To estimate compliance costs for WWTPs, EPA identified current WWTP
treatment capabilities using FDEP's Wastewater Facility Regulation
(WAFR) database, and information obtained from NPDES permits and/or
water quality monitoring reports. Table VI(B)(1) summarizes EPA's best
estimate of the number of potentially affected municipal WWTPs that may
require additional treatment for nitrogen and/or phosphorus to meet the
numeric criteria supporting State designated uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).
2009. Wastewater Facility Information: Wastewater Facility
Regulation (WAFR) database. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wastewater/facinfo.htm. Accessed June 2009.

 Table VI(B)(1)--Summary of Potential for Additional Nutrient Controls for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
                                                       \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of dischargers
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Discharge type             Additional      Additional      Additional    No incremental
                                   reduction in    reduction in    reduction in      controls          Total
                                   TN and TP \a\    TN only \b\     TP only \c\     needed \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major...........................               7               0              22              22              51
Minor...........................              17               0               1              10              28
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................              24               0              23              32              79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Based on treatment train descriptions in FDEP's Wastewater Facility Regulation database \214\ and
  permits, WLAs in TMDLs and existing regulations, assuming dischargers would have to install advanced BNR for
  compliance under the rule.
\a\ Includes dischargers without treatment processes capable of achieving the target levels or existing WLA for
  TN and TP, or for which the treatment train description is missing or unclear.
\b\ Includes dischargers with chemical precipitation only.
\c\ Includes dischargers with Modified Ludzack-Ettinge (MLE), four-stage Bardenpho, and BNR specified to achieve
  less than 3 mg/L, or those with WLA under a TMDL for TN only.
\d\ Includes dischargers with anaerobic-anoxic oxidation (A\2\/O), modified Bardenpho, modified University of
  Cape Town (UCT), oxidation ditches, or other BNR coupled with chemical precipitation, those with WLAs under a
  TMDL for both TN and TP, those discharging to waters on the 303(d) list for nutrients or DO, and those ocean
  dischargers covered under the Grizzle-Figg Act that will cease discharge completely by 2025.

    An EPA study provides unit cost estimates for BNR for various TN
and TP performance levels.\215\ To estimate costs for WWTPs, EPA used
the average capital and average operation and maintenance (O&M) unit
costs for technologies that achieve an annual average of 3 mg/L or less
for TN and/or 0.1 mg/L or less for TP. NRC noted that these unit costs
were significantly lower than those estimated by the Florida Water
Environment Association Utility Council (FWEAUC) and suggested to
verify the unit costs against FWEAUC's unit costs. Multiplying these
unit costs by facility flow reported in EPA's PCS database, EPA
estimated that total costs could be approximately $44.1 million per
year (2010 dollars).\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ USEPA. 2008. Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies
Reference Document. Volume 1--Technical Report. EPA 832-R-08-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater
Management, Municipal Support Division.
    \216\ Estimated capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years,
plus estimated annual O&M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also conducted a sensitivity analysis to address the potential
for dischargers under TMDLs that establish WLAs for TN or TP (and not
both pollutants), such that incremental costs could be required under
the proposed rule to control the other pollutant. The results of this
analysis suggest a range of additional costs from $3.6 million to $5.6
million annually (see section 5.3 of the Economic Analysis). Thus,
estimated total cost could range from approximately $47.7 million to
$49.7 million per year.
2. Industrial Point Source Costs
    Incremental costs for industrial dischargers are likely to be
facility-specific and depend on process operations, existing treatment
trains, and composition of waste streams. EPA identified 36 industrial
dischargers potentially affected by the proposed rule. Of those, 4 are
subject to an existing nutrient TMDL, and 4 discharge to waters
currently listed as impaired. As with WWTPs, EPA assumed that costs to
industrial dischargers under an existing nutrient TMDL with WLAs for
both nitrogen and phosphorus and costs at facilities discharging to
currently impaired waters are not attributable to this proposed rule
because those costs would be incurred absent the rule (under the
baseline).
    To estimate potential costs to the remaining 28 potentially
affected industrial facilities (Table VI(B)(2)), EPA used effluent data
for flows, TN, and TP

from Discharge Monitoring Reports in EPA's ICIS-NPDES database and
other information in NPDES permits to determine whether or not they
have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of
the proposed criteria in this proposed rule. Because the numeric
nutrient criteria are annual geometric means, EPA assumed that any
discharger with an average TN or TP concentration greater than the
proposed criterion would have reasonable potential. For those
facilities with reasonable potential, EPA further analyzed their
effluent data and estimated potential revised water quality based
effluent limits (WQBELs) for TN and TP. If the data indicated that the
facility would not be in compliance with the revised WQBEL, EPA
estimated the additional nutrient controls those facilities would
likely implement to allow receiving waters to meet designated uses and
the costs of those controls. Although reverse osmosis and other
treatment technologies have the potential to reduce nitrogen and
phosphorus concentrations even further, EPA believes that
implementation of reverse osmosis applied on such a large scale has not
been demonstrated as likely or necessary.\217\ If BNR or other more
conventional cost-effective treatment technologies would not meet the
revised WQBELs, EPA believes it is reasonable to assume that entities
would first seek out other available compliance mechanisms such as
reuse, site-specific alternative criteria, variances, and designated
use modifications. In addition, under a TMDL FDEP could allocate
greater load reductions to nonpoint sources based on baseline
contributions resulting in fewer reductions from point source
dischargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Treatment using reverse osmosis also requires substantial
amounts of energy and creates disposal issues as a result of the
large volume of concentrate that is generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using this method, EPA estimated that the potential costs for
industrial dischargers could be approximately $15.2 million annually
(2010 dollars). Note that a number of the dischargers would not incur
incremental costs, while others would incur costs of implementing
controls such as chemical precipitation, filtration, and/or BNR. NRC
said that the use of similar unit costs for industrial flows as EPA had
used for municipal waste water treatment facilities did not capture the
higher costs associated with lower flows and therefore industrial costs
are underestimated. The source EPA used to find unit costs included
plant costs with low flows that EPA was able to compare to plant costs
with high flows, as NRC suggested. EPA found no pattern for higher or
lower costs and therefore did not change its unit costs. The NRC also
suggested EPA should include costs for flow equalization at some
industrial facilities. EPA does not have enough flow data to estimate
flow equalization costs, but did use the 90th percentile flows as the
basis for costs for dischargers with variable flows (see Cost
Calculations for Industrial Dischargers). EPA considers the use of the
90th percentile flow together with an allowance for contingencies to
provide sufficient costs allowance to cover the cost of equalization
should that be necessary at individual facilities.

                   Table VI(B)(2)--Potential Incremental Costs for Industrial Dischargers \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of     Total annual
                       Industrial category                         Total number     facilities    costs (million
                                                                   of facilities  with costs \b\     2010$/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemicals and Allied Products...................................               1               0            $0.0
Electric Services...............................................               8               2             0.5
Food............................................................               2               1             0.2
Mining..........................................................               0               0             0.0
Other...........................................................              14               1             0.0
Pulp and Paper..................................................               3               3            14.5
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              28               7            15.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ May not add due to rounding.
\b\ In most cases, only a few facilities are projected to incur costs; others do not.

C. Non-Point Source Costs
    To estimate the potential incremental costs associated with
controlling nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from non-point sources,
EPA identified land areas near incrementally impaired waters using GIS
analysis. EPA identified the 12-digit hydrologic units (HUC-12s) in
Florida that contain, or in the case of coastal waters, surround an
incrementally impaired WBID (WBIDs are GIS polygons for water
assessment), and excluded those HUC-12s that are included in the
baseline or cost analysis for in the Inland Rule. EPA then identified
all the 12-digit HUCs that drain to any remaining unassessed WBIDs that
may become incrementally impaired should they be assessed in the
future. EPA then identified land uses in these HUCs using GIS analysis
of data obtained from the State of Florida. By using the HUC-12
delineation, EPA has addressed the NRC recommendation that EPA use the
more refined HUC-12 delineation instead of the larger HUC-10
delineation.
1. Costs for Urban Runoff
    EPA's GIS analysis indicates that urban land (excluding land for
industrial uses covered under point sources) accounts for approximately
128,800 acres to 215,300 acres of the land near incrementally impaired
waters. EPA's analysis indicates that urban runoff is already regulated
on a portion of this land under EPA's stormwater program requiring
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) NPDES permits. Florida has
a total of 27 large (Phase I) permitted MS4s serving greater than
100,000 people and 132 small (Phase II) permitted MS4s serving fewer
than 100,000 people. MS4 permits generally do not have numeric nutrient
limits, but instead rely on implementation of BMPs to control
pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. Even those
MS4s in Florida discharging to impaired waters or under a TMDL
currently do not have numeric limits for any pollutant.
    In addition to EPA's stormwater program, several existing State
rules are intended to reduce pollution from urban runoff and were
included in the baseline for EPA's proposed rule. For

