October 2009, FDEP decided not to bring the draft criteria before the
Florida Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC), as had been
previously scheduled.  FDEP did not make any final decisions as to
whether it might be appropriate to ask the ERC to adopt the criteria or
some portions of the criteria at a later date.

As described in Section III., EPA is proposing numeric nutrient criteria
for the following four water body types: lakes, streams, springs and
clear streams, and canals in south Florida.  Given that FDEP has made
its proposed numeric nutrient criteria available to the public via its
Web site (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/index.htm"
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/index.htm ), it is
worth providing a comparative overview between the criteria and
approaches that EPA is proposing in this rulemaking and the criteria and
approaches FDEP had initially proposed.  Both EPA and FDEP developed
numeric criteria recognizing the hydrologic and spatial variability of
nutrients in Florida’s lakes and flowing waters.  As FDEP indicated on
its Web site, FDEP’s preferred approach is to develop cause and effect
relationships between nutrients and valued ecological attributes, and to
establish nutrient criteria based on those cause and effect
relationships that ensure that the designated uses of Florida’s waters
are protected and maintained.  As described in EPA’s guidance, EPA
also recommends this approach when scientifically defensible data are
available.  Where cause and effect relationships could not be
demonstrated, however, both FDEP and EPA relied on a distribution-based
approach to derive numeric nutrient criteria protective of applicable
designated uses.

To set numeric nutrient criteria for lakes, EPA, like FDEP, is proposing
a classification scheme using color and alkalinity based upon
substantial data that show that lake color and alkalinity play an
important role in the degree to which TN and TP concentrations result in
a biological response such as elevated chlorophyll a levels.  EPA and
FDEP both found that correlations between nutrients and response
parameters were sufficiently robust to use for criteria development in
Florida’s lakes.  EPA is proposing the same chlorophyll a criteria for
colored lakes and clear alkaline lakes as FDEP proposed, however, EPA is
proposing a lower chlorophyll a criterion for clear acidic lakes.  EPA,
like FDEP, is also proposing an accompanying supplementary analytical
approach that Florida can use to adjust general TN and TP lake criteria
within a certain range where sufficient data on long-term ambient TN and
TP levels are available to demonstrate that protective chlorophyll a
criteria for a specific lake will still be maintained and attainment of
the designated use will be assured.

Lake Class	EPA Proposed Criteria	Florida Proposed Criteria

	Chl a, µg/L	TN, mg/L	TP, mg/L	Chl a, µg/L	TN,

mg/L	TP,

mg/L

Colored Lakes                > 40 PCU

20

1.23-2.25

0.050-0.157	20	1.23-2.25	0.05-0.157

Clear Lakes, Alkaline

≤ 40 PCU and

> 50 mg/L CaCO3

20

1.00-1.81

0.030-0.087	20	1.00-1.81	0.03-0.087

Clear Lakes, Acidic

≤ 40 PCU and

≤ 50 mg/L CaCO3

6

0.500-0.900

0.010-0.030	9	0.85-1.14	0.015-0.043

To set numeric nutrient criteria for streams, FDEP recommended a
statistical distribution approach based on “benchmark sites”
identified in five nutrient regions (five regions for TP and two regions
for TN), given that FDEP determined cause and effect relationships to be
insufficiently robust for establishing numeric thresholds.  FDEP relied
on the use of a narrative criterion to protect downstream waters.  EPA
also concluded that a scientifically defensible cause and effect
relationship could not be demonstrated with the available data and that
a distribution-based approach was most appropriate.  However, EPA
considered an alternative approach that evaluated a combination of
biological information and data on the distribution of nutrients in a
substantial number of healthy stream systems to derive scientifically
sound TN and TP criteria for streams.

The respective criteria for instream protection of Florida’s streams
derived using EPA’s recommended approach and FDEP’s recommended
approach are comparable.

EPA Nutrient Watershed Regions	EPA Proposed Instream Criteria	Florida
Nutrient Watershed Regions	FL Proposed Instream Criteria

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

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

Panhandle	0.824	0.043	Panhandle	0.820	0.069

Bone Valley	1.798	0.739	Bone Valley

1.730	0.415

Peninsula	1.205	0.107	Peninsula

0.116

North Central	1.479	0.359	North Central

0.322

	Northeast

0.101

cases where a stream first flows into a lake and then flows out from the
lake into another lake or estuary, the portion of the stream that exits
the lakes needs to comply with the downstream protection values for
estuaries, assuming that is the terminal reach.

EPA is proposing the same nitrate-nitrite causal variable criterion for
springs and clear streams as proposed by FDEP.  For canals in south
Florida, EPA is proposing a statistical distribution approach based on
sites meeting designated uses with respect to nutrients (i.e., not
identified as impaired by FDEP) identified in four canal regions.  FDEP
did not propose numeric nutrient criteria for canals in its rulemaking.

Please refer to Section IV. Under What Conditions Will Florida Be
Removed From a Final Rule for information on how State-adopted and
EPA-approved WQS could become effective under the CWA 303(c).

G.  Applicability of Criteria When Final

EPA’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and
flowing waters will be effective for CWA purposes 60 days after
publication of final criteria and will apply in addition to any other
existing CWA-effective criteria for Class I or Class III waters already
adopted by the State and submitted to EPA (and for those adopted after
May 30, 2000, approved by EPA).  EPA requests comment on this proposed
effective date.  FDEP establishes its designated uses through a system
of classes and Florida waters are designated into one of several
different classes.  Class III waters provide for healthy aquatic life
and safe recreational use.  Class I waters include all the protection of
designated uses provided for Class III waters, and also include
protection for designated uses related to drinking water supply.  Class
I and III waters, together with Class II waters that are designated for
shellfish propagation or harvesting, comprise the set of Florida waters
that meet the goals articulated in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA and the
waters for which EPA is proposing criteria.  Pursuant to the schedule
set out in EPA’s January 2009 determination, Class II waters will be
addressed in rulemaking in January 2011.  For water bodies designated as
Class I and Class III predominately fresh waters, any final EPA numeric
nutrient criteria will be applicable CWA water quality criteria for
purposes of implementing CWA programs including permitting under the
NPDES program, as well as monitoring and assessment based on applicable
CWA WQS and establishment of TMDLs.

The proposed criteria in this rule, if and when finalized, would be
subject to Florida’s general rules of applicability in the same way
and to the same extent as are other State-adopted and/or
federally-promulgated criteria for Florida waters.  See proposed 40 CFR
131.43(d)(2).  For example, Florida regulations at Rule 62-4.244, F.A.C.
authorize mixing zones when deriving effluent limitations for discharges
of pollutants to Florida waters.  These regulations would apply to
permit limitations implementing the criteria in this rule.  This
proposal includes some additional language on mixing zone requirements
to help guide Florida in developing and applying mixing zone policies
for nutrient criteria.  Specifically, EPA provides that the criteria
apply at the appropriate locations within or at the boundary of the
mixing zones; otherwise the criteria apply throughout the water body
including at the point of discharge into the water body.  See proposed
40 CFR 131.43(d)(2)(i).  Likewise, EPA includes proposed regulatory
language specifying that Florida use an appropriate design flow
condition, one that matches the proposed criteria duration and
frequency, for use in deriving permit limits and establishing wasteload
and load allocations for a TMDL.  See proposed 40 CFR 131.43(d)(2)(ii).

In addition, EPA recognizes that Florida regulations include provisions
for assessing whether waters should be included on the list of impaired
waters pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA.  See Rule 62-303, F.A.C.
The Impaired Waters Rule, or IWR, sets out a methodology to identify
waters that do not meet the State’s WQS and, therefore, are required
to be included on CWA section 303(d) lists.  The current IWR does not
address how to assess waters based on EPA’s proposed numeric nutrient
criteria.  The numeric nutrient criteria in any final rule,
nevertheless, will be applicable WQS that must be addressed when the
State assesses waters pursuant to CWA section 303(d).

EPA proposes language in this rulemaking that acknowledges the IWR
procedures and their function, specifying that those procedures apply
where they are consistent with the level of protection provided by the
proposed criteria.  See proposed 40 CFR 131.43(d)(2)(iii).  Some IWR
provisions, which describe the sufficiency or reliability of information
necessary for the State to make an attainment decision, do not change
the level of protection afforded Florida waters.  These are beyond the
scope of WQS under CWA section 303(c).  Other provisions of the IWR may
provide some additional detail relevant to assessment, such as the
number of years worth of data assessed for a particular listing cycle
submittal, which should be consistent with the level of protection
provided with the proposed criteria.  Should any IWR provisions apply a
different level of protection than the Federal criteria when making
attainment decisions based on proposed criteria, EPA would expect to
take appropriate action to ensure that the States’ CWA section 303(d)
list of impaired waters includes all waters not attaining the Federal
criteria.

