Technical Support Document for 

U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Estuaries, 

Coastal Waters, and South Florida Inland 

Flowing Waters

Introduction

November 30, 2012
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

i

Contributing Authors

Jim Carleton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Tiffany Crawford, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ed Decker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Edward Dettmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Erica Fleisig, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Richard Greene, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

James Hagy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Galen Kaufman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Jacques Oliver, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Stephanie Santell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Blake Schaeffer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Dan Scheidt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mario Sengco, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Dana Thomas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Brannon Walsh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Stephen Whitlock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Timothy Wool, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Lester Yuan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Steven Davie, Tetra Tech, Inc.

Jeroen Gerritsen, Tetra Tech, Inc.

Jon Harcum, Tetra Tech, Inc.

John Hochheimer, Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Michael Paul, Tetra Tech, Inc.

Brian Watson, Tetra Tech, Inc. 
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

ii

Acknowledgements

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s (FDEP’s) Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, 

associated state water quality programs, advisory committees, and contractors, for their 

collaboration in assisting the Agency’s efforts in developing numeric nutrient criteria for 

Florida’s estuaries and south Florida inland flowing waters. EPA specifically thanks the 

following people who provided material and scientific advisory support of the Agency’s 

rulemaking efforts:

Mark Alderson, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 

Albrey Arrington, Loxahatchee River Keeper 

Lisa Beaver, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 

Joseph Boyer, National Park Service 

Henry Briceño, Florida International University 

Dean Campbell, St. Johns River Water Management District

Kevin Carter, South Florida Water Management District 

Joffre Castro, National Park Service 

Holly Greening, Tampa Bay Estuary Program

John Hendrickson, St. Johns River Water Management District 

Tony Janicki, Janicki Environmental, Inc. 

Wayne Magley, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Judy Ott, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 

Joel Steward, St. Johns River Water Management District 

Peter Suscy, St. Johns River Water Management District

Kenneth Weaver, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

iii

Contents

1. EPA’s Proposed 2012 Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria .............................................. 1

1.1. Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Scope and Purpose of this Document ............................................................................... 1

1.3. Foreword .......................................................................................................................... 2

1.4. Water Bodies Affected by the Rule.................................................................................. 3

1.5. General Conceptual Model of Nutrient Pollution Causes and Effects ............................. 4

1.6. Summary of Classification and Segmentation of Waters................................................. 6

1.7. Outline to the Technical Support Document .................................................................... 7

1.8. References ........................................................................................................................ 8

Figure

Figure 1-1. Conceptual model of nutrient pollution causes and effects ..........................................5

Table

Table 1-1. Water bodies affected by the proposed regulation .........................................................7
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

1

1. EPA’s Proposed 2012 Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria

1.1. Disclaimer

This document is intended to support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (hereafter 

EPA or the Agency) numeric nutrient criteria proposed on November 30, 2012, pursuant to 

section 303(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

[CFR] section 131.43). The information provided herein does not substitute for the CWA or 

EPA’s regulations; nor is this document a regulation itself. Thus, this document cannot, and does 

not, impose any legally binding requirements on EPA, states, authorized tribes, the regulated 

community, or any other party, and might not apply to a particular situation or circumstance. 

1.2. Scope and Purpose of this Document

This document contains the scientific information that EPA used to derive numeric nutrient 

criteria for Class I, II, and III Florida waters that include estuarine, coastal, and south Florida 

inland flowing waters proposed on November 30, 2012, pursuant to section 303(c)(4) of the 

CWA (40 CFR 131.43), hereafter proposed rule. EPA developed these numeric nutrient criteria 

to protect Florida’s designated uses for estuarine, coastal, and south Florida inland flowing 

waters from the effects of nutrient pollution.

