CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: General Information 

Pages 1489 - 1508 

Response to Public Comments 

Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters 

November 14, 2010 

40 CFR Part 131 

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 

This document is part of a larger document 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

I - GENERAL INFORMATION 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

I.A - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.001 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

The Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is proposing numeric nutrient water quality criteria to protect aquatic 

life in lakes and flowing waters, including canals, within the state of Florida, and regulations to establish a framework for 

Florida to develop "restoration standards" for impaired waters. Page 16 of the Executive Summary of that proposed rule 

states, "Overall, EPA is soliciting comments and data regarding EPA's proposed criteria for lakes and flowing waters, 

the derivation of these criteria, the protectiveness of the streams and rivers criteria for downstream waters, and all 

associated alternative options and methodologies discussed in this proposed rulemaking." In response to the Agency's 

request, we submit these comments. 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.034 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Specific Comments 

Page 12 of the Executive Summary states, 

"For lakes, EPA is proposing a classification scheme using color and alkalinity based upon substantial data that show 

that lake color and alkalinity play an important role in the degree to which TN and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations 

result in a biological response such as elevated chlorophyll a levels. EPA found that correlations between nutrients and 

biological response parameters in the different types of lakes in Florida were sufficiently robust, combined with 

additional lines of evidence, to support stressor response criteria development for Florida's lakes. The Agency is also 

proposing an accompanying supplementary analytical approach that the State can use to adjust TN and TP criteria for a 

particular lake within a certain range where sufficient data on long-term ambient TN and TP levels are available to 

demonstrate that protective chlorophyll a criteria for a specific lake will still be maintained and attainment of the 

designated use will be assured." 

Original comment letter contains additional information for Proposed Numeric Criteria for Lakes from page 42 of the 

executive summary on page 8 of the PDF. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1489
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.044 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Page 12 and 13 of the Executive Summary, 

"Regarding numeric nutrient criteria for streams and rivers, EPA considered the extensive work of FDEP to analyze the 

relationship between TN and TP levels and biological response in streams and rivers. EPA found that relationships 

between nutrients and biological response parameters in rivers and streams were affected by many factors that made 

derivation of a quantitative relationship between chlorophyll a levels and nutrients in streams and rivers difficult to 

establish in the same manner as EPA did for lakes (i.e., stressor-response relationship). EPA considered an alternative 

methodology that evaluated a combination of biological information and data on the distribution of nutrients in a 

substantial number of healthy stream systems. Based upon a technical evaluation of the significant available data on 

Florida streams and related scientific analysis, the Agency concluded that reliance on a statistical distribution 

methodology was a stronger and a more sound approach for deriving TN and TP criteria in streams and rivers." 

The relationships between nutrient input to flowing systems and water quality impact are substantially more complex 

and less-well quantified than they are in lakes and reservoirs. The "statistical distribution methodology" put forth in the 

criteria document is technically indefensible and is little more than statistical gaming. Claiming that such an approach 

was deemed "stronger" and "more sound" than a recognizably unreliable approach does not impart technical credibility 

to it. 

Comment ID 1356-1.001.003 

Author Name: Hayes D. 

Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 

In addition to supporting the recommendations of the local Estuary Programs, Manatee County also offers the following 

comments on the proposed rule for Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters: 

Section I.A. Executive Summary 1. 

On page 9 EPA comments on the State of Florida's regulatory nutrient accountability and states, " ... the significant 

challenge faced by the water quality components ofthis system is its dependence upon an approach involving resourceintensive and time-consuming site-specific data collection and analysis to interpret non-numeric nutrient criteria. EPA 

determined that Florida's reliance on a case-by-case interpretation ofits narrative criterion in implementing an otherwise 

comprehensive water quality framework of enforceable accountability was insufficient to ensure protection ofapplicable 

designated uses." 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1490
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Because FDEP's complex, resource intensive process has failed to develop numeric nutrient criteria for Florida in a 

timely manner, EPA has agreed through a Consent Decree to establish criteria for lakes and flowing waters by October 

15, 2010 and for estuarine and coastal waters by October 15,2011. EPA's rush to establish generic statewide criteria 

will result in many unique, viable water bodies to effectively be deemed impaired, requiring local stakeholders to spend 

considerable resources preparing unneeded Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) or requesting the establishment 

of appropriate criteria through Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) as described in Section V.C of the proposed 

rule. In fact, FDEP has stated that >80% of the States "reference" or pristine stream sites exceed the proposed criteria 

and would be listed as impaired. EPA should delay the establishment of these "one-size-fits-all" criteria for Florida 

waters and allow the FDEP to continue developing site specific criteria for Florida's unique and varied water bodies. 