example, Florida's Urban Turf Fertilizer rule (administered by FDACS)
requires a reduction in the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that can
be applied to lawns and recreational areas. Florida's 1982 stormwater
rule (Chapter 403 of Florida statues) requires stormwater from new
development and redevelopment to be treated prior to discharge through
the implementation of BMPs. The rule also requires that older systems
be managed as needed to restore or maintain the beneficial uses of
waters, and that water management districts establish and implement
other stormwater pollutant load reduction goals. In addition, the
``Water Resource Implementation Rule'' (Chapter 62-40, F.A.C.)
establishes that stormwater design criteria adopted by FDEP and the
water management districts shall achieve at least 80% reduction of the
average annual load of pollutants that cause or contribute to
violations of water quality standards (95% reduction for outstanding
natural resource waters). This rule sets design criteria for new
development that is not based on impairment status of downstream
waters. For NPDES permits, reasonable potential exists for any effluent
concentrations above the criteria even if the water is attaining
standards. Therefore, EPA assumed that post-1982 developed land already
has controls to meet 80% reductions and only older developed land would
need an incremental level of control. The rule also states that the
pollutant loadings from older stormwater management systems shall be
reduced as necessary to restore or maintain the designated uses of
waters. As the proposed numeric nutrients criteria interpret the
existing narrative criterion, EPA assumes any such reductions requiring
costs are not a consequence of the proposed criteria. The NRC suggested
that existing State rules are not being fully complied with and EPA
should not consider them to be part of the baseline. EPA's assumption
of compliance with the 1982 Stormwater Rule is based on FDEP's economic
analysis indicating that post-1982 development would not need
additional controls. Given the State's cyclical monitoring schedule,
existing ambient monitoring data may not yet fully reflect nutrient
reductions because the rule has only been in effect since July 2009.
Other controls that target the quantity of stormwater runoff from low-
density residential land may not be as cost effective as the Urban Turf
Fertilizer Rule. Thus, EPA did not estimate an incremental level of
control to be needed for low-density residential land.
    Identifying water as impaired under the proposed rule could result
in changes to MS4 NPDES permit requirements for urban runoff, so that
Florida waters meet the proposed criteria. However, the combination of
additional pollution controls required will likely depend on the
specific nutrient reduction targets, the controls already in place, and
the relative amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution contained in
urban runoff at each particular location. Because stormwater programs
are usually implemented using an iterative approach--with the
installation of controls followed by monitoring and re-evaluation--
estimating the complete set of pollution controls required to meet a
particular water quality target would require detailed site-specific
analysis.
    Although it is difficult to predict the complete set of potential
additional stormwater controls that may be required to meet the numeric
criteria that supports State designated uses in incrementally impaired
waters, EPA estimated potential costs for additional treatment by
assessing the amount of urban land that may require additional
stormwater controls. FDEP has previously assumed that all urban land
developed after adoption of Florida's 1982 stormwater rule would be in
compliance with the Phase 1 rule and EPA believes it is reasonable to
make a similar assumption for this proposed rule.\218\ Using this
assumption, EPA used GIS analysis of land use data obtained from the
State of Florida \219\ to identify the amount of remaining urban land
located near incrementally impaired waters. For Phase I MS4s, EPA used
a range of acres with 46,700 acres as the upper bound and zero acres as
the lower bound, because Phase I MS4 urban areas already must implement
controls to the ``maximum extent practicable.'' As such, these
municipalities may not need to achieve additional reductions if
existing requirements are already fully implemented. EPA similarly
estimated ranges of acreage needing stormwater controls for Phase II
MS4 areas, and non-MS4 urban areas. GIS analysis of land use data
indicates that land in Phase II MS4 and non-MS4 urban areas are low
density residential. For the urban land that is not low density
residential, some additional structural BMPs may be necessary to comply
with EPA's numeric nutrient criteria. Because nutrient reductions from
low density residential land under the existing Urban Turf Fertilizer
Rule are likely sufficient, and the State of Florida asserts that urban
land developed after 1982 (77.9% of urban land) would not need
additional controls for compliance with EPA's numeric nutrient
criteria, EPA estimated that approximately 27,700 to 43,100 acres of
Phase II MS4 urban land and 19,600 to 28,900 acres of urban land
outside of MS4 areas may require additional stormwater controls to meet
EPA's numeric nutrient criteria. The actual acreage may be somewhere
within the range. Using this procedure, EPA estimated that 47,300 to
118,700 acres may require additional stormwater controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ FDEP. 2010. FDEP Review of EPA's ``Preliminary Estimate of
Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's
Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida'': Prepared January
2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment and
Restoration.
    \219\ Florida Geographic Data Library, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of stormwater pollution controls can vary widely. FDEP
tracks the cost of stormwater retrofit projects throughout the State
that it has provided grant funding for.\220\ EPA estimated control
costs based on the average unit costs, $19,300, across all projects
from FDEP (2012c) to account for the mix of project types likely to be
installed based on their current prevalence in grant funding throughout
the state. The NRC suggested that higher pollutant removals may be
obtained by more advanced stormwater control measures such as
bioretention or other vegetated infiltration, which may be more costly
than the current set of FDEP-funded projects. NRC (2009) indicates
annual per-acre costs could range from $300 per acre to $3,500 per
acre.\221\ EPA does not have the necessary information to exactly
compare this source with EPA's average unit costs of $19,300, but
believes EPA's unit costs are captured within the higher end of the
range. Given that the costs may be comparable to the NRC suggested
projects and the retrofit data is specific to projects that Florida has
already implemented therefore making them more likely to be implemented
for future projects, EPA continues to use costs from the Florida
specific retrofit project data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ FDEP. 2010. ``Appendix 3: Cost Analysis for Municipal
Discharge using 30 Year Annualization and Florida MS4 Numeric
Nutrient Criteria Cost Estimation,'' In: FDEP Review of EPA's
``Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits
Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for
Florida'': Prepared January 2010 by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Environmental Assessment and Restoration.
    \221\ NRC (2009) does not provide the discount rate, useful
life, or annual O&M costs it uses to estimate annual costs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA multiplied the average capital costs per acre ($19,300) of the
FDEP projects by the number of acres potentially requiring controls to
estimate the potential incremental stormwater capital costs associated
with the proposed rule. EPA then used FDEP's estimate of operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs (at 5% of capital costs), and annualized
capital costs using FDEP's discount rate of 7% over 20 years. This
analysis indicates that urban runoff control costs could range from
approximately $131.9 million to $330.9 million. Table VI(C)(2)
summarizes these estimates.

                          Table VI(C)(1)--Estimated Incremental Urban Stormwater Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Estimated acres
                                      potentially        Capital costs         O&M costs         Annual costs
         Urban land type           needing controls     (million $) \2\   (million $/yr) \3\  (million $/yr) \4\
                                          \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS4 Phase I Urban...............            0-46,700           $0-$901.4            $0-$45.1         $0.0-$130.2
MS4 Phase II Urban..............       27,700-43,100         534.0-832.8           26.7-41.6          77.1-120.3
Non-MS4 Urban...................       19,600-28,900         379.2-557.5           19.0-27.9           54.8-80.5
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................      47,300-118,700       913.2-2,291.7          45.7-114.6         131.9-330.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Phase I MS4s range represents implementation of BMPs to the MEP resulting in compliance with EPA's rule or
  controls needed on all pre-1982 developed land that is not low density residential; Phase II MS4s and urban
  land outside of MS4s represent controls needed on all pre-1982 developed land that is not low density
  residential. Assumes that up to 46% of land associated with unassessed waters would require controls.
\2\ Represents acres needing controls multiplied by median unit costs of stormwater retrofit costs from FDEP
  (2010b).
\3\ Represents 5% of capital costs.
\4\ Capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years plus annual O&M costs.

