FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JUNE 8, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13959

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 1 2 0 - C V- 4 - S P M- AK S I E R R A C L U B , I N C ., FLO RI D A PU BLI C I N TEREST R E S E A R C H G R O U P C I T I Z E N L O B B Y I N C ., S A V E O U R S U W A N N E E I N C ., P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s M IC H A E L O . L E A V IT T , In hi s O ff i ci al C apac i ty a s A dm i ni stra t or of the U n i t ed S t at es E n v i ro n m en t al P ro t ect i o n A g en cy, JI M M Y P A L M E R , In hi s O ff i ci al C apac i ty a s R egi on al A dm i ni stra t or of the U ni t ed S t at es E nvi r onm e ntP r ot e c t i on A ge nc y R e gi on 4, UN I T E D S T AT E S E NV I R ON ME NT AL P R OT E C T I ON AG E NC Y, D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , FLO RI D A D EPA RTM EN T O F E NV I R ON ME NT AL P R OT E C T I ON , Int erveno r.Honora ble Pasco B owman, II , United States Circuit Judg e for the Eighth Circuit, sitting * by designation. 2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 8, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d B O W M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * B O W M A N , C i rc ui tJudg e: T he S i e r r a C l ub, I nc . , a nd tw o l oc a l e nvi r onm e nt a l or ga ni z a t i ons (c ol l ec t i vel y, "S i erraC l ub ") fi l ed thi s l aw sui tagai nstthe U ni t ed S t at es E n v i ro n m en t al P ro t ect i o n A g en cy an d i t s ad m i n i strat o rs (co l l ect i v el y, "th e E P A ") a l l e gi ng tha tthe E P A vi ol a t e d i t s ove r s i ghtr e s pons i bi l i ty unde rs e c t i on 303( d) of the C l ea n W at erA ct , 33 U . S . C . § 1 31 3(d), by approv i ng F l ori da' s l i stof i m pai re d w a te r s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, ru lin g o n c r o s s - m o tio n s f o rs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, det er m i ned t hatthe E P A ' s app roval w as no tarbi tra ry or capri ci ou s a nd ent er ed ju d g m e n t in th e E P A 's f a v o r . W e a f

f ir m in p a r t a n d r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d in p a r t. I. C ongr e s s pa s s e d the C l e a n W a t e rA c t( " C W A " ) " t o r e s t or e a nd m a i nt a i n the c h e mi c a l , p h y s i c a l , a n d b i o l o g i c a l i n t e g r i ty o f th e N a t i o n ' s w a t e r s . " 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 25 1(a) . T ow ar d t hatend, C on gres s det erm i ned t hatthe st at es and t he fe dera l3

gove r nm e nts houl d w or k t oge the rt o c om ba tw a t e rpol l ut i on. S e e A r ka ns a s v. O k l ah o m a, 5 0 3 U . S . 9 1 , 1 0 1 (1 9 9 2 ) ("T h e C l ean W at er A ctan t i ci p at es a pa r tne r s hi p be tw e e n the S t a t e s a nd the F e de r a l G ove r nm e nt. . . . " ) . T he C W A thus di vi de s be tw e e n the f

e de r a l gove r nm e nt( vi a the E P A ) a nd the s t a t e s m a ny of the dut i e s f orm oni t or i ng a nd r e gul a t i ng the na t i on' s w a t e r s . B e c a us e a n unde r s t a ndi ng o f th e r e s p o n s ib ilitie s p la c e d o n th e s ta te s a n d th e E P A is e s s e n tia l to r e s o lv in g th is c a s e , w e i nc l ude he r e a ge ne r a l di s c us s i on of the a ppl i c abl e C W A pr ovi s i ons a nd reg u l at i o n s. F i r s t , the C W A r e qui r e s s t a t e s t o e s t a bl i s h " w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds " f or w a t e rb o d i e s w i th i n th e i rb o u n d a r i e s . 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 3 1 3 ( a )

– ( c ) ; s e e a l s o 4 0 C. F. R. § § 1 3 0 .2 ( d ) , 1 3 1 .4 ( a ) . T o d o th is , a s ta te m u s t f ir s t d e s ig n a te th e u s e ( o ru s e s ) to b e ma d e o f

a w a t e rb o d y , s u c h a s w a t e rs u p p l y , f i s h i n g , o rs w i mmi n g . 4 0 C. F. R. § 1 3 1 .2 . T h e n , th e s ta te m u s t d e te r m in e th e w a te rq u a lity c r ite r ia n e c e s s a r y to s a f e l y pe r m i tthe de s i gna t e d us e . I d. §§ 131. 2, 131. 3( b) . T hos e c r i t e r i a be c om e the

" w a te rq u a lity s ta n d a r d " f o rth e w a te rb o d y . I d . § § 1 3 1 .2 , 1 3 1 .3 ( i) . " W a te rq u a lity s t a nda r ds pl a y a n i m por t a ntr ol e i n m a i nt a i ni ng a nd i m pr ovi ng the c l e a nl i ne s s a nd sa fe ty of the nat i on ' s w at erbo di es , beca use they a re desi gn ed t o d et erm i ne w hi ch w at erb o d i es are safe en o u g h t o su p p o rtth ei r d esi g n at ed u ses. " F l a. P u b . In t erest R e s e a r c h G r o u p C itiz e n L o b b y , I n c . v . E P A ( " F P I R G " ) , 3 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 7 0 , 1 0 7 4 ( 1 1 th4

C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . N e xt , e a c h s t a t e m us tc om pi l e a l i s tof w a t e rbodi e s tha ta r e nots a f e e nough to s u p p o r t th e ird e s ig n a te d u s e s , i.e ., th a t d o n o t m e e t th e irw a te rq u a lity s ta n d a r d s . 33 U . S . C . § 1313( d) ( 1) ( A ) . T hi s l i s ti s know n a s a s t a t e ' s " i m pa i r e d w a t e r s l i s t " or "303 (d) l i st " ( so ca l l ed because se ct i on 30 3(d) of the C W A , 33 U . S . C . § 1 31 3(d), r e q u ir e s th e c r e a tio n o f

th e lis t) . E a c h w a te rb o d y o n th e im p a ir e d w a te r s lis t is know n a s a " w a t e rqua l i ty l i m i t e d s e gm e nt " ( " W Q L S " ) . 40 C . F . R . § 130. 2( j ) . T he pl a c e m e ntof

a w a t e rbody on a s t a t e ' s i m pa i r e d w a t e r s l i s ti s s i gni f i c a ntbe c a us e the C W A r e q u ir e s th a t s ta te s ta r g e t W Q L S s f o rp o llu tio n c o n tr o l. S t a t e s unde r t a ke the t a s k of de c r e a s i ng pol l ut i on i n the i rW Q L S s by es t abl i shi ng a " t ot al m axi m um dai l y l oad" (" T M D L ") for pol l ut ant s i n a desi gn at ed W Q L S . 3 3 U . S . C . § 1 3 1 3 (d )(1 )(C ); 4 0 C . F . R . § 1 3 0 . 7 (c)(1 ). "A T M D L i s a sp eci fi cat i o n o f th e m ax i m u m am o u n to f a p art i cu l ar p o l l u t an tth atcan p ass th ro u g h a w at erb o d y each d ay w i th o u tw at er q u al i ty st an d ard s b ei n g v i o l at ed . " Si e r r a Cl u b v . M e i b u r g , 2 9 6 F. 3 d 1 0 2 1 , 1 0 2 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i n g 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 3 1 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ) . S ta te s m u s t e s ta b lis h a T M D L f o re v e r y p o llu ta n t th a t p r e v e n ts o ris e x p e c te d to p r e v e n t a w a te rb o d y f r o m a tta in in g a p p lic a b le w a te rq u a lity st andards. 40 C . F . R . § 1 30 . 7(c) (1)( i i ). O nce a T M D L i s e st abl i shed, the st at e ( as w e ll a s th e f

e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t) s tr iv e s to d e c r e a s e th e a m o u n t o f th e p o llu ta n t toWhen a waterbody is included on a state' s impaired waters list, both the state and the 1 federal g overnment "a

re dire cted to adjust the amounts of polluti on that arepermitted by individual, identifiable source s, and to implement more g eneralized programs to re duce the amount of pollution." F PIRG, 386 F.3d at 1074 (citingMeiburg , 296 F.3d at 1025–26). In a ra re e x ception to the biannual-submission requirement, the EPA amended the 2 regulations to remove the require ment that states submit an impaired waters list in 2000. 65 Fed. Reg . 17,170 (Mar . 31, 2000). "B eca use F lorida has so many

water bodies, the F DEP divided the fifty-two water ba sins 3 of the state into fivedistinct basin groups, with eac h group representing a pproxi mately

20% of the State' s water s. The updateconducte d in 2002 . . . only examined data for

the 1600 5 w h i ch th atT M D L ap p l i es so th atth e T M D L i s n o tex ceed ed . T h e C W A al so 1 r e q u i r e s s t a t e s t o " e s t a b l i s h a p r i o r i ty r a n k i n g [ f o rWQL S s n e e d i n g T MDL de ve l opm e nt ] , t a ki ng i nt o a c c ountthe s e ve r i ty of the pol l ut i on a nd the us e s t o be ma d e o f s u c h w a t e r s . " 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 3 1 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; s e e a l s o 4 0 C. F. R. § 1 3 0 .7 ( b ) ( 4 ) . S ta te s a r e r e q u ir e d to s u b m it th e irlis ts o f W Q L S s , T M D L s , a n d p r io r ity r a nki ngs t o the E P A e ve r y tw o y e a r s . 40 C . F . R . § 130. 7( d) ( 1) . T he E P A ha s the d u ty o f a p p r o v i n g o rd i s a p p r o v i n g th e l i s t s . 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 3 1 3 ( d ) ( 2 ) ; 4 0 C. F. R. § 130. 7( d) ( 2) . I f

the E P A di s a ppr ove s a s t a t e ' s i m pa i r e d w a t e r s l i s tora T M D L , the EPA mu s ti s s u e i t s o w n l i s to rTM D L. 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 3 1 3 ( d ) ( 2 ) ; 4 0 C. F. R. § 1 30 . 7(d)(2). T he pres entdi sput e a rose ou tof F l ori da' s 200 2 u pd at e t o i t s 199 8 i m pai re d w a t e r s l i s t . I n thi s upda t e , the F l or i da D e pa r tm e ntof E nvi r onm e nt a l P r ot e c t i on 2 ( " F D E P " ) r e e xa m i ne d a bouttw e nty pe r c e ntof F l or i da ' s w a t e rbodi e s , a ppl y i ng 3wat er

b o d i es i nth e f

i rs tgro u p . " FP IR G, 3 8 6 F. 3 d

at1 0 7 7

– 7 8 n . 7 . T hu s , wh i l e F l o ri d a's imp a ire d w ate rs lis t f

or 20 02 inc lud e d w ate rb odie s in a ll f iveba sin gro up s, on ly

wate rb odie s in the first basin group had be en re examined. Florida later a mended its list on May

