropriate. 2. A steady-state model can only calculate the concentration of TP or TN at the boundary (i.e., the lake-stream interface) that will maintain the in-lake nutrient concentration at or below the general or lake-specific standard. It will not provide a DPV for locations further upstream.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5528Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

3. Lack of justification for the need for stream DPVs in the first place. While the BATHTUB model can be expected to provide improved results over the use of the previously suggested modified Vollenweider equation, it still seems unnecessary and problematic to actually specify the model to be used. Every lake system is unique and requires consideration of the most appropriate tool(s) for modeling the system. While the latest proposal allows for the use of alternative and more complex models (when data are available), the BATHTUB model is to be applied in most cases and will certainly be applied with a set of largely unquestioned and generalized assumptions that will likely not be appropriate in many cases. Additionally, if set up properly and calibrated to the lake system, the BATHTUB model has been shown to be useful in predicting chlorophyll a concentrations in lakes and reservoirs from stream inputs. Presumably, EPA hopes to use the same model to adjust the nutrient input concentrations so that in-lake concentrations of chlorophyll a (or TN or TP) aremanaged below the lake standard. However, the model cannot provide watershed managers with the appropriate instream concentrations at any other point in the stream drainage beyond the point where it enters the lake. The DPVs determined are not appropriate to stream reaches further upstream. This means that the BATHTUB model will be of limited use in determining stream DPVs because they can only realistically be applied to the most downstream stream reaches in each case. 

# Comment ID 2492-1.001.005

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies The Notice also seeks comment on the appropriateness of using a particular model for assessing downstream protection of lakes. Though EPA is seeking Science Advisory Board (SAB) review of its methodology for evaluating downstream impacts on estuaries, the Notice makes it clear that EPA intends to finalize its downstream protection analysis for lakes. As NACWA expressed in its April 28 comments on EPA's proposed criteria for Florida's flowing waters, downstream protection is already achieved via the existing total maximum daily load (TMDL) program. If further reductions are needed to protect downstream waters, those reductions should be based on a complete loading analysis with an allocation of nutrient loads via the TMDL process. The BATHTUB and WASP models, while providing improvements over the Vollenweider equation for evaluating downstream impacts, each have their own limitations. Application of these models, however, would be essentially equivalent to conducting a TMDL. EPA should also avoid limiting the use of models to these examples. Other more appropriate models may exist but would be precluded from use based on the proposal. 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.009

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Comments to the first EPA proposal pointed out the severe limitations and deficiencies with using the EPA-modified

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5529Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs Vollenweider equation for the protection of lakes from excess TP. The proposal to use the BATHTUB model instead is not only a substantial improvement but it allows for the determination a DPV value for either TN or TP (whichever is limiting) at the lake-stream boundary (assuming that the BATHTUB model is properly calibrated and appropriate for the subject lake. However, the approach suffers from many of the same problems as the January 2010 proposal, including: a) The specification of a one-size-fits-all model for all systems is inappropriate. b) A steady-state model can only calculate the concentration of TP or TN at the boundary (i.e., the lake-stream interface) that will maintain the in-lake nutrient concentration at or below the general or lake-specific standard. It will not provide a DPV for locations further upstream. c) Lack of justification for the need for stream DPVs in the first place. While the BATHTUB model can be expected to provide improved results over the use of the previously suggested modified Vollenweider equation, it still seems unnecessary and problematic to actually specify the model to be used. Every lake system is unique and requires consideration of the most appropriate tool(s) for modeling the system. While the latest proposal allows for the use of alternative and more complex models (when data are available), the BATHTUB model is to be applied in most cases and will certainly be applied with a set of largely unquestioned and generalized assumptions that will likely not be appropriate in many cases. Additionally, if set up properly and calibrated to the lake system, the BATHTUB model has been shown to be useful in predicting chlorophyll a concentrations in lakes and reservoirs from stream inputs. Presumably, EPA hopes to use the same model to adjust the nutrient input concentrations so that in-lake concentrations of chlorophyll a (or TN or TP) are managed below the lake standard. However, the model cannot provide watershed managers with the appropriate in- stream concentrations at any other point in the stream drainage beyond the point where it enters the lake. The DPVs determined are not appropriate to stream reaches further upstream. This means that the BATHTUB model will be of limited use in determining stream DPVs because they can only realistically be applied to the most downstream stream reaches in each case. 

# Comment ID 2494-1.001.006

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition III. MODELS USED TO DEVELOP DOWNSTREAM VALUES In developing the DPVs for downstream lakes in its January 26 proposal, EPA relied completely on one water quality model -- the "Vollenweider model." This model incorporates only cursory site-specific information; it relies on general assumptions that can be applied to any lake and its tributaries. As the FWQC explained in its initial comments, this approach suffers from major flaws -- both legal and technical. Apparently recognizing at least some of those criticisms, EPA has now, in the NODA, stated that it is considering replacing the Vollenweider model with another approach. The new approach is based primarily on use of the BATHTUB model, although EPA does ask for comment on a process that would also allow use of other defensible alternatives. (The other alternatives mentioned by EPA include the WASP model, and a non-modeling approach that would simply apply lake criteria directly to the lake's tributaries.) This new approach avoids the problems involved in use of the Vollenweider model, and the FWQC commends EPA for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5530Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs considering a move away from reliance on that approach. However, the new proposal has the same legal flaws as EPA's initial proposal, and on a technical level, the new approach creates new problems that are nearly as substantial as in the initial proposal. These flaws are as follows: As stated in detail in the initial FWQC comments, there is no legal basis for imposition of DPVs. EPA should simply discard that portion of its proposals, and instead rely -- as it has done many times before -- on the basic Clean Water Act requirement that in developing NPDES permits and TMDLs, EPA and the States must protect downstream designated uses.While BATHTUB does allow for site-specific inputs -- an element missing from the Vollenweider approach -- the sitespecific nature of the BATHTUB analysis will create other concerns. For one thing, this will mean that for every one of the thousands of Florida lakes with tributaries, someone will have to do a site-specific modeling exercise in order to determine the applicable water quality criteria. This work will be extremely time-consuming. Yet one of the original reasons that EPA stepped in and decided to issue criteria for Florida was that according to EPA, the State's approach to developing criteria was too site-specific, and therefore would take too much time. EPA's new approach would not alleviate that concern. Another concern regarding EPA's new model proposal relates to the specific models that EPA is considering. While BATHTUB does provide the opportunity to consider actual site-specific information, one would need large quantities of data, and experienced modeling experts, to apply this model properly. In the absence of those data and that expertise, the results would be highly uncertain; application of the model by three different modelers -- even experienced modelers -- could, in the absence of an appropriate data set, result in three very different criteria. WASP requires even more data than BATHTUB, and has the same uncertainty issues. BATHTUB also has technical issues that would need to be addressed in order for it to be used in setting nutrient criteria. For example, internal sediment release of nutrients is treated strictly as a forcing function, without any feedback to the calculation of incoming nutrient loads and resulting water quality concentrations. Since sediment nutrient flux is expected to change in response to load reductions, this issue must be addressed in order to derive scientifically defensible nutrient targets. Simply using BATHTUB to derive nutrient DPVs -- and resulting upstream criteria -- would be inappropriate without addressing this issue. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.006

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 3) The application of additional river/stream criteria for the protection of downstream lakes, known as "Downstream Protection Values" (DPVs), based upon: a) Using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria Response: There are several issues with the use of the BATHTUB model:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5531Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

-The documentation accompanying the BATHTUB model presented in Walker's Applications Report ( https://swwrp.usace.army.mil/_swwrp/swwrp/4-Pubs/WaterQualityRpts/T.R.-E-81-9%20rep%204.pdf ) clearly indicates that this model was developed for the study of reservoirs. Reservoirs are commonly described as man-made public water supply sources, and typically involve impounding a river valley. This is not applicable to most Florida lakes. -The BATHTUB model requires input data that is largely unavailable statewide including continuous flow records, vertical water quality profiles, water influx and nutrient loads from all tributaries and lake morphology among others. Furthermore, in many areas of Florida, groundwater inputs are a significant contributor to the lake nutrient load and this model does not address inputs from groundwater. -In several studies, the BATHTUB model was found to be less than applicable in complex systems (Lim, 2001 and Gaddis et AI, 2010). Additionally, Lim states that the developed BATHTUB models for studied reservoirs are subject to verification due to lack of actual nutrient load data and variations in year-to-year hydrologic conditions. -Furthermore, Wang et al. (2005) showed in their study of reservoirs in the central plains that the BATHTUB model's seasonal simulation resulted in significant discrepancies between the predicted and observed values for TN and TP. In this study, both TN and TP were under predicted, indicating that the seasonal simulation might not be appropriate for modeling the eutrophication conditions of the study Lake. -Wang et al also cites that a major advantage of BATHTUB over other models is its use of simple steady-state calculations to address eutrophication processes. BATHTUB treats a reservoir component as a spatially-averaged control-volume segment with influxes and effluxes of volume and mass. Steady-state calculations however, do not take into account the assimilative capacity of waterbodies and do Page 5 of 8 not account for wind-driven sediment nutrient dynamics in shallow eutrophic systems. -Ward and Benaman studied the applicability of various models to TMDL determinations in two separate 1999 documents. The first, focused on model screening, showed that the BATHTUB model was rejected for TMDL determinations due to a lack of applicable current uses. Most of the studies using the BATHTUB model were conducted in the Midwest United States. Another rejection criterion was its empirical nature when the authors recommended a more deterministic approach. The subsequent document by the same authors states that empirical models can be invalidated by any structural changes in the watershed, while a deterministic approach is better suited to determining cause-effect relationship within water quality parameters. -Lastly, the California Watershed Assesment Manual's review of the BATHTUB model states that "short-term responses, responses to variables other than nutrients and effects related to structural modifications cannot be explicitly evaluated." ( http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/pdfs/BATHTUB.pdf )



# Comment ID 2496-1.001.010

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5532Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs The BATHTUB model may not be appropriate for Florida. Further evaluation is needed to determine appropriate methods for developing downstream protective values. It is not feasible that EPA will find a one-size fits all model to answer these questions. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.004

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC
1. Comments on New Proposal for Using BATHTUB Model for Lake Downstream Protective Values In the NODA, EPA states that it is considering requiring the use of the BATHTUB model rather than the Vollenweider model, described in the proposed Rule, as a basis for setting stream criteria that would be protective of downstream lakes (downstream protective values, or "DPVs"). EPA seeks comment on several specific issues related to its proposal to use the BATHTUB model. As an initial matter, Mosaic believes that lake DPVs as a whole are not justified. FDEP has already stated in its comments on the proposed Rule that DPVs are unnecessary where IPVs are sufficiently protective.[4] Mosaic agrees with FDEP's position. In the event that EPA, nonetheless, remains intent on pursuing lake DPVs, Mosaic offers the following comments on EPA's proposals. First, EPA seeks comment on whether to allow the Agency or FDEP to use alternative models where greater spatial or temporal detail is needed, or where water quality considerations not within the scope of BATHTUB need to be explicitly considered. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 45,583. Mosaic supports incorporating this kind of flexibility into the Rule. The BATHTUB model is complex and only viable where there is data to input to numerous fields and parameters. By contrast (and as discussed in greater detail in Mosaic's comments of April 23, 2010), the Vollenweider model in the proposed Rule may oversimplify the complex dynamics that characterize the relationship between the inflows into a lake and the lake's biological health, rendering it ill-suited to the diverse circumstances of Florida's lakes.[5] Allowing the use of technically-based, alternative models enables both greater accuracy and more flexibility by state and federal regulators, and also allows regulators to apply updated or new models without the onerous process of revising a federal regulation. Second, both the BATHTUB model and the Vollenweider model are flawed because they (i) are designed only to analyze in-lake water quality, and (ii) do not calculate criteria for stream segments upgradient of the stream inlet point. [6,7] Both of these models appear to provide loading values only for the water contained in the lake or reservoir and do not include a stream load allocation assessment as part of their calculations. It is not clear that these models are able to apply load thresholds for lake or reservoir inlets in such a manner in order properly to derive upstream criteria. Accordingly, both methodologies (if used at all) can and should only be applicable to setting criteria at the inlet point of the lake. To address the foregoing issues, Mosaic recommends that the following language be incorporated into the Rule:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5533Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs The applicable total phosphorus criterion-magnitude for the inlet point of a stream that flows into downstream lakes is the more stringent of the value from the preceding table in (c)(2)(i) or a downstream lake protection value derived from the following equation, the BATHTUB model, or any other technically based model or calculation methodology approved by the regulating agency to protect the downstream lake. EPA also seeks comment on including a provision in the final Rule that set the lake criteria as the DPV for the stream in the absence of data to derive a DPV using BATHTUB or another scientifically defensible model. Id. Mosaic opposes this approach as inherently more stringent than can be or has been shown to be either necessary or technically defensible. Such an approach would impose a one-size-fits-all model without regard to the nature of the stream or the distance of an outfall from its discharge into a lake. It would require substantial, additional reduction loads in streams without any evidence or indication that such reductions are necessary to protect the biological health of the lake. EPA itself acknowledges that such an approach "may result in the application of more stringent criteria in the streams entering the lake than would be calculated using BATHTUB or another scientifically defensible model if site-specific data were available." Id. In the absence of any technically defensible means to establish a DPV for lakes, setting the lake criteria as a DPV is completely arbitrary. An additional Mosaic concern is that EPA's revised proposals on lake DPVs highlight the ambiguity and potential overbreadth of EPA's definition of lakes. In the proposed Rule, EPA defined a lake merely as "a freshwater body that is not a stream or other watercourse with some open contiguous water free from emergent vegetation." See proposed 40 C.F.R. §131.43(b)(3). This definition (perhaps inadvertently) arguably could encompass a large number of minor and incidental waterbodies as if they were lakes, and would require the establishment of DPVs for downstream pools, ponds, or wetlands. To mitigate such an improper construction, Mosaic proposes that EPA revise this definition to more closely match FDEP's lake definition, as follows: Lake means a freshwater body that is not a stream or other watercourse with a minimum of 2 acres of some open contiguous water free from emergent vegetation.[8] [4] See FDEP Comments on Lakes Downstream Protective Values at 1-3 (Available at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm ). [5] See Mosaic's Comments, April 23, 2010 at 33-34, (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1217.2). [6] See FLUX, PROFILE and BATHTUB: Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory (available at http://www.wes.army.mil/el/elmodels/emiinfo.html ). [7] See Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply, Assessing the New York City Strategy, Committee to Review the New York City Watershed Management Strategy, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, National Research Council (2000) at 316 (available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9677&page=316 ). [8] For FDEP's lake definition, see FDEP Sampling and Use of the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) for Assessing Lake Plant Communities in Florida: A Primer. DEP/SAS/002/10, FDEP, Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support, Standards and Assessments Section, June 2010, Page 3.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5534Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs



# Comment ID 2498-2.001.003

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection A. Deriving Stream Downstream Protection Values for the Protection of Lakes using Bathtub No data or analysis was presented for how a model would be used to "create" downstream protection value criteria. Nothing was contained in the proposal, NODA, or docket regarding the methodology or process for converting the application of a water quality model to water quality criteria. EPA must provide information on the following types of issues:

1. Which components of BATHTUB were being suggested or considered (nutrient balance or eutrophication response, or both); 2. How would output variables be used to derive the magnitude, duration, and frequency of the criteria; 3. Under what circumstances should the model be used to create the criteria; and 4. What is the administrative process that would be followed to finalize criteria for individual lakes and officially adopt them? The mere inclusion of the Corps of Engineers guidance manual on the model does not answer these questions. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.006

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection D. Application of Lake Criteria to Streams without a Working Model The docket and record associated with the NODA and the proposed rule do not contain any data, methodologies, or analyses needed to evaluate or support EPA's proposal to require applying the lake criteria as stream DPVs, which makes the review of the concept virtually impossible. The docket does include a publication regarding the BATHTUB model [EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2435] that describes all the variables that go into lake nutrient dynamics. Rather than supporting EPA's position, the information provided in this publication clearly demonstrates why EPA's reliance on this concept is a gross oversimplification of the science. EPA does not support or provide information related to their position that the lake criteria should be applied to the headwaters of upstream flowing waters, blatantly failing to acknowledge factors such as assimilation, uptake, and settling. EPA is on record as recognizing that TN reduces as it moves downstream, and FDEP has previously pointed out the complexities of TP fate and transport dynamics, including that significant reduction in TP may occur between upstream areas and downstream lakes. Since the contents of the docket do not contain any relevant data, analysis, or literature citations to support this concept, it is impossible to evaluate its merits.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5535Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.016

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection B. BATHTUB is an improvement over applying the Vollenweider equation, but EPA did not provide any methodologies regarding when BATHTUB should and should not be used to create the DPV FDEP was supportive of moving towards a modeling approach to implement provisions like this in our earlier comments. FDEP stated, "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." However, using a model also has limitations. The State has used BATHTUB as a tool to address water quality issues in Florida lakes before, but there were times when BATHTUB did not work. There are circumstances when BATHTUB cannot be used, such as lack of data and resulting simulation error. EPA included no explanation or methodologies in the NODA regarding when a DPV should and should not be calculated using BATHTUB. The docket did contain a document regarding model testing for BATHTUB, but did not provide any methods for analysis of when a model was sufficient for the establishment of downstream protection values. The Department has utilized BATHTUB numerous times when calculating Total Maximum Daily Loads and offers the following comments. 1) The BATHTUB model should not be used to establish nutrient targets if site-specific lake morphology and water residence time data are not available or if Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) covers more than 30 percent of the lake area (Canfield, et al. 1983). 2) BATHTUB should not be used to establish nutrient targets without conducting a successful calibration. A successful calibration would be when the relative percent difference between the predicted (P) and measured (M) concentrations are less than 30 percent, e.g. [((P-M)/M)*100]. Note that DEP does not have a specific literature reference for use of 30 percent, but is relying on the collective experience and judgment of staff. 3) BATHTUB should not be used to develop nutrient targets if internal fluxes (loading from sediment fluxes or nitrogen fixation) are a significant source until the information is developed that verifies the source of the material, the rate of the flux, and establishes how changes in external loading change the internal flux rate of phosphorous or the persistence of nitrogen fixation. BATHTUB Background BATHTUB is part of an interrelated set of management tools (Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction) established by the U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station. BATHTUB is not a model; it is a model suite that includes two major model sets: 1) a mass-balance model set that estimates the in-lake (reservoir) nutrient concentrations based on external nutrient loadings, morphology, hydrology, and sedimentation characteristics

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5536Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs of the subject lakes/reservoirs, and 2) an eutrophication response model set that estimates the chlorophyllconcentration, Secchi depth, trophic state index (TSI), and hypolimnetic oxygen concentration based on the inlake/reservoir nutrient concentrations. All the models included in these two model sets are empirical models developed from studies conducted on a diverse set of lakes and reservoirs or utilizing values obtained from published literature. Advantages The advantage of the BATHTUB tool set is that it provides the flexibilities that any single one empirical model does not have in dealing with lakes with different characteristics such as; (1) different external loading characteristics (different inorganic to organic nutrient ratios), (2) different morphology (surface areas, mean depths), (3) whether the waterbody is a lake or reservoir, (4) deep or shallow, (5) waterbodies with thermal stratification versus well mixed conditions, (6) urban lakes with complex landuse interactions or lake/reservoirs in watersheds with balanced landuse types, (7) different hydraulics (different flushing rate and water residence time), and (8) to a lesser extent, the suite of tools can allow consideration of internal nutrient loading and nitrogen fixation, and different factors that limit the growth and accumulation of phytoplankton biomass (phosphorus limited, nitrogen limited, phosphorus and nitrogen co-limited, light limited, and flush limited). These advantages provide lake/reservoir managers with multiple options when assessing the nutrient condition and establishing water quality targets for a particular lake/reservoir. While BATHTUB provides much flexibility in dealing with specific lake/reservoir case, the model suite should be used with caution so that the functionality of the model will not be abused, especially if the software is used to establish water quality targets or criteria.
Use of BATHTUB to Establish Downstream Protection Values for Lakes One very important issue is to calibrate the selected model based on waterbody specific data. Although BATHTUB was cited as an effective tool for lake and reservoir water quality assessment and management when local data were limited (Ernst et al., 1994), the BATHTUB user manual (Walker, 1996) indicates that the application of the model suite on U. S. Army Corp of Engineering reservoirs showed a 95-percent confidence factors of 1.72 and 2.00 for total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll a, which is a fairly broad confidence limit (without successful site-specific calibration, model predictions could be plus or minus two times the measured data). The user manual indeed indicates that this "error magnitudes refer to predictions which are made without the benefit of site-specific water quality information. In applications to specific lakes/reservoirs, prediction errors can be significantly reduced by calibrating the model. Calibration is especially important for: (1) lakes/reservoirs whose mean depths are larger than 30 meters (not an issue for most Florida lakes), (2) water residence time is longer than 2 years, and (3) overflow rates (mean depth divided by hydraulic residence time) is larger than 4 meters/year. Under these circumstances, a non-calibrated model may produce large errors and should not be used to establish the water quality targets or criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5537Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

To reduce the model prediction error, the BATHTUB User Manual makes recommendations for the frequency and type of the monitoring data that should be used for calibration. The models included in the mass-balance model set for estimating the in-lake nutrient concentrations are primarily based on the following mass-balance equation (Equation 1): Inflows = Outflows + Increase-in-storage + Net Loss Equation 1 While the equation includes the "Increase-in-storage" item, based on the user manual, better modeling results were usually achieved when there was no significant net change of storage in lakes/reservoirs. Therefore, model calibration should avoid only relying on data collected during the extreme hydrologic condition such as too dry or too wet. The User Manual makes the following recommendations related to model calibration: (1) That the model calibration takes into consideration the hydrology and hydraulic variations of different seasons and inter-annual variations from three or more years. (2) The monitoring data should include the in-lake/reservoir nutrients and chlorophyll a data, the tributary nutrients related data, and tributary flow measurements. In order to ensure that the loading into lakes/reservoirs are estimated accurately, the user manual recommends daily flow measurements for the tributaries and at least biweekly monitoring of the tributary water quality constituents supplemented with storm event sampling. (3) For lakes that receive significant amount of loading from nonpoint source areas, watershed models should be used to estimate seasonal and annual loadings to create inputs for BATHTUB. When calibrating the BATHTUB model, being able to identify the major sources that contribute to the nutrient condition of the lake/reservoir is very important. Using BATHTUB to establish water quality targets is NOT recommended if the data regarding the following sources are not available for quantifying the contribution from each source: (1) Tributary discharge and nutrient concentrations (2) Nonpoint source loading directly into lakes/reservoirs through sheet flow (need to take into consideration of impacts from septic tanks and best management practice). (3) Possible ground water contribution (seepage rate and ground water nutrient concentrations. If tributaries appear in the drainage basin and measured daily flows are available, ground water input can be approximately estimated through baseflow separation analyses) (4) Direct atmospheric deposition onto the surface of lakes (this requires rainfall data and wet deposition concentration and dry deposition flux data) (5) Possible internal nutrient loading (further discussed in the following section) (6) Possible loading from nitrogen fixation (further discussed in the following section) Use of BATHTUB model should not be recommended if the locally measured lake morphology and water residence time are not available. One of the most important factors that influence the model simulation error for BATHTUB is the nutrient sedimentation rate. Direct measurements of nutrient sedimentation rate, in most cases, is not readily available. Therefore it is usually used as a parameter for BATHTUB model calibration. Sedimentation rate calibration is especially important for those

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5538Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs waters that have relatively long water residence time (longer than 2 years) and small surface overflow rate (<4 m/year) because in these cases, flushing is no longer the dominant factor in controlling the nutrient concentration in the system. Sedimentation plays a more important role. BATHTUB allows calibrating the nutrient concentration through adjusting a sedimentation calibration factor (SCF). It should be noted that, some BATHTUB mass-balance models have recommended ranges for the SCF. These rangesapply to the phosphorus Models 1 and 2 in BATHTUB, which are the Second-order Available P [default] and Secondorder Decay Rate Function models, respectively, as well as the nitrogen Models 1 and 2, which are the Second-order Available N [default] and Second-order Decay Rate Function models, respectively. The recommended range of SCF is from 0.5 to 2.0 for phosphorus and 0.33 to 3.0 for nitrogen. SCFs beyond these ranges are not recommended. When the SCF are used to the extreme of recommended ranges and nutrient concentrations are still not calibrated (e.g. model simulates are 30% or more different from the measured data), application of these models in establishing water quality targets is not recommended until the cause of the simulation errors is resolved. In this case, the following factors should be addressed:

1. Input nutrient composition: The in-lake/reservoir nutrient concentrations simulated by mass-balance Models 1 and 2 mentioned above are sensitive to the inorganic nutrient to total nutrient concentration ratio. This is especially true for phosphorus. The Model 1 (Second-order Available P model) performs mass balance calculations on "available phosphorus", a weighted sum of orthophosphorus and nonorthophosphorus, which places a heavier emphasis on the orthophosphorus (more biologically available component) instead of just using the tributary total phosphorus (TP) as the model input. In this case, without knowing accurately the inorganic to organic phosphorus ratios of all the external sources, the final in-lake phosphorus concentration may have sufficient uncertainty that it should not be used to establish nutrient targets. The similar concept also applies to Model 2 (Second-order Decay Rate Function model) except that, instead of calculating a weighted sum of "available" phosphorus, the model uses the total phosphorus as the input phosphorus and establishes an inverse relationship between the sedimentation rate and tributary orthophosphorus to total phosphorus ratio so that the sedimentation rate will be higher in systems dominated by organic and particulate (nonorthophosphorus) phosphorus loading. In this case, knowing the nutrient compositions of the external sources becomes essential for using BATHTUB to establish nutrient targets.

2. Possible internal loading: If model simulated in-lake/reservoir nutrient concentrations are consistently lower than the measured in-lake/reservoir concentrations and measured tributary concentrations (if available) are also consistently lower than the in-lake/reservoir concentrations, internal nutrient loading should be considered as a possible factor in setting up the BATHTUB model.Because BATHTUB sedimentation models have been empirically calibrated, effects of "internal loading" or nutrient recycling from bottom sediments should have been inherently reflected to a certain extent in the model parameter values and error statistics. However, the BATHTUB user manual listed the following four conditions under which the "internal loading" may exceed the range covered by the empirical model and therefore need to be considered separately:
A. High concentrations of ortho-phosphorus (or high ortho-P/TP ratios) in nonpoint-source tributary drainage (indicative of natural sediments that are phosphorus-rich and have high equilibrium phosphorus concentrations).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5539Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

B. Low surface overflow rates, typically < 10 m/year (indicative of low dilution potential for internal loadings generated on a mass per unit area basis and low external sediment loadings). C. Intermittent periods of stratification and anoxic conditions at the sediment/water interface (contribute to periodic release of soluble phosphorus from bottom sediments and transport into the mixed layer). D. Low iron/phosphorus ratio (typically <3 on a mass basis) in sediment interstitial waters or anaerobic bottom waters (permits migration of phosphorus into aerobic zones without iron phosphate precipitation). The above conditions are often found in relatively shallow lakes and reservoirs. If these situations exist and simply adjusting the SCF to the extreme of the recommended range cannot achieve the satisfactory calibration, BATHTUB provides the option to users to define an internal loading flux rate in the model. But this option should be used very cautiously because the observed error may also be associated with: (1) Measured in-lake concentrations with large error (2) Missing external nutrient sources (3) Mistakenly quantified watershed loading (4) Lack of nutrient composition information for the input nutrient loading It should be noted that, even if an elevated internal loading assumption is justified, measured internal loading flux is not available in many cases. In this situation, an internal flux rate can be set up for the model so that the model simulated in-lake concentration will match up with the measured in-lake concentration. This is a mass-balance approach. This approach, however, has the risk of covering up the true cause of the model error. In addition, even when a flux rate can be set up for the existing condition, without any data to show how the internal flux rate will change with the external nutrient loadings, using the model to predict the target condition will still cause uncertainties. Of course, literature published external loading - internal loading relationship studies can be used as surrogate to estimate the change of internal flux rate when external loading is reduced. However, it is still highly recommended that local studies should be conducted to quantify the internal loading. It is not recommended that the model be used for lakes systems dominated by the internal loading.
3. Possible nitrogen fixation: There are cases when the model simulated in-lake/reservoir phosphorus concentration calibrates with the measured concentration reasonably well, but model simulated nitrogen concentration is consistently lower than the measured nitrogen concentration. In that circumstance, if the measured tributary nitrogen concentrations are also lower than the measured in-lake/reservoir nitrogen concentration and tributary phosphorus concentrations are similar to or higher than the in-lake/reservoir phosphorus concentrations, nitrogen fixation can be considered as a possible external source of nutrient to the subject lake. BATHTUB models do not deal with nitrogen fixation explicitly. But the internal loading option of the model can be used to add nitrogen flux rate into the lake to mimic the nitrogen fixation. The uncertainties associated with this approach are the same as those associated with establishing the internal flux rate from the sediment. It is therefore highly recommended that this approach be used with caution. If this approach must be used, the following aspects of the lake should be carefully evaluated: (1) Comparing the tributary and in-lake reservoir water quality data to see if the high in-lake concentration is caused by

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5540Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs the high tributary concentration (2) Examining the in-lake algal taxonomy to determine whether nitrogen fixers indeed exist in the system (3) Evaluating the inorganic nitrogen to inorganic phosphorus ratio of the lake/reservoir to determine if the phytoplankton communities is nitrogen limited (4) Conducting nitrogen fixation studies to quantify the actual rate of nitrogen fixation Similar to the internal loading, even if a nitrogen fixation rate can be established for the existing condition, without any data showing how the nitrogen fixation will change with the external loading, predicting the target nitrogen concentration can still be problematic. Therefore, it is highly recommended that nitrogen fixation studies be conducted for lakes with nitrogen fixation as a significant source of nitrogen for the lake to determine the functional relationship between the nitrogen fixation rate and external nutrient loadings.

4. Impact of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)In some cases, model simulated in-lake/reservoir concentration may be significantly higher than the measured inlake/reservoir. If the SCF has been used to the extreme of the recommended range, large error associated with the monitoring data in lakes and tributaries are excluded, and nutrient compositions of the inlet loadings are all confirmed, and a calibration still cannot be achieved, the Canfield and Bachman (1981) model (contained within BATHTUB) should first be considered in place of either Model 1 or Model 2. Canfield and Bachman's model include some artificial lakes in urban areas, which received high watershed nutrient loading. The portion of particulate phosphorus in these loadings were high and therefore high sedimentation rate is expected for these urban lakes. Another thing to check to account for the model overestimation is whether the system is dominated by the SAV. Littoral zone vegetation and in-lake aquatic plants can contribute to the low nutrient concentration by reducing the water column turbulence, which increases the nutrient sedimentation rate, stabilize the lake sediment and reduce the sediment nutrient release, and provide habitat for periphyton and remove phosphorus directly from the water column (Gasith and Hoyer 1998, Haven 2003). If SAV dominates the lake system, for example, covering more than 30% of the lake surface, BATHTUB is not recommended as the model to be used to set up the nutrient targets (Canfield, et al. 1983). 

# Comment ID 2499-1.001.004

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. IV. DOWNSTREAM PROTECTIVE VALUES EPA is proposing replacement of the Vollenweider Model with the Bathtub Model for calculating downstream protective values for lakes. Whichever model EPA adopts, Earthjustice strongly support EPA calculation of these values which have been required by the Clean Water Act since its inception. For example, in EPA's 1976 Redbook - its first compilation of water quality standards - EPA recommended that phosphorus should not exceed 50 ppb in any stream at any point where it enters a lake, nor 25 ppb within the lake or reservoir, and to prevent plant nuisances, should not exceed 100 ppb in any stream or other flowing water not discharging directly into a lake or an impoundment while

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5541Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs recognized that there may be site specific reasons that justify variation from these norms.[9] The Redbook recognizes and discusses Florida's naturally occurring phosphate deposits and explains the process by which phosphorus enters and is retained in water bodies. It also uses the Vollenweider model to suggest a range of loading to lakes and reservoirs and specifically states: There are two basic needs in establishing a phosphorus criterion for flowing waters: one is to control the development of plant nuisances within the flowing water and, in turn, to control and prevent animal pests that may become associates with such plants; the other, is to protect the downstream receiving waterway, regardless of its proximity in linear distance.[10] This evidences the fact that it has been EPA's longstanding interpretation that the Clean Water Act requires that water quality standards for nutrients must be set to protect the downstream water quality and that the Vollenweider model can be used to aid this analysis. [9] Attached as Appendix 9. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/redbook.pdf. [10] App. 9, p. 357. 

# Comment ID 2502-1.001.006

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute III. USE OF MODELS IN DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION VALUES In developing the DPVs for downstream lakes in its January 26 proposal, EPA relied completely on one water quality model -- the "Vollenweider model." That model incorporates only cursory site-specific information; it relies on general assumptions that can be applied to any lake and its tributaries. As TFI explained in its initial comments, this approach suffers from major flaws -- both legal and technical. Apparently recognizing at least some of those criticisms, EPA has now, in the NODA, stated that it is considering replacing the Vollenweider model with another approach. The new approach is based primarily on use of the BATHTUB model, although EPA does ask for comment on a process that would also allow use of other defensible alternatives. (The other alternatives mentioned by EPA include the WASP model, and a non-modeling approach that would simply apply lake criteria directly to the lake's tributaries.) This new approach avoids the problems involved in use of the Vollenweider model, and TFI commends EPA for considering a move away from reliance on that approach. However, the new proposal has the same legal flaws as EPA's initial proposal, and on a technical level, the new approach creates new problems that are nearly as substantial as in the initial proposal. These flaws are as follows:

1. As stated in detail in the initial TFI comments, there is no legal basis for imposition of DPVs. EPA should simply discard that portion of its proposals, and instead rely -- as it has done many times before -- on the basic concept that in developing NPDES permits and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), EPA and the states must protect downstream designated uses.

2. The suitability of the BATHTUB model is wholly contingent upon how it is applied and the resources (i.e. data,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5542Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs modeling expertise) available to support its application. BATHTUB can be run at different levels of site-specific tailoring. At the simplest level of tailoring -- where the user specifies site morphometry, hydraulic flushing and pollutant load and uses model default values to predict nutrient loss ­

- BATHTUB is as inaccurate as the Vollenweider model that it is being proposed to replace. The data base used to support its default model coefficients in BATHTUB consisted of 40 Army Corps of Engineer reservoirs (Walker, 2006). These reservoirs are in no way representative of Florida lakes, so the application of the BATHTUB model solely with default coefficients is completely inappropriate.
3. While BATHTUB does allow for site-specific inputs -- an element missing from the Vollenweider approach -- the sitespecific nature of the BATHTUB analysis will create other concerns. For one thing, this will mean that for every one of the thousands of Florida lakes with tributaries, someone will have to do a site-specific modeling exercise in order to determine the applicable water quality criteria. This work will be extremely time-consuming. Yet one of the original reasons that EPA stepped in and decided to issue criteria for Florida was that according to EPA, the State's approach to developing criteria was too site-specific, and therefore would take too much time. EPA's new approach would not alleviate that concern.

4. Another concern regarding EPA's new model proposal relates to the specific models that EPA is considering. While BATHTUB does provide the opportunity to consider actual site-specific information, one would need large quantities of data, and experienced modeling experts, in order to apply this model properly. In the absence of those data and that expertise, the results would be highly uncertain; application of the model by three different modelers -- even experienced modelers -- could, in the absence of an appropriate data set, result in three very different criteria. WASP requires even more data than BATHTUB, and has the same uncertainty issues.

5. BATHTUB also has technical issues that would need to be addressed in order for it to be used in setting nutrient criteria. For example, internal sediment release of nutrients is treated strictly as a forcing function, without any feedback to incoming nutrient loads and resulting water quality concentrations. Since sediment nutrient flux is expected to change in response to load reductions, this issue would need to be addressed in order to get any scientifically defensible sense of what nutrient targets are appropriate. Simply using BATHTUB to derive nutrient DPVs -- and resulting upstream criteria -- would be inappropriate without factoring in this issue. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.014

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Downstream Protective Values for Lakes Remain Contrary to Law Regardless of whether one applies the Vollenweider Model or the BATHTUB Model to derive downstream protective values (DPVs) for lakes, the DPVs remain contrary to law and science. Once again, had EPA derived its instream protective values (IPVs) in strict adherence to its own regulations (40 C.F.R. § 131.10(b)), there would be no need for the DPVs. If indeed EPA's proposed lake and stream criteria are protective of applicable designated uses, there is no reason to calculate DPVs. Calculated using the proposed loading models, the DPVs are in essence a TMDL -- but a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5543Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs TMDL calculated in the absence of a finding of impairment. There is no legal or scientific basis for the DPVs whether one applies Vollenweider, BATHTUB, WASP or an alternative nutrient loading model. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.017

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Providing BATHTUB as alternative for establishing downstream protective values for lakes does not cure the technical and legal deficiencies underlying the DPV concept. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.024

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Comments on BATHTUB Model: The database upon which the BATHTUB (Walker, 1981, 1996) model depends does not include a significant number of Florida systems and is invalid for use in a vast number of Florida lake systems. For all the reasons we pointed out that the Vollenweider model was inappropriate, many of the same apply to the COE BATHTUB model. The empirical relationship is not sufficiently Florida based (1 COE reservoir in Florida and about 15 lakes from the NES). The inadequacy of the BATHTUB model is based on many of the same reasons, such as internal nutrient loading (not adequately captured for Florida systems) and dominance by macrophytes, which SER has argued previously for the Vollenweider model. The BATHTUB model has very limited applicability to Florida lake systems. Florida Lake Response Comparison using the BATHTUB Model The applicability of the BATHTUB Model for simulating Florida lakes to determine downstream protective values is limited to only a few situations where the lake systems behave as the reservoirs used for developing the empirical relationships on which the model is based. The number of Florida lake systems that made up the population for the derived empirical relationships is extremely limited (1 COE reservoir and about 15 NEP Survey Lakes). Further, the lakes used fail to represent the variation in the total population of Florida lakes. For example, USEPA's National Eutrophication Survey, conducted in 1972-1973 sampled only Florida lakes with the following characteristics (Baker, et al., 1981):

1. Lakes impacted by one or more sewage outfalls within 40 km (25 miles); 2. Lakes having surface areas greater than 40 HA; and 3. Lakes with residence times > 30 days.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5544Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs As we have stated, a very large number of Florida lakes do not fit into this category, and the empirical relationships developed by the COE use an even smaller subset of these lakes, based on their limiting criteria. Thus only a small category of lakes with particular limnological characteristics are represented by the BATHTUB empirical relationships. We have commented on the lack of applicability of empirical relationships developed for non-Florida systems and their application to Florida criteria development. As stated previously, numerous Florida specific studies have time and again demonstrated that empirical relationships developed outside of the state do not capture the nutrient-chlorophyll relationship that is observed in Florida (Figure 1). Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Relationship between Phosphorus and Chlorophyll a in Canadian, North US and Florida Lakes (Hand, 1975). See original comment letter. The COE developed this model to manage their reservoirs, and the vast majority of the systems used for developing the empirical relationships embedded in the model were derived from these systems, which are located outside of Florida and in the Mississippi Valley (Walker, 1981). We have maintained that the empirical relationships among Canadian (Vollenweider Lakes), temperate US (EPA NES lakes and COE reservoirs) and Florida lakes is significantly different. This was also demonstrated in previous studies of Florida lakes, as we have indicated in previous comments to this proposed rule. To demonstrate the obvious limitations for BATHTUB's applicability to deriving lake nutrient criteria, SER simulated two Florida lake systems using BATHTUB. The first, Evers Reservoir (or Ward Lake), a eutrophic system located in Manatee County Florida, is a manmade reservoir (designed for drinking water supply) with direct tributary input (Braden River) and which is essentially devoid of macrophytes (Figure 2). The second system is Lake Conway Florida, a mesotrophic system in Orange County Florida, which is a series of fused doline lakes in central Florida which receives primarily stormwater [Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information which was removed from page] This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder. Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be made as follows: In person/writing: Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Fax: 202-566- 9744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov runoff and subsurface seepage and is dominated by large expanses of submersed aquatic plants covering 50% of the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5545Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs lake bottom (Figure 3). The results of the BATHTUB model runs are presented in Figures 4 through 7. Figure 4 presents the results of the BATHTUB run for Evers Reservoir, prior to using the auto calibration feature. The model shows good agreement with total nitrogen and chlorophyll a levels in the lake using default model parameters, but underestimates total phosphorus levels in the lake. Following the application of the calibration feature, which changes the model parameters to better simulate total phosphorus levels (Figure 5), the model results show very good agreement with the observed levels of TP, TN and chlorophyll a in the lake. It is not surprising that the model does a reasonable job in this reservoir system with little direct seepage and very sparse macrophyte populations. The initial errors in the empirical model (base before calibration) can be tweaked to derive a decent simulation, because the confounding factors of seepage and large expanses of macrophytes do not exist within this system. The BATHTUB model was next applied to the Lake Conway System in a similar manner. The initial model runs prior to calibration showed good measurements for total nitrogen, possibly indicating a decent hydrologic calibration (Figure 6). However, predicted levels of total phosphorus, chlorophyll a and Secchi disk transparencies were well outside error bounds, indicating a poor simulation for these parameters. The model was also subjected to the autocalibration feature to calibrate the model for phosphorus. The resulting simulation showed good agreement for phosphorus and nitrogen following autocalibration (Figure 7). However, both chlorophyll a and Secchi disk transparency, while somewhat improved, predicted significantly higher (2-4 times) levels of chlorophyll a observed in the various pools of the lake and significantly under predicted Secchi disk transparency levels. If this was applied to develop downstream total phosphorus nutrient criteria for Lake Conway, the results would be grossly Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. BATHTUB Model run for the Evers Reservoir, Manatee County, FL before autocalibration. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. BATHTUB Model run for the Evers Reservoir, Manatee County FL, following autocalibration. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. BATHTUB Model run for Lake Conway FL prior to autocalibration. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 7. BATHTUB Model run for Lake Conway, Orange County FL following autocalibration. See original comment letter. inaccurate and not representative of the relationship for total phosphorus and chlorophyll a in this system. The reasons for the model not performing as well for Lake Conway are the same reasons pointed out in our previous comments for the Vollenweider model and for that matter any empirical model that attempts to model Florida lakes which are hydrologically isolated and / or dominated by macrophytes or wetlands. Lake Conway has a large portion of its hydrologic inputs derived from seepage (interflow) waters which must be accounted for explicitly using deterministic models. It could be artificially forced in BATHTUB by adding another "tributary" term, but at this point the exercise becomes counterproductive. EPA is looking for a "quick and dirty" approach to apply to limited data sets. To make BATHTUB work for a system for which it is not designed, the model has to be manipulated to a point where it is not longer reflective of real world conditions. This makes BATHTUB an unsuitable model.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5546Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs 

# Response

Comment IDs: 2447-1.001.004 Response: The BATHTUB model is intended to assure attainment of chl-a, TN, and TP criteria. Each criterion must be met independently. If there are cases in which the model formulation is not appropriate to the prediction of chl-a concentrations, then BATHTUB can be used to predict attainment of the TN and TP criteria.

Comment IDs: 2452-1.001.006 Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.

Comment IDs: 2457-2.001.004, 2457-2.001.006, 2462-1.001.007, 2471-1.001.004, 2471-1.001.006, 2472-1.001.004, 2472­ 1.001.006, 2473-1.001.004, 2473-1.001.006, 2474-1.001.004, 2474-1.001.006, 2479-1.001.010, 2479-1.001.012, 2494-1.001.006 Response: Various comments note the need for data to set up, calibrate, and validate BATHTUB or WASP model applications, and note that such data are often lacking for Florida lakes. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule and as provided in EPA's final rule, if data are insufficient to apply a model, there are alternative ways to establish a DPV for a stream upstream of a lake. It is EPA’s opinion that BATHTUB applications, even with very limited data, are useful in setting DPVs. When BATHTUB is applied with limited calibration data, it is true that levels of uncertainty will increase. In such cases it would be appropriate to adopt conservative assumptions of reasonable minimum sedimentation rates to ensure a protective outcome. Uncertainty in determining appropriate DPVs can be resolved only by collecting additional data and applying more sophisticated modeling tools. It is for this reason that the Agency’s Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (SNODA) requested comment on and final rule allows the use of the WASP model (or, potentially, other alternative models) to resolve the uncertainty in BATHTUB predictions. Such efforts to obtain a more precise answer may require additional effort and resources for development as noted in the comments.

Comment IDs: 2494-1.001.006, 2502-1.001.006 Response: Several commenters noted that “the time and effort required to develop models for each lake would be prohibitive.” EPA disagrees in general, as BATHTUB applications can be developed quickly and efficiently once the data are assembled. Further, it is not necessary to actually develop a model for every lake. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule and as provided in EPA's final rule, if data are insufficient to apply a model, there are alternative ways to establish a DPV for a stream upstream of a lake.

Comment IDs: 2487-1.001.007, 2496-1.001.006

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5547Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Response: In response to the comment that states, “It appears...that [BATHTUB] does not take into account groundwater interaction and its influence on lakes.” EPA would note that the key representation of hydrology in BATHTUB is the residence time, which depends on storage volume and inflow/outflow rates. Where direct information on groundwater exchanges is available this may be readily incorporated into the BATHTUB hydrologic mass balance framework

Comment IDs: 2467-1.001.006, 2467-1.001.012, 2462-1.001.011, 2462-1.001.007 Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting the approaches for calculating DPVs, as exemplified by BATHTUB, WASP and other potential approaches.

Comment IDs: 2466-2.001.006, 2493-1.001.009, 2496-1.001.006, 2490-1.001.007, 2487-1.001.007, 2467-1.001.006, 2467­ 1.001.012, 2462-1.001.011 Response: EPA agrees that the BATHTUB and WASP modeling approaches in its final rule are intended to take into account more lake-specific information. As such, EPA agrees that the models should be calibrated with site-specific data.

Comment IDs: 2463-1.001.007, 2486-1.001.011, 498-2.001.003, 2498-2.001.016, 2498-2.001.006 Response: The DPVs calculated by the model approach will be the DPV at the pour point (the point at which an inflowing stream enters a lake). Nutrient loads in the upstream watershed can be allocated based on the specific characteristics of a watershed and sources in that watershed. EPA is not prescribing specific calibration and application procedures for these models because the models should be based on conditions and data available, and the process of calculating DPVs should be open to the use of other, perhaps better, scientifically defensible methods. EPA and FDEP have adequate expertise available, and experience with, calibrating and running models such as BATHTUB and WASP. Oversight of DPV calculations will be administered by FDEP and/or EPA, depending on which entity calculates the DPV, and not by other entities. With respect to stakeholder involvement, other than the public involvement on this rulemaking, it will be limited to the State and EPA maintaining a record of DPVs derived based on the methods described in the final rule, as well as a record supporting their derivation, and making such records available to the public.

Comment IDs: 2467-1.001.006, 2467-1.001.012 Response: Oversight of DPV calculations will be administered by FDEP and/or EPA, depending on which entity calculates the DPV, and not by other entities. With respect to stakeholder involvement, other than the public involvement on this rulemaking, it will be limited to the State and EPA maintaining a record of DPVs derived based on the methods described in the final rule, as well as a record supporting their derivation, and making such records available to the public.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5548Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Comment IDs: 2475-1.001.005, 2497-1.001.004 Response: EPA agrees that other approaches and models may be appropriate and scientifically defensible for developing DPVs. WASP is one such approach that allows for more site-specific information and calibration than BATHTUB.

Comment IDs: 2476-1.001.008 Response: EPA believes BATHTUB takes into account more lake-specific characteristics than the approach described at proposed rule, i.e., Vollenweider. For example, BATHTUB can predict TN, TP, and chl-a, whereas Vollenweider was only capable of predicting TP. EPA has described the BATHTUB approach in its final rule TSD and refers the commenter to it (and references to BATHTUB therein) for more information.