2. Agricultural Costs
    EPA's GIS analysis of land use indicates that agriculture accounts
for about 15,312 to 38,140 acres of land near incrementally impaired
waters. This differs substantially from the Inland Rule where over
800,000 acres of agricultural land use were identified in watersheds
draining to potentially incrementally impaired WBIDs, because
agriculture is a much more prevalent land use inland than near the
coast. Agricultural runoff can be a source of nitrogen and phosphorus
to estuaries, coastal waters and south Florida inland flowing waters
through the application of fertilizer to crops and pastures and from
animal wastes. For waters impaired by nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution, the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act established that
agricultural BMPs should be the primary instrument to implement TMDLs.
Thus, additional waters identified by the State as impaired under the
proposed rule may result in State requirements or provisions to reduce
the discharge of nitrogen and/or phosphorus to incrementally impaired
waters through the implementation of BMPs. The NRC suggested that for
Phase I, the incremental agricultural land area identified was likely
underestimated. EPA addressed this finding by including land area
associated with potentially impaired unassessed waters in this
analysis.
    EPA estimated the potential costs of additional agricultural BMPs
by evaluating land use data. BMP programs designed for each type of
agricultural operation and their costs were taken from a study of
agricultural BMPs to help meet TMDL targets in the Caloosahatchee
River, St. Lucie River, and Lake Okeechobee watersheds. Three types of
BMP programs were identified in this study. The first program, called
the ``Owner Implemented BMP program,'' consists of a set of BMPs that
land owners might implement without additional incentives. The second
program, called the ``Typical BMP program,'' is the set of BMPs that
land owners might implement under a reasonably funded cost share
program or a modest BMP strategy approach. The third program, called
the ``Alternative BMP program,'' is a more expensive program designed
to supplement the ``Owner Implemented BMP program'' and ``Typical BMP
program'' if additional reductions are necessary.
    The BMPs in the ``Owner Implemented BMP Program'' and ``Typical BMP
Program'' are similar to the BMPs verified as effective by FDEP and
adopted by FDACS. EPA did not find BMPs in the ``Alternative BMP
Program'' similar to the BMPs in the FDACS BMP manual, despite the NRC
suggestion that the ``Alternative BMP Program'' would be needed to meet
NNC. EPA has also found no indication that the ``Alternative BMP
Program,'' which includes edge-of-farm stormwater chemical treatment,
has been implemented through TMDLs to meet water quality standards for
nutrients in watersheds with significant contributions from agriculture
(e.g., Lake Okeechobee). EPA also found that TMDLs cite the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' (FDACS) BMP manual as
a source of approved BMPs. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis,
EPA believes it is reasonable to assume that nutrient controls for
agricultural sources are best represented by the combination of the
``Owner Implemented BMP Program'' and ``Typical BMP Program'' and not
the more stringent ``Alternative BMP Program'' controls. This
assumption corroborates EPA's intent for the nutrient criteria to
provide the same level of protection as Florida's narrative criteria.
    Table VI(C)(2) summarizes the potential incremental costs of BMPs
on agricultural lands in the watersheds of incrementally impaired
estuaries, coastal waters and south Florida inland flowing waters for
each agricultural category. This analysis indicates that incremental
agricultural costs resulting from the proposed numeric nutrient
criteria may be estimated at $0.3--$0.7 million per year.

                          Table VI(C)(2)--Potential Incremental Agricultural BMP Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                ``Owner implemented BMP       Total ``Owner
                                           Area potentially          Program'' plus          Implemented BMP
        Agricultural category              needing controls     ''Typical BMP Program''  Program'' and ''Typical
                                             (acres) \a\         Unit Costs  (2010$/ac/    BMP  Program'' costs
                                                                        yr) \b\                 (2010$/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Feeding.......................                    20-39                   $18.56                $400-$700
Citrus...............................                        0                   156.80                       $0
Fruit Orchards \c\...................                      0-7                   156.80                $0-$1,100
Cow Calf Production, Improved                      1,115-4,568                    15.84          $17,700-$72,400
 Pastures............................
Cow Calf Production, Rangeland and                 1,145-1,995                     4.22            $4,800-$8,400
 Wooded Pasture......................
Cow Calf Production, Unimproved                      299-1,346                     4.22            $1,300-$5,700
 Pastures............................
Cropland and Pasture Land (general)              10,195-18,467                    27.26        $277,900-$503,300
 \d\.................................
Dairies..............................                        0                   334.40                       $0
Field Crop (Hayland) Production......                479-1,397                    18.56           $8,900-$25,900
Horse Farms..........................                   34-123                    15.84              $500-$1,900
Ornamental Nursery...................                      4-8                    70.00                $300-$600
Floriculture \e\.....................                        0                    70.00                       $0
Row Crop.............................                  228-246                    70.40          $16,100-$17,300
Sod/Turf Grass.......................                        0                    35.20                       $0
Other Areas \f\......................                565-1,069                    18.56          $10,500-$19,800
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \g\........................            14,085-29,265  .......................        $338,300-$657,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add to total due to independent rounding.
\a.\ Low end of range represents acres associated with impaired assessed waters assuming none of the unassessed
  waters would be impaired under the proposed rule; high end of range represent low end plus controls on the
  watersheds associated with impaired unassessed waters (estimated based on proportional impairment to assessed
  waters) for which EPA has not already identified a need for controls for baseline or impaired assessed waters.
  Based on GIS analysis of land use data from five water management districts (for entire State)
\b.\ Cost estimates from SWET (2008); representative of 2010 prices (personal communication with D. Bottcher,
  2010).
\c.\ Owner/typical BMP unit costs based on costs for citrus crops.
\d.\ Owner/typical BMP unit costs based on average costs for improved pastures, unimproved/wooded pasture, row
  crops, and field crops.
\e.\ Owner/typical BMP unit costs based on costs for ornamental nurseries.
\f.\ Includes FLUCCS Level 3 codes 2230, 2400, 2410, and 2540.
\g.\ Excludes land not in production.

3. Septic System Costs
    Some nutrient reductions from septic systems may be necessary for
incrementally impaired waters to meet the numeric nutrient criteria in
this proposed rule. Several nutrient-related TMDLs in Florida identify
septic systems as a significant source of nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution. Some of the ways to address pollution from septic systems
may include greater use of inspection programs and repair of failing
systems, upgrading existing systems to advanced nutrient removal,
installation of decentralized cluster systems where responsible
management entities would ensure reliable operation and maintenance,
and connecting households and businesses to wastewater treatment
plants. Because of the cost, time, and issues associated with new
wastewater treatment plant construction, EPA assumed that the most
likely strategy to reduce nutrient loads from septic systems would be
to upgrade existing conventional septic systems to advanced nutrient
removal systems.
    Septic systems in close proximity to surface waters are more likely
to contribute nutrient loads to waters than distant septic systems.
Florida Administrative Code provides that in most cases septic systems
should be at least 75 feet from surface waters (F.A.C. 64e-6.005(3)).
In addition, many of Florida's existing nutrient-related TMDLs identify
nearby failing septic systems as contributing to nutrient impairments
in surface waters.
    For this economic analysis, EPA assumed that some septic systems
located near incrementally impaired waters may be required to upgrade
to advance nutrient removal systems. However, the distance that septic
systems can be safely located relative to these surface waters depends
on a variety of site-specific factors. Because of this uncertainty, EPA
assumed that septic systems located within 500 feet of any water (based
on land use types) in watersheds containing or, in the case of coastal
waters, surrounding incrementally impaired estuaries, coastal waters or
south Florida inland flowing waters may need to be upgraded from
conventional to advanced nutrient removal systems. The NRC agreed with
the 500-ft threshold, but found that the exclusion of septic systems in
springsheds is a deficiency of EPA's analysis. This proposed rule does
not include criteria for springsheds.
    EPA used GIS analysis of data obtained from the Florida Department
of Health \222\ that provides the location of active septic systems in
the State to identify the potentially affected septic systems. This
analysis yielded 5,952 to 10,784 active septic systems that may be
affected by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ FDOH. 2010. Bureau of Onsite Sewage GIS Data Files.
Florida Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health.
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Environment/programs/EhGis/EhGisDownload.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA evaluated the cost of upgrading existing septic systems to
advanced nutrient removal systems. The NRC also recommended that EPA
consider permeable reactive barriers (PRB) in their technology costs
and take into account any additional Florida-specific costs related to
septic system upgrades (e.g., performance-based treatment systems,
under Florida regulations, need to be designed by Florida licensed
professional engineers). EPA included this technology in the cost
analysis, resulting in the range of upgrade capital costs from $3,300
to $8,800 per system. See the Economic Analysis for further detail. For
O&M costs, EPA relied on a study that compared the annual costs
associated with various septic system treatment technologies including
conventional onsite sewage treatment and disposal system and fixed film
activated sludge systems. Based on this study, EPA estimated the
incremental