IV. Under What Conditions Will Federal Standards Be Either Not Finalized
or Withdrawn?

	Under the CWA, Congress gave states primary responsibility for
developing and adopting WQS for their navigable waters.  See CWA section
303(a)-(c).  Although EPA is proposing numeric nutrient criteria for
Florida’s lakes and flowing waters, Florida continues to have the
option to adopt and submit to EPA numeric nutrient criteria for the
State’s lakes and flowing waters consistent with CWA section 303(c)
and implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131.  Consistent with CWA
section 303(c)(4), if Florida adopts and submits numeric nutrient
criteria and EPA approves such criteria as fully satisfying the CWA
before publication of the final rulemaking, EPA will not proceed with
the final rulemaking for those waters for which EPA approves Florida’s
criteria.

	Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21(c), if EPA does finalize this proposed rule,
the EPA promulgated WQS would be applicable WQS for purposes of the CWA
until EPA withdraws the federally-promulgated standard.  Withdrawing the
Federal standards for the State of Florida would require rulemaking by
EPA pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C.551 et seq.).  EPA would undertake such a rulemaking to withdraw
the Federal criteria only if and when Florida adopts and EPA approves
numeric nutrient criteria that fully meet the requirements of section
303(c) of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
131.

If EPA finalizes the proposed restoration standard provision (discussed
in Section VI below), that provision would be adopted into regulation
and would allow Florida to establish interim designated uses with
associated water quality criteria, while maintaining the full CWA
section 101(a)(2) aquatic life and/or recreational designated use of the
water as the ultimate goal.   EPA may proceed to promulgate numeric
nutrient criteria for Florida together with or separate from EPA’s
proposed restoration standards provision, depending on the comments
received on that proposal.

V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation Mechanisms

A. Designating Uses

Under CWA section 303(c), states shall adopt designated uses after
taking “into consideration the use and value of water for public water
supplies, protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife,
recreation in and on the water, agricultural, industrial and other
purposes including navigation.”  Designated uses “shall be such as
to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water
and serve the purposes of [the CWA].”  CWA section 303(c)(1).  EPA’s
regulation at 40 CFR 131.3(f) defines “designated uses” as “those
uses specified in water quality standards for each water body or segment
whether or not they are being attained.”   Under 40 CFR 131.10,
EPA’s regulation addressing “Designation of uses”, a “use” is
a particular function of, or activity in, waters of the United States
that requires a specific level of water quality to support it.  In other
words, designated uses are a state’s concise statements of its
management objectives and expectations for each of the individual
surface waters under its jurisdiction.

In the context of designating uses, states often work with stakeholders
to identify a collective goal for their waters that the state intends to
strive for as it manages water quality.  States may evaluate the
attainability of these goals and expectations to ensure they have
designated appropriate uses (see 40 CFR 131.10(g)).  Consistent with CWA
sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2)(A), 40 CFR 131.2 provides that states
“should, wherever attainable, provide water quality for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in
and on the water.”  Where states do not designate those uses, or
remove those uses, they must demonstrate that such uses are not
attainable consistent with 40 CFR 131.10(g).  States may determine,
based on a UAA, that attaining a designated use is not feasible and
propose to EPA to change the use and/or the associated pollutant
criteria to something that is attainable.  This action to change a
designated use must be completed in accordance with EPA regulations (see
40 CFR 131.10(g) and (h)).

Within the framework described above, states have discretion in
designating uses.  EPA’s proposed numeric nutrient criteria for lakes
and flowing waters would apply to those waters designated by FDEP as
Class I (Potable Water Supplies) or Class III (Recreation, Propagation
and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and
Wildlife).  If Florida removes the Class I or Class III designated use
for any particular water body ultimately affected by this rule, and EPA
finds that removal to be consistent with CWA section 303(c) and the
regulations at 40 CFR part 131, then the federally-promulgated numeric
nutrient criteria would not apply to that water body.  Instead, the
nutrient criteria associated with the newly designated use would apply
to that water body.  FDEP has recently restarted an effort to refine the
State’s current designated use classifications.  As this process
continues, EPA expects that the State may find some instances where this
particular discussion may be relevant and useful as the refinement of
uses is investigated further.

	Where states can identify multiple waters with similar characteristics
and constraints on attainability, EPA interprets the Federal WQS
regulation to allow states to conduct a “categorical” use
attainability analysis (UAA) under 40 CFR 131.10(g) for such waters.
This approach may reduce data collection needs, allowing a single
analysis to represent many sites.  To use such an approach, however, the
State would need to have enough information about each particular site
to reliably place each site into a broader category and Florida would
need to specifically identify each site covered by the analysis.
Florida may wish to consider such an approach for certain waters, such
as a network of canals with similar hydrologic and morphological
characteristics, which can be characterized as a group and where the
necessary level of protection may differ substantially from other lakes
or flowing waters within the State.

B.  Variances

A variance is a temporary modification to the designated use and
associated water quality criteria that would otherwise apply to the
receiving water.  A variance is based on a UAA and identifies the
highest attainable use and associated criteria during the variance
period.  Typically, variances are time-limited (e.g., three years), but
renewable.  Modifying the designated use for a particular water through
a variance process allows a state to limit the applicability of a
specific criterion to that water and to identify an alternative
designated use and associated criteria to be met during the term of the
variance.  A variance should be used instead of removal of a use where
the state believes the standard can be attained in a short period of
time.  By maintaining the standard rather than changing it, the state
ensures that further progress will be made in improving water quality
and attaining the standard.  A variance may be written to address a
specified geographical coverage, a specified pollutant or pollutants,
and/or a specified pollutant source.  All other applicable WQS not
specifically modified by the variance would remain applicable (e.g., any
other criteria adopted to protect the designated use).  State variance
procedures, as part of state WQS, must be consistent with the
substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 131.  A variance allows, among
other things, NPDES permits to be written such that reasonable progress
is made toward attaining the underlying standards for affected waters
without violating section 402(a)(l) of the Act, which requires that
NPDES permits must meet the applicable WQS.  See also CWA section
301(b)(1)(C).

For purposes of this proposal, EPA is proposing criteria that apply to
use designations that Florida has already established.  EPA believes
that the State has sufficient authority to use its adopted and
EPA-approved variance procedures with respect to modification of their
Class I or Class III uses as it pertains to any federally-promulgated
nutrient criteria.  For this reason, EPA is not proposing a Federal
variance procedure.

C. Site-specific Criteria

A site-specific criterion is an alternative value to a statewide, or
otherwise applicable, water quality criterion that meets the regulatory
test of protecting the designated use and having a basis in sound
science, but is tailored to account for site-specific conditions.
Site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) may be more or less stringent
than the otherwise applicable criteria.  In either case, because the
SSAC must protect the same designated use and must be based on sound
science (i.e., meet the requirement of 40 CFR 131.11(a)), there is no
need to modify the designated use or conduct a UAA.  SSAC may be
appropriate when additional scientific consideration can bring added
precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of
a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use.

	Florida has adopted procedures for developing and adopting SSAC in its
WQS regulations at Florida Administrative Code (Rule 62-302.800,
F.A.C.).  Florida’s Type I SSAC procedure is intended to address
site-specific situations where a particular water body cannot meet the
applicable water quality criterion because of natural conditions.  See
Rule 62-302.800(1).  Florida’s Type II SSAC procedure is intended to
address site-specific situations other than natural conditions where it
can be established that an alternative criterion from the broadly
applicable criteria established by the State is protective of a
water’s designated uses.  See Rule 62-302.800(1), F.A.C.  Florida’s
Type II procedure is primarily intended to address toxics but there is
no limitation in its use for other parameters, except for certain
parameters identified by FDEP, including nutrients.  See Rule
62-302.800(2).  Florida’s regulations currently do not allow use of
Type II procedures for nutrient criteria development because the State
currently does not have broadly applicable numeric nutrient criteria for
State waters.  Rather, the current narrative criterion for nutrients is
implemented by translating it into numeric loads or concentrations on a
case-by-case basis.  EPA’s proposed rule would not affect Florida’s
Type I or Type II SSAC procedures.

