# CHAPTER 2 Issue Category: Applicability of Criteria When Final Pages 4297 - 4445

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 Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# III.G - APPLICABILITY OF CRITERIA WHEN FINAL Comment ID 0491-1.001.008

Author Name: Yarborough J. Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department Numeric Nutrient Criteria Effluent Standards Recently, the USEPA has initiated the rulemaking process to establish numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for the surface waters within the State of Florida. If the expected NNC are implemented in the state's water quality regulations, all Florida wastewater facilities that discharge treated effluent to rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries will likely be required to meet new, very low endof- pipe effluent limits on the discharge of specific nutrients, including total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). These new limits are anticipated to require a reduction in the current discharge of TN by 40 to 80% and TP by 90 to 95%. If the proposed NNC criteria become incorporated into the discharge permit of treatment facilities, cities like Palm Bay may be forced to spend significant money towards wastewater treatment plant infrastructure to meet the new more stringent nutrient effluent limits. Currently, the City of Palm Bay treatment facilities are required to meet the nationwide technology-based effluent standards for secondary treatment. The current effluent limits are established based upon the method of effluent disposal at each facility. These standards can be seen below in Table 1. In Florida, the highest level of wastewater treatment is termed "Advanced Wastewater Treatment" or AWT. These standards are applied to wastewater plants discharging to sensitive surface waters, such as the Florida Keys. For example, the AWT effluent standard for total nitrogen is 3.0 mg/L and the total phosphorus standard is 1.0 mg/L. There are approximately 65 treatment plants in Florida which already achieve AWT type effluent limits. If the proposed NNC for fresh water is applied as an end-of-pipe effluent limit for wastewater treatment plants, the TN limit could be as low as 0.82 to 1.73 mg/L and the TP limits could be as low 0.069 to 0.415 mg/L. An overall comparison of the effluent limits for typical secondary, AWT, and NNC are shown below in Table 1. Original comment letter contains additional information about wastewater treatment standards in Table 1. Comparison of Pollutant Concentration Limits by Specific Wastewater Treatment Standards. Numbers in table are from the FDEP proposed criteria, although the letter/comments are about EPA's proposed criteria. See original comment letter. It is believed the existing AWT plants will not consistently comply with the proposed NNC limits and will require additional tertiary treatment unit processes be added to the back end of the plant. Numeric Nutrient Criteria Analysis for Palm Bay In the case of Palm Bay, if the proposed NNC limits were to be imposed as end-of-pipe effluent limits, the significant plant improvements would be needed. These improvements can be considered as a two-step process. First, the treatment plants would need upgrading to meet AWT type limits. Achieving AWT type limits requires the biological treatment process to include both nitrification (the biological conversion of ammonia (NH3) to nitrate (N03-)) but also denitrification (the further biological conversion of nitrate (N03") to nitrogen gas (N2)). Through both nitrification

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4297Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final and denitrification, the total nitrogen (TN) content of the wastewater is reduced. The removal of phosphorus can be achieved using either a biological treatment (luxury uptake) or chemical precipitation treatment (addition of alum or ferric chloride). To achieve AWT type effluent limits, a conventional secondary treatment plant is retrofitted into a four or five-stage Bardenpho process. An anoxic treatment basin would be constructed before the existing aeration basin and large mixer liquor recycle flow stream would be established. Subsequent to the aeration basin, a new post anoxic basin and post aeration basin would be constructed. In the case of the WRF, it is believed these zones can be retrofitted and established within the existing tankage by the addition of new tank divider walls and the addition of mixers or the removal of aeration diffusers. In the case of the WWTP, new tankage would need to be constructed to implement a four-stage Bardenpho process. An additional anaerobic tank can be constructed prior to the previous described tanks if biological phosphorus is desired rather than use a chemical treatment approach to remove the phosphorus. Following biological treatment, the secondary effluent would require filtration prior to further subsequent treatment to protect the downstream treatment process. The use of cloth media type filtration would be the absolute minimum of filtration and the use of microfiltration/ultrafiltration using hollow-core or flat plate submerged membranes would be the preferred filtration method to protect the downstream treatment process. In summary, the implementation of a four or five-stage Bardenpho process with filtration would be necessary to achieve the AWT level of treatment. To achieve NNC type effluent limits, the AWT treated effluent must be further treated using a high-pressure membrane process (reverse osmosis). The reverse osmosis (RO) treatment system is able to remove nearly all constituents in the water to very low concentrations, but there are several significant issues with using this treatment technology that must be considered. First, the RO treatment system creates a concentrate or reject waste stream requiring disposal. Secondly, the RO treatment process is very energy-intensive and will likely as least double the energy consumption of a typical wastewater treatment plant. 

# Comment ID 0550.001.001

Author Name: Diamond C. Organization: Florida Department of Community Affairs I have sent a request to USGS for some information about how the SPARROW model incorporates land use data, but was interested primarily in EPA's perspective as to whether the adoption of numerical standards for water quality will have any direct impact on land use decisionmaking. I understand that the TMDL program has direct implications to jurisdictions and individual sources of loadings, and that the numerical standards (if adopted) may help shape allocations to be assigned in the context of TMDLs. In that sense the setting of numerical standards may have an indirect impact on future land uses or management of property. Does EPA consider that the setting of numerical standards themselves will translate into required action by local governments or property owners? As this agency reviews local government comprehensive plans and changes to those plans (including future land uses), we are specifically interested in how the longer-term implementation of the rule may affect comprehensive planning and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4298Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final land-use decision-making by local governments in Florida. 

# Comment ID 0590.001.007

Author Name: Conner R. Organization: Lakeland Water Utilities (6) Based on the large numbers of waters and permits involved, we cannot feel assured that a careful and fair process in permitting will follow. Simplistic solutions such as across-the-board percent reductions have been the norm in these situations. Given the initial reductions are less difficult than subsequent ones; this practice rewards the least effective of present dischargers and punishes those who have been most diligent. 

# Comment ID 0598.001.002

Author Name: Grant R. Organization: City of Titusville Notwithstanding our excellent progress, the effects of EPA's proposed criteria to the City of Titusville are potentially significant. The new standards will have to be met prior to any stormwater discharge to surrounding water bodies; activities that require a dredge and fill permit, State Environmental Resource Permit, or a St. Johns River Water Management District permit will have to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not violate standards, and; activities such as reclaimed water reuse or fertilizer application will most likely require a higher level of treatment and/or stricter best management practices. The cost to the City will be proportional to the degree with which the criteria are incorporated into each five (5) year renewal period of the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and at this juncture it has not been determined how the criteria will be incorporated. 

# Comment ID 0618.001.002

Author Name: Wright S. Organization: Vero Beach Country Club Also, EPA's criteria will disrupt ongoing environmentally beneficial projects. EPA's federal intervention disrupts Florida's successful ongoing water quality restoration efforts, because the federal criteria will unseat the state water quality standards that form the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) initiatives. It also disrupts our state's BMP programs, as dollars for this program are already very limited(due to the recession), and these new federally-mandated interventions will suck money away from these other programs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4299Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 0625.001.005

Author Name: Hackney G. Organization: Hackney Nursery What happens some of this rain water leaves our catch ponds? Where are you going to measure this run-off leaving our property, or at the point it leads or downstream somewhere? And why are we just throwing out all of the wonderful work in the day compiled by the DEP and BMP manuals. 

# Comment ID 0629.001.004

Author Name: Bassett B. Organization: Florida Dairy Products Association EPA has issued their proposed rule for consideration, but they have not told us how those rules will be implemented. Many ongoing restoration projects today have been invested in and are having positive benefits. Do we just drop those initiatives and throw away the money we spent on that? All of these concerns create more questions with more concerns. We need to take our time and make sure we know what we want to accomplish, and then figure out how to get there the most direct way, yet the most cost-effective way. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0633.001.003

Author Name: Gornicki P. Organization: Florida Forestry Association In light of this proposal, we are concerned about our ability to continue to conduct normal forestry practices. Florida's forestry community has been an active partner in the implementation of sylviculture best practice managing in Florida since 1979. Florida's forestry communities have been using these BMPs but providing during forestry operations, the sylviculture best management practices were carefully developed by a technical advisory committee of diverse composition and represent a set of guiding principles balance to achieve protection of environmental standard and yet allow the economic utilization of our forest land. Overall BMP compliance averages about 94 percent since 1981 when the records were first being kept. A peer-reviewed and published study of Sylviculture Best Management Practices conducted by our DEP and Florida Division of Forestry in 2004 showed that forestry is a study of lands, sample springs associated with five forestry sites, both before and after the forests were harvested following the application of BMPs which included those for fertilizers applications. The study concluded nutrients were relatively low at all sites both before and after the forestry operation. Regardless of this type of success story, we now faced the process of having to develop new and expensive practices to attempt to reach water quality standards set to inappropriate and conceivably impossible to achieve requirements. We believe that Florida is a national leader in protecting its water from all forms of pollutants including nutrients and including forestry. Businesses associated with all lands, including forestry have invested much time and money to protect all of Florida's surface waters. Our state DEP is working to develop a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4300Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final scientifically defendable sitespecific numeric nutrient criteria that will protect and restore Florida water bodies in an equitable and cost-effective way, and we believe EPA should support those efforts rather than mandating a separate approach. 

# Comment ID 0637.001.004

Author Name: Littlejohn C. Organization: Florida Engineering Society The domestic wastewater facilities have a hard time complying with this rule. They typically provide the mixes zone. Florida law does not allow for mixing zone for Florida. There are questions on what's impaired, and we feel much a lot of pristine water bodies don't have to be impaired on this standard. Particular concern the impact on Florida TMDL program EPA testified on to say they're one of DEP workshops that numeric nutrient criteria were being under a separate body of law, and that a site specific calculation under Florida program would not necessarily override a numeric standard. We feel that would be very unfortunate and that would affect the (inaudible). 

# Comment ID 0637.001.005

Author Name: Littlejohn C. Organization: Florida Engineering Society And I guess lastly, I guess the issues of Florida as a very... Extreme conditions there has to be an outlet for surface water, and those surface waters are determined to be impaired at least on paper then that discharge will not be permitted. And it's hard to understand how the previous program will operate with that, and so I feel that's an intended consequence but it's a consequence to think about. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. We'll be submitting our written comments, much more sensible. 

# Comment ID 0656.001.001

Author Name: Bolam D. Organization: Clay County Utility Authority Thank you. Again, my name is David Bolam, and I'm the chief engineer for the Clay County Utility Authority. The Clay County Utility Authority was an active participant and a stakeholder in the lower St. Johns River TMDL process. It was a lengthy process. It lasted about seven years. And most of the stakeholders in that process felt that the final TMDL was protective of the river. What I'm here today is to ask that EPA consider grandfathering this TMDL as well as the many others that the State has into its proposed numeric nutrient criteria. The site-specific targets that were established by DEP are more scientifically based than arbitrary standards, and we would like to see the TMDLs exempted from the NNC rule.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4301Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 0662.001.004

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association Let me give you a couple of examples. Sarasota County, Florida, I believe the first MS4 within the southeast, they volunteered to be the first MS4 because they believe in water quality improvements. They have a very robust stormwater utility. Their target for the Sarasota Bay is to restore sea grass on the bottom to 1950 levels. Well, they've hit that now just this past year. Sea grasses have been restored to the levels that existed in 1950, yet your new rules would require a 70-percent reduction in nutrients going into the Bay. And some would have to say: Why? I mean what's the objective of that? Seminole County, the Econ River, an outstanding Florida water, has been the beneficiary of about ten years of special consideration by the State of Florida as a DEP reference stream. It's impaired under these rules. And if that water body is impaired, there must be every water body in Seminole County that will be impaired by these regulations. 

# Comment ID 0663.001.002

Author Name: Richardson D. Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities We request a number of things of EPA. One is that you recognize the existing nutrient TMDLs and incorporate them directly into the proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 0664.001.004

Author Name: Steinbrecher P. Organization: JEA EPA's proposed regulations appear to signal the end of this highly effective nitrogen loading reduction process in Florida. EPA's new approach appears to ignore reliance on water body specific biological indicators as currently required under Florida's existing TMDL program. If EPA's proposed numeric criteria go into effect, planned water quality improvements projects on the book right now will need to be suspended immediately, perhaps for several years, as the regulated community considers how it possibly can meet EPA's new less flexible standards. Even if site-specific alternative criteria are available to get relief fromEPA's new numeric criteria, the new pollutant loading projects will need to be suspended while the existing EPAapproved TMDLs are resubmitted for EPA's re-approval, this time as site-specific alternative criteria. This unfortunately will delay the imminent restoration of the water bodies. Also, there is no guarantee that EPA will grant this action. 

# Comment ID 0664.001.005

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4302Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Steinbrecher P. Organization: JEA Please keep in mind that many MS4s and other facilities along the lower St. Johns also have made great strides in meeting their nutrient reduction allocations, and they have plans for additional projects as well. These projects, too, will be put in limbo by EPA's proposed rules. 

# Comment ID 0664.001.006

Author Name: Steinbrecher P. Organization: JEA The bottom line is this: EPA's proposed rules will thwart historic progress in reducing nutrient loading to lower St. Johns. This is bad environmental policy, and it's really not right. Waters that have EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs do not need new numeric standards; and therefore, EPA's proposed rule must incorporate these existing TMDLs as the scientifically derived nutrient -- numeric nutrient criteria for these water bodies. This problem needs to be addressed now in the context of EPA's rule. It should not be pushed down the road with vague assurances that this problem could be addressed in the context of SAC applications. Failure to adopt these TMDLs as site-specific standards would mean that EPA's numeric nutrient criteria rule represents a giant step backwards, not forwards for Florida. Under EPA's rule, as proposed in the Federal Register right now, site-specific and numeric nutrient requirements previously approved by EPA under the TMDL process will be scuttled in favor of less specific regional criteria, and good pollutant reduction projects will be put on hold. I do thank you all for being here. I know you have three long days, and I thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

# Comment ID 0675.001.008

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: FWEA Utilities Council, the FSAWA Utility Council, and the Florida Rural Waters Association I was going to go into the TMDL program, but I understand the next speaker is going to hit on that. So in addition to TMDLs there are other programs will be impacted by this rule making. In Florida we are facing significant water supply challenges and the state has implemented several regulatory programs designed to meet those challenges. Your proposed rule, however, provides no indication that you even considered how this rule making will affect those programs and projects designed to achieve water supply demands. How it will affect the use of raw water supplies and the concentrate disposal. Will the use of recleaned water be subject to additional regulatory hurdles due to nutrient loads; what local governments that are planned to meet water supply demands in part with reclaimed water? If they're driven to deep well injection, they're not going to have the resource available which will put further restraints on traditional supplies.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4303Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 0676.001.005

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Coordinating Group Now, you did have a water where you showed a photo that apparently was from 2009, and it was this photo here which is also in the literature outside of the door, hopefully. It's called "It's Turned Into Slime." This water body now has a TMDL that has been issued by the DEP and presumably like other TMDLs will be approved by EPA. And you know, the thing about your water quality standard if it does come into effect, it's not going to be self-executing. You know, the difficulty I think, and I think many of y'all know this with nutrients, is going to be implementation. For example, in this case there's a lot of homes right along that water body. Again, this is your picture, and it's also out there in your the literature, and the standard is not going to clean that up. It's going to be implementation, and the people that are going to be implementing it are the people living in those homes along the river. And in all candor, I don't think they're going tolike it, because they're going to get told clean it up and they're going to have to do. They're going to have to put in highperformance septic tanks. That's going to be very expensive. They might have to change how they have the landscape on their lawns and stop putting fertilizer on it. And they may stop to change what they do with their boats. The key is implementation, and the way you implement is with a TMDL program. Florida has a strong TMDL program. It's been implemented. It's been progressing very well for about ten years now under a 1999 consent decree that EPA signed, and had a schedule that goes all the way out to 2012. And again, the key is implementation. We have 72 I think TMDLs that have been approved by EPA. How could those waters need a numeric nutrient criteria if they have a TMDL with numeric endpoints that have been approved by EPA. And we haven't seen anything in the federal register preamble statement or any of the background information documents that EPA has considered that contradiction. 

# Comment ID 0685.001.002

Author Name: Gmeiner S. Organization: Clint Nurseries We as growers are stewards to the environment, and conduct ourselves professionally to appreciate and protect it. We operate under the guidelines, created a collaboration of wonderful scientific research, Department of Agricultural Consumer Affairs and government agencies. Of course, you've heard it's, BMP, best management practices, a guide for Florida container nurseries. Our cultural activities are carefully monitored. We take substraight pH readings and salt readings daily. Just as an offsight, I brought the manual and I wanted to just share some of the table of contents. It's very inclusive of a lot of details that pertain to agriculture and nursery container growing: You have nursery lay out. You have the container substraight and planning practices; fertilization management; container substraight nutrient monitoring; irrigation water quality; irrigation application; irrigation uniformity; erosion control and water run-off management; pesticide management; and waste management. There's a lot of very detailed and important activities for all of us that are in any growing operation. We've also conducted workshops to put water and nutrient BMPs into practice, which we're very proud of, and it's something that by the attendance that we have it is clearly a desirable interest to continue to learn and improve our water quality, and just our way of life, because this is a way of life. The EPA's criteria will disrupt this beneficial program and its funding for future success. This role of red tape will turn our green intentions black.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4304Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final



# Comment ID 0701.001.002

Author Name: Forward D. Organization: Titusville Patriots We in Titusville have been working since 1992 to upgrade our stormwater facilities and everything else. And we've mitigated flooding, improved water quality and have managed the city's stormwater infrastructure and resources. To that end, the utility has developed and implemented several basin master plans and continues to implement several improvements to mitigate flooding and enhanced water quality. Notwithstanding our excellent progress, the EPA criteria in the City of Titusville are potentially significant. The new standards would have to be met prior to any stormwater discharge or surrounding water bodies that require dredge and fill permit, site environmental resources permit or St. Johns River Water Management District permit. All of these things would have to be done so that we do not violate the standards. The higher level of treatment and the stricter best management practices. 

# Comment ID 0713.001.007

Author Name: Merriam C. Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission How will withdrawal of surface water impact or be impacted by this new rule, because it could shift some of your concentration. 

# Comment ID 0716.001.007

Author Name: Coughenour F. Organization: Plant City I touched on deficiency and I want to finish mainly with that thought. I spend most of my day figuring out how to do what we need to do as efficiently as possible. I see this as being another overlapping regulation in an area that is already showing pretty dramatic improvement. We're currently regulated by the DEP by standards for surface water discharge. Soon, when our new permit is issued, we'll be regulated by the TMDL for Tampa Bay. Sometime after that, in the next couple of years, we'll undoubtedly be regulated by TMDLs for the streams between our discharge and Tampa Bay. And now we're looking at another numeric criteria that is going to overlap the whole system and is likely to make all of them moot, and with possibly little or no real environmental improvement. 

# Comment ID 0721.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4305Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Johns F. Organization: Lykes Brothers, Inc. Furthermore, increasing regulation in watersheds that are currently operating under a basin management action plan and have already established a numeric standard, such as the TMDL, which EPA has already accepted, compounds the economic inefficiency and misallocation of Florida's financial resources. 

# Comment ID 0723.001.002

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida The criteria that's proposed will have a significant impact on most cattle operations within the State of Florida. The cattle industry in the State of Florida, along with DEP and the Florida Department of Agriculture, have gone a long way in adopting best management practices. There's some concern as to what this numeric nutrient criteria will do to those best management practices. We feel that, even complying with best management practices, we may not be able to meet the criteria that is proposed to be imposed. 

# Comment ID 0736.001.005

Author Name: Walkinshaw J. Organization: Hillsborough River Watershed Alliance So I encourage the EPA to allow these processes to continue, monitor them, set some deadlines, but let the process continue. Thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 0738.001.004

Author Name: Stewart R. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association But I would like to say that there are also some very significant legal hurdles, statutorily and regulatorily, that Florida has to go through. I'm a very practical person and as I read the rule I don't see how this rule can be implemented. I think someone said there's a slow train wreck coming. I'm not so sure it's not a fast train wreck. How will permits be issued? Under what conditions will they be issued? We have someone looking at Lake Seminole, which is on the border of Georgia, Alabama and Florida. In speaking with Drew Bartlett, I can't figure out what the standard for Lake Seminole is going to be. Is it the outlet stream? Is it the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4306Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final downstream protection value? I mean, the rules are sort of confusing in themselves. 

# Comment ID 0739.001.006

Author Name: Robbins K. Organization: Entrix Our next point is that although EPA states that a proposed criteria should in part reduce the complexity of the TMDL process, the proposed rule will dramatically increase the number of impaired streams requiring a TMDL or BMAP. We used the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's IWR database to look at the 650 streams that had data on nutrients from 2001 and 2008. One hundred sixty-eight of those streams, or about a quarter, are currently impaired under the FDEP verified impaired list. If you use the current IPV values, an additional 240 streams would be considered impaired under the proposed EPA rule, thereby nearly tripling the number of TMDLs and BMAPs that are required. This would bring the number of impaired streams to 60 percent. If you consider the EPA proposed DPV criteria, the number of impaired streams would increase by about another 200, bringing the percentage of streams impaired in Florida to 90 percent of those with data. 

# Comment ID 0743.001.006

Author Name: Rossman D. Organization: DCR Services The new regulations must address measures provided in the transition period from present requirements to the new numeric nutrient requirements. During the transition period you must not delay or cancel projects in the design and construction phases, the new numeric requirements do cause private businesses and operations in Florida to relocate or impede future site selections for businesses that are relocating to Florida. The new numeric criteria requirements cannot create an additional burden on our municipal wastewater systems that would delay already necessary infrastructure requirements. 

# Comment ID 0774.001.003

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District One of the key district initiatives is Everglade's restoration, the largest environmental restoration project in the United

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4307Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final States. One of the largest in the world. To date, the State of Florida has spent over two billion dollars reaching the goal of restoration of the Everglades. The Federal Government has also been stepping up to the plate over the last year or so, as we've initiated several groundbreakings and look forward to continuing the progress of the Everglade's restoration. Many people in this room, of course, are aware of the Kissimmee River restoration project, another federal and state partnership. We also work on Lake Okeechobee and coastal watersheds throughout our district restoring these ecosystems. The potential for costly overhauls and redesigns of the projects that have been planned or are either in the ground or being designed, because of this rule, has a potential to not allow the district to expedite our restoration of these important ecosystems. The administrative process alone could allow delays and, of course, additional costs as we work toward implementation. For example, many of our current nutrient reduction programs and projects currently in the ground, or again being planned, are focusing on total phosphorus reduction. We're not certain how this current rule will affect those as we move forward. So we strongly urge the EPA to consider and address these criteria as they are implemented and to not negatively affect the ability of the district and our federal partners to continue achieving the progress for the restoration of the Everglades, Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee and our coastal ecosystems. 

# Comment ID 0778.001.005

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: What I hope that you do when you pass this rule and you change your enforcement to make sure and you collect metrics, because if you don't go out -- nothing talked about collecting metrics to make sure that what you intended to have happen did happen -- you make sure that other people do not develop their property and dump their water problems on me. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0793.001.002

Author Name: March R. Organization: Collier Enterprises and Orange-Co, Inc. First I'd like to say that we agree with some of the previous speakers regarding their concerns on the science behind the rule as well as the economic impacts, but I want to make some more specific comments as well. We have a number of questions about the proposed rule and how it will be implemented and how it will ultimately impact our operations. We've been incorporating water quality improvement practices in our operations for some time. We currently have a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4308Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final number of structural BMPs, primarily storm water impoundments that are in various stages of planning, design and construction. The State of Florida, through the Department of Ag and the DEP, have programs to address water quality improvements that we have relied upon to make economic decisions for these projects. The uncertainty associated with the EPA's rule is an impediment to progress on these projects. I'd like to highlight a couple of particular areas of concern. The proposed criteria is based on average water quality concentrations without regard to flow quantities. One of our most effective BMPs is storm water retention impoundments, and these systems reduce nutrient loading reliably, but are less effective at reducing nutrient concentrations. It is difficult to justify going forward with these projects without knowing how they will be evaluated under the proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 0795.001.005

Author Name: McCarthy L. Organization: Lykes Brothers Also ignoring the existing TMDLs that the state has set I think is a mistake. They've got quite a few that they've developed. They've gone through the EPA process and been accepted as protected. I don't understand why you would require a separate process, another site specific criteria that you'd have to go through. It could put current programs that have already been implemented, started and are making progress, it could put them in jeopardy. 

# Comment ID 0796.001.006

Author Name: Albergo N. Organization: HSA Engineers and Scientists EPA's proposed rule could affect municipalities that operate both MS4s and waste water treatment facilities. If meeting the numeric criteria for the receiving of downstream water body requirements the more stringent limits to be put in place when their MPDES permit is renewed. The downstream protection approach, combined with the requirement that MS4 discharges achieve end of the pipe compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria could effectively preclude the development of more cost effective regional treatment facilities, and at times undermine the other critical projects and initiatives. 

# Comment ID 0811.001.004

Author Name: Bournique D. Organization: Indian River Citrus League Secondly and foremost, in 1998 growers in my office decided to be proactive. They live here, work here, play here. Most of my growers are four and five generation Floridians. They decided to take it upon themselves to create best

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4309Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final management practices with the idea of cleaning the water but saving money. It was a win win if we could do it. We had no idea if we could. They actually -- they kicked me out of my own meeting because they didn't believe we could do it out of my own office because they thought I was nuts. We lobbied them, got them back in the room, and they decided that maybe, just maybe this might work. They started to think about ways of circulating their water, of when and how to apply fertilizer specifically to young trees versus old trees with smart sprayers. It grew from there and it grew and grew and grew into where it became really the blueprint for BMPs in the state of Florida, and since 1998 it has spread statewide because of a buy in by those people. They realized they can save the environment, save money and produce a heck of a nice crop. It worked. Everybody involved is proud of that. 15 agencies and 200 growers worked on that manual that you've seen earlier with other speakers, 200. I mean, that had a hell of a good buy in. If EPA puts unattainable standards beyond the practical capability of our land owners in the state of Florida, they will lose that important relationship. Growers just -- they can only do so much, and we have pushed that needle as far as we can economically in my region. I've been there for 30 years, I have worked with these growers my whole professional life, I know what they can and can't do, and if they have pushed the limit, they have done this on their own. This will be tragic. I truly people believe if you push the needle too far, people are going to throw up their hands and say the heck with it. I'm done with BMPs. I just can't meet the standard. Go ahead, take me to court. I'm going to walk away from my property. Two million acres are in the BMP program in Florida, two million. That's a heck of a great program. So we urge the EPA to be proactive by utilizing this BMP practice model, to use that and work with Floridians, work with us and not against us to make a cleaner, healthier Florida. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0815.001.003

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District The potential ramifications of proposed criteria on federally mandated restoration projection further necessitates that criteria are being developed on sound science, even though this requires more time. One of the district's key initiatives is Everglades restoration. The state of Florida has already invested over two billion dollars in this process. We have concerns that this rule will entail costly overhauls for projects that we currently have in the ground, projects that we've partnered with the federal government, and that we also have to have additional administrative processes that will hinder our ability to expedite these important restoration projects. 

# Comment ID 0815.001.004

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District For example, many of the projects that we have are focused on total phosphorous reduction. As we go through our review of this rule, we're wondering how these projects will be impacted by the other parameters that you've proposed. We strongly urge EPA to consider and address how the criteria can be implemented to not negatively affect the ability of the district and our federal partners to continue achieving the progress towards the important Everglades restoration,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4310Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final and I think we could also echo that with all the other important restoration projects being done throughout the district, including Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River Basin, and our very important coastal watersheds. 

# Comment ID 0832.001.003

Author Name: Stewart R. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Our interpretation is that variances, site specific alternative criteria, mixing zones and the existing TMDLs that will be approved will not allow for deferred implementation or implementation over a time period, so that puts us in a little bit of a predicament. 

# Comment ID 0840.001.003

Author Name: Bell D. Organization: Central Broward Water Control District I think the main concern is the enforcement of who is going to be the one who's going to have to put these standards into effect. You've got a canal and you have a property owner who's maybe got a fertilizer which is going into the canal. Is he the one that is going to be required to put this into effect, or is it the district that the water flows into, and again as you get further downstream, who's ultimately going to have to implement this requirement. I'll close it with that. I will say Tendal Hammock, their board of supervisors last night indicated they will be submitting a separate statement on behalf of the district. Thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 0881.001.001

Author Name: Dymond D. Organization: H & H Sod Company Please accept the following written comments on behalf of H & H Sod Company. We have been producing turf in Central Florida for over 35 years. My primary concern with the proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida is that the proposed regional nutrient criteria will disrupt ongoing environmentally beneficial projects. Florida has been recognized as a national leader for several successful ongoing water quality restoration efforts and has been working diligently to protect its rivers and streams. Businesses, state and local governments have invested millions to restore impaired watersheds and protect healthy rivers and streams. The proposed regional nutrient criteria will unseat the state water quality standards that form the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) initiatives. It also disrupts our state's Best Management Practices (BMPs) program, which is practical, cost effective measures that agricultural producers implement to reduce the amount of pesticides, fertilizers, animal waste, and other nutrients entering our water resources. The state's BMP program is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4311Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final working with very limited dollars due to current economic times, and these new federally mandated interventions will take away from these valuable programs. 

# Comment ID 0886.001.001

Author Name: Erickson C. Organization: Kesko Agronomics My primary concern with the proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida is that the proposed regional nutrient criteria will disrupt ongoing environmentally beneficial projects. Florida is a recognized national leader in the development of several successful ongoing water restoration quality efforts. The Everglades Agricultural Area effort to reduce nitrates and phosphates has been remarkably effective. This effort started with agricultural interests, but has spread to include other businesses and state and local governments. Millions of dollars have been spent to restore impaired watersheds and protect healthy rivers and streams. The proposed regional nutrient criteria will unseat the state water quality standards that form the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) initiatives. It also disrupts our state's Best Management Practices (BMPs) program. I have had the opportunity to participate in the development of aspects of both of these programs. They are practical, cost-effective measures that agricultural producers implement to reduce the amount of pesticides, fertilizers, animal waste, and other nutrients entering our water resources. The state's BMP program is working with very limited dollars due to current economic times, and these new federally-mandated interventions will take money away from these valuable programs. 

# Comment ID 0887.001.001

Author Name: Gough J. Organization: JR Gough Farms For generations, our family has been involved in citrus and other agricultural interests . My family is concerned that EPA's federal intervention will disrupt Florida's successful ongoing water quality restoration efforts, because the federal criteria will unseat the state's water quality standards that form the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) initiatives. It also disrupts our state's Best Management Practices (BMP) programs, as dollars are already very limited (due to the economy), and these new federally-mandated interventions will pull money away from these highly successful programs. 

# Comment ID 0896-2.001.008

Author Name: * * Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4312Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

III. "Devil is in the Details": Complex Standards, Site Specific Conditions, and Implementation

• There is no doubt that EPA's water quality goals will be very challenging to meet. At this point, EPA has issued their proposed rule for consideration and comment, but EPA has not provided insight about how their rules will beimplemented. Since these rules have only been proposed at this point, it is difficult to say exactly how the future day-today activities of Florida's residents, land and water resource managers, businesses, and utilities will be affected. 

# Comment ID 0896-2.001.016

Author Name: * * Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners

• The Rule needs additional provisions addressing implementation, compliance and feasibility. Specifically, we, as local governments, need an implementation schedule that considers the economic impacts and current technology treatment feasibility, reliability and sustainability. 

# Comment ID 0896-2.001.017

Author Name: * * Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners

• As a local government and MS4 permittee, Lee County can be held responsible for meeting the NNC as "intermittent dischargers". Developments of Regional Impact often are not subject to TMDL or NPDES compliance and enforcement standards as they are given the status of "presumed compliance" under existing state and federal rules. The proposed regulations must address these inequities. 

# Comment ID 0896-2.001.018

Author Name: * * Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners CONCLUSION: Lee County recognizes and supports the need for numeric nutrient standards in Florida. However, the Rule must give due consideration to Rule implementation feasibility, as well as the importance of site specific data and conditions. In addition, local governments such as Lee County should bear a disproportionate share of the implementation and compliance burden. Increased grants and funding must also be in place to support these federal mandates. 

# Comment ID 0896.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4313Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: * * Organization: Lee County Division of Natural Resources and Lee County Board of County Commissioners Lee County recognizes and supports the need for numeric nutrient standards in Florida. However, the Rule must give due consideration to Rule implementation feasibility, as well as the importance of site specific data and conditions. In addition, local governments such as Lee County should bear a disproportionate share of the implementation and compliance burden. Increased grants and funding must also be in place to support these federal mandates. Please submit our attached general comments and technical review documents for consideration and further explanation of our concerns. 

# Comment ID 0930.001.005

Author Name: Hall S. Organization:

• The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria will support Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pollutant thresholds and Basin Management Action Plans for clean up and compliance. 

# Comment ID 0933.001.002

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: 2. New rules vs process and resources for consistent and complete enforcement of existing rules. Believe EPA should investigate efficiency of existing rules and processes for enforcement. Piling more rules on top of some that are NOT presently adequately enforced is not an effective way of insuring compliance. 

# Comment ID 0933.001.005

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: 6. Comment on how nitrogen and phosphorus loading and limits integrate with other rules and processes for EPA and FL. There is NO discussion of how propsed rules relate to existing rules on books already or planned rules. There is much talk in FL about volumetric discharge for stormwater runoff vs present rules limiting discharge rates to pre development flows. The discharge rate method ASSUMES an unlimited buffer at outfall that can infinitely absorb the PRE dev discharge rate. In reality, there exist many situations where the outfall has a limited ability or buffer size to absorb a pre dev discharge rate (over time the buffer fillls and overflows). Once you fils the downstream buffer you end up flooding there due to greater volume of runoff post development. Requiring development to retain runoff and limit the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4314Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final volume of discharge to pre dev rates is best solution. This rule change will affect N and PH discharges. Problem is today you can not predict what future rule cahnges will occur. But issue is that some plants may put in scrubbers or filters soon after this nutrient rule is active. Then IF they build bigger ponds to hold runoff down to pre dev levels, more settling of nutrients will occur on site. The scrubbers or filters become somewhat superflous and unneeded. This is a tremendous waste of capital and resources. EPA should timeline and publish near term proposed rules and rule changes so that Fl residents can best plan how to meet upcoming regulatory requirements. Idea is to develop an wholistic approach to management and implementation of Clean Water Act needs. 

# Comment ID 0933.001.006

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: 7. DEP, WMD, local state/cty/city rules. There appears to be incomplete coordination between the multiple various factions or agencies with Clean Water responsibilities. Many existing rules affect P and N loadings on waters of Fl. EPA needs to develop and implement a PCMP or Permit Compliance Monitoring Program (similar to the IRS TCMP taxpayer compliance). Permits should be subjected to random audits to determine their ACTUAL compliance with permit terms and conditions. The permit was ONLY issued because all terms and conditions are supposed to be ashered to by the developer and operators. You need to conduct as built studies to insure that your permits are being complied with and have proper values, terms and conditions. Any permit holder that has very egregious or mulitple violations should earn more audits of his/her permits. EPA and other water managers hsould develop profiles for permit abusers. Then devote scarce compliance resources to those permitees that are expected violators. Recidivism (repeat offending) by permitees is well known fact. You need to devote your scarce compliance resources to target rich environments..... permits where the pollution is high or reasonably suspected to occur. From compliance perspective, you need to conduct audits where permitee is expected to fail. 

# Comment ID 0935.001.006

Author Name: Perez A. Organization: City of Hollywood Department of Public Utilities Language in the proposed rule is not clear regarding enforcement or Implementation of the proposed criteria. 

# Comment ID 0942.001.007

Author Name: Reed K. Organization:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4315Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final I also do not believe you will have success with the current methods of enforcement, no matter how you rephrase the rules, if you continue to allow entities that have failed to protect water quality in the past to police themselves. If they could not achieve a satisfactory result prior to the new changes, it is unrealistic to rely on them to improve themselves without being overseen and directed[4,5,6]. [4] http--water.dep.state.fl.us-eswizard-esdata-pdfs-379.pdf [5] http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/csa/index.htm [6] http://water.dep.state.fl.us/eswizard/printview_eco.asp?id=628 

# Comment ID 0945.001.004

Author Name: Fields B. Organization: City of Winter Springs 3. Please clarify that the Proposed Rule does not intend to directly or indirectly restrict surface water withdrawals. 

# Comment ID 0950.001.005

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department We are a member of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, and have worked with that group for several years to develop specific science-based Total Nitrogen loads for Tampa Bay, as well as Total Nitrogen load allocations for the entire Tampa Bay watershed. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency both worked diligently with the Nitrogen Management Consortium in the process of developing these loads to meet the EPA's federally recognized Total Maximum Daily Load for nitrogen for Tampa Bay. Implementation of the proposed Downstream Protective Values would be inconsistent with this federally recognized TMDL. 

