# CHAPTER 2 Issue Category: Public Hearings Pages 1 - 13

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

November 14, 2010

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

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

# PUBLIC HEARINGS - PUBLIC HEARINGS Comment ID 0508-1.001.007
Author Name: Wilson M. Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce It is highly unlikely that your agency can obtain the necessary useful feedback to answer these and other questions in a series of 5 minute public comments over 3 days in a state of over 18 million people. 

# Comment ID 0651.001.005
Author Name: Ghent R. Organization: CF Industries Lastly, I would say that additional stakeholder meetings should be held in Florida communities. In my travels and communications with scientists, agricultural stakeholders, and laymen, there is a great concern that Floridians who have so much at stake are given too little opportunity for evaluation and comment. This is especially true for Florida counties that are in rural areas of critical economic concern, and more meetings would be most welcome. Thank you for your time. 

# Comment ID 0660.001.002
Author Name: Ward G. Organization: Time has caused me to focus on process in these comments. We welcome you to Florida, but like most Washington operations, I want you to start focusing on cost. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1967, the Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972, and the Clean Water Act of 1977 do not allow you to forget cost. On that note, simple things like scheduling these three days of constrained hearings immediately after a national holiday says you may not be focusing on cost. How many employees are able to take overtime because they had to travel and so forth to get here? I'd like that question for the record. 

# Comment ID 0668.001.007
Author Name: Mann D. Organization: Utility Council of the American Water Works Association

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings And secondly, just like our Florida congressional delegation has asked the administrator, and that is to extend these hearings for another 60 days. We think it's very important to have public hearings and comments. When you're beginning something like this, it's huge. We need to have more time for the public to absorb this and let you know how it's going to impact us and maybe develop some common solutions. Thank you for coming to Florida. I appreciate it. 

# Comment ID 0670.001.002
Author Name: Cole T. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Yes. I'm Terry Cole. I practice law in Tallahassee, and I want to express appreciation to y'all for a long day. I've been in your position a time or two and know how trying it is as many people come up. And just one comment in terms if you do any further public involvement beyond these three. This has been arduous enough. You probably won't want to come back after doing that. But a number of questions are getting asked as we go through this. You obviously don't have time and you can't, and we all recognize that and appreciate that and respect that. 

# Comment ID 0679.001.002
Author Name: Vogel C. Organization: Florida Water Quality Coalition And having said that, I would also echo the recent congressional delegation letter from the Florida Congressional Delegation to Administrator Jackson asking you please to consider to have additional public hearings in Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, all major urban areas that are left out of this round of hearings you're having, and to please consider extending the public comment period on this very, very, complex technical water quality issue. 

# Comment ID 0690.001.003
Author Name: Beshears H. Organization: Hold more hearings, please. Three hearings appears to be a dog and pony show. Take the time to come up with a feasible plan that will ultimately help rather than hurt. Again, thank you for your time and patience. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0714.001.008
Author Name: Alexander J. Organization: Alico, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings We want more hearing time than three days. There are over 17 million Floridians. They need to be heard. 

# Comment ID 0722.001.003
Author Name: Story V. Organization: I hope you will do it in public forums like we have today. I much appreciate that I'm here to speak and hear these other folks speak and to let you know how we feel. 

# Comment ID 0731.001.006
Author Name: Hartney M. Organization: Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association We respectfully support the requests made by members of Florida's Congressional delegation for more public hearings in other parts of the state. 

# Comment ID 0732.001.011
Author Name: Fulford C. Organization: Congressman Adam Putnam Indeed, despite the potential widespread impacts these regulation will have on our state, Floridians do not yet understand their costs and benefits. They have also not been subject to the debate by elective representatives. More public hearings and discussions are necessary and appropriate. 

# Comment ID 0743.001.004
Author Name: Rossman D. Organization: DCR Services We're requesting additional hearings in more locations throughout Florida to allow all Floridians the opportunity to be heard. 

# Comment ID 0746.001.002

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings
Author Name: Long A. Organization: Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed Instead of reiterating everything you that you've heard today, I thought you might be interested in some of the statistics I gathered as I was listening. Out of the 47 speakers today, 42 spoke in opposition, five in support, 89 percent in opposition. In order to assist you in determining what was significant today, as one of the previous speakers suggested might be a difficult task, I offer the following. Every speaker speaking in opposition to the current proposed criteria spoke in support of site-specific numeric criteria based on sound scientific methodology and data. Every speaker spoke in support of the DEP as being the agency of authority to develop and implement such criteria. 