Comment IDs: 2480-2.001.006 Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting the approaches for calculating DPVs, as exemplified by BATHTUB, WASP and other potential approaches. The annual geometric mean with FDEP’s existing minimum sample and distribution requirements (minimum 4 samples distributed over both warm and cool seasons) adequately accounts for seasonal differences and variability.

Comment IDs: 2489-1.001.004, 2482-1.001.007, 2482.001.005 Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting the approaches for calculating DPVs, as exemplified by BATHTUB, WASP and other potential approaches.

Comment IDs: 2488-1.001.009 Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that numeric nutrient criteria should not independently apply. EPA believes that independent application of TN, TP, and chl-a criteria is consistent with EPA’s Clean Water Act implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1), which states: “States must adopt those water quality criteria that protect the designated use. Such criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.” EPA interprets “sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use” in this context as the independent application of TN, TP, and chl-a criteria, which individually as well as collectively provide for the protection of Florida’s designated uses. EPA also disagrees that reclaimed lakes from phosphorus mine pits be considered separately. FDEP’s current designated use

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5549Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
classification system does not distinguish the lakes the commenter refers to, and thus EPA has no basis for considering them separately from other lakes in the State. EPA points out to the commenter that the lakes of interest to the commenter can be considered for site-specific criteria under the provisions provided in final rule or provided elsewhere by the State.

Comment IDs: 2488-1.001.009, 2496-1.001.006, 2496-1.001.010, 2498-2.001.006, 2498-2.001.016, 2502-1.001.006, 2503­ 1.001.024 Response: Several comments questioned the applicability of BATHTUB to shallow, natural Florida lakes, given that it was developed from a data set primarily consisting of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoirs outside of Florida. While it is true that the model was developed on data mostly from outside of Florida, the general principles of mass balance, net sedimentation, and nutrient response still apply. The applicability of BATHTUB to Florida lakes has been shown through the completion of numerous nutrient TMDLs in the State (e.g., Jesup, Alachua, Spring, Florida, Orienta, Adalaide, Lawne, Silver, Bay, and Wauberg, among others). EPA notes that most of the literature references cited by one commenter in an effort to discredit use of BATHTUB are from the Midwest and themselves of uncertain applicability to Florida. Lengthy comments provided by FDEP described their experience with BATHTUB in considerable detail and raised questions as to how and when BATHTUB should and should not be used to create the DPV. While EPA appreciates FDEP’s experience and concern, it is EPA’s opinion that the limitations and restrictions proposed for the use of BATHTUB to create DPVs are too stringent. FDEP has effectively laid out the conditions under which BATHTUB can be used as a credible tool to develop a defensible Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrient loading to a lake. For initial scoping of DPVs, BATHTUB can be applied with less data and higher levels of uncertainty to estimate the amount by which DPVs may be allowed to vary above inlake criteria. In such cases it would be appropriate to adopt conservative assumptions of reasonable minimum sedimentation rates to ensure a protective outcome. Where higher levels of accuracy are required, BATHTUB (or another appropriate model) should be applied consistent with FDEP’s recommendations to develop refined, site-specific DPVs.

Comment IDs: 2466-2.001.006, 2488-1.001.009, 2490-1.001.007, 2493-1.001.009, 2497-1.001.004, 2498-2.001.006 Response: EPA’s regulatory duty is to ensure the maintenance and protection of downstream water quality standards, and applying the DPVs throughout the watershed is a conservative, protective approach in the absence of further watershed modeling. However, EPA’s final rule specifies that the modeled DPVs are applicable at the point of entry, i.e., pour point, into the lake. See the preamble to the final rule and final rule provision on DPVs. EPA notes that watershed modeling to predict attenuation of nutrients could be a viable, defensible alternative approach.

Comment IDs: 2492-1.001.005, 2494-1.001.006 Response: EPA agrees that the modeling approaches create nutrient budgets in the same way they do for TMDLs. But in the present context the DPV models create the nutrient budgets before the lake is impaired (pursuant to the Clean Water Act section 303(d) and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 130.7) so as to prevent impairment, and thus the need for development of a TMDL.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5550Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
The advantage of doing the modeling 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 permits must be prepared, or later when the water is found to be impaired and in need of a TMDL.”

References: Grumbles, B.H. 2007. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards. May 25, 2007.

Comment IDs: 2503-1.001.017, 2503-1.001.014, 2497-1.001.004 Response: EPA 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-disturbed” or natural conditions. Such assertions must assume that EPA’s stream criteria approach was based on identifying “minimally-disturbed” or natural stream references sites. EPA does not conclude that such assumptions have been met (see final rule TSD) and thus cannot conclude that its stream criteria, as described in final rule, reflect “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions. EPA found no evidence that “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions existed in the reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found that there were numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions non-existent. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. Beyond the corridor LDI approach (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds using watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were actually listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment.

U.S. EPA 2007. Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by the EPA Science Advisory Board. U.S. 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5551Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Comment IDs: 2497-1.001.004 Response: From the preamble, the definition of a lake in this rulemaking is: ‘Lake’ means a slow-moving or standing body of fresh water that occupies an inland basin that is not a stream, spring, or wetland.”

Comment IDs: 2488-1.001.009, 2498-2.001.016, 2503-1.001.024 Response: EPA disagrees with comments that suggest that BATHTUB is inappropriate for lakes dominated by macrophytes. EPA notes that macrophyte dominance can weaken the relationship between planktonic chl- a concentration and total nutrient concentrations; however, this factor does not preclude the model from empirically relating TP to chl-a. EPA also notes that BATHTUB predicts TN, TP, and chl-a concentrations, and that inlake criteria for each of these measures need to be met independently. Further, the inlake chl-a criteria are consistent with the inlake TN and TP criteria in the absence of macrophyte dominance. Thus, BATHTUB can be used to assess DPVs consistent with meeting TN and TP criteria even in systems where the nutrient cycling is predominantly governed by macrophytes rather than planktonic algae.

Comment IDs: 2499-1.001.004 Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting the approaches for calculating DPVs, as exemplified by BATHTUB, WASP and other potential approaches.

Comment IDs: 2494-1.001.006, 2502-1.001.006, 2503-1.001.014, 2503-1.001.017 Response: EPA disagrees with comments that DPVs are not legally supported 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). EPA has insisted that downstream water protection be ensured as described in the Agency’s proposed rule and SNODA, pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Clean Water Act at 40 CFR 131.10(b), which stipulate: “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." Furthermore, 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. See TSD and final rule preamble.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5552Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Comment IDs: 2494-1.001.006, 2496-1.001.006, 2498-2.001.016, 2502-1.001.006, 2503-1.001.024 Response: One comment noted that, in BATHTUB, “internal sediment release of nutrients is treated strictly as a forcing function, without any feedback to the calculation of incoming nutrient loads...”. EPA recognizes that the reduction of external loads may eventually result in a reduction of sediment recycle rates. However, this adjustment may take a decade or more to approach equilibrium in eutrophic lakes. Given the slow response, it is appropriate to calculate DPVs with BATHTUB without accounting for eventual changes in sediment nutrient flux. It may, however, be appropriate to recalibrate the model and derive new DPVs in subsequent assessment periods. FDEP’s comments discuss in detail conditions under which internal recycling (or atmospheric deposition) of nutrients may exceed the range covered by the empirical formulation in BATHTUB and the pros and cons of specifying an additional explicit flux. EPA appreciates those comments and agrees that they should be followed in cases where sufficient amounts of information are available. EPA agrees that data and calculated fluxes for all models can be verified as part of the calibration process.

Comment IDs: 2488-1.001.009� Response: EPA disagrees with comments that assert that BATHTUB and WASP have not been peer reviewed. BATHTUB and WASP are well-known and well-cited in the water quality modeling literature. EPA refers the commenter to the following list of peer-reviewed journal articles related to BATHTUB and WASP:

BATHTUB citations: Baniukiewicz, A., and D. Gilbert. 2004. Nutrient TMDL for Lake Hunter. Florida Dept of Environmental Protection, Southwest District. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl Gao, X., 2006. Nutrient and Unionized Ammonia TMDLs for Lake Jesup, WBIDs 2981 and 2981A. Florida Dept of Environmental Protection, Central District, Middle St. Johns Basin. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl Gao, X., and D. Gilbert. 2003. Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load for Orange Lake, Alachua County, Florida. Watershed Assessment Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3555 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl Gao, X., and D. Gilbert. 2006. Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load For Trout Lake, Lake County, Florida. Watershed Assessment Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3555 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl James, W.F., J.W. Barko, H.L. Eakin, and P.W. Sorge. 2002. Phosphorus budget and management strategies for an urban Wisconsin lake. Lake and Reservoir Management 18(2): 149-163. James, W.F., A. Dechamps, N. Turyk, and P. McGinley. 2007. Contribution of Potamogeton crispus Decay to the Phosphorus Budget of McGinnis Lake, Wisconsin. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199. ERDC/TN APCRP-EA-15. Shelley, Z., D. Gilbert, K. Petrus. 2005. Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrient TMDLs for Lake Hancock and Lower Saddle Creek (WBID 1623L & 1623K). Florida Department Of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5553Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
Watershed Management, Southwest District, Lake Hancock Basin, Peace River Planning Unit. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl Mankin, K.R., S. H. Wang, J. K. Koelliker, D. G. Huggins, and F. de Noyelles. 2003. Watershed-lake water quality modeling: Verification and application. J. Soil and Water Conservation 58(4): 188-197. Muhammetoglu, A., H. Muhammetoglu, S. Oktas, L. Ozgokcen and S. Soyupak. 2005. Impact Assessment of Different Management Scenarios on Water Quality of Porsuk River and Dam System – Turkey. Water Resources Management (2005) 19: 199–210. Robertson D.M., and W. J. Rose. 2008. Water Quality, Hydrology, and Simulated Response to Changes in Phosphorus Loading of Butternut Lake, Price and Ashland Counties, Wisconsin, with Special Emphasis on the Effects of Internal Phosphorus Loading in a Polymictic Lake. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5053. http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Smltzer, E. and S. Quinn. 1996. A phosphorus budget, model, and load reduction strategy for Lake Champlain. Lake and Reservoir Management. 12(3): 381-393 Wang, S.H., D.G. Huggins, L. Frees, C.G. Volkman, N.C. Lim, D.S. Baker, V. Smith and F. Denoyelles, Jr.. 2005. An integrated modeling approach to total watershed management: Water quality and watershed assessment of Cheney reservoir, Kansas, USA. Water Air Soil Poll. XX(y): 1-19. Yoko, S., R. Axler, M. McDonald and D. Wilcox. 1997. Recovery of a mine pit lake from aquacultural phosphorus enrichment: model predictions and mechanisms. Ecological Engineering 8(3): 195-218.

WASP citations: James, R.T., J. Martin, T. Wool, and P. F. Wang. 1997. A sediment resuspension and water quality model of Lake Okeechobee. J. American Water Resources Association. 33(3): 661-680. James, R.T., V.J. Bierman, M.J. Erickson, and S.C. Hinz. 2005. The Lake Okeechobee water quality model (LOWQM) enhancements, calibration, validation and analysis. Lake and Reservoir Management 21(3): 231-260. Kiesling, R.L., A.M.S. McFarland, and L.M. Hauck. 2001. Nutrient Targets for Lake Waco and North Bosque River: Developing Ecosystem Restoration Criteria. Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas. Pauer, J.J., K.W. Taunt, W. Melendez, R.G. Kreis, Jr., and A.M. Anstead. 2007. Resurrection of the Lake Michigan Eutrophication Model, MICH1. J. Great Lakes Res. 33:554–565. Petrus, K.. 2007. TMDL Report. Nutrient TMDL for the Winter Haven Southern Chain of Lakes (WBIDs 1521, 1521D, 1521E, 1521F, 1521G, 1521H, 1521J, 1521K). Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of Watershed Management, Southwest District • Sarasota Bay–Peace–Myakka Basins Reckhow, K.H. 1999. Water quality prediction and probability network models. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56(7): 1150–1158 Stansbury, J., and D.M. Admiraal 2004. Modeling to evaluate macrophyte induced impacts to dissolved oxygen in a tailwater reservoir. J. American Water Resources Association. 40(6): 1483–1497. Steinman, A.D., and B.H. Rosen. 2000. Lotic-lentic linkages associated with Lake Okeechobee, Florida. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19(4): 733-741. 

# SNODA.IV.B - AUTHORIZING FDEP TO USE OTHER APPROPRIATE MODELS Comment ID 2455-1.001.003

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5554Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Government, Florida Section III.B. Downstream Protection of Lakes (Federal Register Vol 75, No. 148. Pg 45582) Manatee County concurs with the comments received by the EPA that the Vollenweider equation is overly simplistic to represent all Florida lakes. Rather than recommend the use of another model, we reiterate the position stated in our April 27, 2010 letter: Manatee County has concerns with the proposed process of establishing DPVs using an assumption that the downstream water body is at, or exceeding, its assimilative capacity for nutrients. We maintain that if the downstream lake or estuary is meeting its designated use, it can be concluded that the loads from the streams and rivers are protective of the downstream receiving water body. Conversely stated, if appropriate IPVs are established for streams and rivers, there should be no need for the development of DPVs. 

# Comment ID 2461.001.004

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport 3. Item 3 - Downstream Protection Values DPVs For the derivation of DPVs, the EPA proposed alternative "(b) Allowing FDEP or EPA to use alternative models when adequate data is available" is reasonable. 

# Comment ID 2466-2.001.007

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Any approach to development of appropriate stream DPVs for the protection of downstream lakes will suffer from being either scientifically indefensible if too general or simplistic [1] or too resource intensive if stream DPVs are developed for the various reaches of all streams with downstream lakes. While numerical models exist that can reasonably produce these values once sufficient field data are collected and the model is properly calibrated, it does not seem reasonable to model the entire stream drainage for every stream with a downstream receiving lake. If EPA has developed IPVs for stream segments, these should necessarily be protective of natural receiving lakes in those same regions. Downstream lakes would be expected to have developed a balanced ecosystem reflective of the natural levels of nutrients that have been received over the long term. EPA has not demonstrated a case where the IPVs are not protective of the downstream lakes. Using IPVs that are appropriate to each stream should both be protective of downstream lakes and provide a more simplified and durable standard. [1] This is true for several reasons including stream and lake differences around the state, lakes naturally span the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5555Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVsbroad range of trophic states from hyper-oligotrophic to hyper-eutrophic, and the biological response to nutrients is lakespecific and differs over various seasonal and other cyclical temporal periods. 

# Comment ID 2480-2.001.007

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. (b) Allowing FDEP or EPA to use alternative models when adequate data are available ­ BATHTUB is a generalized model, although it does contain various regression equations that are based on a wide range of lakes and reservoirs (Borah et al. 2006). Where well-documented, site-specific data with appropriate quality control/assurance are available and models have been developed, I recommend that those data and models should be used instead of the general equation with preset values. 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.008

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District
7. SWFWMD supports allowing the use of alternative models to derive both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes. Specific provisions to allow alternative robust models such as WASP should be allowed for complex situations where the assumptions of the BATHTUB model are violated. When lakes are not well-mixed, there may be differences in water quality between the epilimnion and hypolimnion during certain times of the year. Also, if lakes are shallow and have a long fetch, then wind resuspension of sediments can occur during portions of the year. In some lakes in Florida, (e.g., Lake Thonotosassa), nutrient and chlorophyll relationships appear to be quite complex and it is questionable whether the BATHTUB model is capable of predicting nutrient downstream protective values (Harper 2010). The empirical relationships used in the BATHTUB model may be outside of the range of concentrations commonly experienced in hypereutrophic lakes. In these circumstances, which are common in Florida lakes, it would be necessary to use a 2-dimensional model such as WASP to calculate separate epilimnion and hypolimnion characteristics. 

# Comment ID 2482.001.006

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District

- The District supports the use of alternative models, such as WASP, for the development of lake downstream protective values when appropriate data are available.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5556Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs 

# Comment ID 2483-1.001.005

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee If a stream and lake is verified impaired using the proposed standards, then the FDEP's TMDL program would the appropriate venue by which more site-specific data gathering and statistical modeling is conducted to assess the allowable concentrations and loadings that would support the lake criteria. As communities assess their needs for limited financial resources such as fire, police, schools and roads, we suggest eliminating the derivation of a DPV, which is a duplicative effort with regard to the TMDL program and allow the stakeholders to direct the monies to be more effectively applied toward the goal of improving water quality. 

# Comment ID 2487-1.001.008

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Additionally, regardless of which model is used, the EPA has still not addressed or has chosen to ignore the naturally occurring nitrogen which forms upstream in headwaters and wetlands, ultimately finding its way downstream into lakes. 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.010

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc. The August 3, 2010 proposal includes a number of specific requests for comment on lake issues. As discussed above, PotashCorp's general comment that the proposed approach is not scientifically defensible applies to each of these comment requests. Specific comments on EPA's request are provided below:

- EPA is considering rule language that would specifically authorize FDEP or EPA to use a model other than BATHTUB when either determines it would be appropriate to use another scientifically defensible technical model or approach that demonstrates protection of downstream lakes. PotashCorp supports this approach. 

# Comment ID 2489-1.001.005

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg b) Allowing FDEP or EPA to use alternative models when adequate data are available, and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5557Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Response: It is the opinion of the City that any model proposed for use should be presented to the public for review and comment prior to relying on the model for rule development. 

# Comment ID 2490-1.001.008

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation Any approach to development of appropriate stream DPVs for the protection of downstream lakes will suffer from being either scientifically indefensible if too general or simplistic[1] or too resource intensive if stream DPVs are developed for the various reaches of all streams with downstream lakes. While numerical models exist that can reasonably produce these values once sufficient field data are collected and the model is properly calibrated, it does not seem reasonable to model the entire stream drainage for every stream with a downstream receiving lake. The approach that EPA used to produce the proposed nutrient IPVs (regional annual mean concentrations from biological healthy and essentially unimpacted systems) and then reducing those values to the 75th percentile should necessarily be protective of natural receiving lakes in those same regions. Downstream lakes would be expected to have developed a balanced ecosystem reflective of the natural levels of nutrients that have been received over the long term. EPA has not demonstrated a case where the IPVs are not protective of the downstream lakes. Using IPVs that are appropriate to each stream should both be protective of downstream lakes and provide a more simplified and durable standard. [1] This is true for several reasons including stream and lake differences around the state, lakes naturally span thebroad range of trophic states from hyper-oligotrophic to hyper-eutrophic, and the biological response to nutrients is lakespecific and differs over various seasonal and other cyclical temporal periods. 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.010

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Any approach to development of appropriate stream DPVs for the protection of downstream lakes will suffer from being either scientifically indefensible if too general or simplistic [1] or too resource intensive if stream DPVs are developed for the various reaches of all streams with downstream lakes. While numerical models exist that can reasonably produce these values once sufficient field data are collected and the model is properly calibrated, it does not seem reasonable to model the entire stream drainage for every stream with a downstream receiving lake. The approach that EPA used to produce the proposed nutrient IPVs (regional annual mean concentrations from biological healthy and essentially unimpacted systems) and then reducing those values to the 75th percentile should necessarily be protective of natural receiving lakes in those same regions. Downstream lakes would be expected to have developed a balanced ecosystem reflective of the natural levels of nutrients that have been received over the long term. EPA has not demonstrated a case where the IPVs are not protective of the downstream lakes. Using IPVs that are appropriate to each stream should

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5558Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs both be protective of downstream lakes and provide a more simplified and durable standard. [1] This is true for several reasons including stream and lake differences around the state, lakes naturally span thebroad range of trophic states from hyper-oligotrophic to hyper-eutrophic, and the biological response to nutrients is lakespecific and differs over various seasonal and other cyclical temporal periods. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.007

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division b) Allowing FDEP or EPA to use alternative models when adequate data are available Response: Allowing FDEP or EPA to use alternative models without consensus from the local stakeholders or adequate peer review is not an acceptable solution. Past and current model propositions by EPA staff have been less than satisfactory and there needs to be a system of check and balances in place to allow local stakeholders to examine what models will be used to establish Numeric Nutrient Criteria.


# Response
Comment IDs: 2455-1.001.003, 2466-2.001.007, 2490-1.001.008, 2493-1.001.010. Response: EPA 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-disturbed” or natural conditions. Such assertions must assume that EPA’s stream criteria approach was based on identifying “minimally-disturbed” or natural stream references sites. EPA does not conclude that such assumptions have been met (see final rule TSD) and thus cannot conclude that its stream criteria, as described in the final rule, reflect “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions. EPA found no evidence that “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions existed in the reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found that there were numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. Beyond the corridor LDI approach (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds using watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were actually listed on the CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment.

Comment IDs: 2461.001.004, 2480-2.001.007, 2482-1.001.008, 2482.001.006, 2488-1.001.010 Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting the approaches for calculating DPVs, as exemplified by BATHTUB, WASP and other potential approaches.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5559Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Comment IDs: 2483-1.001.005 Response: EPA agrees that the modeling approaches create nutrient budgets in the same way they do for TMDLs. But in the present context the DPV models create the nutrient budgets before the lake is impaired (pursuant to Clean Water Act section 303(d) and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 130.7) so as to prevent impairment, and thus the need for development of a TMDL. The advantage of doing the modeling 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 permits must be prepared, or later when the water is found to be impaired and in need of a TMDL.”

References: Grumbles, B.H. 2007. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards. May 25, 2007.

Comment IDs: 2487-1.001.008 Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA has ignored naturally occurring nitrogen. Naturally occurring nitrogen is measured in all ambient monitoring, and was therefore included in all data analysis by EPA to develop criteria.

Comment IDs: 2496-1.001.007, 2489-1.001.005 Response: Oversight of DPV calculations will be administered by FDEP and/or EPA, depending on which entity calculates the DPV, and not by other entities. With respect to stakeholder involvement, other than the public involvement on this rulemaking, it will be limited to the State and EPA maintaining a record of DPVs derived based on the methods described in the final rule, as well as a record supporting their derivation, and making such records available to the public. 

# SNODA.IV.C - COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO WASP Comment ID 2457-2.001.005

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5560Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa The WASP model is a time-dependent modeling program containing an eutrophication model which includes both the water column and underlying benthos, and can be used for one-, two-, or three-dimensional systems. The model incorporates time-dependent advection, dispersion, mass loading, and boundary exchanges. The model can be linked with hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. The model simulates time-dependent concentrations of DO, CBOD, ammonia, nitrate, organic nitrogen, orthophosphate, organic phosphorus, algae, benthic algae, and detritus, and includes a sediment diagenesis module. 

# Comment ID 2463-1.001.008

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation Other alternative models suggested by the US-EPA is the WASP model or even applying the lake criteria for upstream water. The assumptions and the conditions under which a specific model is to be used should be explicitly clarified in the EPA's document to help make the results less ambiguous. 

# Comment ID 2471-1.001.005

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City The WASP model is a time-dependent modeling program containing an eutrophication model which includes both the water column and underlying benthos, and can be used for one-, two-, or three-dimensional systems. The model incorporates time-dependent advection, dispersion, mass loading, and boundary exchanges. The model can be linked with hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. The model simulates time-dependent concentrations of DO, CBOD, ammonia, nitrate, organic nitrogen, orthophosphate, organic phosphorus, algae, benthic algae, and detritus, and includes a sediment diagenesis module. 

# Comment ID 2472-1.001.005

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County The WASP model is a time-dependent modeling program containing an eutrophication model which includes both the water column and underlying benthos, and can be used for one-, two-, or three-dimensional systems. The model incorporates time-dependent advection, dispersion, mass loading, and boundary exchanges. The model can be linked

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5561Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs with hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. The model simulates time-dependent concentrations of DO, CBOD, ammonia, nitrate, organic nitrogen, orthophosphate, organic phosphorus, algae, benthic algae, and detritus, and includes a sediment diagenesis module. 

# Comment ID 2473-1.001.005

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa The WASP model is a time-dependent modeling program containing an eutrophication model which includes both the water column and underlying benthos, and can be used for one-, two-, or three-dimensional systems. The model incorporates time-dependent advection, dispersion, mass loading, and boundary exchanges. The model can be linked with hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. The model simulates time-dependent concentrations of DO, CBOD, ammonia, nitrate, organic nitrogen, orthophosphate, organic phosphorus, algae, benthic algae, and detritus, and includes a sediment diagenesis module. 

# Comment ID 2474-1.001.005

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville The WASP model is a time-dependent modeling program containing an eutrophication model which includes both the water column and underlying benthos, and can be used for one-, two-, or three-dimensional systems. The model incorporates time-dependent advection, dispersion, mass loading, and boundary exchanges. The model can be linked with hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. The model simulates time-dependent concentrations of DO, CBOD, ammonia, nitrate, organic nitrogen, orthophosphate, organic phosphorus, algae, benthic algae, and detritus, and includes a sediment diagenesis module. 

# Comment ID 2479-1.001.011

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission The WASP model is a time-dependent modeling program containing an eutrophication model which includes both the water column and underlying benthos, and can be used for one-, two-, or three-dimensional systems. The model incorporates time-dependent advection, dispersion, mass loading, and boundary exchanges. The model can be linked with hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. The model simulates time-dependent concentrations of DO, CBOD, ammonia, nitrate, organic nitrogen, orthophosphate, organic phosphorus, algae, benthic algae, and detritus, and includes a sediment diagenesis module.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5562Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.009

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District WASP is an extremely robust and data intensive model that is capable of conducting time series analyses with shorter time step intervals than BATHTUB (hourly, daily, etc.). WASP is more suited for use in complex lakes and can handle excessive nutrient concentrations in hypereutrophic lakes that would be inappropriate for use of BATHTUB. 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2457-2.001.005, 2471-1.001.005, 2472-1.001.005, 2473-1.001.005, 2474-1.001.005, 2479-1.001.011 Response: No response necessary to descriptions of the WASP model provided in comment.

Comment ID: 2463-1.001.008 Response: The DPVs calculated by the model approach will be the instream criteria for tributary streams for the given lake for which the model was calibrated and calculated. EPA is not prescribing specific calibration and application procedures for these models because the models should be based on conditions and data available, and the process of calculating DPVs should be open to the use of other, perhaps better, scientifically defensible methods. EPA and FDEP have adequate expertise available, and experience with, calibrating and running models such as BATHTUB and WASP. Oversight of DPV calculations will be administered by FDEP and/or EPA, depending on which entity calculates the DPV, and not by other entities. With respect to stakeholder involvement, other than the public involvement on this rulemaking, it will be limited to the State and EPA maintaining a record of DPVs derived based on the methods described in the final rule, as well as a record supporting their derivation, and making such records available to the public.

Comment ID: 2482-1.001.009 Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting the WASP model for use in ensuring downstream protection of lakes. 

# SNODA.IV.D - PROVISIONS FOR NOT READILY AVAILABLE DATA Comment ID 2462-1.001.008

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5563Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

C. Related Criteria Development Process Comments In developing DPVs for lakes (or estuaries), consideration needs to be given to where the DPVs should be applied (i.e., at tributary entrance to downstream water body or throughout the upstream tributary reach), whether there are upstream nutrient-related impacts in the tributary, and that the downstream DPVs be based on nutrient effects. For example, a recent draft document prepared by the FDEP on the Escambia/Pensacola Bay System [3] concluded that "maintaining current nutrient conditions is the appropriate strategy for numeric nutrient criteria development in Pensacola Bay". This conclusion was also supported from results presented in an EPA report [4] that stated water quality criteria for nutrients and nutrient-related water quality measures for Pensacola Bay "could be based reasonably on currently observed conditions because evidence that more stringent criteria are scientifically defensible, necessary, or even achievable, is lacking". Given the conclusions that existing conditions in the downstream water body (i.e., Escambia/Pensacola Bay) should be maintained and that nutrient-related impairments are not observed in theEscambia River upstream of the bay system, these more holistic, watershed based conclusions regarding nutrientrelated impairments should be the driving factors in setting river nutrient criteria since they will ultimately protect the downstream receiving water body. This same approach should be used when setting DPVs for the downstream lakes. That is, DPVs for lakes should be based on nutrient-related impairments in the lake with nutrient concentrations or loads set at the entrance to the lake coupled with an assessment of whether nutrient-related impairments are present in the upstream tributaries to the lake. This approach may result in more or less stringent nutrient criteria in the upstream tributaries depending on whether the lake or river nutrient-related impairments control. In this manner, water quality can be effectively protected. Given the site-specific nature of nutrient-related impairments, we also support the use of EPA approved TMDLs in establishing site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) for nutrients. This provides a much more robust method for setting nutrient criteria that capitalizes on existing site-specific information that links nutrient loads to nutrient-related effects and a process that has undergone extensive development along with a thorough review process with FDEP and EPA.

[3] FDEP, 2010. Site-Specific Information in Support of Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Pensacola Bay. Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Standards and Assessment Section. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. August 2010. [4] Hagy, J.D., et aI., 2008. An Approach for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for a Gulf Coast Estuary. USEPA Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division. EPA-600/R-08/2004. January, 2008.



# Comment ID 2462-1.001.012

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority
7. DPVs for lakes should be based on nutrient-related impairments in the lake with nutrient concentrations or loads

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5564Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs set at the entrance to the lake coupled with an assessment of whether nutrient-related impairments are present in the upstream tributaries to the lake. This approach may result in more or less stringent nutrient criteria in the upstream tributaries depending on whether the lake or river nutrient-related impairments control. In this manner, water quality can be effectively protected. 

# Comment ID 2463-1.001.009

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation It is also worth noticing that the P geometric mean of 110 ppb (as set in the proposed revised EPA rule) in the streams tributaries of Lake Okeechobee is not low enough to enable reaching the TMDL for the lake by January 1, 2015, set at 40 ppb for the inflowing waters. The application of an adequate model to specify a downstream protection value for TP and TN to protect Lake Okeechobee is absolutely necessary and of critical importance. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.007

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

• It is unclear how EPA intends to incorporate instream nutrient transformation and/or loss processes that may occur between points upstream and the downstream lakes of concern in the establishment of downstream protection values (DPVs). 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.013

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Comment #6: It is unclear how EPA intends to incorporate instream nutrient transformation and/or loss processes that may occur between points upstream and the downstream lakes of concern in the establishment of downstream protection values (DPVs). The establishment of DPVs should include not only an accounting of the fate/transformation processes of nutrients in lakes or reservoirs (for example, through use of the BATHTUB model) but also in the stream as water flows from upstream locations. Nutrients that enter a stream in various forms may undergo a number of processes by which they may be incorporated into the aquatic ecosystem, lost to the atmosphere, etc. These processes can reduce and/or modify the timing of nutrient loading and bioavailability to downstream waters. It is unclear how EPA intends to account for site-specific factors in estimating the fate of nutrients between the point of entry to a stream and a downstream water body of concern. EPA should address this aspect of the derivation of DPVs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5565Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5566Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs 

# Comment ID 2480-2.001.008

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. (c) Where insufficient data are available for modeling, applying the lake criteria as the criteria for upstream waters.
U.S. EPA has suggested an alternative approach to protect data-poor lakes by using "the lake criteria themselves as criteria for upstream waters flowing into the lake" (Federal Register, August 3, 2010, Volume 75, Number 148, pp. 45579-45583). Lakes are generally more sensitive to nutrient enrichment than rivers (Wetzel 2001), therefore, where insufficient data are available for modeling for a lake, it would seem protective for the lake to apply the lake numeric nutrient criteria as the criteria for rivers draining into the lake. 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.010

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 8. SWFWMD does not support the use of lake criteria values for TN and TP as the downstream protection values if data are not readily available to derive a TN or TP downstream protection value using BATHTUB or another scientifically defensible model. This approach may result in the application of inappropriately stringent criteria in streams entering a lake than would be calculated using BATHTUB or another scientifically defensible model if site-specific data were available. USEPA should use site-specific information to develop downstream protective values. 

# Comment ID 2482.001.007

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District

- The District does not support applying lake criteria as the lake downstream protective criteria for upstream waters in cases where there are insufficient data to develop a model. 

# Comment ID 2483-1.001.004

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5567Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

3. The development of the Downstream Protection Value is an unnecessary component that is redundant to the TMDL program and is an excessive financial burden that would require stakeholders to spend enormous resources to gather additional data and achieve conditions that are beyond the proposed stream nutrient criteria, which are essentially defined at background levels. To reiterate, in the present climate of fiscal challenges, the EPA should present practical and justifiable applications to the stakeholders of Florida. The FDEP has spent millions of dollars to produce the data that EPA used to propose nutrient criteria for streams and lakes. Should the benchmark approach be used for reference stream data, then the numeric criteria would already be at levels close to background, pristine conditions. To add another level of intense and expensive data gathering for interpreting site-specific conditions needed for model development to determine DPVs instead of beginning to design and develop projects for pollution reduction is contrary to environmental restoration goals. Additionally, to provide in rule, that "if data are not readily available to derive a downstream protection value, the lake criteria values to TN and TP would be used" implies that no attenuation or assimilation of nutrients occurs throughout the watershed. Using the lake criteria as the downstream protection value (DPV) would assign unfounded regulations and unachievable criteria to waterbodies, resulting in a wasteful allocation of resources.



# Comment ID 2486-1.001.008

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.

- It is unclear how EPA intends to incorporate instream nutrient transformation and/or loss processes that may occur between points upstream and the downstream lakes of concern in the establishment of DPVs. 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.011

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc.

- PotashCorp objects to the provision that if data are not readily available to derive a TN or TP downstream protection values using a scientifically defensible model, the lake criteria values for TN and TP would be used as the downstream protection values (if more stringent than the instream criteria) 

# Comment ID 2489-1.001.006

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg c) Where there is insufficient data for modeling, applying the lake criteria as the criteria for upstream waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5568Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Response: Applying the lake criteria to upstream waters does not take into consideration the assimilative capacity of the lake, resulting in a standard which is overprotective, and will further result in unnecessary expenditure of limited public funds in an effort to comply with unrealistic water quality targets. 

# Comment ID 2494-1.001.007

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition In addition to proposing a requirement to use BATHTUB or another defensible modeling approach, EPA also suggests that it might require that in the absence of sufficient data to use one of those models, the DPV would be set equal to the criteria for the downstream lake. We strongly oppose that requirement; it has no technical basis whatsoever. Such an approach would completely ignore attenuation and other fate/transport mechanisms between tributaries and their downstream lakes, even though EPA is well aware that those mechanisms play major roles in determining the appropriate targets for upstream waters. If there are not enough data to derive a defensible upstream value, then the proper course of action is to collect the needed data, not to produce a number that has no technical validity. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.008

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division c) Where there is insufficient data for modeling, applying the lake criteria as the criteria for upstream waters. Response: Applying the lake criteria to upstream waters does not take into consideration the assimilative capacity of the lake and is therefore overprotective. This approach could lead to unrealistic stream load reductions at a significant cost to the public with no scientific demonstration that such low concentrations are warranted to be protective of the stream or the downstream receiving water. For example, the Lake Thonotosassa Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan which was developed after significant data collection and study determined that the appropriate Trophic State Index (TSI) for the lake was 60. The target for in-lake Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations is 1.2 mg/L and the target for in-lake Total Phosphorous (TP) concentrations is 0.07 mg/L; however, after significant evaluation, it was determined that to achieve these in-lake targets tributary targets would be set at 2.4mg/L and 0.13mg/L for TN and TP respectfully. http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/files/database/site_file_sets/34/lake_thonotosassa.pdf



# Comment ID 2497-1.001.015

Author Name: Karpatkin J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5569Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Additionally, EPA proposed in the NODA for the first time setting lake DPVs for total nitrogen,[32] but provided no explanation or justification for this substantial change in policy. The foregoing omissions are not compatible with orderly and proper rulemaking. [32] See 75 Fed. Reg. at 45,582-45,583. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.018

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection C. The application of lake criteria to streams in the absence of a working model is not scientifically sound. Nutrient dynamics in lakes and reservoirs is very complex, and fate and transport of TP and TN in streams leading to lakes is equally complex. A gross oversimplification of the science associated with numeric nutrient criteria, with far reaching cost ramifications to FDEP, EPA, and the Florida public, should not be adopted as a water quality standard. The Department inquired with Dr. Roger Bachmann, a long time researcher of Florida Lakes from the University of Florida, regarding this concept and decided to include his analysis because it provides a very accurate summary. Dr. Bachmann wrote back in an August 23rd email: "It would be overkill to apply the lake criteria directly to the inflowing stream. The reason for this is that most lakes have mechanisms to remove phosphorus or nitrogen from the open waters, so that the concentration in the lake water will be less than that in the inflowing streams. This will depend to some extent on the hydraulic flushing rate. With a very high flushing rate where the water is replaced every week or two as in a run-of-the-river reservoir the phosphorus concentration of the lake will be close to that of the stream. With a low flushing rate where the water is replaced every year or two, or more, the concentrations in the lake will be much less than that of the streams. The Vollenweider equation or the Bathtub model takes this into account. In the case of phosphorus, removal comes about when P is attached to living or non-living particles that settle to the bottom sediments. While some may come back out, almost always more enters the sediments than goes back out into the water. Lake sediments are storage places for phosphorus. Nitrogen is lost from lakes as one or more gasses. The decomposition of organic matter releases nitrogen to the water as ammonia. Some of this can be lost directly to the atmosphere and leave the system. If oxygen is present the ammonia can be oxidized to nitrates. When nitrates are present in areas of a lake without dissolved oxygen such as just below the surface of organic sediments or in the waters of an anoxic hypolimnion; there are microorganisms that can use the nitrates in their metabolism and transform the nitrogen from the nitrates into gasses like nitrous oxide and nitrogen gas. These gases can in turn be lost to the atmosphere. The long term concentration of total nitrogen in a lake will be less than that of the inflowing streams. It would be very conservative to set stream standards to the concentration desired in the downstream lake. It would almost always have the effect of reducing the standard for the lake and would be hard to justify."

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5570Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

The docket and record associated with the NODA and the proposed rule do not contain any data, methodologies, or analyses that are used to support this proposal, which makes the review of the concept against Dr. Bachmann'sassessment virtually impossible. However, the docket does include a publication regarding the BATHTUB model [EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596-2435] that describes all the variables that go into lake nutrient dynamics, including those mentioned by Dr. Bachmann. This serves as a good source of information demonstrating why this concept is an oversimplification of the science. As stated in Walker, W. W. (1996). "Simplified procedures for eutrophication assessment and prediction: User Manual," Instruction Report W-96-2 (Updated April 1999), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS: "The basis of the modeling approach described below is to relate eutrophication symptoms to external nutrient loadings, hydrology, and reservoir morphometry using statistical models derived from a representative cross section of reservoirs. When applied to existing reservoirs, the models provide a framework for interpreting water quality monitoring data and predicting effects of future changes in external nutrient loadings. The models can also be used to predict water quality conditions in a proposed reservoir. Three basic phases are involved in applying the methodology to an existing or proposed reservoir: a. Analysis and reduction of tributary water quality data. b. Analysis and reduction of pool water quality data. c. Model implementation," This publication, and many other studies of lake eutrophication dynamics, recognize that evaluating the concentration of TN or TP in streams flowing to a lake will not sufficiently capture the nutrient dynamics associated with protection of a lake. As stated in EPA's docket, external nutrient loading from all sources, including ground water and the atmosphere, the hydrology of the lake, and the reservoir morphometry (shape) are the key factors in assessing the protective nutrient needs of a lake. Therefore, simply applying the lake criteria to streams flowing into lakes is scientifically invalid and based on erroneous assumptions. Again, there are no data or analysis that might support the proposal in EPA's docket and the data and analysis associated with the NODA actually suggest that such a concept is not supportable. In either case, it is impossible to evaluate the merits of the concept.
D. The Spatial Application of the Lake DPVs is not clear and the docket contains no data or methods that support a decision on the spatial application. The spatial application of water quality standards is a critical element of all water quality standards. To which waterbodies do these standards apply? The Proposal and the NODA for the spatial establishment of downstream protection values for the protection of Lakes is clear for phosphorus and the Department has provided comment on that aspect of EPA's proposal. However, the proposal and NODA for the spatial establishment of lake protection DPVs for TN is less clear. Based on the January proposal, EPA indicated that it will account for fate and transport of TN when establishing lake protection DPVs, but how that will be done is unknown. In the development of the total phosphorus criteria for the protection of downstream lakes (Downstream Protection Values - DPVs), EPA spatially applied the DPV criteria into the upstream watershed up to the headwaters. EPA also

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5571Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs assumed 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. There was narrative reasoning in the preamble, but no citation, data, or methodology was provided in the docket to support this conclusion for either the proposal or the NODA. This conclusion 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. 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. However, no phosphorus fate and transport data or research appeared to be utilized by EPA during the rulemaking proceeding, or was otherwise not provide to the public for review. The Department included fate and transport research in our comments on the proposal and will not reiterate them here. Regarding the development of total nitrogen DPVs for the protection of downstream lakes, the NODA does not describe or make clear how the spatial factors will be applied. The public is left to either presume that EPA will apply the same approach to TN as was applied to TP for lake protection in the January proposal (i.e., no fate and transport) or to presume that the approach to TN was similar to what was applied for estuary protection in the January proposal (i.e., accounting for denitrification). Relying on the information in EPA's January proposal, we can assume that nitrogen loss will be taken into account. When discussing DPVs for lake protection, the proposal states, "However, unlike for nitrogen, there are no long-term phosphorus net removal processes at work in streams." When discussing DPVs for estuary protection, the proposal states, "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." While this statement is contrary to the previous statement regarding TP, it does acknowledge that there is nitrogen loss. The proposal goes on to State, "EPA's methodology accounts for in-stream losses of TN. EPA recognizes that not all the TN transported within a stream network will ultimately reach estuaries. Rather, some TN is permanently lost from streams." EPA utilized fate and transport mechanisms in the SPARROW model to account for nitrogen loss. Presuming that EPA will also use SPARROW to account for the fate and transport of TN when applying lake DPVs, the State previously submitted comments to the proposal on the issues associated with the SPARROW model's ability to accurately account for fate and transport of TN in Florida waters. The Department reiterates that EPA should rely on the inherent protection of downstream waterbodies provided by stream criteria derived based on minimal disturbance. This approach is technically defensible, easier and less costly to implement, and avoids the scientific weaknesses contained in the DPV provisions. If EPA does not accept that path, the Agency should re-propose any lake DPV criteria and include information on the spatial application of DPVs, in addition to the duration & frequency of DPVs, so that the Florida public can better understand and evaluate EPA's data, methods, and rational. Not providing such information prevents the public from making relevant comments on EPA's analysis.
E. The Workload Generated by this Provision, given its legal and scientific necessity, does not justify its inclusion. The State of Florida has the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) coverage at the 1:24,000 scale that can be used to estimate the number of lakes in the State that have a stream flowing into them. Using NHD, FDEP counted 18,006 lakes that have at least one stream flowing into them, with 15,414 lakes that are larger than ten acres, 1,910 lakes between five and ten acres, 623 between two and five acres, and 59 less than two acres. The method used to estimate

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5572Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs the number of lakes is described in Appendix A. To collect the data and build a calibrated model for each of these lakes is not a valid exercise and an inappropriate use of public resources given that it is unnecessary. The Data Requirements for BATHTUB are described on page 1-18 of docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2435. The Department estimates that this would conservatively cost more than $180 Million (18,006 X $10,000) to simply set up the models to calculate the DPVs. EPA's grant to the Department under Section 1256 of the Clean Water Act amounts to only a little over $6 million annually and that is intended to cover implementation of many programs. The $10,000 cost figure is a gross estimate, but likely underestimates the actual costs of building the models given the data needs associated with such an exercise. The data necessary to build the BATHTUB model (the cheapest model to use) are divided into several groups based on the general model structure. We note that for some data (for example, precipitation, evaporation, and atmospheric loadings) regional information may be sufficient to utilize the model and in other cases flux rates or other coefficients could be based on reference conditions or studies from similar waterbodies. Highlighted text identifies data that must be collected site specifically versus using literature or regional values. (1) Global data requirements applied to all the model segments: a. Precipitation: This is used to calculate the water balance regarding the rainfall directly onto the surface of the lake. b. Evaporation: This is used to calculate the water balance. It should be adjusted pan evaporation rate. c. Lake stage: Even though BATHTUB is a steady-state model, the model includes an item in the equation called "lake storage increase". Lake stage change is used in the model to calculate the change of lake volume, and in turn the change of total nutrient mass in the water column of the lake. d. Atmospheric loads: This is used to calculate the direct atmospheric loadings onto the surface of the lake. Data should include TN, TP, inorganic P, and inorganic nitrogen. The data should be bulk flux rate and include both the wet and dry deposition. The unit for the data is mg/m2/year. (2) Lake Morphology data: Complete bathymetry information of the lake is preferred. But if the information is lacking, the following data can be used: a. Lake surface area b. Lake mean depth c. Lake length: This is the distance along major flow axis (km). d. Mixed layer depth (for nonstratified Florida lakes, this depth could be the mean depth) e. Hypolimnetic depth (only important if hypolimnetic oxygen depletion is an issue) (3) Observed in-lake Water Quality data: a. Non-algal turbidity: This can be calculated based on Secchi depth and Chla concentration. It is only important if phytoplankton is considered light limited. b. TP c. Inorganic P d. TN e. Inorganic N f. Chla g. Secchi depth

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5573Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs (4) Watershed input: Multiple "tributaries" can be set up in the model to account for nutrient loadings from inlet stream, sheet flow, ground water, and point sources. The required data for each "tributary" should include: a. Flow rate b. TP concentration c. Inorganic P concentration d. TN concentration e. Inorganic N concentration (5) Internal Load: This is only needed for lakes that, after the sedimentation calibration factors are used to the extreme of the recommended range and model simulations still underestimate the measured in-lake nutrient concentrations: a. TP flux rate (mg/m2/day) b. TN flux rate (mg/m2/day) c. This model capability can also be used as a way to define the nitrogen fixation rate 

# Comment ID 2502-1.001.007

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute In addition to proposing a requirement to use BATHTUB or another defensible modeling approach, EPA also suggests that it might require that in the absence of sufficient data to use one of those models, the DPV would be set equal to the criteria for the downstream lake. We strongly oppose that requirement; it has no technical basis whatsoever. Such an approach would completely ignore attenuation and other fate/transport mechanisms between tributaries and their downstream lakes, even though EPA is well aware that those mechanisms can play major roles in determining the appropriate targets for upstream waters. If there is not enough data to derive a defensible upstream value, then the proper course of action is to collect the needed data, not just to produce a number that is not technically defensible. 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2462-1.001.012, 2462-1.001.008 Response: EPA disagrees with the comments that suggest DPVs be based on waters that are impaired. EPA’s purpose and intent in prescribing particular approaches to calculating DPVs are to be protective prior to waters becoming impaired, pursuant to EPA’s Clean Water Act implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(b).

Comment ID: 2463-1.001.009 Response: EPA notes that the Lake Okeechobee TP inlake target is 0.040 mg/L, but a DPV calculation for the inflowing streams may be higher, depending on control strategies for other sources of TP.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5574Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs

Comment ID: 2480-2.001.008 Response: EPA appreciates the comment supporting DPVs.

Comment IDs: 2482.001.007, 2482-1.001.010, 2488-1.001.011, 2489-1.001.006, 2496-1.001.008 Response: EPA agrees that the approach of using the lake criteria as the upstream DPV may, in some instances, result in overly stringent criteria in some streams to protect downstream lakes. This approach assumes that the retention time of the affected lake is zero, and hence the lake concentration equals the flow-weighted average of all inflowing stream concentrations. EPA provided this approach in the final rule as a protective measure in the event that neither of the other approaches are pursued.

Comment IDs: 2462-1.001.008, 2483-1.001.004 Response: EPA agrees that the modeling approaches create nutrient budgets in the same way they do for TMDLs. But in the present context the DPV models create the nutrient budgets before the lake is impaired (pursuant to the Clean Water Act section 303(d) and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 130.7) so as to prevent impairment, and thus the need for development of a TMDL. The advantage of doing the modeling 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 permits must be prepared, or later when the water is found to be impaired and in need of a TMDL.”