# Comment ID 0951.001.007

Author Name: Berry A. Organization: Hillsborough County Water Resource Services We are a member of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, and have worked with that group for several years to develop specific science-based Total Nitrogen loads for Tampa Bay, as well as Total Nitrogen load allocations for the entire Tampa Bay watershed. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency both worked diligently with the Nitrogen Management Consortium in the process of developing these loads to meet the EPA's federally recognized Total Maximum Daily Load for nitrogen for Tampa Bay. Implementation of the proposed Downstream Protective Values would be inconsistent with this federally recognized TMDL.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4316Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 0956.001.008

Author Name: White C. Organization: Washington County Cattlemen's Association Regardless of the numeric standards imposed by EPA, I believe water quality regulations pertaining to agriculture in Florida should be governed by the Florida's Department of Environmental Protection and its Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, not the EPA. 

# Comment ID 0958.001.002

Author Name: Dain R. Organization: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America 2. EPA's criteria will disrupt ongoing environmentally beneficial projects.

• EPA's federal intervention disrupts Florida's successful ongoing water quality restoration efforts, because the federal criteria will unseat the state water quality standards that form the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) initiatives. It also disrupts our state's BMP programs, as dollars for this program are already very limited (due to the recession), and these new federally-mandated interventions will suck money away from these other programs. 

# Comment ID 0981-1.001.003

Author Name: Melchiori R. Organization: Becker Holding Corporation Policy Implications - In 1999 the Florida Watershed Restoration Act was passed, and among other achievements, it implemented an extensive program of agricultural best management practices (BMPs). The purpose of this BMP program was to provide agriculture in Florida with the necessary tools and procedures to accomplish their part in achieving compliance with the TMDL program that was established as part of the Act. The Becker Companies have more than 10,000 acres under cultivation which have implemented these BMP programs. The capital and operating expenses incurred to put these programs into practice have been incurred with the good faith understanding (and legal determination) that implementation would result in a presumption of compliance with the requirements of TMDL load reductions for agricultural operations such as ours. By imposing numeric nutrient criteria that operate independently of this program, the EPA is undermining the good faith efforts and achievements of Florida's agricultural community. The TMDL program that provides the basis for measurement achievement of these BMPs (many of which have already been approved by EPA) has nearly a decade of demonstrated scientific and regulatory success that is specific to the affected water bodies and watersheds as a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4317Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final whole. As discussed above, without the appropriate scientific support and provisions for all designated uses, the proposed numeric nutrient criteria are doomed to failure. The critical difference, especially in the context of the agricultural function of canal systems is the application of concentrations proposed by EPA (numeric nutrient criteria) as opposed to loads (total maximum daily load) implemented by the State of Florida. Farmers have available to them a broad variety of management practices that allow them to hold water at times when nutrient concentrations may be higher and release more water when nutrient concentrations are lower. The measurement of loads rather than instantaneous concentrations allows for water management practices that control nutrients while providing flexibility for agricultural operations. Applying a single instantaneous concentration limit will eliminate or severely reduce these options currently available to agricultural operations. The result will be effectively restricting the volume of water released by agricultural operations (holding back water to prevent isolated discharges that may exceed numeric nutrient criteria concentrations) or increasing discharges above normal volumes when nutrient concentrations are low. This can have drastic negative effects on downstream estuaries that, regardless of nutrient concentrations, rely on a balance of proper seasonal freshwater inflows. To summarize, imposing numeric nutrient criteria on Florida's agricultural interests that have already committed to and implemented scientifically sound BMPs is not good public policy. The agricultural community in Florida has shouldered the burden of reducing nutrient inputs to our waterways for nearly a decade under an equitable statewide program. This implementation of BMPs was conducted in good faith with the understanding that proper and diligent implementation would provide a presumption of compliance on the part of agricultural interests throughout the State. By adopting new criteria that do not have the necessary scientific basis or policy development that has informed the BMP programs developed over the last 10 years of the Florida Watershed Restoration Act implementation is disingenuous and applies this responsibility disproportionately to Florida's agricultural interests. 

# Comment ID 1009.001.001

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners On January 15, 2010, EPA issued documents related to draft numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for the state of Florida and subsequently issued the draft criteria in the Federal Register on January 26, 2010. The draft criteria are listed in 40 CFR 131.34 for Florida fresh lakes and flowing waters (streams, canals, springs and spring runs). Comments on the draft criteria are provided below. Prior to providing comments on the draft NNC, it must be noted that for the most part surface water dischargers in Florida do not currently achieve these criteria at the point of discharge. Surface water dischargers include direct domestic and industrial wastewater discharges, backup reclaimed water dischargers (authorized by Apricot Act [Section 403.086(7), F.S .], or stormwater discharges via a pipe or confined ditch (i .e., outfall for NPDES MS4 purposes). In surface waters that will become impaired with the new EPA NNC, no mixing zone is allowed, so that the NNC would have to be met at the discharge point. For surface waters that are not impaired, a mixing zone is allowable, so that dilution of the effluent is possible. Clay County is committed to restoring the health of the St. Johns River. This commitment has been demonstrated

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4318Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final through the County's active participation in the LSJR TMDL and BMAP development, and implementation of multiple capital projects which resulted in improved water quality in the LSJR . 

# Comment ID 1011.001.016

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. Organization: Palm Beach County 11) Finally, there appears to be no provision in the proposed rule for Acts of God, such as hurricanes. We know this scenario can cause extreme water quality impacts to water bodies, such as occurred in Lake Okeechobee and subsequent receiving water bodies as a result of sediment resuspension from winds heavy rains associated with the numerous hurricanes experienced in this area in 2004 and 2005 . Stormwater facilities are designed for a finite event (defined in advance of construction) and do not increase in capacity with an event outside the design parameters . The capacity of the facilities is fixed. This concept needs to be addressed in the proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 1012.001.002

Author Name: Grigsby W. Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association Furthermore, many impaired watersheds in Florida are currently operating under a Basin Management Action Plan and are already subject to a numeric standard (Total Maximum Daily Load), which the Environmental Protection aencv has already accepted. Subjecting these watersheds to yet another numeric standard further compounds the economic inefficiency and misallocation the Florida's financial resources . 

# Comment ID 1014.001.003

Author Name: Carlton B. Organization: Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association The plan implemented in 2004 provides a ten year time frame for improvement to be made through an array of actions completed by all stakeholders . Agricultures part in the plan is to implement Best Management Practices and to make well improvements, which will provide better quality irrigation water. The plan is working. Recent data trends and monitoring of the plan's progress is showing exciting results. After extended freezing temperatures in January requiring agricultural producers to pump water on crops for freeze protection, water that makes its way into surrounding systems and ultimately into public supply--chloride levels are not spiking as they have in the past. Please see the attached letter denoting the plan's progress. If the proposed criteria are adopted, it will jeopardize the strides we have worked so hard, for so many years to achieve. Growers have embraced this cooperative effort and have spent millions to make changes. They are doing so because

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4319Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final they believe it is the right thing for their agricultural operations, for the natural systems and for their children who hopefully will feed us with the fruits of their labor for generations to come. Changing the plan in mid-stream will undermine the progress of our Reasonable Assurance Plan, the credibility of the regulatory agencies we have worked hand in hand with in this effort and leadership role of Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association. Participation in cost share programs and system upgrades has been great through the agricultural community. This has been surprising in that the timing of retrofitting systems for unregulated changes has come during some of the lowest prices in history for our industry . Yet, the grower who intends to stay in business must be a good steward to the land, as the land is his future. 

# Comment ID 1015.001.002

Author Name: Wilson K. Organization: More important than that is that the water management district presented some data about two years ago that shows where the nutrients come from in our area down in the Keys, and less than half a percent of the nitrogen comes from Monroe County sources. The vast majority -- 20 times as much nitrogen get into our waters from atmospheric sources, and more than half of all the nitrogen that gets into the Florida Keys' waters comes from the Gulf of Mexico. Phosphorus is a similar kind of story. Monroe County human sources account for the 3 percent of the total phosphorus in our waters.

But that all goes coastal rule-making, and I want to make one or two points about the so-called freshwater rules. We're concerned about how they'll be applied to small, particularly man-made freshwater lakes in the county. We are required by our consumptive use permits for water, and all of our water comes from the mainland, a 36-inch pipe that comes from Miami-Dade County. And the water quality of our drinking water is six times the numeric criterion set today for some of the freshwater streams. What does that mean? If we irrigate with water that's got a higher concentration of phosphorus, we're already starting above the limits. We reuse water, some of our advanced treatment water, in irrigation, and what does that mean for those people who have a requirement for the consumption permits to use that, if they're got not going to be able the achieve the limits you'll set on a small man-made pond or lake. It's a concern that we express. It's not unknown to EPA, DEP, or the water management district. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 1020.001.002

Author Name: Williams C. Organization: The EPA's federal intervention disrupts Florida's successful and ongoing water quality restoration efforts because it will unseat the state's water quality that forms the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous state total

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4320Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final maximum load initiatives. It also just disrupts our state's BMP programs, as dollars for this are very limited, due to the recession.


# Comment ID 1025.001.004

Author Name: Heuer M. Organization: The public-private best management processes someone mentioned earlier are the solution, well, they can still be used in addition to regulation. Groups like SCCF, for example, on Sanibel work in conjunction with, you know, private groups, and, you know, it can all be done. So thank you very much for listening, and good luck to you. 

# Comment ID 1027.001.003

Author Name: McAvoy G. Organization: Hendry County Cattlemen's Association and Hendry-Glades Farm Bureau The growers that I work with have met this challenge head-on. We have been working diligently with the Department of Agriculture, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the University of Florida for many years on developing and adopting best management practices aimed at reducing offsite nutrient movement and protection of Florida waters. We've been successful, and we have seen significant reductions in the rate of fertilizer application and major changes in fertility and water management on the farm. By adoption -- or adoption of BMPs has been costly to growers. We have set aside land for water retention on farm, in many instances over 30 percent of the land on which a grower pays taxes is set aside for retention, installation of control structures, changes in fertilization and irrigation. All of this has resulted in major cost increases to our growers and is making us increasingly less competitive on a global and regional market. And despite what people say, we cannot pass these costs on. What we do is our -- we're pushing our growers to Mexico and to other countries and giving them advantages. We cannot afford to do very much in addition to what we're already doing in terms of BMPs. And we've seen this happen in Hendry County, where we've actually pushed livestock operations out of business, when we've -- when the state has imposed high standards of BMPs and opened the door to more intensive agricultural and development opportunities. Also like to put on that BMPs are relatively new. I haven't heard anybody speak about lag time, but it's a well-known fact that we have a lag time in natural systems. Water that falls in the Kissimmee Valley may

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4321Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final take up to 50 years to reach the estuaries, and this lag time is not being taken into account. It may take decades for us to see results from the BMPs that have been implemented in the last 10 years. So we need to take that into account. 

# Comment ID 1029.001.004

Author Name: Calkins S. Organization: I would also add that specific numbers are going to give very strong emphasis to the preventive measures. People have talked again about the best management practices. I'm a social scientist. I know people need push, they need incentives to do what's appropriate. Somebody said, you know, we're not -- we won't clean up the water voluntarily, and that's probably true. We know those best management practices, we publicize them a fair amount. But I think that these nutrient standards, if they're put in place, will be a real incentive for local governments to enact things such as fertilizer ordinances. The City of Naples has done that, and Sanibel, but cities need those pushes. We've been fighting in Collier County at a county level just to go for -- have pervious surfaces because it's not part of the code. So this kind of nutrient criteria will really push, I think, communities to put into practice and demand those best management practices, that we really can carry those out. 

# Comment ID 1041.001.006

Author Name: Urich D. Organization: Responsible Growth Management Coalition And I think those folks that are talking about the best management practices -- I don't know if they said ever that. They always keep saying BMP. But we certainly endorse that. I have appeared in front of the Lee County Commission speaking for the fertilizer ordinance that has been passed. I would hope that it is grandfathered in, in spite of what the legislature did. If it's not, then the unnamed grower in the Alva area shouldn't be grandfathered in on still putting pollution in the Caloosahatchee. 

# Comment ID 1045.001.007

Author Name: March R. Organization: Come Enterprises The potential unintended consequences to Florida agriculture of setting the numeric criteria lower than necessary are severe. Already there's a delay in the design and construction of planned water quality improvements, approved

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4322Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final projects, due to the uncertainty of meeting these new standards. We may undermine ongoing effective voluntary BMP programs. There may be a loss of agricultural productivity, profitability, and ultimately the loss of some portion of the agricultural industry in Florida. Fewer resources will be available for other resource management activities, which benefit the environment, like exotic vegetation removal, habitat improvements or irrigation efficiency improvements. Certain ag uses with marginal profitability may be abandoned, and abandoned agriculture lands may negatively affect the water quality. The economics may result in agriculture intensification or the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. 

# Comment ID 1051.001.005

Author Name: Everham W. Organization: I hope, as we go forward, that we can also establish a mechanism for refining the proposed standards, if they fail to halt or reverse the loss of ecological function in our aquatic ecosystems, although I can't imagine that you're particularly excited about the next round of public hearings that might relate to changing those nutrient standards, but they might be necessary in the future. 

# Comment ID 1067.001.006

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District The reason -- one of the many reasons to want sound science for this rule-making process is for us, in the restoration initiatives that are currently underway across our great state, as you're aware, the South Florida Water Management District is partners with many federal agencies, particularly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. So far, the State of Florida has put in over 1.8 billion dollars of investment towards this plan, and in recent months the federal government has also been stepping up, as we now have two ground-breaking projects within the district. This rule has the potential to make us go back, retrofit projects already in the ground, redesign projects, have to acquire more land. In addition, we have permitting issues that we're unclear of how we can go forward. We also have this issue known as cost-sharing of water quality projects within CERP. The original 1996 Water Resources Development Act allowed the Army Corps to cost-share on water quality projects, and through several planning initiatives and projects, including the Yellow Book, 22 components of CERP were found to have water quality attributes. We are worried that this potential rule -- this proposed rule, as written, has the potential for our cost-share mechanisms with the Corps to not go through. We are unclear at this point where the Corps is with this issue, but based on some previous experiences, where other TMDLs had caused our cost-share not to come to fruition, having science-based numeric nutrient criteria that is not protective of the environment, that will still affect these restoration projects and potentially the cost share that we have with the federal government, is something we really would like EPA to address

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4323Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final because Everglades restoration is a comprehensive effort. It's more that just water quality. It's water quantity, it's timing and distribution of water, and all those components need to be taken into account in the grand scale of this restoration effort between your state, your local partners, and the federal government. Again, thank you for coming back to Florida, and we look forward to seeing you in the next couple of days. 

# Comment ID 1077.001.003

Author Name: Mahan R. Organization: OrangeCo, Inc. and C.I. Groves The people of Florida, its citizen, its businesses and our government agencies, have been working hard together to protect our natural resources in unique and innovative, effective ways that stakeholders. There are a lot of good examples of this, but I'm just going to mention two of them here tonight in the short time frame that I have, and they are the BMPs or best management practices that someone earlier mentioned that we use in agriculture in our food production. And then the other Shell Creek and Prairie Creek watersheds management program. Best management practices were designed and developed in cooperation by the University of Florida, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and they involved agricultural industry groups and private companies like my own Orange-Co. We Floridians, through our Department of Environmental Protection, have spent more than $20 million on this successful public-private partnership style program to significantly improve the water quality in agricultural areas and certainly in the ones that I am very familiar with. But at the same time, we do so in a way that does not impair our farming operations or the many businesses and jobs that depend on them. My company engages these best management practices in its operation, along with a multitude of farmers, representing nearly 2 million acres of Florida farmland, as indicated by analysis published by the Florida Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association. Analysis of the proposed EPA rules by experts throughout the state tell me that these new rules may impair or render that $20 million of investment, not to mention the time, effort, and sweat that was expended by a lot of people who developed them, and make them either difficult to use or make them useless. The other example of the public-private work that I've seen in Florida that's making a positive impact on water quality, and thus showing how I think that we can do this without certain EPA actions, is the Shell Creek and Prairie Creek watersheds management plan, which my company is a party to. This plan was developed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Charlotte County, DeSoto County, the City of Punta Gorda, Florida Citrus Mutual, the Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association, the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, the County Soil & Water Conservation District, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and many, many others, including my company. This program resulted from identifying a specific problem, studying the water systems specifically involved, recognizing the uniqueness of each individual water system, and then resulted in a jointly developed plan to address the issues.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4324Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Over just two years of measured results in this management plan, analysis by the Southwest Florida Water Management District indicates 48.8 percent and 54.5 percent improvement in total dissolved solids for the Prairie Creek at Washington Loop Road and near Fort Ogden, and 41.1 percent and 52.9 percent and a whopping 69 percent improvement for chlorides in Shell Creek at Washington Loop Road, Shell Creek at State Road 31, and at Myrtle Slough at State Road 31, respectively. We believe that the public-private partnerships and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is working hard and is doing a lot of good work here in the State of Florida. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 1091.001.005

Author Name: Lewis R. Organization: Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Florida And we're concerned about cost as well, of implementing this, and making sure that the local municipalities and businesses understand the -- how this will affect the wastewater, water use, storm water, and canal systems. Some estimate that the capital cost may be billions of dollars, so it's really important that we have sufficient time for implementation, to take into account the significant amount of planning that will have to be undertaken. 

# Comment ID 1091.001.006

Author Name: Lewis R. Organization: Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Florida Finally, care must be taken that the numeric criteria are based on good science. There's a fear that you start an initiative, and then later the numeric criteria change after the infrastructure is already in place. We can't afford these false starts. Florida has a well-developed TMDL program, and the results of this program should be integrated into the development of the numeric criteria 

# Comment ID 1098-1.001.004

Author Name: Vance A. Organization: City of Bonita Springs How does the rule specifically affect Bonita Springs?

• NPDES MS-4 Permit - cost for monitoring and enforcement 

# Comment ID 1098-1.001.009

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4325Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Vance A. Organization: City of Bonita Springs Conclusion: Prior to adoption, EPA needs to take a better look at not only the science which many speakers and FDEP have addressed, but also its requirements under the law to deal with the impact on local governments. 

# Comment ID 1098-1.001.010

Author Name: Vance A. Organization: City of Bonita Springs Difficult to comment with the preamble shows blank areas in a map to fill in at a later phase of rulemaking. However, the proposed rule appears to only address issues with FDEP, and disregards state law on comprehensive planning. State law already mandates analysis of the effects of existing drainage systems and the impact of point source and nonpoint source pollution on estuarine water quality 

# Comment ID 1102.001.002

Author Name: Kelley K. Organization: Agriculture is a very necessary part of our lives, as far as food goes. I'm in the ornamental plant business, and so our -­ what we do is not necessarily life-sustaining to our lives in that matter, but the beautification of our homes and our yards, and also the attributes that plants give to the environment, with giving off oxygen, filtering out air, and that sort of thing, they're very important. And I suggest that if the EPA gets involved with this issue that DACS and DEP are still going to be the ones that regulate the agriculture side of it anyway. 

# Comment ID 1179.001.001

Author Name: Peterson M. Organization: Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation District Thank you. Hi. My name is Melanie Peterson. I come from Palm Beach County, Florida. I'm here representing the Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation District. First, let me tell you that -- a little bit about myself. I'm a graduate of FAU with a degree in geography and environmental resources. I've sat on several boards locally in our county and then statewide. I was a Marshall fellow. I'm a full-time farmer with the successful horse training business in Delray Beach, Florida. I live in the ag reserve, approximately 20,000 acres of farmland, where all of your winter vegetables are grown.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4326Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

I'm proud to say that at my house, where I am surrounded by all the vegetables grown in South Florida, that I have otters playing in our canal. I have fat freshwater birds eating fish all day long. We're very happy with our community down there, and I'm very proud of our water and soil and water conservation district because we participate in the best management practices cost-share program administrated by our district in the ag reserve. So we administer that program to our growers because the ag reserve is county land leased back to the farmers. And so they're held to strict regulations and are monitored by our staff to ensure compliance. The Palm Beach Soil & Water Conservation District works with Palm Beach County in the ag reserve on lands purchased by the county with funds from the March 1999 Conservation Lands Bond. Land in the ag reserve is leased to growers for agricultural production, and the district works with lessees to customize a three-year best management practices plan based on the crops grown. Through our partnership with the USDA NRCS, the district also provides lessees with maps, indicating locations of all field and water control structures, as well as soils, maps, and interpretation. The plan provides ongoing assurance that acceptable agricultural practices are conducted in the form of verified implementation of best management practices. So in the comments earlier today, just listening, to it was interesting to me because I'm from South Florida, and we've been regulated for so long, and we've been doing this for long, and we've been successfully achieving water quality standards for a very long time. We all want clean water. We all want to continue the practices that we know are successful and that we are successfully docketing -- you know, the nation can look at what we're doing and see an example of how it can be implemented. So we're concerned that because we're already adhering to standards, that were in place for the last 15 years -- and there are standards that were adhered to before there were even regulations. We've got cattlemen that started the best management practices program, you know, 30 years ago. They wrote the book before it was written for them. They helped write the book. 

# Comment ID 1227.001.002

Author Name: Pickel L. Organization: Collins Law Group This lake actually used to be the drinking water source for many local communities and now it is so polluted that it has just got algae and oil floating on the surface. I have a couple of images that just show what it looks like right now. And this is a pretty common scene these days on this lake. Nothing like it used to look like. Unfortunately, most of the polluters on this lake claim to be exempt from E.R.P. permits and other types of permits due to their existence prior to either the Water Management District being in place or any of these permitting agent -- any of the permits being needed. This gives us the problem of having polluters that are grandfathered in under Florida's laws. This type of pollution we

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4327Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final feel cannot exist and -- with these water bodies trying to be improved and have them grandfathered in. So our questions are more based on would E.P.A. continue this grandfathering process, allow these polluters to continue doing what they are doing without the need for any sort of permits or oversights. And this lake has also completed its T.M.D.L. process. It has not started it's BMAP process yet. And we want to know will those timelines continue to be in place even when we see that T.M.D.L.s have been established, the lake has not been cleaned up, and the BMAP process is being delayed indefinitely by the State on grounds of it's not a high-priority water body. So those are just some of our concerns regarding one of many lakes. We see this situation throughout many of the -­ the inland water bodies. This lake is not necessarily unique. It's -- it's happening all over the place. And we would like to see some sort of numeric standards to get these things improved, get these lakes looking better. And one of our final questions and one of our final concerns deals with the stormwater. This lake is the recipient of quite a few stormwater drains that, again, do not have any sort of permitting because they existed prior to the permitting process. And we just have concerns as to whether those receiving water bodies of the stormwater are going to receive any sort of protection greater than what they are now. And in conclusion, we support the numeric nutrient criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4328Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1229.001.005

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida The State has recently adopted best management practices for many of the -- the agricultural industries within the state of Florida. I was involved in the formulation of the cow/calf best management practices. And I would hope that E.P.A. would give due difference to the best management practices that have been adopted in looking at these numeric criterias. I would also hope that E.P.A. would give sufficient time for these to go to work in doing whatever they are going to do with the criteria. 

# Comment ID 1244.001.005

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District As I have spoke before, the District is a leader in restoration efforts across the state, including Everglades restoration in which the State of Florida has already invested 1.8 million dollars, the Kissimmee River restoration project, which is another partnership we have with the Federal Government. Through our state legislature, we're also involved in the northern Everglades, and that is where the District is coordinating closely with the D.E.P. on current T.M.D.L.s and current BMAPs. We have concerns with the language that we have read to date on how these T.M.D.L.s and BMAPs are going to be infect -- affected by this nutrient criteria rule that you are proposing. We believe that you should follow the lead of D.E.P. in their draft numeric nutrient criteria that they put out last July where current T.M.D.L.s would be basically adopted as is, the SSCA process. I would like to remind you that these final T.M.D.L.s were approved by your agency. It is important that the stakeholders that are trying to implement these T.M.D.L.s through the basin management action process know what their targets are today. We have heard a lot about trying to meet water quality goals today and not tomorrow. These processes are in place. And we would like E.P.A., as you move down the road, particularly with your restoration water quality standard section, understand that there is an implementation process in the state of Florida. The District supports that, and we have been behind it with our projects, resources, and time, and our scientific expertise. So I thank you again for coming to our state of Florida. We will be submitting written comments that will go through this in -- in further detail. Thank you.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4329Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1260-1.001.003

Author Name: Hurner L. Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual Ongoing Environmental Improvements The EPA's federal intervention disrupts Florida's successful water quality restoration efforts. The federal Numeric Nutrient Criteria will unseat the state water quality standards that form the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) initiatives. The Florida citrus industry has-been working closely with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection , The University of Florida/IFAS and other agricultural commodity groups for more than ten years on the development of these TMDLs. Mutual feels that the significant progress made through this effort will most certainly ensure "clean water" for all Floridians. Florida citrus growers are good stewards of the land. We have to be; the land supports our businesses and our families. If we treat it badly we don't have a business. Evolving production practices are more environmentally friendly than ever. A majority of the citrus grown in Florida is cultivated through Best Management Practices or BMPs, which are production strategies scientifically shown to preserve water quality and lessen the environmental impacts of agriculture. BMP programs have helped significantly reduce our use of fertilizers and water. Water consumption has plummeted over the past few decades as growers turned to efficient micro-jet irrigation. Plus, through BMPs, we've learned techniques to minimize fertilizer runoff like scheduling applications to avoid Florida's rainy season. Variable application technology also allows growers to reduce fertilizer use while maximizing efficiency. Not surprisingly, implementing these BMPs has come with a cost. Every Florida citrus grower is glad to pay these costs because clean water allows us to continue to produce the highest quality citrus juices and fresh fruit in the world. However, the introduction of additional regulations in the form of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria would place an unbearable economic burden on growers. Being at the beginning of the supply chain producing a perishable commodity, growers can't pass additional costs on to consumers. Growers are price takers. We get what the processing plants offer us. So any additional costs are taken straight from the bottom line. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.001

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County On January 15, 2010, EPA issued documents related to draft numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for the state of Florida and subsequently issued the draft criteria in the Federal Register on January 26,2010. The draft criteria are listed in 40 CFR 131.34 for Florida fresh lakes and flowing waters (streams, canals, springs and spring runs). Comments on the draft criteria are provided below. Prior to providing comments on the draft NNC, it must be noted that for the most part surface water dischargers in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4330Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Florida do not currently achieve these criteria at the point of discharge. Surface water dischargers include direct domestic and industrial wastewater discharges, backup reclaimed water dischargers (authorized by Apricot Act [Section 403.086(7), F.S.J, or stormwater discharges via a pipe or confined ditch (i.e., outfall for NPDES MS4 purposes). In surface waters that will become impaired with the new EPA NNC, no mixing zone is allowed, so that the NNC would have to be met at the discharge point. For surface waters that are not impaired, a mixing zone is allowable, so that dilution of ilie effluent is possible. Volusia County is committed to restoring the health of the St. Johns River, into which the majority of our fresh surface waters discharge. This commitment has been demonstrated through the County's active participation in the Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

# Comment ID 1264.001.004

Author Name: Melton K. Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission Most utilities, including O.U.C., flush their lines frequently, and in many cases discharge the flushed finished water to canals, streams, lakes, or ponds. In the past, this was not a concern, but now with the very stringent numeric nutrient criteria in the proposed rule, the potable water itself may not meet the criteria limits when discharged. Several local governments have tested the finished water for nutrients and found measurable levels of the nutrients in the finished water coming from either the raw water or the treatment chemicals that are added to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and the lead and copper standards. If E.P.A. treats line flushing of potable water to the waters of the United States as point source discharges requiring compliance with the proposed rule, utilities will either be forced to curtail or modify their line flushing activities so as to only discharge to storm sewers or storage ponds, which are not considered waters of the United States, or to modify their treatment processes in order to reduce nutrient concentrations in the finished water. In either case, this could significantly increase the costs associated with the proposed rule and have an unintended negative impact on public health, safety, and welfare. Utilities will be placed in the untenable position of having to juggle compliance with the public health and safety values as embodied by the lead and copper rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the environmental protection values as embodied by the proposed rule under the Clean Water Act. 

# Comment ID 1264.001.006

Author Name: Melton K. Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission Additionally, because the proposed rule is based on nutrient concentrations rather than loads, it may indirectly regulate

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4331Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final consumptive uses of water and infringe on the State's ability to allocate quantities of water, in violation of the Clear Water Act -- Clean Water Act. As part of the consumptive use permitting process, applicants must demonstrate that the proposed withdrawal will not cause a violation of water quality standards. However, the surface water withdrawals may result in increased nutrient concentrations. Thus, if the water -- if the withdrawal of surface water causes a violation of water quality standards by increasing concentrations downstream, the proposed rule will be indirectly prohibiting surface water withdrawals. Furthermore, surface water withdrawals currently make up approximately 10 to 15 percent of the water use in the state and are projected to increase to 25 percent of the water use in the future. By indirectly prohibiting surface water withdrawals, the proposed rule will cause additional strains on the groundwater supplies by increasing the groundwater demand. 

# Comment ID 1264.001.007

Author Name: Melton K. Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission The E.P.A. should address the effect of surface water withdrawals and concentration levels and clarify that it does not intend to directly or indirectly restrict the utilization of surface water and that surface water use is a matter dealt with by the states. Finally, in areas where T.M.D.L.s and BMAPs have already been established, the site-specific criteria should be incorporated into the proposed rule. This site-specific information more accurately reflects the conditions of the watershed and incorporate -- and incorporates the surrounding habitat, biology, and geology in determining what nutrient levels the watershed can handle without becoming impaired. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.015

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District It is very unclear how the proposed standards would economically, environmentally, and legally impact new programs in place designed to reduce nutrient loading. The environmental resource permitting program for stomrwater and agricultural are two specific areas where a best management practice approach has only recently been implemented in northwest Florida and relatively have not been given much time to monitor success. Adopting the newly proposed approach on top of the current practice is at best an economic hardship to those who have complied to the standard

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-43326.0 Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final practices in place now but at worst becomes impossible to implement because it requires constant compliance of ALL the individuals (e.g. farmers, urban property owners, point source discharges) within a watershed who cumulatively may impact the system downstream. More time (years) is needed to evaluate existing regulatory programs which are being successfully implemented at the property owner level without a sudden rush to judgment that the existing programs are not working. 

# Comment ID 1291-1.001.003

Author Name: Brown A. Organization: The City of Pompano Beach Utilities Administration Utilities currently use orthophosphate blends to prevent corrosion in drinking water pipes for compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule. Potable water used for irrigation contains about 0.5 mg/L of orthophosphate. When considering down stream effects and non-point discharges,corrosion control chemicals containing phosphates may be prohibited, eliminating the only effective chemical our utility has found to date. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.083

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

Nutrient Targets Developed from Rigorous TMDL Calculations Provide a More Detailed Understanding of Site-Specific Conditions than Those in EPA's Proposal Summary The numeric nutrient criteria proposed by EPA are overprotective for Florida waters, as evidenced by nutrient targets developed through TMDL activities in Florida. Main Technical Findings

• EPA's proposed TN and TP criteria for flowing waters were derived using the least site-specific approach offered as guidance for criteria development.

• Criteria developed through the TMDL program that employed extensive characterization of site-specific water quality provide a reliable means for establishing criteria based on specific linkages between nutrient cause and response for individual waterbodies. Specific Comments and Corresponding Science Analysis

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4333Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

The development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that include adequate water quality information (i.e., sitespecific nitrogen and/or phosphorus data) and demonstrate a connection with instream nutrient responses provide a more appropriate means for establishing nutrient target values than do regional nutrient criteria. Approved and established TMDLs in Florida for the Econfina-Fenholloway River Basin (USEPA 2009a), the St. Johns River (FDEP 2009a), the Lake Okeechobee Tributaries (USEPA 2008b), and the Alafia River (FDEP 2009b) not only consider the mechanisms by which nutrients respond in the corresponding waterbodies, but also incorporate detailed site-specific information and analysis. Development of the Alafia River TMDL, for example, included an analysis of data from 18 water quality monitoring stations over a period of 11 years (19922004) for multiple parameters (TN, TP, ammonia, chl-a, etc.) and applied mechanistic modeling that related cause and effect through physical and biological associations. Similarly, while model calibration was limited to the most current four years of available data, the Econfina-Fenholloway TMDL considered data over a roughly ten year period from 18 multiple information sources. These and other TMDLs in Florida provide a basis and rationale for nutrient targets specific to the areas from which the data were derived. These four TMDLs reflect target values for nutrients that are scientifically credible because they were derived using well-established information (i.e., long-term data) from multiple water quality monitoring stations and included rigorous modeling efforts that established a relationship between the recommended nutrient loading values and observed water quality conditions or impairment issues in the waterbodies to which the load allocations are to be applied. EPA's current criteria recommendations for nutrients establish generic water quality targets that may be inappropriately applied to a wide variety of waterbodies within any given river basin, and do not provide a means for directly relating the proposed criteria to instream conditions. In addition to the aforementioned rigorous TMDL calculations using site-specific data, FDEP has developed comprehensive basin management action plans (BMAPs) or alternative forms of 53 TMDL implementation for nine river basins to which EPA's nutrient criteria are proposed and seven more areas with BMAP activities that are in progress now or will be by 2011. In addition, the state has four additional river-specific TMDLs finalized for nutrients and five more draft nutrient TMDLs for rivers in Florida. FDEP operates a rotating-basin evaluation process that accounts for the assessment of and potential impairment determinations for all river basins in the state. The state completed one full TMDL evaluation cycle between 2000 and 2005, and is close to completing its second cycle for all potential impairment determinations in the state that may lead to TMDL development. 

# Comment ID 1296-1.001.011

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing Buckeye has invested significant resources into the planning and restoration of the Fenholloway River system. Unfortunately, the proposed nutrient rule could adversely impact the restoration plans that would ultimately accomplish this objective. As such, Buckeye appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and we look forward to EPA's response to our concerns. If you have any questions related to our comments, please contact Chet Thompson at 850­ 584-1167.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4334Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1299-1.001.005

Author Name: Newlin J. Organization: Orange-Co, Inc. The people of Florida, its citizens, its businesses and its government agencies have been working hard, together to protect our natural resources in unique and innovative, effective ways that involve all stakeholders. There are many good examples of this across the entire state, two of which I will highlight here: the Best Management Practices program in agriculture, or "BMPs"; and the "Shell Creek and Prairie Creek Water Sheds Management Program". Best Management Practices were designed and developed in cooperation by the University of Florida, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, agricultural industry groups and private companies like Orange-Co. We Floridians through our Department of Environmental Protection have spent more than $20 million on this successful public/private partnership style program to significantly improve water quality, but at the same time, do so in a way that does not impair our farming operations or the many businesses and jobs that depend on them. My company engages these best management practices in its operation, along with a multitude of farmers representing nearly 2 million acres of Florida farmland (as indicated by analysis published by the Florida Fresh Fruit & V.egetable Association). Analysis of the proposed EPA rules by experts at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and others indicates these new rules will undo the excellent work and results of this $20 million investment, not to mention the time, effort and sweat expended by all the participants. Another example of the hard work Floridians are engaged in that is making a significant, positive impact on water quality (and thus showing how unnecessary it is for the EPA to take this action) is the "Shell Creek and Prairie Creek Watersheds Management Plan", which my company is a party to. This Plan was developed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Charlotte County, Desoto County, the City of Punta Gorda, Florida Citrus Mutual, the Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association, the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, the Charlotte County Soil & Water Conservation District, the Joshua Water Control District, the East Charlotte Drainage District, the University of Florida, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, and many others including my company, Orange-Co. This program resulted from identifying a specific problem, studying the water systems specifically involved, recognizing the uniqueness of each individual water system, and then resulted in a jointly developed plan to address the issues. Over just 2years of measuring results of this management plan, analysis by the Southwest Florida Water Management District indicates 48.8% and 54.5% improvement in total dissolved solids as a monthly average for Prairie Creek at Washington Loop Road and for Prairie Creek at Ft. Ogden, respectively; and 41.1%, 52.9%, and a whopping 69% improvement for chlorides in Shell Creek at Washington Loop Road, Shell Creek at state road 31, and Myrtle Slough at state road 31, respectively. 

# Comment ID 1300-1.001.004

Author Name: Newlin J. Organization: CI Groves LLC

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4335Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final The people of Florida, its citizens, its businesses and its government agencies have been working hard, together to protect our natural resources in unique and innovative, effective ways that involve all stakeholders. There are many good examples of this across the entire state, two of which I will highlight here: the Best Management Practices program in agriculture, or "BMPs"; and the "Shell Creek and Prairie Creek Water Sheds Management Program". Best Management Practices were designed and developed in cooperation by the University of Florida, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, agricultural industry groups and private companies like CI Groves. We Floridians through our Department of Environmental Protection have spent more than $20 million on this successful public/private partnership style program to significantly improve water quality, but at the same time, do so in a way that does not impair our farming operations or the many businesses and jobs that depend on them. My company engages these best management practices in its operation, along with a multitude of farmers representing nearly 2 million acres of Florida farmland (as indicated by analysis published by the Florida Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association). Analysis of the proposed EPA rules by experts at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and others indicates these new rules will undo the excellent work and results of this $20 million investment, not to mention the time, effort and sweat expended by all the participants. Another example of the hard work Floridians are engaged in that is making a significant, positive impact on water quality (and thus showing how unnecessary it is for the EPA to take this action) is the "Shell Creek and Prairie Creek Watersheds Management Plan", which my company is a party to. This Plan was developed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Charlotte County, Desoto County, the City of Punta Gorda, Florida Citrus Mutual, the Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association, the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, the Charlotte County Soil & Water Conservation District, the Joshua Water Control District, the East Charlotte Drainage District, the University of Florida, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, and many others including my company, CI Groves. This program resulted from identifying a specific problem, studying the water systems specifically involved, recognizing the uniqueness of each individual water system, and then resulted in a jointly developed plan to address the issues. Over just 2years of measuring results of this management plan, analysis by the Southwest Florida Water Management District indicates 48.8% and 54.5% improvement in total dissolved solids as a monthly average for Prairie Creek at Washington Loop Road and for Prairie Creek at Ft. Ogden, respectively; and 41.1%, 52.9%, and a whopping 69% improvement for chlorides in Shell Creek at Washington Loop Road, Shell Creek at state road 31, and Myrtle Slough at state road 31, respectively. 