Comment ID 1362-1.001.002 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

CONCERNS REGARDING PROPOSED FLORIDA CRITERIA In the NPRM, EPA is proposing numeric nutrient criteria 

for Florida lakes, streams, springs and clear streams, and canals. Key concerns regarding these criteria are as follows: 

Comment ID 1416-1.001.006 

Author Name: Alves J. 

Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. 

(b) EPA's Rationale for Replacing Florida's Narrative Nutrients Standard with the Proposed NNC is Insupportable 

In its preamble to the proposed rule, EPA stated that it considered the following in determining that NNC are 

"necessary" in Florida: 

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. 

75 Fed. Reg. 4175 (Jan. 26, 2010). As explained below on page 4, EPA ostensibly considered all of these factors 

during a three week period over the 2008-2009 holidays, culminating in its January 14, 2009, necessity determination. 

Comment ID 1641-1.001.008 

Author Name: Littrell J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1491
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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. 

Comment ID 1641-1.001.014 

Author Name: Littrell J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System 

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 I, 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 and 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 to establish enforcable controls 

for nonpoint source activites. 

Comment ID 1834-2.001.002 

Author Name: Bronson C. 

Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

In the Executive Summary, at 75FR4175, EPA presents an invalid and slanted picture of the water quality situation in 

Florida. The Summary states that there is "growing nutrient pollution resulting from expanding urbanization, continued 

agricultural development, and a significantly increasing population." 

While Florida has experienced high levels of population growth, the growth of the population has slowed recently and, in 

the recent recession has actually decreased somewhat. Florida has stringent statewide stormwater provisions that 

address pollution from all new development, and which require containment and treatment of stormwater quantity and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1492
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

quality. Much of the nutrient load that does come from development is from older cities and requires retrofit of the older 

systems through MS4 and other programs. Population expanding into new areas will have to dcvelop in accord with the 

treatment requirements. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.050 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Executive Summary 

Florida's flowing waters, lakes, streams and springs, are ecologically diverse with unique ecological characteristics 

adapted to the subtropical environment. From Pensacola to Key West, no other State shares the vast array of physical, 

biological and geochemical conditions found in Florida. 

Excessive or misplaced nutrient releases into the environment can result in a process called eutrophication, the nutrient 

enrichment of water bodies. The eutrophication process is complex, with many steps and many factors controlling the 

outcome. The overlay of this complicated ecological process onto the diverse Florida physiography results in a broad 

spectrum of complicated responses to nutrient enrichment. 

The State of Florida has been engaged in the development of numeric nutrient criteria for the State's waters for several 

years but has not, to date, promulgated numeric nutrient criteria. The reason for this inability to promulgate appropriate 

rules is that numerous analyses attempting to link nutrients to observed impacts have not resulted in statistically reliable 

endpoints. Simply stated, there is not sufficient scientific justification for developing numeric nutrient criteria in many of 

Florida's surface waters. 

In 2008, a citizens' suit was filed as allowed under the federal Clean Water Act in which several environmental 

organizations alleged that EPA had failed to discharge its nondiscretionary duty to develop numeric nutrient criteria for 

the State of Florida in that the State had failed to finalize its own criteria. In 2009, EPA entered a consent decree 

committing the agency to promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida watersostensibly due to the State's lack of 

progress. 

Comment ID 2233.001.004 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

In evaluating the need for new nutrient WQS in Florida, EPA considered 3 factors (Executive Summary at 4475): 

1. The State's documented unique and threatened ecosystems. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1493
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Indeed, Florida's unique and diverse ecosystems demand a watershed-specific approach to nutrient WQS, not a broad 

regional approach. CF agrees that protection of Florida's ecosystems is a fundamentally important regulatory goal, but 

standards should not be so broad and inflexible as to ignore natural variability. Otherwise limited resources will be 

wasted without environmental benefit. 