References: Grumbles, B.H. 2007. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards. May 25, 2007.

Comment IDs: 2498-2.001.018, 2467-1.001.007, 2467-1.001.013, 2502-1.001.007, 2494-1.001.007, 2486-1.001.008

Response: EPA’s responsibility is to be protective, and applying the DPVs throughout the watershed is a conservative, protective

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5575Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
approach in the absence of further watershed modeling. However, EPA’s final rule specifies that the modeled DPVs are applicable at the point of entry, i.e., the pour point, into the lake. Nutrient loads in the watershed upstream of the pour point are determined for each watershed, taking into account specific characteristics of and sources in the watershed. EPA notes that watershed modeling to predict attenuation of nutrients could be a viable, defensible alternative approach.

Comment ID: 2497-1.001.015 Response: EPA disagrees with the comment suggesting that EPA’s DPVs for TN, as described in the Agency’s Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (SNODA), is not justified. EPA points out that its policy, and supporting scientific rationale, for deriving numeric nutrient criteria for both causal variables, TN and TP, is well established (U.S. EPA 2000, Grubbs 2001, Grumbles 2007). EPA’s position has been further supported by independent, nationally recognized scientists who concluded that prevention of eutrophication can best be achieved by controlling both nitrogen and phosphorus (U.S. EPA SAB2007, Paerl, H.W. 2009, Conley et al. 2009). EPA refers the commenter to these documents for more detail on EPA’s scientificallybased position regarding dual nitrogen and phosphorus criteria.

References: U.S. EPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA822-B-00-001. Grubbs, G. 2001. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to Directors of State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Development and Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water Quality Standards. November 14, 2001. Grumbles, B.H. 2007. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards. May 25, 2007.

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 ID: 2498-2.001.018 Response: EPA’s responsibility is to be protective, and applying the DPVs throughout the watershed is a conservative, protective

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5576Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Lakes - DPVs
approach in the absence of further watershed modeling. However, EPA’s final rule specifies that the modeled DPVs are applicable at the point of entry, i.e., the pour point, into the lake. Nutrient loads in the watershed upstream of the pour point can take into specific characteristics and sources for each watershed. EPA notes that watershed modeling to predict attenuation of nutrients could be a viable, defensible alternative approach.

Comment ID: 2498-2.001.018 Response: EPA disagrees with commenter who asserts that DPVs are not necessary because EPA’s stream criteria protect streams upstream of lakes at a level associated with “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions. Such assertions must assume that EPA’s stream criteria approach was based on identifying “minimally-disturbed” or natural stream references sites. EPA does not conclude that such assumptions have been met (see final rule TSD) and thus cannot conclude that its stream criteria, as described in final rule, reflect “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions. EPA found no evidence that “minimally-disturbed” or natural conditions existed in the reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found that there were numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. Beyond the corridor LDI approach (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds using watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were actually listed on the CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment.

Comment ID: 2498-2.001.018 Response: The commenter noted that “the time and effort required to develop models for each lake would be prohibitive.” EPA disagrees in general, as BATHTUB applications can be developed quickly and efficiently once the data are assembled. Further, it is not necessary to actually develop a model for every lake. As explained in the preamble to EPA's final rule and as provided in EPA's final rule, if data are insufficient to apply a model, there are alternative ways to establish a DPV for a stream upstream of a lake.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5577Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Support 

# SNODA.GEN SUPP - GENERAL SUPPORT Comment ID 2445.001.001

Author Name: Perryman S. Organization: I am writing to ask that you support EPA Numeric Nutrient Standards (NNS) for Florida rivers, lakes and springs. The St John River experienced an extreme algae bloom this year that killed thousands of fish. Miles of white foam has formed and in some cases covered areas so thick it looks like a frozen river. It is disturbing that no agency has been able to adequately identify what the foam is or explain these events. Please take action to help save our river and push for governmental agencies to work harder finding the cause and cure for our dying river. The reference NNS is found on docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

# Response

Comment ID: 2445.001.001 Response: EPA acknowledges the comment encouraging EPA to promulgate numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters that are scientifically defensible and protective of applicable designated uses consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131. EPA believes it has done so with this rule. This final rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, effective for purposes of the Clean Water Act, that are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated as Class I and/or Class III waters. As a result, promulgation of this rule serves to protect aquatic ecosystems, recreation in and on the water, and drinking water supplies from water quality degradation due to the negative impacts of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Numeric nutrient criteria will create clear water quality goals and easily measurable quantitative baselines to support stronger collaboration and more effective partnerships with both point and nonpoint source dischargers of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5578Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

# SNODA.GEN OPP - GENERAL OPPOSITION Comment ID 2446-1.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC The Mosaic Company ("Mosaic") was surprised and disappointed by EPA's Federal Register notice of August 3, 2010 proposing revisions to certain elements of the Agency's proposed rule for numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters ("proposed revisions"). While Mosaic is continuing to review the substance of EPA's proposed revisions and will provide comments to the Agency on this proposal, we wish to raise with you immediately: certain procedural issues relating to the proposed revisions; our concerns regarding EPA's apparent decision to make the proposed Rule more restrictive only for the Bone Valley; and a request that EPA reasonably extend the time for public comment. First, neither Mosaic nor any other stakeholder, to our knowledge, had any notice prior to the issuance of the Federal Register notice August 3, 2010 that EPA was considering such sweeping revisions to the numeric nutrient criteria the Agency proposed January 26, 2010 ("proposed rule"). Mosaic met with you July 13, 2010, and participated in a meeting The Fertilizer Institute held with you July 15, 2010. Both meetings included discussion of issues that are directly impacted by the new proposed revisions, yet EPA made no mention of its new thinking during either meeting nor indicate that EPA was preparing, or even considering, proposing substantive revisions to the proposed Rule for public comment. 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.003

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 In every other respect, the alternatives addressed in the August 3, 2010 Federal Register are simply minor variations of a poorly conceived and deeply flawed regulatory effort. In fact, the most notable aspects of EPA's notice are what it fails to do. The notice fails to respond to the concerns expressed by EPA's own Science Advisory Board regarding the scientific shortcomings of EPA's reference condition methodologies.[1] The notice fails to respond to the concerns of the Florida Legislature that EPA's proposed criteria fail to take into account the unique features of Florida's varied fresh waters and that the proposed criteria "fail to incorporate, and may undermine, the state's science-based total maximum daily loads program."[2] And the notice fails to respond to the request by a bipartisan coalition of the Florida Congressional Delegation urging EPA to subject its proposed criteria to independent scientific peer review and economic analysis prior to finalizing the criteria.[3] The Florida Utility Groups share the serious concerns expressed by the Science Advisory Board, Florida Legislature, and members of the Florida Congressional Delegation.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5579Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

[1] EPA Science Advisory Board, SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (April 27, 2010), available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/95eac6037dbee075852573a00075f732/E09317EC14CB3F2B85257713004 BED5F/$File/EPA-SAB-10-006-unsigned.pdf [attached as Exhibit I]. [2] 2010 Fla. Laws ch. 205, § 58 (signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist, (June 4, 2010), available at http://Iaws.flrules.org/files/Ch 2010-205.pdf [attached as Exhibit 2]; see also, Florida House Memorial 1589 (2010), available at http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2010/House/bills/billtext/pdf/h158901c1.pdf [attached as Exhibit 3]. [3] Rep. Adam Putnam, et aL, Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (August 2, 2010) [attached as Exhibit 4]. 

# Comment ID 2450-1.001.003

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. In every other respect, the alternatives addressed in the August 3, 2010 Federal Register are simply minor variations in a poorly conceived and deeply flawed regulatory effort. In fact, the most notable aspects of EPA's notice are what it fails to do. The notice fails to respond to the concerns expressed by EPA's own Science Advisory Board regarding the scientific shortcomings of EPA's reference condition methodologies.[1] The notice fails to respond to the concerns of the Florida Legislature that EPA's proposed criteria fail to take into account the unique features of Florida's varied fresh waters and that the proposed criteria "fail to incorporate, and may undermine, the state's science-based total maximum daily loads program."[2] And the notice fails to respond to the request by a bipartisan coalition of the Florida Congressional Delegation urging EPA to subject its proposed criteria to independent scientific peer review and economic analysis prior to finalizing the criteria.[3] The FCG shares these serious concerns.

[1] EPA Science Advisory Board, SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (April 27, 2010), available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/95eac6037dbee075852573a00075f732E09317EC14CB3F2B85257713004 BED5F/$File/EPA-SAB-10-006-unsigned.pdf [2] 2010 Fla. Laws ch. 205, § 58 (signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist, (June 4, 2010), available at http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2010-205.pdf ; see also, Florida House Memorial 1589 (2010), available at http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2010/House/bills/billtext/pdf/h158901c1.pdf [3] Rep. Adam Putnam, et al, Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (August 2, 2010).



# Comment ID 2450-1.001.005

Author Name: Alves J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5580Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. The FCG appreciates this opportunity to provide comments and requests that EPA carefully reconsider its poorly conceived approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 2451-1.001.002

Author Name: Griswold R. Organization: Destin Water Users The science being used by EPA to establish the limits for total N and total P in Florida is flawed. In fact it is not science at all but statistics. One of the cornerstones of science which is taught everywhere is that correlation is not causation. EPA has violated this cornerstone. DWU asks that EPA comment as to how this rule will be implemented in Florida. Florida law requires that new regulations be scientifically defensible which the proposed EPA mandate is not. How does EPA propose to resolve this conflict? Is EPA prepared to enforce this law on Florida? EPA has publically stated their guiding principles of science first, rule of law, and transparency. In this particular issue EPA has violated those principles. DWU asks that EPA repudiate these guiding principles or cease broadcasting them. Many of the comments in the docket support EPA but none support the proposed rule. In fact the majority of the comments in support of EPA state that rainfall runoff and septic tanks are the cause of harmful algae bloom. DWU requests that EPA clearly communicate to these individuals that the proposed mandate does not cover septic tank discharges or non-point source rainfall runoff. EPA has led many to believe that this mandate for Florida will lead to improved water quality and for that reason, many believe that EPA should impose their will on Florida. DWU requests that EPA clearly communicate to these supporters that the proposed rule cannot and will not lead to improved water quality. In fact EPA should clearly communicate that the proposed rule has the potential to do actual harm to some water bodies. DWU maintains that the U.S. EPA has lied about the cost of compliance and requests that the agency immediately reveal the actual cost to the citizens of Florida. DWU maintains that the U.S. EPA lied to a federal judge when it set the time frame for implementation of a rule imposing numeric nutrient criteria and requests that it petition the judge for a stay of the court imposed deadlines. DWU asks that all comments be addressed prior to implementation of the proposed rule this October. 

# Comment ID 2452-1.001.002

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. We found it very interesting that the notice had a very narrow scope, requesting additional comments only on three specific topics -- revised stream region boundaries, the use of the 75th and 90th percentile values of sites with healthy biological condition as protective of downstream lakes, and the use of the BATHTUB model for deriving TP and TN

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5581Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
criteria to protect downstream lakes. Responses to these are addressed below, but in addition:

• WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY WHICH HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MEET THE PROPOSED LIMITS? • WHAT ABOUT THE UNREASONABLE COST TO EMPLOY THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY AND THE RESLULTANT COST TO OUR RATEPAYERS WITH NO PROPORTIONAL BENEFIT? • WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS THE ONLY STATE REQUIRED TO MEET THESE UNACHIEVABLE DISCHARGE LIMITS? • WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT EPA'S APPROACH IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE BUT ON ASSUMPTIONS? We again request that you consider our other concerns addressed in our previously submitted comments, a copy of which is attached. 

# Comment ID 2454-1.001.002

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System Okaloosa County, Florida is firmly and adamantly opposed to the proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards (WQS) proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) for Florida, Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Okaloosa County, Florida also objects and is opposed to EPA's current proposal outlined in the August 3, 2010 notice. EPA's current proposal is technically unsound and further demonstrates that there is no basis in causal effects for the standards that are being proposed by EPA. The current proposal is simply an effort to gerrymander the results to obtain what appears to be an arbitrary and political result and not a result based on a scientifically based concern for a measured negative environmental response. 

# Comment ID 2456.001.003

Author Name: DeBogory P. Organization: South Walton Utility Co., Inc. SWU remains committed to protecting the environment. SWU has shown by our action that protecting the environment is our most important job and that we take it seriously. What we are against is a rule that is arbitrary, a rule that is based upon statistics instead of dose/response science, and a rule that will drive up costs substantially without any demonstrable benefit to the environment or our members. 

# Comment ID 2458-1.001.003

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5582Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition Adding a significant number (likely doubling) of nutrient impaired waters to the responsibility of local governments when the scientific basis of the proposed criteria is questionable and the implementation process uncertain is ill advised at this time. The additional cost to MS4 permittees alone will be in the many billions of dollars. Expenditures of this amount must be based on sound science and criteria that are scientifically defensible. Such criteria must account for the significant variations that naturally exist in Florida's soils, ecosystems and waters. This is not the case with the proposed rules. The rules will have such broad and far-reaching effects that the ability of state and local governments to target specific, priority waters for significant improvement will be compromised. A sense of "impossibility" in water quality improvement programs may emerge. Importantly, Florida's NPDES, TMDL and BMAP programs, which are widely regarded as models for other states, will be placed in jeopardy if the new criteria are adopted. As we have mentioned on numerous occasions, Florida law bars FDEP's use of water quality criteria that have not been adopted by the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC); the proposed EPA criteria may not be simply layered "on top" of Florida's TMDL and BMAP programs without being first formally approved by the ERC. Florida will elect a new Governor in November. That person will take office in early January of 2011. FDEP will not be able to initiate formal rule making procedures concerning the new criteria until February or March of 2011. If rule making proceeds without challenge, adoption may be possible before the end of 2011. If the criteria rules are challenged either pursuant to Florida's Administrative Procedures Act and/or in Circuit Court, the effective date of such measures could be years away. Further, the likely confusion over which criteria to use in the BMAP and NPDES/MS4 permit programs raises the very real possibility that the delegation of administration of the NPDES permit program to Florida may be transferred back to EPA Region 4. 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.001

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA) submits this letter to request your help in protecting ECUA and other Public Utilities from higher costs that will result from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) new numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) regulations. The newly proposed regulation and subsequent modifications are technically flawed and may require ECUA and others to implement additional water control technologies that are un-necessary and costly to our customers. As explained below, and in the attached letter from HydroQual, Inc., the standards proposed in the NNC rule by EPA lack scientific basis and is based on very limited data. Neither the State of Florida nor EPA could identify specific

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5583Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria because of a lack of a dose-response relationship. Given this lack in a dose-response relationship, this proposed regulation will result in arbitrary and unnecessary regulation for ECUA and our customers. This will likely result in higher than needed utility rates and negatively affect our customers with little or no benefit. In conclusion, ECUA submits that the existing narrative nutrient standard in Florida has been successful in reducing nutrient loads to our water bodies. It is similar to the nutrient standards in most other states, and Florida has been a national leader in implementing the narrative standard to achieve reductions in discharges of nutrients. Despite the substantial growth that occurred in Florida over the past few decades, there have been significant reductions in nutrients concentrations. Given Florida's success in controlling discharges of nutrients, and given the lack of a sound scientific basis for the proposed NNC, ECUA requests that EPA consider abandoning this rulemaking effort. ECUA appreciates the opportunity to supply comments to EPA on the proposed NNC. If you have any specific questions on this response please feel free to contact me or my staff. 

# Comment ID 2465-1.001.002

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities However, we believe the proposed rule is not an efficient or equitable solution to the problem. Orange County Utilities is providing the following in response to EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment as published August 3, 2010 inVolume 75, No. 148, of the Federal Register beginning at page 45579 and identified as Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596. In this letter, Orange County Utilities would like to make the following points: 1) the revised proposed criteria still utilize the same flawed methodology; 2) the proposed criteria do not respond to the concerns of the EPA's Science Advisory Board [attached as Exhibit 1], 3) the proposed criteria do not respond to the concerns of bipartisan members of the Florida Congressional Delegation, or the Florida Legislature [attached as Exhibits 2, 3, & 4]; and 4) Orange County Utilities' comments filed during the April 2010 letter still apply to the revised proposed rule provided in the NODA. We believe the implementation of NNC as proposed is a hurried and simplistic solution to a complex problem, and implementing these NNC is neither a resource-efficient nor an economical solution. Florida has a sophisticated and scientifically based TMDL process that targets nutrient loads from specific sources based on site-specific criteria. Let us, and the FDEP, get on with the work of improving the water quality in our state. Orange County Utilities appreciates this opportunity to provide comments. 

# Comment ID 2465.001.002

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5584Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities However, we believe the proposed rule is not an efficient or equitable solution to the problem. Orange County Utilities is providing the following in response to EPA’s Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment as published August 3, 2010 inVolume 75, No. 148, of the Federal Register beginning at page 45579 and identified as Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596. In this letter, Orange County Utilities would like to make the following points: 1) the revised proposed criteria still utilize the same flawed methodology; 2) the proposed criteria do not respond to the concerns of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board [attached as Exhibit 1], 3) the proposed criteria do not respond to the concerns of bipartisan members of the Florida Congressional Delegation, or the Florida Legislature [attached as Exhibits 2, 3, & 4]; and 4) Orange County Utilities’ comments filed during the April 2010 letter still apply to the revised proposed rule provided in the NODA. We believe the implementation of NNC as proposed is a hurried and simplistic solution to a complex problem, and implementing these NNC is neither a resource-efficient nor an economical solution. Florida has a sophisticated and scientifically based TMDL process that targets nutrient loads from specific sources based on site-specific criteria. Let us, and the FDEP, get on with the work of improving the water quality in our state. Orange County Utilities appreciates this opportunity to provide comments.



# Comment ID 2467-1.001.003

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Our comments may be summarized as follows:

• EPA has not properly evaluated the effectiveness of any of the proposed criteria described in the NODA with respect to the purpose of water quality criteria, i.e., the protection of designated uses. Thus, the reliability of the resulting criteria for managing the quality of flowing waters in Florida is unknown. EPA is able to conduct such an assessment and we encourage the agency to do so. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.008

Author Name: Weigand P.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5585Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Comments Comment #1: EPA has not properly evaluated the effectiveness of any of the proposed criteria described in the NODA with respect to the purpose of water quality criteria, i.e., the protection of designated uses. Thus, the reliability of the resulting criteria for managing the quality of flowing waters in Florida is unknown. EPA is able to conduct such an assessment and we encourage the agency to do so. Comments previously filed by NCASI highlight the need for a systematic planning process to form the foundation of numeric nutrient criteria development. The comments also highlight the apparent lack of such a process used in the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria proposed for Florida by EPA on January 26, 2010. Further, they describe how such an evaluation could be done using an approach based on the decision framework described in detail in EPA guidance on systematic planning and data quality objectives (EPA 2006). Within a systematic planning framework, one can develop an objective means for evaluating a proposed or "candidate" criterion with respect to its ability to predict designated use attainment status. For Class III waters in Florida, the designated use is "Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife." Attainment of this designated use is primarily a function of the biological condition of the water body as indicated, for example, by chlorophyll a biomass, rather than by the concentration of nutrients. The most recent in EPA's series of nutrient criteria development guidance documents (EPA 2008) states: "the primary goal of environmental assessment and management is to protect and restore ecosystem services and ecological attributes, which are often closely related to biological features and functions in ecosystems. Therefore, it is the effects of nutrients on the living components of ecosystems that should become the critical determinant of nutrient criteria, rather than the actual nutrient concentrations." (page 8-4) Therefore, an important aspect of the evaluation of a candidate numeric nutrient concentration criterion is the extent to which exceedance of the criterion provides a reliable indication of unhealthy biological conditions related to excessive nutrient pollution when the criterion is applied to all applicable waters. Prior analysis of nutrient concentration/waterbody response relationships provided by EPA, FDEP, and NCASI indicate that TP and TN are poor indicators of water body conditions in flowing waters relevant to designated use attainment (see previous NCASI comments). 

# Comment ID 2468-1.001.002

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC We believe the basis of EPA's proposed rulemaking is scientifically unsound and the proposed rule would hinder the economic viability of the State of Florida as well as "upstream states" that have facilities discharging into waters that flow into Florida. The numeric nutrient criteria proposed for Florida impacts lakes and streams that flow into the state from Alabama and Georgia. EPA has neither explained how these rules will be applied in those states nor fully engaged those states in the rulemaking process. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5586Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition forward with proposed numeric nutrient criteria. The protection of the environment is a top priority for GP, and we support science-based efforts to protect the waterways of Florida, but we have significant concerns regarding the methods and approaches taken by EPA to develop the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, including those set forth in the NODA. Enclosed with this letter, GP is submitting comments specific to the NODA prepared by HydroQual on behalf of GP, Gulf Power Company, Emerald Coast Utilities Authority and Ascend Performance Materials, LLC, all of which have facilities that discharge, directly or indirectly, into the Escambia River/Bay system in Florida. These comments focus on the scientific and technical basis for delineating stream nutrient regions, developing stream nutrient criteria using the benchmark dataset and deriving lake downstream protective values using the alternate approaches. As set forth in more detail in the attached comments, the approach EPA is proposing does not correlate cause and effect between nutrients and algal and other response variables. Nutrients are necessary for a healthy and well-balanced ecosystem. It is essential to accurately determine levels of nutrients needed to achieve the proper balance, rather than setting overly simplistic criteria that may upset this balance. EPA's proposed rule will have specific and significant impacts on our operations in the State of Florida and on our operations in adjoining states that are located on streams that enter the State of Florida.



# Comment ID 2468-1.001.004

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC For the reasons set forth above and in more detail in the attached comments, as well as in the comments submitted by the FPPAEA, NCASI and FWQC, Georgia-Pacific respectfully requests that the EPA withdraw the proposed rule and reconsider its approach in the regulation of nutrients in Florida waters. 

# Comment ID 2469-1.001.003

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau Federation (FFBF) 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.[4] In fact, 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. There is little scientific support for establishing TN and TP criteria in the range of concentrations being proposed.[5] In fact, the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) raised several of our concerns, on September 9- 11, 2009. The EPA's SAB reviewed the EPA's proposed methods for numeric nutrient criteria derivation and informed the EPA that the methods were flawed and were not scientifically defensible. The proposed rule essentially ignores the SAB

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5587Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition recommendations on methods of developing scientifically defensible standards that will accurately regulate nutrients when and where they cause unacceptable impacts. For example, the SAB clearly informed the EPA that proper numeric nutrient criteria development and application required consideration of habitat differences. The EPA disregarded several habitat variables known to control whether/how nutrients impact uses in lakes, streams or canals (depth, scour, light, substrate, floating plants, detention time, etc.). The EPA also disregarded its own SAB and published guidance which very clearly stated that water quality standards must be based on a well documented "cause-and-effect" relationship. The EPA's proposal admits the canal and stream protection standards are not based on a "cause-and-effect" demonstration. The EPA's SAB also stated that nutrient standards must be set at the threshold above which impairment is expected to occur. Several of the proposed standards are not based on any documented biological impairment threshold. The range of conditions occurring in nonimpaired waters does not demonstrate what the impairment threshold is. The EPA's analysis failed to show that higher levels of nutrients would impair designated uses. The EPA continues to use "change point" analyses to select criteria values, even after the SAB asserted that such an analyses does not predict the biological impairment threshold. Over the past decade, Floridians have spent millions of dollars evaluating water quality and putting in place scientifically reviewed practices that are effective in improving the state's surface waters. Florida leads the nation in the amount of water quality data collected and protections adopted to preserve or enhance the quality of our state's waters, including the establishment of 79 total maximum daily loads. The agricultural community has been a key player in the state's evaluation process, encouraging the development and implementation of Best Management Practices which have made positive impacts on Florida's water quality. Agricultural producers need clean water and support a science-based effort to further protect Florida's waters. The EPA is moving forward based on a timeline that is litigation-driven, and fails to allow for the adequate research and thorough evaluation of critical data. We ask that the EPA reconsider its rulemaking in response to these concerns and seek relief from the consent decree. Finally, we ask that the EPA, respond to the recent request of the Florida Congressional Delegation, seeking independent scientific peer review of all proposed criteria and an economic analysis.[6] [4] Id. at 8. [5] Id. at 36. [6] Rep. Adam Putnam, et al, Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (August 2, 2010) (refer to Attachment A) 

# Comment ID 2476-1.001.004

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services Over the last several years, the County has evaluated several load reduction proposals that are troubling and unrealistic. Regulators presume that dramatic reductions in load are necessary, possible, and desirable. Locally the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5588Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition concentration of nutrients in streams is not very high. Loading rates are dominated by volume that is driven by rainfall. Reducing the conversion of rainfall to runoff has very limited possibilities and Sarasota County is already moving to implement Low Impact Development standards that will assist in this regard. EPA is sorely challenged to develop a method of calculating numeric nutrient criteria in Florida. The state is remarkably diverse and generalizations are often inappropriate across short distances. Locally we have a diversity of naturally occurring phosphorus in soils. No regional map will account for the natural variability found in our County alone. There is no evidence that anthropogenic phosphorus plays a role in encouraging a biological imbalance in this area. EPA should decline to regulate nutrients that are not the limiting nutrient unless they have substantial supporting data otherwise. 

# Comment ID 2476-1.001.006

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services Florida is rich with water quality and biological data. There are many water bodies impaired by nutrients that have been well studied. EPA should be able to create reasonable numeric nutrient criteria for these long standing problem areas. Unfortunately, the current proposal to establish statewide numeric nutrient criteria will mistakenly establish problem areas throughout the State. There is a chance our most pristine watershed, the Myakka River, will fail to meet the proposed criteria while allowing urban watersheds to pass. This defies common sense. 

# Comment ID 2477.001.004

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority In conclusion, nothing proposed in the NODA invalidates CCUA's comments to the Proposed Rule. Indeed, CCUA stands by its earlier comments and, to the extent necessary and appropriate, incorporates by reference those comments herein as if they were fully set forth within this letter. Accordingly, CCUA maintains that the EPA's Proposed Rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory authority, or limitations, or short of statutory authority; and without observance of procedure required by law, even as modified by the proposed changes in the NODA. 

# Comment ID 2481-1.001.001

Author Name: Jennings T. Organization: City of Brewton, Alabama The City of Brewton, Alabama, submits this letter to request your help in protecting the City of Brewton and other

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5589Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition dischargers from higher costs that will result from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new numeric nutrient criteria regulations. The newly proposed regulation and subsequent modifications are technically flawed and may require the City of Brewton to implement additional water control technologies that are un-necessary and costly to our customers. As explained below, and in the HydoQual, Inc., report submitted with Georgia-Pacific's comments, the standards proposed in the NNC rule by EPA lack scientific basis and is based on very limited data. Neither the State of Florida nor EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria because of a lack of a dose-response relationship. Given this lack of a dose-response relationship, the proposed regulation will result in arbitrary and unnecessary regulations for the City of Brewton, and will likely result in higher than needed utility rates. In conclusion, the City of Brewton submits that the existing narrative nutrient standard in Florida has been successful in reducing nutrient loads to our water bodies. It is similar to the nutrient standard in most other states, and Florida has been a national leader in implementing the narrative standard to achieve reductions in discharges of nutrients. Despite the substantial growth that occurred in Florida over the past few decades, there have been significant reductions in nutrients concentrations. Given Florida's success in controlling discharges of nutrients, and given the lack of a sound scientific basis for the proposed NNC, the City of Brewton requests that EPA consider abandoning this rulemaking effort.



# Comment ID 2483-1.001.006

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee In conclusion, the City of Tallahassee encourages EPA to not move forward with rule promulgation at an unnecessary pace only to meet a deadline while not fully resolving these issues and giving careful consideration to the stakeholders' concerns and all of the associated financial impacts. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.005

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. Insufficient Data and Information The EPA has not been responsive to requests for underlying data, calculations, referenced studies, rationale, and information that could result in meaningful public comment by linking the data analysis methodology to the resulting proposed criteria. In FPPAEA's requests for the extension of time to comment and its submission on the original proposed criteria, dated 28 April 2010, the FPPAEA commented that the data and information from the EPA was incomplete and could not properly be evaluated in the 30 days allowed. Even the 60 days provided by the EPA was

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5590Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition insufficient given that the EPA did not provide a clear and transparent set of information required to fully understand the development of criteria and the underlying science on which these criteria are based. The supplemental data from EPA continues to be presented in a manner which does not provide sufficient scientific information on which to base technical analyses and provide meaningful comments to EPA. The FPPAEA has also reviewed the comments prepared by NCASI specific to the supplemental NODA that identifies numerous technical issues associated with this notice. NCASI has identified six problematic areas in its submittal as follows;

- EPA has not properly evaluated the effectiveness of any of the proposed criteria described in the NODA with respect to the purpose of water quality criteria, i.e., the protection of designated uses. Thus, the reliability of the resulting criteria for managing the quality of flowing waters in Florida is unknown. EPA is able to conduct such an assessment and we encourage the agency to do so. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.009

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. In addition, the Docket is filled with comments from various stakeholders, including Florida's Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Many of these submissions contain substantive comments on the lack of data and methodology used to derive the proposed criteria to which the EPA has not responded. As an example the August 10, 2010 letter from FDEP to EPA contained several comments on data insufficiency and concerns. EPA's failure to sufficiently define the duration of the proposed criteria and guidance on the frequency that the criteria may be exceeded was especially problematic. The EPA must provide the public with the magnitude, duration, and frequency of any proposed criterion in order for the public to fully understand the impact of the proposed criterion and prepare meaningful comments. The EPA has failed to provide this information. The EPA continues to propose criteria that are derived using data and information that are not representative of Florida's streams. In its Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams, published July 2000, the EPA discusses the importance of considering stream order when sampling and using data for criteria development. A review of the stream order used in EPA's reference stream database is inconsistent with this EPA guidance. 

# Comment ID 2487-1.001.002

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association As documented in our original response comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding their numeric nutrient standards for the state of Florida, submitted on April 26, 2010, this organization and its membership are opposed to the Agency's proposed criteria and associated methodologies.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5591Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition



# Comment ID 2487-1.001.009

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Conclusion The EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria remains riddled with questionable science and still fail to recognize the immense diversity among the state's lakes and flowing waters. To attempt promulgation of non-site specific, statewide nutrient criteria not based on biological cause and effect relationships is haphazard, irresponsible and potentially ecologically harmful. Development of comprehensive criteria on this scale requires adequate time for research, data collection and analysis; it should be driven by sound science and not litigation. Additionally, as with the upcoming coastal and estuarine criteria, the freshwater numeric nutrient criteria component should be peer reviewed by an independent science body. FFVA remains opposed to the EPA's proposed rulemaking and requests that the Agency concedes development of numeric nutrient criteria to the state of Florida.



# Comment ID 2488-1.001.002

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc. As discussed in our comment letter on the January 26, 2010 rule proposal and reiterated in the comments provided on this rule proposal, PotashCorp objects to the manner in which EPA has developed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. The entire approach is fundamentally flawed, scientifically deficient and contrary to Clean Water Act requirements. At the most basic level, EPA has not demonstrated that the proposed criteria are either necessary or appropriate to ensure attainment of aquatic life designated uses in Florida lakes and flowing waters. Rather, the Agency itself has determined that the cause-and-effect relationships necessary to support criteria development do not exist between the stressors (TP, TN) and the response variables (chlorophyll a, periphyton biomass, or SCI). The new procedures for stream criteria derivation using various lake models have never undergone peer review or been adopted as Section 304(a) methods, in violation of federal procedures. Consequently, the proposed criteria fail to meet the requirements set forth at 40 CFR § 131.11 (b). Moreover, the Implementation Mechanisms described in the rule proposal lack sufficient definition and make it impossible for PotashCorp to fully evaluate the proposal or formulate complete comments. EPA,'s Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (75 Fed Reg. 45579-45583) presented EPA's rationale for changes to the January 26, 2010 proposal and requested comments in three general areas. Several stakeholders, with whom PotashCorp is affiliated, have submitted comments on this proposed rule. PotashCorp has reviewed, concurs with, and incorporates by reference the comments submitted on this notice by the Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council (August 24, 2010), CF Industries (September 1, 2010), and The Fertilizer Institute (September 2, 2010). The FDEP has raised many of these same concerns in the comments it submitted on the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5592Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition Supplemental Notice, as well as other concerns that must be addressed before the rule is finalized. 

# Comment ID 2491-1.001.001

Author Name: Wallace T. Organization: Town of Orchid RESOLUTION 2010-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF ORCHID, FLORIDA, IN OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the U.S. EPA has announced new water regulations that would apply to Florida and only Florida; and WHEREAS, the new water regulations presented from Washington are lengthy, highly technical rules that may impose major economic hardship on Florida's battered economy with questionable benefits to our environment; and WHEREAS, attempting to comply with these federal regulations -- which in some cases may prove technically impossible -- may cost tens of billions of dollars; and WHEREAS, Floridians can expect significantly higher water bills under the proposed regulations; costing our State thousands of jobs, and has the potential to cause businesses to avoid Florida in favor of other states not subject to EPA's stringent water rules, and WHEREAS, Florida has been recognized as a national leader in water quality protection and restoration thanks to the state's existing Total Maximum Daily Loads program ("TMDL"), a program designed to protect clean lakes and rivers; and WHEREAS, for nearly 10 years, Florida's TMDL program has spent tens of millions of dollars to scientifically evaluate the quality of Florida's surface waters and promote the mechanisms necessary to clean up pollution; and 

# Comment ID 2491-1.001.003

Author Name: Wallace T. Organization: Town of Orchid WHEREAS, the proposed standards are so extreme that EPA would judge many of Florida's pristine streams and lakes, even some unaltered by human hands, as impaired; and WHEREAS, such overprotective standards create burdens that some industries will simply be unable to bear; and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5593Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

WHEREAS, such standards pose a significant problem for Florida farmers who provide our citizens with food - a problem that ultimately could lead to significantly higher grocery prices. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF ORCHID, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. Opposition to Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida. The Town Council of the Town of Orchid hereby opposes the EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida as set forth in the "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" ruling published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2010. Section 2. Public Comment. The Town Council hereby requests that this resolution be sent immediately and directly to the EPA to be considered as public comment in opposition to the proposed measures. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the Town Council of the Town of Orchid, Florida. DULY ADOPTED at a Public Hearing this 1st day of September 2010.



# Comment ID 2492-1.001.002

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies NACWA submitted extensive comments on April 28, 2010, regarding the January proposal and continues to believe that EPA's approach to developing nutrient criteria in Florida is flawed and will have major consequences for clean water agencies in that state. 

# Comment ID 2492-1.001.006

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies The Notice proposes some adjustments, not the wholesale changes that NACWA and other stakeholders have requested, clearly signaling that EPA is still moving forward at breakneck speed to finalize these criteria. What remains a major unanswered question at this point, however, is how EPA's new criteria will be implemented and how it will integrate with existing Clean Water Act programs. NACWA remains concerned that EPA has not adequately addressed the impact of its new criteria on current, EPA-approved TMDLs in Florida. NACWA believes that clarifying language is needed to indicate that the new criteria will not be applied to waters governed by current TMDLs until the state finds that the TMDL needs to be updated.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5594Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

In addition, in comments EPA has made in various meetings, a significant amount of weight is being placed on 'implementation flexibility'. Discharger concerns about the new criteria being applied at the 'end-of-pipe', requiring treatment beyond the limit of technology, are being met with EPA assurances of reasonable implementation approaches by state regulators. 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.002

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Significant technical issues remain and we ask they be addressed prior to adopting new criteria that will have a tremendous financial impact on Pasco County property owners who currently pay over $11 million per year to fund the County's stormwater utility. Pasco County residents, parks and farmers also utilize over 15 million gallons per day of reclaimed water for various irrigation needs. We share the concerns of the Southwest Florida Water Management District that the new nutrient criteria will likely curtail the use of or prevent the expansion of the use of this vital water resource. Pasco County also operates a wastewater utility that relies upon direct and indirect reuse for effluent disposal. The proposed criteria could lead to much more costly methods of treatment and disposal. 

# Comment ID 2494-1.001.003

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition In the absence of such an extension, the FWQC provides the following comments regarding the new regulatory options that are laid out in the NODA. There are, fundamentally, three significant regulatory changes discussed in the NODA: (1) changes in the placement of streams into particular watershed regions to apply region-specific nutrient criteria; (2) a new "benchmark distribution" option for developing stream criteria, as an alternative to EPA's "reference site" approach; and (3) a new way of deriving Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) for downstream lakes, using the BATHTUB model (and allowing some additional options as well) instead of the Vollenweider model equation that was used in the initial proposal. The changes in stream regions are based on review of waterbody-specific data, and we understand that Florida stakeholders with knowledge regarding those waterbodies will be providing comments on the revised approach. In these comments, the FWQC will focus on the "benchmark distribution" option and the BATHTUB model's use in DPVs, since those issues have potential national impact as a precedent for how nutrient criteria are developed around the country. On both of these issues, we believe that EPA's new approach has serious legal and scientific flaws. In these comments, we explain our concerns and provide suggestions as to how to address them. 

# Comment ID 2495-1.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5595Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

Author Name: Vick J. Organization: Gulf Power Company Gulf Power Company (Gulf) submits this letter to request your help in protecting Gulf and other businesses from higher costs that will result from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) new numeric nutrient criteria regulations. The newly proposed regulation and subsequent modifications are technically flawed and may require Gulf and others to implement additional water control technologies that are un-necessary and costly to our customers. As explained below, and in detail in the attached letter from HydroQual, Inc., the standards proposed in the NNC rule by EPA lack scientific basis and is based on very limited data. Neither the State of Florida nor EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria because of a lack of a dose-response relationship. Given this lack in a dose-response relationship, this proposed regulation will result in arbitrary and unnecessary regulations for Gulf and our customers. This will likely result in higher than needed utility rates and negatively affect our customers with little or no benefit. Several of Gulf Power Company's existing and future environmental planning decisions are heavily based on Florida's existing narrative nutrient standard, the 1999 Consent Decree, Florida DEP's development of TMDLs, and EPA's approval of those TMDLs. I know that others in the regulated community also are moving forward with new projects based on the same approach. For example, Gulf has worked closely with the Emerald Coast Utility Authority, EPA Region IV and the DEP to work out permitting issues related to use of highly treated reclaimed wastewater and the subsequent build-out of a new waste water treatment system serving the community in Escambia County. This project will result in a substantial reduction of up to 20 MGD surface water discharges and very substantial reductions in nutrient loading in Pensacola Bay. It will be a win for the environment and all citizens in this area. Significantly, this partnership has been a key component in obtaining funding for this very important water quality improvement project. The environmental analysis and NPDES permitting for the Gulf Power - Emerald Coast Utility Authority partnership has all been premised on the existing regulatory program, that is, utilizing Florida's existing narrative nutrient standard for the development of water body-specific TMDLs. Another ongoing project is the Escambia Bay TMDL development process wherein stakeholders have been working closely with DEP and EPA. The proposed EPA rule places a cloud of uncertainty on work to date on that effort. I am sure that it is not the intention of EPA's proposed NNC to imperil progressive reuse and pollutant reduction projects like the Gulf Power - ECUA partnership, or the promising stakeholder process associated with the Escambia Bay TMDL. But unless the proposed rules are carefully reconsidered, these types of projects may no longer be feasible. In conclusion, Gulf submits that the existing narrative nutrient standard in Florida has been successful in reducing nutrient loads to our water bodies. It is similar to the nutrient standard in most other states, and Florida has been a national leader in implementing the narrative standard to achieve reductions in discharges of nutrients. Despite the substantial growth that occurred in Florida over the past few decades, there have been significant reductions in nutrients concentrations. Given Florida's success in controlling discharges of nutrients, and given the lack of a sound

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5596Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition scientific basis for the proposed NNC, Gulf requests that EPA undertake a full Science Advisory Board review of the proposed rule, including the proposed standards and underlying methodologies. Also, we suggest that EPA enlist an independent economic analysis to assess the costs and unintended costs are fully understood. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.016

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC
4. EPA's Approach is Arbitrary and Capricious and Contrary to Law For all of the reasons stated above, Mosaic believes that EPA's proposals in the NODA are arbitrary, capricious an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. EPA has also not utilized "sound scientific rationale" in developing these criteria, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 131.11(a).

5. Conclusion EPA's approach in the NODA is fundamentally flawed and must be substantially revised or dropped altogether. 

# Comment ID 2498-1.001.003

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
1. The Department attempted to review many provisions contained in EPA's Proposed Rule and its NODA, but has been significantly hindered by the absence of data, studies, and methodologies used by EPA for supporting certain core components of the Rule. Our comment document outlines areas of the rulemaking process where data and information were not available regarding provisions for 1) the establishment and application of lake downstream protection values (DPVs); 2) the averaging periods and allowable exceedance frequencies of criteria; 3) the Nutrient Watershed Regions for Total Nitrogen; and 4) the option of applying lake criteria to streams in the absence of a working water quality model. Not disclosing these data, methods, or analyses, and not providing clear explanations of criteria provisions prevents meaningful review. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.007

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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5597Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

The above examples identify areas where EPA's rulemaking is proceeding in the absence of EPA providing data, analyses, or pertinent information. This deficiency significantly hinders the public's ability to comment. While some underlying data and reports may have been included in the docket (such as stream data and the Corps document on BATHTUB), it is the methodology used in creating the criteria proposals and the meaning to be inferred from the reports that should be part of the public record. Not disclosing these methods and interpretations prevents the public from making relevant comments. 

# Comment ID 2502-1.001.003

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute In the absence of such an extension, TFI will provide here its initial thoughts regarding the new regulatory options that are laid out in the NODA. There are, fundamentally, three significant regulatory changes discussed in the NODA: (1) changes in the placement of streams into particular regions to apply region-specific criteria; (2) a new "benchmark distribution" option for developing stream criteria, as an alternative to EPA's "reference site" approach; and (3) a new way of deriving Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) for downstream lakes, using the BATHTUB model (and allowing some additional options as well) instead of the Vollenweider model that was used in the initial proposal. The changes in stream regions are based on review of waterbody-specific data, and we understand that Florida stakeholders with knowledge regarding those waterbodies -- including TFI members -- will be providing comments on the revised approach. In these comments, TFI will focus on the "benchmark distribution" option and the BATHTUB model's use in DPVs, since those issues have potential national impact as a precedent for how nutrient criteria are developed in other states. On both of these issues, we believe that EPA's new approach has serious legal and scientific flaws. In these comments, we explain our concerns and provide suggestions as to how to address them. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.002

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Accordingly, CF will be directly and substantially affected by the Agency's nutrient water quality standards (WQS) rule if adopted as proposed. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.015

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Perpetuation of Improper Approaches

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5598Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

The August 3rd supplemental notice of data availability fails to address any of the significant deficiencies in the proposed rule as detailed in a large proportion of the several thousand comments submitted in response to the January 2010 draft rule. Instead, the August 3rd notice perpetuates two improper approaches. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.022

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Overall Comments: We appreciate that USEPA has considered comments made by the public and concerned stakeholders. While USEPA is to be commended for responding to certain specific deficiencies, such as use of the Vollenweider model for downstream protection, the Agency continues to ignore the fundamental comment with regard to streams: that there is no demonstrable empirical relationship between nutrients and biological response. So why use empirical or any other methods to set numeric criteria in streams? Without scientifically credible relationships between nutrients and any response variable, it is incredulous that the agency persists in trying to justify some nutrient-response relationship where none exists, as we have demonstrated previously (Blancher 2010. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.2233.1). Also, the supplemental notice suggests that the State may have sufficient data to apply more site specific models, which is the approach currently being used and thus negates the need for the proposed rule. The site specific approach through the IWR/TMDL process the state is using is the most appropriate method for developing nutrient criteria for Florida's water bodies, and there is no simple empirical way around that inconvenient fact. 

# Comment ID 2504-1.001.001

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District The South Florida Water Management District appreciates the opportunity to provide additional feedback and technical comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its proposed 40 CFR Part 131-Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's and Flowing Waters, published on January 26, 2010. This communication is in response to EPA's supplemental notice of data availability (NODA) and request for comment published August 3, 2010 (from Federal Register, August 3, 2010, Volume 75, Number 148, pages 45579-45583). The District submits the attached comments on the proposed rule to build upon our original set of comments delivered on April 28, 2010 (EPA docket reference EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1476.2). The District continues to have the firm position that while numeric nutrient criteria are important for protecting Florida's water resources, successful numeric nutrient criteria must be developed through a science-based process. Further, any criteria development must allow sufficient time to address Florida's extensive ecological diversity in order to achieve

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5599Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition appropriate and protective water quality standards. With that in mind, the District offers the attached technical comments along with ready access to the expertise of our scientists and staff plus several decades of water quality data. 

# Comment ID 2505.001.001

Author Name: Hammond G. Organization: City of Mount Dora The City of Mount Dora commented on the proposed EPA rule back on April 26,2010. The City objected to the new nutrient criteria because it could potentially bankrupt the City and would impose a tremendous financial burden on the City during a period of plunging property values and lost tax revenue. This letter is to raise additional objections to the nutrient criteria process. The alternatives addressed in the August 3, 2010 Federal Register are simply minor variations of a fatally flawed regulatory effort. In fact, the most notable aspects of EPA's notice are that it fails to respond to the concerns expressed by EPA's own Science Advisory Board regarding the scientific shortcomings of EPA's reference condition methodologies. The notice fails to respond to the concerns of the Florida Legislature that EPA's proposed criteria fail to take into account the unique features of Florida's varied fresh waters and that the proposed criteria "fail to incorporate, and may undermine, the state's science-based total maximum daily loads program". Finally, the notice fails to respond to the request by a bipartisan coalition of the Florida Congressional Delegation urging EPA to subject its proposed criteria to independent scientific peer review and economic analysis prior to finalizing the criteria. The City of Mount Dora urges that EPA reconsider its rulemaking in response to these concerns, even if such reconsideration requires EPA to seek relief form the consent decree schedule. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. 

# Comment ID 2506.001.002

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA Many of the comment letters that EPA received from Florida's regulated community last April objected to EPA's proposal to derive numeric nutrient stream criteria using a reference water approach on grounds that: 1) there is no demonstrated dose-response or cause-and-effect relationship between the observed biological conditions and the measured nutrient concentrations; and 2) the selection of a cutoff point along a frequency distribution of nutrient data (e.g., the 75th percentile) would immediately result in impairment determinations for an arbitrarily defined fraction (e.g. twenty-five percent) of the near pristine or minimally disturbed waters selected to set the criteria. JEA agrees with those commentors that whether EPA employs its SCI-based reference water approach or a benchmark method, both are a reference water approach to setting water quality criteria for nutrients and neither can reasonably be considered to be scientifically defensible. Under either approach, Florida will be spending billions of dollars to "restore" waters that are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5600Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

not in need of restoration. Based on the extensive volume and specificity of these comments to EPA, JEA was disappointed to see that the alternatives EPA chose to address in the August 3, 2010 Federal Register are simply minor variations of the previously proposed flawed regulatory effort. JEA expresses its concern that EPA in this proposed modified draft has failed to respond to our own previous commentary, as well as virtually all of the concerns expressed by both the regulated and governmental sectors. For example, EPA's notice fails to respond to the concerns expressed by EPA's own Science Advisory Board regarding the scientific shortcomings of EPA's reference condition methodologies.[1] The notice fails to respond to the concerns of the Florida Legislature that EPA's proposed criteria fail to take into account the unique features of Florida's varied fresh waters and that the proposed criteria "fail to incorporate, and may undermine, the state's science-based total maximum daily loads program."[2] And the notice fails to respond to the request by a bipartisan coalition of the Florida Congressional Delegation urging EPA to subject this current proposed criteria to independent scientific peer review and economic analysis prior to finalizing the criteria.[3] JEA strongly urges that EPA reconsider its rulemaking in response to these concerns, even if such reconsideration requires EPA to seek relief from the consent decree schedule. EPA's unwillingness to take the time to address all of these serious concerns seems to verify that the consent decree is substantially and adversely impacting the rule adoption process. Please note that in its original April 22, 2010 comment letter on this rulemaking initiative, JEA emphasized the significant progress that has been achieved in reducing nutrients inputs into the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) under several EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs, and how EPA's proposed numeric nutrients rule severely threatens ongoing progress in implementing those TMDLs. It is very disappointing that EPA once again has declined to propose changes to the numeric nutrient rule that would avoid these adverse impacts on TMDL implementation. EPA's numeric nutrient criteria simply are not necessary for waters, like the LSJR, with EPA-approved TMDLs for nutrients. Unless such TMDL waters are excluded from the numeric nutrient criteria, EPA will have set up a regulatory trap through which public utilities such as JEA, as well as associated governmental units such as city's and county's, would be required to spend millions of dollars on pollution control improvements that very quickly will become obsolete and require extremely expensive retrofits. EPA's ongoing. p.3 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 August 27, 2010 Page 3 indifference to this anomaly in its proposed numeric nutrient criteria rule represents an environmental policy failure. JEA acknowledges that numeric nutrient criteria can be appropriate in some contexts; it is the proper derivation and application of those criteria which are our focus in our comments letters.