For the purpose of this proposed rulemaking, EPA has identified six separate classes of waters: 

estuaries, tidal creeks, marine lakes, coastal waters, south Florida marine waters, and south 

Florida inland flowing waters. Florida’s use designation for waters covered by this proposed rule 

include the following (Section 62-302.400, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]): 

• Class I waters are designated for potable water supplies

• Class II waters are designated for shellfish harvesting 

• Class III waters are designated for recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, 

well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Specifically, EPA has derived these numeric nutrient criteria to interpret Florida’s existing 

narrative criterion for nutrients, applicable to waters with the uses listed above, at Subsection 

62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C.: 

In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to 

cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. 

This document consists of chemical, physical, and biological data, metadata, methods, and 

analyses that EPA used to derive the proposed numeric nutrient criteria to interpret Florida’s 

existing narrative criterion, while being consistent with the objective of the CWA to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our nation’s waters. 
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

2

1.3. Foreword

Excess nitrogen and phosphorus, or nutrient pollution, are a leading cause of water quality 

degradation in the nation’s waters. Nutrient pollution can result in harmful algal blooms, reduced 

water clarity and loss of seagrass habitats, fish kills, oxygen-starved hypoxic or dead zones, and 

public health concerns related to impaired drinking water sources and increased exposure to 

toxic microbes such as cyanobacteria. Nutrient pollution problems can exhibit themselves locally 

or further downstream leading to degraded water quality in lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and 

coastal waters. 

One way nutrient pollution can be managed effectively is by developing and adopting numeric 

nutrient criteria into state water quality standards, and then implementing those water quality 

standards. State water quality standards are the foundation for protecting the quality of the 

nation’s surface waters and are the cornerstone of the water quality-based control program 

mandated by the CWA. Water quality standards describe the desired condition of a water body 

and consist of the following three principal elements: (1) the designated uses of the state’s waters 

(e.g., fishing, aquatic life, recreation); (2) criteria specifying the amounts of various pollutants 

that may be present in those waters that will protect the designated uses; and (3) anti-degradation 

policies providing for protection of existing water uses and limitations on degradation of highquality waters (see 40 CFR 131, Subparts A, B, C). 

As noted in Section 1.2, Florida has defined the designated uses of its estuarine, coastal, and 

south Florida inland flowing waters as follows: Potable Water Supply (Class I), Shellfish 

Harvesting (Class II), or Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced 

Population of Fish and Wildlife (Class III) (Section 62-302.400, F.A.C.). Florida’s existing water 

quality criterion for nutrients is expressed as a narrative at Subsection 62-302.530(47) (a) and 

(b), F.A.C. Subsection 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C. provides the following: 

In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to 

cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. 

One advantage of numeric nutrient criteria compared to narrative criteria, once adopted and 

implemented, is that states can use the numeric criteria in quantitative state water quality 

assessments and watershed protection management activities. Numeric nutrient criteria support 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and total maximum daily loads for 

nutrients. They can also be used in state- and community-developed environmental baselines to 

measure progress and support partnerships on the basis of activities, such as nutrient trading, 

land stewardship, and urban stormwater runoff control strategies. 

Water quality criteria consist of the following three key components: magnitude, duration, and 

frequency. Criteria must contain sufficient constituents to be protective of the designated use and 

must be based on a sound scientific rationale (40 CFR 131.11(a)). When setting water quality 

standards, the water quality standards of downstream waters also must be taken into 

consideration to ensure that those downstream standards are attained and maintained 

(40 CFR 131.10(b)). In previously published guidance, EPA generally recommends that states 

develop and adopt numeric nutrient criteria for two causal parameters—such as total nitrogen 

(TN) and total phosphorus (TP), and two response parameters, such as chlorophyll a (chl-a) and 

water clarity—in their water quality standards to protect against the effects of nutrient pollution. 
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

3

1.4. Water Bodies Affected by the Rule

EPA’s proposed rule applies to estuaries, tidal creeks, marine lakes, coastal waters, and south 

Florida inland flowing waters that have been classified by Florida as Class I (Potable Water 

Supplies), Class II (Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting), or Class III (Recreation, Propagation 

and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife). 