2. The high number of impaired waters due to existing nutrient pollution. 

First, CF notes that EPA neglected to put into context the purported "high number" of waters impaired due to nutrient 

levels in the Florida. In fact, based on CF's analysis of EPA's statistics and DEP's listing data, only 2 percent of streams 

and only 4 percent of lakes in the State are actually listed as impaired for nutrients today. These facts do not suggest a 

state-wide crisis. Moreover, CF believes the total number of waterbodies that are truly impaired for excess nutrients is 

overstated, because over half are actually listed as impaired in whole or in part due to low dissolved oxygen (DO), arid 

a presumption has been made that (a) low dissolved oxygen is in all cases an impairment and that (b) low dissolved 

oxygen is further presumed to result from nutrient enrichment. DO levels are acknowledged by the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (DEP) and scientists across the State to often exist naturally below the state's minimum 

Class 3 fresh water criterion of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which may not be a sign of nutrient pollution. 

The Agency has further suggested that the problem of nutrient pollution is getting worse in Florida. This assertion is 

contrary to CF's observations and experiences, as well as published data and actual conditions in central Florida. CF 

believes this contention is based principally on the accounting exercise of the TMDL process - that is, on how many 

waterbodies have been added to the planning or impaired lists in recent years. CF believes the reason that more 

waterbodies are listed as impaired for nutrients today, in addition to the DO issue described above, is that the DEP has 

simply assessed more waters than previously through the implementation of Florida's TMDL program. Ironically, DEP 

has concluded that EPA's nutrient standards, if adopted as proposed, will place vastly more waterbodies on these lists ­

up to 96% of all streams in Florida, including 80% of those streams the State considers to be "pristine ." EPA's 

proposed rule would place an unwarranted burden upon the State of Florida and its citizens. 

3. The challenge associated with growing nutrient pollution resulting frorn expanding urbanization, continued agricultural 

development, and a significantly increasing population that is expected to grow 75% between 2000 to 2030. 

First, CF believes the challenges posed by evolving changes in land use are best managed through Basin Management 

Action Plans (i.e., the "BMAP" process), which is an effective, watershed-specific stakeholder process for developing 

and implementing technically sound TMDLs. 

Second, while CF believes the Agency's characterization of "ex P anding urbanization" and "continued agricultural 

development" are contradictory[1], EPA's underlying projections for State growth are based on census data from 2005, 

before the worst economic recession in this country since the 1930s. In 2009, Florida actually experienced its first year 

of negative growth since 1946. In other words, the population in Florida had actually declined for the first time in 64 

years when the Agency's proposed rule was published. Clearly, EPA needs to revisit the assumptions it used in 

formulating its opinion of need under this factor. 

[1] In Florida, agricultural lands have historically fallen victim to conversion for other land uses, such as residential 

development. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services estimates that Florida agriculture is losing 

100,000 acres per year. (R. Budell, personal communication, citing to World Almanac quotation of U.S.D.A. National 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1494
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Agricultural Statistics Service). 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0922-1.001.001, 0922-1.001.034 

Response: EPA acknowledges the reference to the Executive Summary included in the preamble to the proposed rule. Please refer 

to the preamble section I. General Information, A. Executive Summary for the updated Executive Summary associated with this 

final rule. 

Comment ID: 0922-1.001.044 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the statistical distribution methodology put forth in the rule is 

technically indefensible. Please refer to the preamble, in particular section III.B and EPA’s accompanying Technical Support 

Document for a discussion of the scientifically defensible methodologies employed by EPA to derive numeric nutrient criteria for 

Florida’s streams. 

Comment ID: 1356-1.001.003 

Response: The preamble to this final rule, in particular section III, and the accompanying Technical Support Document, discuss 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. 

Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how those standards are to be implemented. The State of 

Florida will determine how best to meet the standards, considering the needs of its citizens and environment. The State may use its 

existing (or propose in the future) authorized 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. 

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. 

EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementing numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with 

Florida as the State implements these federal criteria. EPA also looks forward to the State adopting its own numeric nutrient criteria 

in the future. EPA also reminds commenters that the Agency has provided implementation flexibility to Florida in several aspects of 

the final rule where demonstrated to be appropriate. FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at 

any time and may submit its own proposed standards to EPA for review. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1495
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID: 1362-1.001.002 

Response: Comment does not provide a comment on the executive summary to the preamble to EPA’s proposed rule. Other specific 

concerns raised by this commenter are addressed elsewhere in this Response to Comments Document. 

Comment IDs: 1416-1.001.006, 1641-1.001.014 

Response: EPA refers commenters to the preamble of this final rule, in particular section II. Background, for a detailed explanation 

of EPA’s January 14, 2009 determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary for the State of Florida to meet the Clean 

Water Act requirement to have criteria that protect applicable designated uses and the Agency’s statutory authority to take such 

action. 