# Comment ID 1304-1.001.064

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. Furthermore, the Association proposes including, in any regulation setting numeric nutrient criteria, language that recognizes existing nutrient TMDLs as SSAC to eliminate the requirement of repeating significant scientific and engineering efforts already accomplished and approved by the Agency and Florida. 

# Comment ID 1309.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4336Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Steinbrecher P. Organization: JEA There are additional nutrient reduction projects being implemented in this basin by the wastewater treatment facilities and additional projects about to be implemented. In total, point sources have identified and are implementing over $500 -- over $500 million in projects in this basin to meet TMDL obligations. EPA's proposed regulation as currently stated appear to signal the end of this highly effective nutrient loading reduction process in Florida. If EPA's proposed numeric nitrogen -- excuse me -- numeric nutrient criteria go into effect as currently stated, planned water quality improvement projects will need to be suspended, unfortunately, perhaps for several years, as previously EPA approved TMDLs are then resubmitted for EPA's reapproval, this time as site specific alternative criteria. This, unfortunately, will needlessly delay the imminent restoration of these water bodies based on those $500 million of projects that are planned and under way. 

# Comment ID 1323.001.005

Author Name: Reynolds G. Organization: First Coast Manufacturers Association If businesses need to come up with new end point targets arbitrarily assessed, not based on the TMDL science, then they're going to need to stop the capital expenditures, the planned projects and come up with new plans and processes. So I think that in that manner, it has a potential to slow down the end point which everyone wants, which is cleaner water in Florida. The experience in the lower St. Johns River demonstrates that the regulated community will make huge investments to accomplish pollutant reductions if doing so will benefit the environment. That's what has happened and continues to happen in the lower St. Johns River TMDLs. But now with these proposed regulations, EPA may ignore all that's been accomplished and require us to spend much more money possibly without any environmental benefit. 

# Comment ID 1323.001.006

Author Name: Reynolds G. Organization: First Coast Manufacturers Association The bottom line, EPA's proposed rule, historic progress in reducing nutrient loading in the St. Johns River is substandard environmental policy and just not right. Waters that have an EPA approved nutrient TMDL do not need new nutrient numeric standards and, therefore, they should be excluded from the proposed rule. Failure to exclude these TMDL waters from the EPA's rule would represent a step backwards for the lower St. Johns River and for the economy of northeast Florida. Thank you for the time. I thank you for the opportunity to provide input, and I thank you for going into overtime this

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4337Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

afternoon session. 

# Comment ID 1327.001.003

Author Name: Register D. Organization: Baker County Chamber of Commerce The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Department of Agriculture, and the water management districts in Florida have been working with farmers and other business owners for many years to protect and improve our water quality. They have developed long range plans with total maximum daily loads based on site specific evaluations that are working. Almost two million acres of Florida farmland is already enrolled in the Office of Agriculture Water Policy Best Management Practices Program. Why throw all of this out the window to create statewide or regional standards that might never be attained, but will surely drive some of us out of business? Not only is this a bad rule, it's at a bad time. 

# Comment ID 1331-1.001.014

Author Name: Aldstadt S. Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works This one-size-fits-all assumption has serious implications for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), which will be subject to legally enforceable NPDES permit requirements based on the nutrient criteria. In the arid west or other locales where receiving waters experience little or no dilution of waste discharges, the NPDES permitting approach would be to apply the criteria or water quality standards end-of-pipe [4]. [4] This calls into question EPA's claim that the criteria will have no regulatory effect on entitites in Florida under the federal Regulatory Flexibility Act (See Fed.Reg. at p. 4222.) 

# Comment ID 1333.001.008

Author Name: Hauck A. Organization: Council of Civic Associations One more paragraph. MR. KING: Okay. One paragraph -- MS. HAUCK: One paragraph. MR. KING: -- because we've got some folks waiting. MS. HAUCK: Okay. MR. KING: All right. MS. HAUCK: Lastly, Jim Giatinna, director of the Region 4's Water Protection Division, response to Silva's suggestions was that it was good news. If the same managers who manipulated and suppressed scientific evaluations are still in charge, why should the public expect anything different? We believe that even if nutrient criteria are established, there will be no compliance, no enforcement. Without enforcement, nutrient criteria is a toothless tiger. Who is going to do the enforcing? The state? The EPA? When the South Florida senior scientist spoke up on many of these same issues, he was marginalized, and what we see today is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4338Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

a South Florida office that is all but abandoned. 

# Comment ID 1338-1.001.010

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC Any viable and workable nutrient criteria should explicitly recognize all existing nutrient TMDLs already approved by EPA, specifically including the Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients for the Lower St. Johns River. Resources should be focused on those remaining watersheds that have not had TMDL work performed, or that lack sufficient scientific data, or have few measures in place to improve water quality. 

# Comment ID 1338-1.001.011

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC Technological limitations and impacts of reducing nitrogen and phosphorus in pulp and paper mill effluents Proposal: EPA has proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for rivers and streams (flowing waters) that range from 0.824 mg/l to 1.798 mg/l for total nitrogen and range from 0.043 mg/l to 0.739 mg/l for total phosphorus, depending upon the named nutrient watershed region. These criteria are proposed as in-stream concentrations. Comment: As a result of the lack of mixing zones for nutrients under the Florida rules, and the prohibition of mixing zones for discharges of a pollutant into a water impaired for that pollutant, GP's Palatka mill would be required to comply with the proposed numeric nutrient standards as end of pipe criteria. 

# Comment ID 1339.001.005

Author Name: Speed Sr. D. Organization: Douglas Speed & Associates And don't hide behind BMPs. BMPs were developed. They're not written in stone. They were developed for that moment in time, and if new science comes along, then that science should be incorporated into BMPs. And I've seen a lot of speakers come up here today and talk about their BMP. Now, we're telling you, we've had golf course superintendents go to the state level and say we need to modify the BMP to incorporate this science, and they were rejected. So don't hide behind BMPs. 

# Comment ID 1344.001.007

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4339Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District The importance of sound science in the development of numeric nutrient criteria is particularly important as you are here to try to enhance the protection of our water resources. There are many groups, organizations and agencies trying to restore the Florida's water resources. In particular, the DEP, through its TMDL program and Best Management Action Program, are currently working to address many of the areas that you have shown on your slides that have water quality challenges. We would request that EPA go with the DEP approach with current TMDLs. This approach was shown in their draft rule put out in July of 2009 in which current TMDLs would be accepted immediately at site specific alternative criteria. This will allow stakeholders who are currently implementing practices and projects in their watersheds to improve water quality, to continue on without being slowed down by more administrative process. 

# Comment ID 1344.001.008

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District In addition, other restoration initiatives, such as the Everglades restoration program project that we're involved with and the State of Florida has invested $1.8 billion in, have focused a lot of their efforts on a specific nutrient. We have concerns that this rule will take time and resources away from those projects in order to focus on nutrients that may not be a part of the problem that we need to manage in those watersheds. I'm out of time. I appreciate the six days we've been able to spend together, and I thank you again and we look forward to submitting our comments. 

# Comment ID 1345.001.002

Author Name: Jackson J. Organization: Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association The reason why 30% of the national water quality data is from Florida is because the State of Florida has been working hard to protect its rivers and streams, contrary to a lot of misinformation that has been presented in the media. Businesses and local governments have invested millions to restore impaired watersheds and protect healthy rivers and streams. The State has worked hard to develop scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria that will protect and restore Florida water bodies in equitable and cost effective ways. EPA should support these efforts instead of singling out Florida for scientifically flawed federal standards. EPA's criteria will disrupt ongoing environmentally beneficial projects. EPA's federal intervention disrupts Florida's successful ongoing water quality restoration efforts, because the federal criteria will unseat the state water quality standards that form the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) initiatives. It also disrupts our state's BMP programs, as dollars for this program are already very limited (due to the recession), and these new federally-mandated interventions will suck money away from these other programs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4340Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1346-1.001.014

Author Name: Still D. Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 8. Among other responsibilities (including stormwater discharge regulation), the SRWMD is required to regulate consumptive uses of water under Part II of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (FS). SRWMD has promulgated regulations in Chapter 40B-2, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), containing criteria, among others, to protect instream state water quality standards from violation due to withdrawals or diversions of water for consumptive use. SRWMD requests that EPA provide guidance on how numeric nutrient criteria will affect the ability of the District to regulate consumptive uses of water in light of 40B-2.301 (2)(i), FAC, (Attachment 1).



# Comment ID 1346-1.001.015

Author Name: Still D. Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 9. Under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, SRWMD is required to assess water supply and plan for the allocation of water for all reasonable-beneficial uses. Maintaining compliance with water quality standards is a consideration for the water supply planning process. SRWMD requests that EPA provide guidance on how numeric nutrient criteria will affect the ability of SRWMD to plan for allocation of water for all reasonable-beneficial uses. 

# Comment ID 1346-1.001.016

Author Name: Still D. Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 10. SRWMD is required by Subsections 373.042 and .0421, FS, to establish minimum flows and levels, also known nationally as instream or environmental flows. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has promulgated criteria in Chapter 62-40.473, FAC, (Attachment 2) for consideration by the Florida Water Management Districts in setting minimum flows and levels. Water quality is one of those criteria. SRWMD requests that EPA provide guidance on how numeric nutrient criteria will affect the establishment of minimum flows and levels.



# Comment ID 1348-1.001.012

Author Name: Vick J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4341Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: Gulf Power Company EPA has approved several dozens of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) based on Florida's existing narrative criteria for nutrients. EPA's approval of such nutrient TMDLs constituted its determination that all nutrient load allocations and waste load allocations are protective of designated uses.[8] Because EPA specifically confirmed that these existing nutrient standards meet federal Clean Water Act requirements, it cannot also be the case that new water quality criteria are "necessary" for such waters. Apparently aware of this fact, FDEP's July 2009 draft nutrient criteria rule would have expressly determined that these vetted nutrient TMDLs did not require less precise regional criteria. FDEP, Draft Rule 62-302.800(7)(b) (July 17 2009). EPA's proposed rule, however, simply imposes new, conflicting nutrient standards on these waters. Therefore, several dozen Florida waters will have their existing EPA-approved nutrient standards - and all of the environmentally beneficial projects designed to achieve the standards - rendered moot upon the adoption of EPA's proposed nutrient criteria. All of these lakes, canals, streams, and springs have site specific numeric nutrient standards established through the TMDL program, but none of these site specific numeric nutrient standards match the regional NNC criteria EPA proposes to impose on all of these waters. The regional NNC would also jeopardize a successful development process for the Escambia Bay TMDL wherein stakeholders have worked very closely with FDEP and EPA. [8] 40 CFR § 130.7. 

# Comment ID 1348-1.001.017

Author Name: Vick J. Organization: Gulf Power Company The environmental analysis and NPDES permitting for the Gulf Power - Emerald Coast Utility Authority partnership has all been premised on the existing regulatory program, that is, utilizing Florida's existing narrative nutrient standard for the development of water body-specific TMDLs. Another ongoing project is the Escambia Bay TMDL development process wherein stakeholders have been working closely with DEP and EPA. The proposed EPA rule places a cloud of uncertainty on work to date on that effort. I am sure that it is not the intention of EPA's proposed NNC to imperil progressive reuse and pollutant reduction projects like the Gulf Power - ECUA partnership, or the promising stakeholder process associated with the Escambia Bay TMDL. But unless the proposed rules are carefully reconsidered, these types of efforts may no longer be feasible and actually may jeopardize the already approved Gulf Power-ECUA project. 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.010

Author Name: Schwartz J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4342Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: American Forest & Paper Association B. Mixing Zones AF&PA appreciates that EPA acknowledges Florida's use of mixing zones when deriving effluent limitations for discharges of pollutants to Florida waters and proposes to allow nutrient criteria to apply at the boundary of the mixing zone. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4216. However, our understanding is that under Florida's mixing zone regulations they would not be available for dischargers seeking a mixing zone into a water already deemed impaired. As stated, FDEP has indicated that a significant percentage of Florida's waters would be deemed impaired under the proposed criteria; therefore mixing zones would not be available for most dischargers under Florida's regulations. Under the regulations, therefore, dischargers would be required to attain compliance with the criteria at the point of discharge. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.003

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Background The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program characterized Polk County as a Phase I Municipality (population greater than 100,000) in 1991. As a result, the EPA required that the County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) be permitted. Regulatory oversight has since been delegated to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). At this time, Polk County's permit is due for renewal by the FDEP. The permit covers the stonnwater management systems for the County, the 17 municipalities in the County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the Turnpike District. Polk County covers over 2,000 square miles and contains over 500 lakes and the tributaries of six major river systems. There are over 380 stormwater outfalls within the County's jurisdiction that discharge to these receiving waters; not including those within the political boundaries of the other 19 permitted MS4 entities. Most, if not all, of these 380 County outfalls will require retrofits if the stormwater they convey is subject to the nitrogen and phosphorus limits proposed in the EPA numeric nutrient criteria rule. Polk County Utilities (PCU) operates 10 wastewater treatment facilities and 13 public water systems serving over 60,000 Polk County Residents. These facilities are permitted by the FDEP and meet all the current standards for both nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Furthermore, PCU's meets the FDEP lead and copper rules by the addition of chemicals to our water supply. The proposed EPA numeric nutrient criteria rule will have a direct impact on PCU's water and wastewater treatment systems. lt is not clear how the regulations will be applied to the wastewater facilities that discharge to rapid infiltration basins or through restricted and public-access reuse systems. Additionally, since PCU's potable drinking water systems produce water that exceeds the current limits for phosphorus, irrigation and other outdoor uses will likely not be in compliance with the proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.006

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4343Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Comments 1. The State's Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) process should govern nutrient reduction strategies in impacted watersheds. Statewide uutrient standards are inappropriate and indefensible. Polk County has been monitoring our public-access water bodies since 1986. While we agree that the eutrophication of our water bodies is a legitimate problem, we feel that EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria rule is an inappropriate management strategy to deal with this issue. Polk County, as in years past, continues to actively participate with the FDEP in developing Basin Management Action Plans for our impaired waters. We regard this as the most appropriate method to address nutrient problems in impacted watersheds. This particular management approach allows for the assessment of our water bodies individually and for site-specific nutrient reduction strategies to be formulated. Upon renewal, numerous TMDLs will be incorporated in the County's MS4 permit; therefore, our ability to work with the FDEP and local stakeholders to determine best management practices and site-specific nutrient reduction goals, will be more critical than ever. The proposed EPA numeric nutrient criteria rule essentially overrides our ability to do this unless the County were to undertake the expensive Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) process for every applicable impaired waterbody. This option is simply too cost-prohibitive. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.105

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Summary and Conclusions EPA and FDEP should demonstrate that the implementation of these criteria will result in protection of designated uses and provide assurances that unnecessary burdens will not be imposed on water resource management agencies based on potential biases in the estimates. 

# Comment ID 1354-1.001.005

Author Name: Tompkins H. Organization: St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING TMDLs A great amount of time and resources have been invested in the TMDL program. The County is actively involved in the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) BMAP, which was adopted in October 2008. St. Johns County aquired a 160-acre parcel for a regional stormwater treatment (RST) facility to decrease nutrient loading to Deep Creek - a tributary of the LSJR. The County also completed a study to investigate the feasibility of another RST facility in the freshwater section of the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4344Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final LSJR to reduce nutrient loads. In addition, the County is assuming some of the maintenance duties at an RST owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District and entered into a trade agreement with the Town of Hastings to help fund plant upgrades to reduce phosphorus loads to the river. The proposed water quality standards do not specify how the existing TMDLs will be incorporated. One theory is that the TMDLs may be incorporated a a nutrient criterion by completing EPA's site-specific alternative criterion (SSAC) process. However, there is no guarantee that these SSACs will be accepted as water quality standards. Currently, EPA and FDEP are developing several TMDLs for tributaries to the LSJR. The collaboration and stakeholder involvement is ongoing and these TMDL-related efforts may be questioned or need to be repeated following the adoption of the proposed water quality standards. 

# Comment ID 1359-1.001.001

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition The Federal Water Quality Coalition (the "Coalition") submits these comments on EPA's proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register on January 26, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 4174). The Coalition is a group of industrial companies, municipal entities, and trade associations that are directly affected, or which have members that are directly affected, by regulatory and policy decisions made pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act). Coalition members for purposes of these comments are as follows: Alcoa, Inc., Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, Association of Idaho Cities, City of Superior (WI), Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation, Edison Electric Institute, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, General Electric Company, Hecla Mining Company, Indiana Coal Council, Mid America CropLife Association, National Association of Home Builders, Olin Corporation, Orange County (CA) Sanitation District, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Utility Water Act Group, and the Western Coalition of Arid States. Coalition member entities - 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, members of the Coalition have a direct interest in any precedents that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may establish that may have national implications with respect to nutrient water quality standards. The NPRM represents the first time EPA has attempted to displace a state's efforts to manage nutrient impacts by establishing federal numeric nutrient criteria. However, EPA has already asserted that it may establish such criteria for the Chesapeake Bay, and may seek to take similar action in other watersheds. Accordingly, EPA's NPRM may establish a precedent that has national significance.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4345Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1359-1.001.011

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition III. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES The FWQC appreciates the fact that EPA has tried to ameliorate some of the arbitrary effects of its proposed criteria by offering some flexibility in implementation. The implementation measures discussed in the NPRM include lake-specific, ambient condition-based modified TP and TN criteria for lakes that meet the proposed chlorophyll a criterion; site specific alternative criteria; use of mixing zones; changing designated uses; variances; compliance schedules, and restoration standards. However, these implementation measures cannot cure the flaws of the proposed criteria. In fact, they are an admission that EPA's proposed stream criteria do not meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Nevertheless, the FWQC offers these comments to help improve implementation flexibility. As a threshold matter, many of these proffered flexibilities suffer from a timing problem. EPA proposed that the federal criteria become effective for Clean Water Act purposes in the State of Florida 60 days after final standards are promulgated. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4216. This means many permitting decisions will be based on inappropriate standards and will be made before the State has the opportunity to put alternative standards in place. Lake-specific modified TP and TN criteria must be based on three years of data; site-specific alternative criteria may require long-term response studies, and restoration standards require a use attainability analysis. To allow three years for data to be collected and to give the State one year to review requests for alternative standards, the FWQC suggests that EPA set an effective date or a compliance date for any federal criteria promulgated for Florida that is four years after promulgation or 60 days after the State establishes an alternative standard under one of the mechanisms provided, whichever is sooner. This delay will allow implementation of alterative approaches that may help avoid the unwise use of resources to achieve inappropriate criteria. Alternatively, the Coalition suggests that EPA provide a mechanism in the regulation for the State to give notice to EPA that (1) the State intends to establish alternative standards for a waterbody or category of waterbodies, through an implementation mechanism discussed in the NPRM or through a TMDL, or (2) the State intends to change the designated use of a waterbody or category of waterbodies. Upon receipt of that notice by EPA, compliance with the Federal criteria would be deferred for the waterbodies that are the subject of the notice until the State process is complete. Upon completion of the State process, the new standards or uses would then be applicable in lieu of the Federal criteria. This mechanism could provide the time for the State to incorporate the implementation measures into its regulations and apply them to specific waterbodies. 

# Comment ID 1359-1.001.014

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition C. Mixing Zones

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4346Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

The FWQC appreciates EPA's acknowledgement of Florida's use of mixing zones when deriving effluent limitations for discharges of pollutants to Florida waters and that EPA proposes to allow nutrient criteria to apply at the boundary of the mixing zone. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4216. However, the Coalition seeks clarification of EPA's statements. Does this flexibility apply to waters impaired for nutrients? In the past, EPA has taken the position that discharges into a water body that already exceeds a water quality criterion must meet the applicable criterion at the end of the pipe, without consideration of a mixing zone. See EPA, Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System -- Supplementary Information Document (1995), at 556. EPA should clarify whether this is EPA's position with respect to Florida waters and whether mixing zones will be available tools for implementing EPA's proposed federal criteria in waters that are impaired for nutrients. To meet the requirement of the National Guidelines that criteria be applied in the manner in which they were derived, EPA's proposed criteria should only apply in waters outside of mixing zones where the nutrient concentrations are fully mixed with the surrounding waters and sufficient time has passed for the nutrient concentration to stimulate excessive plant growth. Thus, mixing zones should be incorporated into EPA's proposed criteria. 

# Comment ID 1361-1.001.001

Author Name: * * Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is responsible for statewide regulatory programs for surface water protection in North Carolina. The NCDWQ's mission and responsibility is to protect and enhance surface water in the State of North Carolina through establishing water quality standards, monitoring programs, efficient permitting, responsible management, fair and effective enforcement, determining water quality impairments and developing the necessary management strategies to address impairments. The NCDWQ, with central offices in Raleigh and seven regional offices located across the state, maintains an extensive ambient monitoring program, issues pollution control permits, monitors permit compliance, evaluates environmental quality and carries out enforcement actions for violations of environmental regulations. The NCDWQ has developed and implemented comprehensive nutrient management programs for point and non-point sources to deal with the complex issue of impacts to surface waters. In addition to addressing impairments, the State's programs, such as the HQW, ORW and our pending nutrient threshold rules, address nutrients and implement proactive management strategies that regulate all sources of impacts, point and non point sources, in order to prevent impairments. The NCDWQ does not believe EPA's actions in Florida are precedent setting due to high variability amongst different states, however the NCDWQ is concerned over the interpretation or appearance of a precedent and the subsequent endangerment of existing and evolving programs in North Carolina that have proven successful in the cost effective reduction of nutrients and excessive algal issues. The NCDWQ will postpone comment on the Downstream Protective Values (DPV) topic since the US EPA has formally reversed their (US EPA) intention to include DPV in this federal notice period. The NCDWQ offers the following comments on the remainder of the current federal notice:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4347Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1362-1.001.001

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute On January 26, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish water quality standards for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. 75 Fed. Reg. 4174 (Jan. 26, 2010). The NPRM represents the first time EPA has attempted to displace a state's efforts to manage nutrient impacts by establishing federal numeric nutrient criteria. However, EPA has already asserted that it may establish such criteria for the Chesapeake Bay, and may seek to take similar action in other watersheds. Accordingly, EPA's NPRM may establish a precedent that has national significance. The undersigned entities and/or their members - some of whom operate regulated activities in Florida, and some of whom are located in other states around the country - will all be affected by EPA's action, either directly or by the precedents that it sets. These entities have agreed on this joint statement, which presents shared concerns about the Florida proposal and recommended principles for how EPA and states should move forward in making decisions about development of nutrient water quality criteria and standards. 

# Comment ID 1363-1.001.002

Author Name: Butler N. Organization: Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. 1. The Final Nutrient TMDL For The Lower St. John's River Protects Water Quality In The River And Obviates The Need For EPA's Generic, Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria. One of Smurfit-Stone's pulp and paper mills is located within the Peninsula Watershed and discharges to the Lower St. John's River. This mill's NPDES permit contains an annual average total nitrogen (TN) limit that was developed as part of the State's TMDL process for the Lower St. John's River. Smurfit-Stone worked with a host of public and private stakeholders for over six years on the development of this TMDL, and FDEP expended significant resources to establish nutrient limits for specific dischargers that are protective of the River and based on a sound scientific process that incorporates site-specific data. Under EPA's Proposed Rule, the extensive site-specific work conducted by FDEP and numerous other stakeholders to develop the Lower St. John's River TMDL would be set aside and replaced with the general criteria developed by EPA. To avoid this result, Smurfit-Stone recommends that EPA provide a mechanism in the final rule for Florida to establish alternative standards for a waterbody through a TMDL, such as the one that has been developed for the Lower St. John's River. EPA has indicated that "substantial and sophisticated analyses and scientific effort already completed in the context of the TMDL process may provide sufficient support for a [Site Specific Alternative Criteria] SSAC." Under current Florida rules, nutrients are excluded from the SSAC process, which constitutes a critical barrier to the approach discussed by EPA in the Proposed Rule. If, however, the limitations in the State's current SSAC process with respect to nutrients are removed such that TMDLs can be managed as discussed in the Proposed Rule, then we request that EPA develop a streamlined process to incorporate existing TMDLs into SSACs in a timely and efficient manner, without the need to duplicate data, modeling or other analyses.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4348Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

If EPA's Proposed Rule is finalized, Smurfit-Stone's mill on the Lower St. John's River will be required to install additional treatment technology to achieve EPA's stringent, proposed numeric nutrient criteria. As discussed in greater detail below, this mill will be required to install nutrient reduction technology at a significant capital and O&M cost, even though the site-specific science on which FDEP's TMDL is based indicates that nutrient reductions of the magnitude that EPA is forcing are not required to protect designated uses in the River. In summary, FDEP developed a TMDL for the Lower St. John's River using sound science, including analyses that account for the nutrient loads contributed by specific dischargers to the River. Smurfit-Stone believes that FDEP's TMDL will provide more reliable protection of the designated uses in the River than the generic numeric nutrient criteria proposed by EPA. For these reasons, we request that EPA modify the Proposed Rule to allow the existing FDEP TMDL for the Lower St. John's River to take precedent over the general numeric nutrient criteria set forth in EPA's Proposed Rule, either by allowing the State to use the TMDL directly or providing a streamlined mechanism for incorporating the TMDL into the SSAC process. 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.011

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida E. Florida's Total Maximum Daily Loads and Basin Management Action Plan Programs Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA, Florida developed and implemented a Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") and Best Management Action Plan ("BMAP") program. A water body that does not meet its intended uses is considered "impaired". TMDLs are defined using water body-specific data, mathematical models and tools that consider the magnitude and fate of various pollutants discharged from various sources. TMDLs treat point sources through focus on treatment process options and use of best management practices for non-point sources. The Rule should whenever possible utilize relevant information gleaned from the State's TMDL and BMAP process. Existing TMDLs and BMAPs progress may be jeopardized by the numeric nutrient criteria if conflicts exist between the two standards. An extensive process of TMDL and BMAP development and implementation has been put in motion and close to 50 different water bodies have draft TMDLs pending, including approximately 35 that cover nutrients. For the Caloosahatchee River and Watershed, Lee County is working with FDEP to develop site specific water quality standards andshould be considered by the EPA in numeric criteria development. 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.018

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida From a compliance standpoint, under the proposed rule there is no consideration taken for loading values (lbs) versus

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4349Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final concentration limits (mg/L). The total loading of nutrients is greatly reduced with less flow to receiving waters. Lee County would like to see NPDES wastewater treatment plant and MS4 permits have limits that take into account the loading of nutrients along with concentration limits. 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.020

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida The proposed Rule needs additional provisions addressing implementation,[4] compliance[5] and feasibility. Specifically, the County, as a local government, needs an implementation schedule that considers current technology treatment feasibility, reliability and sustainability.

[4.] Under the proposed rule the criteria would take effect 60 days after publication of the final rule. Currently, there are no provisions within the rule explaining how the rule will implemented or the allowance of implementation schedules. It is unclear on how quickly NPDES permits will be required to meet the proposed criteria. [5.] EPA is proposing compliance based on an annual geometric mean based on rolling three-year periods of time and long-term average. The proposed rule should provide a definition of "long term". Further, once the rule is promulgated, it is unclear how compliance will be based until three years of data has been collected. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.006

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) performed an initial assessment of Florida waterways based on the proposed criteria to determine which waterways would be considered impaired under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. In the City of Miami, Little River would be considered unimpaired for nitrogen and phosphorus but impaired for chlorophyll a. The fresh water portion of the Coral Gables Canal, which lies just outside the City limits would also be considered to be impaired for chlorophyll a, but not for nitrogen or phosphorus. Within the City, the Tamiami Canal and C-5 the Comfort Canal would be considered unimpaired for nitrogen and phosphorus, but their status with respect to chlorophyll a is currently unknown. How would a TMDL be implemented for a waterway that meets the nitrogen and phosphorus targets, but not the chlorophyll a criteria? What best management practices, if any, would a municipality be expected to implement to reduce chlorophyll a levels? These results seem to confound the contention that total nitrogen and total phosphorus are causative variables and chlorophyll a is the response variable.Alternatively, the results could indicate that the numeric value for at least one of the criteria is not appropriate. If a sitespecific assessment is still necessary even after the institution of numeric criteria, the only effect of establishing numeric targets may be to shift the cost burden of these assessments to the local NPDES permittees. The DEP initial assessment is attached.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4350Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.010

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works DEP sometimes creates more than one WBID for a single waterway, so that different stream reaches of a waterway will be assigned different WBIDs. In the implementation of the rule in the TMDL process, all the WBIDs upstream of a WBID determined to be impaired for nutrients need to be well characterized for nutrient concentrations to determine whether the nutrient impairment is being caused by activities upstream. Otherwise, downstream municipalities will be forced to try to remediate impairments which are caused by upstream municipalities over which they have no control or jurisdiction. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.015

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 3. The proposed rule does not clearly establish the process or schedule for implementing the rule. Wastewater utilities cannot do long-term planning for needed capital improvements without knowing both. Thus, implementation of the rule without a proposed schedule will force significant delays on projects to upgrade and expand water reclamation facilities while utilities, and their legal counsel, work through an undefined permitting process. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.026

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 13. The proposed regulations establishing numeric nutrients will cause significant disruption of the TMDLs process, many of which have already been approved by EPA. TMDLs are sitespecific numeric criteria for impaired waterbodies and the existing narrative criteria offer a complement to numeric criteria. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.047

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 13. Existing TMDLs should be accepted as de facto site-specific alternative criteria (SSACs) for those specific waterbodies.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4351Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.051

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 17. Non-impaired waters should be exempt from meeting the numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.073

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities Summary of Key Findings

- Effluent discharge concentrations from both the Northwest and Eastern WRFs are expected to exceed the proposed USEPA draft NNC a large percentage of the time.

- These concentrations, when expressed in terms of either annual geometric mean values or long-term averages would likely violate the proposed NNC.

- Planned projects by OCU in the Wekiva Basin would need to be evaluated to determine their cumulative estimated annual load reductions to impaired waters as measured against the annual load reductions required to meet the current TMDLs and USEPA's proposed NNC.

- Effluent discharges from the Eastern WRF will likely be taken into consideration by FDEP when developing the BMAP for the current FDEP TMDL.

- The potential load allocation assigned to the WRFs under the developing BMAPs is unknown at this time. It is recommended that OCU examine its reclaimed water applications for irrigation purposes in the Northwest and Eastern WRFs, as well as County-wide, to determine their impacts on surface waters, if any. 

# Comment ID 1373.001.001

Author Name: Mc Adams J. Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District The US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District water quality representative wishes to request you consider extra rule modifications in conjunction with any final rulemaking to exempt Federal projects scheduled for ecosystem restoration from the considerations to be caused by this change in nutrient criteria. Specifically exempting Federal

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4352Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final projects authorized under; (a) Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended through January 24, 2002 (Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material),; (b) Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as amended through January 24, 2002 (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration),; (c) Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended through January 24, 2002 (Project Modifications for Improvement of Environment),. (d) Activities requiring a permit under Section 373.1502, F.S., or authorized under Sections 206 or 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303 (Critical Restoration Projects); (e) Activities authorized under Section 101(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-580; or (f) Activities conducted in association with Kissimmee, Everglades, or Lake Okeechobee restoration. More to the point the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan(CERP) project components would be ruled exempt for the standards proposed due to the positive effect of the individual projects or overall construction. 

# Comment ID 1416-1.001.017

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (iv) An Administratively Inconvenient Truth About EPA's NNC Contrary to EPA's assertion, the proposed NNC will not conserve resources; the NNC if adopted will produce an outcome that is the opposite of what EPA apparently desires: implementation of the NNC in Florida will be "difficult, resource-intensive, and time-consuming...." 75 Fed. Reg. 4175, 4181. Significantly, the administrative headaches and bureaucratic delays caused by federal NNC in Florida almost certainly will interrupt the progress being made in reducing nutrient pollution (explained above) throughout Florida. First, there are very serious doubts as to whether FDEP or other state agencies will be authorized to implement the federal NNC under Florida's existing NPDES, MS4, Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP), and other state permit programs. If FDEP were to seek statutory authority authorizing implementation of unnecessary federal NNC, or to promulgate state regulations facilitating this, it is reasonable to anticipate widespread opposition and litigation from Florida's regulated community. 

# Comment ID 1416-1.001.019

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4353Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Third, the "opportunity" to apply for site specific alternative criteria (SSACs) for TMDL waters is no consolation whatsoever. The SSAC process is duplicative of the TMDL effort, and SSAC approvals by EPA typically are litigated byvarious Florida environmental advocacy groups. Requiring EPA-approved nutrients TMDLs to be justified through multiyear SSAC approval processes represents the opposite of administrative convenience. If the NNC are finalized, all Florida sources planning expensive pollution control upgrades or best management practices (BMPs) to meet their nutrient TMDL allocations (this would include various industries, POTWs, MS4s, and agricultural interests) would be well-advised to take measures to immediately cease such projects. Why? Because their TMDL-based nutrient reduction measures likely will immediately be obsolete under the federal NNC, which presumably will require expensive retrofits. A federal rule that requires Florida's regulated community abruptly to terminate planned pollutant control upgrades to meet TMDL allocations will not be administratively convenient, but instead will be extremely detrimental to Florida's continued (until now) progress in reducing discharges of nutrient into Florida's waters. 

# Comment ID 1416-1.001.026

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (c) The TMDL Problem EPA has approved several Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) based on Florida's existing narrative criteria for nutrients. EPA's approval of such nutrient TMDLs constituted its determination that all nutrient load allocations and waste load allocations are protective of designated uses.[44] Because EPA specifically confirmed that these existing nutrient standards meet federal Clean Water Act requirements, it cannot also be the case that new water quality criteria are "necessary" for such waters. Apparently cognizant of this fact, FDEP's July 2009 draft nutrient criteria rule would have expressly determined that these waters with these nutrient TMDLs did not require less precise regional criteria. FDEP, Draft Rule 62-302.800(7)(b) (July 17 2009). EPA's proposed rule, however, simply imposes new, conflicting nutrient standards on these waters. Therefore, the following waters will have their existing EPA-approved nutrient standards - and all of the environmentally beneficial projects designed to achieve the standards - rendered moot upon the adoption of EPA's proposed nutrient criteria: Santa Fe River, Alligator Lake, Lower St. Johns River, Lake Apopka, Lake Beauclair, Lake Dora, Dora Canal, Lake Eustis, Haines Creek, Lake Griffen, Lake Harris, Little Lake Harris, Helena Run, Lake Wauberg, Lake Yale, Lake Yale Canal, Newmans Lake, Orange Lake, Palatlakaha River, Trout Lake, Lake Carlton, Alachua Sink, Lake Jesup, Crane Strand Drain, Long Branch, Wekiwa Spring, Wekiva River, Rock Springs, Rock Springs Run, Little Wekiva Canal, Spring Lake, Lake Florida, Lake Orienta, Lake Adelaide, Lake Lawne, Silver Lake, Bay Lake, Lake Hell n' Blazes, Indian River, Banana River, Newfound Harbor, Thirty Mile Creek, Lake Hunter, Lake Cannon, Lake Howard, Lake

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4354Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Idylwild, Lake Jessie, Lake Lulu, Lake May, Lake Mirror, Lake Shipp, St. Lucie River, Lake Okeechobee, C-24 Canal WBID 3197, C-23 Canal WBlD 3200, Bessey Creek, C-44 Canal, Pompano Canal, Lake Okeechobee, Hendry Creek, Imperial River, Gordon River. Rule 62-304, F.A.C. All of these Florida waters have site specific numeric nutrient standards established through the TMDL program, but none of these site specific numeric nutrient standards match the regional NNC EPA proposes to impose on all of these waters. This is unacceptable. Insofar as there is or would be numeric nutrient criteria in Florida, waters with EPA-approval TMDLs should be excluded. Also, waters should be excluded if they have been listed as impaired for nutrients and work on a nutrients TMDL is underway. [44] 40 CFR § 130.7. 

# Comment ID 1417-1.001.002

Author Name: Durbin M. Organization: City of Kissimmee We feel EPA's regional approach to setting Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) will divert funding from specific watershed problems that could be identified in a watershed base analysis such as the Florida's Department of Environmental Protection Agency's Total Maximum Daily Load Program. 