12, 2003. 4 The final listwith the additions became Florida' s 303(d) list following a notice-a nd- 5 comment period. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2) . 6 F lo r id a 's w a te rq u a lity s ta n d a r d s a n d F lo r id a 's n e w ly p a s s e d I m p a ir e d W a te r s R u le ( " I W R " ) , F l a . A dm i n. C ode A nn. C h. 62- 303. F l or i da the n r e vi s e d i t s 1998 l i s ta nd s ubm i t t e d the ne w l i s t( " F l or i da ' s 2002 L i s t " ) t o the E P A f orr e vi e w on O c t obe r1, 2002. T he E P A c onduc t e d i t s r e vi e w of F l or i da ' s 2002 L i s ta nd publ i s he d the 4 r e s ul t s of the r e vi e w i n a " D e c i s i on D oc um e nt " da t e d J une 11, 2003. D e c i s i on D o cu m en tR eg ard i n g D ep art m en to f E n v i ro n m en t al P ro t ect i o n ' s § 3 0 3 (d ) L i st A m e ndm e ntS ubm i t t e d on O c t obe r1, 2002 a nd S ubs e que nt l y A m e nde d on M a y 12, 2003, A dm i n. R . 2. 4 ( " D e c i s i on D oc um e nt " ) . T he D e c i s i on D oc um e nt i nd i ca t es thatthe E P A approv ed, i n l ar ge part , F l ori da' s 200 2 L i st , bu tdi sapp roved F l ori da' s f

ai l ure t o i dent i fy ce rt ai n w at erbo di es as i m pai re d and F l ori da' s r em ov al ( or" de l i s t i ng" ) of

c e r t a i n w a t e rbodi e s tha tw e r e on the 1998 l i s t . U l t i m a t e l y , the E P A a d d e d e ig h ty W Q L S s to F lo r id a 's 2 0 0 2 L is t. 5 S i e r r a C l ub br oughtthi s s ui ta ga i ns tthe E P A unde rthe A dm i ni s tr a t i ve P r oc e dur e A c t( " A P A " ) , 5 U . S . C . § 706( 2) ( A ) , a l l e gi ng tha tthe E P A ' s a ppr ova l of F lo r id a 's 2 0 0 2 L is t w a s a rb itr a r y , c a p r ic io u s , a n d n o t in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e la w .F ish c on sumption

a dv iso ri e s a

reno tic e s p ub lis he d b y

theF lorida

Depa rtme nt o f H e a lth 6 that re c omm e nd

lim its on human c on sumption

of c e rt a in t y pe s o f f ish du eto p olluta

nts in Florida ' s water

bodies. A pane l of our Court per

mitted the FDEP to intervenein Sierra Club' s appeal (this case) 7 and then dism iss e d th eF DE P' s sepa ratea pp e a l a s mo ot. Sie rra

Clu b, Inc . v . L e avitt, No. 04:16154, slip op. (11th Ci r. F eb 1, 2006). 7 S ie r r a C lu b 's f

ir s t c la im c h a lle n g e d th e E P A 's a p p r o v a l o f F lo r id a 's d e c is io n n o t to l i stw at erbo di es w hen t he dat a s ho w i ng thattho se w at erbo di es w er e i m pai re d consi st ed sol el y of f

i sh consum pt i on advi sori es for m er cury or dat a thatw as ol der 6 tha n 7. 5 y e a r s . S i e r r a C l ub' s s e c ond c l a i m c ha l l e nge d the E P A ' s a ppr ova l of F l ori da' s pri ori ty r anki ng of w at erbo di es for T M D L devel op m ent , ar gu i ng that F l ori da di d n ott ake i nt o acc ou ntst atut ory s t andards i n sett i ng the ra nk i ng s. S i erra C l ub' s thi r d a nd f

i na l c l a i m c ha l l e nge d the E P A ' s a ppr ova l of F l or i da ' s de l i s t i ng of w a te rb o d ie s w h e r e th o s e w a te rb o d ie s h a d e x c e e d e d a p p lic a b le w a te rq u a lity s t a nda r ds a tl e a s tonc e i n the pr e c e di ng 7. 5 y e a r s orw e r e de l i s t e d be c a us e the vi ol at i on s of w at erqu al i ty s t andards w er e due t o n atural cond i t i on s. S ho rt l y a ft er S i erra C l u b fi l ed i t s co m p l ai n t , th e F D E P m o v ed t o i n t erv en e i n th e l aw su i tas a d e f e n d a n t . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td e n i e d i n t e r v e n t i o n . Si e r r a Cl u b a n d th e EPA eventual l y broug htcr oss- m ot i on s f or sum m ary j ud gm ent . T he di stri ctcourt g r a n te d s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t to th e E P A o n a ll c o u n ts . T he F D E P a ppe a l e d the de ni a l of i nt e r ve nt i on, a nd S i e r r a C l ub a ppe a l e d the e n tr y o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e E P A . B e c a u s e w e w e r e a le r te d th a t a

7The F DEP sought both intervention as of right under F ederal Rule of Civil P roce dure 8 24 (a)( 2) and

perm iss iveint e rv e nti on

un der F e deral Ru leof

Civ il Proc e dure24 (b ). On a pp e a l, however, the F DEP only

challeng es the denial of intervention as of right.

8 ca se on re m and from the E l eventh C i rc ui tt o the D i stri ctC ou rtfor the N orthern D i s tr i c tof

F l or i da m i ghta f

f e c toura na l y s i s of

S i e r r a C l ub' s s um m a r y j udgm e nt a ppe a l , s e e F P I R G , 386 F . 3d 1070, w e he l d ourde c i s i on i n a be y a nc e pe ndi ng the ou t com e of thatca se . T he D i stri ctC ou rtfor the N orthern D i stri ctof F l ori da i ss ued i t s opi ni on on r e m a nd i n F P I R G on F e brua r y 15, 2007. F P I R G , N o. 4: 02c v408- W S , s l i p op. ( N . D . F l a . F e b. 15, 2007) . W e ha ve r e vi e w e d tha tde c i s i on a nd c o n c lu d e th a t it d o e s n o t a f f e c t o u ra b ility to ru le o n th e p r e s e n t a p p e a ls .

II . W e begi n b y a dd re ss i ng the F D E P ' s app ea l of the di stri ctcourt ' s order denyi ng i nt er vent i on as of ri gh tun der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 24 (a )( 2). 8 O u rr e v ie w o f

th e d e n ia l o f

a m o tio n f

o rin te r v e n tio n a s o f

r ig h t is d e n o v o . G eorgi a v. U ni t ed S t at es A rm y C orps of E ng ' rs , 30 2 F . 3d 12 42 , 12 49 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) . I nt e r ve nt i on a s of

r i ghtunde rR ul e 24( a ) ( 2) m us tbe gr a nt e d w he n f our r e q u ir e m e n ts a r e m e t: (1) the appl i ca t i on t o i nt ervene i s t i m el y; (2) the appl i ca nthas a n i nt e r e s tr e l a t i ng t o the pr ope r ty ortr a ns a c t i on w hi c h i s the s ubj e c tof the a c t i on; ( 3) the a ppl i c a nti s s o s i tua t e d tha tthe di s pos i t i on of the a c tio n , a s a p r a c tic a l m a tte r , m a y im p e d e o rim p a irh is a b ility to9

pr ot e c ttha ti nt e r e s t ; a nd ( 4) the a ppl i c a nt ' s i nt e r e s tw i l l notbe r e p r e s e n te d a d e q u a te ly b y th e e x is tin g p a r tie s to th e s u it. M a na S ot a - 88, I nc . v. T i dw e l l , 896 F . 2d 1318, 1321 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . W e ne e d not di sc uss the fi rs tthree re qu i re m ent s bec ause w e c on cl ud e thatthe F D E P has notm et its b u r d e n o f

p r o o f o n th e f o u r th r e q u ir e m e n t. T h e F D E P a s s e r ts a n in te r e s t in " th e r e g u la tio n o f w a te rq u a lity o f

F lo r id a 's w at er s, " B r. of Int erveno r/A pp el l ee at7, and con t ends thatw i th eac h W Q L S added t o F l o ri d a' s i m p ai red w at ers l i st , a n ew T M D L i s est ab l i sh ed an d th e F D E P m u st e xpe nd r e s our c e s t o e s t a bl i s h a nd e nf or c e pol l ut i on- di s c ha r ge pe r m i t s , i d. a t5–6, 15. T he F D E P ' s obj e c t i ve i n thi s l i t i ga t i on, the r e f or e , i s t o de f

e nd F l or i da ' s 2002 L i s t

— w hi c h w a s r e vi s e d a nd a ppr ove d by the E P A

— a nd pr e ve ntthe a ddi t i on of w a te rb o d ie s to th e lis t. I d . a t 1 5 . T h is o b je c tiv e is th e s a m e a s th e E P A 's o b je c tiv e . " W e p r e s u me a d e q u a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w h e n a n e x i s t i n g p a r ty s e e k s th e s a me obj e c t i ve s a s the w oul d- be i nt e r ve ne r s . " C l a r k v. P utna m C ounty , 168 F . 3d 458, 46 1 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). W hi l e thi s pre sum pt i on i s " w ea k, " i tno nethel es s i m po se s u p o n th e a p p l i c a n tf

o ri n t e r v e n t i o n " th e b u r d e n o f c o mi n g f

o r w a r d w i th s o me e v i d e n c e t o th e c o n tr a r y . " I d . Th e FD EP h a s p r e s e n t e d n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e EPA m a y nota de qua t e l y r e pr e s e nti t s i nt e r e s t s . T he F D E P a dopt s the E P A ' s br i e f on a ppe a l i n i t s e nt i r e ty , a nd the F D E P doe s nots ugge s ttha ti tw oul d t a ke a pos i t i onTh eF DE P a ssert s th at th efac t th at th eEPAa dd e d w ate rb odie s to F lorida ' s 2 00 2 List 9 demonstrates that the FDE P and the EPA havedifferent intere sts. While a propose d intervener and a pa rty might, as a

g eneral matter, ha

ve different intere sts, the releva nt Rule 24(a)( 2) inquiry is whether theparty

will repre sent the propose d intervener' s interest with respe ct to the subject matter of theaction. In this action, the EPA and the F DEP have thesame intere st in seeingthat the EPA' s approval of Florida ' s 2002 L ist is upheld so that no additional waterbodies are adde d to t helis t. The de cisions of the F ifth Circuit beforeOctober 1, 1981, constitute binding pre cedent 10 in the Eleventh Circuit. B onner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F .2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc). 10 d if f e r e n t f r o m th e E P A 's in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. 9 A si m i l arsi tuat i on w as addres se d b y the F i fth C i rc ui ti n A ss oci at ed I ndus tr i e s of