[1] EPA Science Advisory Board, SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (April 27, 2010), available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/95eac6037dbee015852573a00075f732/E09317EC14CB3F2B852577I3004 BED5F/$File/EPA-SAB-I0-006-unsigned.pdf. [2] 2010 Fla. Laws ch. 205, § 58 (signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist, (June 4, 2010), available at http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2010-205.pdf ; see also, Florida House Memorial 1589 (2010), available at http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2010/House/bills/billtext/pdf/h158901c1.pdf

. [3] Rep. Adam Putnam, et aI, Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (August 2, 2010)



# Comment ID 2513.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5601Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition

Author Name: Bryant S. Organization: Palmetto City Commission The City Commission of the City of Palmetto, Florida, at the September 27, 2010 Commission meeting, approved the attached resolution expressing opposition to the proposed adoption by the EPA of nutrient water quality criteria for Florida water bodies, lakes and streams. The Palmetto City Commission requests that the EPA consider the particular water bodies and geology of the area, together with currently available technology for storm water treatment, before making a final determination of nutrient water quality criteria. The Commission is concerned that the compliance with the criteria will be fiscally irresponsible or impossible to meet for the City, businesses, and residents of the City as drafted. We appreciate your consideration. Please feel free to contact me at 941-723-4570 should you need further information.


# Response

Comment ID: 2446-1.001.001 Response: EPA disagrees that the items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice constituted sweeping revisions to EPA’s January 26, 2010 proposal that warranted more than 30 days of review. As evidence of the reasonableness of the amount of time provided to the public to comment on EPA's supplemental notice, the Agency received 71 public comments on its supplemental notice, many of which contained substantive input on the information contained in the supplemental notice. EPA released the supplemental notice in order to request further comment on possible revisions related to specific approaches and issues identified in the January 2010 proposal. The items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice were not wholesale changes to the approaches described at proposal, rather they were refinements. As stated in the supplemental notice, EPA solicited comment on three items. The first item was the delineation of stream nutrient regions. In its January 2010 proposal, EPA proposed classification of Florida’s streams north of Lake Okeechobee by separating watersheds into four geographically distinct TN and TP stream nutrient regions (i.e., Panhandle, Bone Valley, Peninsula, and North Central). In its supplemental notice, the Agency solicited comment on consideration of dividing EPA’s proposed Panhandle Region into a Panhandle West (less phosphorus-rich) and Panhandle East (more phosphorus-rich), in addition to refining the regional boundaries separating EPA’s proposed Peninsula Region from EPA’s proposed West Central Region (formerly called Bone Valley). These potential re-delineations and refinements of EPA’s proposed stream nutrient regions did not constitute entirely new regulatory approaches because the originally proposed methodologies for deriving criteria were simply applied to the re-delineated regions to derive the criteria provided in the supplemental notice. The second item included in the supplemental notice was the resulting criteria associated with two approaches included in EPA’s January 2010 proposal (EPA’s SCI-based approach and the alternative benchmark distribution approach). In order to enable the public to have a meaningful opportunity to inform EPA’s final rule, the Agency included the potential TN and TP criteria that would result based on the revised stream nutrient regions under consideration using these approaches. Potentially revising the boundaries of the stream nutrient regions would naturally result in revisions to associated TN and TP criteria for those regions. EPA disagrees that these revised TN and TP criteria, based on revised stream nutrient regions, however, constitute an entirely new

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5602Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
set of criteria that placed an unnecessary or enormous burden of review on the public because the methods and data used to develop the criteria in the supplemental notice were the same as provided in the original proposal. The third item included in the supplemental notice involved the protection of downstream lakes in Florida. EPA recognized in its January 26, 2010 proposal that more specific information may be readily available for individual lakes that could allow the use of alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model and requested comment in its January 2010 proposal on the availability and application of this model, as well as the use of alternative lake-specific models. Again, the Agency disagrees that solicitation of comment on alternative approaches for protection of downstream lakes constituted an entirely new set of criteria and an entirely new methodology for review because EPA specifically requested comment on the use of BATHTUB to derive downstream protection values in the original proposal. EPA reminds the commenter that the Agency only sought comment on the items presented in its supplemental notice and did not solicit comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposed rule. The approaches EPA is finalizing, as described in the final rule technical support document (TSD), are very similar to those described in its proposed rule TSD. EPA has provided additional clarification and detail in its final rule TSD in response to the many constructive comments it received in response to its January 2010 proposal and August 2010 supplemental notice. EPA believes that the 30-day public comment period associated with the Agency’s supplemental notice provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the notice and associated materials in order to provide meaningful public comment to EPA. In addition, EPA believes that the 90­ day public comment period associated with the proposal, in conjunction with the public hearings (a total of 13 public hearing sessions were held in 6 different cities throughout the State), provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the proposed regulation and provide meaningful public comment to EPA.

Comment IDs: 2468-1.001.004, 2483-1.001.006, 2487-1.001.002 Response: EPA appreciates the comments and concerns expressed in opposition to EPA's rulemaking to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters, however, the Agency disagrees that EPA should not proceed with finalizing and promulgating the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters, for the reasons discussed in the preamble to the final rule.

Comment IDs: 2449-1.001.003, 2450-1.001.003, 2450-1.001.005, 2451-1.001.002, 2452-1.001.002, 2454-1.001.002, 2456.001.003, 2458-1.001.003, 2462-1.001.001, 2465-1.001.002, 2465.001.002, 2467-1.001.003, 2467-1.001.008, 2468-1.001.002, 2469­ 1.001.003, 2476-1.001.004, 2476-1.001.006, 2481-1.001.001, 2486-1.001.005, 2486-1.001.009, 2487-1.001.009, 2488-1.001.002, 2491-1.001.001, 2491-1.001.003, 2492-1.001.002, 2493-1.001.002, 2494-1.001.003, 2495-1.001.001, 2497-1.001.016, 2502­ 1.001.003, 2503-1.001.002, 2503-1.001.022, 2504-1.001.001, 2505.001.001, 2506.001.002, 2513.001.001 Response: EPA reminds commenters that the Agency is promulgating numeric nutrient criteria that translate Florida’s own existing nutrient narrative water quality standards into numeric values for Florida's lakes and flowing waters that are scientifically defensible and protective of applicable designated uses consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. This final rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, which will be effective for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5603Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
purposes of the Clean Water Act, that are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated by FDEP as Class I and Class III waters. As a result, promulgation of this rule serves to protect human health, aquatic ecosystems, recreation in and on the water, and drinking water supplies from water quality degradation due to the negative impacts of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Numeric nutrient criteria will create clear water quality goals and easily measurable quantitative baselines to support stronger collaboration and more effective partnerships with both point and nonpoint source dischargers of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. The preamble to the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs the State of Florida, discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, 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. EPA disagrees that the Agency’s Consent Decree deadline to finalize numeric nutrient criteria adversely affected EPA’s public comment processes, impeded EPA’s thorough review, consideration, and analysis of the comments submitted, or hindered the derivation and promulgation of scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria that are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA reminds commenters that the underlying methodologies for the Agency’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s rivers, streams, and lakes underwent scientific peer review. EPA followed the procedures outlined in its Peer Review Handbook (EPA/100/B-06/002) by having the specific methods EPA was considering to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters peer reviewed by five independent external experts in this field. This independent, external peer review was completed in July 2009 and the results were made available through EPA’s docket for the proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments Final: External Peer Review of EPA’s Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA considered and responded to these peer review comments prior to proposal in January, 2010 (EPA Responses to External Peer Review of EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0155). With regard to the Science Advisory Board (SAB)'s recent review of an EPA draft guidance document for States to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria using stressor-response relationships: The SAB reviewed EPA’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development. Stressor-response relationships are one of three generalapproaches that EPA recommends for States to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria. EPA has previously published peerreviewed general guidance documents that outline these three approaches. The SAB reviewed a supplemental guidance document that provided more detail on one of the three general approaches. EPA has used stressor-response approaches in this final rule and has benefited from the advice the SAB gave to EPA based on the SAB review of the Agency’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development in September 2009. EPA points out to commenters that the Agency conducted an analysis of the potential economic impact of the rule on entities in Florida and revised and refined that analysis based on comments, data, and information submitted by many stakeholder groups in Florida including Florida’s Agriculture and Environmental Agencies, as well as members of the public. Please refer to the preamble to the final rule, section VI. Economic Analysis and EPA's “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards forNutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” located in the docket associated with this rulemaking (Docket ID: EPA-HQOW-2009-0596) for cost and benefit estimates associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and assumptions regarding available technology. EPA reminds commenters that water quality criteria are set to protect the designated uses of waters. Criteria are not set at levels based on whether they are affordable for dischargers to meet. Nonetheless, the CWA, EPA's implementing regulations, and Florida's companion regulations are equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where affordable technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5604Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they could examine any of the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure, (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In the case that nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives could apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost-effective best management practices, as required by Florida State law. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms. Please also refer to section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final in the final preamble for a discussion regarding the effect of EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria on existing TMDLs. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. The State of Florida will determine how best to meet the standards in a way that best meets the needs of its citizens and environment. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms, which describes the tools the State has at its disposal to exercise flexibility such that the rule is not a one-size-fits-all rule. EPA and FDEP share a commitment to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. Florida established the designated uses that 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 this final rule. The numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule establish levels necessary to support these uses. Among the benefits that may otherwise be at risk are the natural beauty of Florida waters, ecology that supports natural populations of fish and wildlife, health and welfare of Florida residents, recreational value for Florida citizens and visitors, waterfront property values, and tourism business and revenue.

Comment IDs: 2458-1.001.003, 2462-1.001.001 Response: In terms of understanding how numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule will affect restoration and implementation activities, plans, and programs already underway (such as the TMDL process, agricultural BMPs/BMAPs, fertilizer reductions, or the NPDES permitting process), these are cyclical processes that are monitored, reassessed, and revisited on a regular basis to reflect new information, analysis, data, or as in this case when new or revised water quality criteria are put in place to translate and provide numeric goals to support implementation and attainment of existing state designated water quality uses. Regular review and reevaluation of assessment, listing, TMDL, BMAP, and NPDES permit actions is a routine and ongoing part of any water quality program implementation process both to determine where progress has been made, to protect high quality waters, and to identify and prioritize impaired waters for further evaluation and appropriate action. Adjustments are then made consistent with meeting applicable WQS. Please refer to the preamble, section III.E, for further discussion of the applicability and implementation of these criteria. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5605Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA has worked closely with the State, providing technical assistance, along with funding to the State to support sampling and analysis of existing data, to address nitrogen/phosphorus pollution problems in Florida. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment IDs: 2462-1.001.001, 2481-1.001.001, 2495-1.001.001 Response: As stated in EPA’s January 14, 2009 determination, Florida’s reliance on a case-by-case translation of its narrative nutrient criterion into numeric values was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses. By EPA establishing numeric nutrient criteria, Florida will not need to rely on a case-by-case translation of its narrative. The existence of numeric nutrient criteria that are applicable to Florida inland surface waters designated as Class I and Class III waters will facilitate Florida’s efforts to establish TMDLs and appropriate WQBELs in NPDES permits as necessary to adequately protect applicable designated uses. Numeric nutrient criteria will also facilitate Florida’s efforts to identify nutrient-impaired waters. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time and EPA looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.. EPA refers commenters to the preamble to this final rule, in particular section II. Background, which documents the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in Florida.

Comment IDs: 2467-1.001.008, 2469-1.001.003, 2481-1.001.001, 2487-1.001.009, 2488-1.001.002, 2495-1.001.001, 2503­ 1.001.022, 2506.001.002 Response: EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses had been established and, therefore, criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of nutrients result in predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered a wide variety of information in deriving nutrient criteria for Florida. This included consideration of a large number of stressor-response or cause and effect relationship models using observed data. These analyses produced models for both algal and macroinvertebrate responses and the results are detailed in the proposed and final rule Technical Support Documents (TSD). These relationships varied in their precision, but they were significant. The variability was an element in the decision to rely more heavily on reference approaches for criteria derivation, but EPA disagrees that no stressor-response relationships were established. Also, there is a well established and 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 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. Please refer to the TSD to the final rule for the full references). EPA deduces from this body of knowledge, corroborated by significant relationships observed in Florida that are consistent with

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5606Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
predictions based on the body of scientific knowledge that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and biological responses exists in Florida and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. As EPA indicates in the preceding paragraph, these cause and effect relationships varied in their precision, but they were significant. The variability was an element in the decision to rely more heavily on reference approaches for criteria derivation, but EPA disagrees that no stressor-response relationships were established. The reference condition approach relies on identifying a least-disturbed set of reference sites reflecting "relatively undisturbed" conditions reflecting natural integrity (Davies 1997). This approach, recommended and detailed in EPA guidance (e.g., U.S. EPA 2000), derives criteria from the distribution of values in a reference population, defined as "relatively undisturbed stream segments that can serve as examples of the natural biological integrity of a region" (U.S. EPA 2000, p. 94). The reference approach, therefore, uses site that provide the appropriate benchmark against which to determine the nutrient concentrations present when the designated uses of a waterbody are being met. Setting criteria based on conditions observed in these reference sites reflects both the stated goal of the CWA and EPA's National Nutrient Strategy that calls for states to take precautionary and preventative steps in managing nitrogen/phosphorus pollution to maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters before adverse biological and/or ecological effects are observed (Grubbs 2001, Grumbles 2007).

Comment ID: 2468-1.001.002 Response: As stated in the proposed and final preambles, the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule pertain to Florida’s Class I and Class III designated waters. EPA believes that the 90-day public comment period associated with the proposal, in conjunction with the public hearings (a total of 13 public hearing sessions were held in 6 different cities throughout the State), in addition to the 30-day public comment period associated with the Agency’s August 3, 2010 supplemental notice, provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the proposed regulation and provide meaningful public comment to EPA. EPA notes that both the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management submitted comments on EPA’s proposed rule as well.

Comment ID: 2469-1.001.003 Response: Please refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1.

Comment IDs: 2476-1.001.006, 2491-1.001.003 Response: EPA refers commenters to the preamble to the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs the State of Florida, which discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, 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, consistent with the Clean Water Act, and set to manage clean water program objectives for Florida’s

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5607Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
waters affected by this final rule. The numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule establish levels necessary to support these uses. EPA recognizes there are situations when further scientific data and analyses can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of chl-a, TN, TP, and/or nitrate+nitrite that protects the designated use for a particular waterbody.As a result, EPA has included a federal SSAC procedure in its final rulemaking which allows EPA to determine that a revised sitespecific chl-a, TN, TP, or nitrate+nitrite numeric criterion should apply in lieu of the generally applicable criteria promulgated in this final rule where that SSAC is demonstrated to be protective of the applicable designated use(s). EPA refers the commenter to the final preamble discussion of the federal site-specific alternative criteria process, in particular section V.C Site-Specific Alternative Criteria, which explains the specific procedure for EPA adoption of SSAC and the final rule language regarding EPA’s federal SSAC process. There EPA provides clarification on the federal SSAC process and the roles and responsibilities of the Agency in administering this procedure.

Comment ID: 2491-1.001.003 Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency’s federally-promulgated criteria will pose a significant problem for Florida’s farmers. EPA refers the commenter to the final preamble section VI. Economic Analysis and EPA's “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” located in the docket associated with this rulemaking (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) for cost estimates associated with the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule, in particular, estimates and assumptions regarding agricultural costs. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act.

Comment IDs: 2477.001.004, 2497-1.001.016 Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency’s action in Florida is arbitrary and capricious and 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. With regard to the comments about the consistency of EPA's action with the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment, the 10th Amendment provides the following: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As recognized in the comments, Congress enacted the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5608Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
CWA under authority of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which is contained in section 8 of Article 1 and provides that "The Congress shall have Power ... (3) To regulate Commerce ... among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". EPA disagrees with the comments suggesting that the rule is unconstitutional based on either the Tenth Amendment or the Commerce clause. Congressional enactment of the CWA was based on federal authority to regulate interstate commerce and the channels of commerce, i.e., the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment has been interpreted as embodying the principles of federalism and "states' rights." Because CWA section 303 provides a state with the authority to take action first, subject to EPA review and approval and disapproval, and because EPA action under CWA 303(c)(3) does not commandeer the executive or legislative apparatus of a state, today's rule is not unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.

Comment IDs: 2486-1.001.005, 2486-1.001.009 Response: EPA disagrees that the data and timeframe employed to finalize the Agency’s rulemaking are not sufficient to support the derivation of scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. EPA notes that all pertinent data and information for the proposal and supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment were available through EPA’s docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) with adequate time for organizations to sufficiently analyze and understand the data and science EPA used to derive EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria. EPA believes that the 90-day public comment period associated with the proposal, in conjunction with the public hearings (a total of 13 public hearing sessions were held in 6 different cities throughout the State), in addition to the 30-day public comment period associated with the Agency’s August 3, 2010 supplemental notice, provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the proposed regulation and provide meaningful public comment to EPA.

Comment ID: 2486-1.001.009 Response: EPA reminds the commenter that the Agency released its August 3, 2010 supplemental notice in order to request further comment on three possible revisions related to specific approaches and issues identified in the January 2010 proposal. EPA reminds the commenter that the Agency only sought comment on the items presented in its supplemental notice and did not solicit comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposed rule. As a result, the Agency did not seek comment on deviating from the duration and frequency language on the preferred and alternative options contained in the Agency’s January 26, 2010 proposal. Therefore, the information the commenter requested was available in EPA’s January 26, 2010 proposal.

Comment IDs: 2492-1.001.006, 2495-1.001.001, 2506.001.002 Response: In terms of understanding how numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule will affect restoration and implementation activities, plans, and programs already underway (such as the TMDL process, agricultural BMPs/BMAPs, fertilizer reductions, or the NPDES permitting process), these are cyclical processes that are monitored, reassessed and revisited on a regular basis to reflect new information, analysis, data or as in this case when new or revised water quality criteria are put in place to translate and provide numeric goals to support implementation and attainment of existing state designated water quality uses. Regular review and reevaluation of assessment, listing, TMDL, BMAP, and NPDES permit actions is a routine and ongoing part of any water quality

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5609Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
program implementation process both to determine where progress has been made, to protect high quality waters, and to identify and prioritize impaired waters for further evaluation and appropriate action. Adjustments are then made consistent with meeting applicable WQS. Please refer to the preamble to the final rule, section III.E, for further discussion of the applicability and implementation of these criteria. The water quality standards program is equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where current technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they would most likely work with the state to examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In situations where nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives would apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost-effective best management practices according to Florida procedures. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the rule to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms, which describes the tools the State has at its disposal to exercise implementation flexibility. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment IDs: 2498-1.001.003, 2498-2.001.007 Response: EPA disagrees with commenter’s assertions that the Agency failed to provide necessary data, studies, and methodologies in the docket in order to facilitate a thorough review of the August 3, 2010 supplemental notice. EPA confirms that all pertinent data and information were available through EPA’s docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) with adequate time for organizations to sufficiently analyze and understand the data and science EPA used to derive EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria and provide meaningful comment on the items EPA raised. Please also refer to the response to comment ID 2446-1.001.001.

Comment ID: 2503-1.001.015 Response: EPA disagrees that its January 26, 2010 proposal had significant deficiencies and that its August 3, 2010 supplemental notice perpetuated two improper approaches. EPA refers commenters to the preamble to the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs the State of Florida, which discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5610Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition
amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. EPA released its supplemental notice in order to request further comment on possible revisions related to specific approaches and issues identified in the January 2010 proposal.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5611Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background 

# SNODA.BACK - BACKGROUND Comment ID 2446-1.001.008

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Mosaic provided detailed comments that offered specific ways to revise and refine the proposed Rule to make it more effective and flexible. As noted, Mosaic met with you July 13, 2010 to discuss our proposals in more detail. We had the impression that EPA found Mosaic's comments to be thoughtful, informative and well-grounded in scientific and technical analyses. While we understood that EPA made no commitment regarding any specific Mosaic comment or proposal, we believed EPA considered them worthy of serious consideration. Moreover, you asked us for follow-up information at the July 13, 2010 meeting which we devoted time and resources to prepare. 

# Comment ID 2447-1.001.001

Author Name: Bartlett D. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, (Department), has begun our review of the supplemental notice of data availability and a request for public comment related to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) January 26,2010, notice of proposed rulemaking, proposing numeric nutrient for lakes and flowing waters within the State of Florida. After our initial review, we have concluded that we need more information in order to prepare meaningful comments. We respectfully ask that you provide the following information or answer the following questions so that a proper review of the notice can be conducted. 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.001

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council The following is provided on behalf of the Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Utility Council, Florida Section of the American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) Utility Council, and Florida Rural Water Association (FRWA), (collectively, Florida Utility Groups) in response to EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment as published August 3, 2010 in Volume 75 of the Federal Register beginning at page 45579 and identified as Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5612Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.005

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 Florida Utility Groups appreciate this opportunity to provide comments. We reiterate the initial comments made in our April 2010 letter and urge EPA to take a step back and carefully reconsider its proposed rulemaking. 

# Comment ID 2450-1.001.001

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. This comment letter is provided on behalf of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc., (FCG) in response to EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment as published August 3, 2010 in Volume 75 of the Federal Register beginning at page 45579 and identified as Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

# Comment ID 2451-1.001.001

Author Name: Griswold R. Organization: Destin Water Users These comments are provided by Destin Water Users, Inc.(DWU) in regards to the proposed EPA mandate for strict nutrient limits for the State of Florida. The supplemental Notice of Data Availability makes no meaningful change to the original proposed rule. The comments previously submitted by Destin Water Users, Inc. are hereby reiterated and applicable to the current proposal. 

# Comment ID 2452-1.001.001

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. These comments are provided in response to the supplemental notice and request for comment published in the Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 148/Tuesday, August 3, 2010 in reference to Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5613Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background 

# Comment ID 2452-1.001.007

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. Please consider our concerns carefully before finalizing this new rule. 

# Comment ID 2452-1.001.008

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. Attached are comments on the proposed numeric nutrient criteria from the Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc.
Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 Please let us know if we need to answer any questions or provide additional information. 

# Comment ID 2453.001.002

Author Name: Lawrence K. Organization: Osceola County Osceola County will continue to support efforts to implement water quality standards based on good science in order to preserve local and regional water bodies. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 407-343-7144. 

# Comment ID 2454-1.001.001

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System On behalf of the Okaloosa County Water and Sewer Department, for the current record and notice, we re-submit our earlier comments, regarding EPA's original proposal to establish Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) in Florida. Our original comments are attached. We also offer the following additional comments regarding EPA's August 3, 2010 Notice of Supplemental Data Availability and Request for Comment.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5614Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background



# Comment ID 2455-1.001.001

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Government, Florida Manatee County would like to thank the EPA for the opportunity to respond to the EPA's Request for Comment regarding the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability for Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (Docket ID No. EPA-HW-OW-2009-0596). The Request for Comment was solicited in the August 2, 2010 Federal Register notice for this docket. Manatee County submitted comments regarding the original version of this docket on April 27, 2010. 

# Comment ID 2455-1.001.004

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Government, Florida Thank you again for the opportunity for Manatee County to provide comments on EPA's Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment. If you require additional documentation or materials to support the comments above, please feel free to contact me directly at rob.brown@mymanatee.org ; or Phone: 941-742-5980 ext. 1870. 

# Comment ID 2456.001.001

Author Name: DeBogory P. Organization: South Walton Utility Co., Inc. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida. South Walton Utility Company, Inc. (SWU) previously commented on the proposed rule in our letter to you dated April 26, 2010. We still stand behind those comments. 

# Comment ID 2457-1.001.001

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa The purpose of this letter is to submit the City of Tampa's (City) formal comments on the above referenced EPA docket item containing the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and request for comment dated August 3, 2010. The City appreciates the opportunity to provide its comments. Attached hereto is a document entitled "Responses to the Notice

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5615Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background of Data Availability' prepared for the City in response to the request for comments. This document is incorporated herein and considered an integral part of the City's response. The City will continue to participate and to work together with the USEPA to ensure that water quality standards are proposed, adopted and implemented that are appropriate and reflective of the extensive sitespecific research accomplished locally by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, the Nitrogen Management consortium of the TBEP, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and other local governments and state agencies. 

# Comment ID 2457-2.001.001

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa INTRODUCTION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted and identified as Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on its proposed rule for establishing numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and flowing waters on August 3, 2010. On January 26, 2010, EPA proposed "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" (75 FR 4173). EPA received a large number of comments and upon their review EPA is considering potential revisions to the proposed criteria. Specifically, with respect to the proposed stream criteria for TN and TP, EPA is seeking comments on revisions to the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the benchmark distribution approach discussed in the January proposed stream criteria. Secondly, EPA is seeking comments on the potential use of alternative models in the establishment of downstream protection values for lakes. This document is in response to EPA's NODA and the following comments are offered with respect to the potential revisions. 

# Comment ID 2458-1.001.001

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association On January 26, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued draft numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) water quality standards for certain lakes and flowing water within the State of Florida, as listed in 40 CFR 131.34. Supplemental information and request for additional comments were provided on August 3, 2010. This letter presents the comments of the Florida Stormwater Association (FSA) concerning the proposed criteria. FSA is a voluntary, non-profit Florida corporation organized under subsection 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. Our membership consists of municipal and county governments, water control districts, Water Management Districts, academic institutions, and consulting and engineering firms. There are over 300 organizational members of FSA. All of our members have an interest in surface water quality,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5616Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background stormwater management and stormwater finance. As an organization, FSA has been actively involved in the development of water quality policy and the implementation of water quality improvement programs in Florida for the past 17 years.
General Comments We have previously provided EPA with our comments concerning the draft numeric nutrient criteria. Those comments are attached hereto and should be considered to be an integral part of this letter. 

# Comment ID 2458-1.001.006

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed criteria. We are available to respond to any questions that the Agency may have concerning our comments.



# Comment ID 2460-1.001.001

Author Name: Thompson C. Organization: Buckeye Florida, L.P. The attached document comprises the comments of Buckeye Florida, L.P. (Buckeye) relating to the above referenced Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments. Buckeye operates a dissolving kraft pulp mill located in Taylor County, Florida, near Perry and discharges its treated wastewater into the Fenholloway River. Buckeye provided comments in response to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0179). We are now providing additional comments relating to new proposals contained in the August 3, 2010 NODA. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important rule. Questions concerning the comments submitted by Buckeye should be brought to my attention.



# Comment ID 2460-1.001.002

Author Name: Thompson C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5617Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background
Organization: Buckeye Florida, L.P. Summary In the August 3, 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments (NODA), EPA requested comments on:

- revised stream region boundaries based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations in Florida;



# Comment ID 2461.001.001

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport Elizabeth Wong, the City of North Port Stormwater Manager had provided on April 27, 2010 previous comments to the EPA January 14, 2010 proposed draft numeric nutrients criteria (NNC) rule for total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll a . 

# Comment ID 2461.001.005

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.002

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority Please find enclosed HydroQual's comments on EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) dated August 3, 2010. Our review of the new EPA data and supporting documents used to revise the nutrient criteria for streams focused on the scientific and technical basis for delineating stream nutrient regions, developing stream nutrient criteria using the benchmark dataset and deriving lake downstream protective values using the alternate approaches. If you have any questions on our comments, please feel free to contact us at any time.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5618Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.003

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority These comments present our review and comment on the three areas that are addressed in the supplemental data documents provided by EPA: delineation of stream nutrient watershed regions (NWR) and nutrient criteria associated with two approaches (EPAs SCI-based approach and the alternative benchmark distribution approach); and protection of downstream lakes in Florida. 

# Comment ID 2463-1.001.001

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation The Everglades Foundation, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to the restoration and preservation of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem. The Foundation strongly supports the establishment of scientifically sound nutrient criteria that recognize and respect the ecological diversity of Florida. We appreciate the opportunity and we hereby offer comments on the supporting materials provided by United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) concerning its Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. Please note that our comments will focus on the three main topics that US-EPA requested comments for, namely 1) the stream regionalization, 2) the alternative approach to base the criteria for streams on the 90th percentile of the concentration values (except for the West Central region) of the minimally disturbed sites, and 3) the model selection to derive the numeric nutrient criteria protecting downstream lakes.



# Comment ID 2463-1.001.010

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation Conclusion The Everglades Foundation urges the US-EPA to improve and finalize in a timely manner scientifically sound numeric criteria vital to cleaning up the lakes, rivers, streams and estuaries of the State of Florida. We look forward to helping you implement rigorous and workable nutrient criteria for the State of Florida. Thank you for your time and attention to our comments.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5619Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background 

# Comment ID 2465-1.001.001

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities Orange County Utilities provides water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and solid waste services for about 200,000 homes in the Orlando area. We support environmental and clean water programs. 

# Comment ID 2465-1.001.003

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities Questions concerning this letter may be referred to me (telephone 407-254-9809, email ray.hanson@ocfl.net ). This reply has also been sent electronically to ow-docket@epa.gov

. 

# Comment ID 2465.001.001

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities Orange County Utilities provides water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and solid waste services for about 200,000 homes in the Orlando area. We support environmental and clean water programs. 

# Comment ID 2466-1.001.001

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Attached please find Hillsborough County's comments on EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment regarding Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, as published in the Federal Register in Volume 75, No. 148 on August 3, 2010. Hillsborough County has been following this rulemaking closely, and initially provided detailed written comments to EPA on April 27, 2010. At this time we are providing additional detailed comments in response to the Supplemental Notice, and hope these comments will be useful to EPA in reviewing, revising and improving the Proposed Rule. As previously indicated, the County is an active member of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium. We continue to fully support the Consortium's request to EPA in its letter of March 8, 2010, that EPA recognize the Consortium's adaptive management strategy and accept the Consortium's Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorous (TP) loads as the protective loads used in determining downstream protective values (DPVs) for inland waters, and as the protective Estuarine Nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5620Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background Criteria for Tampa Bay. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. The County looks forward to working with EPA to ensure that appropriate and protective numeric nutrient criteria are finalized. Please contact David Glicksberg, P.G., Environmental Manager, Public Works Department at (813) 744-5671 if you have additional questions or require additional information. 

# Comment ID 2466-2.001.001

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County INTRODUCTION EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 26, 2010, for the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. In the August 3, 2010 Federal Register (40 CFR Part 131, Volume 75, Number 148), the EPA published a notice of supplemental data availability and a request for comments. Detailed comments for each of the areas requested by EPA are provided in the following summary. 

# Comment ID 2466-2.001.005

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Alternative Approaches to Establishing Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) for Streams The January 2010 proposal also proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes and requested comment on alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. Today's notice also requests 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. As an alternative to use of a single equation for the determination of DPVs for streams that flow into lakes, EPA is now seeking comment on providing some additional flexibility in the development of the DPV values and allowing for three approaches: a) Using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria, b) Allowing the use of appropriate alternative models (such as WASP) when adequate data are available, and c) Where there are insufficient data for modeling, applying the lake criteria as the criteria for upstream waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5621Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.001

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. The attached document comprises the comments of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) relating to the above referenced Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments (NODA). NCASI is an independent, non-profit research institute that focuses on environmental topics of interest to the forest products industry. Members of NCASI represent over 90% of the pulp and paper production in the United States. In its capacity as a research organization, NCASI has a long history of collaboration with EPA on numerous environmental topics related to the forest products industry including effluent regulation, water quality management, and relationships between human and natural stressors on aquatic ecosystems. NCASI provided detailed, technical analyses in response to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1292.1). We are now providing additional comments relating to new proposals contained in the August 3, 2010 NODA. We hope EPA will carefully consider these comments as the agency moves forward in the development of nutrient criteria for the state of Florida. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important rule. Questions concerning the comments submitted by NCASI should be brought to my attention. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.002

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Summary In the August 3, 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments (NODA), EPA requested comments on:

- revised stream region boundaries based on additional information about watershed delineations and phosphorus-rich geological formations in Florida;

- basing the total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) criteria for the nutrient watershed regions on a combination of the 75th and 90th percentile values (depending on regions) of the benchmark sites outlined in the alternate approach in the January 26, 2010 proposal;

- 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5622Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background 

# Comment ID 2468-1.001.001

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC Georgia-Pacific LLC (GP) appreciates the opportunity to submit the enclosed comments on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Supplemental Notice of Data Availability for proposed Water Quality Standards (WQS) for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (40 CFR 131, Subpart D, Section 131.43) (the "NODA"). GP is one of the world's leading manufacturers of tissue, pulp, paper, packaging, consumer products, building products and related chemicals. GP has over 300 manufacturing facilities across North America, South America and Europe, ranging from large facilities, such as pulp, paper and tissue operations; to moderately sized facilities, such as gypsum plants, chemical plants, and building products complexes; to small facilities, such as Dixie® product plants and box plants. GP has several operating facilities in Florida including a major pulp and paper mill, woodyards, wood products plants, and chip mills. GP also operates pulp and paper mills in Georgia and Alabama that discharge into waterbodies that flow into Florida waters. Many of these facilities possess NPDES permits and will be affected by decisions the EPA makes regarding numeric nutrient water quality criteria for the State of Florida. GP is a member of the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), the national trade association of the forest, paper, and wood products industry, Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. (FPPAEA), and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). Through its membership in AF&PA, GP is also a member of the Federal Water Quality Coalition (FWQC). GP fully supports, and as a member of these organizations, incorporates the comments submitted by the FPPAEA , NCASI and the FWQC into and as part of GP's comments.



# Comment ID 2468-1.001.005

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC We again appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the NODA. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at (404) 652-4776 or Robert Sackellares at (404) 652-6430. 

# Comment ID 2469-1.001.001

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau Federation (FFBF) Please accept the following written comments on behalf of Florida Farm Bureau Federation (FFBF), the state's largest general-interest agricultural association with over 140,000 member-families. FFBF represents all agricultural commodity sectors in the State of Florida, including but not limited to: apiculture, aquaculture, livestock production, citrus,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5623Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background environmental horticulture, equine, forestry, peanuts, cotton, sod, sugar, fruits and vegetables. The following comments are in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment published August 3, 2010 in Volume 75 of the Federal Register at page 45579. In FFBF's initial comments submitted on April 28, 2010, we raised several concerns with the EPA's proposal for Florida's rivers and streams. 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.[1] [1] 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 initial comments submitted by Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.). 

# Comment ID 2470-1.001.001

Author Name: Cunningham T. Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) provides the following comments in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment as published August 3rd, 2010 in Volume 75 of the Federal Register beginning at page 45579 and identified as Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

# Comment ID 2470-1.001.004

Author Name: Cunningham T. Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (352) 393-1612. 

# Comment ID 2471-1.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5624Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background Please accept this letter on behalf of Plant City, Florida ("Plant City"). On January 26, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" (75 FR 4173) ("Proposed Rule"). On April 28, 2010, Plant City submitted comments regarding proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria rule ("Proposed Rule"). In the August 3, 2010 issue of the Federal Register, the EPA published a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") and Request for Comment regarding the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's inland flowing waters and lakes. Specifically, with respect to the proposed stream criteria for Total Nitrogen ("TN") and Total Phosphorus ("TP"), EPA is seeking comments on revisions to the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the benchmark distribution approach discussed in the January proposed stream criteria. Secondly, EPA is seeking comments on the potential use of alternative models in the establishment of downstream protection values for lakes. This letter is in response to EPA's NODA and the following comments are offered with respect to the potential revisions. To the extent applicable, the comments contained in Plant City's April 29, 2010 comment letter are incorporated herein. 

# Comment ID 2471-1.001.007

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

# Comment ID 2472-1.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County Please accept this letter on behalf of Seminole County, Florida ("Seminole"). On January 26, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" (75 FR 4173) ("Proposed Rule"). On April 28, 2010, Seminole submitted comments regarding proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria rule ("Proposed Rule"). In the August 3, 2010 issue of the Federal Register, the EPA published a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") and Request for Comment regarding the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's inland flowing waters and lakes. Specifically, with respect to the proposed stream criteria for Total Nitrogen ("TN") and Total Phosphorus ("TP"), EPA is seeking comments on revisions to the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the benchmark distribution approach discussed in the January proposed stream criteria. Secondly, EPA is seeking comments on the potential use of alternative models in the establishment of downstream protection values for lakes. This letter is in response to EPA's NODA and the following comments are offered with respect to the potential revisions. To the extent applicable, the comments contained in Seminole's April 29, 2010 comment letter are incorporated herein. 

# Comment ID 2472-1.001.007

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5625Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

# Comment ID 2473-1.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa Please accept this letter on behalf of the City of Cocoa, Florida ("Cocoa"). On January 26, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" (75 FR 4173) ("Proposed Rule"). On April 28, 2010, Cocoa submitted comments regarding proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria rule ("Proposed Rule"). In the August 3, 2010 issue of the Federal Register, the EPA published a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") and Request for Comment regarding the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's inland flowing waters and lakes. Specifically, with respect to the proposed stream criteria for Total Nitrogen ("TN") and Total Phosphorus ("TP"), EPA is seeking comments on revisions to the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the benchmark distribution approach discussed in the January proposed stream criteria. Secondly, EPA is seeking comments on the potential use of alternative models in the establishment of downstream protection values for lakes. This letter is in response to EPA's NODA and the following comments are offered with respect to the potential revisions. To the extent applicable, the comments contained in Cocoa's April 29, 2010 comment letter are incorporated herein. 

# Comment ID 2473-1.001.007

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

# Comment ID 2474-1.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville Please accept this letter on behalf of the City of Titusville, Florida ("Titusville"). On January 26, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters"

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5626Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background (75 FR 4173) ("Proposed Rule"). On April 28, 2010, Titusville submitted comments regarding proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria rule ("Proposed Rule"). In the August 3, 2010 issue of the Federal Register, the EPA published a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") and Request for Comment regarding the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's inland flowing waters and lakes. Specifically, with respect to the proposed stream criteria for Total Nitrogen ("TN") and Total Phosphorus ("TP"), EPA is seeking comments on revisions to the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the benchmark distribution approach discussed in the January proposed stream criteria. Secondly, EPA is seeking comments on the potential use of alternative models in the establishment of downstream protection values for lakes. This letter is in response to EPA's NODA and the following comments are offered with respect to the potential revisions. To the extent applicable, the comments contained in Titusville's April 29, 2010 comment letter are incorporated herein. 

# Comment ID 2474-1.001.007

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

# Comment ID 2475-1.001.001

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management DistrictAttached are comments of the St. Johns River Water Management District ("District") submitted by email to owdocket@epa.gov on September 2, 2010, in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of data availability and request for comment that was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2010. Please direct any questions regarding the District's comments to: Dr. Edgar F. Lowe at (386) 329-4398, elowe@sjrwmd.com

. The District looks forward to working with EPA on the development of these important rules to protect the water quality of Florida's lakes and flowing waters. 

# Comment ID 2475-1.001.002

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District Introduction

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5627Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background

This document provides the comments of the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment (Federal Register; August 3,2010; Volume 75, Number 148) related to EPA's January 26, 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking proposing numeric nutrient water quality criteria to protect aquatic life in lake and flowing waters within the State of Florida. EPA's notice describes three potential changes to its previously proposed numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for streams: 1) revision of stream nutrient region boundaries, 2) derivation of stream NNC using the 90th, rather than the 75th, percentile for reference streams, and 3) using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for derivation of Downstream Protection Values (DPVs). Each of these potential changes is addressed below. 

# Comment ID 2476-1.001.001

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services Sarasota County welcomes the appropriate regulation of excessive nutrient pollution. The County and municipalities have made great strides in reducing the impacts of wastewater, septic system, and excessive stormwater runoff on surface waters. Seagrass has responded to these reductions and existing acreage is at historic levels. EPA has requested comment on three questions: 1. "Revised stream region boundaries 2. "Basing the TN and TP criteria for the nutrient watershed regions on a combination of the 75th and 90th percentile values... 3. "Using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria.... 

# Comment ID 2476-1.001.007

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services Sarasota County has enjoyed a long-standing and fruitful collaboration with the EPA on protecting our valued water bodies and looks forward to working together in the future. Please review the attached technical comments about the Agency's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability for a more detailed analysis of the issues on which EPA requested comment. 

# Comment ID 2477.001.002

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5628Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background
Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority This firm has the great pleasure of acting as special counsel to the Clay County Utility Authority ("CCUA"). In that capacity, we are hereby submitting the comments ofCCUA on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment ("NODA") relating to the proposed rule, entitled Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters ("Proposed Rule"). CCUA has already provided comments to the Proposed Rule. Attached is a copy of the NODA published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2010. Also attached is the joint comment of the Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, American Water Works Association, and Florida Rural Water Association to the NODA ("Joint Comment"). In addition to the statements set forth herein, CCUA incorporates by reference the Joint Comment as if the Joint Comment were fully set forth within this letter. 

# Comment ID 2478-1.001.001

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of Nestle Water North America Our firm is the General Counsel to the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority ("Authority"). As you recall, the Authority, on April 28, 2010, submitted comments regarding the EPA Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, including canals, as set forth in 75 Federal Register 4174 (January 26, 2010). The Authority is now responding to the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule for Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters dated August 3, 2010. On behalf of the Authority, please find the enclosed comments prepared by Janicki Environmental, Inc. 

# Comment ID 2479-1.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission Please accept this letter on behalf of the Orlando Utilities Commission ("OUC"). On January 26, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" (75 FR 4173) ("Proposed Rule"). On April 28, 2010, OUC submitted comments regarding proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria rule ("Proposed Rule"). In the August 3, 2010 issue of the Federal Register, the EPA published a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") and Request for Comment regarding the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's inland flowing waters and lakes. Specifically, with respect to the proposed stream criteria for Total Nitrogen ("TN") and Total Phosphorus ("TP"), EPA is seeking comments on revisions to the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the benchmark distribution approach discussed in the January proposed stream criteria. Secondly, EPA is seeking comments on the potential use of alternative models in the establishment of downstream protection values for lakes. This letter is in response to EPA's NODA and the following comments are offered with respect to the potential revisions. To the extent applicable, the comments contained in OUC's April 29,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5629Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background
2010 comment letter are incorporated herein. 

# Comment ID 2479-1.001.013

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

# Comment ID 2480-1.001.001

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. The following letter contains the comments of the Mississippi River Collaborative on the U.S. EPA's request for additional comments related to the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and streams. The commenting organizations and their organizational members have many members who are affected by nitrogen and phosphorus pollution of Florida waters and by such pollution affecting the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. These persons' ability to use these waters for drinking water, commercial fishing, recreation-based business, swimming and other forms of recreation are adversely affected by pollution which causes eutrophication, unnatural algal growth, loss of aquatic life and other negative effects on water bodies. In drafting the attached comments, we were assisted by Professor JoAnn Burkholder who has reviewed the proposed standards at the request of the Mississippi River Collaborative. EPA should adopt the proposed standards for Florida waters with the provisions proposed by the attached letter and the revisions proposed in our earlier comments. Thank you for your careful consideration of our comments. 

# Comment ID 2480-2.001.001

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. These comments are submitted in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) request for additional comments ( http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-19140.htm ) on three main topics related to the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and streams. 

# Comment ID 2482.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5630Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Thank you for the opportunity to provide further feedback regarding the draft numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in Volume 75, No, 148 of the Federal Register on August 3, 2010. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) is charged by statute with the implementation of programs for the management, conservation, preservation, enhancement, and utilization of Florida's waters pursuant to the Florida Water Resources Act, codified in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. We have attached technical comments in response to your request for additional input regarding the proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 2482.001.008

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District The District looks forward to working with the USEPA to ensure that water quality standards for Florida's lakes and flowing waters are appropriate and reflective of extensive scientific and site-specific work done by the District, local governments and state agencies. 

# Comment ID 2483-1.001.001

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee The City of Tallahassee (COT) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revisions to the above referenced proposed rule. Realizing that some reasonable, scientifically based comments from stakeholders are recognized and considered by EPA during this arduous rule making process strengthens cooperation and support for many of us who share the same goals and have committed significant resources and time to these efforts. The following comments will focus on the revisions to the delineation of stream nutrient regions, the stream criteria associated with two approaches (EPA's SCI-based approach and the alternative benchmark distribution approach), and the protection of downstream lakes. 

# Comment ID 2483-1.001.007

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee We would like to thank the EPA for the opportunity to comment on the referenced docket and will continue to work with

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5631Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background EPA and the FDEP in this process and remain committed to the enhancement of the area's water resources. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact John Cox at 850-891-6867. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.001

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. On behalf of the Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. (FPPAEA or the "Association"), I submit the following comments in reference to the proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (40 CFR Part 131, Subpart D, Section 131.43) and EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") and Request for Comment as published August 3, 2010 in Volume 75 of the Federal Register at page 45579. The FPPAEA is a non-profit association of six Forest Products companies in the business of producing pulp, paper, and solid wood products in the State of Florida. The FPPAEA member companies own and operate eight (8) facilities that discharge to surface waters in the State of Florida, more specifically rivers, streams, and estuarine waters. As such, the FPPAEA member companies will be significantly affected by the numeric water quality criteria, for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP), being proposed by EPA. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.013

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact me at (813) 215-8856 or via email at rstewart@fppaea.org

. 

# Comment ID 2487-1.001.001

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association The following comments are being provided by the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association (FFVA) on behalf of its agricultural grower and producer members. FFVA is a non-profit, agricultural trade organization whose mission is to enhance the competitive and business environment for producing and marketing fruits, vegetables and other crops. This organization prides itself by having a membership that is environmentally aware, responsible and proactive. For years, our agricultural members have been working closely with our state's government agencies in a collaborative effort to prevent surface and groundwater degradation by designing and implementing best management practices aimed at reducing and removing nutrients from surface water runoff and discharge.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5632Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background



# Comment ID 2487-1.001.003

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association FFVA is appreciative of the EPA for the opportunity to comment on its Supplemental Notice of Data Availability (NODA) regarding its Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2010. The following comments reflect FFVA's continued opposition to the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.001

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc. The following comments are submitted on behalf of PCS Administration (USA), Inc. (PotashCorp) and its affiliated company operating in the State of Florida, White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate - White Springs. PCS Phosphate - White Springs operates a phosphate mining and fertilizer manufacturing facility in Hamilton County, Florida. That facility includes lakes, flowing waters, and regulated discharges to flowing waters, and is directly affected by the proposed rule. In addition, PotashCorp affiliates have marketing interests in agriculture in Florida, as well as in domestic and international markets for fertilizers and animal feed supplements. Furthermore, PotashCorp affiliates have mining and manufacturing interests in North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Ohio, Nebraska, Missouri, and Illinois, all of which would be directly affected by the precedential nature of the proposed rule if and when applied in other states. 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.013

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc. PotashCorp appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. 