O&M costs for an advanced system to be $650 per year.\223\ In addition,
homeowners would also incur a biennial permit fee of $100 (or $50 per
year) for the upgraded system. Thus, based on annual O&M costs of $700
and annualizing capital costs at 7% over 20 years, total annual costs
could range from approximately $1,000 to $1,500 for each upgrade. EPA
estimated the total annual costs of upgrading septic systems by
multiplying this range of unit costs with the number of systems
identified for upgrade. Using this method, total annual costs for
upgrading septic systems in incrementally impaired watersheds could
range from $6.0 million to $16.2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ Chang, N., M. Wanielista, A. Daranpob, F. Hossain, Z.
Xuan, J. Miao, S. Liu, Z. Marimon, and S. Debusk. 2010. Onsite
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Evaluation for Nutrient
Removal. FDEP Project WM 928. Report Submitted to Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, by Stormwater Management
Academy, Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering
Department, University of Central Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Governmental Costs
    The proposed rule may result in the identification of incrementally
impaired waters that would require the development of additional TMDLs.
As the principal State regulatory agency implementing water quality
standard, FDEP may incur costs associated with developing additional
TMDLs. EPA's analysis identified 95 (based on the analysis of assessed
waters) to 183 (including potentially impaired unassessed waters)
incrementally impaired waters (WBIDs).
    Because current TMDLs for estuaries and coastal waters in Florida
include an average of approximately four WBIDs each, EPA estimates that
the State of Florida may need to develop and adopt approximately 24 to
46 additional TMDLs. The NRC recommended applying Florida-specific TMDL
development costs from a FDEP report detailing FDEP TMDL program costs.
EPA used a range of costs from a 2001 EPA study that found the cost of
developing a TMDL at different levels of aggregation and the Florida-
specific TMDL cost estimates are within this range of
costs.224, 225 For this analysis, EPA used the estimates for
a single cause of impairment and adjusted the costs to account for the
possibility that a TMDL may need to address more than one pollutant
(because most of the incrementally impaired waters in EPA's analysis
exceeded the criteria for more than one pollutant). Under this
assumption, EPA estimated the average TMDL cost to be approximately
$47,000 ($28,000 on average for one pollutant, plus $6,000 on average
for the other pollutant and adjusted to 2010 dollars). EPA also
estimated unit costs based on the high end of typical TMDL development
costs, plus an additional $6,000 for the second nutrient. Escalating to
2010 dollars, the high range of TMDL development cost of $212,000. For
24 to 46 TMDLs, total costs for incremental TMDL development could be
$1.1 million to $10.2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ USEPA. 2001. The National Costs of the Total Maximum Daily
Load Program (Draft Report). EPA-841-D-01-003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC.
    \225\ EPA did not adjust these estimates to account for
potential reductions in resources required to develop TMDLs given
that scientifically based numeric targets were developed as part of
this proposed rule. Costs for these TMDLs are thus likely to be an
overestimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP currently operates its TMDL schedule on a five-phase cycle
that rotates through Florida's five basins over five years. Under this
schedule, completion of TMDLs for high priority waters will take 9
years; it will take an additional 5 years to complete the process for
medium priority waters. Assuming all the incremental impairments are
high priority and FDEP develops the new TMDLs over a 9-year period,
annual costs could be $0.1 to $1.1 million.
    Should the State of Florida submit current TMDL targets as Federal
site specific alternative criteria (SSAC) for EPA review and approval,
EPA believes it is reasonable to assume that information used in the
development of the TMDLs will substantially reduce the time and effort
needed to provide a scientifically defensible justification for such
applications. If EPA's assumption is incorrect and there were to be
increased costs for the SSAC process, EPA expects that such cost
underestimation would be cancelled out by continuing to include the
costs of developing the scientifically based numeric targets for new
TMDLs. Thus, EPA did not separately analyze any incremental costs
associated with SSAC.
    Similarly, state and local agencies regularly monitor TN and TP in
ambient waters. These data are the basis for the extensive IWR database
maintained by the State of Florida. Because Florida is currently
monitoring TN, TP, and chlorophyll-a concentrations in many waters, EPA
assumed that the rule is unlikely to have a significant impact on costs
related to water quality monitoring activities.
E. DPVs
    EPA is proposing several options for DPVs. For this analysis, EPA
assumed that the DPVs equal the numeric nutrient criteria for the
segment to which the stream discharges. If the State of Florida were to
choose any of the other three proposed options for DPVs, then these
costs may be over- or underestimated. To estimate whether the DPVs are
being met, EPA used the same minimum data requirements (e.g., four data
points in one year with at least one data point each in summer and
winter seasons) and attainment criteria (no more than one exceedance in
a three-year period) for evaluating the criteria. EPA used data from
estuary pour points from any station within 500 feet of and within the
same WBID as the pour point. For south Florida pour points EPA did not
use the data from the technical report, but used all data from the WBID
in which the pour point is located to assess impairment.
    For this analysis, EPA assumed that any WBID containing a pour
point exceeding the criteria would be designated as impaired. EPA then
identified the watersheds that contain or surround, in the case of
coastal waters, those incrementally impaired WBIDs. See Appendix G of
the economic analysis for more information.

Table VI(E). Summary of Potential Incremental Costs Associated with DPVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total
                                                             potential
                     Source category                        incremental
                                                            annual cost
                                                             ($/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Wastewater....................................     $29.4-$29.6
Industrial Dischargers..................................            $0.0
Urban Stormwater........................................     $9.5-$185.1
Agriculture.............................................       $0.5-$0.9
Septic Systems..........................................       $2.0-$3.0
Government/Program Implementation \1\...................       $0.0-$0.1
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................    $41.4-$218.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1.\ Assuming 3 TMDLs for 13 WBIDs (approximately 4 WBIDs per TMDL) over
  a 9-year period.

F. Summary of Costs
    Table VI(F) summarizes EPA's estimates of potential incremental
costs associated with additional State and private sector activities to
meet the numeric criteria supporting State designated uses. Note, these
total costs include costs associated with unassessed waters. Because of
uncertainties in the pollution controls ultimately implemented by the
State of Florida, actual costs may vary depending on the site-specific
source reductions needed to meet the new numeric criteria.

    Table VI(F)--Summary of Potential Annual Costs \1\ (2010 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annual Cost
                         Sector                           (millions) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Wastewater...................................      $44.1-$49.7
Industrial Dischargers.................................            $15.2
Urban Stormwater.......................................    $131.9-$330.9
Agriculture............................................        $0.3-$0.7
Septic Systems.........................................       $6.0-$16.2
Government/Program Implementation (TMDLs)..............        $0.1-$1.1
Downstream Protection Values...........................     $41.4-$218.6
                                                        ----------------
    Total..............................................   $239.0--$632.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1.\ Includes costs for assessed, unassessed, and DPVs.
\2.\ Low end of range represents estimated costs under the assumption
  that none of the unassessed waters would be impaired under the
  proposed rule; high end of range represents costs associated with the
  assumption of proportional impairment of unassessed waters.

    EPA also calculated the potential costs to Florida households.
Given the uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the estimated costs
ultimately borne by households, EPA sought to minimize that uncertainty
with a selective though matched set of potential costs and potentially
affected households. Although GIS analysis could be used to overlay
maps of affected populations and facilities with incrementally impaired
watersheds, a simpler more direct approach is to assume that all
households in Florida are either served by a wastewater treatment plant
or septic system, and pay taxes that would support implementation
programs conducted by the State. In addition, because the sector with
the largest costs is urban stormwater, EPA decided to include this
sector as well. Thus, EPA decided to look at the total costs of the two
rules across all households in Florida. Also, given the cost-pass-
through of agriculture costs and industrial costs to consumers outside
the State of Florida, EPA did not consider them for the estimate of
average costs per households in Florida. Therefore, EPA also calculated
the total costs for municipal wastewater and stormwater controls,
septic upgrades, and government/program implementation costs for both
the proposed rule and the Inland rule and compared this sum to the
total number of households in the State. This may underestimate actual
household costs if some costs are not borne equally by households
statewide, but instead are concentrated within the watersheds for which
controls are needed. EPA's total estimated annual cost for compliance
with this proposed rule, and the Inland rule, represents $44 to $108
per household per year for both rules across all households in Florida.
This equals $3.60 to $9 per month per household in Florida. Please
refer to Section 13 in the Economic Analysis for more information.
    EPA also considered whether the potential costs of this proposed
rule could result in employment impacts. Environmental regulations can
both increase and decrease employment, and whether the net effect is
positive or negative depends on many factors. See Chapter 13 of the
Economic Analysis for further discussion.
G. Benefits
    Since elevated concentrations of nutrients in surface waters can
result in adverse ecological effects, human health impacts, and
negative economic impacts, EPA expects the proposed numeric nutrient
criteria to result in significant ecological, human health, and
economic benefits to Florida. For example, excess nutrients in water
can cause eutrophication, which can lead to harmful (sometimes toxic)
algal blooms, loss of rooted plants, and decreased dissolved oxygen. In
turn, these results can lead to adverse impacts on aquatic life,
fishing, swimming, wildlife watching, camping, and drinking water.
Excess nutrients can also cause: nuisance surface scum, reduced food
for herbivorous wildlife, fish kills, alterations in fish communities,
and unsightly shorelines that can decrease property values. Excessive
nutrient loads can also lead to harmful algal blooms (HABs), which can
cause a range of adverse human health effects including dermal,
gastrointestinal, neurological, and respiratory problems, and in severe
cases, may even result in fatalities.
    Nutrient impairment is currently a major concern for many bays,
estuaries, and coasts within the United States, and is particularly
severe for many Florida waters. FDEP's 2010 report identifies
approximately 569 square miles (364,160 acres) of estuaries (about 23
percent of assessed estuarine area) and 102 square miles (65,280 acres)
of coastal waters (about 1.5 percent of assessed coastal waters) as
impaired by nutrients. These impairments may have a significant impact
on the value of environmental goods and services provided by the
affected waterbodies. For example, the losses of submerged aquatic
vegetation resulting from eutrophication can have significant economic
impacts. In 2009, Florida seagrass communities supported an estimated
harvest of $23 million for just six species of commercial fish and
shellfish.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ Crist, C. 2010. Seagrass Awareness Month. Proclamation by
the Governor Charlie Crist of the State of Florida. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Florida's environment and economy, the tourism-focused goods and
services provided by its bays, estuaries, and coastal waters are
particularly valuable. The tourism industry of Florida's nearshore
counties contributes approximately $12.4 billion (2004 dollars) to the
State's economy annually.\227\ Coral reefs are especially important
contributors to Florida's tourism sector. Reef-related recreational
expenditures on activities such as snorkeling, scuba diving, fishing,
and glass bottom boating in four counties in southeastern Florida for a
one year period in 2000-2001 totaled $5.4 billion.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ NOEP. 2006. Coastal Economy Data. National Ocean Economics
Program. www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/coastal/coastalEcon.asp.
    \228\ Johns, G.M., V.R. Leeworthy, F.W. Bell, and M.A. Bonn.
2001. Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in SoutheastFlorida. Final Report
prepared by Hazen and Sawyer, Hollywood, FL, for Broward County,
Palm Beach County, Miami-Dade County, Monroe County, Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule will help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations in Florida's estuaries, coastal waters and south Florida
inland flowing waters. In turn, this reduction will improve ecological
function and prevent further degradation that can result in substantial
economic benefits to Florida citizens. EPA's economic analysis document
describes in detail many of the potential benefits associated with
meeting the numeric criteria in the proposed rule for nitrogen and
phosphorus, including reduced human health risks, ecological benefits
and functions, improved recreational opportunities, aesthetic
enhancements and others.
1. Monetized Benefits Estimates
    Reducing nutrient concentrations will increase services provided by
water resources to recreational users. For example, some coastal waters
that are not usable for recreation may become available following
implementation of the rule, thereby expanding recreation options for
residential users and tourists. Other waters that are available for
recreation can become more attractive for users by making recreational
trips more enjoyable. Individuals may also take trips more frequently
if they enjoy their recreational activities more. In addition to
recreational improvements, the