A l a ba m a , I nc . v. T r a i n, 543 F . 2d 1159 ( 5th C i r . 1976) . I n T r a i n, the 10 A t t o rn ey G en eral o f A l ab am a so u g h tt o i n t erv en e as a d efen d an ti n a case chal l engi ng as arbi tra ry and capri ci ou s the E P A ' s di sapp roval of A l abam a' s w at er qu al i ty s t andards and subst i tut i on of E P A -prom ul gat ed st andards. T he C ou rt af fi rm ed the deni al of i nt er vent i on as of ri gh t , re as on i ng thatal tho ug h t he st at e had an i n t eresti n p ro t ect i n g i t s ci t i zen s fro m o v erl y l ax w at er q u al i ty st an d ard s,

" [ w ] he n the i s s ue f

orde c i s i on i n thi s c a s e i s s t a t e d i n t e r m s of the l e ga l i ty of

the E P A p r o m u lg a tio n u n d e r§ 3 0 3 o f th e [ C W A ], it is a p p a r e n t . . . th a t A la b a m a 's i nt er es t s i n t he l i t i gat i on ar e a dequ at el y r epre se nt ed by exi st i ng part i es . " I d. at 11 61 n. 7 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i t t ed). T hi s r ea soni ng appl i es w i th equ al forc e h e r e : th e F D E P 's a n d th e E P A 's m u tu a l in te r e s t in th is c a s e is to d e f e n d th e le g a lity of the E P A ' s app roval of F l ori da' s 200 2 L i st . A s i n T ra i n, no thi ng i n t he re cord11

b efo re u s "cast [s] d o u b tu p o n th e w i l l o f th e E P A t o d efen d th e l eg al i ty o f [i t s] pr om ul ga t i on. " I d. a t1161. L i ke w i s e , " [ n] o c l a i m orde f e ns e on be ha l f

of [ Fl o r i d a ] h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d w h i c h i s n o to rw i l l n o tb e a s s e r t e d b y th e EPA defe nd ant s. " I d. W hi l e the F D E P hypo thesi ze s thatthe E P A m i gh thave an i nc r e a s e d i nc e nt i ve t o c om pr om i s e w i th S i e r r a C l ub i n s e t t l e m e ntdi s c us s i ons b e c a u s e F l o r i d a , n o tth e E P A, b e a r s th e b ru n to f th e c o s t s th a ta c c o m p a n y T MDL devel op m ent , no thi ng i n t he re cord supp ort s the sugg es t i on thatthe E P A i s m ore l i kel y t o sett l e. C f. C l ar k, 16 8 F . 3d at46 2 (grant i ng i nt ervent i on w here a

" di s c us s i on of

s e t t l e m e nttha tw a s m e nt i one d on the r e c or d a t[ a ] he a r i ng" i ndi c a t e d tha tthe pr opos e d de f e nda nt - i nt e r ve ne r s a nd the de f e nda nt s ha d di ve r ge nt po si t i on s on sett l em ent ). M oreover, the T ra i n C ou rtre j ec t ed a s i m i l ar a r gum e nt

— " tha tthe e f

f e c tof a pl a i nt i f

f ' s vi c t or y i n thi s s ui tw i l l be gr e a t e rupon the S t a t e tha n upon the E P A "

— be c a us e the a r gum e ntdi d notr e f l e c tupon the vi gor o f th e E P A 's d e f

e n s e o f its a c tio n s . T r a in , 5 4 3 F .2 d a t 1 1 6 0 . W e c onc l ude tha tthe i nt e r e s t s of the F D E P a r e a de qua t e l y r e pr e s e nt e d by the E P A , a nd w e a f

f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ' s de ni a l of i nt e r ve nt i on. II I. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ' s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntde novo, a ppl y i ng th e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S e e N a t'l P a r k s C o n s e r v a tio n A s s 'n"It is fair to assume g enerally that Congress contemplate s administrative ac tion with the 11 eff ect of law when it provides for a relatively formal administrative procedure tendingto foster the fairness and de liberation that should underlie a pronouncement of such f orce ." United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U .S. 218, 230 (2001). In the CWA, Congre ss expl icitly deleg ated the a pp ro val or

dis a pp ro val of

a state ' s im paire d w ate rs lis t to theEPAand dire c te d th at if

theEPA de te rm ine d th at a dditi on s to a lis t w e rene c e ssa

ry, th e" Statesh a ll i nc or

po ra tethem into i ts current plan." 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2). We de em this a deleg ation of interpretive authority to the 12 v. N ort on , 32 4 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 36 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). S um m ary j ud gm enti s proper i f, w h en v i ew i n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o stfav o rab l e t o th e n o n -m o v i n g p arty, th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a n d th e m o v in g p a r ty is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w . I d . ( c itin g F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c ) ) . U nde rthe A P A , a c our ts ha l l " s e ta s i de a ge nc y a c t i on, f i ndi ngs , a nd co n cl u si o n s fo u n d t o b e arb i trary, cap ri ci o u s, an ab u se o f d i scret i o n , o r o th erw i se no ti n acc ordance w i th l aw . " 5 U . S . C . § 7 06 (2)( A ). A gency a ct i on i s c on si dere d arb i trary o r cap ri ci o u s i f th e ag en cy h as re l i ed on fa ct ors w hi ch C on gres s has no ti nt ended i tt o con si der, ent i re l y f ai l ed t o con si der a n i m po rt antas pectof the prob l em , offe re d an expl anat i on for i t s dec i si on thatruns coun t ert o t he evi dence before the a ge nc y , ori s s o i m pl a us i bl e tha ti tc oul d notbe a s c r i be d t o a d if f e r e n c e in v ie w o rth e p r o d u c t o f a g e n c y e x p e r tis e . M ot orV e hi c l e M f

r s . A s s ' n v. S t a t e F a r m M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. , 463 U . S . 29, 43 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . W he n a n a ge nc y i nt e rpr e t s a s t a tut e tha tthe a ge nc y i s r e s pons i bl e f or a dm i ni s t e r i ng, c our t s m us tgi ve the a ge nc y ' s i nt e rpr e t a t i on due de f e r e nc e i f ( 1) C o n g r e s s h a s d e le g a te d in te rp r e tiv e a u th o r ity to th e a g e n c y , ( 2 ) th e s ta tu te is 11a g e n c y. Where the statute directly addre sses an issue, weg ive the languag e of thestatute eff ect 12 and a c c ord n o d e ferenc eto t

hea g e nc y' s inte rp re tatio n. Chevron , U .S. A. , Inc . v . N atura l Re s. Def . Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984). 13 s ile n t o ra m b ig u o u s w ith r e s p e c t to th e is s u e a t h a n d , a n d ( 3 ) th e a g e n c y 's 12 i n t erp ret at i o n o f th e st atu t e i s reaso n ab l e. C h ev ro n , U . S . A . , In c. v . N atu ral R es. D e f . C ounc i l , I nc . , 467 U . S . 837, 843 ( 1984) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e a d C orp. , 533 U . S . 21 8, 22 9 (20 01 ). "[ A ] courtm ay no tsubst i tut e i t s ow n con struct i on of a st atut ory provi si on for a re as on abl e i nt erpret at i on m ade by the adm i ni stra t or of an a ge nc y . " C he vr on, 467 U . S . a t844; s e e a l s o S i e r r a C l ub v. J ohns on, 436 F . 3d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . L ik e w is e , c o u r ts m u s t g iv e d e f e r e n c e to a n a g e n c y 's r e a s ona bl e i nt e rpr e t a t i on of i t s ow n r e gul a t i ons . S i e r r a C l ub v. J ohns on, 436 F . 3d a t 1 2 7 4 . " W e w ill u p h o ld th e a g e n c y 's in te rp r e ta tio n o f its r e g u la tio n s s o lo n g a s it i s reaso n ab l e, th ati s, so l o n g as th e i n t erp ret at i o n sen si b l y co n fo rm s t o th e p u rp o se a nd w or di ng of

the r e gul a t i ons . " I d. ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i t t ed). I V. B ef ore di sc ussi ng the spec i fi c a rgum ent s r ai se d b y S i erraC l ub and d ec i ded by the di s tr i c tc our t , w e a ddr e s s S i e r r a C l ub' s m or e ge ne r a l a nd f ur the r - r e a c hi ng a r gum e nt

— r a i s e d f

orthe f i r s tt i m e on a ppe a l

— tha tF l or i da ' s 2002 L i s tm us tbe i nva l i da t e d i n i t s e nt i r e ty be c a us e i tw a s de ve l ope d unde rthe I W R , por t i ons ofF oll ow ingora l argument, Sie rra Clu b f ile d a le tter p ur su ant t o F e deral Ru leof Civ il 13 Proc e dure28 (j ), a dd

re ssingc e rt a in p ro vis ion s o f t heIWR. TheF DE P and

theEPAmov e d to strike the letter , arguing that they were not properly

serve d a copy

of the letter

and that the information in the letter w as not rele vant to an issue on appe al. The motions to strike aredenied. Al tho ugh Rule28 (j ) did re quireSie rra Clu b to se rv ea

c op y of thele tter o n all o ther p artie s, Sierra Club' s inadvertent failure to do so did not prejudicethe EPA or the F DEP. Moreover, the information containe d in the letter, while ha ving no impac t on our ultimate decision, was re le va nt t o a rguments pre se nte d in

thebrie fs and

dis c us se d at oral argument. Even if wewere to consider it on its merits, Sierra Club' s argument would fail. The 14 rec ord in this case demonstrates that the EPA applied F lorida' s previously approve d water quality standards, rather

than the IWR , in review ing F lorida' s 2002 L ist. S ee D ecision Document at 4 (" Whil e the guidelines, protocols, and require ments in the IWRmay be usef ul tools for the state to use in identify ing impaired waters, bec ause they have not be en used be fore an d th ey ar e n o tp arto f th e S t at e's wat er qu al i ty s t an d ar d s , E P A d i d

n o tre l y o nth e m eth o d o l o gy in re viewingF lorida ' s li st. " ), 16–1 7 ( " Whil ee a c h o f t he se[IWR] guid e lin e s ma y beus e ful to ols for the State to usein identifying w ater quality limit ed segments, beca