PA believes that there would be benefit in establishing a specific
procedure in the Federal rule for EPA adoption of SSAC.  In this
rulemaking, EPA is proposing a procedure whereby the State could develop
a SSAC and submit the SSAC to EPA with supporting documentation for
EPA’s consideration.  The State SSAC could be developed under either
the State SSAC procedures or EPA technical processes as set out more
fully below.  EPA elected to propose this approach because this
procedure maintains the State in a primary decision-making role
regarding development of SSAC for State waters.  The procedure that EPA
is proposing would also allow the State to submit a proposed SSAC to EPA
without having to first go through the State’s rulemaking process.

The proposed procedure would provide that EPA could determine that the
SSAC should apply in lieu of the generally applicable criteria
promulgated pursuant to this rule.  The proposed procedures provide that
EPA would solicit public comment on its determination.  Because EPA’s
rule would establish this procedure, implementation of this procedure
would not require withdrawal of federally-promulgated criteria for
affected water bodies in order for the SSAC to be effective for purposes
of the CWA.  EPA has promulgated similar procedures for EPA granting of
variances and SSACs in other federally-promulgated WQS.

EPA also considered technical processes necessary to develop protective
numeric nutrient criteria on a site-specific basis.  To complete a
thorough and successful analysis to develop numeric nutrient SSAC, EPA
expects the State to conduct, or direct applicants to the State to
conduct, a variety of supporting analyses.  For the instream protection
value (IPV) for streams, this analysis would, for example, consist of
examining both indicators of longer-term response to multiple stressors
such as benthic macroinvertebrate health, as determined by Florida’s
Stream Condition Index (SCI) and indicators of shorter-term response
specific to nutrients, such as periphyton algal thickness or chlorophyll
a levels.  The former analysis will help address concerns that a
potential nutrient effect is masked by other stressors (such as
turbidity which can limit light penetration and primary production
response to nutrient response), whereas the latter analysis will help
address concerns that a potential nutrient effect is lagging in time and
has not yet manifested itself.  Indicators of shorter-term response
generally would not be expected to exhibit a lag time.

It will also be important to examine a stream system on a watershed
basis to ensure that a SSAC established for one segment does not result
in adverse effects in nearby segments.  For example, a shaded,
relatively swift flowing segment may open up to a shallow, slow moving,
open canopy segment that is more vulnerable to adverse nutrient impacts.
 Empirical data analysis of multiple factors affecting the expression of
response to nutrients and mechanistic models of ecosystem processes can
assist in this type of analysis.  It will also be necessary to ensure
that a larger load allowed from an upstream segment as a result of a
SSAC does not compromise protection on a downstream segment that has not
been evaluated.

The intent of this discussion is to illustrate a process that is
rigorous and based on sound scientific rationale, without being
inappropriately onerous to complete.  Corollary analyses for a lake,
spring or clear stream, or canal situation would need to be pursued for
a SSAC on those systems.

n addition to the procedure that EPA is proposing, Florida always has
the option of submitting State-adopted SSAC as new or revised WQS to EPA
for review and approval under the CWA section 303(c).  There is no bar
to a state adopting new or revised WQS for waters covered by a
federally-promulgated WQS.  For any State-adopted SSAC that EPA approves
under section 303(c) of the Act, EPA would also have to complete federal
rulemaking to withdraw the Federal WQS for the affected water body
before the State SSAC would be the applicable WQS for the affected water
body for purposes of the Act.  As discussed above, Florida WQS
regulations currently do not authorize the State to adopt nutrient SSAC
except where natural conditions are outside the limits of broadly
applicable criteria established by the State (Rule 62-302.800, F.A.C.)

This proposed SSAC process would also not limit EPA’s authority to
promulgate SSAC in addition to those developed by the State under the
process described in this rule.  The proposed rule recognizes that EPA
always has the authority to promulgate through rulemaking SSAC for water
that are subject to federally-promulgated water quality criteria.

D. Compliance Schedules

A compliance schedule, or schedule of compliance, refers to “a
schedule of remedial measures included in a ‘permit,’ including an
enforceable sequence of interim requirements … leading to compliance
with the CWA and regulations.”  40 CFR 122.2.  In an NPDES permit,
WQBELs are effluent limits based on applicable WQS for a given pollutant
in a specific receiving water (See NPDES Permit Writers Manual,
EPA-833-B-96-003, December, 1996).  In addition, EPA regulations provide
that schedules of compliance are to require compliance “as soon as
possible.”

he regulation provides, in part, for schedules providing for compliance
“as soon as sound engineering practices allow, but not later than any
applicable statutes or rule deadline”.   The complete text of the
Florida rules concerning compliance schedules is available at
HYPERLINK "https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?ID=62-620.620"
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?ID=62-620.620 .  Florida is,
therefore, authorized to grant compliance schedules under its rule for
WQBELs based on federally-promulgated criteria.

Proposed Restoration Water Quality Standards (WQS) Provision

	As described above, many of Florida’s waters do not meet the water
quality goals established by the State and envisioned by the CWA because
of excess amounts of nutrients.  In some cases, restoring these water
could take many years to achieve, especially where there is a large
difference between current water quality conditions and the nutrient
criteria levels necessary to protect aquatic life.  In such cases,
Florida may conclude that restoration programs will not result in waters
attaining their designated aquatic life use (and associated numeric
nutrient criteria) for a long period of time.

	EPA’s current regulations provide that a state may remove a
designated use if it meets certain requirements outlined at 40 CFR
131.10.  Under this provision, if the State demonstrates that a
designated use is not attainable it may conduct a use attainability
analysis (UAA) to revise the designated use to reflect the highest
attainable aquatic life use,   even though that use may not meet the CWA
section 101(a)(2) goal.  Another option that states use to address
situations for an individual discharger is a discharger-specific
variance.  Neither of these approaches may be optimal or appropriate
solutions if a state determines that certain waters cannot attain
aquatic life uses due to excess nutrient in the near-term.

	Based on numerous workshops, meetings, conversations and day-to-day
interactions with state environmental managers, EPA understands that
states interested in restoring impaired water may desire the ability to
express, in their WQS, successive time periods with incrementally more
stringent designated uses and criteria that ultimately result in a
designated use and criteria that reflect a CWA section 101(a)(2)
designated use.  Such an approach would allow the state and stakeholders
necessary time to take incremental steps to achieve interim WQS as they
move forward to ultimately attain a CWA section 101(a)(2) designated
use.  Some states have used variances to provide such time in their WQS.
 However, variances are typically time limited (e.g.,three years) and
discharger-specific and do not address the challenges of pursuing
reductions from a variety of sources across a watershed.  In addition,
Federal regulations are not explicit in requiring that states pursue
feasible (i.e. attainable) progress toward achieving the highest
attainable use when implementing a variance.  Variances also often lack
specific milestones and a transparent set of expectations for the
public, dischargers, and stakeholders.

	EPA seeks comment on this approach to providing Florida with an
explicit regulatory mechanism for directing state efforts to achieve
incremental progress in a step-wise fashion, applicable to all sources,
as a part of its WQS.  The proposed regulatory mechanism described in
this section applies only to WQS for nutrients in Florida waters subject
to this proposed rule.

	A “restoration water quality standard” under EPA’s proposed rule
would be a WQS that Florida could adopt for an impaired water.  Under
EPA’s proposal, the State would retain the current designated use as
the ultimate designated use (e.g. providing for eventual attainment of a
full CWA section 101(a)(2) designated use and the associated criteria).
However, under the restoration standard approach proposed in this rule,
the State would also adopt interim less stringent designated uses and
criteria that would be the basis for enforceable permit requirements and
other control strategies during the prescribed timeframes.   These
interim uses could be no less stringent than an existing use as defined
in section 131.3, and would have to meet the requirements of
131.10(h)(2). The State would need to demonstrate that the interim uses
and criteria, as well as the timeframe, are based on a UAA evaluation of
what is attainable and by when.  These interim designated uses and
criteria and the applicable timeframes would all be incorporated into
the State WQS on a site-specific basis, as would be any other designated
use change or adoption of site-specific criteria.

	For example, a restoration WQS for nutrients for an impaired Class I or
Class III colored lake in Florida may take the form of the following for
a lake whose current condition represents severely impaired aquatic life
with chlorophyll a = 40 mg/L, TN = 2.7 mg/L, and TP = 0.15 mg/L:

Time		Chl a	TN	TP	Designated Use Description

Year 0-5 	35	2.4	0.10	Moderately Impaired Aquatic Life

Year 6-10	25	1.45	0.06	Slightly Impaired Aquatic Life

Year 11 	20	1.2	0.05	Full Aquatic Life Use

	Including such revised interim designated uses and criteria within the
regulations could support efforts by Florida to formally establish
enforceable long-term plans for different watersheds or stream reaches
to attain the ultimate designated use and the associated criteria.  At
the same time, the State would be able to ensure that its WQS explicitly
reflect the attainable designated uses and water quality criteria to be
met at any given time, consistent with the CWA and implementing
regulations.