proposed rule is expected to generate nonuse benefits from bequest,
altruism, and existence motivations. Individuals may value the
knowledge that water quality is being maintained, ecosystems are being
protected, and populations of individual species are healthy,
independently from any use value.
    EPA used a benefits transfer function based on meta-analysis of
surface water valuation studies to estimate both use and nonuse
benefits from improvements in surface water. This approach is based on
the method used to quantify nonmarket benefits in the 2009
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Final Effluent
Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
(EPA, 2009), also used in the economic analysis of the Inland Rule. The
approach quantifies benefits based on reach-specific baseline water
quality and the estimated change in pollutant concentrations. The
approach translates reductions in nutrients into an indicator of
overall water quality (via a ``water quality ladder,'' or WQL) and
values these improvements in terms of household willingness to pay
(WTP) for the types of uses (e.g., as fishing and swimming) that are
supported by different water quality levels.
    EPA calculated the baseline WQL scores for incrementally affected
waters by comparing the water quality observations to criteria. For
coastal waters, only Chl-a criteria are applicable, and for these
waters, EPA estimated baseline WQL scores based on Chl-a exceedances
only. For other marine waters, EPA developed estimates of baseline
water quality based on comparing the water quality observations to the
applicable criteria in the following order: (1) Exceedances of proposed
TN criteria; (2) exceedances of proposed TP criteria; and (3)
exceedances of proposed Chl-a criteria. The baseline WQL score is based
on the percent exceedance of the applicable criterion value. EPA
assumes all incrementally impaired waters will meet the proposed
criteria and estimated the potential changes for each waterbody. EPA
estimated that up to 163 unassessed WBIDs may be incrementally
impaired, but water quality data for these waters are not available. To
estimate the potential benefits associated with these potentially
impaired unassessed waters, EPA estimated the same percent exceedance
of the potentially impaired assessed waters. Because EPA's estimates of
monetized benefits only reflect the water quality improvements for
WBIDs, and not HUC-12s, these potential benefits are underestimated and
should not be directly compared to costs, which include HUC-12 costs.
EPA then estimated monetized benefit values of these water quality
improvements using benefits transfer based on a meta-regression of 45
studies that value water quality improvements in surface waters. Using
the meta-analysis EPA estimated a household WTP function with
independent variables that characterize (1) the underlying study and
methodology used, (2) demographic and other characteristics of the
surveyed populations, (3) geographic region and scale, and (4) resource
characteristics and improvements. More details on the meta-analysis can
be found in the Economic Analysis.
    Using this function, EPA derived household WTP estimates for both
full time and part time residents of the State. EPA estimated that
seasonal residents live in the State for approximately four months of
the year; therefore EPA weighted household WTP values for seasonal
residents by one third. EPA then weighted household WTP estimates by
the percentage of State water miles that are expected to improve. EPA
estimated total benefits by multiplying the weighted household WTP
value with the total number of benefiting households. EPA estimated the
number of full time residents by dividing the total State population by
average household size for the State as provided by the U.S. Census
Bureau's 2010 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The
number of part-time households in Florida is based on Smith and House
(2006), who used survey data to estimate the number, timing, and
duration of temporary moves to Florida at peak seasons. EPA used the
Smith and House (2006) results and U.S. Census Bureau (2010) statistics
on household size to estimate the number of part-time households in
Florida. Total monetized benefits, including monetized benefits of
unassessed waters, may be in the range from $39.0 million to $53.4
million annually, as shown in Table VI(F). The range reflects EPA's
assumptions regarding the location of unassessed waters that might be
incrementally impaired.
    Because EPA's estimates of monetized benefits only reflect use and
nonuse values associated with water quality improvements to Florida
residents (full and part time), these potential benefits are likely
underestimated compared to costs. The population considered in the
benefits analysis of the rule does not include households outside of
Florida that may also hold values for water resources in the State of
Florida. Even if per household values for out-of-State residents are
small, they may be significant in the aggregate if these values are
held by a substantial number of out-of-State households. EPA notes that
four times as many out-of-State and foreign tourists visit the State's
saltwater beaches each year as State residents do. Not including out-
of-State residents in the analysis is likely to result in an
underestimation of the total benefits of improved water quality.
Although these monetized benefits estimates do not account for all
potential economic benefits arising from the proposed rule, they help
to demonstrate the economic importance of restoring and protecting
Florida waters from the impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.

    Table VI(F)--Potential Annual State Benefits Associated With the
      Proposed Criteria Including Unassessed Waters (2010 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Average benefit     Total benefits
           WTP estimate                per mile \1\      (millions) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower 5% Bound....................             $8,200        $17.2-$23.6
Mean..............................             18,500        $39.0-$53.4
Upper 95% Bound...................             34,500        $72.5-$99.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total benefits divided by 2,102 incrementally impaired assessed
  miles.
\2\ Benefits per mile times the number of incrementally impaired miles;
  based on between 2,102 and 2,882 potentially improved miles. The low
  end of the range represents assessed waters only, and the high end of
  the range includes unassessed waters.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action. This proposed rule does not
establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or
other sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Moreover, existing
narrative water quality criteria in State law already require that
nutrients not be present in waters in concentrations that cause an
imbalance in natural populations of flora and fauna in estuaries and
coastal waters in Florida and in south Florida inland flowing waters.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any direct new information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Actions to implement these standards may entail additional
paperwork burden. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action
does not include any information collection, reporting, or record-
keeping requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    Under the CWA water quality standards program, states must adopt
water quality standards for their waters and must submit those water
quality standards to EPA for review and approval or disapproval; if the
Agency disapproves a state standard and the state does not adopt
appropriate revisions to address EPA's disapproval, EPA must promulgate
standards consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements.
EPA also has the authority to promulgate water quality standards in any
case where the Administrator determines that a new or revised standard
is necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA. State standards
approved by EPA (or EPA-promulgated standards) are implemented through
various water quality control programs including the NPDES program,
which limits discharges to navigable waters except in compliance with
an NPDES permit. The CWA requires that all NPDES permits include any
limits on discharges that are necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards.
    Thus, under the CWA, EPA's promulgation of water quality standards
establishes standards that the State of Florida implements through the
NPDES permit process. The State has discretion in developing discharge
limits, as needed to meet the standards. This proposed rule does not
itself establish any requirements that are applicable to small
entities. As a result of this action, the State of Florida will need to
ensure that permits it issues include any limitations on discharges
necessary to comply with the standards established in the final rule.
In doing so, the State will have a number of choices associated with
permit writing (e.g., relating to compliance schedules, variances,
etc.). While Florida's implementation of the rule may ultimately result
in new or revised permit conditions for some dischargers, including
small entities, EPA's action, by itself, does not impose any of these
requirements on small entities; that is, these requirements are not
self-implementing. Thus, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules that include a ''Federal
mandate'' that may result in expenditures to state, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. A ``Federal mandate,'' is any
provision in federal statute or regulation that would impose an
enforceable duty on State, local or Tribal governments or the private
sector.\229\ Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed under section 202, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205(a) do not apply when they are
inconsistent with law. Moreover, section 205(b) allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ A ``Federal mandate'' does not include conditions of
Federal assistance and generally does not include duties arising
from participation in a voluntary Federal program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or
Tribal governments or the private sector. As these water quality
criteria are not self-implementing, EPA's proposed rule does not
regulate or affect any entity. Because this proposed rule does not
regulate or affect any entity, it therefore is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
    EPA determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.