# Comment ID 1418-1.001.002

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA As explained in more detail below, any final version of the federal NNC rule should specify that the new criteria do not apply in Florida surface waters already subject to EPA-approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) based on Florida's existing narrative criterion for nutrients. This is appropriate because EPA's approval of a TMDL constitutes its determination that all nutrient load allocations and waste load allocations are protective of designated uses. 40 CFR § 130.7. New federal water quality criteria are not "necessary" for such waters. 

# Comment ID 1418-1.001.004

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA Florida's Highly Effective Lower St. Johns River Nutrient TMDL A significant point of emphasis in this letter is to urge EPA to uphold Florida's existing TMDLs - - based on Florida's

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4355Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final narrative water quality standard for nutrients - - specifically applicable to the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR), which were approved by EPA on January 18,2008. As EPA is aware, Florida's Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) to implement the LSJR TMDLs was adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on October 10, 2008. JEA and many other stakeholders are implementing substantial nutrient reduction measures in conformance with the EPA-approved TMDL and the adopted BMAP for the LSJR. These accomplishments in the LSJR demonstrate Florida's ability to develop and implement highly effective controls on nutrient discharges under the existing regulatory framework. Attachment I to this comment letter is a report entitled, "The Lower St. Johns River Main Stem Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Process and Accomplishments," (TMDL Report) prepared primarily by Tiffany Busby of Wildwood Consulting, Inc. Section I of the enclosed TMDL Report describes the St. Johns River, and Section II provides a brief history of the rulemaking, legal actions, and EPA oversight that led to the development of the LSJR TMDLs and the BMAP. The LSJR TMDLs were based on Florida's narrative nutrient criteria and addressed both total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) in the freshwater section of the river as well as TN in the marine section. Section III of the TMDL Report outlines the extensive scientific and modeling analyses that went into creating the LSJR TMDLs in a manner that was responsive to the specific flora and fauna and the unique environmental conditions in the primary aquatic ecosystems in the LSJR. Section III also describes the BMAP process, under which source specific, numeric allocations were finalized by FDEP after an extensive stakeholder process which ensured that the allocations are accurate, fair, equitable, and highly effective. Where applicable, these allocations are linked to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Where allocations are not related to NPDES permits (e.g. stormwater outside MS4 areas, agricultural releases), the BMAP itself constitutes an implementation mechanism. Florida's TMDL program substantially exceeds federal requirements because it includes implementation provisions that include nonpoint source inputs that are not regulated under the Clean Water Act. Section IV of the TMDL Report describes the nutrient load reductions that have been achieved in the LSJR. The starting loads used in the TMDL process were based on 1997/1998 wastewater loads and 1995 stormwater loads. Many stakeholders began projects to achieve load reductions before the BMAP was complete. Substantial reductions had therefore already occurred by the time the first annual BMAP implementation report (summarizing activities during that year) was prepared in 2009. For example, there has been a 25% reduction in TN discharges into the marine portion of the LSJR through 2009. Extensive additional reductions between 20 I0 and 2014 are required by the BMAP. As the charts demonstrate, most of the required reductions are expected to be achieved by 2014 and therefore the loads will be very close to meeting TMDL levels by that time. Section IV of the TMDL Report is a "must read" for EPA, as it specifically verifies that substantial TN reductions are being accomplished in the LSJR. The LSJR TMDL was promulgated by FDEP as rule, which can be found at Rule 62-304.415, F.A.C. (Note that the Middle St. Johns River TMDL can be found at Rule 62-304.505, F.A.C., and the Upper St. Johns River TMDL can be found at Rule 62-304.510, F.A.C. For that matter, several dozen additional nutrient TMDLs, fully approved by EPA, can be found in Chapter 62-304, F.A.C.) FDEP's "Final Order Establishing the Lower St. Johns River Basin Management Action Plan," dated October 10, 2008, is included with this comment letter as Attachment 2.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4356Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final



# Comment ID 1418-1.001.006

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA EPA's Proposed NNC Rule will Interfere with Implementing the LSJR TMDL EPA's proposed NNC rule would have severe consequences for the dozens of stakeholders who participated in the LSJR TMDL process in good faith, and who currently are implementing expensive nutrient reduction commitments in reliance on the integrity of EPA's approval of the TMDL. Simply put, nutrient TMDL implementation efforts by the LSJR stakeholders can reasonably be expected to be suspended if EPA's proposed NNC rule is finalized. The rational option for these stakeholders will be to curtail expenditures on planned TMDL-based nutrient reduction efforts and very vigorously petition for relief from all existing nutrient reduction responsibilities under the LSJR TMDL and BMAP, while time-consuming compliance schedules are worked out based on the NNC rule. This will be necessary because the stakeholders' planned upgrades for additional reductions to meet the LSJR TMDL and BMAP allocations will not be adequate to meet EPA's NNC. It would be a tremendous waste of resources for stakeholders to complete planned pollution control upgrades or best management practices (BMPs) that will be subject to retrofit obligations, based on the NNC rule. For example, the advanced biological nutrient removal technologies now being implemented by utilities in the LSJR Basin to meet TMDL obligations would be the wrong technology to use if the extremely low NNC being proposed by EPA are promulgated. Accordingly, utilities would be imprudent in doing anything other than delaying the completion of such projects. EPA's proposed solution to this very significant problem has been to offer the opportunity to apply for site-specific alternative criteria (SSACs) for waters with nutrient TMDLs, such as the LSJR. However, the SSAC approval process is time consuming, expensive, and frequently the subject of litigation; accordingly, this alternative inevitably will result in additional delay of pollutant reduction projects and greater uncertainty. The administrative convenience and demonstrated effectiveness of implementing the existing LSJR TMDL would be replaced by the administrative inconvenience, extraordinary complexity, and time delays associated with starting all over again based on new federal nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1418-1.001.007

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA EPA and the Florida Wildlife Federation and Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida have acknowledged that the development of NNC for Florida will conflict with the implementation of Florida's nutrient TMDLs. See Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by EPA and the Florida Wildlife Federation in Florida Wildlife Fed'n v. Jackson. 4:09cv89SPM (Sept. 2, 2009) [Doc. # 106-1] (asking for a judicial stay of a challenge to EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs for tributaries north of Lake Okeechobee because "the promulgation of numeric nutrient criteria for nutrients provided for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4357Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final in the [2009] [Consent [D]ecree may impact TMDLs challenged in the instant case"). The federal NNC indeed will "impact" existing nutrient TMDLs in Florida. The NNC will instantly make the current nutrient TMDLs obsolete unless specific provision is made in the rule to recognize and incorporate such TMDLs as water quality standards in lieu of the NNC. 

# Comment ID 1418-1.001.008

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA Insofar as it applies to waters with EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs, such as the LSJR, EPA's proposed rule will significantly hinder Florida's progress in reducing nutrient pollution in the LSJR. Applying the proposed NNC to the LSJR would ignore the numeric targets identified as a result of Florida's site-specific analysis on the LSJR and the corresponding nutrient reductions being attained. Instead, EPA would apply regional criteria based on hastily-conceived and incautious statistical short-cuts. All of this represents extremely substandard environmental policy and a transgression of EPA's fundamental responsibilities under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed NNC, if finalized, would contravene Clean Water Act § 101(f), which directs EPA to "prevent needless duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government." 

# Comment ID 1418-1.001.012

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA Additionally, and very significantly, EPA needs to consider that the "difficult, resource-intensive, and time-consuming process" has already been completed under several dozen EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs in Florida, including the LSJR TMDL. It would be completely irresponsible for all of this well-considered investment in scientific, site-specific and highly focused TMDL-based numeric requirements to be replaced suddenly by federal numeric criteria derived from generic statistical constructs. EPA's NNC represent a significant setback for Florida's environment, Florida's economy, and for principles of good government, insofar as the NNC would be allowed to apply to waters with far more rigorously derived and EPA-approved numeric nutrient requirements based on TMDLs. 

# Comment ID 1418-1.001.013

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA EPA's justification for the NNC also stated that about 5% of Florida's rivers and streams were identified as impaired in FDEP's 2008 water quality assessment report. But EPA did not consider that a very substantial percentage of those waters are already subject to nutrient TMDLs, including the LSJR TMDL. There is no legitimate rationale for "starting

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4358Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final over again" with federal standards in waters where EPA-approved numeric nutrient endpoints have been established and are being implemented under the TMDL program. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.005

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Lake Seminole Pinellas County and the Cities of Largo and Seminole, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the Lake Seminole Citizens Advisory Committee worked for over ten years to complete the Lake Seminole Diagnostic Feasibility Study (DFS) and the Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan (WMP). In 2007 FDEP and EPA approved the Lake Seminole Reasonable Assurance (RA) Plan that is based on the detailed science contained in the DFS and the WMP. Given the significant amount of water body specific information and data and agreement on the objectives outlined in the RA plan by FDEP, EPA, and the stakeholders, it is in the best interest of the lake and the community to continue with full implementation of the RA plan. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.039

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Implementation Concerns and Requests for Clarification Pinellas County requests that EPA describe the funding assistance that may be available from Federal sources for BMAP establishment or SSAC development (monitoring, reporting, management action support). 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.040

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Pinellas County requests that EPA clarify whether the WBID system employed by FDEP for basin assessments will be retained. If the WBID system will not be used, EPA should describe the system that will be used. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.041

Author Name: Levy K.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4359Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Pinellas County requests that EPA clarify whether it will retain the assessment timeline (five-year rotating basin approach) that is currently used by FDEP. If the five-year rotating basin approach will not be used, USEPA should describe the system that will be used. 

# Comment ID 1432-1.001.007

Author Name: Bell D. Organization: Counsel to Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District Another significant issue is the enforcement of the proposed rules, as it is unclear as to whether the rules will be enforced against the governmental bodies within which the canals and water bodies are located or will be enforced directly against the entity/property owner that is creating the nutrients and pollutants which will primarily be the reason for a water body (canal or lake) not meeting the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. Furthermore, while waters within the District's boundaries have previously been determined by the FDEP not to be waters of the State, that determination could change, and in any event the District is surrounded by state waters, and the proposed regulations, if enacted as currently proposed, could potentially have a substantial, potentially devastating economic impact on the District and its taxpayers, as the above analysis explains. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.011

Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts IV. EPA's Proposed Rule is Void of any Meaningful Implementation Criteria The key to any regulation is implementation; however, EPA's proposed rule leaves the regulated community, including FASD's membership, guessing on what is required. For example, the proposed rule is void of any discussion on sampling and monitoring protocols that will be necessary to assess compliance (for example, frequency, duration and location of monitoring). The question of monitoring is further complicated by the proposed exceedance threshold of no more than 1 exceedance allowed in a 3 year period. Essentially, the monitoring criteria will arguably be more robust than the data establishing the criteria in the first place. With regard to implementation, the rule simply references a phased implementation schedule whereby the State of Florida could establish interim numeric criteria so that compliance could be incremental over a period of time until the proposed criteria are attained. EPA proposed the phased implementation acknowledging that it will take significant time to achieve compliance. However, this approach assumes the State of Florida will establish interim numeric criteria. FASD's discussions with the State indicates that the State will not establish interim criteria; instead it appears the Site Specific Alternative Criteria ("SSAC") process will be what the State, and ultimately EPA, will primarily rely on for purposes of implementation. This is tantamount to "passing the buck" to the regulated community. The SSAC process

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4360Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final is a costly process borne by the regulated community that interestingly enough requires far greater data than was used by EPA to develop the numeric nutrient criteria. Based on EPA's public hearings, it appears EPA is also relying heavily on the establishment of best management practices to achieve compliance. With regard to best management practices, it is important to note that water control and improvement districts are limited-purpose governments that have flood control or water management services legislative power. They have to accept the surface water runoff from the agricultural, residential, and commercial properties they serve. Unlike cities and counties, these special districts lack the legislative power to impose best management practices on those they serve. Therefore, implementation of best management practices to control the levels of nutrients entering into the canal systems is not an option for the special districts. 

# Comment ID 1462-1.001.010

Author Name: Helfrich C. Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services Every TMDL - a numeric standard designed to recover a water body with nutrient problems, has been approved by the EPA. Many utilities worked closely with the FDEP and have invested rate payer monies to comply with these standards. EPA must adopt these waterbody specific standards. 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.034

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer InstituteSixth, criteria must set a level of protectiveness, not a load allocation. Specifically, federal criteria must not usurp sitespecific determinations of what concentration or loading of nutrients is protective, including determinations made through the TMDL process. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.015

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute II. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES TFI appreciates the fact that EPA has tried to ameliorate some of the arbitrary effects of its proposed criteria by offering some flexibility in implementation. The implementation measures discussed in the NPRM include lake-specific, ambient condition-based modified TP and TN criteria for lakes that meet the proposed chlorophyll a criterion, site specific alternative criteria, use of mixing zones, changing designated uses, variances, compliance schedules, and restoration

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4361Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final standards, However, these implementation measures cannot cure the flaws of the proposed criteria. In fact, they are an admission that EPA's proposed stream criteria do not meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Further, it is very unclear how and to what extent EPA's implementation proposals could be used. Nevertheless, TFI offers these comments to help improve implementation flexibility. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.018

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute C. Mixing Zones. TFI appreciates EPA's acknowledgement of Florida's use of mixing zones when deriving effluent limitations for discharges of pollutants to Florida waters and that EPA proposes to allow nutrient criteria to apply at the boundary of the mixing zone. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4216. However, TFI seeks clarification of EPA's statements. Does this flexibility apply to waters impaired for nutrients? In the past, EPA has taken the position that discharges into a water body that already exceeds a water quality criterion must meet the applicable criterion at the end of the pipe, without consideration of a mixing zone. See EPA, Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System -- Supplementary Information Document (1995), at 556. Please clarify whether this is EPA's position with respect to Florida waters and whether mixing zones will be available tools for implementing EPA's proposed federal criteria in waters that are impaired for nutrients. To meet the requirement of the National Guidelines that criteria be applied in the manner in which they were derived, EPA's proposed criteria should only apply in waters outside of mixing zones where the nutrient concentrations are fully mixed with the surrounding waters and sufficient time has passed for the nutrient concentration to stimulate excessive plant growth. Thus, mixing zones should be incorporated into EPA's proposed criteria. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.038

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute V. RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. Recommendations For Criteria Development EPA has a variety of choices regarding how to proceed with this rulemaking. EPA could proceed with federal criteria (after establishing such criteria are necessary) in accordance with the recommendations provided below. Alternatively, the State of Florida could continue its criteria development process, using a risk/performance-based approach. Finally, EPA could permit Florida to continue to implement its narrative criterion for nutrients.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4362Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.043

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer InstituteSixth, criteria must set a level of protectiveness, not a load allocation. Specifically, federal criteria must not usurp sitespecific determinations of what concentration or loading of nutrients is protective, including determinations made through the TMDL process. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.078

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Alternatively, TFI suggests that EPA provide a mechanism in the regulation for the State to give notice to EPA that (1) the State intends to establish alternative standards for a waterbody or category of waterbodies, through an implementation mechanism discussed in the NPRM or through a TMDL, or (2) the State intends to change the designated use of a waterbody or category of waterbodies. Upon receipt of that notice by EPA, compliance with the Federal criteria would be deferred for the waterbodies that are the subject of the notice until the State process is complete. Upon completion of the State process, the new standards or uses would then be applicable in lieu of the Federal criteria. This mechanism could provide the time for the State to incorporate the implementation measures into its regulations and apply them to specific waterbodies. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.014

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District V. South Florida Water Management District Response to USEPA Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Criteria Implementation Issues
A. Restoration Programs and Projects The implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria from USEPA will have significant affects on current environmental restoration efforts being conducted by the South Florida Water Management District, including the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). CERP was approved by Congress as the framework for Everglades Restoration in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA-2000). CERP components include Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs), surface water storage reservoirs, aquifer storage and recovery, seepage management, operational changes, and other components to be implemented over 35 years. To date, the state of Florida has invested over 1.8 billion dollars towards CERP.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4363Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

The Florida Legislature in 2007 adopted the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Act (NEEPA) to strengthen protection for the Northern Everglades. NEEPA recognizes Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie watersheds are critical water resources of the State and consolidates numerous restoration activities into a comprehensive approach. All restoration projects, including CERP and Northern Everglades, are regulated under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S) to ensure protection of the States water resources and specifically need to meet the States water quality criteria. There are a variety of specific regulations for restoration projects with varying water quality requirements. For example for CERP projects, state water quality standards, including water quality criteria will be met. Under no circumstances shall the project component cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. However, for Lake Okeechobee restoration projects, discharges must be "of equal or better quality than inflows" and "not pose a serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare" for water quality parameters other than phosphorus. Fla. Stat. § 373.4595(7)(d). Implementation of the nutrient criteria may have a significant impact on restoration projects in Florida, depending on how the criteria are applied. Strict application of the criteria could result in project redesigns, the need for additional land acquisition, project delays, increased costs, and ultimately could result in the inability to move forward with restoration projects. The criteria will also likely result in reduced flexibility of operations, and operational constraints that may reduce or negate the effectiveness of restoration projects. For example, the initial WRDA of 1996 authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to cost share with the state of Florida (50-50) on CERP water quality features the Secretary of Army deemed to be essential to Everglades Restoration. In addition, the April 1999 Feasibility Report ("the Yellow Book") determined 22 project components with water quality features to be essential to Everglades Restoration and recommended 50-50-costs share on these. However, the Corps has subsequently interpreted the "essential to Everglades Restoration" cost share requirement to apply only to those projects or components that provide WQ improvement beyond the State WQS that would need to be achieved prior to inflow to the project. For example, through the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project process the Corps has indicated that they are unsure if there will be federal cost sharing water quality elements of this project as a result of the establishment of a TMDL for Lake Okeechobee, even though the TMDL is a restoration standard. For example, the Corps has indicated reluctance regarding possible federal cost sharing on water quality elements of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project as result of the establishment of a TMDL for Lake Okeechobee, even though the TMDL is a restoration standard. The District is unsure how the Corps will work within the context of numeric nutrient criteria as we continue our discussions with them on this complex issue. However, the development of numeric nutrient criteria without sound science will lead to even more challenges for our Federal Partners in Everglades restoration The proposed rule will result in inherent conflicts between CERPs overall South Florida restoration goals (i.e., "getting the water right," Quality, Quantity, Timing and Distribution of water) and new federally imposed water quality standards that have poor scientific linkages to protecting the environment and no linkages to the regions current comprehensive restoration plan. In order to avoid these affects on environmental restoration projects, USEPA needs to include restoration specific provisions within the new regulations, which recognize the unique nature of restoration projects. Typically, restoration projects are not a source of pollutants, rather they result in a net improvement to water quality and/or quantity. A

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4364Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final restoration project should not be held responsible for fully resolving water quality problems caused by other point and non-point sources, therefore restoration specific provisions such as net improvement provisions, exemptions, variances and/or compliance schedules for large scale restoration projects and STAs should be included within the new regulations. With regard to water quality restoration projects, most of the emphasis in Everglades Restoration has been on nutrient reduction. To date, the focus has primarily been on the use of natural treatment systems (e.g., Stormwater Treatment Areas) for phosphorus reduction. Significant data collection and management practices have been in place to ensure maximum performance for phosphorus removal. STAs have not been focused on or designed to reduce other nutrients that are included in the proposed nutrient criteria rule (e.g. nitrogen or chlorophyll a). It is not currently clear, the extent to which these natural treatment systems can be optimized to reduce nitrogen or chlorophyll a to levels consistent with the proposed criteria. In addition, several restoration projects are planned and designed to address water quantity rather than quality (e.g., storage reservoirs, hydropattern restoration, Aquifer Storage and Recovery). If the proposed criteria are applied in a strict manner, a restoration project designed to improve water quantity issues could also be held responsible for resolving water quality issues and ensuring discharges could comply with proposed criteria. Currently as a part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have NPDES permits for their ASR pilot projects that allow them to return water back to its regional source (e.g., canal). The proposed criteria have the potential to adversely impact those permits. It has always been recognized that Everglades Restoration will take a comprehensive approach involving a large number of projects that work together to achieve restoration. Applying water quality criteria in a way that forces each project to fully achieve/address water quality issues will significantly impact the current approach to restoration. Therefore, consideration of alternatives specific for restoration projects is imperative in order for restoration to continue. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.015

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District B. Effects on State of Florida's Current Total Maximum Daily Load Program The District is concerned that the numeric nutrient criteria proposed by USEPA does not consider fully the current total maximum daily load program (TMDLs) and Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) processes already in place. Through programs such as the Northern Everglades (see section IV.A.), the District has been participating and investing significant time and resources with both the TMDL and BMAP processes. As noted by USEPA in its preamble of the numeric nutrient criteria rule, the state of Florida is a leader across the nation in terms of its (TMDLs). From the rule: "Moreover, Florida is one of the few states that has in place a comprehensive framework of accountability that applies to both point and nonpoint sources and provides the enforceable authority to address nutrient reductions in impaired

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4365Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final waters based upon the establishment of site specific total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)." Through the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Fla. Stat. § 403.067), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has developed a prototype five-step program to manage the listing of impaired waters, the development and implementation of TMDLs across the state. These are the same TMDLs that have been approved by the USEPA. Yet, in the rule, USEPA states "TMDL targets submitted to USEPA by the State for consideration as new or revised WQS could be reviewed under this SSAC process." The District is uncertain how this affects current TMDLs. The District cannot support the requirement that TMDLs be resubmitted under the Site Specific Alternative Criteria process. This would slow down water quality restoration efforts across the state and run in conflict with USEPAs stated goal of speeding up the process with numeric nutrient criteria. For example, it would seem stakeholders in a BMAP planning process would be hesitant to start planning for load allocations if the TMDL has a significant chance of being delayed and/or changing. In addition, the District has concerns with the Proposed Restoration Water Quality Standards (WQS) Provision and its comparability with the BMAP program. Initially some portions of the Restoration WQS provision reads similar to BMAP language. In fact, USEPA acknowledges the Florida BMAP program covers many of the provisions in the Restoration WQS process. However, USEPA goes on to state: "To the extent necessary, FDEP could potentially use aspects of the BMAP process and plans such as these to help form the basis for Restoration WQS." The District is uncertain how this affects current BMAPs. Will current BMAPs for nutrients need to be resubmitted under the Restoration WQS process? If so, this would seem to slow down water quality restoration efforts significantly across the state and run in conflict with USEPAs stated goal of speeding up the process with numeric nutrient criteria. For example, it would seem stakeholders in a BMAP planning process would be hesitant to start planning and allocating funding for restoration projects if a BMAP has a significant chance of being delayed and/or changing. If BMAP components would need to be integrated with the USEPAs Restoration WQS process then it would appear from the rule that Use Attainability Analyses would need to be retroactively performed for all current nutrient TMDLS and BMAP processes. The District requests USEPA to determine the number of UAAs developed nationwide over the last 5 years and the approximate length of time and resources it has taken to develop them. This information will assist us in understanding how the Restoration WQS process will be implemented. Overall, the District supports the FDEPs approach for the TMDL and BMAP process as the proper alternatives. As stated in the draft numeric nutrient criteria (draft revisions Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.] July 2009) presented at a public workshop (Marco Island Florida July 22, 2009) the FDEP would, in effect, take all current TMDLs as SSACs immediately within their rule without further administrative review. In addition, the District requests the USEPA to utilize the FDEPs current BMAP process over the Restoration WQS. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.017

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4366Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District D. District Regulatory Programs The proposed NNC rule may require existing regulatory programs (Rules 40E-61 and 63, F.A.C. for the District) that currently focus on total phosphorus source control Best Management Practices (BMPs), the limiting nutrient for the waterbodies of concern, to be amended to include nitrogen source control BMPs. These programs have reduced phosphorus loads up to 50% compared to historic levels. Amending and implementing these rules to add BMPs for nitrogen will require additional resources from the District to conduct research, monitoring, rulemaking, implementation and compliance with no real ecological benefit since nitrogen is not the limiting nutrient. The proposed NNC rule has the potential to erroneously increase the number of impaired waterbodies, thus, increasing the complexity of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) applications and the resources necessary for the agencies implementing the program and the entities applying for the permits. The District issues an average 1,800 permits per year. The District and the other 4 water management districts, along with FDEP, issue these permits throughout the State. The State ERP program, in existence since the mid 1980s, and a proposed comprehensive statewide revision to the water quality treatment aspects of the ERP program (focusing on nutrient reduction) are predicated on a rebuttable presumption that an applicant will not cause or contribute to violations of surface water standards if the applicant is in compliance with the design criteria within the rules. In addition, the ERP program provides state water quality certification. The proposed NNC rule could require a change in the water quality analysis methodology and compliance requirements to be similar to NPDES permits, which the state agencies do not have the authority to implement. This could result in the State no longer being able to issue water quality certification. Currently, the State has a net improvement provision for retrofit or restoration projects submitted for ERP applications. The proposed NNC rule does not have these provisions, which could severely limit the number of retrofit or restoration projects being submitted. Without net improvement provisions local governments and other entities would not be able to get ERP permits for projects designed to improve waterbodies that are impaired.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4367Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1479-1.001.007

Author Name: Reynolds J. Organization: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Promulgation of Rules for Coastal Waters and Estuaries: Reasonable assurance plans for meeting water quality standards imposed by state law have been developed for Monroe County. These plans included specific numeric targets and the actions required to achieve specific nutrient load reductions. These plans remain aggressive and based upon all available scientific data. These plans are in the process of being submitted to EPA for approval. For consistency purposes, FKAA recommends that EPA adopt the targets in the reasonable assurance plans into the proposed rules directly, or as Site Specific Alternative Criteria ("SSAC"), for Monroe County waters due to the significant science serving as their basis. 

# Comment ID 1480-1.001.012

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport 7. More clarification is needed on how this EPA NNC rule will be implemented. Will EPA be taking the lead or will FDEP be delegated the authority? From the workshops that I attended in late 2009 where both FDEP and EPA staff were present, there were assurances made to the public, that FDEP and EPA staff will work together in proposing the draft NNC rule. However, when the draft NNC rule was available on January 14, 2010, FDEP issued a list of major concerns dated February 15, 2010 (see attached). It is disturbing to know that two large regulatory agencies do not agree on a rule that will have such widespread effects on both the public and private sector. 

# Comment ID 1480-1.001.013

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport 8. It is unclear how the EPA NNC rule will affect the FDEP Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Please provide clarification. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.005

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida B Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Will Support TMDL and BMAP

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4368Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Development and Implementation EPA's proposed criteria will most certainly support the state's existing TMDL and BMAP program, creating achievable goals for water quality improvement. Numeric nutrient standards are a necessary tool for assessing nutrient impairment in Florida. FDEP's narrative standard has made it difficult to determine impairment, and therefore numerous nutrient impaired waterbodies have been kept off the 303(d) List and no TMDL has been developed. EPA's proposed criteria will make the listing process more efficient by accurately capturing nutrient impaired waters and requiring TMDLs in appropriate areas. Moreover, with science-based criteria already on hand, FDEP will spend less resources developing targets for the TMDL and have more time and resources to spend on implementation through the BMAP process - currently an excruciatingly long process in the state of Florida, sometimes taking more than 15 years to set allocations. It is vital, however, that EPA maintain the right to review already approved TMDLs through the rulemaking process. Given that EPA and FDEP recognize that the narrative standards are NOT adequately protective of Florida's waters, it cannot be assumed that TMDLs based on those narrative standards are entirely accurate and valid. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.012

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Ill. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Implementation Issues A Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria will be Undermined if It Relies upon Impaired Waters Rule Proposed 40 C.F.R. 131,43(d)(2)(iii) states: The criteria established in this section apply for purposes of determining the list of impaired waters pursuant to section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, subject to the procedures adopted pursuant to Rule 62-303, F.A.C., where such procedures are consistent with the level of protection provided by the criteria established in this section. However, the procedures adopted pursuant to Rule 62-303, F.A.C., are not consistent with the level of protection provided by the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. EPA should require that FDEP amend 62-303 to correct these inconsistencies. Several inconsistencies exist:

- 62-303.350 provides for interpretation of the current narrative nutrient criteria;

- 62-303.351 sets a chlorophyll a criterion for streams that is inconsistent with the EPA criteria;

- 62-303.352 sets a trophic state index criterion for lakes that is inconsistent with the EPA criteria;

- 62-303.353 contains chlorophyll a criteria for estuaries and coastal waters that will likely be inconsistent with those ultimately adopted by EPA;

- 62-303.450 contains data sufficiency requirements for nutrient data for placing waterbodies on the verified list that are inconsistent with the EPA criteria;

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4369Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

- 62-303.720(2)(j) allows waterbodies listed for nutrients to be delisted in a manner inconsistent with the EPA criteria. Even if these specific inconsistencies are resolved by amending Rule 62-303 F.A.C., there are fundamental inconsistencies between the EPA criteria and the manner in which the Florida impaired waters rule operates. For instance, the impaired waters rule requires the use of a binomial distribution test for data sufficiency to determine whether waters are placed on the planning or verified list and requires an 80% confidence level for placing waters on the planning list and a 90% confidence level for the verified list. The state rule also requires a minimum number of samples before the data can be used to place waters on either the planning or verified lists and excludes data older than 7.5 years. The state rule is also inconsistent in leaving waters off the list "if reasonable assurance is provided that, as a result of existing or proposed technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, they will attain water quality standards in the future and reasonable progress towards attainment of water quality standards will be made by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA."

Finally, FDEP's implementation of the impaired waters rule is inconsistent with the EPA criteria in leaving waters off the list where FDEP assumes that no pollutant can be identified (Category 4d); and where recently completed or on-going restoration activities are underway to restore the designated uses of the waterbody (Category 4e). These catergories are not recognized by EPA and are contrary to EPA guidance on integrated reporting and listing decisions. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.015

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida D Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Would be Undermined If Expanded Mixinq Zone Use Allowed The Conservancy supports the way that EPA has addressed mixing zones in the draft rule by making it clear that the criteria would apply throughout a waterbody, including at the point of discharge, unless a mixing zone with boundaries has been established. EPA should be aware that FDEP is discussing in its rulemaking for a new designated use the use of mixing zones where a waterbody of lower use classification flows into a waterbody of more stringent use classification. EPA should make it clear that mixing zones as envisioned in the draft nutrient criteria rule only apply to permitted dischargers and that mixing zones are established for the discharger as part of its discharge permit, not as the means of excusing downstream effects of downgrading use classifications of upstream waterbodies. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Would be Undermined If TMDLs Were Automatically Adopted as SSACS. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.016

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4370Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final E Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Would be Undermined If TMDLs Were Automaticallv Adopted as SSACS Florida has adopted 303(d) lists of impaired waters, made delisting decisions and developed TMDLs based upon the existing narrative nutrient standard. While EPA regulations do not specify when TMDLs must be revised, it would defeat the purpose of nutrient TMDLs if they are not reviewed and revised when numeric nutrient criteria are adopted if they are not in alignment with such criteria. Some have suggested that the interpretation of the narrative criteria as part of an adopted nutrient TMDL should remain the basis for evaluating whether the waterbody is meeting water quality standards after the adoption of the TMDL despite the adoption of the new numeric criteria. This would violate both state and federal statutes requiring that the impairment of a waterbody is determined by reference to the current water quality standards, See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(l)(A); Fla. Stat. § 403.067(3)(b). It would also be inconsistent with the Clean Water Act to fail to reevaluate waterbodies with TMDLs developed to meet the narrative nutrient standard by simply assuming that waterbodies with TMDLs should not be listed as impaired, which is the current practice of FDEP. For instance, FDEP will assign a waterbody to Category 4a if it is "impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL development because a TMDL has already been completed.'' There is no basis under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(l)(A) and 40 C.F.R. § 130.7, for removing a waterbody from the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been developed if the TMDL does not contain load allocations sufficient for implementation or where impairment exists for more than one parameter but the TMDL addresses only one parameter. A prime specific example of why EPA should maintain the right to review existing TMDLs, is in the case of the Tidal Caloosahatchee. The Caloosahatchee River, connecting Lake Okeechobee to the Gulf of Mexico and running through Glades, Hendry, and Lee Counties, has been the subject of much concern with regards to nutrient pollution. In fact, the Senate passed a bill in which directed FDEP to expedite the development and implementation of the Caloosahatchee Estuary TMDL. As a result of this effort, the TMDL was adopted in September 2009 addressing nutrient pollution. However, the Caloosahatchee TMDL does not address dissolved oxygen impairments within the estuary, which have been shown to be caused by excessive levels of total nitrogen. The Conservancy urged FDEP in numerous comment letters that DO had to be addressed in the TMDL as well. FDEP responded by saying "although this TMDL report was not explicitly written to address dissolved oxygen, logically DO can only improve with the reductions that are called for in total nitrogen concentrations (as well as the reductions required of total phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee TMDL)." [19] Subsequently FDEP has proposed to delist the WBlDs included in the TMDL for dissolved oxygen, stating that a TMDL has been develo ed for this parameter, when in fact DO has not been addressed at all. [20] Considering that EPA should not approve FDEP's 303(d) List containing delisting of waters that are still impaired, the approved Caloosahatchee TMDL may not be appropriate based on DO data yet to be considered. Because nutrients play such an important role in levels of DO, it cannot be assumed that the Caloosahatchee TMDL is entirely accurate given that FDEP has stated they lack adequate DO data. There are examples like the Caloosahatchee all over the state, and therefore, EPA should maintain the right to review these already adopted TMDLs at their discretion. See additional SSAC comments in the following "The Alternative Regulatory Approaches Discussed in the Preamble and Proposed as Part of the Draft Rule Do Not Satisfy the Requirements of the Clean Water Act" section. [19] Mandrup-Poulsen, Jan. Letter to Conservancy of Southwest Florida 'Responses to Comments-Conservancy of SW Florlda 7-16-09

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4371Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final [20] Group 3. Cycle 2 Master List for impaired waters. Provided by FDEP, dated 1/15/2010. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.005

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority DETAILED COMMENTS
1. EXISTING NUTRIENT TARGETS FROM EPA-APPROVED TMDLS SHOULD BE DIRECTLY INCORPORATED INTO THE RULE For watersheds where nutrient-related TMDLs have been developed and approved, EPA should adopt nutrient criteria that are directly based on the targets used to establish the TMDL. The reasons supporting EPA adopting nutrient criteria directly based upon targets expressed in TMDLs include, but are not necessarily limited to:
A. The Proposed Rule ignores existing EPA-approved nutrient-related targets based on detailed site-specific study, replacing them instead with the largely generic and much more inaccurate values in the Proposed Rule. B. The Proposed Rule lauds Florida's TMDL program, then summarily dismisses its results. C. Replacement of approved TMDL targets is directly contrary to the objectives of the Proposed Rule. D. Along with compromising the accuracy of the criteria, the EPA's use of a reference stream approach is highly inefficient and in direct contrast to the objectives of the Proposed Rule. E. The information contained in the existing nutrient TMDLs can be easily converted into nutrient criteria, and these criteria should be directly incorporated into the Proposed Rule. F. The proposed procedure for incorporating better science into the criteria via site-specific alternate criteria (SSAC) is overly burdensome, and will lead to either significant redundant effort or the use of less appropriate criteria. G. The level of effort and resulting modeling in the Lower St. Johns River was exceptional. EPA should consider this effort, and efforts in other TMDLs, in establishing the Proposed Rule. For all of these reasons and in order to improve the Proposed Rule, CCUA proposes that Section 131.43(c) should be amended to include a subparagraph (7) which reads: (7) Targets in Total Maximum Daily Loads. For those water bodies where the state of Florida has proposed and the EPA has accepted, or the EPA has already independently developed and issued, a total maximum daily load for nutrients, the targets in said total maximum daily loads shall be the water quality criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. These criteria may be expressed as either (I) concentration targets for causal variables, (2) concentration targets for response variables such a chlorophyll, or (3) nutrient loading targets that have been shown (through the application of a water quality model) to be protective of the designated use.
A. The Proposed Rule Ignores Existing EPA-Approved Nutrient-Related Targets Based on Detailed Site-Specific Study, Replacing Them Instead with the Largely Generic and Much More Inaccurate Values in the Proposed Rule. EPA Region 4 has already approved 80 nutrient-related TMDLs for the state of Florida. Numeric targets, specifically

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4372Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final designed to protect against nutrient impairment of the designated use, were developed for each TMDL. Furthermore, these targets and the wasteload and load allocations in the TMDLs were each based upon site-specific scientific analysis and subject to EPA review and approval, 

# Comment ID 1530.001.010

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority Despite the praise given to Florida's TMDL program, its efforts will be rendered moot if the Proposed Rule is promulgated as such is currently drafted. The only means in the Proposed Rule to incorporate TMDL results is for the FDEP to revisit each TMDL and submit them to EPA for consideration under the SSAC process, which is an extremely onerous, expensive, and, under these circumstances, redundant process. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.012