	Restoration WQS would provide in the Federal regulations the framework
for authorizing the State of Florida to adopt restoration WQS for
nutrients, along with maintaining the availability of other tools (e.g.,
variances and compliance schedule provisions), which provide flexibility
regarding permitting individual dischargers.  Restoration WQS would
require a full public participation process to assure transparency as
well as the opportunity for different parties to work together, exchange
information and determine what is actually attainable within a
particular time frame.  Going through this process would provide Florida
with a transparent set of expectations to push its waters towards
restoration in a realistic yet verifiable manner.

	In this notice, EPA proposes restoration WQS as a clear regulatory
pathway for the State of Florida to adjust the Class I and Class III
designated uses (and associated nutrient criteria) of waters impaired by
nutrients that is intended to promote active restoration, maintain
progressive improvement, and ensure accountability.  This approach would
provide the State of Florida with the flexibility to adopt revised
designated uses and criteria under a set of specific regulatory
requirements.

	Under this proposal, the interim designated uses and criteria would be
the basis for NPDES permits during the applicable period reflecting the
fact that the restoration WQS introduces the critical element of time as
part of the complete WQS.   This is intended to allow imposition of the
maximum feasible point source controls and nonpoint source nutrient
reduction strategies to be phased in within the overall context of
restoration activities within the watershed.  By reflecting how it
expects the existing poor quality of its waters to incrementally improve
to achieve longer-term WQS goals, Florida could create the flexibility
to explore more innovative ways to reach the requirements of the next
phase, thus possibly reducing costs or allowing new approaches to
resolve complex technological issues, and maximizing transparency with
the public during each phase.  These waters, however, would still be
considered impaired for CWA assessment and listing purposes because the
ultimate designated use and criteria would be part of the restoration
WQS and would not yet be met.

	The restoration standards would be Florida WQS revisions that would go
through the process of first being adopted under State law and then
approved by EPA.  This proposal would include eight requirements for the
development of a restoration WQS for nutrients:

It must be demonstrated that it is infeasible to attain the full CWA
section 101(a)(2)aquatic life designated use during the time periods
established for the restoration phases with a UAA based on one of the
factors at 40 CFR 131.10(g).

The highest attainable designated use and numeric criteria that apply at
the termination of the restoration WQS (i.e., the ultimate long-term
designated use and numeric criteria to be achieved) must be specified
and this use is to include, at a minimum, uses that are consistent with
the CWA section 101(a)(2) uses.

Interim restoration designated uses and numeric water quality criteria,
with each based on achieving the maximum feasible progress during the
applicable phase as determined in the UAA, must be established.

Specific time periods for each restoration phase must be established.
The length of each phase must be based on the UAA demonstration of when
interim uses can be attained on a case-specific basis.  Interim
restoration designated uses and numeric water quality criteria must
reflect the highest attainable use during the time period of the
restoration phase.  The sum of these times periods may not exceed twenty
years.

The spatial extent to which the restoration WQS will apply (e.g., how
far downstream the restoration WQS would apply) must be specified.  EPA
notes the importance of continuing to meet the requirements for
protection of downstream WQS as expressed in section 40 CFR 131.10(b).
Adopting restoration WQS upstream of another impaired water may mean the
State should also consider restoration WQS for the downstream water.

The regulatory requirements for public participation and EPA review and
approval whenever revising its WQS must continue to be met.
Specifically, a restoration WQS may not include interim uses less
stringent than a use that is an “existing use” as defined in 131.3
or that do not meet the requirements of 131.10(h)(2).

The State must include in its restoration WQS that if the water body
does not attain the interim designated use and numeric water quality
criteria at the end of any phase, the restoration WQS will no longer be
in effect and the designated use and criteria that was to become
effective at the end of the final restoration phase will become
immediately effective unless Florida adopts and EPA approves a different
revised designated use and criteria.

The State must provide that waters for which a restoration WQS is
adopted will be recognized as impaired for the purposes of listing
impaired waters under section 303(d) of the CWA until the final use is
attained.

	Under this proposal, EPA would require Florida to adopt the ultimate
highest attainable designated use and criteria along with multiple
phases reflecting the stepwise improvements in water quality between the
initial effective date and when they expect to meet the ultimate highest
attainable use as a single restoration WQS package.  As with any
revision to an aquatic life use, Florida would be required to
demonstrate that the ultimate highest attainable designated use cannot
be attained during the restoration period, based on one of the factors
at CFR 131.10(g)(1)-(6) (i.e., through a UAA).  EPA would review the WQS
and all supporting documents before approving the restoration WQS.

At the beginning of the first restoration phase, the State would
identify current conditions and establish the principle that there can
be no further degradation.  WQS for the first restoration phase should
reflect the outcomes of all controls that can be implemented within the
first restoration phase.  Additionally, EPA expects that the interim
restoration designated use and numeric criteria that are attainable at
the end of the restoration phase apply at the beginning of each phase as
well as throughout the phase.  For each phase, the State would adopt
interim designated uses and numeric water quality criteria that reflect
achieving the maximum feasible progress.  At the end of the first phase,
EPA would expect the water body to be meeting the first interim
designated use and water quality criteria.

At the beginning of the second phase, the next (more stringent) interim
designated use and water quality criteria would go into effect as the
applicable WQS that the State would use to direct the next set of
control actions.  At the conclusion of the second phase, the next (more
stringent) interim designated use and water quality criteria would
become the applicable WQS.  This process would repeat with each
subsequent phase.  Permit limits written during the restoration phases
would include effluent limits as stringent as necessary to meet the
applicable interim designated uses and numeric water quality criteria.
In constructing each restoration phase (i.e. duration and interim
designated use and numeric water quality criteria), EPA will require the
maximum feasible progress.  This means that necessary control actions
that would improve water quality and can be implemented within the first
phase must be reflected in the interim targets for the first restoration
phase.  This would include all technology-based requirements for point
sources, and cost-effective and reasonable BMPs for nonpoint sources.
For treatment upgrades to point sources, EPA expects careful scrutiny of
technology that has been successfully implemented in comparable
situations and presumes that this is feasible  EPA further expects
careful scrutiny of all existing and new technology that will help
achieve the ultimate highest attainable use.

EPA recognizes that circumstances may change as controls are implemented
and that new information may indicate that the timeframes established in
the restoration WQS are too lengthy or possibly unrealistically short.
If this is the case, the state has the discretion under CFR 131.10 to
conduct a new UAA and revise the interim targets in its restoration WQS
after a full public process and EPA approval.  However, there is a
significant burden on the state to demonstrate what changed to alter the
initial analysis and associated expectations for what was attainable for
that phase.  EPA would expect such a revision only if there was a
fundamental flaw in the original analysis or there was a significant new
information that demonstrated that a different schedule and/or set of
interim standards represents the maximum feasible progress towards the
final designated use and criteriamaterial change in circumstances that
was unforeseen.

If at the end of a phase, the water body is not meeting interim targets,
then the restoration WQS would no longer be applicable.  In such a case,
the applicable WQS would be the ultimate highest attainable use and
associated criteria unless the State adopted and submitted for EPA
approval a revised WQS.  This would help ensure that there would be no
delay in implementing control measures.  Alternatively, EPA considered
an option of allowing the subsequent restoration phases to become
applicable on the schedule adopted in the restoration WQS and as
supported by the original UAA demonstration, even if the interim use and
criteria are not fully achieved on schedule.  This might have the
advantage of encouraging the adoption of ambitious interim goals in the
initial restoration standards, and would allow continued orderly
progress towards achievement of the final use and criterion even where
an interim step was not fully attained.  EPA solicits comment on this
alternative approach.

To develop restoration WQS for numeric nutrient criteria, EPA would
expect that the State identify waters in need of restoration, produce an
inventory of point and nonpoint sources within the watershed, and
evaluate current ambient conditions and the necessary reductions to
achieve the numeric criteria.  The next part of the process would
involve determining the combinations of control strategies and
management practices available, how likely they are to produce results,
and the resources needed to implement them.  At this point, the State
would be in a good position to determine how much pollution reduction is
likely to be attainable under what timeframes.  The State could use this
information to establish the time periods for each restoration phase
consistent with the maximum feasible and attainable progress toward
meeting the numeric criteria, establish interim restoration designated
uses and water quality criteria, and make the necessary demonstration
that it is infeasible to attain the long-term designated use during the
time periods established and that the interim phases reflect the highest
attainable uses and associated criteria.

