1

EPA’s Proposed Standards to 

Address Phosphorus and 

Nitrogen Pollution in Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters

Public Hearings of the Environmental Protection Agency

February 16, 2010 (Tallahassee, Florida)

February 17, 2010 (Orlando, Florida)

February 18, 2010 (West Palm Beach, Florida)
2

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution

 Causes the growth of unwanted and nuisance algae

 The algae Lyngbya smothers eel grass, which is food 

for endangered manatees, and produces toxins 

potentially harmful to humans and animals

 The algae Microcystis produces a toxin that can cause 

severe liver damage and poison livestock and wildlife

 Excess algae discolors water, destroys the natural 

ecology, and decays and depletes oxygen needed for 

fish and shellfish survival

 Excess algae in drinking water source water can lead 

to disinfection byproducts that could cause bladder 

cancer and other illnesses
3

Nitrates in Florida’s Groundwater

 Nitrates in highly elevated amounts in 

drinking water supplies can cause “blue baby 

syndrome”, which can lead to coma and 

death

 Violations of the maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) for nitrates occurs in Florida
4

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

Florida’s Waters 

 Florida has 7,700 lakes, 50,000 miles of 

rivers and streams, 4,000 square miles of 

estuaries and over 700 freshwater springs

 So far, over 500 waters are identified as 

impaired because of phosphorus or nitrogen 

pollution, representing approximately 1,000 

miles of rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of 

lakes, and 900 square miles of estuaries
5

Phosphorus and Nitrogen in Florida’s Lakes

Lake Manatee, FL (Photo courtesy of Ken Hudnell)
Copyrighted page(s) have been removed from 

this document. 

Please contact the EPA Docket Center, Public 

Reading Room to view this document. 

Address: 

1301 Constitution Ave, NW 

Room 3334 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/biology/hab/index.htm
9

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

Florida’s 

Rivers

Microcystis Bloom in Caloosahatchee River at Olga, Florida 

approximately a mile and a half west of the Franklin Lock, south side 

of the river, October 14, 2005 (Photo courtesy of Richard Solveson)
10

Anabaena Algae Bloom in Caloosahatchee River at Franklin Lock, June 17, 2008

(Photo courtesy of John Cassani)
Algae bloom photograph on July 31, 2009, on Christopher Point Creek, a St. Johns 

River tributary. 

Photo: Chris Williams/GreenWater Laboratories/CyanoLab 
Copyrighted page(s) have been removed from 

this document. 

Please contact the EPA Docket Center, Public 

Reading Room to view this document. 

Address: 

1301 Constitution Ave, NW 

Room 3334 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
14

An aerial view of 

an algae bloom 

on the St. Lucie 

River, August 8, 

2005 (Photo 

courtesy of 

Jason Nuttle, 

Copyright 2008, 

Scripps 

Treasure Coast 

Newspapers)
15

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

Florida’s Springs

Weeki Wachee Spring, 1950s (Nitrate < .1mg/L, Eel grass 

dominated) and, 2001 (Nitrate ~ .7mg/L, Lyngbya dominated) 

(Photos courtesy of Florida Archives and Agnieszka Pinowska)
16

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

Florida’s Canals

Nutrients flushed from farm and residential land cause thick algal 

blooms in canals. This canal flows into Biscayne Bay, Florida. 

(Photo courtesy of USGS)

http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/reports/rali/eqpollution.html
17

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

Florida

 With only a narrative statement currently in 

State regulations to provide protection, 

developing limits and targets for healthy 

water quality is a slow process

 Numeric criteria provide a target for restoring 

waters to a healthy condition and a target to 

limit nutrient sources before problems start so 

that currently healthy waters do not become 

impaired
18

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

Florida

 Nutrients in excess of natural levels come 

from urban landscapes, cattle and crop fields, 

air emissions from cars and power plants, 

faulty septic tanks, sewage treatment works, 

and some industries

 Better treatment and management practices 

can remove nutrients and stop them from 

flowing into Florida’s waters
19

Florida’s Water Quality Standards

 Water Quality Standards (WQS) include designated 

uses and water quality criteria to protect those uses

 Florida classifies the vast majority of their lakes and 

flowing waters as:

 CLASS I Potable Water Supplies

 CLASS III Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance 

of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and 

Wildlife

 CLASS I and III surface waters share water quality 

criteria established to protect recreation and the 

propagation and maintenance of a healthy, wellbalanced population of fish and wildlife.
20

Need for Numeric Nutrient Criteria

 EPA has recommended numeric criteria for nutrients 

in WQS since 1998

 After consulting with Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), EPA determined 

numeric nutrient criteria were necessary for Florida’s 

waters to meet the Clean Water Act in January 2009

 FDEP presented draft numeric nutrient criteria in 

public workshops in summer 2009
21

Need for Numeric Nutrient Criteria

 EPA entered into a legal agreement in August 2009 

with environmental non-governmental organizations 

to:

 Propose numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing 

waters by Jan 2010, finalizing by Oct 2010

 Propose numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries and 

coastal waters by Jan 2011, finalizing by Oct 2011

 EPA relied on Florida’s data, utilized many technical 

approaches developed by Florida, and conducted 

some analysis of our own to support the Jan 2010 

proposal

 Methods have undergone independent scientific peer 

review
22

Florida’s Extensive Data Base

 Lakes

 33,622 samples from 4,417 sites distributed among 

1,599 lakes statewide

 Rivers and Streams

 11,761 samples from 6,342 sites statewide, and an 

additional 2,023 biological response sample records 

from more than 1,100 streams

 Springs

 approximately 50 historical accounts and laboratory 

and field studies of ecosystem response over 50 years

 South Florida Canals

 68,544 samples from 531 sites
23

Proposal for Lakes

 Definition

 “Lake” means a freshwater water body with some open 

contiguous water free from emergent vegetation, which is 

not a stream or other watercourse

 Proposal

 Classifies lakes into 3 groups based on color and alkalinity 

 Derives criteria from field data showing correlations between 

chlorophyll a (Chl a), total phosphorus (TP), and total 

nitrogen (TN)

 Includes an option for the State to adjust TN and TP criteria 

for a particular lake within a certain range if sufficient data 

show the Chl a criterion concentration is met
24

Three Lake 

Categories

Chlorophyll 

a 

(ug/L) 

Baseline Criteria Modified Criteria

(within these bounds)

TP (ug/L) TN (mg/L) TP (ug/L) TN (mg/L) 

Colored Lakes 20 50 1.23 50-157 1.23-2.25

Clear, Alkaline 

Lakes

20 30 1.00 30-87 1.00-1.81

Clear, Acidic 

Lakes

6 10 0.500 10-30 0.500-0.900

Proposed Criteria for Lakes

Concentrations are annual geometric means not to be surpassed more than once in a 

three-year period or as a long-term average 
25

Proposal for Rivers and Streams

 Definition

 “Stream” means a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface 

water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, 

branches, canals (outside south Florida), freshwater 

sloughs, and other similar water bodies. 

 Proposal

 Classifies streams into regions based on underlying geology, 

natural features, and watershed boundaries

 Derives criteria from nutrient levels in streams with healthy 

biology based on Florida’s Stream Condition Index (SCI) 

 Includes approaches for adjusting criteria to reflect 

protection of downstream lakes and downstream estuaries
26

Proposed Criteria for Rivers/Streams

Nutrient 

Watershed 

Region

Instream Protection 

Value Criteria

TN (mg/L) TP (ug/L) 

Panhandle 0.824 43

Bone Valley 1.798 739

Peninsula 1.205 107

North Central 1.479 359

Concentrations are annual geometric 

means not to be surpassed more than once 

in a three-year period or as a long-term 

average 
27

Streams far from an estuary, in the 

upper watershed, flow into waters 

closer to estuary, carrying a portion 

of their nutrients with them

Estuary

Streams close to an estuary 

deliver almost all of their 

nutrients into the estuary

Federal Regulations require WQS to provide for the attainment and 

maintenance of the WQS of downstream waters

Downstream Protection
28

Proposed Downstream Protection

 For lakes, EPA’s proposal derives allowable loadings each lake 

can receive based on an equation relating stream 

concentrations to numeric lake criteria

 For estuaries, proposal derives allowable loadings each estuary 

can receive based on the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) SPARROW model estimates