use they have not be en used bef ore a nd they arenot part of the State' s water quality standards, EPA did not re ly on them in review ing F lorida' s list."), 24 (" As EPA reviewed F lorida' s list based on Florida' s approve d wate r q uality sta nd ard s, no t th eIWR, E PA d e te rm ine d whe ther t hedata guid e lin e s c ontaine d in theIWR ov e rly

re stric te d d ata

analysis and , th e re fo re , le d to F DE P no t id e nti fy ingwate r q

uality limit ed segments duringits assessment . . . .") . 14 w hi c h w e r e l a t e ra br oga t e d. S e e F P I R G , 386 F . 3d a t1075–77; F P I R G , N o. 13 4: 02 cv40 8-W S , sl i p o p. at12 (N . D . F l a. F eb. 15 , 20 07 ). "A s ageneral rul e, an appel l at e c ou rtw i l l no tre vi ew a l egal i ss ue or theory notpres ent ed t o t he tri al c o u r t, u n le s s th e is s u e is a p u r e q u e s tio n o f la w a n d th e c o u r t's f

a ilu r e to c o n s id e rit w oul d r e s ul ti n a m i s c a r r i a ge of j us t i c e . " N A A C P v. H unt , 891 F . 2d 1555, 1563 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ). B ec ause thi s a rgum entdo es no ti nv ol ve a pure quest i on of l aw a nd ourf a i l ur e t o c ons i de ri tw i l l notr e s ul ti n a m i s c a r r i a ge of j us t i c e , w e de c l i ne to r e v ie w it. 1415 V. W e turn n ow t o i ss ues thatS i erraC l ub ra i se d i n t he di stri ctcourt . S i erra C l ub fi rs tal l eges thatthe E P A ' s dec i si on t o app rove F l ori da' s 200 2 L i stw as arbi tra ry and capri ci ou s bec ause the l i stw as m i ss i ng w at erbo di es for w hi ch a v a i l a b l e d a t a i n d i c a t e d th e p r e s e n c e o f d a n g e r o u s l e v e l s o f

me r c u r y . Th e CW A re qu i re s thatst at es i dent i fy al l w at erbo di es w i thi n t hei r bou nd ar i es thatdo no tm ee t o ra r e n o te x p e c t e d t o me e tw a t e rq u a l i ty s t a n d a r d s . Se e 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 31 3(d)(1)(A ); 40 C . F . R . §§ 13 0. 2(j ), 13 0. 7(b)(1). E P A re gu l at i on s r equi re st at es t o "assem b l e an d ev al u at e al l ex i st i n g an d read i l y av ai l ab l e w at er q u al i tyr e l a t e d d a t a a n d i n f

o r ma t i o n t o d e v e l o p [ th e i ri mp a i r e d w a t e r s l i s t s ] . " 4 0 C. F. R. § 1 3 0 .7 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . S ie r r a C lu b a s s e r ts th a t th e F D E P v io la te d th is m a nda t e w he n i t : ( A ) a ppl i e d a pr ovi s i on of the I W R tha tpr ohi bi t e d the us e of

" da t a m or e tha n 7. 5 y e a r s ol d" i n de ve l opi ng F l or i da ' s 2002 L i s t , F l a . A dm i n. C ode A nn. r . 62- 303. 400; a nd ( B ) f a i l e d t o c ons i de rf

i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s f or me r c u r y . A s a r e s u l t , Si e r r a Cl u b c l a i ms , Fl o r i d a ' s 2 0 0 2 Li s tv i o l a t e s th e CW A be c a us e i tdoe s noti nc l ude a l l w a t e rbodi e s i n the s t a t e tha tdo notm e e tora r e not e x p e c te d to m e e t w a te rq u a lity s ta n d a r d s . A. T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatF l ori da and t he E P A w er e per m i t t ed t o u se16

a 7. 5- y e a rda t a c ut of

f . I n r e a c hi ng thi s c onc l us i on, the di s tr i c tc our tr e l i e d on 40 C . F . R . § 130. 7( b) ( 6) ( i i i ) . T ha tr e gul a t i on r e qui r e s tha ts t a t e s , w he n s ubm i t t i ng the i ri m pa i r e d w a t e r s l i s t s t o the E P A f ora ppr ova l , i nc l ude w i th the i rs ubm i s s i on

" [ a ] r a t i ona l e f

ora ny de c i s i on t o notus e a ny e xi s t i ng a nd r e a di l y a va i l a bl e da t a a nd in f o r m a tio n ." 4 0 C .F .R . § 1 3 0 .7 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( iii) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d F lo r id a 's r a t i ona l e f

orthe 7. 5- y e a rda t a c ut of f ( i . e . , tha tda t a f

r om the E ve r gl a de s i ndi c a t e d a de c r e a s e i n m e r c ur y a c c um ul a t i on a nd tha tF l or i da de s i r e d t o m a ke l i s t i ng d e c is io n s b a s e d o n c u r r e n t c o n d itio n s ) a n d th e E P A 's r e a s o n s f o rf in d in g th e d a ta c u to f f " 're a s o n a b le '" ( d is c u s s e d b e lo w ) , a n d a p p a r e n tly f o u n d § 1 3 0 .7 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( iii) s a tis f ie d . O r d e ro n S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t a t 1 3 ( q u o tin g D e c is io n D o c u m e n t a t 2 3 ) . W e b e lie v e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's r e lia n c e o n § 1 3 0 .7 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( iii) w a s m is p la c e d . W h i l e § 1 3 0 . 7 (b )(6 )(i i i ) i m p l i es th atF l o ri d a h as a ri g h tt o d eci d e n o tt o u se c e r t a i n da t a , i tdoe s notobvi a t e the r e qui r e m e nti n § 130. 7( b) ( 5) tha tF l or i da eval uat e a l l exi st i ng and readi l y a vai l abl e dat a. B y t aki ng the hard-l i ne approach of no tconsi deri ng any dat a ol der than 7 . 5 yea rs — even w hen t here i s no m ore c u r r e n t d a ta f

o ra p a r tic u la rw a te rb o d y— F lo r id a h a s n o t f u lf ille d § 1 3 0 .7 ( b ) ( 5 ) 's e v a lu a tio n r e q u ir e m e n t. M o r e o v e r , s ta te s a r e r e q u ir e d b y th e C W A to id e n tif y a ll w at erbo di es thatfa i l t o m ee tw at erqu al i ty s t andards, 33 U . S . C . § 1 31 3(d)(1)(A ); s ta te s c a n n o t s h ir k th is r e s p o n s ib ility s im p ly b y c la im in g a la c k o f c u r r e n t d a ta .17

T he di stri ctcourtm i si nt erpret ed the C W A ' s s t atut ory a nd re gu l at ory s chem e w hen it h e ld to th e c o n tr a r y , a n d w e m u s t th e r e f o r e r e m a n d th is is s u e f

o ra n a n a ly s is u n d e rth e c o r r e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d . O n r e m a n d , o f

c o u r s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ill e v a lu a te th e E P A 's d e c is io n to a ppr ove F l or i da ' s 2002 L i s t , notthe m e thodol ogy unde r l y i ng F l or i da ' s c r e a t i on of th e lis t. I n th e E P A 's r e v ie w , th e E P A r e c o g n iz e d F lo r id a 's f a ilu r e to f

u lly c o m p ly w ith § 1 3 0 .7 ( b ) ( 5 ) , n o tin g th a t th e I W R " o n ly p r o v id e s f o ra s s e s s m e n t w h e n . . . da t a m e e t s c e r t a i n t e m por a l a nd s pa c i a l gui de l i ne s s e touti n the rul e . " D e c i s i on D ocum entat23 –2 4. N ever thel es s, "[ i ] n revi ew i ng dat a a s e vi dence of w at er q u a l i ty f o rp u rp o s e s o f

i d e n t i f y i n g w a t e rq u a l i ty l i mi t e d s e g me n t s , " th e EPA

" c hos e t o l ook onl y a tda t a c ol l e c t e d w i thi n the pa s t7. 5 y e a r s . " I d. a t23. T hus , the EPA a d o p t e d th e s a me 7 . 5 - y e a rd a t a c u t o f f a p p l i e d b y th e FD EP. Th e EPA r e a s o n e d th a t th e d a ta c u to f f w a s r e a s o n a b le " s in c e o ld e rd a ta c a n b e le s s r e lia b le in r e pr e s e nt i ng c urr e ntc ondi t i ons . " I d. a t23. W hi l e the E P A ' s da t a - c ut of f de c i s i on cont ra di ct s the C W A ' s s t atut ory a nd re gu l at ory l angu age s uch t hati ti s notent i t l ed t o de f e r e nc e , s e e C he vr on, 467 U . S . a t842–43, the E P A a s s e r t s tha tthi s de c i s i on di d n otl ea d t o any i m pai re d w at erbo di es bei ng l ef toff F l ori da' s 200 2 L i st . S i erra C l ub di s a gr e e s w i th the E P A ' s a s s e r t i on. A c c or di ng t o S i e r r a C l ub, s i xty - one w at erbo di es — l i st ed i n A t t ac hm entA t o t he A m ended C om pl ai nt