For excess nutrient pollution, the contributors to nutrient pollution
could include publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs), industrial
dischargers, urban and agricultural runoff, atmospheric deposition, and
septic systems.  Restoration WQS might reflect in an early phase, for
example, all feasible short-term POTW treatment upgrades and a schedule
to select, fund, and implement longer term nutrient reduction
technologies, while aggressively pursuing reductions in nonpoint source
runoff.    This might include specific plans and a schedule to develop
and implement innovative alternative approaches, such as trading
programs, where appropriate.

In Florida, many of the steps described above occur in the context of
Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs).  FDEP describes BMAPs as:

…the “blueprint” for restoring impaired waters by reducing
pollutant loadings to meet the allowable loadings established in a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). It represents a comprehensive set of
strategies--permit limits on wastewater facilities, urban and
agricultural best management practices, conservation programs, financial
assistance and revenue generating activities, etc.--designed to
implement the pollutant reductions established by the TMDL. These
broad-based plans are developed with local stakeholders--they rely on
local input and local commitment--and they are adopted by Secretarial
Order to be enforceable.
(http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Water/watersheds/bmap.htm)

Florida has adopted BMAPs for the Hillsborough River Basin, Lower St.
John’s River, Log Branch, Orange Creek, and Upper Ocklawaha, and has
plans for others to follow.   To the extent necessary, FDEP could
potentially use aspects of the BMAP process and plans such as these to
help form the basis for restoration WQS.

In summary, the WQS program is intended to protect and improve water
quality and WQS are meant to guide actions to address the effects of
pollution on the Nation’s waters.  The reality is that as more
assessments are being done and TMDLs are being contemplated, and as new
criteria are developed and considered, EPA and states face questions
about what pollution control measures will meet the WQS, how long it
might take, and whether it is feasible to attain the WQS established to
meet the goals of the Act.  These questions are often difficult to
answer because of lack of data, lack of knowledge, and lack of
experience in attempting restoration of waters.  Stakeholders and
co-regulators alike have expressed a desire for ways to pursue
progressive water quality improvement and evaluate those improvements to
gain the data, knowledge, and experience necessary to ultimately
determine the highest attainable use.  In response, EPA has been
investigating the best ways to use UAAs and related tools to make
progress in identifying and achieving the most appropriate designated
use.

EPA requests comments on the usefulness of the “restoration WQS”
proposal for Florida.  EPA requests comment on how restoration WQS will
operate in conjunction with listing impaired waters, and establishing
NPDES permit limitations, and nonpoint source control strategies, as
well as how these requirements should be reflected in regulatory
language.  EPA also requests comment on the proposed 20 year limit on
the schedule to attain the final use and criteria.  EPA also requests
comments on how a restoration WQS process would be coordinated with the
TMDL program and whether the transparency and review procedures for the
two approaches, including the conditions under which a State or EPA
would be required to develop a TMDL, are comparable.  EPA also requests
comment on any unintended adverse consequences for any of its water
quality programs. Finally, EPA requests comment on potential definitions
of “maximum feasible progress.”

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 (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 EO 12866 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 nutrient 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 lakes and flowing waters in Florida.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).  It 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 WQS program, states must adopt WQS for their waters and
must submit those WQS to EPA for approval; 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 requirements.  EPA also has the authority to
promulgate WQS in any case where the Administrator determines that a new
or revised standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.
These state standards (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 WQS.

	Thus, under the CWA, EPA’s promulgation of WQS establishes standards
that the State implements through the NPDES permit process.  The State
has discretion in developing discharge limits, as needed to meet the
standards.  This proposed rule, as explained earlier, 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.
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.

	EPA has prepared an analysis of potential costs associated with meeting
these standards.  EPA’s analysis uses the criteria proposed by FDEP in
July 2009 as a baseline against which to estimate the incremental costs
of meeting the standards in this proposal.  The baseline costs of
meeting Florida’s proposed standards are estimated to be $102 to $130
million per year.  The incremental costs, over and above these baseline
costs, of meeting the standards in this NPRM are estimated to be $4.7 to
$10.1 million per year.  This analysis assumes that most of these costs
would fall on non-point sources and the categories of point sources that
would be primarily affected are municipal wastewater treatment plants
and industrial and general dischargers.  EPA estimates the incremental
costs for these two categories of dischargers, including small entities,
at about $1 million per year.

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 with ``Federal mandates'' 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.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, 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
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.  Moreover,
section 205 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.

	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.  The State may use these resulting
water quality criteria in implementing its water quality control
programs.  This proposed rule does not regulate or affect any entity
and, 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, WQS, including those proposed 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 WQS 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 WQS.
Further, this proposed rule would not preclude Florida from adopting WQS
that meet the requirements of the CWA, either before or after
promulgation of the final rule, thus eliminating 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 had extensive communication with the State of Florida to
discuss EPA’s concerns with the State’s nutrient water quality
criteria and 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 lakes
and 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 WQS in their respective jurisdictions.  These
tribes are not subject to this proposed rule.  However, this rule may
impact the tribes because the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida will
apply to waters adjacent to the tribal waters.

EPA has contacted the tribes to inform them of the potential future
impact this proposal could have on tribal waters.  A meeting with tribal
officials has been requested to discuss the draft proposed rule and
potential impacts on the tribes.  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 does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action 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 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo12898.htm"  59 FR 7629  (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 and Class
III waters in the State of Florida.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

Environmental protection, water quality standards, nutrients, Florida.

Dated:

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 131.43 is added as follows:

§ 131.43 Florida.

(a) Scope.  This section promulgates numeric nutrient criteria for
lakes, streams, springs, canals, estuaries, and coastal waters in the
State of Florida.  This section also contains provisions for
site-specific 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,
excluding all secondary and tertiary canals, classified as Class IV
waters, wholly within Florida’s agricultural areas.

(2) Clear stream means a free-flowing water whose color is less than 40
platinum cobalt units (PCU).

(3) Lake means a freshwater water body that is not a stream or other
watercourse with some open contiguous water free from emergent
vegetation.

(4) Lakes and flowing waters means inland surface waters 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 Rule 62-302.400, F.A.C.,
excluding wetlands, and are predominantly fresh waters.

(5) Nutrient watershed region means an area of the State, corresponding
to coastal/estuarine drainage basin and differing geographical
conditions affecting nutrient levels, as delineated in the Technical
Support Document for EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria
for Florida’s Inland Surface Fresh Waters.

(6) Predominantly fresh waters means surface waters in which the
chloride concentration at the surface is less than 1,500 milligrams per
liter.

(7) Spring means the point where underground water emerges onto the
Earth’s surface, including its spring run.

(8) Spring run means a free-flowing water that originates from a spring
or spring group whose primary (>50%) source of water is from a spring or
spring group.

(9) State shall mean the State of Florida, whose transactions with the
U.S. EPA in matters related to this regulation are administered by the
Secretary, or officials delegated such responsibility, of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), or successor agencies.

(10) Stream means a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a
defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside
south Florida), freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies.

(11) 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.

(c) Criteria for Florida waters.

g/L) a	Baseline Criteria b	Modified Criteria

 (within these bounds) c

TP (mg/L) a	TN (mg/L) a	TP (mg/L) a	TN (mg/L) a

Colored Lakes

> 40 PCU	20 	0.050	1.23	0.050-0.157	1.23-2.25

Clear Lakes, Alkaline

≤ 40 PCU d and > 50 mg/L CaCO3 e	20	0.030	1.00	0.030-0.087	1.00-1.81

Clear Lakes, Acidic

≤ 40 PCU d and ≤ 50 mg/L CaCO3 e	6	0.010	0.500	0.010-0.030
0.500-0.900

a Concentration values are based on annual geometric mean not to be
surpassed more than once in a three-year period.  In addition, the
long-term average of annual geometric mean values shall not surpass the
listed concentration values.  (Duration = annual; Frequency = not to be
surpassed more than once in a three-year period or as a long-term
average).

b Baseline criteria apply unless data are readily available to calculate
and apply lake-specific, modified criteria as described below in
footnote c and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection issues
a determination that a lake-specific modified criterion is the
applicable criterion for an individual lake.  Any such determination
must be made consistent with the provisions in footnote c below.  Such
determination must also be documented in an easily accessible and
publicly available location, such as an official State Web site.

c  If chlorophyll a is below the criterion in column B and there are
representative data to calculate ambient-based, lake-specific, modified
TP and TN criteria, then FDEP may calculate such criteria within these
bounds from ambient measurements to determine lake-specific, modified
criteria pursuant to CWA section 303(c).  Modified TN and TP criteria
must be based on at least three years of ambient monitoring data with
(a) at least four measurements per year and (b) at least one measurement
between May and September and one measurement between October and April
each year.  These same data requirements apply to chlorophyll a when
determining whether the chlorophyll a criterion is met for purposes of
developing modified TN and TP criteria.  If the calculated TN and/or TP
value is below the lower value, then the lower value is the
lake-specific, modified criterion. If the calculated TN and TP value is
above the upper value, then the upper value is the lake-specific,
modified criterion.  Modified TP and TN criteria may not exceed criteria
applicable to streams to which a lake discharges.  If chlorophyll a is
below the criterion in column B and representative data to calculate
modified TN and TP criteria are not available, then the baseline TN and
TP criteria apply.  Once established, modified criteria are in place as
the applicable WQS for all CWA purposes.

d Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU) assessed as true color free from
turbidity.  Long-term average color based on a rolling average of up to
seven years using all available lake color data.

e If alkalinity data are unavailable, a specific conductance of 250
micromhos/cm may be substituted.

f 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.