This proposed rule also excludes the newly-approved State water quality standards that apply to 

Clearwater Harbor/St. Joseph Sound, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor/Estero 

Bay; wetlands (including sloughs in south Florida that have been defined as wetlands by the 

State); flowing waters within the lands of the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes, Everglades 

Protection Area, or Everglades Agricultural Area; Class III limited waters;

1

 and Class IV waters, 

as covered by Section 62-302.400 F.A.C. 

On June 13, 2012, FDEP submitted new and revised water quality standards for review by EPA 

pursuant to section 303(c) of the CWA. These new and revised water quality standards are set 

out primarily in Rule 62-302 of the F.A.C. [Surface Water Quality Standards]. FDEP also 

submitted amendments to Rule 62-303, F.A.C. [Identification of Impaired Surface Waters], 

which sets out Florida’s methodology for assessing whether waters are attaining State water 

quality standards. On November 29, 2012, EPA approved the provisions of these rules submitted 

for review that constitute new or revised water quality standards (referred to in this TSD as the 

“newly-approved State water quality standards”). 

Among the newly-approved State water quality standards are numeric criteria for nutrients that 

apply to a set of estuaries and coastal marine waters in Florida. Specifically, these newlyapproved State water quality standards apply to Clearwater Harbor/St. Joseph Sound, Tampa 

Bay, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor/Estero Bay, Clam Bay, Tidal Cocohatchee River/Ten 

Thousand Islands, Florida Bay, Florida Keys, and Biscayne Bay. Under the Consent Decree, 

EPA is relieved of its obligation to propose numeric criteria for these waters.

In some areas a gap may exist between maps used by Florida and EPA to show where criteria 

apply. In areas where a gap exists between EPA’s proposed criteria and Florida’s numeric 

criteria, EPA proposes that Florida’s numeric criteria from the adjacent estuary or marine 

segment apply (see Section 62-302.532, F.A.C. for values). EPA proposes that Florida’s criteria 

from the northernmost segment of Clearwater Harbor/St. Joseph Sound (Subsection 

62-302.532(a)1., F.A.C.) apply to the waters between that segment and the southernmost 

segment of EPA’s Springs Coast estuary system. EPA proposes that Florida’s numeric criteria 

from the northernmost segment of Biscayne Bay (Subsection 62-302.532(h)5., F.A.C.) apply to 

the waters of the intercoastal waterway between that segment and the southernmost segment of 

EPA’s Lake Worth Lagoon estuary system. 

 

1 Class III limited waters include waters that support fish consumption; recreation or limited recreation; and/or propagation and 

maintenance of a limited population of fish and wildlife; for more details, see Subsection 62-302.400(1), F.A.C.
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

4

In other areas a gap may exist within estuaries covered by Florida's numeric criteria. In these 

areas, EPA proposes that Florida’s criteria from the adjacent estuary or marine segment to the 

south apply to that gap. EPA proposes that Florida’s criteria from (1) the upper Lemon Bay 

segment (Subsection 62-302.532(d)2., F.A.C.) apply to the segment between the upper Lemon 

Bay segment and the Dona/Roberts Bay segment (Subsection 62-302.532(d)1., F.A.C.), (2) the 

Tidal Cocohatchee River segment (Subsection 62-302.532(e)1., F.A.C.) apply to the waters 

between the Tidal Cocohatchee River segment and the Estero Bay segment (Subsection 62-

302.532(d)9., F.A.C.), (3) the Clam Bay segment (Subsection 62-302.532(j), F.A.C.) apply 

between the Clam Bay segment and the Tidal Cocohatchee River segment (Subsection 62-

302.532(e)1., F.A.C.), and (4) the Naples Bay segment (Subsection 62-302.532(e)4., F.A.C.) 

apply to the segment between the Naples Bay segment and the Clam Bay Segment (Subsection 

62-302.532(j), F.A.C.). 