Comment IDs: 1416-1.001.006, 1641-1.001.014, 1641-1.001.008, 1834-2.001.002, 2233.001.004 

Response: EPA disagrees that the basis for the Agency’s January 14, 2009 determination is questionable and/or unfounded. 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 (CWA). EPA determined that numeric nutrient water criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters are necessary for the 

State of Florida to meet the requirements of CWA section 303(c). EPA refers commenters to the preamble to this final rule for a 

detailed explanation of the basis of EPA’s January 14, 2009 determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary for the State 

of Florida to meet the CWA requirement to have criteria that protect applicable designated uses and the Agency’s statutory 

authority to take such action. Please refer in particular to section II. Background in the preamble to this final rule. 

EPA disagrees that promulgation of this rule will render Florida unable to compete and the State’s overall economy will decline. 

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 nutrient 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. Please refer 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 derived numeric nutrient criteria 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 also reminds commenters that the Agency has provided implementation flexibility to Florida in several aspects of the 

final rule 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1496
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

the rule is not a one-size-fits-all rule. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP, and interested entities and stakeholders, as the 

State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule, which are 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. 

Comment IDs: 1641-1.001.008, 1834-2.001.002, 2233.001.004 

Response: EPA directs commenters to section II. Background in the preamble to this final rule for a detailed explanation for the 

basis of EPA’s January 14, 2009 determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary for the State of Florida to meet the CWA 

requirement to have criteria that protect applicable designated uses and the Agency’s statutory authority to take such action. Section 

II.A.3 Nitrogen/Phosphorus Pollution in Florida discusses documentation of impaired waters in Florida due to nutrient pollution 

(based on references from 2008 and 2010) and growing population trends in Florida (based on references from 2008 and 2009). 

Comment ID: 2233-1.001.050 

Response: EPA disagrees with commenter’s assertion that there is insufficient scientific justification for deriving numeric nutrient 

criteria for Florida’s surface waters. Please refer to the preambles to the proposed and final rules and associated Technical Support 

Documents for a detailed explanation of the scientifically defensible methodologies used to derive EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria 

for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. 

I.B - WHAT ENTITIES MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS RULE? 

Comment ID 0644.001.004 

Author Name: Janazzo J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners 

How is Okaloosa County going to be affected by the proposed rule? Well, we have a total of 13 water treatment 

facilities, not counting the county, but the cities and everyone else. We have industries, we have government entities 

who are responsible for managing the stormwater, although who don't add to it. We have our two new military tenants, 

the F-35 joint strike fighter and the seven special forces, and we also have our agricultural, managed landscape, golf 

courses, highway medians, et cetera. So, basically, everyone is affected by this. 

Comment ID 0646.001.004 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

Those who will be affected and will have to comply with the rule include but are not limited to, fruit and vegetable 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1497
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

processors; fern and palm growers; fertilizer producers; power plants; wastewater facilities; pulp and paper mills; 

dairies; golf courses; city, county and state stormwater systems; military installations; builders and developers. The EPA 

is not planning to regulate or impose limits on the worst nutrient sources, which include nonpoint source rainfall runoff; 

septic systems; atmospheric deposition; and inflow from other states. The only two sources of nutrients which will enter 

our waters which will be ruled by this proposed mandate will be point source rainfall runoff and treatment works. 

Comment ID 0844.001.001 

Author Name: Waldron M. 

Organization: Highland Greenhouses Delray Plants 

MR. KING: Mr. Waldron, may I ask you one question? I am curious, by any chance, if you had a sense of what it is 

about your operation that would be affected by the proposed regulations? That may not be your department, but I just -­

if you have a sense of that? MR. WALDRON: You would be right in saying that I don't have a sense of that at the time, 

but I just guess presumably that we would have to put some measures in to catch water leaving our farm, making sure 

that it's okay before it enters into an area like Fisheating Creek. 