— w er e e xcl ud edThe EPA has responded that the water bodies listed in attachments to the complaint 15 weree xclu de d f

ro m F lorida ' s 2 00 2 List

be c a us ethey wereno t in c lud e d in

a 20 03 fi sh consumption advisory

for mercury ; in other words, the w ater bodies were excluded bec ause of current data, not the la ck of current data. Sierra Club disagrees w ith this contention, arguing that, in fac t, the water

bodies were under

a fish consumption advisory for mercury

in 2003. In support of its fac tual positions di scussed here a nd in Section V.B be low, Sierra Club 16 direc ts us to a document showingFlorida Depa rtment of He alth fish testing data for 1990–1992 (which w as attac hed to Sierra Club's summary

judgment response brief) a nd to a 2000 Florida fi shc on sumption

a dv iso ry fo r m e rcur

y (whic h w a s a

pp e nd e d to Sie rra

Clu b' s a pp e llatereply bri ef). Th e EP A ha s m ov ed t o "hav e th ese d ocuments struckfro m co ns id erat io n o n ap peal ." Fe deral Defendants-Appe llees Motion to Strike Extra Record Documents at 1. Be causewe decline to resolve factual disputes, the EPA' s motion i s denied a s moot. W e note, however, that beca use the document containingthe 1990–1992 fish testingdata wa s filed in the district court without objection, it is properly part of therec ord on appe al. See F ed. R. App. P. 10(a) (1). On rema nd, Sierra Club is fre e to re quest that the district court supplement the administrative re cord with these documents or consider the m as extra-re cord material ne cessa ry to determine whether the EPA considered all re levant factors in makingits decision. See, e.g ., Inland Empire Pub. L and s Co un c il v . Unit e d St ate s F ore st Serv ., 88 F .3 d 7 54 , 7 60 n. 5 ( 9th Cir . 1 99 6) (r

ulingthat a court reviewingag ency

action may

look beyond the administrative re cord to de termine if the ag ency examined all releva

nt fac tors); United States v. Akzo Coatings of America , Inc., 949 F.2d 1409, 1428 ( 6th Cir. 1991) (same) . Statewide fish consumption advisories wa rn of the potential of widespre ad 17 contamination in cer

tain specie s of fish. They arebased on data from a sampling of

water bodies. In c ontra st, wate rb od

y-spe c if ic fi shc on sumption

a dv iso ri e s re fl e c t th ewate r q uality of a sp e c if ic w at e r b o dy an d ar eb a s e d o nd at a f ro mth atw at e r

b o dy. 18 fr om F l ori da' s 200 2 L i stbeca use of the 7. 5-ye ardat a c ut off. T hi s i s afa ctual 15 di s put e tha tw e l e a ve f

orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o a ddr e s s on r e m a nd. U nl e s s the di sput e i s r es ol ved o r f

ou nd no tm at er i al , i tm ay prec l ud e the entry of sum m ary j u d g me n to n Si e r r a Cl u b ' s f i r s tc l a i m. 16 B. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o r e j e c t e d S i e r r a C l ub' s a r gum e nttha tF l or i da a nd the E P A m us tpl a c e w a t e rbodi e s s ubj e c tt o s t a t e w i de f i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s on 1719

the i m pai re d w at er s l i stbeca use s uch w at erbo di es do no tm ee tor ar e notexpect ed t o me e tw a t e rq u a l i ty s t a n d a r d s . Se e 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 3 1 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; 4 0 C. F. R. §§ 130. 2( j ) , 130. 7( b) ( 1) . T he di s tr i c tc our tde f e r r e d t o the E P A ' s pos i t i on, o r ig in a lly s e t f

o r th in a n E P A " g u id a n c e le tte r ," th a t o n ly w a te rb o d y - s p e c if ic d a ta ( s uc h a s w a t e rbody - s pe c i f i c f i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s ) c ons t i tut e " e xi s t i ng a nd read i l y av ai l ab l e [w at er q u al i ty-rel at ed ] d at a an d i n fo rm at i o n " th atst at es m u st c ons i de ri n de ve l opi ng the i ri m pa i r e d w a t e r s l i s t s . E P A gui da nc e l e t t e rof O c t . 24, 2 0 0 0 , A d m in . R . 1 .8 a t 3 . B ec ause there i s no i nd i ca t i on thatthe E P A ' s gui dance l ett erw as the prod uct of a " f or m a l [ a ge nc y ] a dj udi c a t i on, " " not i c e - a nd- c om m e ntrul e m a ki ng, " or" a ny ot her c i rc um st ance s r ea sonabl y s ug gest i ng thatC on gres s e ver tho ug htof [gui dance le tte r s ] a s d e s e r v in g . . . d e f e r e n c e ," th e E P A 's g u id a n c e le tte ris n o t e n title d to C he vr on de f

e r e nc e . M e a d C orp. , 533 U . S . a t230–31; s e e a l s o C hr i s t e ns e n v. H a r r is C o u n ty , 5 2 9 U .S . 5 7 6 , 5 8 7 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( ru lin g th a t a g e n c y in te rp r e ta tio n s in op i ni on l ett er s, po l i cy st at em ent s, agency m anual s, and enforcement gui del i nes a re n o t e n title d to C h e v r o n d e f e r e n c e ) . T h a t is n o t to s a y , h o w e v e r , th a t th e E P A 's gu i dance l ett eri s e nt i t l ed t o n o d ef er ence atal l . R ather, the "' spec i al i ze d e xpe r i e nc e ' " of

the E P A a nd " the va l ue of uni f or m i ty i n [ the E P A ' s ] a dm i ni s tr a t i ve . . . u n d e r s ta n d in g s o f

w h a t a n a tio n a l la w r e q u ir e s " e n title s th e g u id a n c e le tte rto20

"are spec tprop ort i on al t o i t s ' po w ert o p er suade. ' " M ea d C orp. , 53 3 U . S . at 2 3 4

– 3 5 ( q u o tin g S k id m o r e v . S w if t & C o ., 3 2 3 U .S . 1 3 4 , 1 3 9

– 4 0 ( 1 9 4 4 ) ) . L ik e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e a r e p e r s u a d e d b y th e g u id a n c e le tte ra n d th e E P A 's p o s i t i o n o n s t a t e w i d e f

i s h c o n s u mp t i o n a d v i s o r i e s . I n th e g u i d a n c e l e t t e r , th e EPA di r e c t s tha tf

orthe purpos e of

c om pi l i ng i m pa i r e d w a t e r s l i s t s , f i s h c ons um pt i on advi sori es const i tut e dat a dem on stra t i ng a w at erbo dy' s non -a t t ai nm entof a

" f is h a b le " u s e o n ly w h e n : " th e a d v is o r y . . . is b a s e d o n [ f is h ] tis s u e d a ta , th e d a ta a r e f r om the s pe c i f

i c w a t e rbody i n que s t i on, a nd the r i s k a s s e s s m e ntpa r a m e t e r s of the advi sory . . . ar e c um ul at i vel y e qu al t o o r l es s prot ec t i ve than t ho se i n t he w at er q u a lity s ta n d a r d s ." E P A g u id a n c e le tte ro f O c t. 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 , A d m in . R . 1 .8 a t 6 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he E P A w a r ns tha ts t a t e w i de f i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s do n o td em o n strat e th e n eed t o p l ace a w at erb o d y o n a st at e' s i m p ai red w at ers l i st be c a us e the c r i t e r i a a ppl i c a bl e t o s t a t e w i de f i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s do not p a r a lle l th e c r ite r ia f

o rf o r m in g a n im p a ir e d w a te r s lis t: F ore xa m pl e , a S t a t e m a y ha ve i s s ue d a s t a t e w i de orr e gi ona l w a r ni ng r e g a r d in g f

is h tis s u e c o n ta m in a te d w ith a b io a c c u m u la tiv e p o llu ta n t, base d o n d at a f

rom a s ub se tof w at erbo di es . A S t at e m ay use ahi gh er fi sh consum pt i on val ue i n d et erm i ni ng the need for an advi sory c om pa r e d t o the va l ue us e d i n e s t a bl i s hi ng w a t e rqua l i ty c r i t e r i a f or the prot ec t i on of hu m an heal th. . . . In such i nst ance s . . . they nee d no tbe l i st ed as i m pai re d u nd erse ct i on 30 3(d) un l es s there ar e w at erbo dy-s peci fi c dat a . . . show i ng no n-att ai nm entof se ct i on 10 1(a) u ses.21

I d. a t4. W e f

i nd the i nf

or m e d j udgm e ntof

the E P A thor ough a nd r e a s ona bl e , a nd e n title d to s o m e d e f

e r e n c e . S e e S k id m o r e , 3 2 3 U .S . a t 1 4 0 . I n r e vi e w i ng F l or i da ' s 2002 L i s t , the E P A not e d tha tF l or i da ' s l i s t i ng m etho do l og y f

or use of f

i sh consum pt i on advi sori es fol l ow ed the E P A ' s gui dance l et t er. D eci si o n D o cu m en tat4 1 . T h i s l i st i n g m eth o d o l o g y st at es th atfi sh co n su m p t i o n ad v i so ri es m ay o n l y b e u sed i f th e d at a u n d erl yi n g th e fi sh c ons um pt i on a dvi s or y " i s ba s e d on the s t a t i s t i c a l e va l ua t i on of f i s h t i s s ue da t a f

r om a t le a s t tw e lv e ( 1 2 ) f

is h c o lle c te d f

r o m th e s p e c if

ic w a te rs e g m e n t o rw a te rb o d y to be l i s t e d. " F l a . A dm i n. C ode A nn. r . 62- 303. 470( 1) ( a ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( d is c u s s e d in D e c is io n D o c u m e n t a t 3 8 ) . T h e E P A c o n c lu d e d th a t " th e S ta te 's p r o c e s s , if

p r o p e r ly a p p lie d , is r e a s o n a b le f o rid e n tif y in g a p p lic a b le w a te rq u a lity l i m i t e d s e gm e nt s . " D e c i s i on D oc um e nta t41. W e c a nnotf i nd thi s de c i s i on a rbi tr a r y orc a pr i c i ous . T he E P A ga ve a r a t i ona l e xpl a na t i on, ba s e d on the opi ni on of i t s e xp er t s, as t o w hy st at ew i de fi sh consum pt i on advi sori es (t o t he ext entthat the y a r e notba s e d on da t a c ol l e c t e d f r om a s pe c i f

i c w a t e rbody i n que s t i on) a r e not r e l i a bl e i ndi c a t or s of

w a t e rqua l i ty i n a pa r t i c ul a rw a t e rbody f orthe purpos e of form i ng an i m pai re d w at er s l i st . W e there fore up ho l d t he E P A ' s dec i si on that F lo r id a w a s r e q u ir e d to c o n s id e ro n ly w a te rb o d y - s p e c if ic d a ta in d e v e lo p in g its 2 0 0 2 L is t.Sierra Club notes that a 2002–2003 F lorida F reshwater Sport FishingRegulation 18 B ro c hur el i s t e d

tw e nty- f o ur l ak e s w i thh i ghc o n c e ntr at i o n s o f m e rc ur y b a s e d o nw at e r b o dyspecifictesting a

nd that cer

tain statewide f

ish consumption advisories werebased on f ish tiss ue testing of a par ticular waterbody

in question, see supra

notes 15–16. Acc ordingto Sierra Club, this waterbody-spec ific data meets the EPA' s criteria for c onsideration. It a pp e ars (t ho ugh w ec ann ot t e ll f

or c e rt a in) tha

t th edis tric t c ourt

re c ognize d th is 19 fac tual dispute. Order

on Summary

Judgment at 15–17. Nonethe less, the district court entere d summary judgment for the EPA. We ca nnot tell from the order whe ther the district c ourt perha ps deeme d this factual dispute not material or, af ter reviewingthe re cord, de termined that therewa s n o f

a c tual di sp utea ft e r all. We emph a sizethat summa ry judgme nt i s o nly

a pp ropriate when there is " no g enuine issue a s to any material fac t." F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We n otethat F lorida ' s li stingme tho do logy fo r f ish c on sumption