(2) Criteria for streams.

(i)  The applicable instream protection value (IPV) criterion for total
nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) for streams within each
respective nutrient watershed region is shown in the following table:

Nutrient  Watershed Region	Instream Protection Value Criteria

	TN (mg/L) a	TP (mg/L) a

Panhandle b

	0.824	0.043

Bone Valley c

	1.798	0.739

Peninsula d

	1.205	0.107

North Central e

	1.479	0.359

a Concentration values are based on annual geometric mean not to be
surpassed more than once in a three-year period.  In addition, the
long-term average of annual geometric mean values shall not surpass the
listed concentration values.  (Duration = annual; Frequency = not to be
exceeded more than once in a three-year period or as a long-term
average).

b Panhandle region includes the following watersheds: Perdido Bay
Watershed, Pensacola Bay Watershed, Choctawhatchee Bay Watershed, St.
Andrew Bay Watershed, Apalachicola Bay Watershed, Apalachee Bay
Watershed, and Econfina/Steinhatchee Coastal Drainage Area.

c Bone Valley region includes the following watersheds: Tampa Bay
Watershed, Sarasota Bay Watershed, and Charlotte Harbor Watershed.

d Peninsula region includes the following watersheds: Waccasassa Coastal
Drainage Area, Withlacoochee Coastal Drainage Area,
Crystal/Pithlachascotee Coastal Drainage Area, Indian River Watershed,
Caloosahatchee River Watershed, St. Lucie Watershed, Kissimmee River
Watershed, St. John’s River Watershed, Daytona/St. Augustine Coastal
Drainage Area, Nassau Coastal Drainage Area, and St. Mary’s River
Watershed.

e North Central region includes the Suwannee River Watershed.

Criteria for protection of downstream lakes.

(A) The applicable total phosphorus criterion-magnitude for a stream
that flows into downstream lakes is the more stringent of the value from
the preceding table in (c)(2)(i) or a downstream lake protection value
derived from the following equation to protect the downstream lake:

where

[TP]S is the total phosphorus (TP) downstream lake protection value,
mg/L

[TP]L is applicable TP lake criterion, mg/L

cf is the fraction of inflow due to all streamflow, 0 ( cf ( 1

w is lake’s hydraulic retention time (water volume divided by
annual flow rate)

  expresses the net phosphorus loss from the water column (e.g., via
settling of sediment-sorbed phosphorus) as a function of the lake’s
retention time.

w, respectively, are 0.5 and 0.2.  The State may substitute
site-specific values for these preset values where the State determines
that they are appropriate and documents the site-specific values in an
easily accessible and publicly available location, such as an official
State Web site.

(iii) Criteria for protection of downstream estuarine waters.

 ) where:

 ,

and where the terms are defined as follows for a specific or ( ith )
stream reach:

 		maximum flow-averaged nutrient concentration for a specific (the ith
) stream reach consistent with downstream use protection (i.e., the DPV)

 		fraction of all loading to the estuary that comes from the stream
network resolved by SPARROW

 	protective loading rate for the estuary, from all sources

 	combined average freshwater discharged into the estuary from the
portion of the watershed resolved by the SPARROW stream network

 		fraction of the flux at the downstream node of the specific ( ith)
reach that is transported through the stream network and ultimately
delivered to estuarine eceiving waters (i.e. Fraction Delivered).

DPVs may not exceed other criteria established for designated use
protection in this section, nor result in an exceedance of other
criteria for other water quality parameters established pursuant to Rule
62-302, F.A.C.

 except that Li is determined as a series of values for each reach in
the upstream drainage area such that the sum of reach-specific
incremental loading rates equals the target loading rate to the
downstream water protective of downstream uses, taking into account that
downstream reaches must reflect loads established for upstream reaches.
Alternative DPVs may factor in additional nutrient attenuation provided
by already existing landscape modifications or treatment systems, such
as constructed wetlands or stormwater treatment areas.  For alternative
DPVs to become effective for Clean Water Act purposes, the State must
provide public notice and opportunity for comment.

(C)  To use an alternative technical approach of comparable scientific
rigor to quantitatively determine the protective load to the estuary and
associated protective stream concentrations, the State must go through
the process for a Federal site-specific alternative criterion pursuant
to paragraph (e) of this section.

(3) Criteria for springs, spring runs, and clear streams.  The
applicable nitrate-nitrite criterion is 0.35 mg/L as an annual geometric
mean not to be surpassed more than once in a three year period, nor
surpassed as a long-term average of annual geometric mean values.  In
addition to this nitrate-nitrite criterion, criteria identified in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section are applicable to clear streams.

(4) Criteria for south Florida canals.  The applicable criterion for
chlorophyll a, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) for canals
within each respective canal geographic classification area is shown on
the following table:

	Chlorophyll a

(µg/L) a	Total Phosphorus (TP)

(mg/L) a, b	Total Nitrogen (TN)

(mg/L) a

Canals	4.0 	0.042 	1.6

a Concentration values are based on annual geometric mean not to be
surpassed more than once in a three-year period.  In addition, the
long-term average of annual geometric mean values shall not surpass the
listed concentration values.  (Duration = annual; Frequency = not to be
surpassed more than once in a three-year period or as a long-term
average).

b Applies to all canals within the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection’s South Florida bioregion, with the exception of canals
within the Everglades Protection Area (EvPA) where the TP criterion of
0.010 mg/L currently applies.

(5) Criteria for estuaries. [Reserved]

(6) Criteria for coastal waters. [Reserved]

(d) Applicability.

(1) The criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section apply
to surface waters of the State of Florida designated 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 Rule 62-302.400, F.A.C., excluding wetlands, and apply
concurrently with other applicable water quality criteria, except when

(i) State regulations contain criteria which 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,

(iii) The State adopts and EPA approves a water quality standards
variance to the Class I or Class III designated use pursuant to §
131.13 that meets the applicable provisions of State law and the
applicable Federal regulations at § 131.10, or

(iv) The State adopts and EPA approves restoration standards pursuant to
paragraph (g) of this rule.

(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.

(i) For all waters with mixing zone regulations or implementation
procedures, the criteria apply at the appropriate locations within or at
the boundary of the mixing zones; otherwise the criteria apply
throughout the water body including at the point of discharge into the
water body.

(ii) The State shall use an appropriate design flow condition, where
necessary, for purposes of permit limit derivation or load and wasteload
allocations that is consistent with the criteria duration and frequency
established in this section (e.g., average annual flow for a criterion
magnitude expressed as an average annual geometric mean value).

(iii) The criteria established in this section apply for purposes of
determining the list of impaired waters pursuant to section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act, subject to the procedures adopted pursuant to Rule
62-303, F.A.C., where such procedures are consistent with the level of
protection provided by the criteria established in this section.

(e) Site-specific alternative criteria.

(1) Upon request from the State, 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). Any such determination shall be made consistent with §131.11.

(2) To receive consideration from the Regional Administrator for a
determination of site-specific alternative criteria, the State must
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.

(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. All criteria will be in effect [date 60 days after
publication of final rule].