Comment ID 0896-2.001.001 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners 

What does the proposed rule mean for local governments such as Lee County? Many Florida local governments have 

what are called "Municipal Separate Stormwater Systems" (MS4s) that collect polluted stormwater runoff and discharge 

it to surface waters belonging to the state. Many of these MS4s are regulated, meaning discharges must be permitted in 

compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) just like publicly owned Water and 

Wastewater Treatment Facilities. EPA's proposed rule could affect local governments such as Lee County that operate 

both MS4s, and Water and Wastewater Utilities if meeting the numeric nutrient criteria for the receiving or downstream 

water body requires that more stringent limits be put in place when their NPDES permit is renewed. More stringent 

limits will require additional pollution control measures to be put in place as part of the stormwater management 

program, which will likely be costly. 

Comment ID 1010.001.012 

Author Name: Nelson B. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Community Concerns 

In cannot be said enough that Bonita Springs is a municipality with its associated storm water responsibilities, and 

within its corporate boundaries are the twelve special purpose governments known as water control districts, special 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1498
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

districts and community development districts. Each of these special purpose governments have storm water control 

concerns and are impacted by the rule, especially as to its applicability to manmade canals and lakes, which are 

primarily storm water retention facilities . In addition to the special purpose governments, there are also property 

owners associations with South Florida Water Management District permit responsibilities . Unlike the special district 

governments, of which Florida Department of Community Affairs list 1,625 (not all with storm water and waste water 

issues), there is no registry of homeowners' associations . However, Bonita Springs has as its land area approximately 

60% of roads and canals maintained by property owners associations, who are affected by the proposed rule . 

Comment ID 1098-3.001.012 

Author Name: Vance A. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

4. Community Concerns 

In cannot be said enough that Bonita Springs is a municipality with its associated storm water responsibilities, and 

within its corporate boundaries are the twelve special purpose governments known as water control districts, special 

districts and community development districts. Each of these special purpose governments have storm water control 

concerns and are impacted by the rule, especially as to its applicability to manmade canals and lakes, which are 

primarily storm water retention facilities. 

In addition to the special purpose governments, there are also property owners associations with South Florida Water 

Management District permit responsibilities. Unlike the special district governments, of which Florida Department of 

Community Affairs list 1,625 (not all with storm water and waste water issues), there is no registry of homeowners' 

associations. However, Bonita Springs has as its land area approximately 60% of roads and canals maintained by 

property owners associations, who are affected by the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1177.001.006 

Author Name: Vance A. 

Organization: Bonita Springs City Council 

How does the rule specifically affect the City of Bonita Springs? First of all, like many small governments, we do have 

an MS4 permit, as required under the Clean Water Act. The cost for monitoring and enforcement, there is a concern -­

you know, the citizens state that nobody follows -- or nothing has been done. Things have been done here for many 

years. 

We're concerned with Downstream Protection Values, we're concerned with SPARROW, homeowners and property 

owners associations. We rely on private developers, who have storm water systems. If they all go belly-up or they're not 

able to maintain, it creates a problem throughout the entire -- and end of pipe treatment is also a concern, where we 

require -- we have irrigation lines, and with this irrigation line, we keep water clean by -- or we get fertilizer as a result of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1499
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

having the irrigation lines in place. If they have to be clean to an unreasonable degree, it will cost not just money, but 

also cost -- people will have to apply fertilizer where currently fertilizer is not applied. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 1264.001.003 

Author Name: Melton K. 

Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission 

The impact on potable water treatment was not considered in any of the E.P.A.'s analyses. The proposed rule may 

indirectly regulate potable water and create conflicts with the United States Drinking -- Safe Drinking Water Act when 

nutrient concentrations in potable water exceed the proposed numeric nutrient levels. 

Comment ID 1271.001.005 

Author Name: Pearson S. 

Organization: City of Gainesville 

On the issue of sovereign immunity, we think the federal and the state legislative bodies need to modify sovereign 

immunity to limit it so that DOT and schools cannot use their sovereign immunity to avoid participation in stormwater 

utility and especially in stormwater watershed restoration projects. And one last point, SRF funding. Some SRF funding 

cannot be used to match grants. We need to change that rule so that all SRF funding can be used to match funding for 

grants. Utility managers need flexibility to implement restoration projects, not fiscal analysts mapping funding to avoid 

audit infractions. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1305.001.009 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

So back to my new treatment plan. The permits have provisions for short-term limited discharges to the river when one 

of the industry is down for some reason. The other industry will use it and then discharge it with their surface water. So 

it's clear they could be affected by this rule. In our agreements with them, it's clear that they can deny using our water if 

we cause them to violate their permit. So we would be indirectly directly affected. 

Comment ID 1356-1.001.004 

Author Name: Hayes D. 

Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1500
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Section I.B. What Entities May Be Affected By This Rule? 

1. EPA lists Industry, Municipalities and Stormwater Management Districts as entities that are directly affected by the 

proposed criteria. EPA also states that the list, " .. .is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for 

entities that may be directly or indirectly affected by this action." The list only consists of those entities that have 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by FDEP and EPA. It is imperative that EPA 

recognize the contribution from unregulated non-point sources of nutrients, as well as, contributions from air sources 

that deposit nutrients directly into lakes, flowing waters and estuaries. Atmospheric deposition in some areas of the 

State represent a substantial contribution of nutrient inputs, therefore it is suggested that EPA evaluate its ability to 

regulate air emissions and corresponding air permits under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to assist in meeting the proposed 

nutrient criteria for lake, flowing wate rs and estuaries throughout the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1361-1.001.005 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

- Identification of potentially affected parties is not transparent. EPA states in the federal notice that "you must 

determine if you are affected by examining the proposed rules" and also refers to dischargers being indirectly affected. 

There is no explanation of how the indirect effect occurs. Therefore, the proposed rules are not adequately transparent. 

[Reference: EPA -HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1] 

Comment ID 1462-1.001.006 

Author Name: Helfrich C. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services 

Secondly, I would like to address the impacts of proposed numeric nutrient criteria to the utility industry. We fully 

support the efforts and comments presented on behalf of the Florida Water Environmental Association's Utility Council. 

Comment ID 1465-1.001.010 

Author Name: Ornberg K. 

Organization: Seminole County Public Works 

5. Specifically Exclude Stormwater Treatment Facilities from having to comply witb NNC 

Bodies of water associated with stormwater treatment or conveyance of stormwater are explicitly excluded by Florida 

Statute (373.4142) from the need to comply with Florida's water quality standards; this exemption does not seem to be 

incorporated into EPA's proposed NNC. In effect, this discrepancy could bring about a situation whereby a stormwater 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1501
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

treatment system could be held to the same water quality standards as the downstream water body the stormwater 

system was designed to protect. It is thereby recommended that EPA specifically exclude stormwater treatment 

facilities from having to comply with the NNC. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.001 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Members of the agricultural community - or their members - own and operate facilities located on or near the waters of 

the United States. Many hold individual and/or general permits for the discharge of pollutants into such 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, agricultural 

producers 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. 

Comment ID 1645-1.001.003 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

Several Sections in the EPA rule deserve discussion. 

Section 1: 

General Section B: What entities could be affected by this rule? 

"Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected, such as nonpoint source contributors to nutrient 

pollution in Florida's waters. Any parties or entities conducting activities within watersheds of the Florida waters covered 

by this rule or who rely or depend upon, influence or contribute to the water quality of the lakes and flowing waters of 

Florida, might be affected by this rule." 

This opening statement and subsequent references to land-based, man-caused activities clearly link several forms of 

disposal utilized by Destin Water Users to the proposed regulations. Such activities include land-based effluent disposal 

(irrigation with reclaimed water and rapid infiltration basins) and agricultural application of residuals (sludge). 

Comment ID 1713-1.001.003 

Author Name: Wheeler B. 

Organization: Tohopekaliga (Toho) Water Authority 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1502
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The proposed rule states "Any parties or entities conducting activities within watersheds of the Florida waters covered 

by this rule, or who rely on, depend upon, Influence or contribute to the water quality of the lakes and flowing waters of 

Florida (my emphasis), might be affected by this rule." This statement in the rule language certainly establishes some 

level of uncertainty as to the impact of the rule upon reclaimed water systems as developed and maintained by the 

Authority. I respectively request upon behalf of the Toho Water Authority that the EPA provide some clarification as to 

the application of the proposed rule to reclaimed water systems. As you may be aware, many utilities, in addition to the 

Authority, have invested and are investing substantial resources in the development of reclaimed water systems to 

address the dual problem of reduction in surface water discharges and the need to provide alternative water supplies. 

Response 

Comment ID: 0644.001.004 

Response: The economic analysis that accompanies this rule provides an estimate of the potential costs for nutrient controls from 

different sources in watersheds that may become identified as impaired for nutrients under this rule. See EPA’s document entitled: 

“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). 

Comment ID: 0646.001.004 

Response: The rule contains water quality criteria for nutrients applicable to specific waters -- it does not contain specific 

requirements for any nutrient sources. See also response to comment 0508-1.001.002 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 0844.001.001 

Response: See response to comment 0646.001.004. 