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority The adoption of numeric nutrient criteria for waters where EPA-approved TMDLs already exist provides none of these benefits. The waters where TMDLs have been conducted have already been identified as impaired waters, and the impairment has been confirmed through the development of the TMDL. Adopting generic criteria (TN and TP) without establishing the relationship between observed impairments and causal factors will result in healthy waterways being declared as impaired. The Proposed Rule does not strengthen the foundation for establishing TMDLs at these sites, as TMDLs have already been established and approved. EPA's generic criteria will also result in controls aimed at TN and TP (rather than biologically available forms of nutrients). Such controls may be less effective at remedying the impairment than those established using appropriate site-specific criteria. The Proposed Rule does not strengthen the foundation for deriving water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES permits, because the TMDLs have defined wasteload allocations to serve as the basis ofNPDES permits.
D. Along with Compromising the Accuracy of the Criteria, The EPA's Use of a Reference Stream Approach Is Highly Inefficient and in Direct Contrast to the Objectives of the Proposed Rule. Instituting the criteria in the Proposed Rule at sites where TMDLs have already been developed will actually provide a detriment to obtaining the objectives in the Proposed Rule. The institution of the criteria in the Proposed Rule at sites with existing TMDLs will invalidate those TMDLs, as their water quality targets (although more accurate) will be obsolete. This will distract resources away from other waters where TMDLs are needed and have not been developed. Further, it will undermine the extensive efforts that are currently being undertaken to implement existing TMDLs. LimnoTech drafted a memorandum, attached as Appendix I, which documents the extensive measures that have been put into place to reduce nutrient loads in response to the LSJR nutrient TMDL. The failure of the Proposed Rule to include the already developed (and EPA-approved) TMDL targets will cause each of the 80 TMDLs already approved

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4373Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final by EPA to be revisited and remove the impetus for continuing these TMDL implementation activities. Similar delays in TMDL implementation activities could be expected at other sites where TMDLs have been developed and will need to be revisited due to the criteria in the Proposed Rule. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.014

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority The Proposed Rule bases criteria solely on the purported causal variables of TN and TP. Because some TMDLs do not explicitly provide targets in this format, EPA may argue that it is too difficult to use them as the basis for the criteria in the Proposed Rule. This should not be sufficient reason to propose less accurate criteria. EPA (2000) guidance allows for several types of variables to be used in expressing numeric nutrient criteria. These include concentration targets for causal variables, concentration targets for response variables such as chlorophyll a, and nutrient loading targets that have been shown (through the application of a water quality model) to be protective of the designated use. EPA chose to focus solely on concentration targets for causal variables (specifically TP and TN) in the Proposed Rule due to the lack of information available on a statewide basis to support the other approaches. While the available information may not be sufficient to support statewide efforts to develop other forms of targets, sufficient data does exist to support these approaches in TMDLs. EPA should therefore adopt numeric nutrient criteria expressed in terms other than concentrations targets for causal variables, if they have been developed as part of an approved TMDL. Even if EPA chooses to express criteria only in terms of concentration targets for causal variables, this information can be readily extracted from the technical analyses conducted in support of the TMDL. As an example, CCUA has obtained the water quality model results used to develop TMDLs for its facilities on the LSJR. Although this TMDL did not express its nutrient target in terms of nutrient concentration, this information was readily available as part of the model output. Geometric mean nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were calculated for several locations in the LSJR. TN concentrations associated with the TMDL ranged from less than 0.9 mg/L in some river segments and to greater than 2 mg/L in others. This analysis demonstrates two key points:
1. It is a simple task to convert existing TMDL model results into target nutrient concentrations in cases where the original TMDL target was for different parameters. 2. The use of a single region-wide nutrient criterion, as used in the Proposed Rule, can be both over- and underprotective. The proposed 1.205 mg/L TN criterion is overprotective in some portions of the system, as the model shows that concentrations above 2 mg/L in certain tributaries still results in protection of the designated use. The proposed 1.205 mg/L TN criterion is underprotective in other portions of the system, as the model shows that TN concentrations must be less than 0.9 mg/l to protect the designated use. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.016

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4374Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

G. The Level of Effort and Resulting Modeling for the Lower St. Johns River TMDL was Exceptional. EPA should consider this effort, and efforts in other TMDLs, in establishing the Proposed Rule. The level of effort that Florida invested into its TMDL program, and the resulting quality of much of the work, is impressive and should not be dismissed as will be done under the Proposed Rule. The Lower St. Johns TMDL serves as a prime example of the quality of the work that has been conducted. CCUA's consultant, Dr. Dilks, has reviewed more than 100 TMDLs, and, in his opinion, the level of rigor of the water quality modeling contained in the Lower St. Johns TMDL is among the top few of all that he has seen. EPA (2008), in its acknowledgement to the Lower St. Johns TMDL report, went out of its way to praise the model: While this was a joint effort between the EPA and FDEP, the authors want to acknowledge that the main work that constitutes the scientific basis for the TMDL (the determination of the river's assimilative capacity) was conducted' by SJRWMD staff. In particular, John Hendrickson and Pete Sucsy should be commended for their outstanding contributions and unwavering dedication to completing the modeling work. Thanks to their efforts, the water quality model for the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) is undoubtedly one ofthe best in the nation, and will likely result in improved modeling for other TMDLs as other practitioners adopt some of the innovations/adaptations that John and Pete incorporated into the LSJR model. (emphasis supplied). The Lower St. Johns River TMDL model contains the scientific rigor that addresses the primary scientific goal of the criteria in the Proposed Rule. The model relates nutrient concentrations to specific endpoints that represent the designated use and it considers the extent to which site-specific environmental conditions affect this relationship. Moreover, the model has the ability to consider the bioavailability of nutrients, which provides yet another reason that water quality targets developed through the TMDL program provide much better site-specific accuracy than the generic region-wide criteria in the Proposed Rule. The water quality model used to develop the Lower St. Johns River TMDL also explicitly considered the various forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, and the extent to which these nutrient forms could support algal growth. In contrast, the proposed rule treats all forms of nutrients as equal in terms of their ability to support algal growth, providing the potential for highly inaccurate criteria.
H. Proposed Changes to Regulatory Language: For all of the foregoing reasons, CCUA supports the adoption of the existing nutrient targets from EPA-approved TMDLs. In order to improve the current Proposed Rule, CCUA proposes the following changes to the Proposed Rule: Proposed Section 131.43(c) should be amended to include a subparagraph (7) which reads: (7) Targets in Total Maximum Daily Loads. For those water bodies where the state of Florida has proposed and the EPA has accepted, or the EPA has already independently developed and issued, a total maximum daily load for nutrients, the targets in said total maximum daily loads shall be the water quality criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. These criteria may be expressed as either (1) concentration targets for causal variables, (2) concentration targets for response variables such a chlorophyll, or (3) nutrient loading targets that have been shown (through the application of a water quality model) to be protective of the designated use. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.020

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4375Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority III. SPECIFIC PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE TMDLS AS SSACS IF THE EPA CHOOSES NOT TO ACCEPT THE SITE-SPECIFIC SCIENCE BEHIND THE TMDLS BY REFUSING TO ADOPT THE TARGETS ESTABLISHED BY THE VARIOUS EPA-APPROVED NUTRIENT-RELATED TMDLS. MOREOVER, SPECIFIC PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE FOR BMAPS TO GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESTORATION WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. Consistent with CCUA's discussion above regarding TMDLs, CCUA is also proposing changes to the language of the Proposed RuIe to reflect the site-specific analysis performed with regard to the TMDLs that have been accepted by EPA. It is CCUA's preference that Section 131.43(c)(7), as discussed in Section I, be added to acknowledge the nutrient targets expressed in TMDLs as the target criteria. In the alternative, CCUA proposes that EPA deem the TMDLs SSACs expressly in the Proposed Rule. More specifically, CCUA suggests that the EPA, assuming it will not accept TMDLs as the target criteria as suggested above,[4] amend Section 131.43(e) of the Proposed Rule to include a subparagraph (6) which reads: (6) Where the state of Florida has proposed and the EPA accepted, or the EPA has already independently developed and issued, a final total maximum daily load for nutrients, the target loads established in the total maximum daily load for nutrients will be considered site-specific alternative criteria for the specific surface waters identified in the TMDL in lieu of the criteria established in paragraph (c), and the total maximum daily load issuance process is considered to have met all requirements established in paragraphs (2) through (5) of this section. In addition to the foregoing, and regardless of whether the EPA adopts any of CCUA's other proposed changes, CCUA proposes that section 131.43(g) of the Proposed Rule should be amended to include a subparagraph (9) which reads: (9) In cases where EPA has approved a Florida Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) and/or reasonable assurance plan, such BMAP or reasonable assurance plan will be deemed to be equivalent of a Restoration Water Quality Standard under this section. The following is a list of waters already covered by BMAPS or reasonable assurance plans and therefore are approved as restoration water quality standards (WQS). Lower St. Johns River Tributaries - December 2009 Hillsborough River Basin - October 2009 Lower St. Johns River - October 2008 Long Branch - May 2008 Orange Creek - May 2008 Upper Ocklawaha - August 2007 Lake Seminole - May 2007 Shell, Prairie, and Joshua Creeks - December 2004 In addition to the foregoing, CCUA also suggests that in order to improve the Proposed Rule, section 131.43(g) should be amended to include a subparagraph (10) which reads:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4376Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final (10) In cases where EPA has approved the initiation of the Restoration WQS process and the watershed includes discharges covered by the APRICOT Act, such APRICOT Act discharges will be deemed to be insignificant contributors of pollutants. There will be no further reductions required beyond those required to meet APRICOT Act requirements. Through the following analysis, CCUA will demonstrate that the Proposed Rule could be significantly improved by adopting the two above proposed changes. The following attempts to summarize what EPA has put in place through the Proposed Rule and then apply this framework to a real world situation. This example illustrates the following:
A. EPA should document how the compliance schedule, TMDL, SSAC and Restoration WQS process should work and allow time for public comment to ensure that resources are not wasted as issues associated with the process are identified and resolved. B. Florida's existing BMAP and reasonable assurance plan assessment already provide the information needed to establish the Restoration WQS. C. A hypothetical scenario using EPA's Proposed Rule shows how resources can be wasted in attempting to comply with the criteria in the Proposed Rule when EPA ultimately agrees that an SSAC is more appropriate. D. EPA should include regulatory language in the Proposed Rule that adopts targets in TMDLs as SSAC to avoid problems such as those identified in the hypothetical scenario. E. EPA should include regulatory language in the Proposed Rule that explicitly allows BMAPs or reasonable assurance plans to be deemed equivalent of a Restoration WQS. EPA should therefore modify the Proposed Rule to adopt targets in approved TMDLs as SSAC and adopt BMAPs and/or reasonable assurance plans as restoration WQS.
A. EPA should document how the compliance schedule, TMDL, SSAC and Restoration WQS process should work and allow time for public comment to ensure that resources are not wasted as issues associated with the process are identified and resolved. The following attempts to summarize what EPA has put in place through the Proposed Rule and then apply this framework to a real world situation, In the Proposed Rule, EPA has determined Florida needs numeric criteria for nutrients and has published draft criteria numbers. EPA has also provided a list of tools, to wit: -SSAC -UAA -Variances -Compliance Schedules -Restoration WQS The assessment of these tools, application of these tools and sequencing of these tools can lead to very different endpoints and the process can therefore be very confusing and subject to different interpretations, EPA should therefore provide documentation about how this process will work and provide opportunity for public comment prior to promulgating these criteria. It is expected that the proposed numeric criteria will become final within the year (assuming they are not stayed by legal challenge). [4] CCUA has suggested that Section 131.43(c) should be amended to include a subparagraph (7) which reads:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4377Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

(7) Targets in Total Maximum Daily Loads. For those water bodies where the state of Florida has proposed and the EPA has accepted, or the EPA has already independently developed and issued, a total maximum daily load, the targets in said total maximum daily loads shall be the water quality criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. These criteria may be expressed as either (1) concentration targets for causal variables, (2) concentration targets for response variables such a chlorophyll, or (3) nutrient loading targets that have been shown (through the application of a water quality model) to be protective of the designated use. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.029

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority C. A hypothetical scenario using EPA's Proposed Rule shows how resources can be wasted in attempting to comply with the criteria in the Proposed Rule when EPA ultimately agrees that an SSAC is more appropriate. EPA has expressed its intent to publish the criteria in the Proposed Rule within the next year. Indeed, absent an extension under the terms of the Consent Decree in case number 4:08cv- 00324-RH-WCS, styled Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. et al. v. Jackson, or some other unforeseen intervening factor, it appears that the EPA will promulgate a final rule in response to the Proposed Rule no later than October, 2010. When these criteria become final, permitting authorities will need to assess permits being issued to determine whether reasonable potential exists to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the WQS, including these new water quality criteria. This assessment will be applicable to most if not all publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that have a discharge to surface waters. The following scenario looks at this situation as it might apply to a hypothetical POTW. The hypothetical POTW in this situation is a major facility with a design capacity over one MGD. The POTW's permit is to be renewed a few months after the new criteria in the Proposed Rule are final. At the time of renewal, the criteria will be applied to the POTW's permit. The POTW discharges to a surface water body that has been listed as impaired for nutrients, therefore the criteria will be applied at end-of-pipe. The POTW is well run, but does not currently have nutrient removal capability to meet the criteria and, as a result, will not be able to achieve criteria end-of-pipe limits. Because the POTW cannot meet the criteria end-ofpipe, it will need a compliance schedule. Because the end-of-pipe limits are so low, it will be necessary to install a reverse osmosis (RO) plant at the POTW. The preceding paragraph summarizes the general issues related to developing NPDES permit limits based on WQS. However, under this example, we shall further assume that a nutrient TMDL was developed for the listed water into which the above hypothetical POTW discharges. Because the Proposed Rule does not accept the TMDL, either as target criteria or a SSAC, the TMDL is required to go through the EPA-approval process, which can be a multiple year process. For this scenario, we assume the POTW's permit is issued with limits set at criteria endof- pipe. The permit also includes a compliance schedule for the limits. The compliance schedule lays out a requirement to develop a plan including design and build of an RO system. As explained in EPA guidance, compliance schedules must meet certain minimum requirements such as include an enforceable sequence of actions leading to compliance with water quality

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4378Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final based effluent limits (WQBELs) as soon as possible. The schedules must also include final effluent limits, and consider actions already taken by permittee to achieve compliance; the compliance schedule also cannot be based on time needed to develop a SSAC, UAA or TMDL. (see May 10,2007, Memo, supra; App. M). The foregoing results in the permit being issued with final limits for TN and TP that are equivalent to EPA's criteria. The permit will include a schedule based on the requirement the limits be met "as soon as possible" which in this example will be 15 years. Because the schedule exceeds one year, there will be interim requirements and dates for achieving those requirements. In cases where it is necessary to construct treatment, the interim requirements will include milestones for designing the facility and review of the design and then milestones to begin construction and finish construction. (See May 10,2007, Memorandum, supra, App. M). The compliance schedule in the permit will require the POTW to begin work immediately, so the POTW will need to bid the job and get started on the design of the facility. In this scenario, it is assumed the bidding process and initial design phase will take at least a full year perhaps 18 months. There will be another 6 months to get the design approved by the permitting authority. The scenario also assumes the schedule will include 6 months to a year to secure funding. The actual construction will begin sometime in year 3 of the permit. During this three-year period, a number of other activities may take place that could impact the compliance schedule. First, the TMDL may be finalized and could provide a different limit than criteria end-of-pipe. Second, the State could initiate and complete a SSAC for the water body and the permit limits will need to be reviewed to ensure they will meet the new water quality criteria. Third, the State may have started and be nearing completion of a UAA or variance for the water body. All of these scenarios are possible and would impact the schedule in the permit. The schedule, however, cannot be altered without a major modification to the permit and that requires changing and then re-issuing the permit which is also time consuming. Looking at each of these individually provides more detail about the issue. In the case of the TMDL, we will assume the TMDL provides a wasteload allocation (WLA) that increases the permit limit greater than the WQBELs established by EPA's proposed instream criteria. In order to change the limit, the permit will need to be re-opened and the limit modified. Because the limit never went into effect, the issue of backsliding does not come into play. However, had the limit gone into effect, under CWA § 303(d)(4)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(4)(A), it is possible to revise the limit based on the TMDL. The situation with the SSAC is similar to the TMDL. The new criteria would be a reason to re-open the permit and change the limit. In this case we are assuming the new SSAC is higher than the old one and would produce a permit limit that is higher than the current criteria end-ofpipe limit. Here again because of the compliance schedule, the original limit never went into effect so backsliding would not be an issue. Also, under CWA § 303(d)(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(4)(B), it is possible to revise the limit based on the new water quality criteria. For the other two issues, UAA and variance, it is unlikely these would happen as quickly, but would have a similar set of processes. The issue for the hypothetical POTW is that it will have already invested a large sum of money in the design and securing additional funding for construction and will now need to reconsider the design or the POTW may be so far into the project that it doesn't make sense to terminate the project, or other legal requirements (bond documents, etc.)

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4379Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final requires the POTW to finish the project. This regulatory process for establishing nutrient criteria for the state of Florida provides an opportunity to address this type of problem and provide a more efficient approach to achieve WQS. The following provides a proposed approach using the SSAC and Restoration WQS framework.
D. EPA should include regulatory language in the Proposed Rule that adopts targets in TMDLs as SSAC to avoid problems such as those identified in the hypothetical scenario.As noted in the Preamble to the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes to establish a "federal" approach for streamlining sitespecific alternative criteria. Specifically, EPA proposes: EPA believes that there would be benefit in establishing a specific procedure in the Federal rule for EPA adoption of SSAC. In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing a procedure whereby the State could develop a SSAC and submit the SSAC to EPA with supporting documentation for EPA's consideration. The State SSAC could be developed under either the State SSAC procedures or EPA technical processes as set out more fully below. EPA elected to propose this approach because this procedure maintains the State in a primary decision-making role regarding development of SSAC for State waters. In the Preamble to the Proposed Rule EPA also acknowledges that the State of Florida has done an exceptional job of addressing nutrient issues in their TMDLs. The challenge of nutrient pollution has been a top priority for Florida's Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Over the past decade or more, FDEP has spent over 20 million dollars collecting and analyzing. data. on the relationship between phosphorus, nitrogen, and nitrite-nitrate concentrations and the biological health of aquatic systems. Moreover, Florida is one of the few states that has in place a comprehensive framework of accountability that applies to both point and nonpoint sources and provides the enforceable authority to address nutrient reductions in impaired waters based upon the establishment of site-specific total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). EPA also acknowledges the use of TMDL data in establishing SSACs. TMDL targets submitted to EPA by the State for consideration as new or revised WQS could be reviewed under tins SSAC process. Given the excellent job done by Florida regarding developing TMDLs and the approval process that already exists for those TMDLs, it is more efficient for EPA to acknowledge that process and approve the TMDL targets as an approved SSAC as part of this rule. In so doing, EPA can avoid the ludicrous result identified above in the real world scenario applied to the hypothetical POTW. Sending these data back through the process EPA is proposing for SSAC approval is redundant of work already done. For the foregoing reasons, CCUA proposes that Section 131.43(e) should be amended to include a subparagraph (6) which reads: (6) Where the state of Florida has proposed and the EPA accepted, or the EPA has already independently developed

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4380Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final and issued, a final total maximum daily load for nutrients, the target loads established in the total maximum daily load for nutrients will be considered site-specific alternative criteria for the specific surface waters identified in the total maximum daily load in lieu of the criteria established in paragraph (c), and the TMDL issuance process is considered to have met all requirements established in paragraphs (2) through (5) of this section.
E. EPA should include regulatory language in the Proposed Rule that explicitly allows BMAPs or reasonable assurance plans to be deemed equivalent of a Restoration WQS. In addition to the discussion regarding Florida's TMDL program, the Preamble to the Proposed Rule discusses Florida's BMAPs thusly: In Florida, many of the steps described above occur in the context of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs). FDEP describes BMAPs as: ...the "blueprint" for restoring impaired waters by reducing pollutant loadings to meet the allowable loadings established in a Total Maximum Daily Load (l'MDL). It represents a comprehensive set of strategies - permit limits on wastewater facilities, urban and agricultural best management practices, conservation programs, financial assistance and revenue generating activities, etc.-designed to implement the pollutant reductions established by the TMDL. These broad based plans are developed with local stakeholders - they rely on local input and local commitment--and they are adopted by Secretarial Order to be enforceable. ( http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Water/watersheds/bmap.htm ) Florida has adopted BMAPs for the Hillsborough River Basin, Lower St. John's River, Log Branch, Orange Creek, and Upper Ocklawaha, and has plans for others to follow. To the extent necessary, FDEP could potentially use aspects of the BMAP process and plans such as these to help form the basis for Restoration WQS. The BMAP is not the only tool Florida uses to address impaired waters. Florida also has implemented a program, using EPA guidance,[7] to address reasonable assurance and to move waters from Category 5 (impaired and needing a TMDL) to Category 4B. FDEP describes this as: The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Section 403.067(4» explicitly allows DEP to not list impaired waters under Category 5 if they already have control programs in place that will assure that water quality standards will be restored. These types of water bodies - impaired but with control programs already being implemented to reduce pollutant loadings - are placed in Category 4B of the Integrated Report. ( http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watershedslbmap.htm ) To assist this process, Florida has developed guidance for stakeholders and has used this process in a number of locations and EPA has approved plans for Shell, Prairie, and Joshua Creeks and Seminole Lake. Florida is also working on a plan for the Florida Keys. Given this is an effective tool and the EPA has approved these plans for use in the listing process, these will also be used in the Restoration WQS process. In the Proposed Rule, EPA is including acknowledgement of Florida's work on TMDLs and plans to implement TMDLs and listings. This includes Florida's BMAP program and reasonable assurance program. In cases where Florida has collected the requisite data for either a BMAP or reasonable assurance plan and EPA has approved these plans they should be considered to meet all of the requirements established for a Restoration WQS and are approved as such for this rule. For the foregoing reasons, CCUA proposes that section 131.43(g) should be amended to include a subparagraph (9)

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4381Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

which reads: (9) In cases where EPA has approved a Florida Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) and/or reasonable assurance plan, such BMAP or reasonable assurance plan will be deemed to be equivalent of a Restoration Water Quality Standard under this section. The following is a list of waters already covered by BMAPS or reasonable assurance plans and therefore are approved as restoration WQS. Lower St. Johns River Tributaries - December 2009 Hillsborough River Basin - October 2009 Lower St. Johns River - October 2008 Long Branch - May 2008 Orange Creek - May 2008 Upper Ocklawaha - August 2007 Lake Seminole - May 2007 Shell, Prairie, and Joshua Creeks - December 2004 Furthermore, in the Proposed Rule, EPA specifically requested comment on: ... the usefulness of the "restoration WQS" proposal for Florida. EPA requests comment on how restoration WQS will operate in conjunction with listing impaired waters, and establishing NPDES permit limitations, and nonpoint source control strategies, as well as how these requirements should be reflected in regulatory language. As noted elsewhere in this Comment, the Restoration WQS process is not clearly defined and there are many unanswered questions about how it would be implemented. Many of the issues are discussed elsewhere in this Comment through the "Real World" example. One concern is how Restoration WQS would interact with other tools and how the criteria would be addressed during the time it takes to put the Restoration WQS in place. The Proposed Rule requires a UAA to be done in order to establish the Restoration WQS. UAAs are very time consuming. Would the proposed criteria be active or would the criteria be held up until a final decision about Restoration WQS was made? Assuming all these issues can be addressed, it may be possible to use the Restoration WQS in some cases, but it would require very detailed guidance from EPA including examples of exactly how the process would proceed, including timeframes for each step in the process leading up to the initiation of the Restoration WQS. In the interim, CCUA believes the process should specifically address discharges covered by the APRICOT Act. The preamble to the Proposed Rule states the intent of the Restoration WQS is to "allow the state and stakeholders necessary time to take incremental steps to achieve interim WQS as they move forward to ultimately attain a CWA section 101(a)(2) designated use." Part of the process should also be to prioritize where to apply resources. Applying resources to address insignificant sources would not be an effective approach and would not contribute to achieving WQS, which is the purpose of the process. The Restoration WQS process should clearly state that it is not necessary to require any further controls on insignificant discharges such as those covered by the APRICOT Act. This process would be similar to decisions made for mercury sources in EPA-developed TMDLs in Georgia and New England. In the Georgia TMDL EPA noted:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4382Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Because the impairment of the Savannah River by mercury is due predominantly to air deposition, the complete elimination or significant reduction of mercury from water point source discharges would produce little benefit in the quality of the Savannah River. In addition, the elimination or significant reduction of mercury would likely be expensive and possibly technically infeasible for point sources to implement. Since many of the NPDES facilities in the basin affected by this TMDL are municipal wastewater treatment plants that are funded through the taxpayers, EPA chooses to move cautiously before implementing wasteload allocations that may cause significant economic hardship in a situation where, as here, EPA expects most of the needed mercury reductions to be achieved through Clean Air Act reductions in mercury emissions from air sources. In this Phase 1 TMDL, EPA expects point source loadings of mercury will be reduced primarily through mercury minimization programs developed and implemented by some point sources. In summary, during implementation of the Phase 1 TMDL, EPA expects the following activities to occur: 29 NPDES facilities will monitor for mercury and characterize it in their influent and effluent for mercury using the more sensitive analytical technique (the version of Method 1631 then in effect). These facilities consist of 15 municipal facilities, and 14 industrial facilities. (See Section 10.2.). Where appropriate, NPDES point sources will develop and implement mercury minimization plans; Air point sources will continue to reduce emissions of mercury through implementation of the Clean Air Act Section 112 MACT requirements and Section 129 Solid Waste Combustion requirements; EPA and the regulated community will improve the mercury air emissions inventory; EPA will refine and revise the mercury air deposition modeling to better characterize sources of mercury; and EPA and the states will collect additional ambient data on mercury concentrations in water, sediment and fish. ( http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/l 0040.pdf) In the New England TMDL, EPA noted that individual WLAs would not be needed for insignificant point sources, instead the WLA would be handled via an aggregate allocation. Regulated stormwater (i.e., stormwater discharges subject to NPDES permit programs such as the Phase I and II stormwater programs and the construction permit program) is appropriately included in the WLAs. The small size of the WLAs is reasonable given that nearly all of the mercury in stormwater originates from atmospheric sources and will be addressed at its source via the implementation strategies developed for the load allocations, and that any stormwater mercury not from atmospheric sources (typically minute amounts) will be addressed through local source reduction efforts and stormwater management practices. It is also reasonable to combine the atmospheric and local mercury contributions to stormwater into aggregate WLAs, because of the insignificance of the local components. Given that mercury levels in the northeast states have been declining over the last 10 years and are expected to continue to decline, it is reasonable that no allocations are set aside for future growth. EPA concludes that the wasteload allocations are adequately specified in the TMDL at levels sufficient (when combined with the load allocation) to attain and maintain water quality standards, and that future growth is adequately addressed. EPA finds that the use of a gross WLA is acceptable in this circumstance because, 1) the point source discharges are a very small percentage of the total source load, 2) this small portion of the load is spread among an unusually large number of sources (approximately 3000), and the TMDL document includes statements indicating that all discharges will be managed consistent with the aggregate WLA.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4383Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Although point sources are considered insignificant, further reductions in wastewater concentrations are anticipated based on legislation in all states which requires the installation of amalgam separators, household products legislation, and several other pollutant minimization efforts that vary by state. The TMDL document indicates that the Northeast states are already addressing all mercury sources within their control and that greater reductions are needed from out-of-region sources. The adaptive implementation approach will monitor the implementation of regional and national controls and the response in fish tissue concentrations and if needed, the reduction goals will be modified. As described in Sections 2.5 and 7.5 of the TMDL document, point sources are considered to be insignificant. Point sources contribute 2.1% of the total source load, and therefore the WLA is set at 2.1% of the TMDL. As each of the states has requirements to install dental amalgam separators as well as mercury products legislation, the point sources are expected to decline even further. State-specific programs include efforts to address use, recycling, and disposal of mercurycontaining products. Mercury minimization plans will also be implemented to reduce mercury discharges. The states will conduct analyses on a permit by permit basis to prevent exceedances of the WLA on a site-specific basis. EPA believes that the states' efforts to reduce mercury entering the waste stream, together with analyses at the permit stage as appropriate, will ensure that the WLA is not exceeded. ( http://www.epa.gov/ne/eco/tmdl/pdfs/ne/ME-Mercury

TMDL-Approval.pdf) These examples demonstrate EPA has found it possible to apply flexibility in cases where the sources are insignificant and reduction from the source would not have a measureable impact on the water body. Through the APRlCOT Act legislation, Florida has already established the fact that these discharges are insignificant and has established control levels necessary to protect water quality. EPA should clearly state in its final rule that APRICOT Act discharges are insignificant and no further reductions are necessary. For these reasons, and in order to improve the Proposed Rule, section 131.43(g) should be amended to include a subparagraph (10) which reads: (10) In cases where EPA has approved the initiation of the Restoration WQS process and the watershed includes discharges covered by the APRICOT Act, such APRICOT Act discharges will be deemed to be insignificant contributors of pollutants. There will be no further reductions required beyond those required to meet APRICOT Act requirements. [7] http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008 ir memorandum.html. A copy of the memorandum is attached as Appendix Q. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.033

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority VII. PRlOR TO REQUIRING THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES, EPA SHOULD ALLOW UTILITIES TO CONDUCT A SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE UTILITY'S DISCHARGES WILL CAUSE

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4384Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

OR CONTRlBUTE TO AN EXCEEDANCE IN AN IMBALANCE OF THE NATURAL FLORA OR FAUNA. CCUA has thoroughly demonstrated that its discharges at Spencer's and Ridaught will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the Instream Protection Values in the Proposed Rule. (See Section II, above). That having been said, there is no current provision in the Proposed Rule that would permit a utility such as CCUA to avoid the application of the criteria during a permit renewal - even if the criteria, as applied to that specific utility and receiving water body, are overly protective and will result in significant expense that could otherwise be avoided. Indeed, as noted above in Section IV, assuming the hypothetical POTW in Section III.C. was CCUA, CCUA would be required to begin the implementation of a compliance schedule, which in CCUA's case will likely include the construction of a micro-filtration plus reverse osmosis facility at each of its WWTFs with concentrate discharge through deep well injection. Construction of these facilities is estimated to cost $ 123,000,000.00 . This is a significant expense, which will fall squarely on CCUA's ratepayers. (See Section IV, below). Just as EPA moved "cautiously" in the Georgia TMDL referenced above in Section III.E., CCUA would request that EPAmove cautiously here. For that reason, EPA should provide utilities, like CCUA, the opportunity to conduct a sitespecific analysis (e.g. an assimilative capacity analysis, etc.) of the receiving water body. If the utility can demonstrate that its discharges do not cause or contribute to an imbalance of the natural flora or fauna, then the utility's discharges should be exempt from application of the criteria in its permit renewal. CCUA maintains that it has sufficiently demonstrated that its APRlCOT Act discharges do not cause or contribute to an imbalance of the natural flora or fauna. Therefore, under this contention, CCUA's APRlCOT Act discharges at Ridaught and Spencer's should not be subject to the criteria in the Proposed Rule during a permit renewal. For instance, during a site-specific analysis, the utility may be able to show that measuring at end-of-pipe is unnecessary. This is especially critical when measuring end-of-pipe may lead to a utility needlessly spending money to construct unnecessary treatment facilities. A utility may also be able to identify other sources as the actual cause of any exceedance of the criteria, which could then be addressed through other measures. Additionally, a utility may be able to demonstrate that the nutrients it is discharging will not result in impairment because they are not the type of nutrients that support algal growth/algal blooms. A site-specific analysis is a reasonable alternative, considering this Comment demonstrates that certain discharges will not cause or contribute to an exceedance in the criteria. For the reasons noted above, and in order to improve the current Proposed Rule, CCUA proposes the following changes to the Proposed Rule: Proposed Section 131.43(c) should be amended to include a subparagraph (9)[8] which reads: (9) Prior to the construction of any new facility or facilities, a publicly owned treatment work (POTW) shall be permitted to conduct a site-specific analysis to determine if its discharges cause or contribute to an imbalance of the natural flora and fauna. The POTW may, among other things, demonstrate through this site-specific analysis that: (I) its dischargesdo not cause of contribute to an imbalance of the natural flora and fauna; (2) that monitoring and/or compliance end-ofpipe is unnecessary due to the receiving water body's assimilative capacity or other factors that shall be supported by the site-specific analysis; (3) that other sources have led to the exceedance of the criteria and that such other sources should be required to reduce loads into the receiving water body prior to the POTW; or (4) that non-labile nutrients discharged by the POTW will not cause algal growth or algal blooms. For purposes of permit decisions, the permit writer may allow for this site-specific analysis as part of a compliance schedule. Upon such a demonstration by the POTW

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4385Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final that: (1) its discharges do not cause or contribute to an imbalance of the natural flora and fauna; (2) that monitoring and/or compliance end-of-pipe is unnecessary due to the receiving water body's assimilative capacity or other factors that shall be supported by the site-specific analysis; (3) that other sources have led to the exceedance of the criteria and that such other sources should be required to reduce loads into the receiving water body prior to the POTW; or (4) that non-labile nutrients discharged by the POTW will not cause algal growth or algal blooms, such POTW shall be exempt from compliance with the criteria. The foregoing is not an exclusive list of reasons that a POTW may provide for exemption from the criteria. For purposes of this section, "construction" includes the designing and bidding of the facility. [8] For purposes of proposing an addition here, CCUA has assumed that its proposed subparagraphs (7) & (8) would be adopted by EPA. Indeed, regardless of whether the EPA chooses to accept or reject CCUA's suggested subparagraphs (7) & (8), EPA may choose to accept this provision. Ultimately, numbering of the subparagraphs in the final rule will depend on which, if any, of CCUA's suggested subparagraphs throughout this Comment are accepted by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.050

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority For watersheds where nutrient-related TMDLs have been developed and approved, EPA should adopt nutrient criteriadirectly into the Proposed Rule based on those targets. As thoroughly demonstrated within this Comment, the sitespecific analysis that went into the preparation of these EPA-approved TMDLs is quite robust. The modeling effort that supports the Lower St. Johns River nutrient TMDL has been recognized by the EPA as outstanding. Indeed, the EPA noted that "the water quality model for the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) is undoubtedly one of the best in the nation, and will likely result in improved modeling for other TMDLs ...." EPA should not now lightly toss aside tins exceptional work in favor of generic, "one-size fits all" criteria, especially when CCUA has demonstrated that converting the information within TMDLs into nutrient criteria is a fairly straight-forward process. For the reasons expressed in this Comment, CCUA proposes that Section 131.43(c) should be amended to include a subparagraph (7) which reads: (7) Targets in Total Maximum Daily Loads. For those water bodies where the state of Florida has proposed and the EPA has accepted, or the EPA has already independently developed and issued, a total maximum daily load for nutrients, the targets in said total maximum daily loads shall be the water quality criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. These criteria may be expressed as either (I) concentration targets for causal variables, (2) concentration targets for response variables such a chlorophyll, or (3) nutrient loading targets that have been shown (through the application of a water quality model) to be protective of the designated use. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.052

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4386Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority Alternatively, CCUA has suggested changes to the Proposed Rule that would result in the TMDLs being adopted as SSACs. For the reasons discussed within Section I of this Comment, assuming EPA does not use the TMDLs as target criteria, the EPA should adopt the TMDLs as SSACs. Through a discussion involving a hypothetical POTW, in Section IILC., CCUA illustrated the potential calamity and confusion that may result if the Proposed Rule is adopted without provision for acknowledging, as either target criteria or SSACs, the site-specific nutrient TMDLs that have been approved by the EPA. As discussed in Section IV, the estimated cost to CCUA for complying with the Proposed Rule is $123 million! CCUA would be compelled to construct a micro-filtration plus reverse osmosis facility at each of its WWTFs with concentrate discharge through deep well injection. As demonstrated within this Comment, the site-specific analysis applicable to CCUA's discharge DOES NOT support the need for such additions to CCUA's WWTFs. However, if the Proposed Rule is adopted without taking into account the site-specific analysis of the TMDL for the LSJR, CCUA may, nonetheless, be compelled to construct these additions at their WWTFs notwithstanding the fact that they are unnecessary. Such a waste of funds should not be acceptable to EPA. On the other hand, adopting the site-specific analysis of the nutrient TMDLs, as either target criteria or a SSAC, would likely avoid the need to construct these additions at CCUA's WWTFs. In that regard, CCUA would note, as discussed above in the Background, that, even 'without the Proposed Rule, CCUA is committed to constructing reclaimed water treatment facilities at its Miller Street WWTF and an approximate S-mile pipeline from the Town of Orange Park to a rapidly growing residential area in western Clay County. The estimated total cost for this project is $26 million dollars which is presently being funded through a 50% cost share grant with the SJRWMD and the FDEP. Once this project is complete, CCUA will have installed the necessary infrastructure to remove all of its treated wastewater plant discharges from the LSJR. As it has always done, CCUA remains cognizant of its responsibilities towards its community and committed to taking action to protect its environment. CCUA does not, however, support the unnecessary spending of funds, to the disadvantage of CCUA's ratepayers, when there is no environmental benefit to be derived therefrom. To allow for the adoption of TMDLs as SSACs, CCUA has proposed that Section 131.43(e) should be amended to include a subparagraph (6) which reads: (6) Where the state of Florida has proposed and the EPA accepted, or the EPA has already independently developed and issued, a final total maximum daily load for nutrients, the target loads established in the total maximum daily load for nutrients will be considered site-specific alternative criteria for the specific surface waters identified in the TMDL in lieu of the criteria established in paragraph (c), and the total maximum daily load issuance process is considered to have met all requirements established in paragraphs (2) through (5) of this section. 