1.5. General Conceptual Model of Nutrient Pollution Causes and Effects

Nutrient pollution in water bodies comes from point sources and both urban and agricultural 

nonpoint sources, which may be either direct inputs to estuaries and coastal waters from large 

populations that reside close to their shores or transported loads delivered from watersheds. 

Estuaries and coastal waters are especially vulnerable to nutrient pollution because they receive 

nutrient loads from multiple natural and anthropogenic sources, often have sufficient resident 

time for nutrient effects to manifest, and include multiple nutrient-sensitive biological endpoints. 

Nutrient pollution can adversely affect aquatic life in many different ways (Figure 1-1). As 

summarized in EPA’s Methods and Approaches for Deriving Numeric Criteria for 

Nitrogen/Phosphorus Pollution in Florida’s Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Southern Flowing 

Waters (USEPA 2010), the effects of nutrient pollution generally begin with effects on the 

primary producers in aquatic systems (e.g., increased algal growth and changes in algal species 

composition, including nuisance algal blooms) that increase organic matter inputs to the water 

body. Common secondary effects include loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, low dissolved 

oxygen (DO), and decreases in secondary production by sensitive species (USEPA 2006, 2008). 
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

5

Figure 1-1. Conceptual model of nutrient pollution causes and effects
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

6

Environmental consequences from changes in primary production (e.g., increases in 

phytoplankton) can include increased turbidity and decreased light penetration (Boyer et al. 

2009; Bricker et al. 2007, 2008; McPherson and Miller 1994). Reduced light availability often 

impacts growth and survival of habitats defined by submerged aquatic vegetation, which has a 

relatively high light requirement (Lee et al. 2007; Dennison 1987; Duarte 1991). Seagrasses are 

critical components of many estuarine and coastal systems because many aquatic species use 

them as preferred habitats for feeding, spawning, and nursery grounds (Waycott et al. 2009). 

Imbalances in primary producer dynamics can cause changes in habitat and available food 

resources, eventually affecting entire food webs (Bricker et al. 2003; Vitousek et al. 1997). 

Increased phytoplankton abundance may be associated with changes in composition (Paerl 

1988), potentially including blooms of individual species that are unpalatable for grazers.

Because excess nutrients cause changes at the lowest trophic levels of the ecosystem, they can 

cause a cascade of problems.

Excessive algal growth contributes to increased incidences of low oxygen, potentially reducing 

oxygen to levels below those needed for aquatic life to survive (NOAA 2010; USGS 2010). This 

occurs because primary production is often decoupled spatially or temporally from the resulting 

organic matter decomposition. Low oxygen concentrations, or hypoxia, can occur in episodic 

events, which sometimes develop overnight. Migration to avoid hypoxia depends on species’ 

mobility, availability of suitable habitat, and adequate environmental cues for migration. For 

example, mobile species such as adult fish, can sometimes survive by moving to areas with more 

oxygen availability. Less mobile or immobile species, such as oysters and mussels, cannot move 

to avoid low oxygen and may perish during hypoxic events (Ecological Society of America 

2009). While certain mature aquatic animals can tolerate periods of lower DO, animals in

immature life stages may be more sensitive to low oxygen (USEPA 2000). Sustained low levels 

of DO cause a severe decrease in the amount of aquatic life in hypoxic zones and affect the 

ability of aquatic organisms to find necessary food and habitat. Anoxia, defined as a complete 

lack of oxygen, presents the additional hazard in marine environments of increased production of 

hydrogen sulfide gas, which is highly toxic to marine life. Hydrogen sulfide is produced by 

anaerobic processes in marine sediments and under oxic conditions is recycled within sediments. 

However hydrogen sulfide is able to diffuse into anoxic water, increasing the impact on marine 

life. Because most plants and aquatic organisms cannot live without sufficient oxygen, hypoxic 

and anoxic areas are sometimes referred to as dead zones (Ecological Society of America 2009). 