a dv iso ri e s also 20 includes a provision mandating that such advisories only be used if " [t ]here are suff icient data or other infor

mation from within the last 7.5 year s that would support the continuation of the advisory ." F la. Admin. Code Ann. r. 62- 303.470(1)( c) ( discussed in Dec ision Document at 38). Be causeour holdingin Section V.A that Florida' s 7.5-year data cutoff is inconsistent with the CWA a pp lie s to F lorida ' s tempo ral li mit to f ish c on sumption

a dv iso ri e s, thedis tric t c ourt mus t 22 T here i s m ore t o t he m att erthan t hi s, ho w ever . S i erraC l ub ar gu es thateven ac ce pt i ng the E P A ' s posi t i on , F l ori da and t he E P A di d n otadhere t o t he gu i dance le tte r 's m a n d a te th a t s ta te s c o n s id e rw a te rb o d y - s p e c if ic d a ta in d e v e lo p in g th e ir i m pai re d w at er s l i st s. A cc ordi ng t o S i erraC l ub , "[ a] tl ea st46 of the w at er s nam ed i n thi s l a w s ui ta r e unde rw a t e rbody - s pe c i f i c f i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s i s s ue d by the F l or i da D e pa r tm e ntof H e a l th; a nd num e r ous w a t e r s ha ve f i s h t i s s ue t e s t i ng by the D epar tm entof H ea l th sup po rt i ng the advi sory . T hu s, un der the G ui dance D o cu m en t , th ey w ere req u i red t o b e o n th e § 3 0 3 (d ) l i st . " B r. fo r P l ai n t i ffsA pp el l ant s a t44 . T hi s i s a no ther f ac tual m att er thatw e l ea ve t o t he di stri ct 18 19 c o u r t's c o n s id e r a tio n in its e v a lu a tio n o f w h e th e rth e E P A 's a p p r o v a l o f F lo r id a 's 2 0 0 2 L i stw as arb i trary o r cap ri ci o u s. 20addre ss on remand whether this li mit on the fish consumption advisories that the FDE P c on sid e re d h a d a

ny imp a c t on

F lorida ' s im

paire d w ate rs lis t. 23 F i nal l y, w e r ej ec tS i erraC l ub ' s c l ai m thatthe E P A vi ol at ed the C W A w hen i ta l l e ge dl y a dde d t o F l or i da ' s 2002 L i s te l e ve n w a t e r s unde rf i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s f

orm e r c ur y tha tha d be e n de l i s t e d f r om F l or i da ' s 1998 L i s t . S i e r r a C l ub a r g u e s th a t w h e n th e E P A d e te r m in e s th a t a s ta te 's lis t is in c o m p le te , th e E P A 's

" onl y opt i on unde rC W A § 303( d) ( 2) i s t o di s a ppr ove tha tl i s ta nd e s t a bl i s h a c o m p le te lis t o f

its o w n ." B r . f

o rP la in tif

f s - A p p e lla n ts a t 5 2 . T h e E P A o b je c ts to the f a c tua l pr e m i s e of

S i e r r a C l ub' s c l a i m , bute ve n i f the f a c t s a r e a s S i e r r a C l ub al l eg es, th e cl ai m h as n o m eri t . T h e C W A d i rect s th ati f th e E P A d i sap p ro v es a s t a t e ' s i de nt i f

i c a t i on of

i m pa i r e d w a t e r s a nd the T M D L s e s t a bl i s he d f orthe m , the E P A m ust"i dent i fy such w at er s i n such S t at e a nd es t abl i sh such l oads for s uch w a t e r s a s [ i t ] de t e r m i ne s ne c e s s a r y t o i m pl e m e ntthe w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds a ppl i c a bl e t o s uc h w a t e r s . " 33 U . S . C . § 1313( d) ( 2) . W e do notr e a d thi s pr ovi s i on t o requi re the E P A t o d evel op an ent i re l y new l i stea ch t i m e i tpart i al l y di sapp roves a s t a t e ' s l i s t . N othi ng i n the C W A pr ohi bi t s the E P A ' s c ur r e ntpr a c t i c e of a ddi ng w at erbo di es t o an i m pai re d w at er s l i stal re ady pre pare d b y ast at e; t o requi re m ore w o u l d b e i m p ract i cal an d a w ast e o f reso u rces. W e th erefo re rev erse th e en try o f su m m ary j u d g m en to n S i erra C l u b ' s fi rst cl ai m , bu tup ho l d t he di stri ctcourt ' s hol di ng s def erri ng t o t he E P A ' s posi t i on s that24

( 1) F l or i da w a s onl y r e qui r e d t o c ons i de rf i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s ba s e d on w at erb o d y-sp eci fi c d at a an d (2 ) th e E P A m ay ad d w at erb o d i es u n d er fi sh c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s t o a s t a t e ' s i m pa i r e d w a t e r s l i s t . W e r e m a nd thi s c l a i m f or fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. V I. In S i erraC l ub ' s s ec on d cl ai m for r el i ef , i tal l eges thatthe E P A ' s app roval of F l or i da ' s pr i or i ty r a nki ng of W Q L S s f

orT M D L de ve l opm e ntw a s a rbi tr a r y a nd c a pr i c i ous . U nde rthe C W A , F l or i da w a s r e qui r e d t o " e s t a bl i s h a pr i or i ty r a nki ng for [ i m pai re d] w at er s, t aki ng i nt o acc ou ntthe se veri ty of the po l l ut i on and t he uses t o b e ma d e o f

s u c h w a t e r s . " 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 3 1 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; s e e a l s o 4 0 C. F. R. § 1 3 0 .7 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( r e q u ir in g s ta te s to in c lu d e in th e irim p a ir e d w a te r s lis ts " a p r io r ity r a nki ng f ora l l l i s t e d w a t e rqua l i ty - l i m i t e d s e gm e nt s s t i l l r e qui r i ng T M D L s , t a ki ng i n t o acco u n tth e sev eri ty o f th e p o l l u t i o n an d th e u ses t o b e m ad e o f su ch w at ers") a n d ( d ) ( 1 ) ( r e q u ir in g s ta te s to s u b m it to th e E P A " th e lis t o f w a te r s , p o llu ta n ts c a u s i n g i m p a i r m e n t , a n d th e p r i o r i ty r a n k i n g i n c l u d i n g wa t e r s t a r g e t e d f o rT MDL de ve l opm e ntw i thi n the ne xttw o y e a r s " ) . F l or i da e s t a bl i s he d i t s pr i or i ty r a nki ng, de s i gna t i ng e a c h W Q L S a s " hi gh, " " m e di um , " or" l ow " pr i or i ty . S i e r r a C l ub a r g u e s th a t in e s ta b lis h in g th is p r io r ity r a n k in g , F lo r id a d id n o t a d e q u a te ly ta k e in to a c c ountthe s t a tut or y f

a c t or s of " s e ve r i ty of

the pol l ut i on" a nd " us e s t o be m a de of25

such w at er s. " F l ori da ca t egori ca l l y des i gn at ed as "l ow " pri ori ty a l l "[ w ] at er s e gm e nt s tha ta r e l i s t e d be f or e 2010 due t o f

i s h c ons um pt i on a dvi s or i e s f or m e r c ur y ( due t o the c ur r e nti ns uf f i c i e ntunde r s t a ndi ng of

m e r c ur y c y c l i ng i n the e n v ir o n m e n t) ." F la . A d m in . C o d e A n n . r . 6 2 - 3 0 3 .5 0 0 ( 3 ) ( a ) . A c c o r d in g to S ie r r a C lu b , m e r c u r y in f is h tis s u e p r e s e n ts a s e r io u s h e a lth r i s k, s uc h tha tm e r c ur y - i m pa i r e d w a t e r s w oul d be de s i gna t e d " hi gh" pr i or i ty i f the re l evantst atut ory f

ac t ors w er e gi ven adequ at e c on si dera t i on . S i erraC l ub ar gu es th a t F lo r id a 's c a te g o r ic a l d e s ig n a tio n o f m e r c u r y - im p a ir e d w a te r s a s " lo w " p r io r ity both vi ol a t e d the m a nda t e of the C W A ( r e qui r i ng s t a t e s t o t a ke i nt o a c c ountthe s e ve r i ty of

pol l ut i on a nd us e s t o be m a de of the w a t e rbody ) a nd w a s ba s e d on a fau l ty p rem i se (th e al l eg ed i n su ffi ci en tu n d erst an d i n g o f m ercu ry cycl i n g ). T h u s, S i e r r a C l ub a s s e r t s , the E P A w a s w r ong t o a ppr ove F l or i da ' s pr i or i ty r a nki ng. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a d d r e s s th e u n d e r ly in g m e r its o f S ie r r a C lu b 's a r g u me n t . Ra th e r , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tru l e d th a tth e a r g u me n tf a i l e d b e c a u s e th e EPA h a d n o d u ty to a p p r o v e F lo r id a 's p r io r ity r a n k in g : B e c a us e the r e i s no r e qui r e m e nttha tthe E P A a c tua l l y a ppr ove or di sapp rove of a s t at e' s pri ori ty r anki ng s, the C ou rtfi nd s that D ef endant s have m etthei r burden o f s ho w i ng the abse nce of a ge nui ne i s s ue of

m a t e r i a l f

a c ton thi s m a t t e r , a nd s um m a r y j udgm e nt i s gra nt ed i n favor of D ef endant s a s t o C ou ntII . O rderon S um m ary J ud gm entat18 . T he di stri ctcourtse em s t o h ave c on strued26