# Comment ID 1532-1.001.014

Author Name: Stacey P. Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Therefore, CTDEP recommends that the methodologies in the Proposed Rule be used more appropriately, to screen for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4387Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final waterbodies that may require site-specific TMDLs or other management action, or be subject to aggressive protective actions under antidegradation or other state management policies. This alternative would more effectively target state resources where they are most urgently needed, minimize costly misdirection of resources, accelerate water quality improvements, and help ensure currently healthy waterbodies do not degrade. 

# Comment ID 1550.001.005

Author Name: Berchtold J. Organization: City of Lake Butler -Implementation of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria will create a cumbersome, two track NPDES permitting system (one federal and one State) since the criteria will not have been approved by Florida's Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) and Florida DEP cannot impose permit conditions not approved by the ERC. 

# Comment ID 1556-1.001.006

Author Name: Horenstein B. Organization: Tri-TAC Requested Action The proposed standards for the State of Florida do not consider economic impacts or technological feasibility of meeting the standards in ambient water. Without demonstrating a clear tie between reduction of nutrients and improvement of biological health of streams or other beneficial outcomes, uncertainty prevails whether reduction in nutrients would improve water quality or beneficial uses. Therefore, the real costs to achieve compliance with NPDES permit limits would likely not be offset by a commensurate benefit in terms of beneficial use improvement. As a result, it is requested that the proposed numeric standards be withdrawn and reconsidered to address the issues raised in this letter. It is also requested that provisions be added to a modified rule to avoid unreasonable NPDES permitting consequences in the implementation of nutrient standards. If USEPA does promulgate numeric nutrient criteria in Florida, we specifically request that both the preamble and the rule itself contain language making it clear that neither the numeric water quality criteria for Florida nor the methodology are intended to be a precedent for other states. Again, we thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. 

# Comment ID 1564-1.001.006

Author Name: Williams G. Organization: Florida Rural Water Association

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4388Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

8. EPA has placed an impossible burden on the Florida Rural Water Association to provide technical analysis and commentary on the impact of these very complicated regulations. The Florida Rural Water Association has a long and successful history of helping EPA assist smaller communities in maintaining compliance with new regulations. The Florida Rural Water Association will be left in a position of assisting these communities when the new regulations are implemented. The Florida Rural Water Association does not have the resources to provide the amount of technical guidance and support that EPA has at its disposal. Since EPA has these technical resources available to it for the assessments identified herein, EPA should utilize those resources and provide the necessary assessments and technical guidance to Florida Utilities. 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.007

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works As a result of these findings, no surface water discharge (point source or MS4) will be allowed into nutrient impaired waters without extremely high levels of treatment with long-term maintenance, energy consumption and carbon emission costs and consequences. Therefore, to support a policy with such financially onerous consequences, the environmental benefit has to be enormous and the science behind it exceptionally robust. 

# Comment ID 1638-1.001.004

Author Name: Rayson J. Organization: Central Broward Water Control District Finally, the proposed rule does not set forth implementation protocols or criteria. For example, there is no discussion on monitoring requirements, how compliance will be determined, or sufficiency of data. Implementation criteria are essential for regulatory compliance and the proposed rule simply leaves the regulatory public guessing. 

# Comment ID 1640.001.007

Author Name: Pugh T. Organization: Source, Inc. Understand that significant changes at a considerable cost will be required in many cases to meet these standards. Some questions, such as what to do with sidestream products, such as wastewater sludge need to be answered, as its current use as agricultural fertilizer will no longer be available. 

# Comment ID 1642-1.001.007

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4389Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Tilton A. Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. 6. It is not clear what the implementation period will be for these nutrient values. It is not practical that life stop. There must be a period of implementation. Florida has an established procedure in the TMDL program. Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) created under this have implementation periods of 5 to 15 years for those established so far. Will this program be similar? How will it be implemented? 

# Comment ID 1642-1.001.008

Author Name: Tilton A. Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. 7. The TMDL program is moving forward with proper consideration and diligence in Florida. Locally there are BMAPs in process on a portion of the Imperial River, Hendry Creek and a portion of the Caloosahatchee. Will these more specific values be allowed even if they are higher than those set under this program since the TMDLs are reviewed by EPA? 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.007

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Existing Programs TMDL/BMAP Programs For more than a decade and at the cost of over $20 million, Florida's TMDL program has been identifying and treating impaired waters through the development of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) (Obreza et al. 2010). The TMDLs are determined from time-intensive water quality assessments and monitoring studies which ultimately determine the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a water body can absorb and still maintain its designated use (FDACS 2007). The creation of BMAPs has been a collaborative effort between the FDEP, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), and local stakeholders. FDACS and representatives of private agriculture participate in BMAP development to identify applicable BMP programs and include actions to promote participation (2007). BMAPS are blueprints for restoring impaired waters by reducing pollutant loadings to meet allowable loadings established in a TMDL (FDEP 2010a). Per Florida Statute Ch. 404.067(7)(b) (2009), once a BMAP has been established, those non-point source agricultural operations within its boundary are required to either implement the appropriate established BMPs or provide water quality monitoring data as set forth by the FDEP or water management

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4390Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final district. The TMDLs and BMAPS have been developed and are based on site-specific, scientific data collection and analysis of the state's major hydrologic basins. Additionally, the creation and development of TMDLs, BMAPS and BMPs encourages and relies heavily on the participation and direct involvement of local stakeholders. There is a level of openness and transparency during the development process which allows for a multifaceted, multidisciplinary approach to addressing the impairment issues. In contrast to the site-specific TMDL and BMAP programs, the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient rule will introduce broad-sweeping, simplistic criteria leading to unfeasible and unobtainable regulations. According to Secretary Michael Sole of the FDEP during a presentation to the Florida House of Representatives, approximately 80% of Florida's most pristine rivers and streams will be deemed impaired based on the EPA's proposed criteria, resulting in state and private funds being utilized to treat these healthy water bodies. In addition, Secretary Sole stated that the FDEP did not believe that existing technology for agriculture or municipal wastewater facilities could achieve the criteria proposed in the EPA's numeric nutrient ruling and that it is roughly estimated to cost the State and stakeholders billions of dollars to achieve compliance (Sole 2010). The FDEP's TMDL and BMAP programs' transparent approach to nutrient impairment correctly takes the required time to properly apply the necessary science in its determination of the site-specific health of Florida's water bodies. Because of this, the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association advocates its support for the continuation of the FDEP's programs in lieu of the EPA's proposed criteria. 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.008

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) Florida's agricultural community has made very concerted efforts over the years to work with and to assist the local municipalities and State Agencies in implementing practices aimed at reducing surface and ground water degradation, including the removal of excess N and P. Operating under the FDACS umbrella, the Office of Agricultural Water Policy (OAWP) was assigned the task of developing agricultural BMP manuals for the state of Florida. Overseeing the development of these manuals were steering committees which featured representatives from FDACS, FDEP, the water management districts, the University of Florida (IFAS) and multiple stakeholders from the agriculture industry, many of which were directly connected to grower/production operations. According to OAWP, as of January, 2010, approximately 2 million acres of agricultural and pastoral land within the state are enrolled in and participate in the Office of Agricultural Water Policies' BMP program. Per Rich Budell, Director of OAWP, Florida has spent millions developing, implementing and evaluating agricultural BMPs, with an excess of $175 million allocated to fund the USDA/NRCS EQIP cost-share program. In addition, he estimates that landowners have contributed at least $60 million in capital costs, not including long-term operation and maintenance. If the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria get passed in October of this year, what will become of the OAWP BMP program? Will the new criteria supersede all the existing BMP regulations, thereby deeming the agricultural BMP manuals worthless? Of particular concern to, Will the estimated $60 million that the agricultural community has collectively invested to implement these BMPs have been spent in vain?

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4391Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.009

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Implementation In its rush to deliver the numeric nutrient criteria within the brief timeframe allotted, the EPA has seemingly omitted from its proposal any reference pertaining to methods or technologies that should be utilized and employed during implementation. When rainwater itself will fail to comply with the proposed criteria, a certain level of guidance regarding implementation strategies and methodologies seems appropriate. The EPA, in its goal of instituting such strict criteria, should ensure that such regulation is indeed realistically capable of being implemented, and in doing so, provide the means for feasible implementation. For example, in South Florida, how will nutrient control be implemented for the existing network of canals while simultaneously still providing essential drainage and flood relief (tasks for which they were originally intended)? What is the sampling frequency for lakes, springs, streams and canals? Where and how should samples be collected to ensure a proper representation of nutrient and chlorophyll a levels? If massive storm water treatment areas will be required within the water management districts to provide water quality prior to discharge, where and how will the land be acquired? 

# Comment ID 1671-1.001.010

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Until that occurs, the Department cannot implement the promulgated criteria in other Clean Water Act programs like permitting, water quality assessment, and total maximum daily loads. 

# Comment ID 1671-1.001.011

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Beyond the effective date issue, it will be very important for EPA to clearly define the Clean Water Act expectations for implementation. The true implications of the proposed criteria can only be established if there is clear understanding of what actions will be demanded upon promulgation. Additionally it will be important to clearly define how the criteria will be applied with regards to duration and frequency, including minimum time frames for long term averages and minimum data requirements. The Department has made significant investments in the derivation of numeric nutrient criteria and the evaluation of how it should be implemented. We hope that our analysis and expertise is considered as you make decisions about the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4392Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final final promulgation of the criteria for the State. 

# Comment ID 1714-1.001.004

Author Name: Reed N. Organization: The proposed rule also does not recognize the unique relationship between wetlands and waterbodies of the state. Wetlands, because of their naturally high biological activity, will, under natural conditions, lower the dissolved oxygen and increase the nitrogen levels in adjacent waters. The rule must be flexible enough to allow for floodplain and wetland restoration projects, without these restoration projects being ridiculously categorized as a pollution source under some regulatory scheme. I realize the complex nature of the task at hand and support the development and implementation of nutrient criteria to protect non-impaired waters and restore impaired waterbodies. I encourage you to move forward expeditiously in the development and implementation of scientifically sound nutrient criteria for the State of Florida. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.074

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Effects of Criteria on Water Management Needs Actions taken to comply with the criteria may also have other unintended consequences to other uses. An example conflict: the choice between releasing water with elevated nutrient levels, vs. not releasing the water to maintain compliance with the proposed criteria. The flow reductions could decrease water levels, increase stagnant periods and create or exacerbate DO problems. If applied to south Florida coastal canals or to lakes and streams with control structures that discharge to estuaries, there could be an increase in the potential for saltwater intrusion (Miller, 1990). 

# Comment ID 1722-1.001.018

Author Name: Cunniff L. Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 5. Using the USEPA criteria, there will be an additional 41 lakes over the current FDEP TMDL impaired lakes. This would dramatically increase demands of local resources. 

# Comment ID 1724-1.001.006

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4393Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Busha M. Organization: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 5. Council encourages EPA to establish a statewide federal funding mechanism that ensures cleanup responsibilities are assigned equitably and each entity is responsible for its fair share of the pollution clean up. 

# Comment ID 1725-1.001.002

Author Name: Nyhus S. Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board The Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board (MESERB), on behalf of its members, submits these cornments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published in the Federal Register (75 Fed. Reg. 4174 (January 26,2010). MESERB is a 38-member joint powers board representing cities, public utilities commissions, and sanitary sewer districts in greater Minnesota. Our membership represents over half a million Minnesotans and over 175 million gallons per day in wastewater treatment capacity. MESERB's mission is to ensure that state and federal regulations affecting wastewater treatment are reasonable and based on sound scientific research. As local government units operating in a water-rich state, MESERB's members are subject to nutrient regulations that fall into three general categories. First, narrative nutrient standards that apply generally to Minnesota surface waters to prevent excess algae growth were recently supplemented by ecoregion-based numeric nutrient standards for total phosphorus, ch10rophyll-a concentrations and Secchi disk transparency (Minn. R. 7050.0222, subp. 4a). Second, Minnesota's long-standing rule requiring a phosphorus effluent limit of 1.0 mg/L for discharges found to be "directly to or affecting" a lake or reservoir was recently updated to impose the 1.0 mg/L limit automatically on new or expanding discharges, with limited exceptions (Minn. R. 7053.0255). The changes to both rules became effective in 2008. Although MESERB took issue with the scientific bases for these regulatory extensions, in the rulemaking process the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency produced a large volume of documentation that at least purported to base these amendments on the scientific analysis of water quality affects. Third and finally, waters found to be impaired by excess nutrients or low dissolved oxygen levels are subject to 303(d) listing and the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Minnesota has shown leadership with the prompt identification of impaired waters and TMDL development. A TMDL finalized in 2004 to improve dissolved oxygen levels in the Minnesota River through the reduction of phosphorus inputs produced a 35% aggregate phosphorus reduction two years ahead of schedule. In a massive TMDL designed to address excess nutrients and turbidity in Lake Pepin, which drains 2/3 of the state's landmass and includes the Upper Mississippi, Minnesota, St. Croix and Cannon River basins, the state is considering site-specific standards for total suspended solids and submersed aquatic vegetation to address difficulties brought to light in scientific modeling of the affected region. In all of the above instances, Minnesota has been aggressive in working to address phosphorus inputs in a state that is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4394Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final rich in surface water resources, and where agriculture continues to dominate the rural economy. MESERB takes exception with the proposed standards in Florida to the extent they establish precedent which is inconsistent with that which has been successfully employed in Minnesota. 

# Comment ID 1729.001.022

Author Name: Fugett A. Organization: 26. Implementation of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria will create a cumbersome, two track NPDES permitting system (one federal and one State) since the criteria will not have been approved by Florida's Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) and Florida DEP cannot impose permit conditions not approved by the ERC. 

# Comment ID 1734-1.001.001

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA JEA provides the following comments in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" (NNC rule) as published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2010. As explained in more detail below, any final version of the federal NNC rule should specify that the new criteria do not apply in Florida surface waters already subject to EPA-approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) based on Florida's existing narrative criterion for nutrients. This is appropriate because EPA's approval of a TMDL constitutes its determination that all nutrient load allocations and waste load allocations are protective of designated uses. 40 CFR § 130.7. New federal water quality criteria are not "necessary" for such waters. 

# Comment ID 1734-1.001.003

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA Florida's Highly Effective Lower St. Johns River Nutrient TMDL A significant point of emphasis in this letter is to urge EPA to uphold Florida's existing TMDLs - - based on Florida's narrative water quality standard for nutrients - ­ specifically applicable to the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR), which were approved by EPA on January 18,2008. As EPA is aware, Florida's Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) to implement the LSJR TMDLs was adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on October 10, 2008. JEA and many other stakeholders are implementing substantial nutrient reduction measures in conformance with the EPA-approved TMDL and the adopted BMAP for the LSJR. These accomplishments in the LSJR demonstrate Florida's ability to develop and implement highly

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4395Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final effective controls on nutrient discharges under the existing regulatory framework. Attachment I to this comment letter is a report entitled, "The Lower St. Johns River Main Stem Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Process and Accomplishments," (TMDL Report) prepared primarily by Tiffany Busby of Wildwood Consulting, Inc. Section I of the enclosed TMDL Report describes the St. Johns River, and Section II provides a brief history of the rulemaking, legal actions, and EPA oversight that led to the development of the LSJR TMDLs and the BMAP. The LSJR TMDLs were based on Florida's narrative nutrient criteria and addressed both total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) in the freshwater section of the river as well as TN in the marine section. Section III of the TMDL Report outlines the extensive scientific and modeling analyses that went into creating the LSJR TMDLs in a manner that was responsive to the specific flora and fauna and the unique environmental conditions in the primary aquatic ecosystems in the LSJR. Section III also describes the BMAP process, under which source specific, numeric allocations were finalized by FDEP after an extensive stakeholder process which ensured that the allocations are accurate, fair, equitable, and highly effective. Where applicable, these allocations are linked to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Where allocations are not related to NPDES permits (e.g. stormwater outside MS4 areas, agricultural releases), the BMAP itself constitutes an implementation mechanism. Florida's TMDL program substantially exceeds federal requirements because it includes implementation provisions that include nonpoint source inputs that are not regulated under the Clean Water Act. Section IV of the TMDL Report describes the nutrient load reductions that have been achieved in the LSJR. The starting loads used in the TMDL process were based on 1997/1998 wastewater loads and 1995 stormwater loads. Many stakeholders began projects to achieve load reductions before the BMAP was complete. Substantial reductions had therefore already occurred by the time the first annual BMAP implementation report (summarizing activities during that year) was prepared in 2009. For example, there has been a 25% reduction in TN discharges into the marine portion of the LSJR through 2009. Extensive additional reductions between 20 I0 and 2014 are required by the BMAP. As the charts demonstrate, most of the required reductions are expected to be achieved by 2014 and therefore the loads will be very close to meeting TMDL levels by that time. Section IV of the TMDL Report is a "must read" for EPA, as it specifically verifies that substantial TN reductions are being accomplished in the LSJR. The LSJR TMDL was promulgated by FDEP as a rule, which can be found at Rule 62-304.415, F.A.C. (Note that the Middle St. Johns River TMDL can be found at Rule 62-304.505, F.A.C., and the Upper St. Johns River TMDL can be found at Rule 62-304.510, F.A.C. For that matter, several dozen additional nutrient TMDLs, fully approved by EPA, can be found in Chapter 62-304, F.A.C.) FDEP's "Final Order Establishing the Lower St. Johns River Basin Management Action Plan," dated October 10, 2008, is included with this comment letter as Attachment 2. EPA acknowledged in the Federal Register that Florida has been a national leader in water quality control by spending over $20 million collecting and analyzing nutrients and biological health data in Florida waters. EPA also affirmed that Florida "is one ofthe few states that has in place a comprehensive framework of accountability that applies to both point and nonpoint sources and provides the enforceable authority to address nutrient reductions in impaired waters based upon the establishment of site-specific total maximum daily loads...." Additionally, EPA referred to Florida's regulatory nutrient accountability system as an "impressive synthesis of technology-based standards, point source control

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4396Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final authority, and authority to establish enforceable controls for nonpoint source activities." 75 Fed. Reg. at 4175, 4181,82. 

# Comment ID 1734-1.001.004

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA EPA's Proposed NNC Rule will Interfere with Implementing the LSJR TMDL EPA's proposed NNC rule would have severe consequences for the dozens of stakeholders who participated in the LSJR TMDL process in good faith, and who cUlTently are implementing expensive nutrient reduction commitments in reliance on the integrity of EPA's approval of the TMDL. Simply put, nutrient TMDL implementation efforts by the LSJR stakeholders can reasonably be expected to be suspended if EPA's proposed NNC mle is finalized. The rational option for these stakeholders will be to curtail expenditures on planned TMDL-based nutrient reduction efforts and very vigorously petition for relief from all existing nutrient reduction responsibilities under the LSJR TMDL and BMAP, while time-consuming compliance schedules are worked out based on the NNC mle. This will be necessary because the stakeholders' planned upgrades for additional reductions to meet the LSJR TMDL and BMAP allocations will not be adequate to meet EPA's NNC. It would be a tremendous waste of resources for stakeholders to complete planned pollution control upgrades or best management practices (BMPs) that will be subject to retrofit obligations, based on the NNC mle. For example, the advanced biological nutrient removal technologies now being implemented by utilities in the LSJR Basin to meet TMDL obligations would be the wrong technology to use if the extremely low NNC being proposed by EPA are promulgated. Accordingly, utilities would be impmdent in doing anything other than delaying the completion of such projects. EPA's proposed solution to this very significant problem has been to offer the opportunity to apply for site-specific alternative criteria (SSACs) for waters with nutrient TMDLs, such as the LSJR. However, the SSAC approval process is time consuming, expensive, and frequently the subject oflitigation; accordingly, this alternative inevitably will result in additional delay of pollutant reduction projects and greater uncertainty. The administrative convenience and demonstrated effectiveness of implementing the existing LSJR TMDL would be replaced by the administrative inconvenience, extraordinary complexity, and time delays associated with starting all over again based on new federal nutrient criteria. EPA and the Florida Wildlife Federation and Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida have acknowledged that the development ofNNC for Florida will conflict with the implementation of Florida's nutrient TMDLs. See Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by EPA and the Florida Wildlife Federation in Florida Wildlife Fed'n v. Jackson. 4:09cv89SPM (Sept. 2, 2009) [Doc. # 106-1] (asking for ajudicial stay ofa challenge to EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs for tributaries north of Lake Okeechobee because "the promulgation of numeric nutrient criteria for nutrients provided for in the [2009] [Clonsent [D]ecree may impact TMDLs challenged in the instant case"). The federal NNC indeed will "impact" existing nutrient TMDLs in Florida. The NNC will instantly make the CUlTent nutrient TMDLs obsolete unless specific provision is made in the rule to recognize and incorporate such TMDLs as water quality standards in lieu of the NNC. Insofar as it applies to waters with EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs, such as the LSJR, EPA's proposed rule will

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4397Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final significantly hinder Florida's progress in reducing nutrient pollution in the LSJR. Applying the proposed NNC to the LSJR would ignore the numeric targets identified as a result of Florida's site-specific analysis on the LSJR and the corresponding nutrient reductions being attained. Instead, EPA would apply regional criteria based on hastily-conceived and incautious statistical short-cuts. All of this represents extremely substandard environmental policy and a transgression of EPA's fundamental responsibilities under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed NNC, if finalized, would contravene Clean Water Act § 101(f), which directs EPA to "prevent needless duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government." 

# Comment ID 1734-1.001.005

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA EPA Should Uphold Florida's Existing Nutrient TMDLs One of EPA's primary criticisms of Florida's approach to regulating nutrients is as follows: "Reliance on a narrative criterion to derive NPDES permit limits, assess water bodies for listing purposes, and establish TMDL targets can often be a difficult, resource-intensive, and time-consuming process that entails conducting case-by-case analyses to determine the appropriate numeric target value based on a site-specific translation of the narrative criterion." 75 Fed. Reg. at 4175, 4181. These efforts are "resource intensive" primarily from the regulatory agency side. The resources needed to evaluate a water body such as the LSJR and set valid, science-based standards is a very small fraction of the public resources that later get spent to meet the regulatory target that is set. As an example, although several million dollars may have been spent by the regulatory agencies setting the TMDL and BMAP requirements for the LSJR (in an exceptionally rigorous exercise in a particularly complex waterbody), over $500 million in projects are now in the design and implementation phases to meet the nutrient reduction targets that were set. In contrast, the less precise and overly conservative NNC, if now adopted for the marine portion of the basin, would require approximately $1.3 billion in expenditures for JEA alone, which is just one of the many, many sources on the LSJR. Truly, from the overall public's point of view, the greater planning effort and site-specific consideration on the front end in setting efficient and effective nutrient reduction targets pays for itselfmany times over as it yields better outcomes for society. Additionally, and very significantly, EPA needs to consider that the "difficult, resource-intensive, and time-consuming process" has already been completed under several dozen EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs in Florida, including the LSJR TMDL. It would be completely irresponsible for all of this well-considered investment in scientific, site-specific and highly focused TMDL-based numeric requirements to be replaced suddenly by federal numeric criteria derived from generic statistical constructs. EPA's NNC represent a significant setback for Florida's environment, Florida's economy, and for principles of good government, insofar as the NNC would be allowed to apply to waters with far more rigorously derived and EPA-approved numeric nutrient requirements based on TMDLs. EPA's justification for the NNC also stated that about 5% of Florida's rivers and streams were identified as impaired in FDEP's 2008 water quality assessment report. But EPA did not consider that a very substantial percentage of those waters are already subject to nutrient TMDLs, including the LSJR TMDL. There is no legitimate rationale for "starting over again" with federal standards in waters where EPA-approved numeric nutrient endpoints have been established and are being implemented under the TMDL program.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4398Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

JEA looks forward to working with EPA to ensure that the final NNC rule does not interfere with the accomplishments being achieved in the Lower St. Johns River under the 2008 TMDL and BMAP. 

# Comment ID 1748-1.001.004

Author Name: Choi C. Organization: Progress Energy on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc.

• Previously approved Total Maximum Daily Loads and other negotiated nutrient limits determined to be protective are now seemingly rendered obsolete by the imposition of new, conflicting criteria on these water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1748-1.001.006

Author Name: Choi C. Organization: Progress Energy on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. A second potential water supply source is industrial wastewater discharges from closed, inactive phosphate/chemical processing plants. These facilities generate runoff (mostly from phosphogypsum stacks) which is treated and discharged via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. However, as with reclaimed water, we would be reluctant to utilize these supplies if held to restrictive concentration-based criteria during the times we may have to discharge (Le., during wet-weather events). Again, the overall goal of reducing nutrient loading to a receiving water body would be sacrificed because of the risk of exceeding numeric criteria during rare discharge events. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.003

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 2. The rules proposed do not outline in sufficient detail how the criteria are to be implemented. Of specific concern ishow these criteria will be enforced spatially within any waterbody, i.e. will these criteria be an any time any where, endof-pipe standard, or will they be dealt with more on a waterbody wide basis. Historically, under the TMDL program, EPAs use of Eco-region specific reference criteria was on a more waterbody wide basis through assessment of nutrient concentrations at downstream points within a watershed rather than looking at the concentration of each discharge to the watershed segment. The determination of this component of enforcement will have significant implications upon the cost of implementation. Given the nature of nutrients as a natural substance rather than a toxin, it is recommended to utilize a more waterbody type of approach for implementation. 

# Comment ID 1763-1.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4399Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Clement D. Organization: County Line Drainage District, Arcadia Finally, the proposed rule does not set forth implementation protocols or criteria. For example, there is no discussion on monitoring requirements, how compliance will be determined, or sufficiency of data. Implementation criteria are essential for regulatory compliance and the proposed rule simply leaves the regulatory public guessing. 

# Comment ID 1764-1.001.011

Author Name: Mowry G. Organization: Marion County Stormwater Section Additional comments:
9. The proposed rule does not clearly convey what will happen with existing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Will they be approved as site-specific alternative criteria? 

# Comment ID 1768-1.001.022

Author Name: Armingeon N. Organization: St. Johns River Keeper NNS Integration with Current TMDL Program

• It is unclear from the proposal what EPA intends with regard to TMDL development, only that it intends waters that are impaired by nutrients as measured against the ultimate standards to be listed on the 303(d) list. We urge EPA to require that TMDLs be done as a part of the UAA/restoration standards setting process. By re-issuing a new TMDL concurrent with each new Phase of the restoration standards, the regulatory agency can make adjustments based on how well the previous allocations were implemented by the identified sources. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.021

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida We fear that the rules, as currently proposed, will have such broad and far-reaching effects that the ability of state and local governments to target specific, priority waters for significant improvement will be compromised. A sense of "impossibility" in surface water improvement programs may likely emerge. Florida's TMDL and Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) implementation programs will be placed in jeopardy, as Florida law prohibits the use of water

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4400Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final quality criteria that have not been adopted by the State. In other words, the EPA criteria may not be simply layered "on top" of Florida's TMDL and BMAP programs without being first formally approved by Florida's Environmental Regulation Commission. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.024

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Anticipated Impacts

• It appears that the potential number of TMDLs will increase by at least 100%. The actual impact may be more significant once EPA has identified actual downstream protection values for TP.

• Given EPA's new focus on "measurable compliance" for MS4s, the implementation burden of MS4s could increase significantly given the current presumption (of compliance with numeric standards of all kinds) that is given to new development.

• The cost to MS4s will be proportional to the degree to which MS4s are held accountable within each permit cycle. Whereas the Florida BMAPs are generally based on a 15-year implementation period (three 5-year MS4 Permit periods) with equal allocations in each period, the implementation efforts that will be required by EPA are largely unknown at this point, although there seems to be movement to add much more detail to MS4 permits possibly going beyond the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) policy as contained in The Clean Water Act.

• EPA's requirements of (1) all MS4 permit renewals to be " ...consistent with the requirements of wasteload allocations for applicable TMDLs" and (2) " ...MS4s to develop a TMDL implementation plan that identifies enhanced control measures the MS4 will implement to address the WLA within the term of the permit" will have significant consequences for Florida MS4s. FDEP has already withdrawn two draft permits (Hillsborough and Jacksonville) fearing an objection for not properly addressing TMDLs.

• It appears that EPA's requirements for monitoring, based on the Lower St. Jolms River TMDLs and BMAPs, will be much more expensive. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.041

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida EPA will likely only approve permits that are consistent with their WQS. But FDEP may be prohibited by Florida law from developing TMDLs base on EPA numeric criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4401Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1774.001.004

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida FDEP has been working for more than a decade gathering data and implementing a program based on Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) aimed at reducing pollutant loadings, including nutrients, to our water bodies. For the agricultural operations active at Deseret (cow and calf, citrus, agronomic crops, forestry and sod farms) the ultimate goal of the TMDL program is to adopt, where necessary, Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs), developed in conjunction with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, along with local stakeholders, for individual watershed management areas. The unique water quality characteristics created by naturally occurring conditions for a watershed is accounted for because the TMDLs only consider pollutants from anthropogenic, or man-made, activities and sources. It is our opinion that, although more time and man-power intensive, FDEP's approach to abating nutrient enrichment of our waters is more scientifically sound and supportive of the regulated community, particularly the agricultural sectors. Our concern is that once EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria are adopted, it could supersede and dismantle the ongoing TMDL and BMAP programs. 

# Comment ID 1778-1.001.006

Author Name: Arrington D. Organization: Loxahatchee River District How will droughts, hurricanes and other significant disturbances be addressed and factored into, or excluded from, data sets used to evaluate numeric nutrient criteria compliance? Instream water quality often recovers quickly (on the order of days), though significant storm events and especially repeat storm events can alter water quality for months. Research has shown that large flood control releases significantly depress salinity conditions in the Loxahatchee River estuary, and that altered salinity conditions, including greater salinity variability, can significantly degrade seagrass (Riddler et al. 2006). 

# Comment ID 1780-1.001.002

Author Name: Piper R. Organization: Florida Power and Light Company 2. EPA's Proposed Regulations Should Not Extend to Waterbodies Subject to Nutrient TMDLs The "difficult, resource-intensive, and time-consuming process that entails conducting case-by-case analyses to determine the appropriate numeric target value ...based on the narrative criterion" (75 Fed. Reg. 4181) has already been accomplished under several dozen EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs in Florida. It would be extremely problematic for all of this scientific and site-specific work to be replaced suddenly by federal numeric criteria derived from generic

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4402Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final statistical constructs. The proposed rule would be dysfunctional insofar as it applies to EPA-approved nutrients TMDLs or to waters that currently are the subject of ongoing efforts to develop such TMDLs. 

# Comment ID 1780-1.001.003

Author Name: Piper R. Organization: Florida Power and Light Company If the NNC are finalized, Florida stakeholders planning expensive pollution control upgrades or best management practices (BMPs) to meet their nutrient TMDL allocations (this could include electric utilities, various industries, POTWs,MS4s, and agricultural interests) may need to evaluate taking measures to cease such projects, because their TMDLbased nutrient reduction measures may become obsolete under the federal NNC. A new federal rule that has the effect of encouraging Florida's regulated community to reconsider planned pollutant control upgrades could be detrimental to Florida's progress in reducing discharges of nutrients into Florida's waters. 

# Comment ID 1781-1.001.005

Author Name: Roy N. Organization: Clean Water Network and (4) rules allowing permitting to be written using design flow conditions and averages that do not protect against high concentrations of nutrients for months. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.028

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council IX. The finalization of EPA's proposed rule will cause severe negative policy consequences EPA claims that its proposed rule will facilitate the administration of Florida's TMDL and NPDES programs. The opposite is true. The proposed rule will upset state administration of both of these programs. Additionally, the proposed rule will severely impact other state policies supporting the development of alternative water supplies, particularly including reclaimed water supply development. Florida's TMDL Program The State of Florida has perhaps the most sophisticated TMDL program in the nation. Even EPA's necessity determination lauded the state's Impaired Waters Rule and Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) process.[73] A

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4403Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 1999 Consent Decree conceived the state's TMDL program,[74] which the Florida Legislature birthed in the Florida Watershed Restoration Act.[75] Unlike the TMDL programs of other states, a TMDL is not an aspirational goal in Florida; rather, the establishment of a TMDL sets the state and regulated stakeholders (both point and non-point sources) into action to recover the water body. The Florida Legislature has allocated millions of dollars to FDEP in support of its existing, science-based, TMDL program, and many Florida utilities, on behalf of the communities they serve, are investing in environmentally beneficial projects designed to meet a TMDL nutrient target. As described above and in the submitted comments of JEA, GRU, Clay County Utility Authority, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program Nitrogen Management Consortium, and other Florida stakeholders, these programs are reaping environmental benefits. Unfortunately, EPA's proposed rule snatches defeat from the jaws of victory for these TMDL waters. This proposed rule undoes the very solution for recovering those impaired waters. In Kafkaesque fashion, EPA only provides an opportunity to potentially have existing, EPA- approved TMDLs considered as site specific alternative criteria.[76] Instead of destabilizing Florida's sophisticated TMDL program, EPA should allow the state to use the program to solve any to any nutrient impairment problems, and EPA should adopt existing EPA-approved TMDLs as site specific nutrient criteria. To add insult to injury, EPA in its public workshops paraded pictures of Lake Apopka, the Lower St. Johns River, and other waters that already have TMDLs to correct nutrient problems (or are in the queue to get a TMDL), as justifying EPA's intervention into this issue. EPA representatives failed to mention that these waters violate Florida's existing narrative criterion. EPA also failed to explain its tortured logic whereby impaired waters that already have EPAapproved numeric endpoints can justify the need for establishing federal standards for other waters. Every TMDL DEP has established (which again, includes a numeric endpoint designed to recover a water body with nutrient problems) has been approved by EPA, and with the ink still wet on many of its approval documents, EPA points to the very same waters and alleges that despite the ongoing investment of public monies on these TMDLs and EPA's approval of these TMDLs, EPA must impose new nutrient criteria on these and all other state waters. In addition to harming projects recovering water bodies that already have TMDLs, EPA's overly conservative nutrient criteria will also harm Florida's TMDL program in general, because waters that do not need TMDLs will be listed as impaired and placed in the queue for a TMDL. Overwhelming Florida's TMDL program by listing numerous unimpaired waters cannot be reasonably viewed as helping the program. The state should not spend its limited resources developing a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) and attempting to "recover" biologically healthy waters such as the Econfina River or Black Water Creek; however, that is exactly what will happen with the finalization of EPA's proposed rule.

[73] See, EPA Necessity Determination. The state implements BMAPs to achieve numeric nutrient endpoints. See http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Water/watersheds/bmap.htm

. [74] See enclosed 1999 TMDL Consent Decree. [75] Laws of Florida, 99-223, codified §§ 403.067, 805, Fla. Stat. [76] Letter from Denise Keehner, EPA, to Jerry Brooks, FDEP, 3 (Sept. 16, 2009) (explaining how FDEP can package existing, EPA-approved TMDLs, for consideration for re-approval by EPA as site specific alternative criteria), available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/epa_comments_091609.pdf

.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4404Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.031

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council Florida's NPDES Permitting Program The preamble for the proposed rule is duplicitous when it comes to the impact of the rule on NPDES permittees. On the one hand EPA justifies its proposed rule based on claims the numeric standards will facilitate the issuance of NPDES permits,[77] and on the other hand, EPA claims that "[e]ntities discharging nitrogen or phosphorus to lakes and flowing waters of Florida could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking because WQS are used in determining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit limits."[78] EPA should understand its own water quality standards program well enough to know that the numeric water quality standards will be used as water quality based effluent limitations in NPDES permits. In other words, NPDES permittees, including a number of Florida utilities, are directly impacted by this rulemaking. EPA, in its oversight role, will impose these propose nutrient standards into discharge permits. FDEP will be unable to impose these standards itself, because under Florida law, FDEP cannot impose a permit condition that has not been approved by the state Environmental Regulation Commission or expressly required by state statute.[79] For years FDEP has issued - and presumably will continue to issue -- NPDES permits with numeric Water Quality Based EffluentLimitations based on the state's existing narrative criteria.[80] Thus, NPDES permittees will be forced to deal with a twotrack permitting system: track one on the state level and track two on the federal level.[81] This outcome cuts against EPA's suggestion that its numeric nutrient criteria can be justified on the grounds of administrative convenience.[82] The proposed TN standards will also uniquely impact wastewater treatment facilities with surface water discharges. EPA's proposed TN standards will result in construction of new facilities that will inappropriately remove minute concentrations of inert forms of nitrogen that do not contribute to the degradation of surface water bodies.