# Comment ID 2489-1.001.001

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5633Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background The City of St. Petersburg appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the above referenced EPA notice. 

# Comment ID 2490-1.001.001

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation Attached please find comments from the Florida Department of Transportation on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596 published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, August 3, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 148. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at the number below. 

# Comment ID 2490-1.001.002

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation INTRODUCTION EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 26, 2010, for the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. In the August 3, 2010 Federal Register (40 CFR Part 131, Volume 75, Number 148), the EPA published a notice of supplemental data availability and a request for comments. Detailed comments for each of the areas requested by EPA are provided in the following summary. 

# Comment ID 2490-1.001.006

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation Alternative Approaches to Establishing Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) for Streams The January 2010 proposal also proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes and requested comment on alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. Today's notice also requests 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. As an alternative to use of a single equation for the determination of DPVs for streams that flow into lakes, EPA is now

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5634Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background seeking comment on providing some additional flexibility in the development of the DPV values and allowing for three approaches:

1. Using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria, 2. Allowing the use appropriate alternative models (such as WASP) when adequate data are available, and 3. Where there are insufficient data for modeling, applying the lake criteria as the criteria for upstream waters. 

# Comment ID 2492-1.001.001

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment related to EPA's January 26, 2010 rulemaking proposing numeric nutrient criteria for Florida (Notice) (August 3, 2010; 75 Fed. Reg. 45579). 

# Comment ID 2492-1.001.008

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Again, NACWA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice. Please contact me at chornback@nacwa.org or 202/833-9106 if you have any questions. 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.001

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County In response to your Supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment, Pasco County provides the attached technical comments by Applied Technology and Management Inc. 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.003

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the criteria and look forward to working with you to address these scientific and policy concerns.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5635Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background



# Comment ID 2493-1.001.004

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County INTRODUCTION EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 26, 2010, for the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. In the August 3,2010 Federal Register (40 CFR Part 131, Volume 75, Number 148), the EPA published a notice of supplemental data availability and a request for comments. Detailed comments for each of the areas requested by EPA are provided in the following summary. 

# Comment ID 2493-1.001.008

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Alternative Approaches to Establishing Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) for Streams The January 2010 proposal also proposed application of the Vollenweider equation to ensure that nutrient criteria in streams are protective of downstream lakes and requested comment on alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model and whether there should be an allowance for use of other models that are demonstrated to be protective and scientifically defensible. Today's notice also requests 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. As an alternative to use of a single equation for the determination of DPVs for streams that flow into lakes, EPA is now seeking comment on providing some additional flexibility in the development of the DPV values and allowing for three approaches: a) Using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria, b) Allowing the use appropriate alternative models (such as WASP) when adequate data are available, and c) Where there are insufficient data for modeling, applying the lake criteria as the criteria for upstream waters. 

# Comment ID 2494-1.001.001

Author Name: Andes F.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5636Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background
Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition The Federal Water Quality Coalition (the "Coalition") is pleased to provide the following comments on the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment ("NODA") regarding "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" that was issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") on August 3, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 45579). The Coalition is a group of industrial companies, municipal entities, agricultural parties, and trade associations that are directly affected, or which have members that are directly affected, by regulatory decisions made under the federal Clean Water Act. The Coalition members, for purposes of these comments, are as follows: Alcoa, Inc., American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, Association of Idaho Cities, City of Superior (WI), Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation, Edison Electric Institute, Ford Motor Company, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., General Electric Company, Hecla Mining Company, Indiana Coal Council, Mid America CropLife Association, National Association of Home Builders, Olin Corporation, Orange County Sanitation District, Pharmaceutical EHS Sustainability Council, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Utility Water Act Group, Western Coalition of Arid States, and Weyerhaeuser Company. Coalition member entities or their members own and operate facilities located on or near waters of the United States. Many of these facilities operate pursuant to individual and/or general NPDES permits for discharges into those waters. Some of these permitted facilities discharge into lakes and rivers in the State of Florida, so these facilities would be directly affected by the proposed federal water quality standards for nutrients. In addition, as regulated entities, members of the Coalition have a direct interest in any precedents that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may establish that may have national implications with respect to nutrient water quality standards. The Coalition therefore has a direct interest in the matters addressed in the Request. 

# Comment ID 2494-1.001.008

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition IV. CONCLUSION The FWQC appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the NODA. Please feel free to call or e-mail if you have any questions, or if you would like any additional information concerning the issues raised in these comments. 

# Comment ID 2495-1.001.002

Author Name: Vick J. Organization: Gulf Power Company

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5637Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background Gulf appreciates the opportunity to supply comments to EPA on the proposed NNC. If you have any specific questions on this response please feel free to call Mike Markey at (850) 444-6573 of my staff.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5638Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.001

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Thank you for the continued coordination of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)'s efforts on the Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. Pinellas County is committed to working with EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to develop water quality standards that are in support of its water quality improvement efforts of the last 40 years. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.005

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division As a local government, we have a duty to spend public funding wisely and to assure our leadership and the public that we are striving towards appropriate goals that protect all aspects of our aquatic resources in a fiscally responsible manner. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.012

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division In conclusion, 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 2497-1.001.001

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC The Mosaic Company LLC ("Mosaic") appreciates this opportunity to offer comments on EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability on EPA's Proposed Rule on Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, 75 Fed. Reg. 45,579 (August 3, 2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 131) (referred to hereinafter as "the NODA"). Mosaic is the world's leading producer and marketer of concentrated phosphate and potash, two of the primary

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5639Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background nutrients required for agricultural production. Our business engages in every phase of crop nutrition development, from the mining of resources to the production of crop nutrients, feed and industrial products for customers around the globe. (Mosaic's operations are described in greater detail in our Comments of April 23, 2010, page 2). Mosaic has actively participated in the dialog on the setting of nutrient criteria in Florida. We filed extensive comments on the original rule proposed by EPA January 26, 2010 ("the proposed Rule"), investing substantial Company time and resources (including retaining expert technical consultants) to analyze the proposed Rule and provide to EPA the kind of concrete, specific, technically-grounded suggestions to make the proposed Rule more effective and flexible without compromising the protection of Florida's waters from excessive nutrient levels, where warranted. In addition to filing comments, the Company met with EPA July 13, 2010 to further discuss our specific proposals, and on August 4, 2010 provided, in response to EPA's request, additional information and suggestions for refining certain aspects of the proposed Rule. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.003

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Our comments are organized as follows: (1) comments on the proposal for using the BATHTUB model to set lake downstream protection values ("DPVs"); (2) comments on the proposed benchmark streams approach; and (3) comments on procedural issues in the proposed NODA. We are also including (i) a Technical Support Document ("TSD") that provides greater detail on the scientific underpinning of our criticisms of EPA's proposed benchmark streams approach, and (ii) a Technical Support Document summarizing relevant groundwater data from areas in the West Central region. 

# Comment ID 2498-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) respectfully submits our comments on the August 3, 2010 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Data Availability (NODA) regarding numeric nutrient water quality criteria for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. A comment document will be submitted to the docket in addition to this letter to document the Department's review of the EPA NODA. 

# Comment ID 2498-1.001.007

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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5640Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background As you know, the effort to derive and establish numeric nutrient criteria for the Florida's fresh waterbodies is challenging and contentious. The State has invested significant resources to ensure that EPA has the best science available to successfully accomplish this task. It was important to the Department to provide EPA with the supporting data and information so that informed and defensible decisions can be made regarding the final criteria. Once EPA has promulgated the criteria, the Department will immediately begin our process of review so that necessary Department follow-up can be initiated as soon as possible. 

# Comment ID 2499-1.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. I. INTRODUCTION Earthjustice is a national non-profit law firm which represents the five environmental groups that are parties to the Consent Decree which requires proposal and finalization of these rules. These comments are submitted on behalf of those clients and address EPA's supplemental notice of data availability and request for comments on three specified issues: 1) EPA's revised regionalization scheme; 2) a proposed benchmark distribution approach; and 3) use of the Vollenweider Model for downstream protection of lakes. 

# Comment ID 2500-1.001.001

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida The comments previously submitted by Deseret Ranches of Florida to the January 26, 2010 request for comments are applicable to this request for comment and are incorporated herein by reference. 

# Comment ID 2501-1.001.001

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland Our firm represents the City of Maitland in the proposed Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") adoption of the Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida as published at Federal Register 40 CFR, Part 131, Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida, Lakes and Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule, at 75 Federal Register 4174 (January 26, 2010). These are additional comments beyond our original comments provided by Dr. Jeff Flowers, as councilman for City of Maitland and the April 28, 2010 comments submitted by our firm. In response to Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, Supplemental Notice of Data Available ("NODA") and Request

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5641Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background for Comment on your Proposed Rule for Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters sent out on August 3, 2010, we have attached the comments from Entrix. We appreciate your consideration of this information to create a science based criteria. 

# Comment ID 2501-1.001.002

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland On behalf of the City of Maitland, Florida, ENTRIX, Inc. respectfully submits these technical comments concerning the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment on EPA's proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (40 CFR Part 131, Subpart D, Section 131.43). ENTRIX has completed a review of the Supplemental Notice, as well as, EPA's Technical Support Documents and data used in their analysis. The City continues to appreciate the extensive work completed by EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and contends these technical comments are substantive and should be considered by EPA prior to final rulemaking. The City of Maitland is proud of the abundant lakes within its community, and protection of those water resources is of paramount importance. The City currently spends millions of dollars each year to improve and maintain the 22 lakes and four canal systems within the City's jurisdiction and considers the lakes an important tangible asset to the residents of the City. For this reason, these comments focus on the proposed approach for establishing downstream protection values (DPVs) for lakes as described in the Supplemental Notice. Overall, the City of Maitland supports FDEP's position that lake DPVs are unnecessary and would result in a waste of valuable and limited management resources. 

# Comment ID 2502-1.001.001

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), on behalf of its member companies, submits the following comments on the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) regarding "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" that was issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Aug. 3 (75 Fed. Reg. 45579). TFI represents the nation's fertilizer industry including producers, importers, retailers, wholesalers as well as companies that provide services to the fertilizer industry. TFI member entities own and operate facilities located on or near waters of the United States. Many of these facilities operate pursuant to individual and/or general NPDES permits for discharges into those waters. Some of these permitted facilities discharge into lakes and rivers in the State of Florida, so these facilities would be directly affected by the proposed federal water quality standards for nutrients. In addition, as regulated entities, members of TFI have a direct interest in any precedents that the U.S. Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5642Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background Agency (EPA) may establish that may have national implications with respect to nutrient water quality standards, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), NPDES permits, and potential enforcement actions. TFI therefore has a direct interest in the matters addressed in the Request. 

# Comment ID 2502-1.001.008

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Conclusion TFI appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the NODA. Please feel free to contact me by telephone at (202) 515-2706 or via e-mail at wcherz@tfi.org if you have any questions, or if you would like any additional information concerning the issues raised in these comments. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries CF Industries, Inc., (CF) appreciates the opportunity to submit additional comments and supporting materials to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning its proposed rule, Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. [75 FR 4174-4226] in response to the Agency's August 3, 2010, Supplemental Notice of Data Availability [75 FR 45579-45583]. CF's comments comprise the following components:

- Cover correspondence from CF Industries, Inc.

- Attachment 1: Regulatory, legal, and technical review: Comments on EPA's August 3, 2010, Supplemental Notice of Data Availability, Winston Borkowski, Esq., Hopping Green & Sams, Tallahassee, Florida; September 1, 2010 ( with Attachment)

- Attachment 2: Technical and scientific review: Additional Comments on USEPA's Proposed Nutrient Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida, Eldon C. Blancher, Ph.D., Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration, LLC, Mobile, Alabama; September 1, 2010 (with Attachment)

- Attachment 3: Technical and scientific review: Comments on USEPA Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, BCI Scientists and Engineers, Inc., Lakeland, Florida; September 1, 2010 (with Attachment) CF Industries, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5643Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background CF Industries, Inc. (CF) is a global leader in nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and distribution, serving both agricultural and industrial customers throughout the world. CF maintains substantial operations in Florida, for which CF is required to maintain numerous state and federal environmental permit authorizations, including surface water discharge approvals under the NPDES permitting program. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.008

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries These issues and other important points associated with the Supplemental NODA are addressed in detail in the various attachments provided with this letter. CF Industries appreciates the opportunity to continue to provide information to EPA concerning its proposed numeric nutrient criteria rulemaking for Florida. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.009

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries The following comments are provided on behalf of CF Industries, Inc., in response to EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment as published August 3,2010 in Volume 75 of the Federal Register beginning at page 45579 and identified as Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2430. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.018

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries CF appreciates this opportunity to provide these comments and trusts that EPA will carefully consider the issues addressed herein before finalizing numeric nutrient criteria for the Bone Valley/West Central Florida nutrient region. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.021

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5644Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background

Introduction On January 26, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published proposed numeric nutrient criteria for fresh waters of the State of Florida including lakes, streams and springs. Previously Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration, LLC (SER) submitted detailed comments in response to USEPA's request for public commentto Docket # EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. The comments were entered in to the Docket under comment # EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596-2233.1. On August 3rd 2010 the USEPA issued a supplemental notice of data availability, and requested further comments as to proposed alternatives presented in the notice. These following comments are provided by SER on behalf of CF Industries, Inc., in response to EPA's August 3, 2010Supplemental Notice of Data Availability. SER's Statement of Qualifications is of record. Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596-2233.1. A DVD containing the references cited for these comments is included and submitted as a separate attachment to this document. 

# Comment ID 2504-1.001.006

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District In closing, this represents the District's initial comments on this NODA. If we determine additional comments are warranted we will forward those to the EPA water docket. We thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment. Should you have any questions or comments, please me at 561-682-6949 and/or kecarter@sfwmd.gov

. 

# Comment ID 2506.001.001

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA JEA provides the following comments in response to EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment as published August 3, 2010 in Volume 75 of the Federal Register beginning at page 45579 and identified as Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW- 2009-0596.

JEA is a municipal utility operating in Jacksonville, Florida (Duval County) and parts of three adjacent counties. The eighth largest municipal utility in the nation, JEA has adopted an Environmental Sustainability initiative to ensure that environmental, economic, and social factors are carefully evaluated in all of its major decisions affecting the community it serves. JEA electric system currently serves more than 417,000 customers, the water supply system serves more than 305,000 customers, and the sewage collection, treatment, and disposal system serves about 230,000 customers in Northeast Florida. As a result of multiple capital projects and extensive system modifications, JEA's wastewater

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5645Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Background treatment program has significantly reduced the amount of total nitrogen discharged annually into the St. Johns River. Since the year 2000, JEA has spent over $116 million on wastewater treatment plant improvements specifically aimed at reducing nutrient loads to the river. An additional $34 million in wastewater facility modifications are planned to achieve additional nitrogen reductions by 2013 to directly meet TMDL obligations. In total, JEA has spent over $600 million since obtaining the utility from the City of Jacksonville in 1997 for combined wastewater treatment upgrades, collection system improvements and reuse system expansion, all of which contribute to reducing nutrient discharges to the St. Johns River. 

# Response

Comment IDs: All Response: Comments included in this BACKGROUND issue category pertain to supplementary/introductory information provided by commenters regarding personal or organizational background information. These comments do not provide information, criticism, or suggestions pertaining to any elements contained in EPA's proposed rule. Consequently, they are not considered to be substantive or significant comments on the proposed rule itself and therefore, do not require responses.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5646Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope 

# SNODA.SCOPE - SCOPE Comment ID 2444-1.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC This letter follows up on the Mosaic Company's meeting July 13, 2010 regarding EPA's Proposed Rule for Nutrient Criteria in Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) ("proposed Rule"). We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you, to offer our perspective on the proposed Rule, and to discuss specific suggestions for improving and refining the proposed Rule. In the course of the meeting, you raised several specific questions and issues to which you invited Mosaic's response and further proposals. This letter addresses the issues you raised, provides specific suggestions for modifying the proposed Rule, and also clarifies certain issues that arose during our meeting. Additionally, we learned yesterday about EPA's proposed changes in the proposed Rule, which address numerous issues of direct interest and concern to Mosaic, including the definition of the boundaries of the Bone Valley Nutrient Watershed Region ("NWR"), the application of different percentile levels to derive nutrient criteria, and methodologies for calculating lake downstream protective values. We just learned about these proposed revisions yesterday, and we will provide comments and additional analysis once we have had the opportunity to review the proposed revisions more carefully. As specific follow-ups to our meeting, we are providing herein: (1) information assessing the impacts of basing the nutrient criteria on the 75th, 90th or 95th percentile of reference waters on discharge points in the Bone Valley, which addresses a recommendation we already provided in our comments (see Mosaic Comments submitted April 23, 2010 ("Mosaic Comments"), pages 27-32); (2) proposals for revising and enhancing the Site Specific Alternative Criteria in the proposed Rule, along with specific alternative regulatory language (provided as Attachment 1) and a Technical Support Document ("TSD") (provided as Attachment 2); and (3) discussion of additional issues related to the proposed Rule.
I. Impact on Bone Valley of Instream Protective Values at 75th, 90th and 95th Percentiles As you recall from our discussion and Mosaic's comments, it is our strong view that on technical, statistical, policy and precedential grounds, EPA would be on firmer footing -- and the Rule would be markedly better directed at legitimate potential water quality concerns associated with nutrients -- if EPA adopted a more conventional 95th percentile of the nutrient values from EPA's group of reference streams than the 75th percentile proposed. We will not repeat here the multiple analytical, environmental and statistical bases which we believe all support making that adjustment as a matter of good science and policy. We are mindful that you asked what the relative impacts of setting the criteria at different percentiles might be. Specifically, you inquired about the number of streams into which Mosaic mines and processing facilities discharge that would be impaired if the proposed Rule's Instream Protective Values ("IPV") are selected based on using the 75th, 90th, or 95th percentiles of nutrient values from EPA's population of reference streams. The information is provided in table form below for the 26 Bone Valley WBIDs into which Mosaic discharges. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table on page 1: % of Bone Valley WBIDs Considered

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5647Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope Impaired. See original comment letter. We also have reviewed the likely impacts on Bone Valley discharges of setting the NNCs at various percentiles, on the assumption that the NNC in the receiving stream would become a basis for setting a discharge limit in the respective facility's NPDES permit. As is clear from the table below, even at the 95th percentile 21% of Mosaic current discharges would be presumptively deemed non-compliant with the proposed nutrient criteria, and presumably would require treatment or, if warranted, regulatory relief of some form. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table on page 1: % of Mosaic discharges non-compliant with the NNC. See original comment letter. It is also instructive to analyze the impacts of using different percentile values on EPA's Bone Valley reference streams. As is evident from the table below, even at the 95th percentile 14% of EPA's Bone Valley reference streams would be non-compliant with the proposed criteria. This demonstrates that setting criteria based on the 95th percentile remains both conservative and would drive considerable new obligations to protect stream health, since even at that percentile 14% of Bone Valley streams EPA considered to be healthy streams would presumptively be deemed impaired. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table on page 2: % of reference streams non-compliant with the NNC. See original comment letter. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed in greater detail in our comments, see Mosaic Comments at 27-32, we believe that setting numeric nutrient criteria based on the 95th percentile rather than the 75th percentile is both conservative and protective, and will still pose a formidable compliance challenge for dischargers in the Bone Valley.
II. Site Specific Alternative Criteria We discussed the SSACs in the proposed Rule, and the need for: (1) greater clarification and refinement of what would be required to obtain an SSAC; and (2) more specific criteria on what circumstances or factors would entitle an applicant for an SSAC to obtain expedited consideration and SSAC approval. As requested, we have thought hard about how EPA could put more content into the regulatory provisions to make the SSAC pathway more functional and effective, both in providing regulatory flexibility and in safeguarding the environment. We offer both specific regulatory language, as set forth in Attachment 1 hereto, and a Technical Support Document providing additional details on the scientific basis for our proposal, provided in Attachment 2. Our proposal consists of two basic suggestions. First, the SSAC process should be clarified to identify several specific grounds on which an applicant could obtain an SSAC. Second, EPA should create a process that allows for expedited consideration and approval of SSACs where applicants can meet certain demanding, specified criteria. We discuss both proposals below.
A. Enhancements to the General SSAC Process The SSAC process should be clarified to specify multiple bases upon which an applicant may obtain an SSAC. While the options we recommend are not intended to be an exhaustive list of the evidence or arguments that might support an SSAC, we believe they provide applicants a clearer set of potential targets for SSAC applications. We describe each of these targets briefly.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5648Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope Reliance on approved TMDLs. TMDLs typically involve detailed, technically rigorous analyses conducted on a more localized, site-specific level than was feasible in EPA's proposed Rule. While this proposal does not require EPA to approve an SSAC based on a TMDL, it does identify TMDLs as one basis upon which an applicant or the State could propose and EPA could approve an SSAC.[1] Reevaluation of reference waters. EPA's reference water approach (the basis for setting IPVs in the proposed Rule) identified a specified set of reference waters for each Nutrient Watershed Region ("NWR"), and used essentially the same methodology statewide to establish criteria for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen for each NWR. We propose that EPA make explicit that applicants may seek an SSAC based either on using a different set of reference waters (either a subset of EPA's reference waters or a different set of reference waters which may or may not include EPA's designated reference streams) or may derive an SSAC from EPA's reference waters using a different set of methodologies or calculations than those used by EPA, or by a combination of those two approaches. Biological and chemical indicators. EPA indicated in the proposed Rule preamble that an SSAC could be supported by reliance on longer term and shorter term biological and chemical indicators, such as Florida's Stream Condition Index ("SCI"), measures of periphyton algal thickness or chlorophyll a levels. See 75 Fed. Reg. 4,174, 4,218 (January 28, 2010). We propose that EPA make explicit that applicants may use these kinds of indicators to support an SSAC application. Additional stream biological indicators that could support an SSAC include the Rapid BioAssessment Protocol for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers ("Protocol")[2], and the NRCS Stream Visual Assessment ("SVAP")[3]. The Protocol is a series of methods designed as a screening tool to evaluate various taxa to determine if a stream is supporting its designated use. The SVAP is an assessment of specific parameters, such as riffles and pools, as well as habitat, and quantitative measurements of up to 15 metrics of biological characteristics, habitat stability and physical characteristics. As the proposed Rule preamble makes clear, these specified indicators are not meant to be an all-inclusive list, but represent acceptable examples of the kinds of evidence that could support an SSAC. See id. Accordingly, our proposal also provides that an SSAC may be granted based on other chemical, biological, toxicological or physical indicators. Physical Indicators. Mosaic considered proposing physical indicators, such as the absence of channelization or FDEP's Landscape Development Intensity Index, as independent indicators on which to base an SSAC. However, since it is unlikely that an SSAC could be derived from physical indicators alone, our proposal identifies physical indicators as legitimate grounds to support an application that is based on one or more of the bases identified in the proposed revision to 131.43(e)(3)(A(1), but does not include physical indicators as an independent basis for an SSAC. Designated Use. Under the regulations implementing the Clean Water Act, States establish designated uses for their waterbodies. See 40 C.F.R. 131.10(a). Water quality criteria, in turn, are developed to protect the designated uses established by the States. See 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a)(1); see also 40 C.F.R. 131.3(b) ("Criteria are elements of State water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports a particular use.") Mosaic believes that some Florida water bodies, e.g., reclaimed mining lakes in particular, fully meet their designated uses, even though they might not meet the numeric nutrient water quality criteria as advanced by EPA in the proposed Rule. See Mosaic Comments at 15-19. Mosaic believes that evidence that a waterbody is meeting its designated uses -- e.g., a waterbody designated fishable-swimmable is, in fact, supporting fishing and swimming -- should itself be the basis for regulatory relief from the proposed NNCs. See id. at 13-20. At our meeting, you expressed reservations about that principle, and indicated that since designated uses are narrative

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5649Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope standards, meeting numeric criteria was necessary to demonstrate that a waterbody is meeting its designated uses. While we believe that this approach is somewhat circular, since criteria should be derived to support designated uses rather than as a basis for demonstrating the attainment of designated uses, we are not inclined to further debate this point here. Rather, our proposal offers a reasonable compromise. Mosaic does not propose here that evidence reflecting that actual human use and activity of a waterbody shows that it is meeting its designated uses should alone constitute an independent basis for granting an SSAC (though we think that proposition is correct). Rather, evidence that a waterbody is meeting its designated uses, independent of evidence from chemical or biological indicators, is highly relevant to assessing the health of the waterbody, especially in light of the recognized uncertainty of the science underlying the relationship between nutrient levels and stream health. Therefore, we propose that evidence that a stream is actually meeting its designated uses is additional evidence that EPA must consider, if such evidence is provided in an SSAC application.
B. Expedited SSACs Where Nutrient Discharges Do Not Adversely Affect the Biological Health of a Stream. In our meeting, we discussed the possibility of refining the proposed Rule to grant SSACs for waterbodies where nutrients at levels above the proposed criteria demonstrably do not adversely impact the biological health of the stream. You observed that making this kind of demonstration could be unduly complex and difficult; and you invited us to provide scientifically-sound methods that applicants for an SSAC could utilize to show that higher nutrient levels were not adversely impacting stream biology. Mosaic has developed a proposal that identifies three indicators that should be the basis for concluding that nutrients are not causing adverse biological impacts to a waterbody. We believe that this proposal provides a sufficient scientific basis to justify expedited consideration and approval by EPA. As is more fully explained in the attached TSD from Entrix, we propose that applicants be granted an expedited SSAC based on a stream or stream segment's current nutrient levels where an applicant can demonstrate that a stream is biologically healthy based on: (1) an SCI index of greater than 40; (2) an average diel dissolved oxygen ("DO") fluctuation range of 3.0 mg/L or less; and (3) an average annual chlorophyll a measurement of less than 20 ug/L. EPA itself in the Rule preamble identified SCI scores and chlorophyll a levels as examples of indicators that could be the basis for an SSAC. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 4,218. Additionally, this proposal, drawing on recent scientific research, utilizes the daily DO range of fluctuation, rather than a specific DO concentration, as an indicator of ecological conditions in a stream. (See TSD at 3). This use of a DO fluctuation range accounts more accurately for the overall physiological processes in a stream, and has been shown to correlate more accurately with ecological conditions than does DO concentration alone. See id. Mosaic further proposes that in the event that sufficient data are only available to demonstrate attainment of two of these three indicators, an expedited SSAC may still be granted for a stream that also attains a score greater than 10 for the Channelization component of the FDEP Stream Habitat Assessment (FDEP-SOP-001/01 FT 3000 Aquatic Habitat Characterization). The relationship between a stream's ability to assimilate nutrients and its degree of channelization is well-documented. See id. at 4. Generally, artificial "channelization" makes streams deeper and slower, is indicative of reduced or eliminated normal riparian vegetation and canopy cover, and creates a longer residence time for water, all of which are factors that make a stream more likely to exhibit symptoms characteristic of nutrient enrichment. Id. Thus, streams with low levels of channelization are, generally, more likely to be biologically healthy irrespective of nutrient concentrations. While channelization may not by itself be a robust indicator of biological health, it is commonly a key

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5650Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope factor in the ability of a stream to remain biologically healthy even with nutrient levels above those in the proposed Rule. Accordingly, Mosaic's proposal allows streams with a low degree of channelization to obtain an SSAC even if they onlysatisfy two of the three criteria proposed above for an expedited SSAC. However, this use of channelization as a backup indicator for stream health would be available only on an interim basis, while the applicant is gathering data to meet the third indicator (within a time frame to be prescribed in the SSAC approval). As an additional measure of protection to ensure that SSACs remain based on the best science available, this proposal includes a provision requiring that any SSAC under this section be subject to renewal every five years. This will ensure that the Regional Administrator may regularly reassess the appropriateness of site-specific nutrient criteria different from those in the proposed Rule, and will also ensure that the water quality of a stream does not decline over time, even if the level of nutrients remains constant. Additionally, our proposal includes a provision ensuring that the State retains its rights under existing law to take action as necessary to prevent a waterbody granted an SSAC from becoming impaired or unhealthy, even after the approval of an SSAC. The provision for regular reassessment provides assurance that SSACs are not set and then forgotten, and also would allow for timely assessment of SSACs in conjunction with the Florida five-year TMDL cycle. We considered incorporating into this proposal a back-up, "not to exceed" NNC value, to ensure that any SSAC granted on this basis could only exceed the criteria in the proposed Rule by a specific threshold or multiplier, measured either by percentage or by a specific measureable quantity of TN or TP. However, while such a provision might seem facially attractive to some, we concluded ultimately that it could not be justified on any sound scientific basis. Such a pre-fixed "upper limit" on SSACs would be, essentially, wholly arbitrary, which we would never encourage EPA to be. Accordingly, we did not include such a provision in this proposal. We advocate the foregoing as a basis for granting an expedited SSAC. As a reminder, in Mosaic's comments on the proposed Rule we suggested creating an expedited SSAC process for specified situations where the normal SSAC process would be cumbersome and overly time-consuming, and only in those cases where applicants could demonstrate that existing nutrient levels are not adversely impacting the health of a waterbody. See Mosaic Comments at 39-43. Our proposal here is consistent with our earlier proposal for expedited SSACs. We believe our proposals, as set forth in Attachment 1 and described herein are directly responsive to your request for concrete, scientifically-sound suggestions for ways to refine and/or improve the proposed Rule. We look forward to discussing them with you further.
III. Other Issues We also wish to address a few other issues that arose in our discussions in order to clarify Mosaic's positions.

1. "Tolling." Mosaic had proposed in our comments that after an initial determination by FDEP that a proposal for an SSAC satisfies a "threshold determination" for scientific validity, the applicability of the criteria to that waterbody would be suspended during the pendency of Agency action on the application. See Mosaic Comments at 43. We wanted to clarify two points. First, before being eligible for suspension of the applicability of the criteria, an applicant would have to do more than merely submit an "administratively complete" application. FDEP would have to affirmatively determine that an application had a solid scientific basis and was not frivolous. Mosaic's comment presumed that this determination would be more rigorous than merely a review to determine that the application was complete. Also, EPA retains the right at all times to reject the SSAC application in its ultimate determination on the merits; any "threshold"

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5651Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope determination by FDEP is only a temporary determination, pending a final decision by EPA. Second, we believe there is ample precedent supporting EPA's ability to include such a tolling or suspension provision in the proposed Rule. Under EPA's regulations governing various federal permits, including NPDES permits, requests for a review of a permitting decision stay the permit terms that are the subject of the request for review. See 40 C.F.R.§ 124.15(b)(2) and 40 C.F.R. § 124.19. Regulations for air quality operating permits under Title V of the Clean Air Act contain a similar provision. See 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(i)(2)(ii). EPA itself has stated in the context of a Clean Air Act rulemaking that "It is generally not EPA's practice to take enforcement action against a source that has filed a variance request until [EPA] has acted upon the request negatively." National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products -- Background for Promulgated Standards, EPA-453/R-98-008b, August 1998, Response to Comments, page 2-40. EPA has characterized this policy as a "longstanding Agency approach" which ensures "that permittees are not unfairly required to comply with permit terms pending their review by the EAB." Federal Operating Permits Program, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,202, 34,226 (July 1, 1996) (codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 9, 55, 71). This general practice as applied to permits and variances can readily be applied to SSACs. If the State duly renders a "threshold determination" upon an initial substantive review of an SSAC application, it should be presumed that the status quo ante, which in this case would be the State's current standard, would apply until final EPA action on the application for the SSAC.

2. Restoring Impaired Waters and Protecting Currently Healthy Waters. At our meeting, you opined that the Clean Water Act prioritizes the protection of currently healthy waters, as well as the restoration of impaired waters. Recognizing this, Mosaic's proposals in its comments are written so as to preserve the State's authority under existing law to ensure that waterbodies do not become impaired as a result of nutrient discharges, even if such discharges do not at the time of an application for an SSAC cause an adverse biological effect. See Mosaic Comments at 33. To the extent this point was unclear in our comments, we welcome this opportunity to clarify it; and we have specified (expressly) in the regulatory language proposed in Attachment 1 that the State retains its authority to ensure that any waterbody granted an expedited SSAC does not become impaired or unhealthy as a result of nutrient discharges that occur after the granting of an SSAC.
* * * Once again, Mosaic appreciates the chance to meet with you, and the opportunity to provide specific proposals to address our mutual interest in crafting a nutrient rule that is effective, flexible, protective and practical. We are prepared to discuss these further with you, and also wish to offer to make our outside technical experts available to EPA to provide any additional information or discussion you might find helpful.

[1] Mosaic's preferred position is that EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria should not apply to a water body that is already subject to an approved TMDL, at least until the State reviews the TMDL and concludes that it is not appropriate or sufficiently protective. However, in the event that EPA elects to presumptively apply the proposed criteria to waters with approved TMDLs, TMDLs should at least afford a basis for seeking an SSAC. [2] Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/wp61pdf/rbp.pdf [3] Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/aquatic/svapfnl.pdf

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5652Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope



# Comment ID 2444-2.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Alternative Language for Site Specific Alternative Criteria in U.S. EPA Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 August 4, 2010

1. Revise General SSAC Procedure 131.43(e)(3)(A)(1). A determination made under paragraph (e)(1) of this section by the Regional Administrator may be based on one, or a combination of one or more, of the following factors: (i) Water quality criteria derived from a Total Maximum Daily Load determination already approved by EPA; (ii) A re-evaluation or reassessment of reference waters, which may include one or more of the following types of reassessments: (a) a validly selected, smaller subset of the reference waters used in this Rule (EPA TSD Chapter 2b ­ Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596); (b) the addition or substitution of additional waters as reference waters; or (c) revised or recalculated data or conclusions from the existing reference waters dataset (or updated data for such waters); (iii) Biological indicators, including but not limited to the Stream Condition Index, Habitat Assessment, FDEP Rapid Periphyton protocol, the Rapid BioAssessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers; the Natural Resource Conservation Service Stream Visual Assessment Procedure; (iv) Chemical indicators, such as dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll a; or (v) Other biological, chemical, toxicological or physical indicators. (2) In meeting the criteria of § 131.43(e)(3)(A)(1)(i) through (v), applicants may use and the Regional Administrator may rely upon physical indicators, such as absence of channelization, hydrological disturbance or the Landscape Development Intensity Index, to justify or support an SSAC application. (3) In reviewing applications for a SSAC, the Regional Administrator shall consider any credible and substantial evidence provided by applicants that the water body is meeting its designated uses under Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62­ 302.400, based on user surveys, reports of actual use, press reports, or other evidence or information.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5653Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

2. Expedited SSAC Procedure 131.43(e)(3)(B)(1) Expedited SSAC. Upon request from the State, the Regional Administrator shall approve within 60 days any application from the State for a site-specific alternative criteria where the State provides a Technical Support Document demonstrating that existing nutrient concentrations in a stream or stream segment are not adversely impacting the biological health of the stream, as demonstrated for that stream or stream segment by valid data covering a period of at least one year. Such an absence of adverse impacts may be demonstrated as specified in sections (B)(2) or (B)(3), below. Any SSAC approved under this paragraph must propose criteria consistent with the lesser of (i) documented nutrient levels in the stream existing as of the effective date of this regulation; or (ii) documented nutrient levels in the stream existing as of the time of the application. Failure of the Regional Administrator to act within 60 days of receipt of the State's application shall constitute approval of the State's application. The Regional Administrator may only disapprove an application under this paragraph if the Regional Administrator finds that the application does not meet the criteria of sections (B)(2) or (B)(3) below or is either baseless or contrary to underlying science or data. (B)(2) An applicant that meets all of the following three criteria is eligible for an expedited SSAC: (i) A Stream Condition Index score of greater than 40, based on at least two consecutive scores greater than 40 (preferably one sample each during a wet season and a dry season or two samples separated by no less than 30 days for intermittent streams); (ii) an annual average diel dissolved oxygen ("DO") fluctuation range of 3.0 mg/L or less, assessed using quarterly continuous recorder deployments of 96 hours, based on a diel range calculated as the difference between the high and low concentration within each 24 hour period; and (iii) Average Annual Chlorophyll a of less than 20 ug/L, assessed by at least 4 measurements (at least one per calendar quarter, unless not feasible based on streamflow conditions). (B)(3) An applicant that meets any two of the criteria in (B)(2)(i), (ii) and (iii) and is still gathering data to demonstrate meeting the third criteria may obtain an expedited SSAC, provided the applicant can meet the criteria of (B)(3)(i). An expedited SSAC granted under (B)(3) shall only apply for such time as the Regional Administrator determines and specifies is reasonable for the applicant to gather and submit the data to demonstrate meeting the remaining criteria of paragraph (B)(2). (i) An applicant meeting any two of the criteria of (B)(2) may obtain an expedited SSAC under (B)(3) by demonstrating that the stream has a Channelization score > 10 - defined as the channelization component of the FDEP Stream Habitat Assessment (DEP-SOP-001/01 FT 3000 Aquatic Habitat Characterization), where a higher value in the 0-20 scoring range reflects less human alteration of the channel. At least two assessments shall be conducted within a 12-month period, either one sample during a wet season and one sample during a dry season, or two samples separated by no less than 90 days. (B)(4) The sampling requirements of the Florida Impaired Waters Rule, Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. § 62-303, shall apply to any SSAC considered under § 131.43(e)(3)(B), unless otherwise provided for herein.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5654Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope (B)(5) Any expedited SSAC granted under § 131.43(e)(3)(B) shall be subject to review and reassessment by the regional Administrator every five years. (B) (6) Nothing in this subparagraph limits the authority of the State to prevent any waterbody granted an expedited SSAC from becoming impaired or unhealthy due to increases in Total Nitrogen or Total Phosphorus discharged into or present in any stream above levels prescribed in such an expedited SSAC. 

# Comment ID 2458-1.001.002

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association It is important to remember that Florida state and local governments have a long history of proactively addressing water quality issues, such as:

• Florida's water quality statutes and regulatory programs actually include measures for implementing TMDLs through Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs).

• Over 33% of all water quality data in the United States is from Florida.

• Florida local governments spend approximately $1 billion per year on flood control and water quality improvements.

• There are more stormwater utilities in Florida than in any other state in the nation. 

# Comment ID 2458-1.001.007

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association On January 26, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued draft numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) water quality standards for certain lakes and flowing water within the State of Florida, as listed in 40 CFR 131.34, This letter presents the comments of the Florida Stormwater Association (FSA) concerning the proposed criteria. FSA is a voluntary, non-profit Florida corporation organized under subsection 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. Our membership consists of municipal and county governments, water control districts, Water Management Districts, academic institutions, and consulting and engineering firms. There are 300 member organizations of FSA. All of our members have an interest in surface water quality, stormwater management and stormwater finance. As an organization, FSA has been very actively involved in the development of water quality policy and the implementation of water quality improvement programs in Florida for the past 17 years.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5655Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

1. General Observations

1. General Comments of FSA concerning the proposed numeric nutrient criteria me attached hereto and should be considered to be an integral part of this letter.

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 technical foundation for the proposed values. Given our very significant concerns 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.
3. In general, there are no surface water dischargers in Florida that would currently achieve the proposed criteria at the point of discharge. Surface water dischargers include direct domestic and industrial wastewater discharges, backup reclaimed water dischargers as authorized by the Apricot Act (Section 403.086(7), F.S.), or stormwater discharges via a pipe for confined ditch (i.e., outfall for NPDES MS4 purposes). In surface waters that will become impaired with the new EPA NNC, no mixing zone is allowed, so that the NNC would have to be met at the discharge point. For surface waters that are not impaired, a mixing zone is allowable, so that dilution of the effluent is possible.

4. Stormwater discharges from a pipe or confined ditch within urbanized areas are considered point sources according to the Clean Water Act. While discharges can be episodic, a measure of the average concentration of a pollutant during a storm event is called an event mean concentration (EMC). In the development of statewide stormwater treatment regulations, FDEP is using "Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the State of Florida" (Harper, H.H. and D. M. Baker, Environmental Research & Design, Inc., June 2007). Table 4-17 from this report identifies the literature-based runoff characterization for undeveloped! Rangeland/forest lands (natural lands): TN is 1.15 mg/l and TP is 0.055 mg/l. Therefore, runoff from natural lands would not be allowed into clear lakes because of TN and TP and not in colored lakes for TN; natural lands would not be able to discharge into Panhandle streams due to TN and TP; and natural lands would not be able to discharge to south Florida canals due to TP. Table 4-17 also shows that no other land use identified (urban or agricultural) would be allowed to discharge directly either since the EMCs exceed the criteria proposed. As a result of these findings, no surface water discharge (point source or MS4) will be allowed into nutrient impaired waters without extremely high levels of treatment with long-term maintenance, energy consumption and carbon emission costs and consequences. Therefore, to support a policy with very financially onerous consequences, the environmental benefit has to be extreme and the science behind it sufficiently robust. Many of the comments below consider the scientific support of the proposed NNC in light of the demand for strong justifications in light of the fiscal consequences. In general, even though EPA used many of the scientific methods considered by the FDEP, EPA added a number of methodologies that do not stand up to the balance of scientific support and fiscal consequence. 2, Specific Comments

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5656Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

1. Item II.A, The document considers nutrients as pollutants but does not acknowledge that there are numerous natural sources of nutrients and that, in some waterbodies, the lack of nutrients is just as much of an impairment as is over abundance. The state's nutrient target is: not to cause an imbalance of natural flora and fauna, a target that EPA acknowledges (page 38). This does not say the target is achieving the flora and fauna resulting from natural conditions and there are many waterbodies in Florida that meet their recreational (fishable) designation with the existing nutrient condition.

2. Item III.B - Lakes, The proposed rule discusses nutrient discharges to lakes without acknowledgement of a fundamental concept of lake dynamics - limiting nutrients. According to EPA documentation (Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water - Part II (Revised 1985, EPA/6OO/6-85/002b), the elemental composition for nutrients has a Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) ratio 0f 7,2 to 1. Usually this ratio applies to inorganic forms. Thus, if N/P is greater than 7.2, then there is more nitrogen than phosphorus for balanced growth and phosphorus is limiting, and vice versa, In practice, "values of less than 5 are considered nitrogen limiting, greater than 10 are phosphorus limiting and between 5 and 10, both are limiting" (page 52). The document considers that there are nitrogen fixing algae that grow using atmospheric nitrogen but ends by saying "it should be remembered that the chlorophyll produced is affected by the N/P ratio as are algal species." Therefore, by applying both TN and TP criteria to all lakes independently, these criteria result in the reduction of one or the other nutrient when it has no environmental benefit. For example, it is quite possible with the criteria, that a phosphorus-limited lake that meets the chlorophyll a and TP criteria to be impaired if TN is too high (i.e., above the modified criteria range). What is the environmental benefit that is the result of this fiscal requirement?
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.

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 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?

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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5657Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope use of reference streams is invalid (see previous comment), identification of reference streams by biological health is better than by least disturbed streams (LDI< 2).
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 1970s's. Also, as mentioned above, the absence of the EPA recommended limiting nutrient concept is noteworthy and limits the validity of this approach.

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.
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 (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 the Agency'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, 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 Technical Advisory Committee meetings that the SPARROW model was designed for very large watersheds and is not appropriate to be used for the purposes of the NNC in Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5658Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

9. Item III.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 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.
10. 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:

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.

11. 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.
3. Possible Economic, Fiscal and other Impacts on Local Government Florida Statutes and implementing regulations provide for a very detailed system of identifying impaired waters, developing TMDLs and implementing measures to improve water quality. To our knowledge, this is the most robust system of TMDL implementation and surface water quality improvement of any state in the nation. Further, as previously noted, of 33% of all water quality data in the country is from Florida. As reported to the State, Florida general and single-purpose local governments spend approximately $1 billion per year

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5659Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope on flood control and water quality improvements. There are more stormwater utilities in Florida than any state in the nation. At the present time and under the current narrative criteria, there are well over 17 million acres of watersheds that drain into impaired waters, not including waters impaired for mercury. Adding a significant number (likely doubling) of nutrient impaired waters to the responsibility of local governments when the scientific basis of the proposed criteria is questionable and the implementation process uncertain is ill-advised at this time. The additional cost to MS4 jurisdictions alone will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Expenditures of this amount must be based on robust, scientifically-defensible criteria that must account for the significant variations that naturally exist in Florida's soils, natural systems and waters; such is not the case with the proposed rules. We fear that the rules, as currently proposed, will have such broad and far-reaching effects that the ability of state and local governments to target specific, priority waters for significant improvement will be compromised. A sense of "impossibility" in surface water improvement programs may likely emerge. Florida's TMDL and Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) implementation programs will be placed in jeopardy, as Florida law prohibits the use of water quality criteria that have not been adopted by the State. In other words, the EPA criteria may not be simply layered "on top" of Florida's TMDL and BMAP programs without being first formally approved by Florida's Environmental Regulation Commission. We note that the Agency's own Science Advisory Board has advised that "[n]umeric nutrient criteria developed and implemented without consideration of system specific conditions (e.g., from a classification based on site types) can lead to management actions that may have negative social and economic and unintended environmental consequences without additional environmental protection." See: Draft Science Advisory Board (SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report, at page 37, January 8, 2010. In general, we believe that the approach as contemplated by the proposed rules does not provide sufficient scientific validation to warrant the very significant fiscal response that will be expected of local governments and the private sector, nor does it demonstrate that Florida waters need nutrient protection in this manner or to the degree as may be required by the proposed rules. We respectfully suggest that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection be allowed to proceed with and conclude its development of numeric nutrient criteria and related implementation measures within a time certain. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed criteria. We are available to respond to any questions that the Agency may have concerning our comments.



# Comment ID 2458-1.001.008

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association Anticipated Impacts

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5660Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope -It appears that the potential number of TMDLs will increase by at least 100%. The actual impact may be more significant once EPA has identified actual downstream protection values for TP. -Given EPA's new focus on "measurable compliance" for MS4s, the implementation burden of MS4s could increase significantly given the current presumption (of compliance with numeric standards of all kinds) that is given to new development. -The cost to MS4s will be proportional to the degree to which MS4s are held accountable within each permit cycle. Whereas the Florida BMAPs are generally based on a IS-year implementation period (three 5-year MS4 Permit periods) with equal allocations in each period, the implementation efforts that will be required by EPA are largely unknown at this point, although there seems to be movement to add much more detail to MS4 permits possibly going beyond the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) policy as contained in the Clean Water Act. EPA's requirements of (1) all MS4 permit renewals to be " ...consistent with the requirements of wasteload allocations for applicable TMDLs" and (2) "...MS4s to develop a TMDL implementation plan that identifies enhanced control measures the MS4 will implement to address the WLA within the term of the permit" will have significant consequences for Florida MS4s. FDEP has already withdrawn two draft permits (Hillsborough and Jacksonville) fearing an objection for not properly addressing TMDLs. It appears that EPA's requirements for monitoring, based on the Lower St. Johns River TMDLs and BMAPs, will be much more expensive. EPA rules will likely result in requiring increased treatment of wastewater discharges into impaired waters or into South Florida canals that are used for "reclaimed" purposes. In addition to the long-term costs of construction, operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment facilities, MS4sexpect to see significant increases in permitting fees since 90% of the costs of FDEP's permitting programs are feefunded. Therefore, FSA's previous estimate of local government's cost of compliance (stormwater, capital costs only) with the TMDL program of $75 billion will be much, much higher. Assessment of Impacts Numeric Nutrient Criteria are onerous and expensive. But they are here to stay and must be realistic, appropriate, attainable, practicable and implementable.
Criteria Must Be Realistic -Any target concentration/criteria must be robust (based on good data and good science) if it is to justify the required long term community investments in construction, operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment facilities required to achieve compliance. -FDEP's assessment of the reference sites that were used to develop State criteria indicated that 80% of the reference

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5661Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope sites will not attain the EPA downstream protection values for TN. -There are numerous lakes and stream segments in Florida that are fishable and swimmable but do not meet the proposed NNC. More importantly, these lakes and streams are not pristine but they are high value waters and habitats that are viewed as community assets, It would appear that these waters are at the point of significant diminishing returns on tile cost-benefit curve where tile cost of removing additional nutrients is exorbitant, cannot be justified technically, and likely will not be supported/approved by the community. [See Example No, 1] -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. -Any cost of compliance must be balanced against the benefits that will result from the high level of community investment. Proposed Criteria Must Be Appropriate -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. Proposed Criteria Must Be Attainable -It is important to set goals high but goals must be attainable. -EPA should incorporate the consideration of the limiting nutrient in the proposed NNC. Failure to do so could result in MS4s being required to construct, operate and maintain expensive stormwater treatment facilities to reduce ambient concentrations of the non-limiting nutrient in order to comply with the proposed NNC without producing measureable

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5662Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope benefit to the community, [See Example No. 3] -In general terms, the cost of attaining stormwater compliance with the proposed NNC for Florida local governments is expected to be 4x to 6x the cost of meeting current FDEP TMDL requirements (based on twice the number of TMDLs and 2x to 3x the construction, operation and maintenance costs for the stormwater treatment facilities required to comply with the proposed NNC). [See Example No. 4] Proposed Criteria Must Be Practicable -Numeric nutrient targets are desirable for the purposes of local waterbody water quality and ecosystem management. -The rules must not establish harmful conditions or allow for degradation. Nutrient levels for Apalachicola Bay would actually be harmful to the oyster population.