Comment ID: 0896-2.001.001 

Response: EPA acknowledges that additional stormwater pollution control measures may become necessary in some affected 

watersheds. Many of these controls are already necessary under existing standards, regulations, and programs, but are not yet 

implemented. These controls are considered part of the baseline in EPA’s economic analysis and are thus not attributable to this 

rule. Because the water quality that will result after all baseline requirements are met is uncertain, there is substantial uncertainty in 

additional pollution controls that may be required and attributable to this rule. EPA recognizes that urban stormwater controls can in 

some cases be costly. In cases where control costs would result in substantial and widespread adverse economic impacts, federal 

water quality standards allow entities to seek relief (see response to comment 0543-1.001.002 in issue category ECON). In the 

accompanying document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing 

Waters in Florida,” EPA discusses nutrient pollution in Florida urban stormwater, the control strategies that have been previously 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1503
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

proposed by Florida in TMDL basin management action plans, and the potential additional stormwater pollution control costs 

associated with waters that may be identified as impaired under this rule. 

Comment ID: 1010.001.012 

Response: See response to comment 0896-2.001.001. 

Comment ID: 1098-3.001.012
 

Response: See response to comment 0896-2.001.001.
 

Comment ID: 1177.001.006
 

Response: See response to comment 0644.001.004 and 0896-2.001.001.
 

Comment ID: 1264.001.003
 

Response: The commenter does not identify the specific concern regarding nutrient concentrations in potable water. EPA 

anticipates that controls on sources of nutrients will beneficially affect water treatment facilities by lowering treatment costs. 

Comment ID: 1271.001.005
 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment, but it is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
 

Comment ID: 1305.001.009
 

Response: See response to comment 0644.001.004 and 0896-2.001.001.
 

Comment ID: 1356-1.001.004
 

Response: The water quality criteria in this rule are scientifically derived, measurable properties of water that protect designated 

uses, and do not contain any direct requirements for sources of pollutants. Federal water quality standards regulations allow the 

State flexibility to use least cost solutions to attain and maintain State designated uses, including the regulation of air sources. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1504
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID: 1361-1.001.005 

Response: See response to comment 646.001.004. 

Comment ID: 1462-1.001.006 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005 in issue category BL_PS_M. 

Comment ID: 1465-1.001.010 

Response: The rule contains water quality criteria to protect designated uses for specific types of waters and thus the criteria apply 

to all waters that FDEP classifies for those uses. See also response to comment 0646.001.004. 

Comment ID: 1473-1.001.001 

Response: In response to the comment, agricultural entities may be affected by State implementation of the rule. See also response 

to comment 0646.001.004 and 0644.001.004. 

Comment ID: 1645-1.001.003 

Response: EPA notes that this rule establishes new numeric water quality criteria that apply to Class 1 and Class 3 inland lakes and 

flowing waters. The State of Florida is responsible for implementation of the rule such that the lakes and flowing waters meet these 

new criteria. For Clean Water Act purposes, FDEP will primarily implement this rule through the Florida NPDES (permits) 

program and the assessment, listing, and TMDL program. Issues regarding effluent reuse will be handled by the State through these 

implementation programs. EPA notes that an existing state nutrient TMDL identifies increasing reuse capacity as a means of 

meeting the target nutrient concentrations. See also response to comment 0646.001.004 and 0644.001.004. 

Comment ID: 1713-1.001.003 

Response: See response to comment 1645-1.001.003. 

I.C - WHAT SHOULD I CONSIDER AS I PREPARE MY COMMENTS
 

FOR EPA?
 

Comment ID 0916.001.003
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1505
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Kirkland F. 

Organization: 

Thank you Frank Kirkland 

3846 Fussell rd. 

Bowling Green, Fl. 33834-2820 

Cell 863-245-1158 Home 863-375-4188 

f 

mcycle@embarqmail.com 

Also please give me any info, agenda, speaking requirements,reports and records as 

we would love to give public comment? 

Response 

Comment ID: 0916.001.003 

Response: Instructions for providing public comments on EPA’s proposed rule to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s 

lakes and flowing waters were included in the preamble of the proposed rule located at FR 75:16, p 4174 ADDRESSES and p 4177 

section I.C. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA. EPA also held thirteen public hearings in six Florida 

cities (Tallahassee, Orlando, West Palm Beach, Fort Myers, Tampa, Jacksonville). Two sessions were held in each city, except 

three were held in Tallahassee. Information on attending these public hearings was provided in FR 75:16, p 4174 and FR 75:46, p 

11080. 