# Comment ID 0754.001.003
Author Name: Flowers J. Organization: City of Maitland As I said, I'm a councilman in the State of Florida for the City of Maitland and we are required to operate in this state as councilman under a law called the Sunshine Law. And we have a public process in Florida and we are required to offer public comment in our meetings. And if we were to deny people entering into one of our meetings, like this meeting did, we would be -- I would be going to jail the next day. I find that completely unacceptable. DR. FLOWERS: People told me that they were not allowed to come into the room. DR. FLOWERS: That's their fault? This is the only public chance they get to come and talk to you? DR. FLOWERS: You can convince yourself that this is a fair process. You cannot convince me. DR. FLOWERS: Well, then, you should have rented a larger room. DR. FLOWERS: You didn't get it big enough. DR. FLOWERS: We've held meetings in gyms when we had to in my city when it was required. But we've never denied a citizen a chance to address his council in a public forum, as you have done today. So I find that appalling to be a part of that kind of public process. DR. FLOWERS: You have designed a process that prevents them from coming. I want the clock stopped if we're going to be in dialogue. You don't see the challenge you present when you have a room too small for the people to fit into? When I came in here, there were like a hundred people standing in the back. They couldn't sit down. I mean, nobody can stand, that I know of, at my age, for six hours. Okay? I mean, that's an inappropriate facility for a public meeting. You have not

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings provided adequate access to this process. I have in my possession a letter to your administrator. It was signed by the legislative delegation from the State of Florida. And that's an incredible statement, number one, that you could get the entire legislative group, all of our senators, all of our congressmen, to agree on anything. It's a very rare thing for the city council to do that. It's amazing that you have gotten the entire federal delegation to do that. And they're all asking for the same thing that I am, which is access to the public of Florida to come talk to you about this. And you're not providing it with this process. And I'm telling you that as a public elected official. I represent 17,000 people in Maitland and they're -- I'm required to sit here all day with my utilities director while I wait until I address you because I couldn't talk any sooner than this. So that's an upsetting thing, if you have a process that is that restrictive. As I say, I have provided public comment to you. 

# Comment ID 0808.001.004
Author Name: Charles J. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts My final comment on behalf of the Association of Special Districts is a process-related comment. After the Tallahassee hearing, Jim asked me what I thought of the hearing. He's not here right now, but I appreciate him asking me such a candid question, and I think it's only respectful to the rest of you that I share my response that I gave to him. I firmly believe that before I can be understood, I must first understand you, and while I understand EPA's overview that you've given over the past three days, it's just that, an overview. And after attending three days of hearings, I honestly can say I don't have a better understanding of the proposed methodologies, the justifications of the data. We fully understand and appreciate the need to accommodate public comment. However, more substantive discussion of methodologies, justifications and data would have been extremely helpful for us as the regulated community. Until that discussion takes place, there's going to be a disconnect between EPA and the regulated community. The success of any regulatory program depends on the cooperation of the regulated community, and cooperation depends on open and full communication. As I've said, and as you're well aware since you recognized me when I came up, we've attended all three hearings, we've provided comment at all three hearings so you can have a better understanding of who we are, what we do, what our concerns are and what our limitations are. We've done our part to bridge that disconnect. We respectfully request EPA help us bridge the disconnect by providing a more substantive discussion of the methodology, justification and data. With that I appreciate your time and consideration, and wish you a safe trip back up. 

# Comment ID 0899.001.005
Author Name: Bartz R. Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce

• Extending the limited hearings to hosting around the state. Florida deserves a fair hearing on such a pervasive subject affecting Its 18 million people.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings


# Comment ID 0947.001.007
Author Name: Alexander J. Organization: Alico, Inc. 3. We want more hearing time than THREE DAYS-this is more IMPORTANT than "checking the box" that THREE HEARINGS were held . There are over 15 million Floridians; they need to be heard. 

# Comment ID 0954.001.003
Author Name: Crenshaw A. Organization: United States House of Representatives These regulations being proposed will impact every citizen, local governments, and the business community. The more time and information the public has to understand these rules provides more time to plan and consider the costs and benefits of implementation. Hosting three hearings in a narrow time period, in a state with more than 18 million residents is simply inadequate to review this complicated proposal. We need continued coordinated efforts through federal/ local/ state partnerships to protect our waters from contamination and restore our local ecosystems. 

# Comment ID 0994.001.002
Author Name: Ryan J. Organization: I attended the public hearing last evening in Ft Myers. First experience at that sort of proceeding. I had hoped to have a chance to meet knowledgeable people and to get to talk to authoritative people. To my surprise I learned that our questions could not be answered. We were only to put in our 5 minutes of comments. So my objective was not achieved. However the EPA presentation was interesting. I asked at the registration table and was warmly advised to send my questions to you. 

# Comment ID 1051.001.002
Author Name: Everham W. Organization: I want to add my thanks to you and to the EPA for the opportunity to comment tonight, and particularly your willingness to schedule this locally, making it possible for many of us to participate, and I appreciate your patience on what must have been a very long day.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-6Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings


# Comment ID 1067.001.001
Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Kevin Carter, South Florida Water Management District, and welcome back to Florida. Speaking of appreciation, we appreciate the EPA holding these second series of publish meetings starting today in Fort Myers, tomorrow in Tampa, and the following day in Jacksonville. 