Estuaries and coastal waters are often valued for recreational uses such as swimming, diving, 

kayaking, fishing and shellfish harvesting. Because of the effects of excess nutrients on algae, 

water clarity, and aquatic life, nutrients may impair or degrade these human uses of the 

ecosystem. Blooms of harmful algae can cause direct human health impacts on individuals who 

are on or near affected waterways.

1.6. Summary of Classification and Segmentation of Waters

Estuaries outside south Florida were classified into 23 systems. As noted in Section 1.4, Florida 

has numeric nutrient criteria for some of the water bodies covered by this classification. As a 

result, EPA is proposing criteria for 19 of the 23 estuarine systems in addition to the three coastal 
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

7

systems. Segmentation resulted in 89 estuarine segments among the 19 estuarine systems (see 

Volume 1: Estuaries, Section 1.3). 

Coastal waters were delineated into three main regions to identify segments with similar physical 

and optical properties. These regions were further subdivided (see Volume 2: Coastal Waters, 

Section 1.3), and criteria were proposed for 71 segments. 

For south Florida inland waters, EPA’s approach and an alternative approach are presented in 

Volume 3: South Florida Inland Flowing Waters. 

See Table 1-1 for a summary of the Florida water bodies including estuaries, tidal creeks, and 

marine lakes (TSD Volume 1), coastal waters (TSD Volume 2), and South Florida inland 

flowing waters (TSD Volume 3).

Table 1-1. Water bodies affected by the proposed regulation

Vol. Water Body Type Geographic Characteristic Key Water Bodies

1 Estuaries Estuaries outside south 

Floridaa

Perdido Bay

Pensacola Bay

Choctawhatchee Bay

St. Andrews Bay

St. Joseph Bay

Apalachicola Bay

Alligator Harbor

Ochlockonee Bay

Big Benda

Suwannee Sound

Springs Coast

Lake Worth Lagoon/

Loxahatchee

St. Lucie Estuary

Indian River Lagoon

Halifax River

Guana, Tolomato, Matanzas, 

Pellicer System

St. Johns River

Nassau River/Big Talbot

St. Marys River/Amelia River

Tidal Creeks Predominantly marine waters that are subestuaries or upstream of larger estuaries that exhibit a 

wide range of salinity zones typical of larger estuaries but on a smaller scale. (Excludes waters 

classified elsewhere).

Marine Lakes Marine lakes are coastal lakes with intermittent or groundwater connections to marine water, and 

include dune and solution (rockland) lakes.

2 Coastal Watersb Predominantly marine waters 

extending from land seaward 

3 nautical miles

Florida Panhandle

West Florida Shelf

Atlantic Coast

3 South Florida 

Inland Waters

Class I and III inland flowing freshwaters in the South Florida Nutrient Watershed Region, not 

including the Everglades Protection Area and Everglades Agricultural Area

a Includes coastal waters extending from Apalachicola to Clearwater Harbor/St. Joseph Sound b Excludes coastal waters extending from Apalachicola to Clearwater Harbor/St. Joseph Sound as well as south Florida marine 

waters

1.7. Outline to the Technical Support Document

Details on the methodology EPA used to derive numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries outside of 

south Florida is provided in Volume 1: Estuaries, Section 1, and the resulting criteria and 

downstream protection values are in the estuary-specific results (Section 2). Background on each 

estuarine system is in Appendix A. Details of the stressor-response analyses are in Appendix B. 

Appendix C contains details of the watershed procedures. Details of the estuary modeling 

procedures are found in Appendices D and E. Appendix G contains additional information about 

alternative numeric nutrient criteria methodologies for several estuaries.
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

8

For tidal creeks, the details on how EPA derived criteria are described in Volume 1: Estuaries, 

Section 3.1. 

For marine lakes, the approach to derive criteria is described in Volume 1: Estuaries, Section 3.2 

and Appendix F. 