Moreover, water quality standards, including those promulgated here,
apply broadly to dischargers and are not uniquely applicable to small
governments. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA's authority and responsibility
to promulgate Federal water quality standards when state standards do
not meet the requirements of the CWA is well established and has been
used on various occasions in the past. The proposed rule would not
substantially affect the relationship between EPA and the States and
Territories, or the distribution of power or responsibilities between
EPA and the various levels of government. The proposed rule would not
alter Florida's considerable discretion in implementing these water
quality standards. Further, this proposed rule would not preclude
Florida from adopting water quality standards that EPA concludes meet
the requirements of the CWA, either before or after promulgation of the
final rule, which would eliminate the need for Federal standards. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action, EPA communicated with the State of Florida to discuss the
Federal rulemaking process. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or
EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications.
However, the rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
    In the State of Florida, there are two Indian tribes, the Seminole
Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, with
flowing waters. Both tribes have been approved for treatment in the
same manner as a state (TAS) status for CWA sections 303 and 401 and
have federally-approved water quality standards in their respective
jurisdictions. These tribes are not subject to this proposed rule.
However, this rule may impact the tribes because the numeric criteria
for Florida will apply to waters adjacent to the tribal waters.
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. At a consultation teleconference held on
March 1, 2012, EPA summarized the available information regarding this
proposed rule, and requested comments on the proposal and its possible
effects on tribal waters. Information relevant to this proposed action
and the related Tribal consultation is posted on the EPA Tribal Portal
site at http://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation/index.htm. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks)

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency believes that this rule will result in
the reduction of environmental health and safety risks that could
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it would afford a
greater level of protection to both human health and the environment if
these numeric nutrient criteria are promulgated for Class I, Class II
and Class III waters in the State of Florida.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Water quality standards, Nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution, Nutrients, Florida.

    Dated: November 30, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 131 as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D--[Amended]

    2. Section 131.45 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  131.45  Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's
Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and South Florida Inland Flowing Waters

    (a) Scope. This section promulgates numeric criteria for nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution for Class I, Class II, and Class III waters in
the State of Florida. This section also contains provisions for site-
specific alternative criteria.
    (b) Definitions.--(1) Canal means a trench, the bottom of which is
normally covered by water with the upper edges of its two sides
normally above water.
    (2) Coastal water means all marine waters that have been classified
as Class II (Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting) or Class III
(Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced
Population of Fish and Wildlife) water bodies pursuant to Section 62-
302.400, F.A.C., extending to three nautical miles from shore that are
not classified as estuaries.
    (3) Estuary means predominantly marine regions of interaction
between rivers and nearshore ocean waters, where tidal action and river
flow mix fresh and salt water. Such areas include bays, mouths of
rivers, and lagoons that have been classified as Class II (Shellfish
Propagation or Harvesting) or Class III (Recreation, Propagation and
Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and
Wildlife) water bodies pursuant to Section 62-302.400, F.A.C.,
excluding wetlands.
    (4) Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) means those lands described
in Florida Statute Section 373.4592 (1994) subsection (15).
    (5) Everglades Protection Area (EvPA) means Water Conservation
Areas 1 (which includes the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge), 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B, and the Everglades National Park.
    (6) Inland flowing waters means inland predominantly fresh surface
water streams that have been classified as Class I (Potable Water
Supplies) or Class III (Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a
Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife) water bodies
pursuant to Section 62-302.400, F.A.C., excluding wetlands (e.g.,
sloughs).
    (7) Marine Lake means a slow-moving or standing body of marine
water that occupies an inland basin that is not a stream, spring, or
wetland.
    (8) Predominantly fresh waters means surface waters in which the
chloride concentration at the surface is less than 1,500 milligrams per
liter.
    (9) Predominantly marine waters means surface waters in which the
chloride concentration at the surface is greater than or equal to 1,500
milligrams per liter.
    (10) South Florida inland flowing waters means inland flowing
waters in the South Florida Nutrient Watershed Region, which
encompasses the waters south of Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee
River (including Estero Bay) watershed, and the St. Lucie watershed.
    (11) State means the State of Florida, whose transactions with the
U.S. EPA in matters related to 40 CFR 131.45 are administered by the
Secretary, or officials delegated such responsibility, of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), or successor agencies.
    (12) Stream means a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water
in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals,
freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies.
    (13) Surface water means water upon the surface of the earth,
whether contained in bounds created naturally or artificially or
diffused. Water from natural springs shall be classified as surface
water when it exits from the spring onto the Earth's surface.
    (14) Tidal creek means a relatively small coastal tributary with
variable salinity that lies at the transition zone between terrestrial
uplands and the open estuary.
    (c) Criteria for Florida Waters.
    (1) Criteria for Estuaries.
    The applicable total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and
chlorophyll a criteria for estuaries are shown in Table 1.

                             Table 1--EPA's Numeric Criteria for Florida's Estuaries
                                  [In geographic order Northwest to Northeast]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Proposed Criteria
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                     Segment                        Segment ID                                    Chl-a*  ([mu]g/
                                                                    TN*  (mg/L)     TP*  (mg/L)         L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perdido Bay:
    Upper Perdido Bay...........................            0101            0.59           0.042             5.2
    Big Lagoon..................................            0102            0.26           0.019             4.9
    Central Perdido Bay.........................            0103            0.47           0.031             5.8
    Lower Perdido Bay...........................            0104            0.34           0.023             5.8
Pensacola Bay:
    Blackwater Bay..............................            0201            0.53           0.022             3.9
    Upper Escambia Bay..........................            0202            0.43           0.025             3.7
    East Bay....................................            0203            0.50           0.021             4.2
    Santa Rosa Sound............................            0204            0.34           0.018             4.1
    Lower Escambia Bay..........................            0205            0.44           0.023             4.0
    Upper Pensacola Bay.........................            0206            0.40           0.021             3.9
    Lower Pensacola Bay.........................            0207            0.34           0.020             3.6
    Santa Rosa Sound............................            0208            0.33           0.020             3.9
    Santa Rosa Sound............................            0209            0.36           0.020             4.9
Choctawhatchee Bay:
    Eastern Choctawhatchee Bay..................            0301            0.47           0.025             8.1
    Central Choctawhatchee Bay..................            0302            0.36           0.019             3.8
    Western Choctawhatchee Bay..................            0303            0.21           0.012             2.4
St. Andrews Bay:
    East Bay....................................            0401            0.31           0.014             4.6
    St. Andrews Sound...........................            0402            0.14           0.009             2.3
    Eastern St. Andrews Bay.....................            0403            0.24           0.021             3.9

