Message Information Date 09/17/201004:18 PM From "Kelley, Lisa" <Ikelley@ncfc.org> To LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Peter Silva/DC/USEPA/USa EPA; Lawrence Elworth/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; cc "jett@osec.usda .gov" <jett@osec.usda .gov>; "Harden, Krysta" <Krysta .Harden@osec.usda .gov> Subject Letter fromStakeholders regarding NNC Policies Message Body 

### AdministratorJackson, Attached is a stakeholder letter regarding the Clean WaterAct numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) policies that are now

being advanced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) across the U.S., and in their most prominent and current formin Florida
. The following organizations signed the letter: Agricultural Retailers Association American Fann Bureau Federation American Feed Industry Association American Horse Council American Meat Institute American Soybean Association American Sugar Alliance CropLife America Florida Fertilizer &Agrichemical Association National Alliance ofForest Owners National Association of Conservation Districts National Association ofState Departments of Agriculture National Association ofWheat Growers National Barley Growers Association National Cattlemen's Beef Association National Chicken Council National Corn Growers Association National Cotton Council National Council of Farmer Cooperatives National Farmers Union National Milk Producers Federation National Pork Producers Council National Potato Council National SorghumProducers

### National SunflowerAssociation

National Turkey Federation National Water ResourcesAssociation Southern Crop Production Association The Fertilizer Institute United Egg Producers United Fresh Produce Association U .S
. Apple Association U.S
. Canola Association U.S
. Cattlemen'sAssociation US Rice Producers Association Western Growers Thank you for your attention to the issues and concerns we raise, and we look forward toyour response. Sincerely, Lisa Kelley

Lisa ~Y .' Kylley Vice President &Chief of Staff, Government Affairs National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 50 F Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC20001 P: (202) 879-0811 F: (202) 737-6430 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information

. This information is solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom or which it was intended
. If not an intended recipient, any review, copying, printing, disclosure, distribution or any other use is strictly prohibited

. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail
. Please delete this e-mail from your files if you are not the intended recipient
. Thank you .
Letter to LisaJackson on NNCnationally and in Florida
.pdf

OEX Processing Information Processed Date: Processed ByPOOffice Category: Message Count

### September 17, 2010

The Honorable Lisa Jackson Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Jackson, The undersigned organizations are profoundly concerned with the Clean Water Act numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) policies that are nowbeing advanced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) across the U.S., and in their most prominent and current formin Florida
. It is apparent that EPA's development of NNC in Florida will establish a template for howNNC should be structured nationwide
. The work underway in Florida is a result ofa settlement agreement with activists, which is not only highly problematic but also raises fundamental questions of fairness and transparency, and effectively undermines the rights ofthe regulated community to customary, open proceedings
. We strongly urge EPAto: " Delay further NNC policymaking until it has engaged with all relevant stakeholders in a thorough and transparent review of the strategic direction ofNNC policies
. " Revisit and update the 1998 "National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria" (National Strategy)
. " Not finish the NNC for Florida's lakes and streams this fall and instead work on those in concert with the NNCthat EPA is planning to finalize in August 2012 for all other Florida waters - and in the process answerthe numerous and significant scientific, economic and policy questions about these NNC in an open and transparent manner. " Reject policymaking by settlement agreement, with its inherent opaqueness and the distrust that creates
. We believe that revisiting and updating the 1998 National Strategy is warranted for at least four reasons. First, during the 12 years since the strategy was issued a considerable body ofapplied scientific knowledge and policy experience has been developed by the research community, states, and EPA
. We estimate that more than 40 states have explored how they might create NNC
. We understand that this work at the state-level has involved considerable debate on substantive matters within states, between states, and between EPA and the states, and that many ofthese debated matters remain unresolved. This substantiveexperience with the difficult scientific and practical pitfalls ofNNC needs to be drawn