 Stream criteria are adjusted as necessary to protect 

downstream lakes and estuaries
29

Protecting Downstream Estuaries

 SPARROW is calibrated using monitored concentration 

values and attributes the total load to various categories 

based on land use/land cover in the watershed

 EPA determined protective loading rate for each estuary and 

calculated concentration values (downstream protection 

values, or DPVs) for each stream location, factoring in any 

losses from the system

 DPVs for TN tend to be lower than corresponding instream 

protection value criteria and range from 0.34 to 0.95 mg/L in 

terminal reaches, rising as high as 1.41 mg/L in the upper 

watershed

 EPA indicated in the proposal that it intends to go final with 

DPVs after proposal of estuary criteria (i.e., Oct 2011), 

although it could go final in Oct 2010
30

Proposal for Springs

 Definition

 “Spring” means the point where underground water emerges 

onto the Earth’s surface, including its spring run. 

 Proposal

 Derives nitrate-nitrite criterion of 0.35 mg/L for springs (and 

clear streams) based on experimental laboratory data and 

field evaluations that document the response of nuisance 

algae to nitrate-nitrite concentrations. 
31

Proposal for South Florida Canals

 Definition

 “Canal” means a trench, the bottom of which is normally 

covered by water with the upper edges of its two sides 

normally above water. 

 South Florida canals are highly managed systems built for 

irrigation and flood control and mostly classified for aquatic 

life and recreational use. 

 They drain agricultural areas, protected areas, and urban 

landscapes.

 Proposal

 Derives criteria from nutrient levels in sites meeting 

designated uses with respect to nutrients as determined by 

FDEP. 
32

Proposed Criteria

for South Florida Canals 

Concentration values are annual geometric means not to be surpassed more than 

once in a three-year period or as a long-term average.

*Applies to all canals within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s 

South Florida bioregion, with the exception of canals within the Everglades 

Protection Area where a TP criterion of 10 ug/L already applies.

Chlorophyll a

(μg/L) 

Total Phosphorus 

(TP)

(ug/L) 

Total Nitrogen 

(TN)

(mg/L) 

Canals 4.0 42* 1.6
33

Other Proposed Provisions

 Allowance for Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSACs) that 

Florida demonstrates as protective.

• Would allow Florida to submit existing TMDL nutrient targets 

to EPA for consideration as a SSAC.

 Allowance for state-issued (and EPA approved) restoration 

standards. 

• Would allow Florida to develop a series of interim designated 

uses and numeric criteria that represent feasible steps 

towards attainment of the full designated use and protective 

criteria.
34

Economic Analysis 

 EPA has prepared an analysis of potential costs associated with 

meeting these standards.

 EPA’s analysis estimated costs of $102 to $130 million per year 

to meet the criteria proposed by FDEP in July 2009.

 EPA estimated an additional $4.7 to $10.1 million per year to 

meet EPA’s proposed WQS.

 Costs are attributed to:

 upgraded treatment and pollution prevention actions at 

wastewater treatment facilities and industrial dischargers, 

 implementation of best management practices for nonpoint 

sources (including agriculture), and

 replacement of faulty septic systems.
35

Procedure for Submitting Comments

 Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2010, 60 

days after publication in the Federal Register. 

 Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQOW-2009-0596, by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov

 Email

 Mail

 Follow detailed instructions included at the beginning of the 

preamble to the proposed rule to ensure your comments are 

included in the record.
36

Quick Review

 Water Quality Standards include Designated Uses and 

protective Criteria

 Florida established Designated Uses to support natural 

populations of fish and wildlife, recreation, and protect human 

health protection

 Florida agrees that numeric criteria are necessary and has 

gathered a lot of data to support their development

 EPA entered into a legal agreement to propose and promulgate 

these criteria

 EPA used data and many approaches developed by Florida, 

and we continue to work with each other
37

Quick Review

 EPA proposed criteria for lakes, rivers and streams, springs, 

and South Florida canals using sound scientific approaches

 EPA also proposed approaches for protecting downstream 

waters, using a USGS model for estuary drainage areas and an 

equation for lakes

 EPA further proposed procedures for modifying criteria on a 

site-specific basis and for reaching criteria levels in gradual 

steps with a supporting plan

 The proposal describes the technical approach, offers some 

alternatives to consider, and asks specific questions

 EPA will respond to all comments and encourages interested 

parties to submit written comments no later than March 29