    Western St. Andrews Bay.....................            0404            0.19           0.016             3.1
    Southern St. Andrews Bay....................            0405            0.15           0.013             2.6
    North Bay 1.................................            0406            0.22           0.012             3.7
    North Bay 2.................................            0407            0.22           0.014             3.7
    North Bay 3.................................            0408            0.21           0.016             3.4
    West Bay....................................            0409            0.23           0.022             3.8
St. Joseph Bay:
    St. Joseph Bay..............................            0501            0.25           0.018             3.8
Apalachicola Bay:
    St. George Sound............................            0601            0.53           0.019             3.6
    Apalachicola Bay............................            0602            0.51           0.019             2.7
    East Bay....................................            0603            0.76           0.034             1.7
    St. Vincent Sound...........................            0605            0.52           0.016            11.9
    Apalachicola Offshore.......................            0606            0.30           0.008             2.3
Alligator Harbor:
    Alligator Harbor............................            0701            0.36           0.011             2.8
    Alligator Offshore..........................            0702            0.33           0.009             3.1
    Alligator Offshore..........................            0703            0.33           0.009             2.9
Ochlockonee Bay \+\:
    Ochlockonee-St. Marks Offshore..............            0825            0.79           0.033             2.7
    Ochlockonee Offshore........................            0829            0.47           0.019             1.9
    Ochlockonee Bay.............................            0830            0.66           0.037             1.8
    St. Marks River Offshore....................            0827            0.51           0.022             1.7
    St. Marks River.............................            0828            0.55           0.030             1.2
Big Bend/Apalachee Bay \+\:
    Econfina Offshore...........................            0824            0.59           0.028             4.6
    Econfina....................................            0832            0.55           0.032             4.4
    Fenholloway.................................            0822            1.15           0.444             1.9
    Fenholloway Offshore........................            0823            0.48           0.034            10.3
    Steinhatchee-Fenholloway Offshore...........            0821            0.40           0.023             4.1
    Steinhatchee River..........................            0819            0.67           0.077             1.0
    Steinhatchee Offshore.......................            0820            0.34           0.018             3.5
    Steinhatchee Offshore.......................            0818            0.39           0.032             4.8
Suwannee River \+\:
    Suwannee Offshore...........................            0817            0.78           0.049             5.2
Springs Coast \+\:
    Waccasassa River Offshore...................            0814            0.38           0.019             3.9
    Cedar Keys..................................            0815            0.32           0.019             4.1
    Crystal River...............................            0812            0.35           0.013             1.3
    Crystal-Homosassa Offshore..................            0813            0.36           0.013             2.1
    Homosassa River.............................            0833            0.47           0.032             1.9
    Chassahowitzka River........................            0810            0.32           0.010             0.7
    Chassahowitzka River Offshore...............            0811            0.29           0.009             1.7
    Weeki Wachee River..........................            0808            0.32           0.010             1.6
    Weeki Wachee Offshore.......................            0809            0.30           0.009             2.1
    Pithlachascotee River.......................            0806            0.50           0.022             2.4
    Pithlachascotee Offshore....................            0807            0.32           0.011             2.5
    Anclote River...............................            0804            0.48           0.037             4.7
    Anclote Offshore............................            0805            0.31           0.011             3.2
    Anclote Offshore South......................            0803            0.29           0.008             2.6
Lake Worth Lagoon/Loxahatchee:
    North Lake Worth Lagoon.....................            1201            0.55           0.067             4.7
    Central Lake Worth Lagoon...................            1202            0.57           0.089             5.3
    South Lake Worth Lagoon.....................            1203            0.48           0.034             3.6
    Lower Loxahatchee...........................            1301            0.68           0.028             2.7
    Middle Loxahatchee..........................            1302            0.98           0.044             3.9
    Upper Loxahatchee...........................            1303            1.25           0.072             3.6
St. Lucie:
    Lower St. Lucie.............................            1401            0.58           0.045             5.3
    Middle St. Lucie............................            1402            0.90           0.120             8.4
    Upper St. Lucie.............................            1403            1.22           0.197             8.9
Indian River Lagoon:
    Mosquito Lagoon.............................            1501            1.18           0.078             7.5
    Banana River................................            1502            1.17           0.036             5.7
    Upper Indian River Lagoon...................            1503            1.63           0.074             9.2
    Upper Central Indian River Lagoon...........            1504            1.33           0.076             9.2
    Lower Central Indian River Lagoon...........            1505            1.12           0.117             8.7
    Lower Indian River Lagoon...................            1506            0.49           0.037             4.0

Halifax River:
    Upper Halifax River.........................            1601            0.75           0.243             9.4
    Lower Halifax River.........................            1602            0.63           0.167             9.6
Guana, Tolomato, Matanzas, Pellicer:
    Upper GTMP..................................            1701            0.77           0.144             9.5
    Lower GTMP..................................            1702            0.53           0.108             6.1
Lower St. Johns River:
    Lower St. Johns River.......................            1801            0.75           0.095             2.5
    Trout River.................................            1802            1.09           0.108             3.6
    Trout River.................................            1803            1.15           0.074             7.7
Nassau River:
    Lower Nassau................................            1901            0.33           0.113             3.2
    Middle Nassau...............................            1902            0.40           0.120             2.4
    Upper Nassau................................            1903            0.75           0.125             3.4
St. Marys River:
    Lower St. Marys River.......................            2002            0.27           0.045             3.0
    Middle St. Marys River......................            2003            0.44           0.036             2.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chlorophyll a is defined as corrected chlorophyll, or the concentration of chlorophyll a remaining after the
  chlorophyll degradation product, phaeophytin a, has been subtracted from the uncorrected chlorophyll a
  measurement.
* For a given water body, the annual geometric mean of TN, TP, or chlorophyll a, concentrations shall not exceed
  the applicable criterion concentration more than once in a three-year period.
\+\ In these four areas (collectively referred to as the ``Big Bend region''), coastal and estuarine waters are
  combined. Criteria for the Big Bend region apply to the coastal and estuarine waters in that region.

    (2) Criteria for Tidal Creeks.
    The applicable total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and
chlorophyll a criteria for predominantly marine tidal creeks are shown
in Sec.  131.45(c)(1), Table 1. The applicable TN and TP criteria for
predominantly freshwater tidal creeks are shown in Table 2.

 Table 2--EPA's Numeric Criteria for Florida's Predominantly Freshwater
                              Tidal Creeks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Instream protection
                                                       value criteria
             Nutrient watershed region             ---------------------
                                                     TN  (mg/   TP  (mg/
                                                       L) *       L) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panhandle West \a\................................       0.67       0.06
Panhandle East \b\................................       1.03       0.18
North Central \c\.................................       1.87       0.30
West Central \d\..................................       1.65       0.49
Peninsula \e\.....................................       1.54       0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watersheds pertaining to each Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR) were based
  principally on the NOAA coastal, estuarine, and fluvial drainage areas
  with modifications to the NOAA drainage areas in the West Central and
  Peninsula Regions that account for unique watershed geologies. For
  more detailed information on regionalization and which WBIDs pertain
  to each NWR, see the Technical Support Document.
\a\ Panhandle West region includes: Perdido Bay Watershed, Pensacola Bay
  Watershed, Choctawhatchee Bay Watershed, St. Andrews Bay Watershed,
  Apalachicola Bay Watershed.
\b\ Panhandle East region includes: Apalachee Bay Watershed, and
  Econfina/Steinhatchee Coastal Drainage Area.
\c\ North Central region includes the Suwannee River Watershed.
\d\ West Central region includes: Peace, Myakka, Hillsborough, Alafia,
  Manatee, Little Manatee River Watersheds, and small, direct Tampa Bay
  tributary watersheds south of the Hillsborough River Watershed.
\e\ Peninsula region includes: Waccasassa Coastal Drainage Area,
  Withlacoochee Coastal Drainage Area, Crystal/Pithlachascotee Coastal
  Drainage Area, small, direct Tampa Bay tributary watersheds west of
  the Hillsborough River Watershed, Sarasota Bay Watershed, small,
  direct Charlotte Harbor tributary watersheds south of the Peace River
  Watershed, Caloosahatchee River Watershed, Estero Bay Watershed,
  Kissimmee River/Lake Okeechobee Drainage Area, Loxahatchee/St. Lucie
  Watershed, Indian River Watershed, Daytona/St. Augustine Coastal
  Drainage Area, St. Johns River Watershed, Nassau Coastal Drainage
  Area, and St. Marys River Watershed.
* For a given water body, the annual geometric mean of TN or TP
  concentrations shall not exceed the applicable criterion concentration
  more than once in a three-year period.

    (3) Criteria for Marine Lakes.
    The applicable total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and
chlorophyll a criteria for marine lakes are shown in Table 3.

                           Table 3--EPA's Numeric Criteria for Florida's Marine Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           EPA final       EPA final TN and TP criteria  [range]
   Long term average lake color \a\ and alkalinity     Chl[dash]a \b,*\  ---------------------------------------
                                                            [mu]g/L            TN  mg/L            TP  mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colored lakes \c\...................................                  20                1.27                0.05
                                                                                [1.27-2.23]         [0.05-0.16]

Clear lakes, high alkalinity \d\....................                  20                1.05                0.03
                                                                                [1.05-1.91]         [0.03-0.09]
Clear lakes, low alkalinity \e\.....................                   6                0.51                0.01
                                                                                [0.51-0.93]         [0.01-0.03]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Platinum-cobalt units (PCU) assessed as true color free from turbidity
\b\ Chl-a is defined as corrected chlorophyll, or the concentration of chl-a remaining after the chlorophyll
  degradation product, phaeophytin a, has been subtracted from the uncorrected chl-a measurement.
\c\ Long-term color > 40 PCU and alkalinity > 20 mg/L CaCO3
\d\ Long-term color <= 40 PCU and alkalinity > 20 mg/L CaCO3
\e\ Long-term color <= 40 PCU and alkalinity <= 20 mg/L CaCO3
* For a water body, the annual geometric mean of chl-a, TN or TP concentrations shall not exceed the applicable
  criterion concentration more than once in a three-year period.

    (4) Criteria for Coastal Waters.
    The applicable chlorophyll a criteria for coastal waters are shown
in Table 4.