Restoration Water Quality Standards (WQS). The State may, at its
discretion, adopt restoration WQS to allow attainment of a designated
use over phased time periods where the designated use is not currently
attainable as a result of nutrient pollution but is attainable in the
future.  In establishing restoration WQS, the State must:

(1) Demonstrate that the designated use is not attainable during the
time periods established for the restoration phases based on one of the
factors identified in §131.10(g)(1) through (6);

(2) Specify the designated use to be attained at the termination of the
restoration period, as well as the criteria necessary to protect such
use, provided that the final designated use and corresponding criteria
shall include, at a minimum, uses and criteria that are consistent with
CWA section 101(a)(2) ;

(3) Establish interim restoration designated uses and water quality
criteria, that apply during each phase that will result in  maximum
feasible  progress toward the highest attainable designated use and the
use identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.  Such interim uses
and criteria may not provide for further degradation of a water body and
may be revised prior to the end of each phase in accordance with
§131.10 and 131.20and submitted to EPA for approval;

(4) Establish the time periods for each restoration phase that will
result in maximum feasible  progress toward the highest attainable use
and the designated use identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section,
except that the sum of such time periods shall not exceed twenty years
from the initial date of establishment of the restoration WQS under this
section;  (5) Specify the spatial extent of applicability for all
affected waters;

(6) Meet the requirements of §§131.10 and 131.20; and

(7) Include, in its State water quality standards, a specific provision
that if the interim restoration designated uses and criteria established
under paragraph (g)(3) of this section are not met during any phased
time period established under paragraph (4) of this section, the
restoration WQS will no longer be applicable and the designated use and
criteria identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section will become
applicable immediately.

(8) Provide that waters for which a restoration water quality standard
is adopted will be recognized as impaired for the purposes of listing
impaired waters under section 303(d) of the CWA until the use designated
identified in paragraph (2) of this section is attained.

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Integrated Water
Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List
Update, p.67.

 http://www.census.gov/population/projections/SummaryTabA1.pdf

 To be used by living organisms, nitrogen gas must be fixed into its
reactive forms; for plants, either nitrate or ammonia.

 Eutrophication is defined as an increase in organic carbon to an
aquatic ecosystem caused by primary productivity stimulated by excess
nutrients - typically compounds containing nitrogen or phosphorus.
Eutrophication can adversely affect aquatic life, recreation, and human
health uses of waters.

 Villanueva, C.M. et al., 2006. Bladder Cancer and Exposure to Water
Disinfection By-Products through Ingestion, Bathing, Showering, and
Swimming in Pools. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(2):148-156.

 U.S. EPA. 2009. What Is in Our Drinking Water. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. <
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/extrmurl/research/process/drinkingwater.html"
http://www.epa.gov/extrmurl/research/process/drinkingwater.html >.
Accessed December 2009.

 National Research Council, 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding
and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. Report prepared by the
Ocean Study Board and Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on
Geosciences, Environment and Resources, National Resource Council.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; Howarth, R.W., A. Sharpley,
and D. Walker. 2002. Sources of nutrient pollution to coastal waters in
the United States: Implications for achieving coastal water quality
goals. Estuaries. 25(4b):656-676; Smith, V.H. 2003. Eutrophication of
freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems. Environ. Sci.and Poll. Res.
10(2):126-139; Dodds, W.K., W.W. Bouska, J.L. Eitzmann, T.J. Pilger,
K.L. Pitts, A.J. Riley, J.T. Schloesser, and D.J. Thornbrugh. 2009.
Eutrophication of U.S. freshwaters: Analysis of potential economic
damages. Environ. Sci. Tech.. 43(1):12-19.

 Hauxwell, J. C. Jacoby, T. Frazer, and J. Stevely. 2001. Nutrients and
Florida’s Coastal Waters. Florida Sea Grant.

 NOAA. 2009. Harmful Algal Blooms: Current Programs Overview. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
<http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/welcome.html>.
Accessed December 2009.

 NOAA. 2009. Harmful Algal Blooms: Current Programs Overview. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. <
http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/welcome.html>.
Accessed December 2009.

 WHOI. 2008. HAB Impacts on Wildlife. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. <http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=9682>. Accessed
December 2009.

 WHOI. 2008. Marine Mammals. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
<http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=14215>. Accessed December 2009.

 WHOI. 2008. HAB Impacts on Wildlife. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. <http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=9682>. Accessed
December 2009.

 WHOI. 2008. Marine Mammals. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
<http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=14215>. Accessed December 2009.

 WHOI. 2008. Marine Mammals. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
<http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=14215>. Accessed December 2009.

 WHOI. 2008. HAB Impacts on Wildlife. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. <http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=9682>. Accessed
December 2009.

 Falconer, I.R., A.R. Humpage. 2005. Health Risk Assessment of
Cyanobacterial (Blue-green Algal) Toxins in Drinking Water. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health. 2(1): 43-50.

 NOAA. 2009. Harmful Algal Blooms: Current Programs Overview. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
<http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/welcome.html>.
Accessed December 2009.

 USGS. 2009. Hypoxia. U.S. Geological Survey.
<http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/hypoxia.html>. Accessed December
2009.

 ESA. 2009. Hypoxia. Ecological Society of America.
<http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/hypoxia.pdf>. Accessed
December 2009.

 USEPA. 2000. Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hattaras. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C. PA-822-R-00-012.

 Ecological Society of America. 2009. Hypoxia. Ecological Society of
America, Washington, D.C. <   HYPERLINK
"http://www.esa.org/education/edupdfs/hypoxia.pdf"
http://www.esa.org/education/edupdfs/hypoxia.pdf > Accessed December
2009.

 USEPA. 2007. Nitrates and Nitrites. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. <http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/Nitrates_summary.pdf>.
Accessed December 2009.

 FDEP 2009. Chemical Data for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.<   HYPERLINK
"http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/chemdata.htm"
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/chemdata.htm >. Accessed
January 2010.

 Southern Regional Water Program.  2010. Drinking Water and Human Health
in Florida. Southern Regional Water Program, <   HYPERLINK
"http://srwqis.tamu.edu/florida/program-information/florida-target-theme
s/drinking-water-and-human-health.aspx"
http://srwqis.tamu.edu/florida/program-information/florida-target-themes
/drinking-water-and-human-health.aspx >.  Accessed January 2010.

 USEPA. 2009. Drinking Water Contaminants. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Accessed <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/hfacts.html>. December
2009.

 CFR. 2006. 40 CFR parts 9, 141, and 142: National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts
Rule. Code of Federal Regulations, Washington, DC.
<http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2006/January/Day-04/w03.htm>.
Accessed December 2009.

 Carmichael, W.W. 2000. Assessment of Blue-Green Algal Toxins in Raw and
Finished Drinking Water. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.

 NOAA. 2009. Marine Biotoxins. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
<http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/hab/habs_toxins/marine_biotoxins/index.html>.
Accessed December 2009.

 WHOI. 2008. Hearing on 'Harmful Algal Blooms: The Challenges on the
Nation’s Coastlines.' Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
<http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8916&tid=282&cid=46007>. Accessed
December 2009.

 Dodds, W.K., W.W. Bouska, J.L. Eitzmann, T.J. Pilger, K.L. Pitts, A.J.
Riley, J.T. Schloesser, and D.J. Thornbrugh. 2009. Eutrophication of
U.S. freshwaters: analysis of potential economic damages. Environ.l Sci.
Tech.y. 43(1):12–19.

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Integrated Water
Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List
Update.

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Integrated Water
Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List
Update.

 U.S. Census Bureau.  2009.  2008 Population Estimates Ranked by State.
http://factfinder.census.gov

 Perry, W. B. 2008. Everglades restoration and water quality challenges
in south Florida. Ecotoxicology 17:569-578.

 USGS. 2009. Florida Waters: A Water Resources Manual.
<http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/reports/floridawaters/>. Accessed
June 9, 2009.

 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Integrated Water
Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List
Update.

 U.S. EPA. 2000a.  Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual:  Lakes
and Reservoirs.  Office of Water, Washington, DC.  EPA-822-B-00-001.

 U.S. EPA. 2000b.  Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual:  Rivers
and Streams.  Office of Water, Washington, DC.  EPA-822-B-00-002.

 U.S. EPA. 2001.  Nutrient Criteria Technical Manual:  Estuarine and
Coastal Marine Waters.  Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA-822-B-01-003), and wetlands (U.S. EPA, 2007).

 FDEP. 2008. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008
305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.

 Fernald, E.A. and E.D. Purdum.  1998.  Water Resources Atlas of
Florida.  Tallahassee:  Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida
State University.

 U.S. EPA. 1998. National Strategy for the Development of Regional
Nutrient Criteria. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-R-98-002;
Grubbs, G. 2001. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of State Water
Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of
Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Development and
Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water Quality Standards.  November
14, 2001); Grumbles, B.H. 2007. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of
State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors
of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Nutrient Pollution
and Numeric Water Quality Standards.  May 25, 2007).

 U.S. EPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and
Streams. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-002.