[77] 75 Fed. Reg. at 4181-82. [78] 75 Fed. Reg. at 4177. [79] §§ 120.52(10), 120.60, 403.804(1), 403.805(1), Florida Statutes. It is highly unlikely the regional standards, as presently proposed, would survive judicial scrutiny under state law. It is highly likely that an attempt by FDEP to pass rules implementing EPA's crude numeric standards would face widespread opposition and litigation from Florida's regulated public. [80] See enclosed correspondence and supporting documentation from Jan Mandrup-Poulsen of FDEP, dated March 30, 2010. [81] EPA should consider whether this likely outcome will motivate the state to extend EPA's takeover of Florida's water quality standards program to also include a takeover of Florida's NPDES permitting program. [82] 75 Fed. Reg. at 4175, 4181.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4405Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.039

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council Raw Water Sources Several Florida public water supply utilities use brackish, marine, and similar raw water sources to meet public water supply demands. The typical process used to convert these sources into potable supplies is reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis filtration results in the production of a concentrate solution that is typically high in sodium and also includes nutrient levels that vary based on the water source. The average TN and TP concentrations may be three to four times that of EPA's proposed regional criteria.[106] The finalization of EPA's proposed criteria will likely eliminate the option ofdischarging the concentrate and force utilities operating these facilities to either dispose of the concentrate via deepwell injection or by an energy-intensive combination of evaporation and landfill disposal of residue.

[106] See attached data sheet from the City of Boca Raton, Florida. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.049

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council Florida's sophisticated Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) program, and comprehensive water supply programs all stand to needlessly suffer because of EPA's unwarranted federal intervention into Florida's water quality program. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.055

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council Case Study 3: Waters with EPA-approved, Site Specific Nutrient Standards EPA has approved several Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) based on Florida's existing narrative criteria for nutrients. EPA's approval of such nutrient TMDLs constituted its determination that all nutrient load allocations and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4406Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final waste load allocations are protective of designated uses.[17] Because EPA specifically confirmed that these existing nutrient standards meet federal Clean Water Act requirements, it cannot also be the case that new water quality criteria are "necessary" for such waters. Apparently cognizant of this fact, FDEP's July 2009 draft nutrient criteria rule expressly determined that these vetted nutrient TMDLs constituted site specific numeric nutrient water quality criteria, and its draft rule thus avoided an overlay of imprecise regional criteria for these waters.[18] EPA's proposed rule, however, imposes new, conflicting nutrient standards on these waters. Therefore, the following waters will have their existing EPA-approved nutrient standards ­ and all of the environmentally beneficial projects designed to achieve the standards - rendered moot upon the adoption of EPA's conflicting proposed nutrient criteria: Santa Fe River, Alligator Lake, Lower St. Johns River, Lake Apopka, Lake Beauclair, Lake Dora, Dora Canal, Lake Eustis, Haines Creek, Lake Griffen, Lake Harris, Little Lake Harris, Helena Run, Lake Wauberg, Lake Yale, Lake Yale Canal, Newmans Lake, Orange Lake, Palatlakaha River, Trout Lake, Lake Carlton, Alachua Sink, Lake Jesup, Crane Strand Drain, Long Branch, Wekiwa Spring, Wekiva River, Rock Springs, Rock Springs Run, Little Wekiva Canal, Spring Lake, Lake Florida, Lake Orienta, Lake Adelaide, Lake Lawne, Silver Lake, Bay Lake, Lake Hell n' Blazes, Indian River, Banana River, Newfound Harbor, Thirty Mile Creek, Lake Hunter, Lake Cannon, Lake Howard, Lake Idylwild, Lake Jessie, Lake Lulu, Lake May, Lake Mirror, Lake Shipp, St. Lucie River, Lake Okeechobee, C-24 Canal WBID 3197, C-23 Canal WBID 3200, Bessey Creek, C-44 Canal, Pompano Canal, Lake Okeechobee, Hendry Creek, Imperial River, Gordon River. All of the above-listed lakes, canals, streams, and springs have site specific numeric nutrient standards established through the TMDL program, but none of these site specific numeric nutrient standards match the crude regional criteria EPA proposes to impose on all of these waters. Again, this outcome highlights the invalidity of EPA's proposed criteria. Nutrient criteria must be set at the nutrient levels that cause imbalances of naturally occurring populations of flora and fauna, based on cause and effect determinations. [17] 40 CFR § 130.7. [18] FDEP, Draft Rule 62-302.800(7)(b) (July 17, 2009). FDEP promulgated its draft rule in response to EPA's necessity determination.


# Comment ID 1785-1.001.005

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida

• EPA's proposed Rule fails to provide clarity on compliance measurement methodologies and implementation procedures. 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.009

Author Name: Hall T.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4407Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida IV. Lee County's Comments on the Numeric Nutrient Criteria While supportive of water quality improvement initiatives, Lee County is uncertain how the proposed Numeric Nutrient• Criteria will impact the County and other local governments. Lee County is permitted as a "Municipal Separate Stormwater System" (often referred to as a MS4) and operates eight wastewater treatment facilities. The MS4 and two of the wastewater treatment facilities are regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP"), by way of delegation from EPA, through its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting program. Seven of Lee County's wastewater treatment facilities produce reclaimed water as a valuable alternative water supply. Thus, the proposed Rule has the potential to impact multiple operations of Lee County. 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.015

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida E. Florida's Total Maximum Daily Loads and Basin Management Action Plan Programs Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA, Florida developed and implemented a Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") and Best Management Action Plan ("BMAP") program. A water body that does not meet its intended uses is considered "impaired". TMDLs are defined using water body-specific data, mathematical models and tools that consider the magnitude and fate of various pollutants discharged from various sources. TMDLs treat point sources through focus on treatment process options and use of best management practices for non-point sources. The Rule should whenever possible utilize relevant information gleaned from the State's TMDL and BMAP process. Existing TMDLs and BMAPs progress may be jeopardized by the numeric nutrient criteria if conflicts exist between the two standards. An extensive process of TMDL and BMAP development and implementation has been put in motion and close to 50 different water bodies have draft TMDLs pending, including approximately 35 that cover nutrients. For the Caloosahatchee River and Watershed, Lee County is working with FDEP to develop site specific water quality standards and should be considered by the EPA in numeric criteria development. 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.019

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida From a compliance standpoint, under the proposed rule there is no consideration taken for loading values (lbs) versus concentration limits (mg/L). The total loading of nutrients is greatly reduced with less flow to receiving waters. Lee County would like to see NPDES wastewater treatment plant and MS4 permits have limits that take into account the loading of nutrients along with concentration limits.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4408Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final



# Comment ID 1785-1.001.023

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida There is a need for the EPA Rule to address, in detail, uncertainty in the areas of compliance and implementation. Lee County respectfully requests that the foregoing comments be incorporated in and made part of the record of the rulemaking process for the proposed EPA Rule. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.005

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies The pace of nutrient goal development has been generally slow nationwide, as states struggle to develop scientifically based approaches that will meet with EPA's approval. It will not take long for the legal strategy employed in Florida to spread to other states, and Florida will likely not be the last state where EPA is forced to establish nutrient criteria. How EPA has approached this issue in Florida, therefore, is relevant for the entire nation. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.009

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Rapid development of numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus that are close enough and providing implementation flexibility to compensate for any shortcomings in the criteria is not a sustainable approach. Some of the concepts EPA proposed with the Florida criteria, including the restoration standard, have promise for improving implementation. However, NACWA believes there may be alternative, more sustainable approaches that accomplish significant nutrient reduction while also providing greater flexibility and having less impact on a community's economic viability. The criteria development process should include a thorough consideration of implementation, including guidance on effluent discharger permitting, and states must have the flexibility to explore the use of criteria that don't simply include rigid numbers for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.028

Author Name: Kirk K.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4409Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies NACWA is concerned that this approach, as contemplated in the proposal, would supersede any watershed-specific process that might better be used to develop appropriate goals based on site-specific information and mechanistic modeling and create a conflict between Section 303(c) and 303(d) of the CWA. Downstream protection is already achieved through the existing TMDL program - loadings from upstream discharges to impaired downstream waters are addressed through wasteload allocations. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.068

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies In waterbodies where a waste load allocation has not been prepared by a state and approved by EPA under 40 CFR 130.7, water quality-based effluent limits must ensure that the "level of water quality to be achieved by limits on point sources established under this paragraph is derived from, and complies with all applicable water quality standards" (40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(A)). Absent a TMDL, EPA has taken the position in the past that water quality based effluent limitations for discharges into impaired waters cannot exceed an applicable water quality criterion meaning the criteria will be applied as end-of-pipe limits: On its face, EPA believes that a WQBEL [water quality based effluent limit] allowing discharges into a waterbody already exceeding such criteria would not ensure that the water quality achieved by point sources was either "derived from" or "complies with" applicable water quality standards. EPA also believes that such a permitting approach would be fundamentally at odds with the water quality-based permitting requirement contained in section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA, since such an approach would allow point sources to contribute to the excursion above water quality standards in the waterbody. (EPA 1995, at 556) This issue of applicability of a water quality criterion as an end-of-pipe limit is particularly significant where ambient instream concentrations exceed numeric nutrient criteria and in the arid west where a single wastewater treatment plant could comprise most or all of a waterbody's flow. 

# Comment ID 1787-1.001.010

Author Name: Spratt J. Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association Florida's agricultural community has made very concerted efforts over the years to work with and to assist the local municipalities and State Agencies in implementing practices aimed at reducing surface and ground water degradation, including the removal of excess N and P. Operating under the FDACS umbrella, the Office of Agricultural Water Policy (OAWP) was assigned the task of developing agricultural BMP manuals for the state of Florida. The development of commodity specific manuals is an intensive process which is led by a steering committee which representatives from

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4410Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final FDACS, FDEP, the water management districts, the University of Florida (IFAS) and multiple stakeholders from the agriculture industry, many of which were directly connected to grower/production operations. According to OAWP, as of January, 2010, approximately 2 million acres of agricultural and pastoral land within the state are enrolled in and participate in the Office of Agricultural Water Policies' BMP programs. 

# Comment ID 1787-1.001.011

Author Name: Spratt J. Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association In its rush to deliver the numeric nutrient criteria within the brief timeframe allotted, the EPA has seemingly omitted from its proposal any reference pertaining to methods or technologies that should be utilized and employed during implementation. When rainwater itself will fail to comply with the proposed criteria, a certain level of guidance regarding implementation strategies and methodologies seems appropriate. The EPA, in its goal of instituting such strict criteria, should ensure that such regulation is indeed realistically capable of being implemented, and in doing so, provide the means for feasible implementation. For example, in South Florida, how will nutrient control be implemented for the existing network of canals while simultaneously still providing essential drainage and flood relief, tasks for which they were originally intended? 

# Comment ID 1787-1.001.016

Author Name: Spratt J. Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association Florida has spent millions developing, implementing and evaluating agricultural BMPs, with an excess of $175 million allocated to fund the USDA/NRCS EQIP cost-share program. In addition, FDACS estimates that landowners have contributed at least $60 million in capital costs, not including long-term operation and maintenance. If the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria are finalized in October, what will become of the OAWP BMP program? Will the new criteria supersede all the existing BMP regulations, thereby deeming the agricultural BMP manuals worthless? Of particular concern to, Will the estimated $60 million that the agricultural community has collectively invested to implement these BMPs have been spent in vain? As previously mentioned, in a recent FDEP presentation by Secretary Sole, he stated that existing technology for both agriculture and conventional municipal wastewater facilities could not achieve the proposed EPA criteria. 

# Comment ID 1788-1.001.006

Author Name: Fisher D. Organization: Osceola County 4. Consideration of "Acts of God" impacts to water quality conditions

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4411Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Finally, the impacts to water quality from "Acts of God" such as hurricanes and droughts must be considered. Such events can have substantial impacts on water quality and the evaluation of water quality data should consider extreme hydrological conditions as not being reflective of anthropogenic impacts and excluded from the data evaluation. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions regarding the comments presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.007

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Inconsistency with Restoration: There are apparent inconsistencies between EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria levels and restoration efforts in South Florida. Examples of those apparent inconsistencies occur with respect to the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. The proposed numeric nutrient criteria Total Phosphorus Baseline Criterion of 0.050 mg/l applicable for Lake Okeechobee would not be as stringent as the Lake's Total Phosphorus TMDL of 0.040 mg/L. Also, the proposed rule indicates that all flowing waters in the Kissimmee Watershed (which drains into Lake Okeechobee) will have an in-stream protection value for Total Phosphorus of 0.0107 mg/l, double the Lake standard. Inconsistencies with restoration are also highlighted in the following discussion of South Florida canals flowing into Biscayne Bay. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.008

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau III. Inadequate Implementing Provisions A comprehensive implementation plan is as critical as proposed standards that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge. The EPA has failed to recognize and properly provide for means of implementing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. On several occasions, the EPA staff has stated that the FDEP would implement the finalized numeric nutrient criteria rule. However, before the FDEP will be permitted to implement the federal rule, several steps must be taken. 

# Comment ID 1799-1.001.007

Author Name: Clement D. Organization: Joshua Water Control District Finally, the proposed rule does not set forth implementation protocols or criteria. For example, there is no discussion on

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4412Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final monitoring requirements, how compliance will be determined, or sufficiency of data. Implementation criteria are essential for regulatory compliance and the proposed rule simply leaves the regulatory public guessing. 

# Comment ID 1800-1.001.010

Author Name: Gong S. Organization: CH2M HILL Relationship to TMDLs and Watershed-Based Permitting One key question is how NNC and existing nutrient-based Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulatory programs will be made compatible. Florida's TMDL program has been proactively defining TMDLs for impaired water bodies, and some of these address nutrient impaired watersheds. Some Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) are either established or in the process of being developed, and these plans define the watershedbased strategy for achieving compliance with either N or P limitations defined through the TMDL process. We believe that existing or ongoing state- or regional-level regulatory programs like the TMDL program should be allowed to proceed to conclusion independently of the EPA's lawsuit settlement-driven schedule, and that the strategies developed and incorporated into BMAPs should supersede any NNC application within the affected watersheds. Further, we would advocate serious consideration of emphasis on watershed-based permitting strategies over NNC applicability, where such strategies can be committed to through a binding memorandum of understanding or an alternative administrative vehicle developed by the entities with point or nonpoint source interest in achieving nutrient regulatory compliance. Where possible, emphasis on load-based regulations is recommended to facilitate planning, implementation, and monitoring of nutrient reduction progress and/or compliance with watershed protection or restoration goals. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.003

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District If EPA adopts numeric nutrient standards that are less protective than the PLRGs and TMDLs already established for these waters, these standards will fail to protect the designated uses of the surface waters addressed in the District's SWIM plans. If EPA adopts numeric nutrient standards for these surface waters that are lower than the nutrient targets utilized in the PLRGs and TMDLs, then the EPA rule would significantly set back District efforts to restore these surface waters. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.004

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4413Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final For example, the District has developed a PLRG for Lake Apopka, based upon considerable scientific research and to date the District has expended substantially more than $130 million to purchase lands and implement restorative actions for the lake, based upon meeting this PLRG and a target Total Phosphorus concentration in Lake Apopka of 55 parts per billion (ppb). These restorative actions include the restoration of approximately 20,000 acres of marshes, construction and implementation of a marsh flow-way project to remove phosphorus from the lake, and implementation of a biomanipulation program to harvest gizzard shad. Many of these restoration activities are completed. The remaining marsh restoration is anticipated to be completed within the next two years. The District has also adopted basin specific stormwater discharge regulations to ensure that new development activities will not cause increases in nutrient loading of Lake Apopka. If EPA adopts a Total Phosphorus criterion for Lake Apopka that is lower than 55 ppb, the District's restoration actions will not be capable of meeting this new standard. Such an EPA action would require the District to redesign restoration activities in the lake, delaying the eventual restoration of the lake for an indefinite period of time. In addition to the District's responsibilities for restoring the priority surface waters of the District identified above, the District also operates surface water management facilities within its jurisdiction. It is the local sponsor for the State of Florida for the portion of the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project) that lies within its jurisdiction. This portion of the C&SF Project is known as the Upper St. Johns River Basin Project (USJRB Project). The USJRB Project is the largest water management facility operated by the District. It is comprised of a number of water management areas, which are areas where stormwater and flood waters are segregated from the river to control flooding and improve water quality, and marsh conservation areas where waters are managed to control flooding, restore wildlife habitat, provide for public recreation and improve water quality. These water management areas and marsh conservation areas include: a. Ft. Drum Marsh Conservation Area b. Blue Cypress Marsh Conservation Area, including Blue Cypress Lake c. St. Johns Marsh Conservation Area, including Lake Hell'n Blazes and Lake Sawgrass d. Three Forks Marsh Conservation Area e. Blue Cypress Water Management Area f. St. Johns Water Management Area, including the T.M. Goodwin Wildlife Management Area g. Jane Green Creek Wildlife Management Area h. Taylor Creek Reservoir Overall, the USJRB Project entails the restoration and management of approximately 200,000 acres of surface waters at the headwaters of the St. Johns River. The District also owns and operates water management facilities on the Upper Ocklawaha Chain of Lakes associated with restoration of the Emeralda Marsh at Lake Griffin in Lake County and the north shore restoration area at Lake Apopka in Lake and Orange counties. The District will be subject to EPA's proposed criteria because the District's water management facilities are permitted pursuant to Florida's Clean Water Act (CWA) approved programs and will be subject to the water quality standards imposed under the CWA. The District also owns or controls over 700,000 acres of conservation property within its geographical jurisdiction. Most of this real property is adjacent to lakes or flowing waters. The District's property interests in protecting the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4414Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final environmental values and functions of this real property are directly affected by the water quality in these lakes and flowing waters and therefore will be directly affected by EPA's proposed numeric water quality criteria. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.008

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District 3. If Florida's existing narrative nutrient criteria are not retained, adopted TMDLs automatically should establish a sitespecific alternative criterion (SSAC) - Many TMDLs for nutrients have been set for Florida's lakes, rivers, streams, and estuaries. These adopted TMDLs have established nutrient loading limits based on a scientifically rigorous interpretation of the narrative nutrient standard. Consequently, they have been designed to protect or restore a water body's designated use. As such, an adopted nutrient TMDL should be sufficient for establishment of a site-specific nutrient criterion (SSAC) - a nutrient SSAC - if the narrative criteria are replaced by general numeric nutrient criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4415Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.023

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District The District is concerned that the proposed criteria could invalidate adopted TMDLs that incorporate lower or higher nutrient concentrations than would be allowed. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.028

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District

a. EPA's proposed criteria would allow inappropriate increases in nutrient concentrations for the majority of streams in the District. Geometric mean concentrations of TN and TP in the majority of colored (color > 40 pcu) streams of the District lie belowthe proposed criteria (Figures 5 and 6). Approximately 60 % of District streams have concentrations of TP 0.107 mg L1; approximately 55 % of streams have TN 1.205 mg L-1. The District is concerned that the criteria would allow regional increases in nutrient loadings to lentic waters and estuaries, even though adopted TMDLs throughout Florida require reductions in loadings of TP and TN. These reductions will be difficult, indeed, if stream concentrations can increase under EPA's proposed nutrient criteria. If TMDLs are to be met, the concentrations in many streams cannot be allowed to increase above present levels while concentrations in many other streams will have to be reduced. EPA's proposed criteria are contrary to these needs and will make load reductions more difficult to achieve. Consequently, they will fail to protect designated uses in downstream waters. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.003

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 2. The rules proposed do not outline in sufficient detail how the criteria are to be implemented. Of specific concern ishow these criteria will be enforced spatially within any waterbody, i.e. will these criteria be an any time any where, endof-pipe standard, or will they be dealt with more on a waterbody wide basis. Historically, under the TMDL program, EPAs use of Eco-region specific reference criteria was on a more waterbody wide basis through assessment of nutrient concentrations at downstream points within a watershed rather than looking at the concentration of each discharge to the watershed segment. The determination of this component of enforcement will have significant implications upon the cost of implementation. Given the nature of nutrients as a natural substance rather than a toxin, it is recommended to utilize a more waterbody type of approach for implementation.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4416Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1807-1.001.005

Author Name: Shertzer R. Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 4. EPA should consider a reevaluation of the available NPDES variances and other tools in connection with compliance schedules for a class of pollutants that are no longer produced and are persistent in the environmnent. Rather than applying a feasibility measure to what are considered to be science-based decisions related to the development of water quality standards, the cost of phased implementation of such measures should be evaluated in the permitting process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me bye-mail atjohines@state.pa.us or by telephone at 717.783.4693. 

# Comment ID 1811-1.001.005

Author Name: Carpinone P. Organization: Tampa Electric Company The State of Florida's current water body- and watershed-specific total maximum daily load (TMDL) program is the most scientifically appropriate and defensible system for addressing nutrient impairment in the state's water bodies. Significant resources have already been committed to this successful program. TEC has been directly involved with establishing TMDL allocations for the Tampa Bay Estuary through the Tampa Bay Estuary Program's Nitrogen Management Consortium and supports this community-based process. Stakeholders, along with contributions from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, were able to collaboratively set equitable nitrogen allocations for each contributor of nutrients to Tampa Bay's segments. TMDLs have been established for numerous other waters in Florida. This process works and should be encouraged by EPA. However, EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria will require stakeholders to reapply for site-specific criteria, unreasonably opening up existing TMDLs to third party challenge and further jeopardizing an effective nutrient management strategy. 

# Comment ID 1813-1.001.010

Author Name: Britt M. Organization: Natural Resources Division, City of Winter Haven EPA has not evaluated how water classifications will change, if utilities reduce discharges from various streams and utilize the water for other means. Water quality may become worse in many cases. Some streams will go without water and impact fish and wildlife. Downstream water plants will have to do without a constant source of water. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4417Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 6.�Appropriately Developed Nutrient-related Targets Developed as Part of EPA-approved TMDLs should be directly Adopted as Criteria in place of Reference Condition-based values; and 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.018

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 6. Appropriately Developed Nutrient-related Targets Developed as Part of the EPA-approved TMDLs should be directly Adopted as Criteria in Place of Reference Condition-based Values EPA Region 4 has approved nutrient-related TMDLs for the state of Florida. Numeric targets, specifically designed to protect against nutrient impairment of the designated use, were developed for each TMDL. These targets were each based upon site-specific scientific analysis and subject to EPA review and approval. Those TMDLs that were appropriately developed in accordance with FDEP’s Protocol document and Section 403.067, Florida Statues, are without question a more accurate description of protective nutrient levels that the criteria in the Proposed Rule. Furthermore, the replacement of properly developed and approved TMDL targets with reference condition-based criteria is directly contrary to the objectives of the Proposed Rule. The justification for the Proposed Rule cites the following reasons for requiring numeric nutrient criteria:

• �Strengthen the foundation for identifying impaired waters;

• �Strengthen the foundation for establishing TMDLs; and,

• �Strengthen the foundation for deriving water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES permits The adoption of new numeric nutrient criteria for waters where EPA approved TMDLs already exist provides none of these benefits. The waters where appropriate TMDLs have been conducted have already been identified as impaired waters, and the impairment has been confirmed through the development of the TMDL. The Proposed Rule does not strengthen the foundation for establishing TMDLs at these sites, as TMDLs have already been established and approved. In fact, it will weaken the overall TMDL effort by requiring existing TMDL watersheds to be unnecessarily revisited. Finally, the Proposed Rule does not strengthen the foundation for deriving water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES permits, because the TMDLs have defined wasteload allocations to serve as the basis of NPDES permits.



# Comment ID 1836.001.050

Author Name: Moore D.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4418Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 39 . USEPA should clarify whether the WBID system employed by FDEP for basin assessments will be retained. If the WBID system will not be used, USEPA should describe the system that will be used (page 4203, proposed rule). 

# Comment ID 1836.001.051

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 40 . USEPA should clarify whether it will retain the assessment timeline (five year rotating basin approach) that is currently used by FDEP . If the five year rotating basin approach will not be used, USEPA should describe the system that will be used (page 4216, proposed rule). 

# Comment ID 1872.001.003

Author Name: Bond T. Organization: All FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) permitted sewage sludge land application sites should be included in the review of TN and TP in downstream creeks. All water utilities must review their processes to comply with more restrictive TN and TP in their sludge product. Especially monitoring the TN and TP on the land at permitted sewage sludge sites, in TMDL's (Total Maximum Daily Loadings). Agricultural canals and outfalls must be reviewed for TN and TP. (example: Flatford swamp dies from tomatoe farmer's flooded fields, and Shell Creek -w/too much nitrites from well water toxcitiy). Also, phosphate mining must comply with TN and TP standards as well. Animal waste lagoons and paper and pulp industry are also at fault from their waste run-off. The polluters know their toxic run-off is causing algae blooms. Until the State and EPA test for and find the TN and TP in Florida impaired waters, the water will be greener and more blooms will occur. 

# Comment ID 1874.001.002

Author Name: Roach D. Organization: Florida Inland Navigation District We are concerned that the referenced proposal will establish numeric nutrient criteria for the waterways that will prohibit our return of this effluent back to the Waterways without expensive treatment to reduce the-existing nutrients in this effluent to below ambient levels. This exact situation currently exists in Lake Okeechobee and our style of dredged material management is prohibited there because of the nutrient criteria. The District requests that this rule making effort exempt dredging activities that are just temporarily circulating ambient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4419Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final water. We will submit cost data in a future letter that your agency can use in your economic impact statement 

# Comment ID 1877.001.005

Author Name: Gornicki P. Organization: Florida Forestry Association In light of EPA's proposal, we are concerned about our continued ability to conduct normal forestry practices. Florida's forestry community has been an active partner in the development and implementation of the Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMPs) of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry. Since 1979, Florida's forestry community has been using BMPs to provide environmental protection during forestry operations. The Silviculture BMPs were carefully developed by a Technical Advisory Committee of diverse composition, and represent a set of guiding principals balanced to achieve protection of environmental values and yet allow the economic utilization of forestlands. Overall BMP compliance averages approximately 94% since 1981. A peer reviewed and published study of the Silviculture BMPs conducted by DEP and the Florida Division of Forestry in 2004 shows that forestry is a conserving land use. The study sampled streams associated with five forestry sites, both before and after the forests were harvested, following the application of BMPs (including those for fertilizer applications) . The study concluded nutrients were relatively low at all sites, before and after the forestry operations. Regardless of this type of success story, we now face the prospect of having to develop new, aggressive and expensive practices to attempt to reach water quality standards set to inappropriate and conceivably impossible to achieve requirements. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.024

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County 4) Potential Additional Liability Resulting from Adoption of Proposed EPA Criteria The increase in liability to the County resulting from the potential adoption of the proposed NNC is significant with respect to the number of WBIDs that would be deemed impaired using the EPA criteria. As Figure 3.1 shows, 11 additional WBIDs would be considered impaired under EPA criteria. Considering the additional area that is now vacant land that would be contained in impaired WBIDs, a review of County development standards may be required to address the load reductions needed to meet the allocation. Adoption of the proposed EPA NNC would require increased commitment of technical, administrative, and financial resources. Once WBID impairment is confirmed a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) must be developed for each WBID pursuant to the TMDL process. The BMAP provides specific actions and responsibilities for meeting load reductions. Increasing the number of impaired WBIDs that require BMAPs would add to any local government's burden. Under the EPA criteria, local governments must implement the BMAP to meet significant load reductions to downstream protective concentrations, as well as in-stream standards. Load reductions from all sources would be subject to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4420Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final examination, including nonpoint source (stormwater runoff), wastewater discharges including reuse water used for irrigation, and septic tanks. Additionally, County liability for load reductions in non-urban lands not within NPDES stormwater permit areas would be especially difficult, given the lack of enforcement mechanisms available for rural and agricultural activities. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.026

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County The addition of impaired WBIDs would increase the required level of coordination with other stakeholders, such as Manatee County, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the Florida Department of Transportation. Additionally, adoption of the EPA NNC may require changes to local utilities operations. Currently, potable water providers frequently flush distribution lines to surface water bodies. This may be a violation of NCC standards if the discharges are to State Waters, so utilities would likely have to discharge pipe water to the sanitary sewer of a stormwater treatment area, which would be more complicated and expensive than under current operations procedures. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.027

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County Additionally, adoption of the EPA NNC may require changes to local utilities operations . Currently, potable water providers frequently flush distribution lines to surface water bodies. This may be a violation of NCC standards if the discharges are to State Waters, so utilities would likely have to discharge pipe water to the sanitary sewer or a stormwater treatment area, which would be more complicated and expensive than under current operations procedures. 

# Comment ID 1900.001.003

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey AEA takes exception with the proposed standards in Florida to the extent they establish precedent which is inconsistent with that which has been successfully employed in New Jersey. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.045

Author Name: Kovach C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4421Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: CF Industries 5. Complicating the TMDL Process This failed logic becomes even more convoluted when EPA attempts to justify its determination by stating that numeric criteria will expedite permitting decisions and the development of TMDLs. As proposed, and including the downstream protective values, over 95% of Florida waters would exceed EPA's criteria and be declared impaired. The Florida DEP would then be forced to develop TMDLs for nearly all of its surface waters. Consequently, any argument by EPA that its development of numeric nutrient criteria will expedite the TMDL process is nonsense. TMDLs will have to be performed for virtually all waters based on very suspect determinations of impairment. The TMDL process is likely to result in a determination that EPA's regional or statewide criteria are: inaccurate such that the TMDL process morphs into the SSAC process. In the end, EPA will not have expedited anything and in lieu thereof will have simply queued up more: waters for TMDLs based upon specious 303(d) listings.
6. Exacerbating the Tedious NPDES Permitting Process In the January 14, 2009, letter, EPA claims that "[n]umeric nutrient criteria in Florida would enhance the effectiveness of NPDES permits in protecting designated uses and enable Florida permit writers to derive effluent limitations without the resource intensive: and burdensome process of conducting site-specific analyses to determine the appropriate: numeric target value." (Emphasis added). The latter portion of the quoted material is. emphasized because it underscores the primary and fatal flaw to EPA's attempt to develop statewide or regional numeric nutrient criteria. Site specific analyses are: necessary "to determine the appropriate numeric target value." As noted in the January 14, 2009 letter, describing Florida's implementation of its narrative criterion through NPDES permits: In Florida's case, the State then determines what levels of nutrients would "cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna" and translates those levels into numeric "targets" for the receiving water and any other affected. waters. If Florida finds that there is reasonable potential, the State calculates permit limits stringent enough to ensure that such a discharge will not cause 01' contribute to an exceedance of the nutrient target levels (and therefore cause an "imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna" for the water body and other affected water bodies. EPA's description is Florida's interpretation of its narrative nutrient criterion to establish numeric endpoints. In doing so, DEP is performing a much more detailed and site specific analysis than any analyses underlying EPA's proposed regional criteria. Again, EPA protests the time consuming nature of Florida's detailed approach to converting its narrative criterion to numeric effluent limitations, yet EPA claims to have performed the equivalent in just weeks by proposing regional criteria. EPA's proposed rule will complicate not simplify an already tedious NPDES permitting process. Unless the Florida DEP adopts EPA's proposed criteria by State rule, the State cannot directly implement the criteria in State-issued NPDES permits. If DEP does not include effluent limitations designed to meet EPA's numeric criteria, EPA may ultimately issue the permit including discharge limitations intended to meet EPA's criteria. The end result will be an

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4422Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final inefficient dual permitting system. If the Florida DEP adopts EPA's criteria and begins imposing effluent limitations in NPDES permits to meet the ambient target concentrations, permittees will be forced to initiate the SSAC process to demonstrate that EPA's regional criterion is inappropriate. In sum, EPA's finalization of a scientifically invalid regional nutrient criteria will not expedite the TMDL program or NPDES permitting process but will indeed force more of the waterbody-by-waterbody type analyses that EPA's proposed rule is purportedly designed to eliminate. 

# Comment ID 2372-1.001.009

Author Name: Farber D. Organization: Patton Boggs LLP on behalf of James Hardie Building Products, Inc. III. Hardie Cannot Meaningfully Participate in the Rulemaking Process Because EPA Has Failed to Inform, Educate and Advise Plant City Officials on How to Comply with the Proposed Rule. As discussed above, this Proposed Rule will directly affect operations at the Plant City municipal water treatment facility, and will indirectly affect Hardie as a client of the Plant City POTW. Although EPA has received public comments on its Proposed Rule, it has failed to provide advice to Plant City officials on compliance with the requirements in the Proposed Rule. As a result of EPA's lack of communication, Plant City officials have been unable to provide Hardie with specifics about how the Proposed Rule will affect industries that discharge wastewater to the Plant City POTW. The uncertainty surrounding the full impact of this Proposed Rule has prevented Hardie from meaningfully participating in the rulemaking process. 

# Comment ID 2375.001.006

Author Name: English G. Organization: South Indian River Water Control District Finally, the proposed rule does not set forth implementation protocols or criteria. For example, there is no discussion on monitoring requirements, how compliance will be determined, or sufficiency of data. Implementation criteria are essential for regulatory compliance and the proposed rule simply leaves the regulatory public guessing. 

# Comment ID 2376.001.006

Author Name: Baird L. Organization: Barron Water Control District Finally, the proposed rule does not set forth implementation protocols or criteria. For example, there is no discussion on monitoring requirements, how compliance will be determined, or sufficiency of data. Implementation criteria are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4423Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final essential for regulatory compliance and the proposed rule simply leaves the regulatory public guessing. 

# Comment ID 2388.001.004

Author Name: Feraldi N. Organization: "The world faces a massive crisis. About one out of six of our fellow human beings on Earth does not have daily, immediate access to the most basic of necessities: safe drinking water. Think about this for a moment" (Blue Planet, 2010). Come on Florida, it was twenty-three years ago when President Carter signed the Clean Water Act of 1977. Today, we are faced with mitigation and "restoration" because agriculture and industry have been held to only "narrative" standards with lots of "wiggle" room. It is time to crunch the numbers to protect our health and our economy. Questions for EPA: How will EPA regulations fit with state regulations and county comprehensive plans? Do they address the issues of development? What is the review process? Who will manage the review process? How will it be monitored? Who will manage the restoration process for damage already done? What can we do? "Limit urban development, especially along shorelines. Preserve wetland buffers or green space and submerged aquatic vegetation associated with coastlines, rivers, and streams. Limit the use of fertilizers on residential and commercial lawns and landscaping. Manage storm water runoff. Improve sewage treatment plants. Support efforts to improve our knowledge " (Hauxwell, etal, University of Florida, 2009). What about offshore drilling 30 miles from the Dry Tortugas? Why clean up the water only to have the gulf contaminated by oil? Where are those standards? Will they be included for the 2011 standards? Even 125 miles cannot protect the Gulf Stream and the Florida Keys from oil in the reef. 

# Comment ID 2395.001.007

Author Name: Hauck A. Organization: Council of Civic Associations Lastly, Jim Giatinna, Director of Region 4's Water protection Division response to Silva's suggestions was that [it was] . . . "good news". If the same managers who manipulated and suppressed scientific evaluations are still in charge why should the public expect anything different? We believe that even if nutrient criteria are established there will be no compliance, no enforcement. Without enforcement nutrient criteria is a toothless tiger. Who is going to do the enforcing? The State? The EPA? When the South Florida senior scientist spoke up on many of these same issues he was marginalized and what we see today is a South Florida office that is all but abandoned. 

# Comment ID 2412-4.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4424Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 We greatly appreciate your continuing commitment to work with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in developing the Total Maximum Daily Loads as part of the initiative to reduce nutrients going to the estuarine portion of the Caloosahatchee River. We have reviewed the comments in your letter of July 9th (and identical e-mail) and appreciate your recommendations for improving the overall quality of the draft TMDL report. As we noted in the draft TMDL report and in our response letter of June 16th, even after all the detailed modeling work and data analyses we shared with you and the stakeholder group, we were still unable to make a meaningful distinction between the naturally occurring dissolved oxygen levels in the Caloosahatchee Estuary from those that may result from anthropogenic source contributions. We agree that it is important to continue to pursue this line of inquiry, and as has been noted, there are on-going initiatives to gather data (e.g., flow data by the USGS and SOD data from the SFWMD) that will allow us to refine the model inputs over time. In addition, although this TMDL report was not explicitly written to address dissolved oxygen, logically DO can only improve with the reductions that are called for in total nitrogen concentrations (as well as the reductions required of total phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee TMDL). Regarding your continuing concern over the way we've addressed the loading from wetlands, I apologize if we failed to clarify the issue sufficiently. The model selection process was thorough and exhaustive. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended by the Department to create enhancements to widely-used hydrodynamic and water quality models that then allowed us to generate the outputs needed to relate nitrogen levels to algal growth to sunlight penetration, thus allowing us to predict the reductions needed to achieve restoration and protection of the seagrasses in San Carlos Bay. It is our stated intention to continue to work to improve our overall understanding of the Caloosahatchee River system when we pursue the completion of the Group 3 TMDLs scheduled for next year. As part of the Basin Management Action Plan process, it will be a priority to gather new data on existing and planned Best Management Practices throughout the watershed. As this information becomes available, we can add it into the model to further enhance its' predictive capabilities. The FDEP and its' partners look forward to your continuing participation in the upcoming Caloosahatchee nutrient TMDL implementation process. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0491-1.001.008, 1091.001.005, 1530.001.029, 1556-1.001.006, 1715-3.001.074, 1782-1.001.039 Response: EPA appreciates commenters’ concerns regarding the anticipated difficulty in complying with the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule. section 303(c)(2)(A) and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131 require, among other provisions, that state water quality standards include the designated use or uses to be made of the waters and the criteria that protect those uses. The preamble to the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4425Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final defensible numeric nutrient criteria. Water quality criteria are set to protect the designated uses of waters; they are not set at levels based on whether they are affordable for dischargers to meet. Nonetheless, the water quality standards program is equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where current technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets, and in some cases the criteria upon which the targets are based are considered overly protective or unattainable. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they would most likely work with the State to examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In situations where nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives would apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost-effective best management practices according to Florida procedures. Water quality standards, and EPA’s rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the rule, 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. 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. In response to comments regarding the potential cost to Florida, including comments regarding the use of reverse osmosis, please refer to the preamble to the final rule section VI. Economic Analysis and EPA's “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” located in the docket associated with this rulemaking (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) for cost estimates associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and the assumptions upon which those estimates are based, including assumptions and expectations regarding reverse osmosis. EPA disagrees with the premise that membrane treatment technologies will be required for all wastewater treatment plants and industrial dischargers (the term "membrane treatment technologies" is used primarily to refer to reverse osmosis (RO)).