S i e r r a C l ub' s a r gum e ntt o ha ve be e n tha tthe E P A ha d a duty t o a ppr ove the spec i fi c l evel of ra nk i ng as si gn ed by F l ori da t o eac h W Q L S . T he di stri ctcourt r e j e c t e d tha ta r gum e nt , hol di ng tha tthe E P A ha d no s uc h duty . W e ne e d not addres s thati ss ue, ho w ever , beca use w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt m is c o n s tru e d S ie r r a C lu b 's a r g u m e n t. W hi l e S i e r r a C l ub' s a r gum e ntdoe s i m pl i c a t e the ul t i m a t e pr i or i ty - r a nki ng d esi g n at i o n (i . e. , "l o w , " "m ed i u m , " o r "h i g h ") th atF l o ri d a g av e t o so m e W Q L S s, S i e r r a C l ub' s true c ha l l e nge i s t o the f a c t or s tha tF l or i da c ons i de r e d i n a s s i gni ng the de s i gna t i ons . S i e r r a C l ub c ont e nds tha tF l or i da di d notc ons i de rthe " s e ve r i ty of th e p o l l u t i o n " a n d th e " u s e s t o b e ma d e " o f th e W Q LSs a s r e q u i r e d b y 3 3 U . S. C. § 1 3 1 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . T h e E P A a c k n o w le d g e s th a t " it m u s t e n s u r e th a t th e s ta te h a s in fa ctra nk ed i t s pri ori t i es t aki ng i nt o acc ou ntthe st atut ory f ac t ors . " B r. for F eder al D ef endant s- A pp el l ee s a t45 n. 14 (e m ph as i s a dd ed); se e a l so D ec i si on D ocum entat 8 ( " I n p r io r itiz in g a n d ta r g e tin g w a te r s , s ta te s m u s t, a t a m in im u m , ta k e in to ac coun tthe se veri ty of the po l l ut i on and t he uses t o b e m ade of s uch w at er s. S ee § 3 03 (d)( 1)(A ). A s l on g as these fa ct ors a re t aken i nt o acc ou nt , the A ctprov i des thatst at es es t abl i sh pri ori t i es . ") . In i t s r evi ew of F l ori da' s 200 2 L i st(w hi ch i ncl ud ed the pri ori ty r anki ng ), the E P A concl ud ed thatF l ori da "pri ori t i ze d w at er qua l i ty l i m i t e d s e gm e nt s f orT M D L de ve l opm e nta c c or di ng t o the s e ve r i ty of theWe also leaveit to the district cour t to address, if ne cessa

ry , Sierra Club' s fac tual 21 argument that Florida

did not have an insuff

icient under standingof mercury cyclingin the environment a

nd Sierra Club' s leg al argument that even if Florida did have a

n insufficient understanding , the CWA does not permit states to consider such a lack of understandingwhen makin gthe ir

priority ra nking s. Ea c h w ate rb od

y /po llutant c omb inatio n is lis te d s epa ra te ly , me anin g , f

or e xamp le , th at if 22 a waterbody

has two pollutants then the waterbody is list ed two times. Sierra Club' s complaint also challeng ed the de listi ngof nineteen water body /pollutant 23 combinations that alleg edly contained e x cessive nutrients, but Si erra Club has not appealed the entry of summary

judgment as to those nineteen c ombinations. 27 i m pai rm entand t he desi gn at ed uses of the se gm ent . " D ec i si on D ocum entat49 . It i s th i s co n cl u si o n th atS i erra C l u b ch al l en g es. T he r e s ol ut i on of

thi s i s s ue w i l l i nvol ve a n e xa m i na t i on of w he the rthe E P A 's d e c is io n is s u p p o r te d b y th e e v id e n c e in th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e c o r d . W e bel i eve thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d con si der the qu es t i on i n t he fi rs ti nst ance , pa r t i c ul a r l y i n l i ghtof

the f a c tua l m a t t e r s tha ti tr a i s e s . W e the r e f or e va c a t e the 21 e n tr y o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n S ie r r a C lu b 's s e c o n d c la im a n d r e m a n d th e c la im to th e d i stri ctco u rtfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. V II . I n S ie r r aC lu b 's th ir d c la im f o rr e lie f , S ie r r a C lu b c h a lle n g e s th e E P A 's a ppr ova l of

F l or i da ' s de l i s t i ng of

f or ty - f i ve w a t e rbody /pol l ut a ntc om bi na t i ons 22 tha tha d be e n on F l or i da ' s 1998 L i s t . A c c or di ng t o S i e r r a C l ub, ( A ) thi r ty - e i ght 23 of the chal l enged com bi nat i on s i nv ol ved w at erse gm ent s thathad exceeded a p p l i c a b l e w a t e rq u a l i ty s t a n d a r d s a tl e a s to n c e i n th e p r e c e d i n g 7 . 5 y e a r s , a n d ( B)28

se ven o f the chal l enged com bi nat i on s i nv ol ved w at erbo di es thatw er e del i st ed be c a us e the i rvi ol a t i ons of w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds w e r e de e m e d the r e s ul tof n a tu r a l c o n d itio n s . B ot h si des c i t e a n E P A gu i dance docum entand agree thata s t at e m ay r e m o v e a w a te rb o d y f

r o m its im p a ir e d w a te r s lis t if th e " w a te rb o d y is m e e tin g a ll a ppl i c a bl e w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds . . . ori s e xpe c t e d t o m e e tthe s e s t a nda r ds i n a r e a s ona bl e t i m e f

r a m e " ori f

" the or i gi na l ba s i s f

orl i s t i ng i s de t e r m i ne d t o be i na c c ur a t e . " G ui da nc e f or1994 S e c t i on 303( d) L i s t s , N ov. 26, 1993, S upp. A dm i n. R . G at7. T he part i es di sa gree , ho w ever , abou tw hether the del i st ed com bi nat i on s f

al l un der e i ther of these tw o cat egori es — S i erraC l ub ar gu es that the y do not ; the E P A a r gue s tha tthe y do.A. F i r s t , w e a ddr e s s S i e r r a C l ub' s a s s e r t i on tha tthe E P A a c t e d a rbi tr a r i l y or c a pr i c i ous l y i n a ppr ovi ng F l or i da ' s de l i s t i ng of thi r ty - e i ghtw a t e rbody /pol l ut a nt c om bi na t i ons i n the f

a c e of da t a s how i ng tha tthe w a t e rbodi e s i nvol ve d w e r e not m ee t i ng w at erqu al i ty s t andards. U nd erF l ori da' s w at erqu al i ty s t andards, the w at er qu al i ty c ri t er i a app l i cabl e t o a w at erbo dy ar e " no tt o b e e xcee ded atany t i m e. " F l a. A dm i n. C od e A nn . r. 62 -302 . 53 0. S i erraC l ub as se rt s thatthe chal l enged w a t e rbody /pol l ut a ntc om bi na t i ons e xc e e de d w a t e rqua l i ty c r i t e r i a a nd s t a nda r dsIn its reply brief, Sier

ra Club also asserts that "theImpaired Water Rule' s fre quency 24 re quire me nts c ontra dic te d th ee xistin gwate r q uality sta nd ard s. " Reply

B r. fo r P laintif

fs Appellants at 27. We will not address this argument beca use, in addition to Si erra Club' s failure to raise it in the district court, seediscussion supra Section IV, Sierra Club does not elaborate on this alleg ation or direc t us to any specificfre quency

requirements that have be en abrog ated. See Fe d. R. App. P. 28(a)(9) (A) (requiringan appe llant brief to include " citations to the authorities an d p art s o f th er e c o rd

o nwh i c hth ea

p p e l l antre l i e s " ) ; F l an i g an ' s E nt e r s . , In c . v . F u l t o nC o unty, Ga., 242 F .3d 976, 987 n.16 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (r uling that a

party waives a n argument if the par

ty "f ail[s] to elaborate or provideany citation of authority

in support" of

the argument), cert. denied, 536 U .S. 904 (2002). 29 s e v e r a l tim e s in th e 7 .5 y e a r s im m e d ia te ly p r e c e d in g th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f F lo r id a 's 2002 L i s t . T hus , a c c or di ng t o S i e r r a C l ub, the E P A e r r e d i n a ppr ovi ng the d el i st i n g o f th e th i rty-ei g h tw at erb o d y/p o l l u t an tco m b i n at i o n s. 24 In the D ec i si on D ocum ent , the E P A re cogn i ze d t hatsom e of F l ori da' s w at er qu al i ty c ri t er i a a re "nott o b e e xcee ded atany t i m e, " butdet erm i ned t hati tw as r e a s ona bl e f

orF l or i da t o i nt e rpr e ttha tr e gul a t or y phr a s e i n c onc e r tw i th the l e gi s l a t i on a uthor i z i ng the c r e a t i on of F l or i da ' s w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds . D e c i s i on D o cu m en tat2 0 . S p eci fi cal l y, th e rel ev an tst atu t e st at es: I ti s the i nt e ntof

the L e gi s l a tur e tha tw a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds be r e a s o n a b ly e s ta b lis h e d a n d a p p lie d to ta k e in to a c c o u n t th e v a r ia b ility occurri ng i n n ature. T he [F D E P ] shal l re cogn i ze the st at i st i ca l v a r ia b ility in h e r e n t in s a m p lin g a n d te s tin g p r o c e d u r e s th a t a r e u s e d to expres s w at erqu al i ty s t andards. T he [F D E P ] shal l al so re cogn i ze that s om e de vi a t i ons f

r om w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds oc c ura s the r e s ul tof natural backgrou nd cond i t i on s. T he [F D E P ] shal l no tconsi der de vi a t i ons f

r om w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds t o be vi ol a t i ons w he n the di s c ha r ge rc a n de m ons tr a t e tha tthe de vi a t i ons w oul d oc c uri n the abse nce of any hum an-i nd uced di sc harges or al t er at i on s t o t he w at er b o d y.Sierra Club asserts that the EPA' s treatment of the challeng ed waterbody /pollutant 25 combinations was inconsistent bec ause theEPA approve d the delisting of a bay for whic h 17.6% of the samples showe d exceeda nce but disapproved the de listi ngof a c reek for whic h 16.1% of the samples showe d exceeda nce. Sier ra Club' s argument fails to acc ount for the f act that "f requency of excee dance " w as only one factor c onsidered by the EPA in its review. 30 F l a. S t at . § 4 03 . 02 1(11 ). T he E P A no t ed thatbeca use F l ori da do es no thave a m oni t or i ng pr ogr a m tha tc ont i nuous l y m e a s ur e s a l l poi nt s i n i t s w a t e rbodi e s ( a nd thu s the F D E P coul d n everdet erm i ne thata w at erbo dy had n otexce eded w at er qu al i ty c ri t er i a " atany t i m e" ), F l ori da m ustuse s t at i st i ca l sa m pl i ng t o est i m at e a w at erbo dy' s c om pl i ance w i th w at erqu al i ty s t andards. F l ori da' s L egi sl ature r e c ogni z e d tha ts a m pl i ng i ntr oduc e s va r i a bi l i ty i nt o the t e s t i ng pr oc e s s — s om e due to n a tu r a l v a r ia b ility a n d s o m e a s s o c ia te d w ith s a m p le c o lle c tio n a n d a n a ly s is . T hus , the E P A c onc l ude d, a s i ngl e s a m pl e doe s notde t e r m i ne w he the ra w a t e rbody f a i l s t o m e e tw a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds . I ns t e a d, the E P A " c ons i de r e d a num be rof fa ct ors" i n revi ew i ng w hether a w at erbo dy w as i m pai re d. D ec i si on D ocum entat 21 . "T hese fa ct ors i ncl ud ed w hether m ore r ec entdat a s ho w att ai nm entthatre nd er s e a r l i e rda t a s us pe c t( tr e nds ) ; the m a gni tude of e xc e e da nc e ; the f