For coastal waters, the approach used to derive criteria is in Volume 2: Coastal Waters, 

Section 1, and the resulting criteria can be found in Section 1.6. Background information on the 

current conditions of the coastal regions is in Appendix A, and Appendix B contains supporting 

documentation for the remote sensing methods used to derive criteria for coastal segments.

For south Florida inland flowing waters, the approach for deriving downstream protection values 

that manage nutrient pollution upstream and protect marine waters downstream are presented in 

Volume 3, Section 2. An alternate analysis in which EPA is considering deriving in-stream TN 

and TP criteria for south Florida inland flowing waters is in Volume 3, Section 3. 

1.8. References

Boyer, J.N., C.R. Kelble, P.B. Ortner, and D.T. Rudnick. 2009. Phytoplankton bloom status: 

Chlorophyll a biomass as an indicator of water quality condition in the southern estuaries 

of Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators 9(6, Supplement 1):S56-S67. 

Bricker, S.B., J.G. Ferreira, and T. Simas. 2003. An integrated methodology for assessment of 

estuarine trophic status. Ecological Modelling 169(1):39-60. 

Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks, and J. Woerner. 2007. 

Effects of Nutrient Enrichment In the Nation’s Estuaries: A Decade of Change. NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Program, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Decision Analysis 

Series No. 26, 328, Silver Spring, MD. 

Bricker, S.B., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks, and J. Woerner. 

2008. Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation's estuaries: A decade of change. 

Harmful Algae 8(1):21-32. 

Dennison, W.C. 1987. Effects of light on seagrass photosynthesis, growth and depth distribution. 

Aquatic Botany 27:15-26. 

Duarte, C.M. 1991. Seagrass depth limits. Aquatic Botany 40(4):363-377. 

Ecological Society of America. 2009. Hypoxia. 

http://www.esa.org/education/edupdfs/hypoxia.pdf. Accessed December 2009. 

Lee, K.-S., S.R. Park, and Y.K. Kim. 2007. Effects of irradiance, temperature, and nutrients on 

growth dynamics of seagrasses: A review. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology 350(1-2):144-175. 

McPherson, B.F., and R.L. Miller. 1994. Causes of Light Attenuation in Tampa Bay and 

Charlotte Harbor, Southwestern Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 30(1):43-53. 
Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 

Introduction

9

NOAA. 2010. Harmful Algal Blooms: Current Programs Overview. Center for Sponsored 

Coastal Ocean Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/default.aspx. Accessed September 

2010. 

Paerl, H.W. 1988. Nuisance phytoplankton blooms in coastal, estuarine, and inland waters. 

Limnology and Oceanography 33(4):823-847. 

USEPA. 2000. Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): 

Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

PA-822-R-00-012, Washington D.C. 

USEPA. 2006. National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report. EPA-842-B-06-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and 

Development. 

USEPA. 2008. National Coastal Condition Report III. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water and Office of Research and Development. 

USEPA. 2010. Methods and Approaches for Deriving Numeric Criteria for 

Nitrogen/Phosphorus Pollution in Florida’s Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Southern 

Inland Flowing Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/C439B7C63EB9141F85257

73B004E53CA/$File/FL+EC+Final+Methods+-+Chapters1-6.pdf. Updated November 

17, 2010. 

USGS. 2010. Hypoxia. U.S. Geological Survey. http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/hypoxia.html. 

Accessed September 2010.

Vitousek, P.M., J.D. Aber, R.W. Howarth, G.E. Likens, P.A. Matson, D.W. Schindler, W.H. 

Schlesinger, and D.G. Tilman. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: 

Sources and consequences. Ecological Applications 7(3):737-750. 

Waycott, M., C.M. Duarte, T.J.B. Carruthers, R.J. Orth, W.C. Dennison, S. Olyarnik, A. 

Calladine, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, 

F.T. Short, and S.L. Williams. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe 

threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America 106(30):12377-12381.