upon to develop a sound path forward for NNCpolicies in general
. In the case of Florida, there are significant questions about the statistical, modeling and biological science used by EPA
. By EPA's own admission in the proposed rulemaking, there is no scientifically established correlation between these proposed NNC and the desired biological conditions in these waters
. In general, we believe there is a serious lack of rigorous, generally accepted science thatjustifies the particular methods EPA adopted to generate these NNC in Florida
. Second, since the development ofthe 1998 National Strategy, there has been little or no significant or organized public participation in NNC policy development froma strategic perspective
. Such an open and transparent process is essential ifspecific NNC being advanced by EPA and the states are to be embraced
. This is certainly a far more acceptable process than letting policy be driven by settlement agreements developed behind closed doors solely with activist groups, as has been the recent case with NNCand in other important Clean Water Act policy areas. Third, one ofthe most serious drawbacks ofthe 1998 National Strategy is that it failed to undertake any substantive analysis ofthe economic costs and benefits ofNNC; for the regulated community, for the economy as a whole, or for the public sector that must develop and administer the NNC
. In the particular case ofthe Florida NNC it is very clear that adopting the wrong criteria can cause enormous economic harm- both in the direct costs to the regulated community but also for the economy as a whole

. The Florida Department ofAgriculture estimates that the total initial cost for agricultural producers to comply with the NNC for lakes, rivers and streams to be between $855 million to $3.069 billion, and the subsequent annual compliance costs to be $902 Million to $1 .605 billion
. As a result, it estimates that the size ofthe Florida economy will be reduced by $1 .148 billion a year and that 14,545 full and part timejobs would be lost
. Notjust agriculture is at risk, ofcourse. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that the total capital cost for utilities to comply with these NNCwould be $4.167 billion
. The Florida Water Environment Association estimates the cost for compliance with all ofthe NNCthat EPA has under development to be $47.6-$98.7 billion over 30 years. They also estimate that the average household utility bill will increase $673-$726 a year. 

### The size of these costs for Florida alone are reason enough tojustify revisiting the National Strategy to ensure that a sound and responsible path forward is developed
.Lastly, with regard to the substance ofthe proposed NNC EPAneeds to fully consider the

implications and outcomes that will result if it sets the NNC for the lakes and streams at standards that are far too stringent, impractical and unattainable for Florida and the rest of the United States
. The goals ofthe Clean Water Act must not be set and pursued in isolation fromall ofthe other important goals and priorities ofsociety, including promoting vibrant, strongjob-creating businesses, economically strong communities, and the productive and valuable use ofthe land for agricultural and other purposes. For all these reasons, we believe it is imperative that EPA open a meaningful, working dialogue on the strategic direction of NNC policies. We believe that is best accomplished by using as a starting point the 1998 National Strategy
. The dialogue must be carried out with all the relevant stakeholders in an open and transparent manner, not simply with the activist NGOs. 1n the particular case ofthe Florida NNC, given the host of legitimate economic and scientific questions and issues, we believe the NNC for lakes and streams should not be finalized this fall, and instead subjected to further scientific development and review as part of EPA's broader effort involving the NNC for the other waters ofthe state
. This work on the Florida NNC should be carried out in parallel to the national working dialogue we have suggested
. Sincerely, Agricultural Retailers Association American FarmBureau Federation American Feed Industry Association American Horse Council American Meat Institute American Soybean Association American Sugar Alliance CropLife America Florida Fertilizer &Agrichemical Association National Alliance of Forest Owners National Association of Conservation Districts National Association ofState Departments ofAgriculture National Association of Wheat Growers National Barley Growers Association National Cattlemen's Beef Association National Chicken Council National Corn Growers Association National Cotton Council 

### National Council of Farmer CooperativesNational Farmers Union

National Milk Producers Federation National Pork Producers Council National Potato Council 

### National SorghumProducers National Sunflower Association National Turkey Federation National Water Resources Association Southern Crop Production Association The Fertilizer Institute United Egg Producers United Fresh Produce Association U.S
. Apple Association U.S
. Canola Association U.S
. Cattlemen's Association US Rice Producers Association Western Growers


### cc: Secretary Tom

Vilsack, USDA