- 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. -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. -The criteria would be applied to "recreational waters" without regard to their actual use, highlighting the absurdities of Florida's waterbody classification system, Stormwater conveyances and urban ditches would often be required to meeting the same criteria as "swimmable and fishable" streams, lakes and rivers. Proposed Criteria Must Be Implementable -One unintended outcome of the proposed NNC would be a broad scale use by MS4s of the variance process envisioned by EPA in cases where the long-term cost of constructing, operating and maintaining community stormwater treatment facilities greatly outweighs tile cost developing variances. This outcome would severely impact agency resources for tile technical review, public involvement and rule promulgation processes. -The existing Type II SSAC process will not work for nutrients. While EPA rules contemplate a compliance schedule or variance process, Florida law does not allow such if it results in non-compliance with a more stringent federal standard. -EPA will likely only approve permits that are consistent with their WQS. But FDEP may be prohibited by Florida law from developing TMDLs base on EPA numeric criteria. -The criteria will significantly increase FDEP permitting workload, with the cost of increased workloads being passed onto permit applicants.
For More Information . .... Kurt Spitzer, Executive Director Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5663Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

Stormwater Association 719 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 www.fIorida-stormwater.org stormwater@ksanet.net 888/221-3124 Examples

1. Sarasota Bay Sea Grass Coverage Sarasota County has conducted mapping, monitoring and biological investigations to develop a long-term action plan,and subsequently implemented numerous management practices in order to improve ambient water quality in a longterm effort to restore sea grass coverage in Sarasota Bay to documented levels in 1950. In 2010 the sea grasses have recovered to a degree that the current coverage exceeds the observed 1950 "baseline" condition, However, the EPA TMDL for Phillippi Creek requires a 70% reduction of current TN concentration on top of existing managementpractices, Clearly, the NNC would be overly protective when translated upstream for purposes of establishing end-ofpipe discharge concentrations.

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.
3. Limiting Nutrients EPA discusses nutrient discharges to lakes without acknowledgement of a fundamental concept of lake dynamics ­ limiting nutrients, According to EPA documentation [1] the elemental composition for nutrients has a Nitrogen to Phosphorus (N/P) ratio of 7.2 to 1. Thus, if N/P is greater than 7.2, then there is more nitrogen than phosphorus for balanced growth and phosphorus is limiting, and vice versa. In practice, "values of less than 5 are considered nitrogen limiting, greater than 10 are phosphorus limiting and between 5 and 10, both are limiting." (See page 52 of referenced document.) The document considers that there are nitrogen fixing algae that grow using atmospheric nitrogen but ends by saying "it should be remembered that the chlorophyll produced is affected by the NIP ratio as are algal species." Therefore, by applying both TN and TP criteria to all lakes independently, these criteria result in the reduction of one or the other nutrient when it has no environmental benefit. For example, it is quite possible with the criteria, that a phosphorus-limited lake that meets the chlorophyll a and TP criteria to be impaired if TN is too high. What is the environmental benefit that is the result of this fiscal requirement?

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5664Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

4. Community Stormwater Treatment Investments The City of Tallahassee's Stormwater Management program is recognized as being among the most progressive and proactive in Florida. In 1987, the City was the first in Florida to adopt a user fee to fund Stormwater Management programs. Their current user fee on developed property ranks among the highest in Florida and the USA at $7.95 per equivalent residential unit. $1.70 of the current fee was earmarked in 2005 to generate an additional $60 million over 20 years that is dedicated solely to improve stormwater quality. Generating about $3 million a year is equivalent to about one third of EPA's 319 (stormwater) grant program's annual budget for the entire State of Florida. Over the past 10 years, Tallahassee has spent approximately $74 million to fund 45 capital projects - many of which have substantial stormwater quality improvement elements in their design. Even so, this targets only 20 out of tile 145 watersheds within the jurisdiction. The program is expected to produce a 10% reduction in the existing nutrient loadings in the affected waters. TMDLs based on the EPA standards for flowing waters (0.043 mg/L) would require an additional 75% removal of phosphorus from current levels, and will require more than doubling the monthly charge for stormwater residential utility rates.

[1] Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water-Part II (Revised 1985, EPA/600/6-85/002b).



# Comment ID 2459-1.001.002

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners of Okaloosa County, Florida and the Okaloosa County Water and Sewer System (OCWS), we offer the following comments regarding the Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards (WQS) proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) for Florida, Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. The County and our consultants have thoroughly read and are familiar with the proposed legislation; and have attended several public forums, meetings, and workshops that addressed such. Having educated ourselves as to the specifics of the EPA proposal, the basis for its development, and the methods proposed by EPA for implementing these standards, we are united in our opposition to EPA's plan of imposing these water quality standards in lieu of allowing Florida to work within their established framework of regulations and rule making procedures to implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act. EPA's proposed legislation represents an unfunded mandate; an inappropriate application of Florida's Integrated Water Quality Assessment 2008; is based on faulty assumptions; is technically unsound; and given the current state of domestic wastewater technology, is virtually impossible to achieve. Further, EPA's approach circumvents Florida's sovereignty and appears to punish Florida for having an outstanding water protection program. Florida certainly is not unique to nutrient enrichment in their surface waters, despite diligent regulatory efforts. OCWS is nearing completion of a $73 million program to upgrade its 3 wastewater treatment facilities to provide nutrient removal

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5665Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope processes. These improvements were not required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) but will provide a tremendous improvement to regional water quality. Okaloosa County favors these types of initiatives over the punitive measures EPA is proposing. EPA acknowledges that Florida maintains a successful water quality protection program and their proposal states that "Florida is one of the few States that has in place a comprehensive framework of accountability that applies to both point and non point sources and provides the enforceable authority to address nutrient reductions in impaired waters upon the establishment of site specific total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)". Despite this statement, the EPA, in its proposal, glaringly discounts Florida's efforts to lead the nation in implementing a successful water quality protection program; even though Florida is acknowledged to be one of the few states that has committed the necessary resources. Instead of bowing to unreasonable external pressures, EPA should stand firm and allow Florida the opportunity to develop water quality standards within the framework of the Florida Statutes, and the Florida Administrative Codes. Instead, EPA is taking what essentially is an enforcement action against the State of Florida for having done an outstanding job. The County's comments and concerns regarding the EPA's proposed Numeric Nutrient WQS legislation is discussed in the following text. In short, we have limited our review and comments to the following major topics:

• Site Specific/Watershed Specific Water Quality Standards

• Sources of Nutrient Loadings to Surface Waters

• EPA's Population Growth Estimates

• Stressor Response Relationship

• Okaloosa County Water and Sewer System (OCWS) Description

• Regulatory Authority for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development in Florida

• Technologies Available to Achieve Compliance

• Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs of Compliance Each of these topics is discussed below. Site Specific/Watershed Specific Water Quality Standards EPA's proposal recognizes that performing comprehensive site specific data collection and mechanistic modeling efforts results in a more precise derivation of site specific standards and accounts for the environmental variability from site to site. EPA acknowledges that significant resources and time are required to complete these site specific analyses. In lieu of spending the time and money to develop watershed specific studies so that these standards are better matched to watershed specific conditions, EPA divides the State into 4 regions and sets generalized standards for each region. EPA's proposal then provides language and alternatives, such as site specific alternative criteria and restoration standards, but then shifts the responsibility, and costs, to address watershed specific issues to the regulated party. We have very little expectation that EPA will ultimately approve the use of these alternatives given the manner in which EPA has succumbed to unreasonable external pressure to override the State's jurisdiction in the rule making process. Given the tremendous costs involved in development of a site specific alternative, the fact is that the regulated party will have to study an entire watershed, while affecting only a portion of that system, and the extreme likelihood that EPA would fail to grant such an alternative makes these alternatives simply words on a piece of paper and not true viable

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5666Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope alternatives to the generalized standards proposed by EPA. Sources of Nutrient Loadings to Surface Waters Domestic wastewater treatment plants are required to renew their operating permits every five years; and therefore are easily the focus of regulators and external interest groups as a primary source of nutrients. However, there are many other substantial sources of nutrients that are not regulated or which will avoid the level of regulation or public scrutiny that domestic wastewater treatment facilities receive. This may result in expenditures of enormous amounts of capital to reduce nutrient loadings in the effluent from the treatment facilities with the unrealistic expectation of rapid improved water quality; only to later realize that the unregulated sources of nutrients in the system have a much greater impact on nutrient water quality than the domestic wastewater treatment facilities. 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. Regulatory Authority for Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida Will EPA's unilateral imposition of numeric nutrient criteria on Florida achieve the desired result any better or faster than had EPA left the process to the State of Florida, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code? In other words, will surface water quality in Florida actually improve as a result of EPA's action any faster or to a better extent than it would have if EPA had respected Florida's sovereignty over the issues? Clearly Florida has put forth as much or more effort than most States when it comes to water quality protection. EPA acknowledges Florida's program as being one of the best. Why then is EPA taking an unjustified enforcement action upon the State of Florida in a way that is creating an adversarial relationship amongst the parties and stakeholders? We believe that EPA's reasoning and approach and its basis for this proposal are flawed. In the Executive Summary, Part 1, Section A of EPA's proposal, EPA states, that the Agency considered 1) the State‘s documented unique and threatened ecosystems, 2) the high number of impaired waters due to existing nutrient pollution, and 3) the challenge associated with growing nutrient pollution resulting from expanding urbanization, continued agricultural development, and a significantly increasing population that is expected to grow 75% between 2000 to 2030. EPA also reviewed the State's regulatory nutrient accountability system, which represents an impressive synthesis of technology-based standards, point source control authority, and authority to establish enforceable controls for nonpoint source activities. We are certain that the FDEP has considered its documented, unique, and threatened ecosystems. EPA acknowledges that Florida is one of the few States that has a comprehensive program to account for and address these issues. Why would having an outstanding and remarkable program be justification for such action? It would appear that having a good program results in an adversarial approach while other states with lesser programs can

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5667Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

continue with the minimal amount of effort. EPA's implementation of the proposed action on the basis of the "Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida 2008 305(b) Re and 303(d) List Update," October 2008, (IWR) is a misuse of the information provided by the that report. That report was prepared in the context of Florida's overall program to manage its water protection programs; and more specifically the Total Daily Maximum Loads Rule, Chapter 62-304, FAC. Interestingly, this rule was developed as a result of EPA settling a previous lawsuit against them. After the State of Florida has expended the time and resources to develop this legislation, it is now being told by EPA that the effort was or is not good enough. We disagree with EPA's assessment of Florida's TMDL rule making. The IWR was prepared by applying the procedures provided in the Impaired Waters Rule, Chapter 62-303, FAC. The application of this rule was intended to support the development of TMDLs for specific watersheds. Verification that a water body is impaired using the standards in the impaired waters rule is a means of establishing priorities for TMDL development. It is a qualified screening tool and not a tool from which specific standards should be developed. EPA's Population Growth Estimates EPA estimates that Florida's population will grow by 75 percent between the year 2000 and the year 2030. This appears to be an estimate that is 10 years old. Given that the State is currently in a low to negative growth condition due to hurricanes, a shattered real estate market, an underperforming tourism economy, and high unemployment due to the recession, it is questionable that Florida will realize 75 percent growth by the year 2030. According to Proximity, http://proximityone.com /, Florida's population in 2010 is estimated at 19,252,691 and by the year 2030, will be 28,685,769, or a 49 percent increase. Again EPA's basis for the proposed action is questionable. Should EPA finalize their proposal, Florida will be unable to compete, and our overall economy will decline. Stressor Response Relationship EPA's proposal is supported by methods which do not specifically identify an absolute stressor response relationship for each water body to be regulated. EPA acknowledges that there are lines of evidence to suggest that 20 ug/L of Chlorophyll a is the proper benchmark for all lakes and that 0.82 mg/L in total nitrogen is the proper benchmark for streams in the Panhandle. However, EPA cannot show that a stream in the Florida Panhandle with a concentration of total nitrogen of greater 0.82 mg/L will not support a healthy and diverse biological community. It certainly would not prevent a swimmer or a boater from using that water body. The distribution method simply makes a prediction of how many water bodies or stream segments would be expected to be at or below that limit. Further, it is not fully transparent what data set was used to assess the water quality distributions; nor is the paper trail to the underlying meta data intact. Reviewing the basis for the EPA's proposal, it also appears that EPA is trying to establish water quality expectations with respect to periods of geologic time when humans were not yet present in Florida. This is suggested by EPA's comparison of their assessed values to values derived from the Paleolimnological record. Our review also suggests that EPA selected baseline reference sites that are weighted towards sites that show little, if any, evidence of human disturbance. Is the goal to return Florida back to the days before man appeared? We do not think this is practical or feasible.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5668Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

A recent memorandum from the Florida FDEP points out that based on EPA's proposed criteria, over 40% of the water bodies in the Florida Panhandle currently would fail to meet those criteria. There are 100 waterbodies in or related to Okaloosa County. Of those, 25% would currently fail these proposed criteria. There is insufficient data to completely assess 75% of these waterbodies with respect to these proposed standards. Whereas only 20% of the water bodies in the Florida Lower Peninsula would fail. According to the FDEP 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment, "Water quality in the northwest and west-central sections of the state is generally better than in other areas." It is completely illogical that the Panhandle Region would then also have the greatest number of waterbody segments out of compliance. This raises serious doubt as to the methods and basis for EPA's proposed standards. After examining EPA's proposal, it is not explicitly clear as to why EPA is justified in taking such an action that interferes with and undermines the sovereignty of the State of Florida. Furthermore, it is not explicitly clear as to how this action will improve water quality any faster or with any greater effect or efficiency than an action that allows the State of Florida to complete its numeric nutrient criteria rule making process. Additionally, we question why EPA should take such dramatic action with respect to Florida when EPA acknowledges many times in its proposal that problems associated with nutrient enrichment of surface waters are "Nationwide". EPA's analysis is severely flawed with respect to identifying appropriate stressor-response relationships between nutrient levels and measures adopted to assess the level at which the subject waters attain their current use and classification. This requirement is fundamental to the purpose and intent of the Clean Water Act. Okaloosa County Water and Sewer System (OCWS) Description OCWS is responsible for providing water and wastewater service to the unincorporated parts of Okaloosa County, Florida, located in the Florida Panhandle. In 2008 there were 179,693 citizens in Okaloosa County. At present OCWS has approximately 30,000 customer accounts. OCWS recently assumed responsibility through an interlocal agreement for the treatment and disposal of the wastewater from within the City of Fort Walton Beach, adding another 9,000 customers to the system. OCWS is also a member of the Niceville Valpariso Okaloosa County System. Figure 1 provides a map of the service area. OCWS operates 3 wastewater treatment facilities, 19 water tanks and 22 water wells into the upper Floridan aquifer. Average daily water demand to the system is 7.0 MGD. The wastewater treatment facilities have a combined capacity of 12 MGD. The wastewater treatment facilities are advanced activated sludge plants. Each of the wastewater treatment facilities includes process to remove nutrients. OCWS has invested substantial capital funds in the development of these facilities including the land application systems that were developed in keeping with FDEP policies favoring these systems over direct discharge to surface water. OCWS is nearing completion of a $65 million program to replace the Garniers Wastewater Treatment Facility, and a $7 million program to upgrade the Bob Sikes Water Reclamation Facility. Both the new Arbennie Pritchett WRF and the upgraded Bob Sikes WRF will provide up to a combined 2.5 MGD of public access reuse quality reclaimed water. OCWS takes pride in developing their systems to meet the challenges of protecting the environment. However, these improvements will not be adequate to meet the challenge presented by the proposed criteria. Major additions to each of these facilities will be required to meet the proposed criteria. Notwithstanding EPA's concern for nutrient impairment of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5669Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope Florida Waters, we do not believe that the additional investments that will be required are not justified with respect to the anticipated benefits. Technologies Available to Achieve Compliance OCWS's current operating wastewater treatment facilities are of an advanced design capable of biological nitrogen removal. We have worked with the FDEP over the years to develop our wastewater treatment systems to exceed the minimum required effluent standards. Each of our wastewater treatment facilities include costly land application systems that were developed according to FDEP's policy of eliminating direct discharges to surface waters. Despite having made substantial investments in current state of the art wastewater treatment systems, these will not be able to meet EPA's proposed standards without major modifications. Okaloosa County Water and Sewer has evaluated the capabilities of its facilities to meet the proposed effluent limits in EPA's proposal. The current processes do not have the capability to comply with the stringent nitrogen or phosphorus limits and additional processes are required. Liquid Train Treatment Processes A major hurdle that these facilities, and most facilities in Florida, must overcome to comply with the proposed limits is the removal of organic nitrogen species. Currently no proven biological technologies exist that are reliably capable of removing organic nitrogen species to the value required to meet the 0.82 mg/L total nitrogen limit for streams in the Panhandle, or the downstream protective limits for total nitrogen proposed for the estuaries located in the Panhandle. Equipment processes will be required to be installed at each facility to reliably comply with the proposed limits.

• Anaerobic Treatment to provide a 5-stage Bardenpho Process

• Deep Bed Sand Filters or Ultrafiltration Membranes

• Low Pressure Reverse Osmosis

• High Pressure Reverse Osmosis

• Evaporation of Brine The existing treatment plants would need to be modified and additional treatment basins and equipment installed to provide for a 5-stage Bardenpho treatment process, including anaerobic treatment. This modification will minimize the concentration of effluent organic nitrogen species and further reduce the effluent total nitrogen concentration. However, since the total nitrogen concentration is not expected to reliably comply with the stringent limits proposed by EPA, additional treatment is required. The effluent from the facilities would be further treated with chemical additions to precipitate phosphorus and filtered using a deep bed filter system or ultrafiltration membranes to remove particulates including phosphorus upstream of the low pressure reverse osmosis (RO) units. The low pressure RO units would remove most of the remaining nutrients and other multi- and mono-valent ion compounds, including the nitrogen phosphorus compounds, from the effluent stream. It is assumed that the 0.82 mg/L would be reliably met using these technologies at this point in the modified system. The Reverse Osmosis process produces a waste stream of brine that is about 10 to 20 percent of the volume applied to the RO membrane system. This waste stream would have a total dissolved solids content in the order of about 5,000 ppm, would contain high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus species, and could not be retreated by the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5670Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope wastewater treatment system or disposed to land application sites or discharged to surface waters. Currently, the best available technology for treating and disposing of this brine waste stream is to minimize and reduce its volume and evaporate the water from the remaining waste stream. The cost of evaporation is extremely high, so we propose to further reduce the volume of that stream by sending it through a high pressure RO system. This would further reduce the water volume by an additional 80 to 90 percent and the resulting waste stream would be 1/100th to 4/100th of the influent flow to the wastewater treatment plant. The waste stream from the high pressure RO system would be fed to a series of evaporators where the water would be reduced another 90 percent and the remaining salt sludge waste stream from the evaporators would be disposed to the sanitary land fill. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Okaloosa County Water & Sewer Service Area. See original comment letter.
Solids Train Treatment Processes OCWS currently has the capacity to produce about 2,000 dry tons per year of Class B biosolids from each of its three wastewater treatment facilities. These biosolids are currently land applied to farm land in north Okaloosa County. Given the low level of total nitrogen and phosphorus species to be allowed by the proposed standards, we anticipate a severe restriction on the use and application of biosolids to these lands as a result of EPA's proposal. Therefore, the County must assume that the current method for treating and disposing of waste solids from our facilities will change and we assume we will be required to produce biosolids meeting the Class AA Biosolids requirements. This advance in technology is necessary because of the significant increase in land area requirements to dissipate the nutrient loads to local streams from biosolids applications. The Class AA product is classified as a fertilizer instead of a waste stream and will provide an unlimited area over which these materials can be distributed. The County has evaluated the modifications in the biosolids treatment technologies required to produce biosolids meeting the stringent AA level requirements. At a minimum, additional storage, dewatering, and new biosolids drying equipment is required. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs of Compliance Modifying and upgrading the OCWS wastewater treatment facilities to include the additional treatment systems required to comply with the EPA proposal will demand an unreasonable amount of capital. This in turn will require OCWS to pass these costs on to rate payers, increasing rates by an extraordinary amount. The following Table provides and Order of Magnitude 20-yr present worth cost associated with upgrades to each of the three OCWS Wastewater Treatment Systems. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table: Order of Magnitude Preset-Worth Costs to Upgrade OCWS Facilities to Meet EPA's NNC Rules. See original comment letter. These costs represent an unfunded mandate by the Federal Government onto local governments. In doing so, EPA severely restricts the end users' access to due process. The proposed action deprives the individual of their rights under Florida law to participate in the rule making process and this approach is dictatorial and draconian. Further, there will be significant negative environmental consequences resulting from the installation of these types of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5671Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope treatment systems in order to meet these low levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. These include the additional energy required to operate these systems, especially the RO systems, evaporators, and sludge driers, required to reduce the water content in the waste streams from the RO units and also to produce Class AA biosolids. These will require large amounts of natural gas and electricity. These increased energy demands will result in large discharges of green house gases into the atmosphere. The residuals from the evaporators will place additional stress on sanitary landfill systems. Additional chemical costs associated with the removal of phosphorus. These systems will also place an unreasonable increased demand on the State's limited energy resources. EPA's analysis grossly underestimates the costs associated with the proposed action. EPA's proposal estimates the cost of implementing this proposal to be between $106 to $140 million per year. According to FDEP data, there are 2,114 domestic wastewater treatment facilities in the State of Florida with a combined treatment capacity of approximately 2,626 MGD. Assuming they will all be faced with similar problems and capital requirements for up-grades to meet the proposed water quality standards as OCWS at $16 per gallon of treatment the combined present worth value of the potential capital needs to comply with these proposed rules over the next 20 years will be over $42 billion dollars. The capital costs alone represent more than $26 billion dollars and the annual operation and maintenance costs would run more than $1 billion per year. The impact to the citizens of Florida would be dramatic. These numbers do not account for the costs associated with existing industrial, agricultural and stormwater treatment facilities nor does it account for the cost of regulatory implementation of the rule. This estimate is just for the existing domestic facilities and not potential future facilities. EPA does not provide any detail regarding their computation of the estimated annual costs to the State of Florida. By estimation EPA is not even in the same galaxy. It appears to OCWS that EPA is high-jacking the process in favor of litigating the issues with an external interested party. This in our opinion is hasty, will not result in a better water quality protection system, nor will it improve water quality any faster that would otherwise occur if Florida were give the opportunity to proceed with the development of these standards. Therefore, we respectfully implore EPA to reconsider its proposal.



# Comment ID 2462-1.001.013

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 8. Given the site-specific nature of nutrient-related impairments, we also support the use of EPA approved TMDLs in establishing site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) for nutrients. This provides a much more robust method for setting nutrient criteria that capitalizes on existing site-specific information that links nutrient loads to nutrient-related effects and a process that has undergone extensive development along with a thorough review process with FDEP and EPA. 

# Comment ID 2463-1.001.006

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5672Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

Reference Site selection different between US-EPA and FDEP It is also troublesome that the identification of the minimally disturbed reference sites and the selection of data quality screens are still not comparable between Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and US-EPA. The final rule should explain this discrepancy, and select a scientifically sound methodology for choosing the reference sites and to establish rigorous nutrient criteria. The difficulty selecting the reference sites and the close connection between the shallow groundwater and surface water[5,6] in Florida highlight the importance of choosing the conservative 75th level for establishing the nutrient criteria. Table 1 lists the number of reference sites per 1 million acres in each EPA region (used for TP determination) as well as the total number of years with sampling events. The number of reference sites in the Peninsula (27) and the West Central regions (1) are not enough to characterize the watershed. The number of reference sites and sampling events for nitrogen are even lower than for phosphorus. For example, only three nitrogen sampling events (from one reference site) were used in the EPA document for the determination of the TN criterion in the West Central region. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1: TP reference site distribution and TP sampling events in the 5 regions as delineated by the EPA. See original comment letter. Lastly, it is well established that wetlands associated with water bodies, through natural biological processes, increase organic N in adjacent waters.[7] The Everglades Foundation would recommend using total inorganic N as the N criterion for streams, thus recognizing organic N contributions from natural wetlands and differentiating it from the anthropogenic pollution.

[5] Harvey, J. W. and McCormick, P. V., 2009. Groundwater's significance to changing hydrology, water chemistry, and biological communities of a floodplain ecosystem, Everglades, South Florida, USA. Hydrogeology Journal, 17(1):185­ 201. [6] Kaplan, D., Munoz-Carpena, R. and Ritter, A., 2010. Untangling complex shallow groundwater dynamics in the floodplain wetlands of a southeastern U.S. coastal river. Water Resources Research, 46(W08528)1-18. [7] Reddy, K. R. and DeLaune, R. D., 2008. Biogeochemistry of Wetlands: Science and Applications. 774 p. 

# Comment ID 2470-1.001.003

Author Name: Cunningham T. Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities In general GRU supports EPA's goal of developing protective measures for waterbodies, but these parameters should be appropriately derived. We are disappointed that EPA did not consider the previous comments submitted and continue to urge EPA to adopt the previous recommendations (previous submitted comments are attached as Appendix A). The primary concerns and recommendations are summarized as follows:

1. Adopt all TMDLs as site specific alternative criteria (SSAC)

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5673Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

2. Streamline the SSAC process and make it cost-effective and simple 3. Consider the economic impact to the citizens of Florida GRU fully endorses the comments submitted previously and through this request for comment by Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council (FWEAUC). 

# Comment ID 2476-1.001.005

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services The premise of EPA's approach is that nutrients in reference streams define the appropriate concentrations for other streams. There is a lack of evidence that nutrients are the single causative factor for the less healthy biological conditions for those streams falling below the standard. Work by FDEP shows a very poor correlation between the stream condition index and nutrient concentrations. 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.005

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District
4. USEPA should not use the original "reference condition approach" since statistical differences in nutrients between reference and non-reference streams may not translate into biologically significant differences. There is no direct cause and effect relationship between nutrients and impairment based on the USEPA's original "reference condition approach". 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.010

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. Lack of Public Participation The EPA has failed to follow its own guidelines for public input and participation. Federal regulation requires that development of water quality criteria follow the same requirements that EPA mandates for States. As an example, 40 CFR 25.8 requires Responsiveness Summaries as stated below. Section 25.8 Responsiveness summaries. Each agency which conducts any activities required under this part shall prepare a Responsiveness Summary at specific decision points as specified in program regulations or in the approved public participation work plan.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5674Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope Responsiveness Summaries are also required for rulemaking activities under Sec. 25.10. Each Responsiveness Summary shall identify the public participation activity conducted; describe the matters on which the public was consulted; summarize the public's views, significant comments, criticisms and suggestions; and set forth the agency's specific responses in terms of modifications of the proposed action or an explanation for rejection of proposals made by the public. Responsiveness Summaries prepared by agencies receiving EPA financial assistance shall also include evaluations by the agency of the effectiveness of the public participation program. Assisted agencies shall request such evaluations from any advisory group and provide an opportunity for other participating members of the public to contribute to the evaluation. (In the case of programs with multiple responsiveness summary requirements, these analyses need only be prepared and submitted with the final summary required.) Responsiveness summaries shall be forwarded to the appropriate decision-making official and shall be made available to the public. Responsiveness Summaries shall be used as part of evaluations required under this part or elsewhere in this chapter. (Emphasis added)

The FPPAEA requests that the EPA provide a responsiveness summary on this rulemaking that provides evidence that the EPA has properly understood the public's views, significant comments, criticisms, and suggestions. Further the EPA should provide sufficient details describing the agency's modifications of the proposed criteria in response to public input or an explanation as to why such input has been rejected. To date the FPPAEA has not seen any indication that the EPA has taken public comments seriously or provided information on how the proposed criteria has been modified in response to these comments. In addition to properly responding to the substantive comments submitted to the Docket, the EPA should include a summary of how the Agency has responded to the concerns of its own Science Advisory Board and to the concerns raised in the letters to EPA from the Florida Legislature and Florida's Congressional Delegation, all of which have raised serious concerns that the EPA has failed to develop a rule based on sound science and that the rule would have a devastating economic impact to an already struggling economy. 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.012

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc.

- Implementation Issues The January 2010 proposed rule discussed Implementation Mechanisms (75 FR 4217) and noted that site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) could be developed, noting that SSAC must protect the same designated use and must be based on sound science as required by 40 CFR § 131.11(a). EPA further noted that the procedures necessary to develop and adopt SSAC are not yet available and recommended that FDEP develop such procedures and submit them to EPA for review and approval. The Agency also speculated on the nature of those procedures: EPA also considered technical processes necessary to develop protective numeric nutrient criteria on a site-specific basis. To complete a thorough and successful analysis to develop numeric nutrient SSAC, EPA expects the State to conduct, or direct applicants to the State to conduct, a variety of supporting analyses. For the instream protection value (IPV) for streams, this analysis would, for example, consist of examining both indicators of longer-term response to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5675Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope multiple stressors such as benthic macroinvertebrate health, as determined by Florida's Stream Condition Index (SCI) and indicators of shorter-term response specific to nutrients, such as periphyton algal thickness or chlorophyll a levels. Empirical data analysis of multiple factors affecting the expression of response to nutrients and mechanistic models of ecosystem processes can assist in this type of analysis. The intent of this discussion is to illustrate a process that is rigorous and based on sound scientific rationale, without being inappropriately onerous to complete. Corollary analyses for a lake, spring or clear stream, or canal situation would need to be pursued for a SSAC on those systems. (75 FR 4218) PotashCorp agrees that stressor-response relationships, if they could be reliably established, could provide an appropriate basis for developing site-specific numeric nutrient criteria as required by the Clean Water Act. (40 CFR § 131.11 (b)) These SSAC implementation procedures are predicated on the assumption that the presumptively applicable criteria were developed using a similarly rigorous approach but that site-specific conditions which were not considered for a specific water body during the development of the established criteria render the established criteria overprotective or under protective. That is not the case for EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. EPA acknowledged that it "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." (75 FR 4194) Instead, the Agency used a statistical distribution of nutrient concentrations in streams with healthy biological condition to "identity an appropriate threshold for providing protection of aquatic life designated uses." Such an approach is not scientifically defensible and constitutes an illegal approach to criteria derivation since it is not based on any impairment threshold demonstration. Moreover, neither EPA nor FDEP currently have formally adopted indicators of stream health that can be used as the basis for making a determination initiating the SSAC process. The requirement to evaluate "indicators of longer-term response to multiple stressors" and "indicators of shorter-term response specific to nutrients" for purposes of establishing SSAC is directly contrary to the explicit finding of the Agency that appropriate correlations cannot be drawn between biological response variables and nutrient concentrations. The entire proposal regarding relief mechanisms is internally contradictory and invalid. The SSAC implementation procedures discussed previously in this letter cannot be implemented as proposed in the January 2010 rule proposal because the eligibility requirement, that a specific stream is biologically healthy, cannot be demonstrated without formally adopted biological indicators. Moreover, current FDEP rules prohibit SSAC for nutrients. Given these obstacles, it is impossible to determine how a SSAC would be set for a stream segment, even if it was determined to be eligible for consideration. Before this rule goes forward, EPA must resolve these issues so that the full impact of the proposed rulemaking can be assessed. EPA has indicated to FDEP that the proposed criteria for lakes and flowing waters have a duration of one year (the magnitudes are annual geometric means) and a return frequency of once-in-three-years. EPA also indicated that the long-term average of annual geometric mean values shall not surpass the listed concentration values. EPA should clarify that the once-in-three-year return frequency is an average return frequency and data associated with extreme flow conditions should not be used in evaluating compliance with the numeric criteria. Also EPA needs to clearly define "long term. There also needs to be provisions for excluding extreme, non-normal events. These could include, but not be limited to, hurricanes or accidental discharges. The criteria should be based on a reasonable range of typical

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5676Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope conditions. Extreme low flow, drought conditions should also be excluded. 

# Comment ID 2498-1.001.006

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The Department would also like to reiterate our immediate concern regarding the criteria effective date. While the Department had earlier requested a one year effective date delay, it has become very evident that more time is needed. Assuming the promulgated criteria address the concerns expressed in our comments, only then can Florida take necessary steps to begin implementation. The Department will need to, at a minimum, adopt rule revisions for permitting and assessment (Impaired Waters Rule) because State law does not allow the Department to implement policies or procedures that are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code. The decision on any rulemaking activities associated with the Criteria will not likely occur until the new Governor and administration has taken office in 2011. Once a decision is made, it could take two additional years to complete any rulemaking and potential rule challenges, given the administrative process for adopting rule changes. Until Department rules can be adopted, the Department will have to depend upon the Region to implement the promulgated criteria in relevant Clean Water Act (CWA) programs. Of immediate concern is ambient water quality assessments associated with compiling the CWA 303(d) list. The Department will launch our public process in May, 2011, for the 613 waterbodies located in the Group 5 Basins. There are more than 650,000 nutrient related ambient analyses associated with those waterbodies that will have to be reviewed against the criteria. It is almost certain that the Department will not have rules in place by that time to conduct those assessments. Therefore, that burden would fall to the Region if the criteria are in effect. Given all these circumstances, the Department has now concluded that it would be most prudent to set the effective date of the freshwater criteria to coincide with the effective date of the estuarine and coastal water criteria. This would allow simultaneous application of all nutrient related criteria, facilitate a single State rulemaking effort necessary for implementation, and reduce complications regarding the application of existing freshwater criteria (IPVs and DPVs) and the potential future DPVs to the same waterbodies. These complications could include permit renewals that would drive treatment upgrades during the interim period that may not be viable if more stringent DPVs for estuaries are later established. Lastly, the Department asks that EPA develop an outreach strategy to address public inquiry once the criteria are established. We ask that EPA plan events in the State so that interested stakeholders can ask questions to more clearly understand their responsibilities with respect to criteria implementation. The Department will continue to be available to address public inquiry, but it would be very helpful for EPA to join us in that endeavor. 

# Comment ID 2499-1.001.005

Author Name: Coe A.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5677Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. V. THE USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS Earthjustice has confined its comments to the specific requests made by EPA. We are, however, concerned, that other parties may use this as an opportunity to add comments or documents to the record on other issues. Earthjustice assumes that EPA will not add these extraneous comments to the record of this proceeding. However, we wish to make it clear that we will object to the use of any such comments in any future judicial proceeding on the ground that they are not properly in the administrative record of this proceeding. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.006

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries
4. EPA must adopt a meaningful definition of a lake consistent with Florida rules and regulations. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.023

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Definition of a Lake There have been previous comments on the appropriate definition of a lake, and the importance of that definition for its regulatory application in the context of this rule is paramount. In particular, lakes must be separated from wetlands and broad fluvial features in order to ensure that the proper criteria are applied to the proper waterbody type. For example, wetlands with small ponded areas and wetland strands (i.e., wetland areas with large open areas but dominated by a persistent flow) could be improperly classified as lakes under the USEPA definition, which is overly broad and not appropriate for Florida. In a recent meeting Russ Frydenborg (personal communication) with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation it was noted that, by applying the broad USEPA definition, more than 18,000 waterbodies in Florida, including many wetland strands and ponds, will be inappropriately defined as "lakes." Florida currently identifies only [8,700?] waterbodies as true lakes using the State's waterbody criteria. The FDEP defines lakes as "a lake shall mean a freshwater waterbody that is not a stream or other watercourse, which has a minimum of two acres of contiguous open water that is free from emergent vegetation" (FDEP, 2010). Wetzel (1975), while failing to specifically define a lake, separates waters into lentic (standing water) and lotic (flowing) water environments. Smith (1966) defines lakes simply as "inland depressions of standing water," but further defines ponds as "small bodies of standing water so shallow that rooted plants can grow over the entire bottom." The key term in all these definitions is standing or static condition and some minimal size in order to properly exclude ponds. The recognition of this size limitation is appropriate and has been used by others in defining lakes as distinguished from

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5678Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope ponds and strands (Williams, et al., 2003). Thus the FDEP definition is most appropriate and provides a functional definition so that regulatory requirements are appropriately assigned to applicable water bodies. 

# Comment ID 2506.001.003

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA Where there are existing EPA approved TMDLs in the State of Florida, these TMDLs represent scientifically derived site specific numeric criteria. Accordingly, Florida waters with EPA-approved TMDLs for nutrients should be excluded from the proposed rule. Thank you for considering these comments. 

# Comment ID 2507-1.001.001

Author Name: Sotsky L. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Thank you for meeting with us September 8, 2010 regarding EPA's Proposed Rule for Nutrient Criteria in Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) ("proposed Rule"). We appreciated the opportunity to discuss our client's continuing concerns with the proposed Rule (and with the Notice of Data Availability published August 3, 2010) and our specific proposals for how to address them. We write to follow up on a few issues that may merit clarification and elaboration. Specifically, we want to focus further on the question of the applicability of the proposed Rule. In our meeting, you stated that it was EPA's intent -- and your understanding -- that the proposed Rule, by setting water quality criteria, would apply or have regulatory impacts on facilities that discharge waters containing nutrients through their discharge permits. It was EPA's express, further intent and understanding that discharge permits would be evaluated on their customary cycle, that existing limitations in effective permits would remain applicable until new permits are issued, and that therefore the new criteria would first impact dischargers either when they apply for new permits or when their existing permits come up for renewal. We pointed out that while this may describe some of the impacts of the criteria in the proposed Rule, it does not necessarily account for other potential impacts of the new criteria, including for example the effects on permits for mining in Florida. Accordingly, we want to take this opportunity to elaborate briefly on certain of the regulations governing mining and mining reclamation in Florida and how the criteria in the proposed Rule could have more substantial and immediate impacts on mining than EPA intends, independent of the timing of implementation of the new criteria through discharge permit renewals. Indeed, we are concerned that application of the criteria could render our client's existing mining reclamation projects non-compliant with their permits, and potentially prevent the obtaining of environmental permits for new mining activities.[1]

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5679Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

State Legal Requirements Florida law imposes a comprehensive regulatory framework governing mining and reclamation of lands that have been mined. Broadly, these regulations generally seek to ensure that watersheds, wetlands, lakes and flowing waters are restored after mining to their biological, ecological and hydrological condition prior to mining. Mine operators must make assurances prior to initiating mining that these conditions will be met, and must complete post-mining reclamation activities that meet specific environmental restoration commitments. In particular, these regulations require that surface waters at the end of mining operations meet applicable water quality criteria. Since mining reclamation necessarily involves the creation of reclaimed lakes and streams, revisions of water quality criteria may substantially affect the environmental restoration activities that are legally required as part of mining reclamation activities.[2] Prior to initiating mining, companies must obtain approval from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") for a Conceptual Reclamation Plan ("CRP") and approval from the Water Management District of an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"). The CRP includes requirements for restoration of soils, wetlands and surface water; for re-vegetation and for protection of wildlife. See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62C-16.0051. CRPs also require that all waters on or leaving the site meet water quality standards. Id. Mining operations also require approval of an ERP before mining can begin. An ERP is required by Water Management Districts before the alteration of any surface water management system, and thus is a prerequisite to mining activities which often involve the temporary alteration of preexisting streams. See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 40D-4.041(a). ERPs require applicants to make a "reasonable assurance" that any alteration of a surface water management system will not "adversely affect" the receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 40D-4.301(e); see also Fla. Stat. § 373.414(1). ERPs also require reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse impacts to the functions provided to fish and wildlife, will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources and will not adversely impact of surface or ground water level. See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 40D-4.301(d), (f) & (g); see also Fla. Stat. § 373.414(1)(a)(2), (3) & (7). The Impacts of EPA's Proposed Rule in Light of State Legal Requirements The criteria in the proposed Rule, applied to these mining and reclamation requirements, could impose severe and wholly unintended obstacles to critical mining operations, and would possibly make mining operations impracticable. First, the proposed water quality criteria would require reclaimed lakes to meet these stringent new criteria before the lakes could be reconnected to the watershed and "released" pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62C-16.0068. See Fla. Admin. Code. Ann. r. 62C-16.0051(7)(a). Since, as was explained in our client's comments of April 23, 2010, natural phosphorus levels in these lakes prevent meeting the proposed criteria even with a regime of constant treatment, operators would be unable to meet the conditions of their CRPs, and could therefore be subject to fines and penalties. See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62C-16.0071. Second, even if an operator could somehow meet the CRP requirements by transferring the water to a permitted discharge point for treatment elsewhere in the watershed prior to discharge, such a transfer would redirect water flows, with potentially substantial downstream impacts to the hydrology and ecology of the watershed. Such a transfer could be in violation of CRP requirements to re-establish watershed connections that existed prior to mining, see Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62C-16.00S1(5), and in violation of the reasonable assurances in the ERP to restore surface and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5680Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope groundwater flows. Third, application of the proposed criteria to reclaimed streams would mean, in many instances, that an applicant could not make a reasonable assurance that these streams would meet water quality criteria. Reclaimed streams, like reclaimed lakes, have higher natural phosphorus levels as a result of their contact with phosphorus-bearing soils, and thus cannot be rendered compliant with the new criteria on account of the natural geochemistry of the region. Absent the ability to make such a reasonable assurance regarding the water quality of reclaimed streams, it is possible that no ERPs could be issued and no new mining could be permitted. As a result, the new criteria, immediately upon becoming effective, might render existing reclamation projects in violation of their CRPs, and could effectively foreclose new mining activity by making impossible the reasonable assurances required in ERPS.[3] In essence, the continuation of phosphate mining in Florida might be construed to require that operators develop a way to treat naturally occurring phosphorus to levels below those occurring at chemical equilibrium, a task that, we respectfully submit, is technologically impracticable and unreasonable. We do not believe that this is the intent of the proposed Rule. Proposed Resolution of These Issues The potential impacts of the proposed criteria on mining underscore other of our client's fundamental concerns with the proposed Rule. Since the proposed Rule presently does not contain a pre-applicability Site Specific Alternative Criteria ("SSAC") pathway or a mechanism for obtaining a "stay" of any attempt to apply the criteria (as we proposed in prior comments to the Agency), while a SSAC or other FDEP or applicant-initiated review process is underway, there is no allowance under the Rule for a hearing on the need for these stringent, prescriptive, one-size-fits-all criteria at the outset, before a court or litigant or mine permitting authority could try to enforce them along the foregoing lines. This is particularly problematic because the criteria in the proposed Rule are based on debatable statistical methods, not on a demonstrated dose-response relationship. Accordingly, EPA should make clear in the Rule (and in the Rule preamble) that while it intends the criteria to apply through discharge permits, FDEP is explicitly authorized to exercise its discretion as to how or whether to apply these criteria, directly or indirectly, through CRPs or ERPs. Further, EPA should clarify that the Rule may not be a basis for litigation against FDEP (or mine operators) for failing automatically to apply the proposed criteria to mining activities through CRPs or ERPs. This will enable FDEP to evaluate, on a properly prioritized basis, whether these criteria are truly appropriate for the unique stream segments and/or lakes that may be affected by phosphate mining, before applying them presumptively where they may be unnecessary in the first instance.[4] Finally, we also wanted to address the issue of reopener clauses in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits. We discussed the possibility that the new criteria could impact discharge permits prior to their normal renewal by way of litigation against the State for its allegedly not acting quickly or aggressively enough to "enforce" the new criteria. This is a particular concern because in Florida, all NPDES permits have a "Reopener Clause." While the specified conditions under which FDEP "shall" revise a permit under this provision do not appear to apply to a change in water quality criteria under Section 303(c)(4)(B), provision 2 of the Reopener Clause provides FDEP with discretion to reopen the permit for other reasons, including "DEP approved changes in water quality standards or other information [that] show a need for a different limitation or monitoring equipment." It is unclear to what extent FDEP would be vulnerable to litigation for "failing to reopen" a NPDES Permit after the new

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5681Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope criteria have been promulgated. However, it is within EPA's power to resolve this needless uncertainty by adding a sentence in the Rule stating that the new criteria shall not be a basis for reopening an already approved NPDES permit (outside of its normal renewal cycle) under condition F(2) of State of Florida NPDES permits. Since, as you stated at our recent meeting, EPA's stated goal is to have the new criteria apply through the normal permit renewal cycle, this revision is a simple way to add certainty to regulatory expectations, reduce the likelihood of costly and unnecessary litigation and meet EPA's own goal of avoiding unduly severe or premature, inflexible application of the criteria. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to meet with you, and we are available to discuss these issues further if that would be helpful or useful.

[1] In posing these prospective impact scenarios, we do not concede, and expressly reserve the right to contest, that the criteria, upon final promulgation, could or should be automatically applicable to mine permits and mining activities, either as a matter of law or as a matter of good policy and practice. [2] As is explained in our client's comments submitted on the proposed Rule, reclaimed mining lakes have high natural levels of phosphorus due to the phosphorus content of the soil and the groundwater. As a result, these reclaimed lakes will be unable to meet the proposed criteria because of non-anthropogenic sources of nutrients. Additionally, any attempt to reduce these natural phosphate levels through treatment will be necessarily unsuccessful, since the levels of total phosphorus ("TP") in the lakes reflect a state of chemical equilibrium; any TP removed from these lakes would likely be replenished by the functionally limitless supply of natural phosphorus in the soil and groundwater, rendering treatment useless. See Comments of the Mosaic Company on EPA's Proposed Rule on Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, April 23, 2010 at 11-13. [3] While we would contend that under Florida law the applicable water quality standards for release under a CRP are those in place at the time of approval of the CRP, rather than those in place at the time of release, this issue could be challenged or debated by others, including opponents of mining generally. [4] Other important approaches to addressing these concerns include: revising the definitions of lakes and streams so that the Rule does not apply inappropriately to reclaimed mining lakes and streams. Our client proposed such an approach for lakes in its comments of April 23, 2010, on page 16. A similar revision could be made to the definition of streams. Reclaimed lakes and streams would still be regulated under Florida's existing criteria for point source discharges and, to the extent such streams discharge into an impaired waterbody, they would still be subject to load reduction requirements through TMDLs. 

# Comment ID 2508.001.001

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority On April 23, 2010, the Clay County Utility Authority ("CCUA") submitted its comment to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed rule, entitled Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5682Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope Flowing Waters. As Part of Section II, F. CCUA noted that: For all of the foregoing reasons, APRICOT Act discharges should be exempt from the Proposed Rule. More specifically, APRICOT Act discharges result in a 30% reduction in load by definition, and, furthermore, CCUA's discharges, as measured on an annual average basis, have been shown to not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the Instream Protection Values in the Proposed Rule. This language in the comment should read as follows: For all of the foregoing reasons, APRICOT Act discharges should be exempt from the Proposed Rule. More specifically, APRICOT Act discharges result in a 70% reduction in load by definition, and, furthermore, CCUA's discharges, as measured on an annual average basis, have been shown to not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the Instream Protection Values in the Proposed Rule. This letter is hereby intended to correct the typo contained in the April 23, 2010 comment of CCUA.