# Comment ID 1075.001.001
Author Name: Judah R. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Hi, gentlemen. My name is Ray Judah. I represent the Lee County commission. Thank you for allowing me to share a few words with you this evening. And first of all, thank you very much for all the time and resources that have been expended to try to get public input, as you move forward with the rule-making to impose the numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1099-1.001.002
Author Name: Ern, Jr. R. Organization: Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hiott, Inc. on behalf of Resorts Development Group II, LLC If you have any comments, please submit them to EPA by following the directions provided by the EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standard s/rules/florida/. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding three additional public hearings in April to receive more input on the agency's proposed Florida water quality standards. EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed standards through April 28, and is holding public hearings on the proposed rule in three additional Florida cities to obtain input and comments on the direction of EPA's rulemaking. The additional hearings are scheduled for: April 13, 2010: Fort Myers Harborside Event Center 1375 Monroe Street, Fort Myers, Fla. 33901 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. April 14, 2010:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-7Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings Tampa Hilton Tampa Airport 2225 North Lois Avenue, Tampa, Fla. 33607 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. April 15, 2010: Jacksonville Clarion Hotel Airport Conference Center 2101 Dixie Clipper Drive, Jacksonville, Fla. 32218 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. If you need additional information please contact the Florida Department of Environmental Protection at (850) 245-2118 or Lauren Petter, Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, at (404) 562-9272. 

# Comment ID 1129.001.001
Author Name: Merriam J. Organization: Sarasota County Mr. Keating, my name is Jack Merriam, I am representing Sarasota County Government. And I appreciate the additional opportunity to come and make some comments. 

# Comment ID 1192.001.002
Author Name: Neill G. Organization: Gulf Coast Lakes & Wetlands I would like to also thank you, Mr. King and Mr. Keating, for returning to our state after your last visit, especially during the colder months. I hope that this visit you get to enjoy some of our warmer weather. 

# Comment ID 1194.001.007
Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association We will provide written comments before the deadline. We appreciate your coming again. We do appreciate the extra hearings that you've agreed to hold. Very thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 1230.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-8Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings
Author Name: Craw V. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District For the record, my name is Veronica Craw, representing the Southwest Florida Water Management District. On behalf of the Water Management District, we want to thank E.P.A. for scheduling these additional meetings and providing the District with the opportunity to provide input. We will be formally submitting our comments in writing by the April 28th deadline. 

# Comment ID 1243.001.001
Author Name: Murphy J. Organization: Gulf Restoration Network Thank you very much. My name is Joe Murphy, I am the Florida program coordinator for the Gulf Restoration Network, and we have had the opportunity to speak at several of the hearings. I'm going to keep my comments short. We are also in the -- in the process of preparing and submitting written comments that reflect not only our concerns about these issues in Florida, but a gulf-wide perspective as well. And there are many positive things that can come out of this process that may impact other gulf coastal states and other parts of the country as these criteria are developed. I had an opportunity before the Tallahassee hearing -- and I appreciate the fact that you guys have now been over a great part of the state, have listened to people across the state, and that is deeply appreciated. 

# Comment ID 1244.001.001
Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Hello, good evening, Kevin Carter with the South Florida Water Management District, day two of three, and we thank the E.P.A. for coming back to Florida and holding these public meetings, yesterday in Fort Myers, today in Tampa, and we look forward to tomorrow in Jacksonville. 

# Comment ID 1368-2.001.002
Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-9Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings Again, as a reminder, please note that there is NO March 10 public meeting on numeric nutrient criteria. If you have any questions, please let me know. 

# Comment ID 1560.001.003
Author Name: Pittman J. Organization: Jackson County Farm Bureau Our hope was to attend one of the EPA public hearings in the state. However, due to the limited schedule and locations, we were unable to attend. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments in mind. 

# Comment ID 1561.001.003
Author Name: Dauphin M. Organization: Bay County Farm Bureau Our hope was to attend one of the EPA public hearings in the state. However, due to the limited schedule and locations, we were unable to attend. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments in mind. 

# Comment ID 1925.001.003
Author Name: Thorn L. Organization: Walton County Farm Bureau Our hope was to attend one of the EPA public hearings in the state. However, due to the limited schedule and locations, we were unable to attend. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments in mind. 