Comment IDs: 0550.001.001, 0590.001.007, 0598.001.002, 0618.001.002, 0625.001.005, 0629.001.004, 0633.001.003, 0637.001.004, 0637.001.005, 0662.001.004, 0664.001.004, 0664.001.005, 0664.001.006, 0675.001.008, 0676.001.005, 0685.001.002, 0701.001.002, 0713.001.007, 0716.001.007, 0721.001.004, 0723.001.002, 0736.001.005, 0738.001.004, 0743.01.006, 0774.001.003, 0778.001.005, 0793.001.002, 0796.001.006, 0811.001.004, 0815.001.003, 0815.001.004, 0832.001.003, 0840.001.003, 0881.001.001, 0886.001.001, 0887.001.001, 0896-2.001.008, 0896-2.001.016, 0896-2.001.017, 0896­ 2.001.018, 0896.001.001, 0930.001.005, 0933.001.002, 0933.001.005, 0933.001.006, 0935.001.006, 0942.001.007, 0945.001.004, 0956.001.008, 0958.001.002, 0981-1.001.003, 1009.001.001, 1012.001.002, 1014.001.003, 1015.001.002, 1020.001.002, 1025.001.004, 1027.001.003, 1041.001.006, 1045.001.007, 1051.001.005, 1067.001.006, 1077.001.003, 1098-1.001.004, 1098­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4426Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

1.001.009, 1098-1.001.010, 1102.001.002, 1179.001.001, 1227.001.002, 1229.001.005, 1260-1.001.003, 1261-1.001.001, 1264.001.006, 1264.001.007, 1288-1.001.015, 1291-1.001.003, 1296-1.001.011, 1299-1.001.005, 1300-1.001.004, 1309.001.004, 1323.001.005, 1327.001.003, 1333.001.008, 1338-1.001.011, 1339.001.005, 1344.001.008, 1345.001.002, 1346-1.001.014, 1346­ 1.001.015, 1346-1.001.016, 1348-1.001.012, 1348-1.001.017, 1352-1.001.003, 1352-1.001.006, 1352-1.001.105, 1361-1.001.001, 1364-1.001.011, 1364-1.001.018, 1364-1.001.020, 1368-1.001.006, 1368-1.001.010, 1370-1.001.015, 1370-1.001.026, 1370­ 1.001.051, 1370-1.001.073, 1416-1.001.017, 1417-1.001.002, 1418-1.001.004, 1418-1.001.006, 1418-1.001.008, 1418-1.001.012, 1418-1.001.013, 1431-1.001.005, 1431-1.001.039, 1431-1.001.040, 1431-1.001.041, 1432-1.001.007, 1445-1.001.011, 1473­ 1.001.034, 1474-1.001.043, 1476-2.001.014, 1476-2.001.017, 1480-1.001.012, 1480-1.001.013, 1482-1.001.005, 1482-1.001.015, 1530.001.012, 1530.001.014, 1530.001.020, 1530.001.029, 1530.001.033, 1532-1.001.014, 1556-1.001.006, 1564-1.001.006, 1615­ 1.001.007, 1638-1.001.004, 1640.001.007, 1642-1.001.007, 1642-1.001.008, 1647-1.001.007, 1647-1.001.008, 1647-1.001.009, 1671-1.001.011, 1725-1.001.002, 1729.001.022, 1734-1.001.003, 1734-1.001.004, 1734-1.001.005, 1748-1.001.004, 1748­ 1.001.006, 1761-3.001.003, 1763-1.001.004, 1764-1.001.011, 1768-1.001.022, 1774-1.001.021, 1774-1.001.024, 1774.001.004, 1778-1.001.006, 1780-1.001.002, 1780-1.001.003, 1782-1.001.028, 1782-1.001.031, 1782-1.001.049, 1782-1.001.055, 1785­ 1.001.005, 1785-1.001.009, 1785-1.001.015, 1785-1.001.019, 1785-1.001.023, 1786-1.001.009, 1786-1.001.028, 1786-1.001.068, 1787-1.001.010, 1787-1.001.011, 1787-1.001.016, 1794-1.001.007, 1797-1.001.008, 1799-1.001.007, 1800-1.001.010, 1801­ 1.001.003, 1801-1.001.004, 1801-1.001.023, 1801-1.001.028, 1805-3.001.003, 1807-1.001.005, 1811-1.001.005, 1813-1.001.010, 1836.001.050, 1836.001.051, 1872.001.003, 1877.001.005, 1885.001.024, 1885.001.027, 2233-1.001.045, 2372-1.001.009, 2375.001.006, 2376.001.006, 2388.001.004, 2395.001.007, 2412-4.001.001 Response: EPA refers commenters to the preamble associated with this final rule, in particular section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final, for further discussion regarding implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and potential effects on existing programs. In terms of understanding how numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule will affect restoration and implementation activities, plans, and programs already underway (such as the TMDL process, agricultural BMPs/BMAPs, fertilizer reductions, or the NPDES permitting process), these are cyclical processes that are monitored, reassessed and revisited on a regular basis to reflect new information, analysis, data or as in this case when new or revised water quality criteria are put in place to translate and provide numeric goals to support implementation and attainment of existing State designated water quality uses. Regular review and reevaluation of assessment, listing, TMDL, BMAP, and NPDES permit actions is a routine and ongoing part of any water quality program implementation process both to determine where progress has been made, to protect high quality waters, and to identify and prioritize impaired waters for further evaluation and appropriate action. Adjustments are then made consistent with meeting applicable WQS. Please refer to the preamble associated with this final rule, in particular section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final and section V.C Site-specific Alternative Criteria. EPA also clarifies that the Agency is not revising Florida’s use of WBIDs for basin assessments or listing purposes. EPA’s rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, effective for purposes of the Clean Water Act, that are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated by FDEP as Class I and Class III waters. The preamble to the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. Water quality criteria are derived to be scientifically defensible and protective of the applicable designated uses of waters consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4427Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Nonetheless, the water quality standards program is equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where current technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets, and in some cases the criteria upon which the targets are based are considered overly protective or unattainable. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they would most likely work with the State to examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In situations where nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives would apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost-effective best management practices according to Florida procedures. Water quality standards, and EPA’s rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms, which describes the tools the State has at its disposal to exercise 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 to the final rule section VI. Economic Analysis and EPA's “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” located in the docket associated with this rulemaking (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) for cost estimates associated with implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and the assumptions upon which those estimates are based. 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. 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 nutrient pollution. 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. EPA agrees that enforcement and compliance are an important element of any state water quality program, but notes that the criteria finalized in this rule, and water quality standards generally, are not independently enforceable. In other words, until these criteria are reflected through NPDES permit limits or other legally binding norms, they are not by themselves independently enforceable. Nevertheless, EPA agrees that enforcement and compliance are essential to the implementation of these criteria once they are reflected in NPDES permit limits or other legally binding norms. Among other potential actions to ensure that the rule is properly implemented, EPA has the authority to object to permits issued by FDEP or add impairments to FDEP’s list submitted under section 303(d) of the CWA.

Comment IDs: 1359-1.001.001, 1361-1.001.001, 1362-1.001.001, 1786-1.001.005, 1900.001.003 Response: EPA reminds commenters that states and EPA have a mutual obligation under the Clean Water Act to set appropriate

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4428Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final water quality standards. This final rulemaking represents one way to address this obligation. In January, 2009, following a comprehensive assessment of Florida’s waters, its nitrogen/phosphorus pollution, and Florida’s programs for protecting and restoring its waters with respect to nutrients, EPA made a formal determination that numeric nutrient criteria were needed for the State of Florida. Excess loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus, commonly referred to as nutrient pollution, are one of the most prevalent causes of water quality impairment in the United States. As a consequence, EPA has made protecting and restoring the nation’s waters from nutrient pollution a top priority. EPA's recent action in Florida, however, is specific to the circumstances in Florida and not necessarily an indicator of the Agency's future nutrient pollution strategy. EPA's national goal remains that each state adopt numeric nutrient water quality standards for all of their waters. States have flexibility to set their priorities for the order in which they adopt numeric nutrient water quality standards. EPA will continue to encourage and work with states to adopt numeric water quality standards for all waters within the state. Please refer to the preamble of this final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, which discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. The methods EPA used in its proposal went through an independent, external scientific peer review in July 2009. The results of this independent, peer review were made available through EPA’s docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time and submit its proposed standards to EPA for review.

Comment ID: 1368-1.001.006 Response: EPA’s clarifies that each applicable criterion (e.g., TN, TP, and chlorophyll a) would apply to the water, and a TMDL would need to target protection of the chlorophyll a criterion in a situation where TN and TP criteria were met, but a chlorophyll a criterion was exceeded. In the final rule, EPA has a specific allowance for interaction of the TN and TP criteria with the chlorophyll a criterion in lakes, but does not address the scenario described in the comment (which was actually posed in the context of a canal, but is nonetheless relevant to EPA’s rule because the situation could arise for a lake). This may lead to reductions of TN or TP below levels specified by the numeric criterion. This scenario is envisioned in Florida’s water quality standards, which include a narrative statement: “the discharge of nutrients shall continue to be limited as needed to prevent violations of other standards contained in this chapter.” F.A.C. 62-3-2.530 (47a). A similar occurrence for TN and TP could result in conjunction with the dissolved oxygen criterion in Florida’s water quality standards.

Comment IDs: 0633.001.003, 1474-1.001.038Response: EPA clarifies to commenters that, as described in EPA's January 14, 2009 determination, Florida’s reliance on a case-bycase translation of its narrative nutrient criterion into numeric values was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses. The existence of numeric nutrient criteria that are applicable to Florida inland surface waters designated as Class I and Class III waters facilitates Florida’s efforts to establish TMDLs and appropriate WQBELs in NPDES permits as necessary to adequately protect applicable designated uses. Numeric nutrient criteria will also facilitate Florida’s efforts to identify nutrient-impaired

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4429Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final waters. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment IDs: 0656.001.001, 0663.001.002, 0664.001.006, 0676.001.005, 0795.001.005, 1091.001.006, 1244.001.005, 1264.001.007, 1292-1.001.083, 1304-1.001.064, 1323.001.006, 1338-1.001.010, 1344.001.007, 1348-1.001.012, 1354-1.001.005, 1363-1.001.002, 1370-1.001.047, 1416-1.001.019, 1416-1.001.026, 1418-1.001.002, 1418-1.001.006, 1418-1.001.007, 1462­ 1.001.010, 1476-2.001.015, 1482-1.001.016, 1530.001.005, 1530.001.010, 1530.001.016, 1530.001.020, 1530.001.029, 1530.001.050, 1530.001.052, 1734-1.001.001, 1782-1.001.028, 1801-1.001.008, 1834-4.001.004, 1834-4.001.018 Response: EPA appreciates the comment regarding the request to use existing TMDL targets as SSAC without submitting the targets to EPA for approval under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Commenters have requested that nutrient targets developed through the TMDL process (existing FDEP nutrient TMDLs that have been approved by EPA) automatically serve as site-specific alternative numeric nutrient criteria. EPA agrees that TMDL targets have the potential to serve has SSAC. However, in light of the substantial information analyzed in conjunction with these rulemaking, and to ensure that a proper process of notice and comment is undertaken, EPA believes that the federal SSAC procedure in the final rule is the appropriate mechanism and means of incorporating TMDL targets into the federal WQS for Florida waters. In terms of understanding how EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria will affect restorations plans and implementation programs already underway (including BMAPs), some existing TMDLs translate the same portion of Florida’s narrative criterion, rule 62­ 302.530(47)(b) F.A.C., as EPA has translated to derive its numeric criteria, e.g., “no imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna,” The permitting authority must ensure that any permit issuance or re-issuance include WQBELs that are as stringent as necessary to meet the promulgated numeric criteria, pursuant to CWA section 301(b)(1)(C) and 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1). These existing TMDLs will likely include information that is relevant and helpful in evaluating necessary discharge limitations, such as consideration of other sources of the pollutant and hydrodynamics of the waterbody. EPA recommends that existing TMDLs that are based on translation of 62-302.530(47(b)) F.A.C., ("no imbalance in natural population of aquatic flora and fauna") undergo a two-part evaluation. The first step is to assess whether the waterbody is still, in fact, water quality-limited (impaired) using the new numeric WQC. If the waterbody is still water quality-limited, then a second evaluation should be conducted to determine whether the existing TMDL based on the narrative is sufficient to meet the new numeric criterion, and in turn, whether or not it may be appropriate to revise the TMDL. The State may also wish to pursue submitting the TMDL water quality target derived by translating the narrative for determination as a federal SSAC. Other existing TMDLs translate another part of Florida’s narrative nutrient criterion, rule 62-302.530(47)(a) F.A.C. This provision provides that nitrogen/phosphorus pollution shall be limited so as to prevent violation of another Florida WQS. Where a TMDL water quality target was developed as a translation of this part of Florida's narrative nutrient criterion (for example, that amount of nitrogen/phosphorus that would not cause excursions of Florida's dissolved oxygen WQS), the appropriate WQBEL is the more stringent result of applying the TMDL WLA or the promulgated numeric criteria. Please refer to the preamble associated with this final rule, in particular section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final and section V.C Site-specific Alternative Criteria. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4430Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 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. The preamble to the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. Water quality criteria are derived to protect the designated uses of waters.

Comment IDs: 0739.001.006, 1722-1.001.018, 1724-1.001.006, 1885.001.024, 1885.001.026 Response: EPA reminds commenters that the goal of numeric nutrient criteria is to provide more precise, pre-determined targets that facilitate more effective implementation of nutrient control programs. By having numeric nutrient criteria in place, entities will be able to better assess whether or not a waterbody is meeting its applicable designated use and if it is not, the identification of impaired waterbodies will facilitate the ability of the State to address nutrient pollution. Establishing numeric nutrient criteria provides greater certainty as to the level of water quality necessary to protect the State’s designated uses, and therefore, this may result in an increase in the number of waterbodies identified as impaired and, consequently, require TMDLs. EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes there will be complex issues involved in implementation of numeric nutrient criteria and looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future.

Comment IDs: 0950.001.005, 0951.001.007, 1479-1.001.007, 1811-1.001.005 Response: EPA notes that on June 7, 2010, EPA and Plaintiffs filed a joint notice with the Court extending the deadlines for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's estuaries and coastal waters, flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries and coastal waters. The new deadlines are November 14, 2011 for proposal and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these three categories. This will allow EPA time to hold a public peer review by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board of the scientific methodologies for coastal and estuarine criteria, flowing waters in south Florida, and downstream protection values for estuaries and coastal waters. Please refer to the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V.E Proposed Restoration Water Quality Standard, for clarification on EPA’s decision not to finalize EPA’s proposed restoration water quality standard.

Comment IDs: 1011.001.016, 1788-1.001.006

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4431Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Response: EPA appreciates requests regarding inclusion of a provision in the final rule for “Acts of God” such as hurricanes and droughts. These types of provisions typically occur, when appropriate, in implementation programs such as assessment and permitting and could also be addressed in a state-issued variance. They can lead to actions such as exercising enforcement discretion where warranted. Water quality standards should reflect desired conditions over the long-term, inclusive of effects of occurrences that are unusual. If an unusual event fundamentally changes long-term expectations, then an appropriate response may be a change to the designated use. EPA has decided not to add this provision given that the Agency is not promulgating a federal variance procedure (where “Acts of God” circumstances could be addressed). FDEP is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement Clean Water Act (CWA) programs delegated and with oversight by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time to revise water quality standards provisions applicable to nutrients and submit to EPA for review under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.

Comment ID: 1029.001.004 Response: EPA acknowledges the comments supportive of this final rule promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters that are scientifically defensible and protective of applicable designated uses consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131. EPA believes it has done so with this rule. This final rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, to be effective for purposes of the Clean Water Act, that are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated as Class I and Class III waters. As a result, promulgation of this rule serves to protect aquatic ecosystems, recreation in and on the water, and drinking water supplies from water quality degradation due to the negative impacts of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Numeric nutrient criteria will create clear water quality goals and easily measurable quantitative baselines to support stronger collaboration and more effective partnerships with both point and nonpoint source dischargers of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Please refer to the preamble to the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, which discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.

Comment ID: 1264.001.004 Response: EPA clarifies that under the Clean Water Act (CWA), FDEP is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement CWA programs delegated and with oversight by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4432Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Comment ID: 1331-1.001.014 Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency is promulgating one-size-fits-all numeric nutrient criteria and that the Agency’s position regarding compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act is questionable. Please refer to the preamble to the final rule, which discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA also reminds the commenter that the methods EPA used in its proposal went through an independent, external scientific peer review in July 2009. The results of this independent, peer review were made available through EPA’s docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). As discussed in section VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews, EPA’s promulgation of water quality standards establishes standards that the State will implement through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process. The State has discretion in developing discharge limits, as needed, to meet the standards.

Comment IDs: 1350-1.001.010, 1359-1.001.014, 1474-1.001.018 Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency should promulgate a mixing zone provision in this action. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary agency responsible for determining how to implement Clean Water Act (CWA) programs delegated and with oversight by EPA. As such, EPA defers to FDEP in administering applicable CWA programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. Where the receiving water is attaining the criteria, FDEP allows for mixing zones for numeric nutrient criteria which will not significantly impair any of the designated uses of the receiving body of water. EPA agrees with commenters’ understanding that mixing zones are not permitted in waters already deemed impaired. EPA continues to believe that mixing zones are only appropriate where the mixing time is short enough and the zone is small enough such that the designated uses of the waterbody as a whole continue to be met, and that EPA’s conception of mixing zones is in association with a discharger. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms, which describes the tools the State has at its disposal to exercise flexibility such that the rule is not a one-size-fits-all rule.

Comment IDs: 1359-1.001.011, 1474-1.001.078 Response: Regarding the request for a delayed effective date pertaining to the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters finalized in this rule, please refer to the preamble to the final rule, section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final.

Comment IDs: 1373.001.001, 1874.001.002

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4433Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Response: EPA denies the request that federal projects under the Army Corps of Engineers and dredging activities be exempted from meeting EPA’s final numeric nutrient criteria. The numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule establish levels of nutrients that may be present in Florida's surface waters while still protecting applicable designated uses. Water quality criteria themselves do not address or exempt specific dischargers or types of dischargers. With regard to flexibility in the WQS program, the water quality standards program is equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where current technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets, and in some cases the criteria upon which the targets are based are considered overly protective or unattainable. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they would most likely work with the State to examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In situations where nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives would apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost-effective best management practices according to Florida procedures. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory 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.

Comment ID: 1445-1.001.011, 1476-2.001.015, 1530.001.020, 1530.001.029 Response: EPA notes that the Agency’s proposed restoration water quality standard will not be finalized in this rulemaking. Please refer to the preamble associated with this final rule, in particular section V.E Proposed Restoration Water Quality Standard, for clarification on EPA’s the decision not to finalize EPA’s proposed restoration water quality standard in this rulemaking.

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.015 Response: EPA disagrees that the availability of regulatory relief mechanisms implies that EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria fail to meet the requirements of the Clean Water. This final rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, to 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. The preamble to the final rule, in particular section III. Numeric Criteria for Streams, Lakes, and Springs in the State of Florida, discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA also reminds the commenter that the methods EPA used in its proposal went through an independent, external scientific peer review in July 2009. The results of this independent peer review were made available through EPA’s docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). Nonetheless, the water quality standards program is equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where affordable technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4434Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they would most likely examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In the case that nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives would apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost-effective best management practices according to Florida State procedures. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms, which describes the tools the State has at its disposal to exercise flexibility such that the rule is not a one-size-fits-all rule. 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. 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 nutrient pollution. 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: 1482-1.001.012 Response: EPA disagrees that the numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule will be undermined if they rely on Florida’s Impaired Water Rule (IWR). The commenter points out that some aspects of the current IWR with respect to nutrients are not fully consistent with the criteria EPA was seeking to promulgate. EPA’s position is that the current IWR procedures reflect the State’s narrative nutrient water quality criterion, which remains in place. However, the federal water quality standards being promulgated by EPA will also be applicable and will need to be accounted for in assessment and impairment listing. Future iterations of the IWR will need to be consistent with the level of protection provided by this rule.

Comment ID: 1550.001.005, 1671-1.001.010, 1729.001.022, 1774-1.001.041, 1782-1.001.031 Response: EPA disagrees with commenter’s assertion that EPA’s rule is in conflict with Florida law. The numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters will be effective for Clean Water Act (CWA) purposes and will apply in addition to any other existing CWA-effective criteria for Class I and Class III waters already adopted by the State and submitted to EPA (and for those adopted after May 30, 2000 and approved by EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria). FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time to establish state numeric nutrient criteria and to submit such criteria to EPA for review and approval under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. If FDEP does not adopt state numeric nutrient criteria, the Department retains authority to implement federally promulgated criteria through the State's narrative or "free froms" criteria. According to a 2005 letter from FDEP's General Counsel, these minimum water quality criteria for surface waters, set out at rule

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4435Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 62-302.500, F.A.C., provide a vehicle for the Department to address EPA-promulgated criteria in CWA programs such as the NPDES program. Where EPA has promulgated a numeric criterion for a specific parameter, and Florida has not done so, FDEP has the authority to limit the discharge of the parameter pursuant to section 62-302.500, F.A.C.

Comment ID: 1714-1.001.004 Response: EPA appreciates the comments, however, these comments are outside the scope of EPA’s rule to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. As indicated in the preamble of this rule and consistent with the terms of EPA’s consent decree, EPA’s January 14, 2009 determination did not apply to wetlands, and as a result, Florida’s wetlands will not be addressed in this rulemaking or EPA’s forthcoming rulemaking involving estuarine and coastal waters.

Comment ID: 1781-1.001.005 Response: EPA is removing a parenthetical example of an appropriate design flow condition for purposes of permit limit derivation and wasteload and load allocation. EPA received comment that this particular example (annual average flow) may not be appropriate given the need to account for expression of duration and frequency. EPA concluded that while it is important to direct the State to use an appropriate design flow condition that is consistent with duration and frequency components of criteria, it is not necessary to provide a specific example. EPA defers identification of appropriate design flow conditions to implementation of the rule. Please refer to the final preamble, section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final for additional discussion. 

# III.G.Q.1 - APPLICABILITY OF CRITERIA WHEN FINAL QUESTION 1 Comment ID 0880.001.001

Author Name: Farr W. Organization: Farm Credit of Southwest Florida We request EPA's implementation date for the Numeric Nutrient Standards be extended to allow for a scientific review of the data upon which standards were set. 

# Comment ID 0885.001.001

Author Name: Bateman H. Organization: Bright Hour Ranch Bright Hour Ranch requests EPA's implementation date for the Numeric Nutrient Standards be extended sufficiently to allow for a scientific review of the data upon which standards were set.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4436Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 0885.001.003

Author Name: Bateman H. Organization: Bright Hour Ranch Without an opportunity to study the scientific basis for determining "impaired waters", healthy waters may be arbitrarily grouped due to proximity, etc. For these and many other reasons, we request an extension of the implementation date to allow for a scientific review of the data. Thank you for allowing me to express our concerns. 

# Comment ID 0887.001.002

Author Name: Gough J. Organization: JR Gough Farms I am requesting an adequate extension of EPA's implementation date for the Numeric Nutrient Standards to allow for a scientific review of the data upon which standards were set. 

# Comment ID 0887.001.004

Author Name: Gough J. Organization: JR Gough Farms The agricultural industry needs an opportunity to review EPA's data. For this and many other reasons, we request an extension of the implementation date. Thank you for allowing me to express our concerns . 

# Comment ID 0888.001.001

Author Name: McKenna M. Organization: McKenna Brothers Our family operation, McKenna Brothers, requests an appropriate extension of EPA's implementation date of the Numeric Nutrient Standards to allow for a scientific review of the data upon which standards were set. 

# Comment ID 0888.001.003

Author Name: McKenna M.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4437Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: McKenna Brothers For these and many other reasons, we request an extension of the implementation date to allow for a scientific review of the data . Thank you for allowing our family to express concerns . 

# Comment ID 0889.001.001

Author Name: Smoak J. Organization: Smoak Groves Inc. The Smoak family is requesting an extension of EPA's implementation date for the Numeric Nutrient Standards to allow for a scientific review of the data upon which standards were set . 

# Comment ID 0889.001.003

Author Name: Smoak J. Organization: Smoak Groves Inc. Florida's industries need an opportunity to review EPA's data . For this and many other reasons, we request an extension of the implementation date . Thank you for allowing me to express family's my concern . 

# Comment ID 1230.001.010

Author Name: Craw V. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Finally, we request that E.P.A. include in the adopted rule a delayed implementation schedule that provides a minimum 12-month period to promulgate conforming state rules. This will allow the five water management districts and D.E.P. to collaborate on this to ensure interagency consistency with rules. Once again, thank you very much for your time. 

# Comment ID 1322.001.009

Author Name: Williams G. Organization: Florida Rural Water Association Even if water and wastewater systems can afford to implement the technologies needed to approach meeting the proposed criteria, I also want to point out that it's going to be impossible to design, permit, finance and construct these technologies by the proposed date of October 15th, 2010, when this proposed rule will go into effect. So there's going to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4438Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

need to be some relief there. And I will stop there. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.005

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association III. Due to Florida's Legislation and Rules, Dischargers Generally Will Be Required to Meet EPA's Criteria at the Point of Discharge When Their Permits are Next Renewed or Modified, Even with EPA's Implementation Proposals AF&PA appreciates that EPA has tried to address stakeholder concerns with the proposed criteria by offering some flexibility in implementation. The Proposal includes a detailed discussion of mechanisms to provide implementation flexibility including site specific alternative criteria, use of mixing zones, changing designated uses, variances, compliance schedules, and a new concept called restoration standards [14]. However, while AF&PA appreciates EPA's efforts to provide this flexibility, it does not cure the scientific flaws of the proposed criteria, and requirements in Florida legislation and regulations very well may prevent their use, as discussed below. Even if Florida requirements do not preclude their use, the implementation mechanisms may not be available in a timely manner. EPA proposed that the federal criteria become effective for Clean Water Act purposes in the State of Florida 60 days after final standards are promulgated. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4216. This means many permitting decisions will be based on inappropriate standards and will be made before the State has the opportunity to put alternative standards in place, if they are available. For example, site-specific alternative criteria may require long-term response studies, or restoration standards require a use attainability analysis.

[14] See Coalition Comments, section III for additional discussion of implementation issues. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.042

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Pinellas County requests that EPA adopt a delayed implementation schedule that provides a12-month adoption period to promulgate conforming state rules. The proposed rule provides that all criteria will be in effect 60 days after publication of the final rule. However, this effective date creates the potential that the criteria will go into effect before state agencies are able to adopt conforming state criteria by rule. As such, for an indeterminate period, there may be two separate and potentially conflicting sets of rule criteria in place, one state and one federal.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4439Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.077

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute As a threshold matter, many of the proffered implementation measures suffer from a timing problem. EPA proposed that the federal criteria would become effective for Clean Water Act purposes in the State of Florida 60 days after final standards are promulgated. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4216. This means many permitting decisions will be based on inappropriate standards and will be made before the State has had an opportunity to establish any alternative standards. Lakespecific modified TP and TN criteria must be based on three years of data; site-specific alternative criteria may require long-term response studies, restoration standards require a use attainability analysis. To allow these approaches to be implemented and to avoid the unwise use of resources to achieve inappropriate criteria, TFI suggests that EPA set an effective date or a compliance date for any federal criteria promulgated for Florida that is four years after promulgation or 60 days after the State establishes an alternative standard under one of the mechanisms provided, whichever is sooner. 

# Comment ID 1645-1.001.009

Author Name: Griswold R. Organization: Destin Water Users Section G. Applicability ofCriteria When Final "EPA 's proposed numeric nutrient criteria f or Florida's lakes and flowing waters will be effective for CWA purposes 60 days after publication of final criteria and will apply in addition to any other existing CWA-effec tive criteria fo r Class I and Class III waters already adopted by the State and submitted to EPA (and for those adopted after May 30, 2000, approved by EPA). The timing for when the rule would go into effect is extremely limited and does not recognize the time required to plan, finance, permit, construct and commission the improvements needed to comply with the rule. The magnitude of the construction required to comply with the proposed rule represents tens of millions of dollars in project funding needs for each utility. The only technology available to consistently achieve the proposed NNC limits is reverse osmosis. Similarly, the only cost effective means of reject disposal currently available is deep well injection. Securing the testing and regulatory approvals alone will take several years if not longer. Easily, this magnitude of a project could take five plus years or more as opposed to the 60 days provided for in the rule. All facilities subject to the new rule would immediately be out of compliance and faced with the difficult position of being subject to regulatory enforcement action while trying to focus resources on developing the needed infrastructure and treatment processes to comply. It is not known what fines might be imposed for non-compliance but that could be import ant part of the rule since then an economic decision could be made on paying a fine or building the required infrastructure.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4440Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 

# Comment ID 1670-1.001.003

Author Name: Legg L. Organization: Hernando County Utilities Department

• Even if smaller systems could afford to implement the technology needed to approach meeting the proposed criteria, it is impossible to design, permit, finance and construct the technology within the time line imposed by EPA's proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 1671-1.001.007

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 5) Implementation Of immediate concern is the effective date of the criteria. Assuming the promulgated criteria address the concerns expressed in our comments, only then can Florida take action to implement those criteria and such actions will take time. The proposed effective date of 60 days from promulgation is untenable. In order to properly implement the criteria after proposal, the Department will need to, at a minimum, adopt regulations for permitting and assessment (Impaired Waters Rule). 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.021

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida The proposed Rule needs additional provisions addressing implementation,[4] compliance [5] and feasibility. Specifically, the County, as a local government, needs an implementation schedule that considers current technology treatment feasibility, reliability and sustainability. [4.] Under the proposed rule the criteria would take effect 60 days after publication of the final rule. Currently, there are no provisions within the rule explaining how the rule will implemented or the allowance of implementation schedules. It is unclear on how quickly NPDES permits will be required to meet the proposed criteria. [5] EPA is proposing compliance based on an annual geometric mean based on rolling three-year periods of time and long-term average. The proposed rule should provide a definition of "long term". Further, once the rule is promulgated, it is unclear how compliance will be based until three years of data has been collected. 

# Comment ID 1834-1.001.010

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4441Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services There are also significant unaddressed implementation issues associated with the EPA proposal. These include the failure to consider the impact on Florida as a result of inflows from other states, as well as the impact on those states whose waters flow into Florida; the failure to accept the use of appropriately developed TMDLs as site specific criteria; and, based on Florida's historical expericnce with the process, the cost, time required and lack of predictability for affected persons being able to use Site Specific Alternative Criteria. Given these uncertainties and the projected severe economic impact of this proposal on Florida citizens and businesses, should EPA decide to proceed with adoption of a final regulation for Florida, implementation should be deferred for a minimum of 24 months. This would allow the FDEP sufficient time to develop a phased implementation process that will provide appropriate protection of designated uses of waterbodies with predictability and minimum economic disruption for affected persons. Finally, I would note that Florida has some of the best and most comprehensive water quality protection programs in the nation. programs that I believe the state is prepared to modify to meet the challenges of implementing appropriate numeric nutrient criteria. In the interim, EPA should withdraw the current proposal and continue working with the FDEP to develop an independently peer reviewed, scientifically credible, cost-effective and implementable numeric nutrient criteria proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Any questions staff may have concerning these comments should be directed to Mr. Rich Budell. Director of the Office of Agricultural Water Policy at (850) 617-1700 or budellr@doacs.state.fl.us

. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.052

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 41 . USEPA should adopt a delayed implementation schedule that provides a 12-month adoption period to promulgate conforming state rules (page 4226, proposed rule). The proposed rule provides that all criteria will be in effect 60 days after publication of the final rule. However, this effective date creates the potential that the criteria will go into effect before state agencies are able to adopt conforming state criteria by rule. As such, for an indeterminate period, there may be two separate and potentially conflicting sets of rule criteria in place, one state and one federal. 

# Comment ID 1871.001.002

Author Name: Lassiter K. Organization: Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4442Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 1 . Please delay the implementation of the proposed guidelines. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.031

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 7. Effective Date - Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(f) The effective date of the properly derived criteria should be delayed at least three years and preferably one full 5-year NPDES permit cycle to allow NPDES permittees to assess the impact of the proposed criteria upon their operations and, for those who are not forced to cease operations, to allow time to plan changes to their facilities or, if the Florida DEP successfully amends its rule, seek a nutrient SSAC. The effective date should be integrated with the 20-year implementation period referenced in 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(g)(4) as proposed allowing permittees to work toward compliance with the Florida FDEP acknowledging reasonable further progress toward compliance with each permit renewal. In the alternative, at a minimum, EPA should delay the effective date of the proposed criteria for Florida lakes and streams until such time as marine and estuarine criteria are properly developed and the freshwater criteria are reexamined in light of the nutrient targets established for Florida marine and estuarine waters. To be meaningful, the marine, estuarine and freshwater criteria must be integrated with one another and that integration cannot be accomplished by setting upstream criteria first without an understanding of nutrient targets in the applicable receiving waters. In sum, proposing criteria for upstream waters before fully understanding the needs of downstream waters is backwards and inefficient and will most certainly result in a regulatory morass unless the effective date of the freshwater criteria is delayed to allow the freshwater criteria to be reconciled with the results of efforts to verify acceptable downstream marine and estuarine nutrient loads. 

# Comment ID 2233.001.015

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries -EPA should defer implementation of the rule for at least 3 to 5 years in order to allow a meaningful implementation framework to be developed by the State. In addition, EPA should consider a more meaningful phased approach to implementation of any new criteria in order to ensure priority waters for restoration remain properly prioritized. Specifically, CF recommends that existing impaired waters should be subjected to new standards first, followed by planning list waters and then unimpaired waters. 

# Comment ID 2373-1.001.002

Author Name: Milowe H.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4443Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final Organization: San Marco Homeowners Association 1. Please delay the implementation of the proposed guidelines. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0880.001.001, 0885.001.001, 0885.001.003, 0887.001.002, 0887.001.004, 0888.001.001, 0888.001.003, 0889.001.001, 0889.001.003, 1230.001.010, 1322.001.009, 1350-1.001.005, 1431-1.001.042, 1474-1.001.077, 1645-1.001.009, 1670-1.001.003, 1671-1.001.007, 1785-1.001.021, 1834-1.001.010, 1836.001.052, 1871.001.002, 2233-1.001.031, 2233.001.015, 2373-1.001.002 Response: Regarding the request for a delayed effective date pertaining to the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters finalized in this rule, please refer to the preamble to the final rule, section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final. 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 meetings. 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 proposal and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these three categories. This will allow EPA time to 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, on August 3, 2010 EPA published a supplemental notice of data availability and request for comment related to the Agency’s

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4444Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Applicability of Criteria When Final 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. The preamble to the final rule discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. EPA reminds commenters that water quality criteria are set to protect the designated uses of waters. Criteria are not set at levels based on whether they are affordable for dischargers to meet. EPA reminds commenters that the methods EPA used in its proposal went through an independent, external scientific peer review in July 2009. The results of this independent, peer review were made available through EPA’s docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). Nonetheless, the water quality standards program is equipped to recognize and respond with flexibility in cases where affordable technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets. If the facilities receive end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they would most likely examine the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In the case that nonpoint source contributions are the limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives would apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable and cost effective best management practices according to Florida State procedures. Water quality standards, and this final rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be appropriate. See the preamble to the final rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms, which describes the tools the State has at its disposal to exercise 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 FinalWater Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida,” located in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW2009-0956) 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. 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4445