# Comment ID 2510.001.001

Author Name: Dean J. Organization: Office of the City Manager, City Commission of the City of Marianna, Florida The City Commission of the City of Marianna, Florida, at the September 7, 2010 Commission Meeting approved the attached resolution expressing opposition to the proposed adoption by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of nutrient water quality criteria for lakes, flowing waters, class III waters, and coastal waters throughout and adjacent to the State of Florida. The City recognizes the vital importance of clean waters for our beautiful state; however, the Commission does not believe the current proposal is in the best interest of the citizens of the State of Florida. The City respectfully requests that our leaders in Washington, Tallahassee, and at the local levels intervene to ensure that adequate time and research have been given to make certain the EPA's proposal is in the best interest for the citizens of the State of Florida. 

# Comment ID 2510.001.002

Author Name: Dean J. Organization: Office of the City Manager, City Commission of the City of Marianna, Florida RESOLUTION No. 2010-30

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5683Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARIANNA, IN OPPOSITION TO THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ("EPA") PROPOSAL TO ENACT NEW STRINGENT NUMERIC NUTRIENT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL LAKES, FLOWING WATERS, CLASS III WATERS, AND COASTAL WATERS THROUGHOUT AND ADJACENT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA AS AN AMENDMENT TO 40 CFR, PART 131.43 AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT, AT SEC. 303©; PROVIDING AND EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the City Commission for the City of Marianna, Florida has become aware of proposed new rules dealing with the numeric nutrient content of various classes of waters located in and adjacent to the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, although the Commission recognizes the critical importance of clean waters, it is believed that the rules currently under review have been proposed in reaction to a lawsuit filed against the EPA administrator by a number of environmental organizations in Florida alleging that the agency had failed to comply with its responsibility under the Clean Water Act to force the State of Florida to expeditiously adopt numeric criteria; and WHEREAS, while the Commission acknowledges the necessity of the adoption of new rules to maintain the highest quality of waters throughout the State of Florida, it appears that the deadlines proposed are really litigation driven as opposed to being based on scientific needs or technical procedures; and 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; and WHEREAS, the Florida Rural Water Association has reported to the Commission through its staff that the extremely restrictive criteria the EPA is proposing will be fiscally impractical to meet, thus resulting in adverse economic impacts to the state's overall economy; and WHEREAS, the current proposal treats all waters throughout the State of Florida the same even though the panhandle of Florida is significantly different from the rest of Florid; and WHEREAS, if this current proposal is approved, every major industry will be affected including agriculture, power generation, mining, seaports and even recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Commission for the City of Marianna, Florida believes that the methodology utilized is arbitrary and that the current proposal is not in the best interests of the citizens of the State of Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF MARIANNA, FLORIDA, THAT: SECTION 1: The City Commission for the City of Marianna, Florida (the "Commission") hereby opposes the proposal of the EPA to enter into a consent order in the federal lawsuit subjecting the State of Florida to federal criteria; and respectfully requests our leaders in Washington, Tallahassee and at the local levels to intervene and demand that statewide numeric nutrient criteria be established through a science-driven process with adequate time to address concerns of regulated communities and with appropriate realistic time-frames for achieving compliance.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5684Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope SECTION 2: The Commission hereby requests that this resolution be sent directly to the EPA to be considered as public comment testimony in opposition to the proposed measures and to all other interested parties. SECTION 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Commission for the City of Marianna, Florida. 

# Comment ID 2511.001.002

Author Name: Snyder C. Organization: International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) This letter is sent to formally register our concern about the process used by the U.S. EPA in asserting its dominance in establishing water quality numeric nutrient criteria in the state of Florida, and the methods used to determine such criteria. While we fully respect the charges and duties of the U.S. EPA and state water quality authorities in protecting the integrity of water resources of the U.S. under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, we have strong reservations about the methods and approaches used by the EPA in redefining water quality numeric nutrient criteria in Florida. Surface water quality numeric criteria should be determined by scientific evidence from rigorous studies into the regional and site-specific relationships between the biological integrity (e .g. macroinvertebrate populations) of waters and nutrient concentrations. As soil scientists, agronomists, and plant physiologists with internationally recognized expertise in plant nutrition and nutrient management for sustainable global food production, we do not think the current approaches of using overlapping frequency distributions of nutrient concentrations in reference waters and monitored waters is scientifically rigorous, nor is it appropriate in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. In public statements reported by the Associated Press on January 14, 2009, you stated, "Science must be the backbone of what EPA does". "EPA's addressing of scientific decisions should reflect the expert judgment of the agency's career scientists and independent advisors." On January 23, 2009 in a memorandum to EPA employees ( http://www.epa.gov/Administrator/memotoemployees.html ), you stated "public health and environmental laws that Congress has enacted depend on rigorous adherence to the best available science." You also cautioned against policy decisions that are not based on scientific findings. We implore the U.S. EPA to

• �reconsider its approaches and methods in establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida (and elsewhere),

• �rely on the expertise of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) on Nutrient Criteria for Water Quality - Guidance for Numeric Approaches, and adhere to the SAB recommendations and guidance on the scientific development of numeric nutrient criteria,

• �more fully involve concerned stakeholders who possess scientific knowledge and regional to local experience, and

• �more broadly consider the economic impacts of more stringent numeric criteria and their practical attainment over a reasonable amount of time. We urge you to follow your own guidance on science-based decisions, and take greater advantage of the scientific expertise of the state water quality authorities and the SAB on Nutrient Criteria for Water Quality in setting the numeric nutrient criteria in Florida's waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5685Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope



# Comment ID 2513.001.002

Author Name: Bryant S. Organization: Palmetto City Commission RESOLUTION 2010-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALMETTO, FLORIDA OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL BY THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO ENACT NEW NUMERIC NUTRIENT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL LAKES, STREAMS AND OTHER FLOWING CLASS III WATERS LOCATED IN AND ADJACENT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA AS AN AMENDMENT TO 40 CFR PART 131.43 AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT, SECTION 303(c); PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Palmetto (City) recognizes the importance of clean waters to public health, aquatic life and long term recreational use, all of which are a critical part of the economy of the City and the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, the City Commission acknowledges the need for rules to maintain the highest quality of waters throughout the State, but the Commission is concerned that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing arbitrary and extremely restrictive criteria that are derived as a result of a lawsuit as opposed to being based on scientific needs or technical procedures and that are technically and fiscally impractical to meet, thus resulting in adverse impacts to the state and local economy; and WHEREAS, the EPA is proposing new rules dealing with numeric nutrient standards that will treat all waters throughout the State of Florida the same, even though Southwest Florida is significantly different from the rest of Florida; and WHEREAS, the current proposal would unnecessarily and inappropriately negatively affect businesses and governments in the State, and, if approved, would not be in the best interests of the citizens of the State and the City of Palmetto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALMETTO: SECTION 1. The City Commission of the City of Palmetto hereby opposes the proposal of the EPA subjecting the State of Florida to federal numeric nutrient criteria and requests our legislators in Washington DC, Tallahassee and at local levels to intervene and demand that statewide numeric nutrient criteria be established through a sound science-driven

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5686Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope process that affords protection to the environment with adequate time to address concerns of regulated communities and with appropriate realistic time-frames for achieving compliance. SECTION 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to all members of the United States congress and the Florida Legislature representing the City of Palmetto and the Florida League of Cities and other cities with Manatee County. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this resolution is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. SECTION 4. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith shall be and hereby are repealed. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect as provided for by City Charter, Section 14, upon execution by the Mayor or, if disapproval occurs, upon reconsideration by the City Commission and passing of the Resolution by at least four (4) votes. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED, in regular session, by the City Commission of the City of Palmetto, with a quorum present and voting, this 27th day of September, 2010.



# Comment ID 2514.001.001

Author Name: Castille C. Organization: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has expressed significant concerns regarding the scientific validity of the numeric nutrient criteria the EPA is set to impose on Florida. We have questioned whether the standards proposed by the EPA are attainable or will even achieve environmental benefits. As the current and former heads for the FDEP, we are writing to urge you to give an adequate amount of time in order to fully examine the scientific validity of the rules and their economic impact on Florida. The 30-day extension recently granted by the EPA does not provide enough time to do a thorough review. The EPA has already delayed finalization of criteria for Florida's canals, coastal waters and estuaries until August 2012 to allow the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to conduct a peer review of the EPA's data and methodologies for deriving criteria for these waters. We believe the same level of analysis should be given to the EPA's proposed rivers, lakes and streams rules, specifically including a review of the scientific validity of the EPA's proposed criteria for these freshwaters. It is notable that the EPA delayed its planned finalization of its estuarine and marine waters rule by 10 months to allow for an SAB review of the data and methodologies that will support those standards; the comparative brevity of the EPA's recently announced 30-day delay for finalizing its freshwater criteria indicates that 30 days is simply an inadequate amount of time to conduct a thorough scientific review. We believe that the SAB peer review process is important and should be done for all the rules the EPA plans on

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5687Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope imposing on Florida. Therefore, we strongly urge you to extend the 30-day extension period to allow for a SAB review, and then modify the EPA's rulemaking in accordance with the SAB's analysis and recommendations. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. This is a very important issue to Florida, and it is imperative the scientific rationale and costs to Floridians are understood prior to implementation. 

# Response The comments included in this issue category were submitted during the 30-day public comment period associated with EPA’s supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment related to EPA’s January 26, 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking, proposing numeric nutrient water quality criteria to protect aquatic life in lakes and flowing waters within the State of Florida. The supplemental notice was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2010 and focused solely on the delineation of stream nutrient regions, resulting criteria associated with two approaches for deriving numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s streams, and protection of downstream lakes in Florida. As indicated in the supplemental notice, EPA only sought comment on the items presented in the supplemental notice. EPA did not solicit comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposed rule. Consequently, the comments included in this issue category are considered to be outside the scope of EPA’s supplemental notice. EPA, however, has provided responses to these comments and directed commenters to the preamble of this final rule and relevant responses as provided in other sections of EPA’s Response to Comments document and accompanying Technical Support Document.

Comment ID: 2499-1.001.005 Response: See response paragraph above.

Comment ID: 2444-1.001.001 Response: EPA refers the commenter to the final preamble discussion of the federal Site-Specific Alternative Criteria process, in particular section V.C Site-Specific Alternative Criteria, which explains a specific procedure, finalized in the federal rule, for EPA adoption of site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) and the final rule language regarding EPA’s federal SSAC process. EPA there clarifies the process of requesting and obtaining a federal SSAC, and the roles and responsibilities of the Agency in administering this procedure. EPA also refers the commenter to the section in this Response to Comment document that provides Agency responses to comments submitted during the public comment period associated with EPA’s January 26, 2010 proposal regarding site-specific alternative criteria. EPA appreciates the constructive feedback on ways to make the SSAC pathway more functional and effective. In response, EPA has added clarification to the original proposal to include four potential approaches to use in support of a SSAC request. These four approaches match up with many of the commenters' recommendations, including re-evaluating reference conditions and conducting biological, chemical, and physical assessments. However, EPA did not include all of the technical detail that the commenter suggested would support an “expedited SSAC”. EPA believes it more appropriate to lay out the general framework rather than identify very specific results, in part because each situation may present its own unique circumstances, and in part because such

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5688Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
specification could be construed as limiting or foreclosing other alternatives. The “designated use” support approach suggested by the commenter may be problematic because EPA does not view evidence of swimming or fishing activity to necessarily constitute a record of attaining sufficient water quality to protect a designated use. To the extent the commenter had something else in mind, there is a provision to support a SSAC through other scientifically defensible and protective approaches. EPA agrees that TMDL targets have the potential to serve as SSAC, however, these TMDL targets should first be evaluated in light of the new information provided with promulgation of the numeric nutrient criteria in this final rule. EPA considered the suggestion for renewing SSAC every five years, but concluded this was not necessary because the evidence supporting the SSAC should reflect conditions expected to prevail over time at a particular site. Should conditions change, then a SSAC could be revised as could any other adopted criteria under analogous circumstances. Regarding “tolling” as discussed by the commenter, EPA understands the merit of such approaches in the permitting and enforcement context described in comments, but believes it is not appropriate to apply that concept to standard setting. This is because protective standards should apply until such time as an alternative standard is determined to meet the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. Regarding the impact on Bone Valley of instream protective values at the 75th, 90th, and 95th percentile, EPA continues to believe that setting stream numeric nutrient criteria for the Bone Valley (now referred to as the West Central) based on the 75th percentile rather than the 90th percentile will assure protection of applicable designated uses. EPA refers the commenter to the preamble associated with this final rule, in particular section III.B Numeric Criteria for the State of Florida’s Streams, and the accompanying Technical Support Document, which discuss EPA’s supporting basis for the percentile selection used to derive scientifically defensible stream criteria promulgated in this final rule.

Comment ID: 2444-2.001.001 Response: EPA thanks the commenter for proposing alternative rule language for a general SSAC procedure and an expedited SSAC procedure. EPA refers the commenter to the final preamble discussion of 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 SSAC and the final rule language regarding EPA’s federal SSAC process. EPA provides clarification on the federal SSAC process and the roles and responsibilities of the Agency in administering this procedure. In addition to the response to the related comment ID 2444-1.001.001, EPA considered the suggestion to include provisions for an “expedited SSAC”. While EPA can envision circumstances where a relatively short processing time is reasonable given the data described by the commenter, the Agency believes it is not appropriate to allow a SSAC to automatically become effective without an affirmative determination upon review of the supporting documentation that the SSAC meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations, specifically 40 CFR 131.11. To meet these requirements there must also be an opportunity for public comment on the SSAC.

Comment ID: 2458-1.001.002 Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the information provided regarding Florida state and local governments' history of addressing water quality issues.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5689Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

Comment ID: 2458-1.001.007 Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the information provided. In response to comments regarding sources of nutrients, EPA refers the commenter to the preamble associated with this final rule, in particular section II. Background. EPA reminds the commenter that water quality criteria are derived to be scientifically defensible and protective of the applicable designated uses of waters consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. Regarding the concept of limiting nutrients in lakes, EPA reminds the commenter that water quality criteria are intended to be protective; that is, their purpose is to prevent impairment. If the aquatic life use criterion is exceeded, i.e., if the chl-a 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 chl-a from exceeding its criteria, not to restore a lake after damage has been done. Because it is not possible to know in advance of a finding of use impairment (chl-a exceeding criteria) which nutrients have caused the impairment, protective criteria are developed and applied for both TN and TP independently. The presumptively protective TN and TP criteria are allowed to increase up to the high end of the modified criteria range if chl-a is demonstrated to be below its criterion. Please refer to the preamble to this final rule, in particular section III.C Numeric Criteria for the State of Florida’s Lakes, for a discussion of EPA’s lake-specific, modified criteria approach. In a situation as pointed out by the commenter, such a case would be a candidate for site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC). In this rulemaking, EPA is promulgating a procedure that allows any entity, including the State, to submit a proposed federal SSAC, with supporting documentation, 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, in particular section V.C Site-specific Alternative Criteria. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the Agency’s use of a statistical distribution of nutrient concentrations to derive stream criteria is scientifically and legally indefensible. Please refer to the preamble to this final rule, in particular, section III.B Numeric Criteria for the State of Florida’s Streams, and the accompanying Technical Support Document, for a discussion of the scientific basis of the methodologies used to derive scientifically and legally defensible stream criteria. Please refer to the preamble of this final rule, in particular section III.C(2)(f), and the accompanying Technical Support Document, for a discussion of the derivation and application of downstream protection of lakes and EPA’s decision not to require the use of the Vollenweider model in deriving downstream protection values. EPA notes that 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 proposal and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these categories. This will allow EPA time to hold a public peer review

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5690Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
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. Please also refer to the preamble of this final rule, specifically section VI. Economic Analysis, and EPA's “Economic Analysis ofFinal Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida,” located in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQOW-2009-0956) for this rulemaking, for cost estimates associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and the assumptions upon which those estimates are based. EPA directs commenters to the preamble of the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, which discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, 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. EPA reminds the commenter that water quality criteria are derived to be scientifically defensible and protective of the applicable designated uses of waters consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA reminds commenters that the underlying methodologies for the Agency’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s rivers, streams, and lakes underwent scientific peer review. EPA followed the procedures outlined in its Peer Review Handbook (EPA/100/B-06/002) by having the specific methods EPA was considering to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters peer reviewed by five independent external experts in this field This independent, external peer review was completed in July 2009 and the results were made available through EPA’s docket for the proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments Final: External Peer Review of EPA’s Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA considered and responded to these peer review comments prior to proposal in January 2010 (EPA Responses to External Peer Review of EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0155). With regard to the Science Advisory Board (SAB)'s recent review of an EPA draft guidance document for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria using stressor-response relationships: The SAB reviewed EPA’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development. Stressor-response relationships are one of three generalapproaches that EPA recommends for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria. EPA has previously published peerreviewed general guidance documents that outline these three approaches. The SAB reviewed a supplemental guidance document that provided more detail on one of the three general approaches. EPA has used stressor-response approaches in this final rule and has benefited from the advice the SAB gave to EPA based on the SAB review of the Agency’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development in September 2009. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the CWA. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5691Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

Comment ID: 2458-1.001.008 Response: EPA directs the commenter to the preamble of this final rule, specifically section VI. Economic Analysis, and EPA's “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida,” located in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0956) for this rulemaking, for cost estimates associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and the assumptions upon which those estimates are based. EPA also directs the commenter to the preamble of the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, which discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, 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. EPA reminds the commenter that water quality criteria are derived to be scientifically defensible and protective of the applicable designated uses of waters consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA reminds commenters that the underlying methodologies for the Agency’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s rivers, streams, and lakes underwent scientific peer review. EPA followed the procedures outlined in its Peer Review Handbook (EPA/100/B-06/002) by having the specific methods EPA was considering to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters peer reviewed by five independent external experts in this field This independent, external peer review was completed in July 2009 and the results were made available through EPA’s docket for the proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments Final: External Peer Review of EPA’s Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA considered and responded to these peer review comments prior to proposal in January 2010 (EPA Responses to External Peer Review of EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0155). With regard to the Science Advisory Board (SAB)'s recent review of an EPA draft guidance document for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria using stressor-response relationships: The SAB reviewed EPA’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development. Stressor-response relationships are one of three generalapproaches that EPA recommends for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria. EPA has previously published peerreviewed general guidance documents that outline these three approaches. The SAB reviewed a supplemental guidance document that provided more detail on one of the three general approaches. EPA has used stressor-response approaches in this final rule and has benefited from the advice the SAB gave to EPA based on the SAB review of the Agency’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development in September 2009. The water quality standards program is equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where current technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets, and in some cases the criteria upon which the targets are based are considered overly protective or unattainable. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they would most likely work with the state to examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In situations where nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives would apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost-effective best management practices according to Florida procedures. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The state may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5692Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms, which describes the tools the state has at its disposal to exercise implementation flexibility. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment ID: 2459-1.001.002 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that this final rulemaking represents an unfunded mandate; is an inappropriate application of Florida’s Integrated Water Quality Assessment 2008; is based on faulty assumptions; is technically unsound; is virtually impossible to achieve; and that EPA is circumventing Florida’s sovereignty, as discussed below. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertions that question the legal regulatory authority and scientific defensibility of EPA’s January 14, 2009 determination and promulgation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. After careful analysis and discussions with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), EPA determined that Florida’s reliance on a case-by-case interpretation of its narrative criterion in implementing its Clean Water Act programs was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses. As a result, on January 14, 2009, EPA determined that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary for Florida to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act to have water quality criteria in place that protect applicable designated uses. Please refer to the preamble to the final rule, in particular sections II.A Nitrogen/Phosphorus Pollution and II.D EPA Determination Regarding Florida and EPA’s rulemaking, for a detailed accounting of the rationale and justification for EPA’s January 2009 determination (including EPA’s discussion of FDEP’s TMDL and NPDES programs, the use of Florida’s Integrated Water Quality Assessment Reports, and population growth estimates for Florida) and subsequent rulemakings. As a result, promulgation of this rule serves to protect aquatic ecosystems, recreation in and on the water, and drinking water supplies from water quality degradation due to the negative impacts of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Numeric nutrient criteria will create clear water quality goals and easily measurable quantitative baselines to support stronger collaboration and more effective partnerships with both point and nonpoint source dischargers of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. EPA refers the commenter to the final preamble discussion of the federal Site-Specific Alternative Criteria process, in particular section V.C Site-Specific Alternative Criteria, which explains the specific procedure, finalized in federal rule, for EPA adoption of site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) and the final rule language regarding EPA’s federal SSAC process. EPA there clarifies the process of requesting and obtaining a federal SSAC, and the roles and responsibilities of the Agency in administering this procedure. EPA also refers the commenter to the section in this Response to Comment document that provides Agency responses to comments submitted during the public comment period associated with EPA’s January 26, 2010 proposal regarding site-specific alternative criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5693Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
EPA recognizes that the Clean Water Act imposes mandatory requirements upon point sources, such as domestic wastewater treatment plants, yet leaves regulation of many other sources to state discretion. Watershed scale plans, such as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), address pollutant sources holistically and, therefore, can be the means to pursue an equitable and effective distribution of reduction responsibilities. The reference to EPA's models is unclear. However, EPA's recommended models and approaches used for implementation of standards include capability to address multiple sources and include consideration of "background" levels. Nutrient loads from oceanic sources may affect Florida's coastal and estuarine waters but are unlikely to influence the inland waters subject to this rule. This rule establishes water quality standards for certain waters within the State of Florida. The extent to which partnerships can help achieve these standards is the province of many affected parties, including state and local governments. Nothing in the rule precludes such partnerships. However, existence of comprehensive regulatory strategies for every contributing source is not a prerequisite for establishing protective and scientifically defensible water quality criteria, nor is the establishment of such approaches within the scope in this rule. EPA has prepared an economic analysis of potential costs associated with implementation of this final rule, and this analysis addresses multiple sources of nutrient pollution. EPA refers the commenter to the preamble of this final rule, specifically section VI. Economic Analysis, and EPA's “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida,” located in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0956) for this rulemaking, for cost estimates and expectations associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and the assumptions upon which those estimates are based. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that EPA’s analysis is severely flawed with respect to identifying appropriate stressor-response relationships. EPA directs the commenter to the preamble of the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, which discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, 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. EPA reminds the commenter that water quality criteria are derived to be scientifically defensible and protective of the applicable designated uses of waters consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA reminds commenters that the underlying methodologies for the Agency’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s rivers, streams, and lakes underwent scientific peer review. EPA followed the procedures outlined in its Peer Review Handbook (EPA/100/B-06/002) by having the specific methods EPA was considering to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters peer reviewed by five independent external experts in this field This independent, external peer review was completed in July 2009 and the results were made available through EPA’s docket for the proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments Final: External Peer Review of EPA’s Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA considered and responded to these peer review comments prior to proposal in January 2010 (EPA Responses to External Peer Review of EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0155). With regard to the Science Advisory Board (SAB)'s recent review of an EPA draft guidance document for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria using stressor-response relationships: The SAB reviewed EPA’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development. Stressor-response relationships are one of three generalapproaches that EPA recommends for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria. EPA has previously published peerreviewed general guidance documents that outline these three approaches. The SAB reviewed a supplemental guidance document that provided more detail on one of the three general approaches. EPA has used stressor-response approaches in this final rule and has benefited from the advice the SAB gave to EPA based on the SAB review of the Agency’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development in September 2009.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5694Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

The water quality standards program is equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where current technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets or where the targets are considered overly protective or unattainable. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they would most likely work with the state to examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In situations where nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives would apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost-effective best management practices according to Florida procedures. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The state may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms, which describes the tools the state has at its disposal to exercise implementation flexibility. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment IDs: 2462-1.001.013, 2506.001.003 Response: EPA appreciates the comment regarding the request to use existing TMDL targets as SSAC without submitting the targets to EPA for approval under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Commenters have requested that nutrient targets developed through the TMDL process (existing FDEP nutrient TMDLs that have been approved by EPA) automatically 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. Please refer to the preamble of this final rule, in particular section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final and section V.C Site-specific Alternative Criteria.

Comment ID: 2463-1.001.006 Response: EPA directs the commenter to the final preamble associated with this rule, in particular section III.B Numeric Criteria for the State of Florida’s Streams, and the accompanying Technical Support Document, for EPA’s discussion of the scientific basis and derivation of its stream criteria. Regarding comments on the use of total inorganic nitrogen as the nitrogen criterion for streams, EPA received comments that TN criteria should be adjusted for color and wetland presence. This was based on evidence presented of the relationship between percent wetland, color, and TN concentrations, more specifically organic N concentrations,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5695Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
which can dominate the TN pool in some regions. The relationship would imply an effect of natural organic N sources on TN dynamics that could be controlled through classification. EPA has considered this effect as a result of these comments. EPA is addressing this effect through a revised regionalization scheme for streams, which it believes will address this issue.

Comment IDs: 2470-1.001.003 Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule should be scientifically defensible, account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters, and protective of applicable designated uses as designated by FDEP. EPA notes that the Agency has reviewed and considered all comments submitted during the public comment period associated with the January 26, 2010 proposal, in addition to the comments submitted during the public comment period associated with the August 3, 2010 supplemental notice. EPA appreciates the comment regarding the request to use existing TMDL targets as SSAC without submitting the targets to EPA for approval under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Commenters have requested that nutrient targets developed through the TMDL process (existing FDEP nutrient TMDLs that have been approved by EPA) automatically 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. Please refer to the preamble of this final rule, in particular section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final. EPA also refers the commenter to the final preamble discussion of 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 site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) and the final rule language regarding EPA’s federal SSAC process. EPA clarifies there the process of requesting and obtaining a federal SSAC, and the roles and responsibilities of the Agency in administering this procedure. EPA also refers the commenter to the section in this Response to Comment document that provides Agency responses to comments submitted during the public comment period associated with EPA’s January 26, 2010 proposal regarding site-specific alternative criteria. Please also refer to the preamble of this final rule, specifically section VI. Economic Analysis, and EPA's “Economic Analysis ofFinal Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida,” located in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQOW-2009-0956) for this rulemaking, for cost estimates associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and the assumptions upon which those estimates are based.

Comment ID: 2476-1.001.005 Response: EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses had been established, and, therefore, criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of nutrients result in predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered a wide variety of information in deriving nutrient criteria for Florida. This included consideration of a large number of stressor-response and cause and effect relationship models using observed data. These analyses produced significant models for both algal and macroinvertebrate responses and the results are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5696Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
detailed in the proposed rule TSD. These relationships varied in their precision, but they were significant. The variability was anelement in the decision to rely more heavily on reference approaches for criteria derivation, but EPA disagrees that no stressorresponse relationships were established. Also, there is a well established and 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 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. Please refer to the TSD associated with this final rule for the full references). EPA deduces from this body of knowledge, corroborated by significant relationships observed in Florida that are consistent with predictions based on the body of scientific knowledge, that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and biological responses exists in Florida and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. As EPA indicates in the preceding paragraph, these cause and effect relationships varied in their precision, but they were significant. The variability was an element in the decision to rely more heavily on reference approaches for criteria derivation, but EPA disagrees that no stressor-response relationships were established. The reference condition approach relies on identifying a least-disturbed set of reference sites reflecting "relatively undisturbed" conditions reflecting natural integrity (Davies 1997). This approach, recommended and detailed in EPA guidance (e.g., U.S. EPA 2000), derives criteria from the distribution of values in a reference population, defined as "relatively undisturbed stream segments that can serve as examples of the natural biological integrity of a region" (U.S. EPA 2000, p. 94). The reference approach, therefore, uses sites that provide the appropriate benchmark against which to determine the nutrient concentrations present when the designated uses of a waterbody are being met. Setting criteria based on conditions observed in these reference sites reflects both the stated goal of the CWA and EPA's National Nutrient Strategy that calls for states to take precautionary and preventative steps in managing nitrogen/phosphorus pollution to maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters before adverse biological and/or ecological effects are observed (Grubbs 2001, Grumbles 2007).

Comment ID: 2482-1.001.005 Response: EPA received several comments on the criteria development process based on the reference approach. 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 has incorporated this concern in its consideration of the final rule percentiles used and this discussion and technical details are noted in the final rule and final rule TSD. Essentially, 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. The Technical Support Document and preamble associated with this final rule go into greater detail on the final percentile selection. EPA there defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least-disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites is, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting biologically healthy conditions. EPA also affirms that the 75th

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5697Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather based on a consideration of risk to waterbody 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 based on technical information itself as well.

Comment ID: 2486-1.001.010 Response: EPA disagrees with commenter’s assertion that EPA has failed to follow its own guidelines for public input and participation. Please refer to the preamble to the final rule, in particular section III Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, for a discussion of the derivation of EPA’s final numeric nutrient criteria, the scientific basis for this derivation, and how comments received during the public comment periods, in addition to the public meetings held in Florida, informed and influenced EPA’s final values. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. In response to requests for EPA to demonstrate that it has thoroughly reviewed and responded to all substantive comments submitted to the docket associated with this rulemaking, please refer to this Response to Comment document which is located in docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. In response to the comment regarding a responsiveness summary, please see the preamble to the final rule, in addition to this Response to Comment document. On September 2, 2010, EPA formally responded to the Florida Congressional Delegation’s August 2, 2010 letter to the EPA Administrator regarding concerns that are also raised by this commenter, including the use of sound science and assessing the economic impact of the proposed rule. EPA reminds commenters that the underlying methodologies for the Agency’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s rivers, streams, and lakes underwent scientific peer review. EPA followed the procedures outlined in its Peer Review Handbook (EPA/100/B-06/002) by having the specific methods EPA was considering to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters peer reviewed by five independent external experts in this field This independent, external peer review was completed in July 2009 and the results were made available through EPA’s docket for the proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments Final: External Peer Review of EPA’s Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA considered and responded to these peer review comments prior to proposal in January 2010 (EPA Responses to External Peer Review of EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0155). With regard to the Science Advisory Board (SAB)'s recent review of an EPA draft guidance document for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria using stressor-response relationships: The SAB reviewed EPA’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development. Stressor-response relationships are one of three generalapproaches that EPA recommends for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria. EPA has previously published peerreviewed general guidance documents that outline these three approaches. The SAB reviewed a supplemental guidance document that provided more detail on one of the three general approaches. EPA has used stressor-response approaches in this final rule and has benefited from the advice the SAB gave to EPA based on the SAB review of the Agency’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development in September 2009. See TSD to the final rule for additional detail. Regarding an independent analysis to assess the economic impact of the proposed rule on Florida and adjoining states, EPA does not agree that there is a need to provide an independent analysis. EPA conducted an analysis of the potential economic impact of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5698Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
the rule on entities in Florida and refined and revised that analysis based on comments, data, and information submitted by many stakeholder groups in Florida including Florida’s Agriculture and Environmental Agencies, as well as members of the public. In response to comments regarding the potential cost to Florida, please refer to the final preamble section VI. Economic Analysis and EPA's “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” located in the docket associated with this rulemaking (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) for cost estimates associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule.

Comment ID: 2488-1.001.012 Response: EPA refers the commenter to the final preamble discussion of the federal Site-Specific Alternative Criteria process, in particular section V.C Site-Specific Alternative Criteria, which explains the specific procedure, finalized in the federal rule, for EPA adoption of site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) and the final rule language regarding EPA’s federal SSAC process. EPA there clarifies the process of requesting and obtaining a federal SSAC, and the roles and responsibilities of the Agency in administering this procedure. EPA also refers the commenter to the section in this Response to Comment document that provides Agency responses to comments submitted during the public comment period associated with EPA’s January 26, 2010 proposal regarding site-specific alternative criteria. EPA disagrees with commenter’s assertion that the Agency’s use of a statistical distribution of nutrient concentrations to derive stream criteria is scientifically and legally indefensible. Please refer to the final preamble, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, and the accompanying Technical Support Document, for a discussion of the derivation of EPA’s final numeric nutrient criteria, the scientific basis for this derivation, legal basis, and how comments received during the public comment periods, in addition to the public meetings held in Florida, informed and influenced EPA’s final values. In addition, EPA refers the commenter to the final preamble, in particular, section III.C Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Lakes, and the accompanying Technical Support Document, for a discussion of frequency and duration associated with the final lake criteria. EPA clarifies that the return frequency requirement takes into account existing extreme flow conditions in Florida reflected in the database; that is, extreme events should not be excluded from the data. (In practice, monitoring in waterbodies during extreme events such as hurricanes is unlikely to occur because of danger, accessibility, loss of equipment, etc.). Natural extreme events are part of the expected occurrences in the history of an ecosystem, so there is no reason to exclude them from criteria. The return frequency is consistent with the one-in-three year allowed return frequency in toxic criteria, where the consensus of scientists was that ecosystems could be expected to recover from extreme events that recur no more than once in three years (Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Available from National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB85-227049).

Comment ID: 2498-1.001.006 Response: Regarding the request for a delayed effective date pertaining to the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters finalized in this rule, please refer to the preamble to the final rule, section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5699Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope

EPA disagrees with commenter’s assertion that EPA’s rule is in conflict with Florida law. The numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters finalized in this rule will be effective for CWA purposes 15 months after publication of the final rule, except for the federal site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) procedure in section 131.43(e) of the rule, which will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register and will apply in addition to any other existing CWA-effective criteria for Class I or Class III waters already adopted by the State and submitted to EPA (and for those adopted after May 30, 2000, adopted and submitted by FDEP and approved by EPA). FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time to establish State numeric nutrient criteria and to submit such criteria to EPA for review and approval under section 303(c) of the CWA. If FDEP does not adopt State numeric nutrient criteria, the Department retains its current authority to implement federally promulgated criteria through the State's narrative or "free from" criteria. FDEP's General Counsel has confirmed, in a 2005 letter to EPA, that the State’s water quality criteria regulations for surface waters, set out at Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C., provide authority for the Department to address and implement EPA-promulgated criteria in CWA programs. Please refer to the preamble associated with this final rule, in particular, section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment IDs: 2503-1.001.006, 2503-1.001.023 Response: EPA believes that the definition of a lake, as adopted in this final rule, is meaningful and supportive of Florida’s rules and regulations and addresses concerns raised regarding the inappropriate inclusion of waterbodies, such as wetlands, within the definition of a lake. EPA has revised the definition of a lake, as originally defined in the January 26, 2010 proposal, based on comments received during its public comment period. Please refer to the preamble of this final rule, section I.B Which Water Bodies Are Affected By This Rule, and the final rule language for EPA’s definition of a lake.

Comment ID: 2507-1.001.001 Response: EPA appreciates the information provided by the commenter regarding the potential effects these final numeric nutrient criteria will have on permits for mining in Florida, in addition to the commenter’s suggestion to add a sentence in this final rule stating that the new criteria shall not be a basis for reopening an already approved NPDES permit (outside of its normal renewal cycle) under condition F(2) of the State of Florida’s NPDES permits. EPA, however, denies the request to include this additional language in this final rule to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. FDEP is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement Clean Water Act (CWA) programs delegated and with oversight by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future. Please refer to the preamble to the final rule, in particular section III.E

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5700Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
ApplicabilityIII.E Applicability of Criteria When Final, for further discussion regarding the implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule. This final rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, effective for purposes of the Clean Water Act, that are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated by FDEP as Class I and Class III waters. The preamble to the rule discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, 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. Please refer to the preamble, in particular, section III.B Numeric Criteria for the State of Florida’s Streams, and the accompanying Technical Support Document, for a discussion of the scientific basis of the methodologies used to derive scientifically and legally defensible stream criteria. Water quality criteria are derived to be scientifically defensible and protective of the applicable designated uses of waters consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131.

Comment IDs: 2510.001.001, 2510.001.002, 2511.001.002, 2513.001.002, 2514.001.001 Response: EPA appreciates the comments and concerns expressed in opposition to this rulemaking to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters, however, the Agency disagrees that EPA should not proceed with finalizing and promulgating the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters as discussed in the preamble to the final rule. EPA disagrees that the data and timeframe employed to finalize the Agency’s rulemaking are not sufficient to support the derivation of scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. See the preamble to the final rule and the TSD. In this final rule, EPA is promulgating numeric nutrient criteria that translate Florida’s own existing nutrient narrative water quality standards into numeric values for Florida's lakes and flowing waters that are scientifically defensible and protective of applicable designated uses consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. This final rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, which will be effective for purposes of the Clean Water Act, that are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated by FDEP as Class I and Class III waters. EPA reminds commenters that water quality criteria are derived to protect the applicable designated uses of waters. As a result, promulgation of this rule serves to protect human health, aquatic ecosystems, recreation in and on the water, and drinking water supplies from water quality degradation due to the negative impacts of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Numeric nutrient criteria will create clear water quality goals and easily measurable quantitative baselines to support stronger collaboration and more effective partnerships with both point and nonpoint source dischargers of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. The preamble to the final rule, in particular, section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, 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. EPA reminds commenters that the underlying methodologies for the Agency’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s rivers, streams, and lakes underwent scientific peer review. EPA followed the procedures outlined in its Peer Review Handbook (EPA/100/B-06/002) by having the specific methods EPA was considering to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5701Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Scope
and flowing waters peer reviewed by five independent external experts in this field This independent, external peer review was completed in July 2009 and the results were made available through EPA’s docket for the proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments Final: External Peer Review of EPA’s Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA considered and responded to these peer review comments prior to proposal in January 2010 (EPA Responses to External Peer Review of EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0155). With regard to the Science Advisory Board (SAB)'s recent review of an EPA draft guidance document for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria using stressor-response relationships: The SAB reviewed EPA’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development. Stressor-response relationships are one of three generalapproaches that EPA recommends for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria. EPA has previously published peerreviewed general guidance documents that outline these three approaches. The SAB reviewed a supplemental guidance document that provided more detail on one of the three general approaches. EPA has used stressor-response approaches in this final rule and has benefited from the advice the SAB gave to EPA based on the SAB review of the Agency’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development in September 2009. Please also refer to the final preamble section VI. Economic Analysis and EPA's “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” located in the docket associated with this rulemaking (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) for cost estimates associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule.

Comment IDs: 2510.001.002, 2513.001.002 Response: Please refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. All prior comments submitted on the proposed rule are addressed in the appropriate issue areas included in this Response to Comment document (including comment ID 2508.001.001, which provides a correction to the commenter’s original comment submitted during the public comment period associated with EPA’s January 26, 2010 proposal).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5702Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period 

# SNODA.CMT - COMMENT PERIOD Comment ID 2446-1.001.002

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Second, 30 days is inadequate time to review critically and comment effectively on the significant technical and policy issues that are raised by the proposed revisions. The proposed revisions are not merely minor adjustments to the proposed rule, but constitute significant changes that require substantive technical review. 

# Comment ID 2446-1.001.004

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC While EPA appears to have based the benchmark streams approach in the proposed revisions largely on a proposed Rule by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") from July of 2009, EPA's approach differs from the FDEP proposal, so any time the Company or others may have spent previously reviewing the FDEP proposal does not mitigate the necessity of reviewing EPA's proposal now. 

# Comment ID 2446-1.001.006

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Fourth, the docket does not appear to contain critical information to enable Mosaic's technical experts to understand and recreate how the Agency derived the criteria in the proposed revisions. While these kinds of issues can sometimes be worked through with Agency staff, they make the 30-day time period for comment particularly impractical and unworkable, since they mean in practice that commenters will have far less than an actual 30 days to review the substance of the EPA proposal. Moreover, the 30 days take place almost entirely in August which, as EPA staff is aware, is a time when many people are on vacation, in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, and when it is particularly difficult to move expeditiously when multiple parties need to coordinate and interact. 

# Comment ID 2446-1.001.010

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5703Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period At the very least, EPA needs to provide more time for public comment on the proposed revisions. Mosaic requests that EPA extend the time for public comment to 60 days, both to allow the public sufficient time to analyze and provide informed and useful comments, and to provide EPA time and opportunity to more fully provide the technical bases underlying the proposed revisions, if it has such bases. We recognize that EPA is under deadlines imposed by a Consent Decree, but EPA has previously during this rulemaking adjusted deadlines, even when that meant seeking schedule revisions from the Court. EPA provided additional time for comment on the proposed Rule, EPA postponed the proposal for downstream protective values that was originally in the proposed Rule, and also postponed the applicability of criteria for canals and flowing waters in South Florida until the second part of the rulemaking. In light of the substantial technical changes contained in the proposed revisions, and the issues already identified in providing comment on the proposed revisions, EPA should provide 60 days for public comment. 

# Comment ID 2447-1.001.005

Author Name: Bartlett D. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The Department may realize that more information is needed as we continue our review, but this represents the greatest need at this time. We will ensure that all additional information provided to the Department by EPA is made available to the public. As you know, the September 2nd deadline for submitting comments is only weeks away, so a timely response would be greatly appreciated by all. 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.004

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 We strongly urge that EPA reconsider its rulemaking in response to these concerns, even if such reconsideration requires EPA to seek relief from the consent decree schedule. 

# Comment ID 2450-1.001.004

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. We strongly urge that EPA reconsider its rulemaking in response to these concerns, even if such reconsideration requires EPA to seek relief from the consent decree schedule. 

# Comment ID 2458-1.001.005

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5704Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association Recommendation We therefore recommend that EPA delay the effective date of the rules until the end of 2011. This will allow time for further review of the criteria (and the science behind the criteria) by appropriate experts and will allow time for FDEP to move ahead with a rule adoption process in front of the ERC. 

# Comment ID 2463-1.001.004

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation Numeric Nutrient Criteria cannot be verified Another very troubling aspect of this section was that we were unable to verify that the numeric nutrient criteria were derived from the given data. Because of the limited time for the public comment period, we did not have sufficient time to perform a step-by-step analysis. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.003

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. The changes proposed by EPA are substantial and cannot be properly evaluated in a 30 day comment period and EPA cannot possibly give due considerations to comments that are received in the just slightly over two month period prior to promulgation of a final rule. The issue faced by the public of technically evaluating the proposed changes announced in the NODA is exacerbated by the lack of a complete dataset and underlying calculations that lead to EPA's decisions, as described below. 

# Comment ID 2486-1.001.012

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. Implementation of Criteria It is not clear whether EPA is considering a reasonable effective date for these criteria or will insist that these criteria

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5705Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period become effective in a 30 or 60-day period. The FPPAEA commented previously that a minimum of a 2-year effective date is needed to properly implement and adopt these criteria in Florida. In the absence of an extended effective date, FPPAEA urges the EPA to properly staff Region IV with staff able to process SSAC, permits, and TMDL issues arising from this rulemaking. 

# Comment ID 2488-1.001.003

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc. As noted in the comments from The Fertilizer Institute, PotashCorp is particularly concerned with the pace of the rule proposals and schedule for finalizing the rule. With this notice, EPA has proposed significant changes to its initial proposal and given stakeholders a limited time to review data and comment on the proposals. Given the nature of the proposed nutrient criteria derivation (reference stream distributional statistics without any cause-and-effect relationship) and the uncertainty surrounding the implementation procedures, PotashCorp is being denied its due process rights to adequately assess the soundness of these proposals. 

# Comment ID 2492-1.001.003

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies NACWA is most concerned about the speed with which EPA is developing this initial round of criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. With the Agency presumably still reviewing and responding to the thousands of substantive comments it received on the January proposal, this new Notice, which proposes changes to the criteria values, was released with a comment period that ends only a few weeks before the final criteria are to be issued. NACWA is concerned that this overly aggressive schedule, not sound science, is driving the development of these criteria and believes EPA should seek relief from the October consent decree deadline for finalizing the first round of criteria. 

# Comment ID 2492-1.001.007

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies NACWA believes that if EPA continues on its aggressive schedule to finalize the criteria by October, then it should delay the effective date of the criteria to allow for the development of the necessary implementation policies and regulations by the state. 

# Comment ID 2494-1.001.002

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5706Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition I. INTRODUCTION In the NODA, EPA has not simply made some new information available for review and comment. Rather, EPA has proposed major changes in the criteria development approach that was contained in its proposed rule that was issued on January 26, 2010. These changes have been proposed only 2.5 months before EPA is required, by consent decree, to issue its final criteria for Florida lakes and rivers/streams. Stakeholders have been given only 30 days to comment, and after those comments are received, EPA will have only 45 days to review and consider all of those comments, make appropriate changes to the proposed rules, and finalize the regulations for publication in the Federal Register. This is hardly a context in which reasonable, thoughtful, decisionmaking can occur. Moreover, EPA will be making critical regulatory decisions with a complete lack of transparency. In order to comply with basic due process and Administrative Procedure Act requirements, EPA should act to extend the deadline for action -- as it is allowed to do under the relevant consent decree -- and give stakeholders enough time to fully evaluate the new options that were proposed by EPA on August 3, and to provide thoughtful, science-based comments. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.009

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC A one year postponement will enable EPA to gather additional data, enabling either a more defensible reference waters approach or the development of criteria based on a demonstrated relationship between nutrients and responsevariables. Collection of appropriate data and engaging in proper stream classification may identify potential doseresponse relationships that would result in criteria that are more defensible than the reference approach. This outcome is preferred both by Mosaic and by EPA.[29] [29] Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams, U.S. E.P.A., Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, EPA-822-B-00-002, July 2000, page 93. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.011

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC 3. Procedural Issues In addition to our substantive concerns with the proposals in the NODA, Mosaic also has certain concerns about the procedure EPA used in presenting these proposals.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5707Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period

First, it is fundamentally unfair to expect meaningful comment on these proposals within a 30 day comment period. While EPA styles its proposals here as part of a NODA, in fact these proposals are essentially whole new regulatory approaches, especially in regard to the West Central region. The public must review and process an entirely new set of criteria and an entirely new methodology in a very short period of time. This time constraint places an enormous and unnecessary burden on the regulated community. 

# Comment ID 2497-1.001.018

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC EPA should defer setting these criteria until the second phase of this rulemaking, by which time hopefully the Agency will fairly consider all of the comments, data and information available to it, and will then forge a sound, scientific, balanced and defensible set of criteria. 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.002

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection I. EPA's rulemaking process has not provided adequate opportunity for the Florida public to comment because data, information, and analysis was not disclosed for certain central provisions The Department has attempted to comment on the many provisions contained in EPA's Proposed Rule and its Notice of Data Availability (NODA), but the absence of data, studies, and methodologies used by EPA for supporting certain core components of the Rule has significantly hindered FDEP's ability to provide feedback. It is critical that those essential provisions be properly evaluated because of: -Their significance in determining if Florida's water resources are being appropriately protected; and -The adverse implications associated with imposing criteria that could be scientifically or procedurally flawed. 

# Comment ID 2502-1.001.002

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute I. INTRODUCTION In the NODA, EPA has not simply made some new information available for review and comment. Rather, EPA has

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5708Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period proposed major changes in the criteria development approach that was contained in its proposed rule that was issued on Jan. 26. These changes have been proposed only 2.5 months before EPA is required, by consent decree, to issue its final criteria for Florida lakes and rivers/streams. Stakeholders have been given only 30 days to comment, and after those comments are received, EPA will have only 45 days to review and consider all of those comments, make appropriate changes to the proposed rules, and finalize the regulations for publication in the Federal Register. This is hardly a context in which reasonable, thoughtful decision making can occur. In order to comply with basic due process requirements and the Administrative Procedure Act, EPA should act to extend the deadline for action -- as it is allowed to do under the relevant consent decree -- and give stakeholders enough time to fully evaluate the new options that were proposed by EPA on Aug. 3, so that it is possible for interested parties to provide thoughtful, scientifically-based comments. 

# Comment ID 2504-1.001.005

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Time allowed for NODA review: The EPA did not afford stakeholders enough time or information for a thorough review of this NODA. Further Scientific Advisory Board peer review: The District strongly suggests that the promulgation of criteria by October 15th should be reconsidered as EPA continues with this NODA to develop the rule. Instead, the District recommends that the lakes, as well as river and streams, criteria development also go through the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board process. 