r e que nc y of e x c e e d a n c e ; p o llu ta n t le v e ls d u r in g c r itic a l c o n d itio n s ; a n d a n y o th e rs ite - s p e c if ic da t a a nd i nf

or m a t i on s uc h a s bi ol ogi c a l m oni t or i ng, w he the rne w c ontr ol s ha ve be e n i m pl e m e nt e d on the w a t e r , e t c . " I d. 25 L ik e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e f in d th e E P A 's " to ta lity " a p p r o a c h r e a s o n a b le .The EPA fur ther a sserts that in addition to meeting w ater quality standards, thirty-two 26 of thec omb inatio ns (t

ho selis te d f

or tot a l or fe c a l c oli fo rm s) werea lso de lis te d b e c a us ethe ir orig inal li stingwa s b a se d o n a fl aw in a naly zingdata . G iven o ur

ho lding , w ene e d n ot add re ss thi s a dditi on a l argument. 31 S i erra C l u b h as p resen t ed n o ev i d en ce su g g est i n g th atth e ap p ro ach i s arb i trary, c a pr i c i ous , ori n c onf

l i c tw i th the C W A . S e c t i on 403. 021( 11) of the F l or i da S ta tu te s m a n d a te s th a t s ta tis tic a l a n d n a tu r a l v a r ia b ility b e ta k e n in to a c c o u n t in a ppl y i ng w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds . L i ke w i s e , rul e 62- 302. 530 of the F l or i da A dm i ni s tr a t i ve C ode , w hi l e s t a t i ng tha tthe w a t e rqua l i ty c r i t e r i a" e xpr e s s the m axi m um no tt o b e e xcee ded atany t i m e, " a l so di re ct s that"[ i ] n app l yi ng the w at er q u a lity s ta n d a r d s , th e [ F D E P ] s h a ll ta k e in to a c c o u n t th e v a r ia b ility o c c u r r in g in na tur e a nd s ha l l r e c ogni z e the s t a t i s t i c a l va r i a bi l i ty i n he r e nt[ s i c ] i n s a m pl i ng a nd t e s t i ng pr oc e dur e s . " F l a . A dm i n. C ode A nn. r . 62- 302. 530. R ul e 62- 302. 530 of the F l or i da A dm i ni s tr a t i ve C ode thus a ppe a r s c ons i s t e ntw i th s e c t i on 403. 021( 11) of the F l ori da S t atut es , bu tt o t he ext entthe re gu l at i on coul d b e r ea d t o con fl i ct w i th the s t a tut e , the s t a tut e c ontr ol s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r t e , 356 F . 3d 1336, 1341 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ; F l a . D e pt . of R e ve nue v. A . D uda & S ons , I nc . , 608 S o. 2d 881, 884 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1992) . W e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ' s e ntr y of s um m a r y j udgm e ntf

orthe E P A on the de l i s t i ng of the s e thi r ty - e i ght w at erb o d y/p o l l u t an tco m b i n at i o n s. 26Dissolved ox yg en is found in microscopicbubbles that occur betwe en water molecules. 27 Sheila Murphy , General Information on Dissolved Oxyg en, http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data / BA CT/info/DO.html (last visi ted May 10, 2007). Dissolved oxyg en is important to aquatic life beca use fish " breathe" by

absorbingit through the ir g ills. I d.

32 B. N e x t, S ie r r a C lu b a s s e r ts th a t th e E P A a c te d a rb itr a r ily o rc a p r ic io u s ly in a p p r o v in g F lo r id a 's d e lis tin g o f s e v e n w a te rb o d ie s n o t m e e tin g w a te rq u a lity st andards due t o n atural cond i t i on s. In part i cul ar , S i erraC l ub cl ai m s thatse ven w at erbo di es w i th n atural l y occ urri ng l ow di ss ol ved o xygen l evel s w er e 27 i m pr ope r l y de l i s t e d be c a us e the C W A doe s notpr ovi de a na tur a l - c ondi t i ons e x c e p tio n . T h e E P A d is a g r e e s a n d a r g u e s th a t in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e C W A , it r e v ie w e d F lo r id a 's d e lis tin g d e c is io n f o rc o n s is te n c y w ith F lo r id a 's w a te rq u a lity s t a nda r ds . T he C W A doe s nots pe c i f i c a l l y a ddr e s s w he the rw a t e rbodi e s not m e e t i ng w a t e rqua l i ty c r i t e r i a be c a us e of na tur a l l y oc c ur r i ng c ondi t i ons m us tbe i ncl ud ed on a s t at e' s i m pai re d w at er s l i st . T he E P A ' s i nt erpret at i on of the C W A as n o tr e q u i r i n g s u c h l i s t i n g s , h o w e v e r , i s s u p p o r t e d b y a c a r e f u l r e a d i n g o f

th e CW A a n d its r e g u la tio n s . F ir s t, th e C W A 's e x p r e s s p u rp o s e is " to r e s to r e a n d m a in ta in th e c h e m ic a l, p h y s ic a l, a n d b io lo g ic a l in te g r ity o f th e N a tio n 's w a te r s ." 3 3 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 1 ( a ) . T he ph ra se "r es t ore a nd m ai nt ai n" i nd i ca t es thatC on gres s s ou gh tt o return w a te rb o d ie s to th e irn a tu r a l c o n d itio n s , n o t m o d if y w a te rb o d ie s ' n a tu r a l c o n d itio n s .33

Indeed, the H ou se R eporton the l egi sl at i on st at es that"[ t ] he w ord ' i nt egri ty' as used i s i nt ended t o con vey a conceptthatre fe rs t o a cond i t i on i n w hi ch the natural s truc tur e a nd f

unc t i on of

e c os y s t e m s i s m a i nt a i ne d. " H . R . R e p. N o. 92- 911, a t76 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . S ec on d, the prov i si on of the C W A re qu i ri ng thatst at es com pi l e i m pai re d w a te r s lis ts d ir e c ts s ta te s to id e n tif y w a te r s f

o rw h ic h p o llu ta n t d is c h a r g e lim its

" a r e n o t s tr in g e n t e n o u g h to im p le m e n t a n y w a te rq u a lity s ta n d a r d a p p lic a b le to s u c h w a te r s ." 3 3 U .S .C . § 1 3 1 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . A s th e E P A r e c o g n iz e d , to a p p ly th is pr ovi s i on, one m us te xa m i ne F l or i da ' s w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds a ppl i c a bl e t o the se ven w at erbo di es ati ss ue. F l ori da' s w at erqu al i ty s t andards provi de: "W at er s ha vi ng w a t e rqua l i ty be l ow the c r i t e r i a e s t a bl i s he d f orthe m s ha l l be pr ot e c t e d a nd enhanced. H ow ever , the [F D E P ] shal l no tstri ve t o abat e natural cond i t i on s. " F l a. A d m in . C o d e . A n n . r . 6 2 - 3 0 2 .3 0 0 ( 1 5 ) . S ie r r a C lu b a r g u e s th a t th is s ta n d a r d o n ly a d d r e s s e s w h e th e rF lo r id a " w ill w o r k o n th e s e w a te r s ," n o t w h e th e rth e n a tu r a lly i m pa i r e d w a t e r s s houl d be i nc l ude d on F l or i da ' s i m pa i r e d w a t e r s l i s t . R e pl y B r . f or P l a i nt i f f s - A ppe l l a nt s a t26. W e do nota c c e ptS i e r r a C l ub' s na r r ow i nt e rpr e t a t i on of F l ori da' s w at erqu al i ty s t andards. A s not ed abov e, a F l ori da st atut e that a uthor i z e d the c r e a t i on of F l or i da ' s w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds di r e c t s tha tthe s t a nda r ds be a ppl i e d i n a m a nne rtha t" t a ke [ s ] i nt o a c c ountthe va r i a bi l i ty oc c ur r i ng34

i n na tur e . " F l a . S t a t . § 403. 021( 11) ; s e e a l s o F l a . A dm i n. C ode A nn. r . 62- 302. 530 ( " I n a ppl y i ng the w a t e rqua l i ty s t a nda r ds , the D e pa r tm e nts ha l l t a ke i nt o a c c ount the vari abi l i ty occ urri ng i n n ature . . . . ") . B ec ause "s om e devi at i on s f rom w at er qua l i ty s t a nda r ds oc c ura s the r e s ul tof na tur a l ba c kgr ound c ondi t i ons , " the le g is la tu r e o r d e r e d th a t th e F D E P " s h a ll n o t c o n s id e rd e v ia tio n s f r o m w a te rq u a lity s t a nda r ds t o be vi ol a t i ons w he n the di s c ha r ge rc a n de m ons tr a t e tha tthe de vi a t i ons w oul d oc c uri n the abs e nc e of a ny hum a n- i nduc e d di s c ha r ge s ora l t e r a t i ons t o the w at erbo dy. " F l a. S t at . § 4 03 . 02 1(11 ). W hen F l ori da' s w at erqu al i ty s t andards ar e re ad i n con

j un ct i on w i th t hi s gui dance (a s w el l as F l ori da' s e nt i re surf ac e- w at er s c h e m e ) , w e c o n c lu d e th a t w a te rb o d ie s n o t m e e tin g w a te rq u a lity s ta n d a r d s s o le ly b e c a u s e o f

n a tu r a l c o n d itio n s n e e d n o t b e p la c e d o n F lo r id a 's im p a ir e d w a te r s lis t. W e the r e f

or e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our t ' s hol di ng tha tthe E P A ' s a ppr ova l of the del i st i ng of the se ven w at erbo di es w as no tarbi tra ry or capri ci ou s, and w e a ff i rm th e e n tr y o f

s u mma r y j u d g me n to n Si e r r a Cl u b ' s th i r d c l a i m. V II I. W e a f f i r m the de ni a l of

the F D E P ' s m ot i on t o i nt e r ve ne a nd the e ntr y of sum m ary j ud gm enton S i erraC l ub ' s thi rd cl ai m . W e r ever se and v ac at e the entry o f su m m ary j u d g m en to n S i erra C l u b ' s fi rstan d seco n d cl ai m s, an d rem an d th o se c l a i m s f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. W e de ny the m ot i ons35

of the E P A and t he F D E P t o stri ke. A F F IR M E D IN P A R T ; R E V E R S E D , V A C A T E D , A N D R E M A N D E D IN PART .