I.D - HOW CAN I GET COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT AND OTHER 

RELATED INFO 

Comment ID 0557.001.002 

Author Name: Fennell R. 

Organization: Coral Springs Improvement District 

Currently, critical rule-related information, such as the model or models utilized to develop the proposed numeric 

standards are either not available or only available at the EPA offices in Washington, D.C. Therefore interested parties 

in Florida such as the FASD and its members do not have reasonable access to the information and data to be able to 

make informed and proper comments to the proposed rules. The EPA should make all the underlying data and analysis 

accessible to interested parties in Florida on disk (e.g., DVD/CD-ROM) or for download at a publicly accessible File 

Transfer Protocol (FTP) site. 

Comment ID 0854.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1506
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Larson A. 

Organization: 

MR. KEATING: All of our data are up on the dockets. MS. LARSON: Well, no, I -- That's another thing. You have 

negated 50 percent of the population because we don't have computers. There's no way to go through 1,500 

documents. I was at DEP yesterday. My poor friend got the run-around of a lifetime to try to get just some basic 

answers. Basic answers come down to the level of a human being, not the science level. My dad was a scientist so I 

got some of it, but if you're a normal person, they are being negated and that's just horrible. I am ashamed of what I 

witnessed yesterday. Because we were just trying to get some basic answers on this particular item. 

Comment ID 0854.001.005 

Author Name: Larson A. 

Organization: 

I think that, you know -- Jeb, years ago -- FDEP used to have - every single thing used to be online. Every permit they 

were ever going to do. They stopped that in July of 2006. So a layperson cannot get the Florida Administrative Weekly. 

I never saw your ad. I was at the water resources task force. Someone was kind enough to give me the website so I 

could sign up the women that came here today with me. 'Cause nobody -- You're negated if you -- If you are not a 

computer technical person, you are not going to get the answers. So my request from one of you this evening, I want 

you to mail the documents to my friend because she's the next speaker. And she deserves that. She deserves a good, 

fair way of looking at this. Because regional availability, that was ridiculous. 

Comment ID 0855.001.001 

Author Name: White S. 

Organization: 

I'm going to get my stuff today. She kept me in pain for half an hour yesterday while she was looking through a 

computer trying to decide which pieces of information I was going to get at DEP. That's what I got. And she was so 

condescending, well, you wouldn't understand those big words. 

Comment ID 0902.001.002 

Author Name: Bliss J. 

Organization: 

Further, the public comment on-site doesn't seem to be able to zero in on the specific rule: typing in the full numeric 

brings up 7xx different rules?????? 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1507
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0557.001.002, 0854.001.002, 0854.001.005, 0855.001.001, 0902.001.002 

Response: EPA disagrees with commenters that data were not accessible or available through EPA’s docket associated with this 

rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). All documents in the docket were accessible not only electronically through 

www.regulations.gov, but also in hard copy at the Office of Water’s Docket Center in Washington, DC. EPA notes that the data 

were available through EPA’s docket with adequate time for organizations to sufficiently analyze the data and science used to 

derive EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria, compliance alternatives in response to the rule, and the cost of complying with the rule. 

EPA reminds commenters that instructions for accessing and providing public comments on EPA’s proposed rule to establish 

numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters were included in the preamble to the proposed rule located at FR 

75:16, p 4174 ADDRESSES and p 4177 section I.C. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA. 

EPA believes that the extended comment period resulting in a 90-day public comment period, in conjunction with the additional 

public meetings (resulting in a total of 13 public meetings held in 6 different cities throughout the State), with a further 30 days to 

comment on EPA’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. 

Based upon comments and new data and information received during the public comment phase of the January 2010 proposed rule, 

on August 3, 2010 EPA published a supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment related to the Agency’s 

January 26, 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking. In its supplemental notice, EPA solicited comment on a revised regionalization 

approach for streams, additional information and analysis on least-disturbed sites as part of a modified benchmark distribution 

approach, and additional options for developing downstream protection values (DPVs) for lakes. EPA did not solicit additional 

comment on any other provisions of the January 2010 proposal. Responses to comments submitted during the public comment 

period associated with the supplemental notice are also included in this Comment Response Document. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1508