# Comment ID 2504-2.001.006

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District 4) Time allowed for review of NODA This NODA was released on August 3, 2010 and comments have been requested within one month. The amount of time to review the current changes coupled with a lack of significant information (see Bartlett, A. [FDEP] letter to Salvaterra, D. [EPA], August 10, 2010) makes a complete and thorough review unfeasible. Thus, the District's concern with adequate explanations and logical outgrowth have been further raised (EPA docket reference EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596-1476.2; pages 52-53): "Although EPA requested that stakeholders comment on the alternatives considered as part of the rulemaking process, it failed to include adequate methodological explanations or explanations of scientific assumptions underlying these alternatives, instead addressing the alternatives in "general terms." See Amer. Med. Ass'n. v. U.S., 887 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1989) (holding that notice was inadequate when an issue was only addressed in general terms in the initial

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5709Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period proposal). The District was therefore unable to thoroughly address the validity of the science and methodologies supporting the considered alternatives. EPA is obligated to supply not only the data utilized to come to its final criteria, but also those methodologies utilized in the analysis and development of the proposed criteria and alternatives. The details of those methodologies were not disclosed and, as such, no stakeholder has the ability to accurately duplicate EPA's process in promulgation. The District respectfully requests that should the EPA change its approach and methodology to adopt a different rule than that proposed based on either those alternatives considered in the proposed rule or any alternative proposed by a commenting stakeholder, it republish the proposed rule to allow additional time for review and comment on the newly adopted alternatives. A substantially changed final rule based on alternatives utilizing different methodologies and scientific assumptions that currently lack an adequate explanation of scientific assumptions and methodologies would not qualify as a logical outgrowth of the rulemaking process and EPA should not promulgate a final rule based on these alternatives until a new round of comments was held so that stakeholders would be provided "their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms that the agency might find convincing," regarding the newly adopted alternatives. See Assoc. of Battery Recyclers Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 208 F.3d 1047 at 1059 (C.A.D.C. 2000)." 5) Further Scientific Advisory Board Peer review With less than two months before proposed promulgation of the final rule, USEPA is still determining major components of the rule, for example the stream and rivers methodology in this NODA. The District strongly suggests that the promulgation of criteria by October 15th should be reconsidered. Instead, the District recommends the lakes, as well as river and streams criteria development process, also go through the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board process. This is similar to the current effort for estuaries and coastal waters, as well as South Florida Canals ( http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebProjectsRequestsforCommentsBOARD?OpenView ). The findings of a recent SAB panel (SAB's Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2009) Augmented for Review of Nutrient Criteria Guidance, please see http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/E09317EC14CB3F2B85257713004BED5F/$File/EPA-SAB-10-006

­ unsigned.pdf) would also strongly suggest a need to reconsider all facets of the rule via a peer review process. Quoting from the SAB's report "In general, we find that the scope, limitations, and intended use of the Guidance need to be more clearly described." If a SAB finds that guidance for developing numeric nutrient criteria needs more work and information, then the District would strongly suggest promulgation of any rules based on this guidance would be premature. 

# Response
Comment IDs: 2488-1.001.003, 2492-1.001.003 Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency’s Consent Decree deadline to finalize numeric nutrient criteria adversely affected EPA’s public comment processes, impeded EPA’s thorough review, consideration, and analysis of the comments submitted, or hindered the derivation and promulgation of scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria that are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5710Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period

Comment IDs: 2446-1.001.006, 2447-1.001.005, 2463-1.001.004, 2498-2.001.002, 2504-2.001.006 Response: EPA disagrees that the data and timeframe employed to finalize the Agency’s rulemaking are not sufficient to support the derivation of scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. EPA notes that all pertinent data and information for the supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment were available through EPA’s docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) with adequate time for organizations to sufficiently analyze and understand the data and science EPA used to derive the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule.

Comment IDs: 2458-1.001.005, 2486-1.001.012, 2492-1.001.003, 2492-1.001.007, 2497-1.001.009, 2497-1.001.018, 2504­ 1.001.005, 2504-2.001.006 Response: EPA is promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters that are scientifically defensible and protective of applicable designated uses consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA’s rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, effective for purposes of the Clean Water Act, that are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated as Class I and/or Class III waters. The preamble to the final rule, in particular section III, discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, 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. EPA reminds commenters that the underlying methodologies for the Agency’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s rivers, streams, and lakes underwent scientific peer review. EPA followed the procedures outlined in its Peer Review Handbook (EPA/100/B-06/002) by having the specific methods EPA was considering to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters peer reviewed by five independent external experts in this field This independent, external peer review was completed in July 2009 and the results were made available through EPA’s docket for the proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments Final: External Peer Review of EPA’s Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA considered and responded to these peer review comments prior to proposal in January 2010 (EPA Responses to External Peer Review of EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0155). With regard to the Science Advisory Board (SAB)'s recent review of an EPA draft guidance document for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria using stressor-response relationships: The SAB reviewed EPA’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development. Stressor-response relationships are one of three generalapproaches that EPA recommends for states to use when deriving numeric nutrient criteria. EPA has previously published peerreviewed general guidance documents that outline these three approaches. The SAB reviewed a supplemental guidance document that provided more detail on one of the three general approaches. EPA has used stressor-response approaches in this final rule and has benefited from the advice the SAB gave to EPA based on the SAB review of the Agency’s draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development in September 2009. EPA is promulgating this rule pursuant to a determination that EPA made on January 14, 2009, under section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act. The determination stated that numeric nutrient water criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters are necessary for the State of Florida to meet the requirements of Clean Water Act section 303(c). Regarding the request for a delayed effective

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5711Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period
date pertaining to the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters finalized in this rule, please refer to the preamble to the final rule, section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the CWA. The State of Florida will determine how best to meet the standards in a way that best meets the needs of its citizens and environment. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms. FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time and submit proposed standards to EPA for review and approval.

Comment ID: 2497-1.001.011 Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency styled its August 3, 2010 notice as part of a Notice of Data Availability (NODA). The Agency’s August 3, 2010 notice was entitled a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability (SNODA) and Request for Comment, which went beyond a Notice of Data Availability (NODA). EPA's supplemental notice provided more than just additional available data for public review and comment. Accordingly, it was not published as merely a NODA. As stated in the supplemental notice, EPA’s supplemental notice reflected the Agency's review of public comments and new information received by the Agency as part of the public comment process associated with its January 2010 proposal. EPA released the supplemental notice in order to request further comment on possible revisions, additional options, and new information related to specific approaches and issues identified in the January 2010 proposal.

Comment IDs: 2446-1.001.004, 2486-1.001.003, 2494-1.001.002, 2497-1.001.011, 2502-1.001.002, 2504-2.001.006 Response: EPA disagrees with the characterization of the three items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice as being essentially whole new regulatory approaches. As stated in the supplemental notice, EPA solicited comment on three items. The first item was the delineation of stream nutrient regions. In its January 2010 proposal, EPA proposed classification of Florida’s streams north of Lake Okeechobee by separating watersheds into four geographically distinct TN and TP stream nutrient regions (i.e., Panhandle, Bone Valley, Peninsula, and North Central). In its supplemental notice, the Agency solicited comment on consideration of dividing EPA’s proposed Panhandle Region into a Panhandle West (less phosphorus-rich) and Panhandle East (more phosphorus-rich), in addition to refining the regional boundaries separating EPA’s proposed Peninsula Region from EPA’s proposed West Central Region (formerly called Bone Valley). These potential re-delineations and refinements of EPA’s proposed stream nutrient regions did not constitute entirely new regulatory approaches because the originally proposed methodologies for deriving criteria were simply applied to the re-delineated regions to derive the criteria provided in the supplemental notice. The second item included in the supplemental notice was the resulting criteria associated with two approaches included in EPA’s January 2010 proposal (EPA’s SCI-based approach and the alternative benchmark distribution approach). In order to enable the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5712Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Comment Period
public to have a meaningful opportunity to inform EPA’s final rule, the Agency included the potential TN and TP criteria that would result based on the revised stream nutrient regions under consideration using these approaches. Potentially revising the boundaries of the stream nutrient regions would naturally result in revisions to associated TN and TP criteria for those regions. EPA disagrees that these revised TN and TP criteria, based on revised stream nutrient regions, however, constitute an entirely new set of criteria that placed an unnecessary or enormous burden of review on the public because the methods and data used to develop the criteria in the supplemental notice were the same as provided in the original proposal. The third item included in the supplemental notice involved the protection of downstream lakes in Florida. EPA recognized that more specific information may be readily available for individual lakes that could allow the use of alternative approaches such as the BATHTUB model and requested comment in its January 2010 proposal on the availability and application of this model, as well as the use of alternative lake-specific models. The Agency disagrees that solicitation of comment on alternative approaches for protection of downstream lakes constituted an entirely new set of criteria and an entirely new methodology for review because EPA specifically requested comment on the use of BATHTUB to derive downstream protection values in the original proposal.

Comment IDs: 2446-1.001.002, 2446-1.001.004, 2446-1.001.006, 2446-1.001.010, 2449-1.001.004, 2450-1.001.004, 2486­ 1.001.003, 2488-1.001.003, 2494-1.001.002, 2497-1.001.011, 2502-1.001.002, 2504-2.001.006 Response: EPA disagrees that the public had too little time in which to review the information contained in the supplemental notice. The three items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice did not introduce entirely new regulatory approaches, an entirely new set of criteria, or an entirely new methodology that warranted more than 30 days of review. As evidence of the reasonableness of the amount of time provided to the public to comment on EPA's supplemental notice, the Agency received 71 public comments on its supplemental notice, many of which contained substantive input on the information contained in the supplemental notice. EPA released the supplemental notice in order to request further comment on possible revisions related to specific approaches and issues identified in the January 2010 proposal. As stated above, the items included in the Agency’s supplemental notice were not wholesale changes to the approaches described at proposal, only refinements. EPA reminds the commenter that the Agency only sought comment on the items presented in its supplemental notice and did not solicit comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposed rule. The approaches EPA is finalizing, as described in the final rule technical support document (TSD), are very similar to those described in its proposed rule TSD. EPA provided additional clarification and detail in its final rule TSD in response to the many constructive comments it received in response to its January 2010 proposal and August 2010 supplemental notice. EPA believes that the 30-day public comment period associated with the Agency’s supplemental notice provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the notice and associated materials in order to provide meaningful public comment to EPA. In addition, EPA believes that the 90-day public comment period associated with the proposal, in conjunction with the public hearings (a total of 13 public hearing sessions were held in 6 different cities throughout the State), provided sufficient time and opportunity for all interested parties to perform a thorough review of the proposed regulation and provide meaningful public comment to EPA.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5713Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA 

# SNODA.DATA - DATA SUBMITTED FOR SNODA Comment ID 2444-3.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: Methodology for an Expedited Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC), August 2010. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2448-1.001.001

Author Name: McCrea D. Organization: County Attorney's Office, Pinellas County, Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation." USEPA, April 27, 2010. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.006

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 Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation". See original comment letter (PDF pp 3-69). 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.007

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: 2010 Florida Laws Ch. 205, § 58. See original comment letter (PDF pp 70-167). 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.008

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5714Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA

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: Florida House Memorial 1589 (2010). See original comment letter (PDF pp 168-171). 

# Comment ID 2449-1.001.009

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: August 2, 2010 Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. See original comment letter (PDF pp 172-174). 

# Comment ID 2452-1.001.009

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Comments on Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida, submitted by The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. (NVOCRSB). See original comment letter (pg. 4-5). 

# Comment ID 2457-2.001.007

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
REFERENCES Griffith, G.E., D.E. Canfield, Jr, C.A. Horsburgh, and J.M. Omernik. 1997. Lake Regions of Florida. Western Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. EPA/R-97/127.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5715Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA Terziotti, Silvia, Hoos, A.B., Harned, D.A., and Garcia, A.M., 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet. Vollenweider, R.A. 1975. Input-output models with special reference to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Hydrologie. 37: 53-84. Vollenweider, R.A. 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia. 33: 53-83 Walker, W.W. 2004. BATHTUB – Version 6.1 Simplified Techniques for Eutrophication Assessment & Prediction. Environmental laboratory, USAE Waterways experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wool, T.A., R.B. Ambrose, J.L. Martin, E.A. Comer. 2001. Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) Version 6.0 Draft User’s Manual. US Environmental Protection Agency – Region 4. Atlanta, GA. 

# Comment ID 2460-1.001.006

Author Name: Thompson C. Organization: Buckeye Florida, L.P. Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
References Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Use Attainability Analysis, Fenholloway River. Kaufman, M.I., 1969, Revised 1975, Color of Water in Florida Streams and Canals: Map Series No. 35 prepared by United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the Bureau of Geology, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Fenholloway Nutrient Study. Athens, GA: Ecological Assessment Branch United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) the Fenholloway River, Bevins (Boggy) Creek, Econfina River Basin (Includes TMDLs for dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, unionized ammonia, fecal coliform, and dioxin). Atlanta, GA: Region 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients in the Fenholloway River, Econfina River Basin). Atlanta, GA: Region 4

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5716Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA



# Comment ID 2460-1.001.007

Author Name: Thompson C. Organization: Buckeye Florida, L.P. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figures 1-4. Figure 1. Econfina River Computed Total Nitrogen (1950-2009); Figure 2. Econfina River Computed Total Phosphorus (1950-2009); Figure 3. St. Marks River Computed Total Nitrogen (1950-2009); Figure 4. St. Marks River Computed Total Phosphorus (1950-2009). See original comment letter (pg. 5-8). 

# Comment ID 2462-1.001.014

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1: Nutrient Station Locations (Stations used for Florida Nutrient Criteria). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2: TN Annual Geometric Mean Distributions at the Revised NWR. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3: TP Annual Geometric Mean Distributions at the Revised NWR. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2464-1.001.001

Author Name: Weed M. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. A survey and Review of Modeling for TMDL Application in Texas Watercourses, by George H. Ward, Jr. and Jennifer Benaman submitted to Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, December 1999. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2464-2.001.001

Author Name: Weed M.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5717Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA
Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Effective engagement of stakeholders in Total Maximum Daily Load development and implementation. Gaddis, E., C. Adams, and A. Voinov. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) 2010 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software Modelling for Environment’s Sake, Fifth Biennial Meeting, Ottawa, Canada. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2465-1.001.004

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Exhibit 1: SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation, April 27, 2010. See original comment letter (pg. 3-69). 

# Comment ID 2465-1.001.005

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Exhibit 2: Chapter 2010-205. Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 550. See original comment letter (pg. 70-167). 

# Comment ID 2465-1.001.006

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Exhibit 3: CS for HM 1589 & HM 1365. See original comment letter (pg. 168-171). 

# Comment ID 2465-1.001.007

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Exhibit 4: Letter from members of the U.S.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5718Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA Congress, August 2, 2010. See original comment letter (pg. 172-174). 

# Comment ID 2466-2.001.008

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
REFERENCES Scott T.S. [et al.] Geologic Map of the State of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Map Series 146. - 2001. Scott T.S. Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Report 80 [Report]. ­ 2001. - p. 29. Terziotti Silvia [et al.] Mapping Watershed Potential to Contribute Phosphorus from Geologic Materials to Receiving Streams, Southeastern United States - U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102. - 2010. 

# Comment ID 2467-1.001.014

Author Name: Weigand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
References United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/240/B-06/001. United States Environmental Protection Agency. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Nutrient criteria technical guidance manual: Wetlands. EPA-822-B-08-001. United States Environmental Protection Agency.



# Comment ID 2469-1.001.005

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau Federation (FFBF)

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5719Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA Original comment letter contains additional information in Attachment A of the comment letter (pgs 4-7) as an August 2, 2010 letter to Administrator Jackson from members of Congress. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2470-1.001.005

Author Name: Cunningham T. Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Appendix A: Previously Submitted Comments Dated April 28th, 2010. See original comment letter (pg. 3-19). 

# Comment ID 2477-1.001.001

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: Federal Register - 40 CFR Part 131. See original comment letter (pg. 1-5) 

# Comment ID 2477-1.001.002

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: Letter containing AWWA's comments regarding the NODA. See original comment letter (pg. 6-7). 

# Comment ID 2477-1.001.003

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: SAB Review of Emperical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. See original comment letter (pg 8- end). 

# Comment ID 2477-2.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5720Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: Florida Chapter 205, Committee Substitute for Committee Substitutes for Committee Substitute for Sentate Bill No. 550. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2477-3.001.001

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Florida House Memorial. See original comment letter (pages 1-4). 

# Comment ID 2480-2.001.009

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
References Borah, D.K., G. Yagow, A. Saleh, P.L. Barnes, W. Rosenthal, E.C. Krug, and L.M. Hauck (2006) Sediment and nutrient modeling for TMDL development and implementation. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 49: 967-986. Burkholder JM (2002) Cyanobacteria, pp. 952-982. In: Encyclopedia of Environmental Microbiology, by G. Bitton (ed.). Wiley Publishers, New York. Burkholder JM (2009) Harmful algal blooms, pp. 264-285. In: Encyclopedia of Inland Waters, Volume 1, by G.E. Likens (ed.) Elsevier, Oxford, UK. Burns, J. 2007. Chapter 5: Toxic cyanobacteria in Florida waters, pp. 117-126. In: Proceedings of the Interagency, International Symposium on Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms (ISOC-HAB): State of the Science and Research Needs, by H.K. Hudnell (ed.). Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Fernald, E.A. and E.D. Purdum (1998) Water Resources Atlas of Florida. Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5721Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2009a) Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria History and Status. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL., 11 pp. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/fl-nnc-summary

100109.pdf. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2009b) Technical Support Document: Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and Streams. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, 173 pp. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2010a) The Environmental Protection Agency's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, dated August 3, 2010, related to Numeric Nutrient Criteria. FACT SHEET prepared by FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. Available at: http://www.cleanwaternetwork.org/sites/default/files/summary_epa_notice_080310.pdf

. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2010b - Feb. 1) Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed In-Stream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs). Prepared by the Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, 9 pp. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2010c - 16 Feb.) Evaluation of Florida's Status Network Data Relative to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria In- Stream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) for Streams. Prepared by the Watershed Monitoring Section of the Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, 12 pp. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2010d - 17 Mar.) Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Downstream Lakes. Proposed January 26, 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. Gao, X. (2006) Nutrient and Unionized Ammonia TMDLs for Lake Jesup, WBIDs 2981 and 2981A. Prepared by the Division of Water Resource Management - Bureau of Watershed Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Havens, K.E., T. Fukushima, P. Xie, T. Iwakuma, R.T. James, N. Takamura, T. Hanazato, and T. Yamamoto (2001) Nutrient dynamics and the eutrophication of shallow lakes Kasumigaura (Japan), Donghu (PR China), and Okeechobee (USA). Environmental Pollution 111: 263- 272. Osborne, P.L. (1980) Prediction of phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in lakes from both internal and external loading rates. Hydrobiologia 69: 229-233. Pollman, C.D., W.M. Landing, J.J. Perry Jr., and T. Fitzpatrick (2002) Wet deposition of phosphorus in Florida. Atmospheric Environment 36:2309-2318. Steward, J.S. and E.F. Lowe (2010) General empirical models for estimating nutrient load limits for Florida's estuaries and inland waters. Limnology and Oceanography 55:443-455. Touchette, B.W., J.M. Burkholder, E.H. Allen, J.L. Alexander, C.A. Kinder, J. James, and C.H. Britton (2007)

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5722Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA Eutrophication and cyanobacteria blooms in run-of-river impoundments in North Carolina, U.S.A. Lake and Reservoir Management 23:179-192 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2010a) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, Proposed Rule. 40 CFR Part 131 [EPAHQ- OW-2009-0596; FRL-9105-1] RIN 2040-AF11. Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 16, Tuesday, January 26, 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2010b) Technical Support Document (TSD) for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Vollenweider, R.A. (1968) Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophication of Lakes and Flowing Waters, with Particular Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Factors in Eutrophication. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD/DAS/CSI/68, Paris, France. Vollenweider, R.A. (1975) Input-output models with special reference to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Hydrologie 37: 53-84. Vollenweider, R.A. 1976. Advances in differing critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Memorie dell'Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia 33: 53-83. Walker, W.W. (1986) Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Report 3, Phase III: Applications Manual. Technical Report E-81-9. Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Wetzel, R.G. (2001) Limnology, 3rd edition. Academic Press, New York, NY. Winchester, J.W. and J.M. Fu (1992) Atmospheric deposition of nitrate and its transport to the Apalachicola Bay Estuary in Florida. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 65: 23-42. World Health Organization [WHO] (2003) Guidelines for Safe Recreational Waters, Volume 1 - Coastal and Fresh Waters, Chapter 8: Algae and cyanobacteria in fresh water. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Cover letter and table of contents. See original comment letter (pp. 1-3). 

# Comment ID 2482-1.001.011

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5723Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
C. Literature Cited Citation / Digital File Name Harper, H. 2010. Evaluation of Water Quality Models for Use in Lake Thonotosassa. Technical Memorandum. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida. 23 pp. Attachment_A_Harper_Tech_Memo_Lake_Thono Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2010. SWFWMD comments on West Central (Bone Valley) Nutrient Watershed Region Boundary Revision. Attachment_B_SWFWMD_West_Central_Boundary
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Nutrient TMDL For Lake Parker (WBID 1497B). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. Attachment_C_USEPA_Lake_Parker_TMDL 

# Comment ID 2482-2.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: Harper, H. 2010. Evaluation of Water Quality Models for Use in Lake Thonotosassa. Technical Memorandum. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida. 23 pp. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2482-3.001.002

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
References Odum, H.T., 1953, Miscellaneous Studies, Part 1, Dissolved Phosphorus in Florida Waters, Florida Geological Survey

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5724Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA Report of Investigations No. 9, pp 1-40. Polk County Water Atlas website, www.polk.wateratlas.usf.edu , digital library of lake bathymetry accessed on August 25, 2010. Scott, T. S., 1988, The Lithostratigraphy of the Hawthorn Group (Miocene) of Florida, Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No. 59, 148 p. Scott, T.S., K.M. Campbell, F.R. Rupert, J.D. Arthur, T.M. Missimer, J.M. Lloyd, J.W. Yon and J.G. Duncan, 2001, Geologic Map of the State of Florida, Florida Geological Survey Map Series 146, 1 sheet. 

# Comment ID 2482-3.001.003

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment containing maps and lithologic sample information. See original comment letter (PDF pp.4-1527). 

# Comment ID 2482-4.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: Nutrient TMDL For Lake Parker (WBID 1497B), US EPA Region 4, March 2006. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2484-1.001.001

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information.
This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder. Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be made as follows:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5725Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA In person/writing: Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Fax: 202-566- 9744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov



# Comment ID 2490-1.001.009

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
REFERENCES: Scott T.S. [et al.] Geologic Map of the State of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Map Series 146. - 2001. Scott T.S. Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Report 80 [Report]. ­ 2001. - p. 29. Terziotti Silvia [et al.] Mapping Watershed Potential to Contribute Phosphorus from Geologic Materials to Receiving Streams, Southeastern United States - U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102. - 2010.



# Comment ID 2493-1.001.011

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
REFERENCES Scott T.S. [et al.] Geologic Map of the State of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Map Series 146. - 2001. Scott T.S. Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Report 80 [Report]. ­ 2001. - p. 29.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5726Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA Terziotti Silvia [et al.] Mapping Watershed Potential to Contribute Phosphorus from Geologic Materials to Receiving Streams, Southeastern United States - U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102. - 2010. 

# Comment ID 2496-1.001.013

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Original comment letter contains additional information as list of attachments enclosed with submittal. See original comment letter (pg.7-8). 

# Comment ID 2496-2.001.001

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "Models for TMDL Application in Texas Watercourses: Screen and Model Review." Ward and Benaman, December 1999. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2496-3.001.001

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "Assessment of Reservoir Water Quality and Its Application to Reservoir Management In The Central Plains." Lim, December 2001. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2497-2.001.009

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
References Brown, M.T. and M.B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101: 289-309.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5727Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA

EPA. 2000a. Nutrient Criteria technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. EPA-822-B-00-002. Washington, DC. EPA. 2000b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations - Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria: Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XII. USEPA Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology. EPA-822-B-00-021. Washington, DC. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. 2007. Memorandum. Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held November 15-16, 2006, on Studies Evaluating the Impact of Surface Coatings on the Level of Dislodgeable Arsenic, Chromium, and Copper from Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)-Treated Wood. Arlington, Virginia. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Selection of minimally disturbed reference sites using the Landscape Development Intensity Index (LDI). Draft prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1 September 2006 Fore, L.S. 2004. Development and testing of biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams. Statistical Design, Seattle, WA. Final Report Submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Fore, L.S., R. Frydenborg, D. Miller, T. Frick, D. Whiting, J. Espy, and L. Wolfe. 2007. Development and testing of biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams (Stream Condition Index and Biorecon). NonPoint Source Bioassessment Program. Final Report Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Hammond, D. 2009. Evaluating dissolved oxygen regimes along a gradient of human disturbance for lotic systems in west-central Florida. Master's Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Kiefer, J.H., 2010. Hydrobiogeomorphology of fluvial systems in peninsular Florida: Implications to classification, conservation, and restoration. University of Florida Ph.D dissertation. 436 pp. Mack, J.J. 2006. Landscape as a predictor of wetland condition: An evaluation of the Landscape Development Index (LDI) with a large reference wetland dataset from Ohio. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 120: 221-241. Terziotti, Silvia, Hoos, A.B., Harned, D.A., and Garcia, A.M., 2010, Mapping watershed potential to contribute phosphorus from geologic materials to receiving streams, southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3102, 1 sheet. Wills, S.A., Herrick, J.E., Tugel, A. 2009. Inference space vs. sampling requirements: A simulation study of soil properties on rangeland ecosites. [abstract]. 62nd Society for Range Management Annual Meeting. Paper No. 90-7. 

# Comment ID 2497-3.001.002

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5728Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: Groundwater Total Phosphorus Data from the Pioneer Tract. See original comment letter (pg. 3-7). 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information: Title page & Table of Contents. See original comment letter (pg. 1-3). 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.017

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
CITATIONS Canfield, D.E., Jr., K.A. Langeland, M.J. Maceina, W.T. Haller, J.V. Shireman, and J.R. Jones. 1983. Trophic state classification of lakes with aquatic macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1713-1718. Ernst, M. R., W. Frossard, and J. L. Mancini. 1994. Two Eutrophication Models make the Grade. Water Environment and Technology, November, 15-16. Walker, W. W. 1996. Simplified procedure for eutrophication assessment and prediction: User manual, Instruction Report W-96-2 (Updated April 1999), US. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Canfield, D. E., and Bachman, R. W. 1981. Prediction of total phosphorus concentrations, chlorophyll-a, and Secchi depths in natural and artificial lakes. Canadian Journal for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38(4): 414-423 

# Comment ID 2498-2.001.019

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information. Appendix A & B. See original comment letter (pg. 29-31).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5729Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA 

# Comment ID 2499-10.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an U.S. EPA undated document entitled Quality Criteria for Water. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2499-2.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information.
This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder. Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be made as follows: In person/writing: Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Fax: 202-566- 9744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

# Comment ID 2499-3.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a five-page, three column untitled table of data. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2499-4.001.001

Author Name: Coe A.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5730Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA
Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a five-page, three column untitled table of data. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2499-5.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a six-page, untitled table of TP data. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2499-6.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a five-page, six column untitled table of data. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2499-7.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map of phosphate mining up to 1950. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2499-8.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map and description of ecoregion XII with level III subecoregion shown. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5731Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA 

# Comment ID 2499-9.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a two-page, six column untitled table of data. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2501-1.001.004

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland Literature Cited Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Downstream Lakes. Prepared by the Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration on 4/28/2010. 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.019

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "Mapping Watershed Potential to Contribute Phosphorus from Geologic Materials to Receiving Streams, Southeastern United States," USGS, 2010. See original comment letter (pg. 11-27). 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.020

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Title page & table of contents. ("Additional Comments on USEPA's Proposed Nutrient Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida" Blancher, September 1, 2010). See original comment letter (pg. 29-31). 

# Comment ID 2503-1.001.026

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5732Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
References Baker, LK. A., P. L. Brezonik and C. R. Kratzer. 1981. Nutrient loading - Trophic state relationships in Florida lakes. Florida Water Resources Center Publication No. 56. Prepared by Water Resources Research Center, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 126 pp. [Previously Submitted Docket Entry EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2233.1] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Sampling and use of the lake vegetation index (LVI) for assessing lake plant communities in Florida: A primer. DEP/SAS/002/10, FDEP, Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support, Standards and Assessment Section. 19 pp. Hand, J. G. 1975. Water quality modeling of the Middle St. Johns River system. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 125 pp. Smith, R. L. 1966. Ecology and Field Biology. New York: Harper and Row. Walker, W. W., Jr. 1981. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments; Phase I: Data Base Development. Technical Report E-81-9. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Walker, W. W., Jr. 1996. Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction: User Manual. Instruction Report W-96-2 (Updated April 1999). U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wetzel, R. G. 1975. Limnology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company. Williams, P., M. Whitfield, J. Biggs, S. Bray, G. Fox, P. Nicolet and D. Sear. 2003. Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biological Conservation 115:329-341.



# Comment ID 2503-1.001.027

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment. Title page & table of contents. ("Comments on USEPA Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment." Submitted on behalf of CF Industries, September 1, 2010). See original comment letter (pg. 46-49).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5733Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA



# Comment ID 2503-1.001.039

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original Comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
4.0 REFERENCES Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Kluwer, Norwell, MA. 388 p. BCI. 2009. Peace River Karst-Low Flow Preservation Devices: Summary of Literature and Existing Site Knowledge. Prepared for SWFWMD, Brooksville, FL. 40 p. Beck, W.M., 1965. Streams of Florida. Florida State Museum Bulletin 10(3): 91-126. Brierley, G., and K. Fryirs, 2000. River Styles, a Geomorphic Approach to Catchment Characterization: Implications for River Rehabilitation in Bega Catchment, New South Wales, Australia. Environmental Management 25(6): 661-679. Brown, M.T. and M.B. Vivas, 2003. A Landscape Development Index. Prepared for FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. 21 p. Crisman, T.L. (personal communication, 2010). USF, Tampa, FL
EPA 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. EPA-82- B-00-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. 253 p. EPA 2006. Best Practices for Identifying Reference Condition in Mid-Atlantic Streams. EPA-260-F-06-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 8 p. EPA 2010a. SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. EPA-SAB-10-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 67 p. EPA 2010b. TSD for EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for FL Inland Surface Fresh Waters, Chapter 2: Methodology for Deriving U.S. EPA's Proposed Criteria for Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 80 p. FDEP 2007. Sampling and Use of the Stream Condition Index (SCI) for Assessing Flowing Waters: A Primer. Tallahassee, FL Erskine, W.D., M.J. Saynor, L. Erskine, K.G. Evans, and D.R. Moliere, 2005. A Preliminary Typology of Australian Tropical Rivers and Implications for Fish Community Ecology. Marine and Freshwater Research 56: 253-267.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5734Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA FDOT, 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. FNAI, 1990. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. Fore, L.S., R. Frydenborg, D. Miller, T. Frick, D. Whiting, J. Espy, and L. Wolfe, 2007. Development and Testing of Biomonitoring Tools for Macroinvertebrates in Florida Streams (Stream Condition Index and Biorecon). Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., Finlayson, B.L., Gippel, C.J., and R.J. Nathan. 2004. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists, 2nd Ed. Wiley, NY, 429 p. Gore, J.A., Dixon, B.M., and A.F. Casper. 2006. Assessing Florida's Large Rivers: GISbased Data-Mining and the Impacts of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. Presented at Great River Ecosystems Reference Condition Workshop, January 10- 11. Cincinnati, OH. Gregory, K.J. and D.E. Walling, 1973. Drainage Basin Form and Process. Wiley, New York. Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, C.W. Rohm, and S.M. Pierson, 1994. Florida Regionalization Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3- 89/060, Corvalis, Oregon. Hammond, D.G. 2009. Evaluating Dissolved Oxygen Regimes Along a Gradient of Human Disturbance for Lotic Systems in West-Central Florida. Masters Thesis, USF, Tampa, FL. 103 p. Henry, J. A., K. M. Portier, and J. Coyne, 1994. The Climate and Weather of Florida. Pineapple Press, Sarasota, Florida. Hoyer Millar, C.C. 1892. Florida, South Carolina, and Canadian Phosphates: Giving a Complete Account of Their Occurrence, Methods and Cost of Production, Quantities Raised, and Commercial Importantance. Eden Fisher. London, England. 223 p. Kelly, M., 2004. Florida River Flow Patterns and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Southwest Florida Water Management District. Brooksville, Florida. Kiefer, J.H. 2010. Hydrobiogeomorphology of Fluvial Systems in Peninsular Florida: Implications to Classification, Conservation, and Restoration. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 436 p. Knighton, D., 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Wiley, New York. Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller, 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover, New York. Meier, H. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Community Structure in a First Order Sand-Bottom Stream in Florida. Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5735Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA

Metcalf, C.K., S.D. Wilkerson, and W.A. Harman, 2009. Bankfull Regional Curves for North and Northwest Florida Streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45(5): 1260-1272. Myers, R.L. and J.J. Ewel, 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida. NRCS, 2007. Hydrologic Soil Groups. In: Chapter 7, Part 630 Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Odum, H.T. 1953. Dissolved Phosphorus in Florida Waters. University of Florida. Report to the Florida Geological Society. 40 p. Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Saynor, M.J., W. Erskine, and J. Lowry, 2008. Report: Geomorphology. In: A Compendium of Ecological Information on Australia's Northern Tropical Rivers. Sub-Project 1 of Australia's Tropical Rivers-An Integrated Data Assessment and Analysis. G.P. Lukacs and C.M. Finlayson (Editors). National Center for Tropical Wetland Research, Townsville, Queensland. pp. 1-22. Schumm, S.A., K.F. Boyd, C.G Wolff, W.J. Spitz, 1995. A Ground-Water Sapping Landscape in the Florida Panhandle. Geomorphology. 12: 281-297. Schrader, J. 1891. Hidden Treasures: The Pebble Phosphate of the Peace River Valley of South Florida. Varn and Varn. Bartow, FL Strahler, A.N., 1957. Quantitative Analysis of Watershed Geomorphology. Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 38:913-920. Thorp, J.H., M.C. Thoms, and M.D. Delong, 2008. The Riverine Ecosystem Synthesis. Elsevier, New York. Tighe RE. 1988. Florida Stream Networks and Drainage Basin Morphology. Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing, 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:130-137.



# Comment ID 2503-1.001.040

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment consisting of various tables and figures referenced in the text. See original comment letter (pg. 77-97).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5736Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA



# Comment ID 2503-2.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information.
This media is not available in Regulations.gov

. Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be made as follows: In person/writing: Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Fax: 202-566- 9744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov



# Comment ID 2503-3.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "Nutrient Loading - Trophic State Relationships in Florida Lakes." Baker et al., Water Resources Research Center, 1981. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2503-4.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments." Walker Jr., Environmental & Water Quality Operational Studies, May 1981. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5737Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA 

# Comment ID 2503-5.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction: User Manual." Walker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1996 (Updated April 1999). See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2503-6.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of two pages (pg. 96-97) from an unknown document on the topic of the Vollenweider model. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2503-7.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment: "Sampling and Use of the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) for Assessing Lake Plant Communities in Florida: A Primer." FDEP, June 2010. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2503-8.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information.
This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder. Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be made as follows: In person/writing:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5738Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Fax: 202-566- 9744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

# Comment ID 2509-1.001.001

Author Name: Williams K. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the State of the Bay 2010: Celebrating Paradise, Staying the Course by the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2512-2.001.001

Author Name: Williams K. 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. 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, Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee, October 2008. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2512-3.001.001

Author Name: Williams K. 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. Basin Management Action Plan: For the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients Adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the Upper Ocklawaha River Basin, Upper Ocklawaha Basin Working Group, August 14, 2007. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2512-4.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5739Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Data submitted for SNODA

Author Name: Williams K. 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. 2007 Orange Creek Basin Management Action Plan: For the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients Adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for Newnans Lake, Orange Lake, Lake Wauberg, Hogtown Creek, Sweetwater Branch, Tumblin Creek, and Alachua Sink. Orange Creek Basin Working Group, May 8, 2008. See original comment letter. 

# Response

Comment IDs: All Response: Some comments listed in this category are referenced information associated with the comments. EPA interpreted the referenced information as supporting information (e.g., articles, journal papers, and reports) and did not provide a response to the referenced information. Where a comment indicated that EPA should consider a specific reference, EPA has provided a response. The responses to the referenced information are embedded in the responses to the comments to which it is associated. Some comments listed in this category are additional information that was submitted by commenters for consideration where the commenters did not provide any substantive comment or explanation of the pertinence of the additional information. During EPA's review of this information, the Agency could not provide a response because there was insufficient context or guidance in how it should consider the information. Where a comment directed EPA to consider additional information in a specific way, EPA has provided a response to comment where the specific additional information was referred to.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5740Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Duplicate comments 

# SNODA.DUP - DUPLICATE COMMENTS Comment ID 2459-1.001.001

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket (pg. 1-3). See Comment ID 2454.1 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2468-1.001.006

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket (pg. 4 through end). See Comment ID 2462.1 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2471.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2479 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2472.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2479 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2473.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5741Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Duplicate comments
Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2479 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2474.001.001

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2479 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2477-3.001.002

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority Pages 5 - 7 of this comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2469.1 (pages 5-7) for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2478-1.001.002

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of Nestle Water North America This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket (pg 2 through end). See Comment ID 2457.2 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2481-2.001.001

Author Name: Jennings T. Organization: City of Brewton, Alabama This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2462.1 for the coded comments.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5742Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Duplicate comments 

# Comment ID 2485-1.001.001

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2504.1 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2485-2.001.001

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2504.2 for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2495-1.001.003

Author Name: Vick J. Organization: Gulf Power Company This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. Written by HydroQual, September 1, 2010. (pg. 4-14). See Comment ID 2462.1 (pg 2-12) for the coded comments. 

# Comment ID 2512-1.001.001

Author Name: Williams K. 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 This comment letter is a duplicate of another comment letter submitted to the docket. See Comment ID 2512 for the coded comments. 

# Response

Comment IDs: All Response: The comments in this issue code are duplicates of other comments submitted (and coded to other issue categories). These

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5743Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Duplicate comments
comments are responded to under those other issue categories. Commenters should identify the comment ID that their comment is a duplicate of and refer to the other comment ID for the response. No response is necessary for the SNODA.DUP issue category because responses are contained elsewhere.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5744Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter 

# SNODA.COVER - COVER LETTER Comment ID 2444.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Please find the attached letter and document as follow-up on the Mosaic Company's meeting July 13, 2010 regarding EPA's Proposed Rule for Nutrient Criteria in Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) ("proposed Rule"). We appreciate your time and consideration of these additional suggestions for improving and refining the proposed Rule. 

# Comment ID 2446.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Please see the attached correspondence from The Mosaic Company on EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State ofFlorida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596; FRL-9185-2. 

# Comment ID 2447.001.001

Author Name: Bartlett D. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Please find attached a request for additional information regarding the August 3, 2010, notice of data availability. Thank you for your attention. 

# Comment ID 2448.001.001

Author Name: McCrea D. Organization: County Attorney's Office, Pinellas County, Florida This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2449.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5745Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter

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 See attached comments submitted on behalf of the FWEA Utility Council, FSAWWA Utility Council, and FRWA regarding the August 3, 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability. 

# Comment ID 2450.001.001

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. See attached comments submitted on behalf of the FCG regarding the August 3, 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability. 

# Comment ID 2451.001.001

Author Name: Griswold R. Organization: Destin Water Users Please enter the attached response to your NODA for this rule. And please respond to the comments contained in this response. 

# Comment ID 2452.001.001

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: Polyengineering, Inc. on behalf of Jannie L. Corbin President, The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. On behalf of the Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, please find attached comments on the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 2454.001.001

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5746Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter Comments from Jeff Littrell, Director Okaloosa County Water and Sewer. 

# Comment ID 2455.001.001

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Government, Florida This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2457.001.001

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa Please accept the attached documents as the City of Tampa's response to the EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and request for comment dated August 3, 2010 published in the Federal Register Volume 75, Number 148. The documents include a cover letter and prepared response to the request. If any clarification or questions are required, please contact me at the numbers indicated below. Thanks! 

# Comment ID 2458.001.001

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association Attached please find the comments of the Florida Stormwater Association, Incorporated, on the Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments dated August 2, 2010 concerning the above-referenced Docket. 

# Comment ID 2459.001.001

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System I am forwarding two letters from Okaloosa County Water & Sewer re: Public Comments Regarding EPA's Proposed numeric Nutrient WQS for Florida. However, I must forward the two letters (1st letter is 3 pages, 2nd letter is 11 pages for a total of 14 pages) in two separate emails. Emails will be Part 1 (7 pages) and Part 2 (7 pages) because of size. Thank you. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call or email.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5747Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter 

# Comment ID 2460.001.001

Author Name: Thompson C. Organization: Buckeye Florida, L.P. This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2462.001.001

Author Name: Sorrell S. Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority Please find attached a letter from ECUA addressing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) regulations, along with supporting documentation from HydroQual. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments for consideration.



# Comment ID 2463.001.001

Author Name: Fordham K. Organization: Everglades Foundation Please find attached the Everglades Foundation comments regarding the Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters ­ Supplemental Notice of Data Availability document. 

# Comment ID 2464.001.001

Author Name: Weed M. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division batch 2 Please see attached comments and supporting documentation from Pinellas County regarding the request for additional comments on the Numeric Nutrient Criteria supplemental information.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5748Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter 

# Comment ID 2466.001.001

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Attached please find a cover letter and comments of Hillsborough County, Florida in response to EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment dated August 3, 2010 for Docket EPA-HQ-2009-0596. Identical comments are also being submitted via Federal Express. 

# Comment ID 2467.001.001

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2468.001.001

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2469.001.001

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau Federation (FFBF) This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2470.001.001

Author Name: Cunningham T. Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities In accordance with the EPA request for comment on Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (Federal Register: August 3, 2010, Volume 75, Number 148), find attached Gainesville Regional Utilities comments.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5749Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.



# Comment ID 2475.001.001

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District Please find attached comments from the St. Johns River Water Management District regarding the rule promulgation effort referenced above. Thank you for your consideration. 

# Comment ID 2476.001.001

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Sarasota County Environmental Services Please find the attached letter regarding the above subject. If there are any issues with the electronic transmittal of such, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

# Comment ID 2477.001.001

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority I have attached the documents electronically. 

# Comment ID 2478.001.001

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2479.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5750Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission Pursuant to the EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, attached please find the comment letter of the following entities: City of Plant City Seminole County City of Titusville Orlando Utilities Commission City of Cocoa Please acknowledge receipt of these comment letters by return email. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 2480.001.001

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. Please find attached comments on behalf of the Mississippi River Collaborative regarding the U.S. EPA's request for additional comments related to the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and streams. 

# Comment ID 2481.001.001

Author Name: Jennings T. Organization: City of Brewton, Alabama The City of Brewton, Alabama respectfully submits its comments and supporting documentation with regard to the subject. Thank you for your consideration. 

# Comment ID 2483.001.001

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee Please find the attached PDF file from the City of Tallahassee, Florida for submittal of written comments regarding Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 and the Aug 3 Supplemental Notice. If there are any questions regarding this submittal please contact Catherine Bray.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5751Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter



# Comment ID 2484.001.001

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Final submittal ­ Please see attached comments and supporting documentation from Pinellas County regarding the request for additional comments on the Numeric Nutrient Criteria supplemental information. 

# Comment ID 2485.001.001

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2486.001.001

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. On behalf of the Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. (FPPAEA or the "Association"), I submit the following comments in reference to the proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (40 CFR Part 131, Subpart D, Section 131.43) and EPA's Supplemental Notice of Data Availability ("NODA") and Request for Comment as published August 3, 2010 in Volume 75 of the Federal Register at page 45579. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

# Comment ID 2487.001.001

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Attached are my comments for the supplemental NODA for EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 2488.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5752Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS (Potash Corp) Administration, Inc. Please find attached PCS Administration's comments on USEPA's Notice Of Data Availability and Request for Comment, 75 FR 45579, August 3, 2010. 

# Comment ID 2489.001.001

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg Attached, please find comments from the City of St. Petersburg, Fl. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at the numbers listed below or email me. 

# Comment ID 2490.001.001

Author Name: Burges L. Organization: Applied Technology and Management, Inc. on behalf of Florida Department of Transportation These comments are being sent on behalf of the Florida Department of Transportation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. 

# Comment ID 2491.001.001

Author Name: Wallace T. Organization: Town of Orchid Please accept the attached Resolution as the Town of Orchid's comments on the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. 

# Comment ID 2492.001.001

Author Name: Hornback C. Organization: National Association of Clean Water AgenciesAttached are the National Association of Clean Water Agencies' (NACWA's) comments on docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596, Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment on water quality standards for Florida's

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5753Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter lakes and flowing waters (75 FR 45579; August 3, 2010). Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the attached file. 

# Comment ID 2493.001.001

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Attached please find Pasco County’s response to your Supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment. The original letter and attachment will follow in the mail. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

# Comment ID 2494.001.001

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition On behalf of the Federal Water Quality Coalition, I am submitting the attached comments on EPA's Notice of DataAvailability regarding nutrient criteria for Florida, in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Please feel free to call or email if you have any questions. Thanks. 

# Comment ID 2495.001.001

Author Name: Vick J. Organization: Gulf Power Company Attached please find Gulf Power's comments on the above referenced docket. If you should have any questions regarding this information please feel free to give me a call. 

# Comment ID 2496.001.001

Author Name: Hammer Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Please see the attached comments and supporting documentation (batch 1) from Pinellas County regarding the request for additional comments on the Numeric Nutrient Criteria supplemental information.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5754Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter 

# Comment ID 2497.001.001

Author Name: Karpatkin J. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Please find attached comments and two technical support documents from the Mosaic Company on EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and request for Comment. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 2498.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection On behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, please include the attached comments in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comment. 

# Comment ID 2499.001.001

Author Name: Coe A. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. Please find attached Supplemental Comments and Appendices by Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

# Comment ID 2500.001.001

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2501.001.001

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5755Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2502.001.001

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute This comment is a cover letter so no coding is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2503.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Attached is the electronic copy of CF's submittal to the Water Docket today, as requested. The file is quite large, soplease confirm receipt and let me know if you need anything else. I initially tried to send it to the < Group_OwDocket/DC/USEPA/US@epamail.epa.gov > e-mail address, but it kept getting kicked back. 

# Comment ID 2504.001.001

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Please find the South Florida Water Management District's comments for Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2430: Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. We also submitted these same comments via www.regulations.gov . if you have any questions, please contact me. 

# Comment ID 2507.001.001

Author Name: Sotsky L. Organization: Arnold & Porter LLP on behalf of Mosaic Company LLC Please see the attached correspondence on the above-referenced rulemaking. 

# Comment ID 2509.001.001

Author Name: Williams K.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5756Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cover letter
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 attached report is submitted on behalf of the Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Section American Water Works Association, and Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council regarding the Proposed Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida. This report shows substantial improvement to Sarasota Bay's water quality. 

# Comment ID 2511.001.001

Author Name: Snyder C. Organization: International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) In view of the recent actions by the U. S. EPA in redefining the numeric nutrient criteria for waters in the state Florida, I would like to offer the following letter to express the concerns of the scientists of the International Plant Nutrition Institute.

We appeal for greater scientific objectivity and request the favor of your reply to confirm receipt of the letter.



# Comment ID 2512.001.001

Author Name: Williams K. 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 attached reports are submitted on behalf of the Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Section American Water Works Association, and Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council regarding the Proposed Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida. 

# Response

Comment IDs: All Response: Comments in this issue code are cover pages for comments submitted and do not require a response.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5757