                          Table 4--EPA's Numeric Criteria for Florida's Coastal Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Coastal                                    ChlorophyllRS-a \1\*
               Coastal region                  segment \+\        Approximate location            (mg/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panhandle..................................               1  Alabama border...............                  2.41
                                                          2  Pensacola Bay Pass...........                  2.57
                                                          3  .............................                  1.44
                                                          4  .............................                  1.16
                                                          5  .............................                  1.06
                                                          6  .............................                  1.04
                                                          7  .............................                  1.14
                                                          8  Choctawhatchee Bay Pass......                  1.23
                                                          9  .............................                  1.08
                                                         10  .............................                  1.09
                                                         11  .............................                  1.11
                                                         12  .............................                  1.18
                                                         13  .............................                  1.45
                                                         14  St. Andrews Bay Pass.........                  1.74
                                                         15  St. Joseph Bay Pass..........                  2.75
                                                         16  .............................                  2.39
                                                         17  Southeast St. Joseph Bay.....                  3.47
West Florida Shelf.........................              18  .............................                  3.96
                                                         19  Tampa Bay Pass...............                  4.45
                                                         20  .............................                  3.37
                                                         21  .............................                  3.25
                                                         22  .............................                  2.95
                                                         23  .............................                  2.79
                                                         24  .............................                  2.98
                                                         25  .............................                  3.24
                                                         26  Charlotte Harbor.............                  4.55
                                                         27  .............................                  4.22
                                                         28  .............................                  3.67
                                                         29  .............................                  4.16
                                                         30  .............................                  5.70
                                                         31  .............................                  4.54
                                                         32  .............................                  4.03
                                                         33  Fort Myers...................                  4.61
Atlantic Coast.............................              34  Biscayne Bay.................                  0.92
                                                         35  .............................                  0.26
                                                         36  .............................                  0.26
                                                         37  .............................                  0.24
                                                         38  .............................                  0.21
                                                         39  .............................                  0.21
                                                         40  .............................                  0.20
                                                         41  .............................                  0.20
                                                         42  .............................                  0.21
                                                         43  .............................                  0.25
                                                         44  .............................                  0.57
                                                         45  St. Lucie Inlet..............                  1.08
                                                         46  .............................                  1.42

                                                         47  .............................                  1.77
                                                         48  .............................                  1.55
                                                         49  .............................                  1.44
                                                         50  .............................                  1.53
                                                         51  .............................                  1.31
                                                         52  .............................                  1.40
                                                         53  .............................                  1.80
                                                         54  Canaveral Bight..............                  2.73
                                                         55  .............................                  2.33
                                                         56  .............................                  2.28
                                                         57  .............................                  2.06
                                                         58  .............................                  1.92
                                                         59  .............................                  1.76
                                                         60  .............................                  1.72
                                                         61  .............................                  2.04
                                                         62  .............................                  1.92
                                                         63  .............................                  1.86
                                                         64  .............................                  1.95
                                                         65  .............................                  2.41
                                                         66  .............................                  2.76
                                                         67  .............................                  2.80
                                                         68  .............................                  3.45
                                                         69  Nassau Sound.................                  3.69
                                                         70  .............................                  3.78
                                                         71  Georgia border...............                  4.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ChlorophyllRS-a is remotely sensed calculation of chlorophyll a concentrations.
* For a given water body, the annual geometric mean of the chlorophyll a concentration shall not exceed the
  applicable criterion concentration more than once in a three-year period.
\+\ Please see TSD for location of Coastal Segments (Volume 2: Coastal Waters, Section 1.3).

    (5) Criteria for South Florida Inland Flowing Waters.
    The applicable criteria for south Florida inland flowing waters
that flow into downstream estuaries include the downstream protection
value (DPV) for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) derived
pursuant to the provisions of Sec.  131.45(c)(6). These criteria are
not applicable to waters within the lands of the Miccosukee and
Seminole Tribes, the Everglades Protection Area (EvPA), or the
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA).
    (6) Criteria for Protection of Downstream Estuaries and South
Florida marine waters. (i) A downstream protection value (DPV) for
stream tributaries that flow into a downstream estuary or south Florida
marine water (i.e., downstream water) is the allowable concentration of
total nitrogen (TN) and/or total phosphorus (TP) applied at the point
of entry into the downstream water. The applicable DPV for any stream
flowing into a downstream water shall be determined pursuant to
paragraphs (c)(6)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this section. The methods
available to derive DPVs should be considered in the order listed.
Contributions from stream tributaries upstream of the point of entry
location must result in attainment of the DPV at the point of entry
into the downstream water. If the DPV is not attained at the point of
entry into the downstream water, then the collective set of streams in
the upstream watershed does not attain the DPV, which is an applicable
water quality criterion for the water segments in the upstream
watershed. The State or EPA may establish additional DPVs at upstream
tributary locations that are consistent with attaining the DPV at the
point of entry into the downstream water. The State or EPA also have
discretion to establish DPVs to account for a larger watershed area
(i.e., include waters beyond the point of reaching water bodies that
are not streams as defined by this rule).
    (ii) In instances where available data and/or resources provide for
use of a scientifically defensible and protective system-specific
application of water quality simulation models with results that
protect the designated uses and meet all applicable numeric nutrient
criteria for the downstream water, the State or EPA may derive the DPV
for TN and TP from use of a system-specific application of water
quality simulation models. The State or EPA may designate the wasteload
and/or load allocations from a TMDL established or approved by EPA as
DPV(s) if the allocations from the TMDL will protect the downstream
water's designated uses and meet all applicable numeric nutrient
criteria for the downstream water.
    (iii) When the State or EPA has not derived a DPV for a stream
pursuant to paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section, and where a reference
condition approach is used to derive the downstream water's TN, TP and
chlorophyll a criteria, then the State or EPA may derive the DPV for TN
and TP using a reference condition approach based on TN and TP
concentrations from the stream pour point, coincident in time with the
data record from which the downstream receiving water segment TN and TP
criteria were developed, and using the same data screens and reference
condition approach as were applied to the downstream water's data.
    (iv) When the State or EPA has not derived a DPV pursuant to
paragraph (c)(6)(ii) or (c)(6)(iii) of this section, then the State or
EPA may derive the DPV for TN and TP using dilution models based on the
relationship between salinity and nutrient concentrations.
    (v) When the State or EPA has not derived a DPV pursuant to
paragraph (c)(6)(ii), (c)(6)(iii), or (c)(6)(iv) of this section, then
the DPV for TN and TP is the applicable TN and TP criteria for the
receiving segment of the downstream water as described in Sec.
131.45(c)(1), or as described in Section 62-302.532(a)-(h), F.A.C. for
downstream waters where EPA-approved State criteria apply.

    (vi) The State and EPA shall maintain a record of DPVs they derive
based on the methods described in paragraphs (c)(6)(ii), (iii), (iv),
and (v) of this section, as well as a record supporting their
derivation, and make such records available to the public. The State
and EPA shall notify one another and provide a supporting record within
30 days of derivation of DPVs pursuant to paragraphs (c)(6)(i), (ii),
(iii), (iv), or (v) of this section. DPVs derived pursuant to these
paragraphs do not require EPA approval under Clean Water Act Sec.
303(c) to take effect.
    (d) Applicability. (1) The criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(6) of this section apply to certain Class I, Class II, and Class III
waters in Florida, and apply concurrently with other applicable water
quality criteria, except when:
    (i) State water quality standards contain criteria that are more
stringent for a particular parameter and use;
    (ii) The Regional Administrator determines that site-specific
alternative criteria apply pursuant to the procedures in paragraph (e)
of this section; or
    (iii) The State adopts and EPA approves a water quality standards
variance to the Class I, Class II, or Class III designated use pursuant
to Sec.  131.13 that meets the applicable provisions of State law and
the applicable Federal regulations at Sec.  131.10.
    (2) The criteria established in this section are subject to the
State's general rules of applicability in the same way and to the same
extent as are the other Federally-adopted and State-adopted numeric
criteria when applied to the same use classifications.
    (e) Site-specific Alternative Criteria.
    (1) The Regional Administrator may determine that site-specific
alternative criteria shall apply to specific surface waters in lieu of
the criteria established in paragraph (c) of this section. Any such
determination shall be made consistent with Sec.  131.11.
    (2) To receive consideration from the Regional Administrator for a
determination of site-specific alternative criteria, an entity shall
submit a request that includes proposed alternative numeric criteria
and supporting rationale suitable to meet the needs for a technical
support document pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The
entity shall provide the State a copy of all materials submitted to
EPA, at the time of submittal to EPA, to facilitate the State providing
comments to EPA. Site-specific alternative criteria may be based on one
or more of the following approaches.
    (i) Replicate the process for developing the estuary criteria in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (ii) Replicate the process for developing the tidal creek criteria
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (iii) Replicate the process for developing the marine lake criteria
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (iv) Replicate the process for developing the coastal criteria in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
    (v) Replicate the process for developing the south Florida inland
flowing water criteria in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
    (vi) Conduct a biological, chemical, and physical assessment of
water body conditions.
    (vii) Use another scientifically defensible approach protective of
the designated use.
    (3) For any determination made under paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, the Regional Administrator shall, prior to making such a
determination, provide for public notice and comment on a proposed
determination. For any such proposed determination, the Regional
Administrator shall prepare and make available to the public a
technical support document addressing the specific surface waters
affected and the justification for each proposed determination. This
document shall be made available to the public no later than the date
of public notice issuance.
    (4) The Regional Administrator shall maintain and make available to
the public an updated list of determinations made pursuant to paragraph
(e)(1) of this section as well as the technical support documents for
each determination.
    (5) Nothing in this paragraph (e) shall limit the Administrator's
authority to modify the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section
through rulemaking.
    (f) Effective date. This section is effective [date 60 days after
publication of final rule].
[FR Doc. 2012-30117 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P