# Comment ID 1928.001.002
Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works Again, as a reminder, please note that there is NO March 10 public meeting on numeric nutrient criteria. If you have any questions, please let me know.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-10Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings 

# Comment ID 1930.001.001
Author Name: Congdon L. Organization: I had hoped to give these comments at your meeting in Tampa on April 14, but I got sick and couldn't come. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0508-1.001.007, 0651.001.005, 0660.001.002, 0668.001.007, 0670.001.002, 0679.001.002, 0690.001.003, 0714.001.008, 0722.001.003, 0731.001.006, 0732.001.011, 0743.001.004, 0808.001.004, 0899.001.005, 0947.001.007, 0954.001.003, 0994.001.002, 1051.001.002, 1067.001.001, 1075.001.001, 1099-1.001.002, 1129.001.001, 1192.001.002, 1194.001.007, 1230.001.001, 1243.001.001, 1244.001.001, 1560.001.003, 1561.001.003, 1925.001.003, 1930.001.001 Response: EPA published proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters on January 26, 2010. EPA’s proposal initially provided for a 60-day public comment period, which was scheduled to end on March 29, 2010. Given the importance of providing the citizens of Florida with the opportunity to understand the content and implications of the proposed rule and to allow sufficient time to submit comments, EPA supported requests to extend the public comment period, in conjunction with holding additional public hearings. As a result, the Agency extended the initial public comment period deadline by an additional 30 days for a 90-day public comment period. Comments were required to be submitted to EPA by April 28, 2010. EPA also held a total of 13 public hearing sessions in 6 different cities in Florida (Tallahassee, Orlando, and West Palm Beach in February 2010, and Fort Myers, Tampa, and Jacksonville in April 2010). EPA disagrees with comments requesting additional public comment opportunities beyond that which has already been provided by the Agency. 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. EPA disagrees that the Agency’s Consent Decree deadline to finalize numeric nutrient criteria adversely affected EPA’s public comment process or impeded EPA’s thorough review, consideration, and analysis of the comments submitted. On June 7, 2010, EPA and Plaintiffs filed a joint notice with the Court extending the deadlines for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's estuaries and coastal waters, flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries and coastal waters. The new deadlines are November 14, 2011 for proposing this second phase of criteria, and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these three categories. EPA will hold a public peer review by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) of the scientific methodologies for estuarine and coastal criteria, flowing waters in south Florida, and downstream protection values for estuaries and coastal waters. Based upon comments and new data and information received during the public comment phase of the January 2010 proposed rule,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-11Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings 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. On October 8, 2010, EPA filed an unopposed motion with the Court requesting that the deadline for signing the final rule be extended to November 14, 2010. The Court granted EPA's motion on October 27, 2010. EPA used this additional time to review and confirm that all comments were fully considered. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement water quality programs in the State with oversight and support by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA has worked closely with the State, providing technical assistance, along with funding to the State to support sampling and analysis of existing data, to address nitrogen/phosphorus pollution problems in Florida. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment ID: 0660.001.002 Response: EPA reminds the commenter that water quality criteria are set to protect the designated uses of waters. Criteria are not set at levels based on whether they are affordable for dischargers to meet. Nonetheless, the Clean Water Act and EPA's regulations (and Florida's State regulations) are equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where affordable technology limitations are insufficient to meet water quality targets. 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. In response to comments regarding the potential cost to Florida, 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.

Comment ID: 0746.001.002 Response: EPA acknowledges the comments and concerns expressed in opposition to this final rulemaking to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA appreciates the comments and feedback received on this rule, however, the Agency disagrees that EPA should not proceed with finalizing and promulgating the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters discussed in the preamble to this final rule.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-12Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Public Hearings

In this final rule, EPA is promulgating numeric nutrient criteria that translate Florida’s own existing nutrient narrative water quality standards into numeric values for Florida's lakes and flowing waters that are scientifically defensible and protective of applicable designated uses consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. This final rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, which will be effective for purposes of the Clean Water Act, that are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated by FDEP as Class I and Class III waters. As a result, promulgation of this final rule serves to protect human health, aquatic ecosystems, recreation in and on the water, and drinking water supplies from water quality degradation due to the negative impacts of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Numeric nutrient criteria will create clear water quality goals and easily measurable quantitative baselines to support stronger collaboration and more effective partnerships with both point and nonpoint source dischargers of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. EPA has worked closely with Florida DEP, providing technical assistance along with funding to the State to support sampling and analysis of existing data, to address nutrient pollution problems in Florida. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment ID: 0754.001.003 Response: EPA reminds the commenter that during the public meeting in Orlando, attendees were not denied entering the public meeting but were asked to comply with fire safety codes when the meeting space reached capacity and to wait in the lobby of the facility until attendees already in the meeting left or to come back for the evening session of the public meeting held in the same location.

Comment ID: 1928.001.002 Response: EPA appreciates the comment but this comment is outside the scope of EPA’s rule.

Comment ID: 1368-2.001.002 Response: This is not a comment on EPA’s rulemaking or the Agency’s public hearings in Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-13