 Shannon, E.E. and P.L. Brezonik.  1972.  Limnological characteristics
of north and central Florida lakes.  Limnol. Oceanogr.  17(1): 97-110.

 Trophic state describes the nutrient and algal state of an aquatic
system: oligotrophic (low nutrients and algal productivity), mesotrophic
(moderate nutrients and algal productivity), and eutrophic (high
nutrients and algal productivity).

 Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr..
22:361-369.

Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr..
22:361-369.

 Salas and Martino. 1991. A simplified phosphorus trophic state index
for warm water tropical lakes. Wat. Res. 25:341-350.

 Whitmore and Brenner. 2002. Paleologic characterization of
pre-disturbance water quality conditions in EPA defined Florida lake
regions. Univ. Florida Dept. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 30 pp.

 Vighi and Chiaudani. 1985. A simple method to estimate lake phosphorus
concentrations resulting from natural background loadings. Wat.
Res.19:987-991.

 Canfield, D.E., Jr., M.J. Maceina, L.M. Hodgson, and K.A. Langeland.
1983. Limnological features of some northwestern Florida lakes.  J.
Freshw. Ecol. 2:67-79; Griffith, G. E., D. E. Canfield, Jr., C. A.
Horsburgh, J. M. Omernik, and S. H. Azevedo. 1997. Lake regions of
Florida. Map prepared by U. S. EPA, Corvallis, OR; available at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm  (accessed
10/09/2009).

 More information on this issue is available on FDEP’s Web site at <
HYPERLINK
"http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/dep_responses_100
909.pdf"
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/dep_responses_1009
09.pdf > and included in the “External Peer Review of EPA’s
‘Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient
Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters’” and EPA’s TSD for
Florida’s Inland Waters located in the docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.

 FDEP document titled, “DEP’s Responses to EPA’s 9/16 Comment
Letter.” October 9, 2009.  Located in the docket ID
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.

 USEPA. Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. <
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/tmdl0103/"
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/tmdl0103/ >  Accessed December 2009.

 Kenney (1998) as reported in Salas and Martino (1991).

 Jeppeson et al. 2005. Lake responses to reduced nutrient loading – an
analysis

of contemporary long-term data from 35 case studies. Freshwater Biology
50: 1747–1771.

 Griffith, G. E., D. E. Canfield, Jr., C. A. Horsburgh, J. M. Omernik,
and S. H. Azevedo. 1997.

Florida lake regions. U. S. EPA, Corvallis, OR.
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm

 U.S. EPA. 1998. National Strategy for the Development of Regional
Nutrient Criteria. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 822-R-98-002;
Grubbs, G. 2001. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of State Water
Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors of
Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Development and
Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water Quality Standards.  November
14, 2001); Grumbles, B.H. 2007. U.S. EPA. (Memorandum to Directors of
State Water Programs, Directors of Great Water Body Programs, Directors
of Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs and State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators on Nutrient Pollution
and Numeric Water Quality Standards.  May 25, 2007).

 U.S. EPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and
Streams. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-002.

 U.S. EPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and
Reservoirs. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-001; U.S.EPA.
2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual:  Rivers and Streams.
Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-002; U.S. EPA.2001.
Nutrient Criteria Technical Manual: Estuarine and Coastal Marine Waters.
Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-01-003.

 U.S. EPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and
Streams. Office of Water. 4304. EPA-822-B-00-002.

 The SCI method was developed and calibrated by FDEP.  See “Fore et
al. 2007. Development and testing biomonitoring tools for
macroinvertebrates in Florida streams (Stream Condition Index and
BioRecon). Final report to Florida Department of Environmental
Protection” and the EPA TSD for Florida’s Inland Waters for more
information on the SCI.

 Appendix H in “Fore et al. 2007. Development and testing
biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams (Stream
Condition Index and BioRecon). Final report to Florida Department of
Environmental Protection”

 See the EPA TSD for Florida’s Inland Waters for more information on
the proportional odds regression model.

 FL IWR and STORET can be found at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/WATER/STORET/INDEX.HTM

 U.S. EPA. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and
Streams. Office of Water. 4304. EPA-822-B-00-002;

 A quantitative, integrated measure of the degree of human landscape
disturbance within 100 meters on either side of a specified stream reach
and extending to 10 kilometers upstream of the same stream reach.

 FDEP document titled, “Responses to Earthjustice’s Comments on the
Department’s Reference Sites.” Draft October 2, 2009.  Located in
the docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.

 Vollenweider, R.A. 1975.  Input-output models with special reference to
the phosphorus loading concept in limnology.  Schweizerische Zeitschrift
fur Hydrologie. 37: 53-84; Vollenweider, R.A. 1976. Advances in
differing critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication.
 Mem. Ist. Ital. Idrobid. 33:53:83.

 Fernald, E.A. and E.D. Purdum.  1998.  Water Resources Atlas of
Florida.  Tallahassee:  Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida
State University.

 Gao, X.  2006.  Nutrient and Unionized Ammonia TMDLs for Lake Jesup,
WBIDs 2981 and 2981A.  Prepared by Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of Watershed
Management, Tallahassee, FL.

 Steward, J.S. and E.F. Lowe.  In Press.  General empirical models for
estimating nutrient load limits for Florida’s estuaries and inland
waters.  Limnol. Oceanogr.  55: (in press).

 Kennedy, R. H., 1995. Application of the BATHTUB Model to Selected
Southeastern Reservoirs. Technical Report EL-95-14, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Walker, W. W., 1985. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in
Impoundments; Report 3, Phase II: Model Refinements. Technical Report
E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Walker, W. W., 1987. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in
Impoundments; Report 4, Phase III: Applications Manual. Technical Report
E-81-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

 http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow

 Hoos, A. B., and G. McMahon.  2009.  Spatial analysis of instream
nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery to stream in
the southeastern United Sates using spatially referenced regression on
watershed attributes (SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks.
Hydrological Processes.  DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7323.

 Hoos, A.B., S. Terziotti,, G. McMahon, K. Savvas, K. C. Tighe, and R.
Alkons-Wolinsky.  2008.  Data to support statistical modeling of
instream nutrient load based on watershed attributes, southeastern
United States, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2008–1163, 50 p.

 USGS SPARROW publications Web site:   HYPERLINK
"http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/intro/pubs.html"
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/intro/pubs.html

 Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks
and J. Woerner, 2007. Effects of nutrient enrichment in the Nation’s
estuaries: A decade of change. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision
Analysis Series No. 26. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science,
Silver Spring, MD 322

 Hoos, A. B., and G. McMahon.  2009.  Spatial analysis of instream
nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery to stream in
the southeastern United Sates using spatially referenced regression on
watershed attributes (SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks.
Hydrological Processes.  DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7323.

 Hoos, A.B., S. Terziotti,, G. McMahon, K. Savvas, K. C. Tighe, and R.
Alkons-Wolinsky.  2008.  Data to support statistical modeling of
instream nutrient load based on watershed attributes, southeastern
United States, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2008–1163, 50 p.

 Steward, J.S. and E.F. Lowe.  2010.  General empirical models for
estimating nutrient load limits for Florida’s estuaries and inland
waters.  Limnology and Oceanography 55(1):433-445.

For further information on concerns raised by FDEP regarding the use of
SPARROW, refer to "Florida Department of Environmental Protection Review
of SPARROW:  How useful is it for the purposes of supporting water
quality standards development?," “Assessment of FDEP Panhandle Stream
proposed benchmark numeric nutrient criteria for downstream protection
of Apalachicola Bay,” and “Analysis of Proposed Freshwater Stream
Criteria’s Relationship to Protective Levels in the Lower St. Johns
River Based on the Lower St. Johns River Nutrient TMDL.”

located in EPA’s docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.

 Hoos, A. B., and G. McMahon.  2009.  Spatial analysis of instream
nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery to stream in
the southeastern United Sates using spatially referenced regression on
watershed attributes (SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks.
Hydrological Processes.  DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7323.

 Bohlke, J.K., R.C. Antweiler, J.W. Harvey, A.E. Laursen, L.K. Smith, R.
L. Smith, and M.A. Voytek. 2009. Multi-scale measurements and modeling
of Denitrification in streams with varying flow and nitrate
concentration in the upper Mississippi River basin, USA. Biogeochemistry
93: 117-141. DOI 10.1007/s10533-008-9282-8.

 Hoos, A.B., S. Terziotti,, G. McMahon, K. Savvas, K. C. Tighe, and R.
Alkons-Wolinsky.  2008.  Data to support statistical modeling of
instream nutrient load based on watershed attributes, southeastern
United States, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2008–1163, 50 p.

 Brown M.T., K. Chinners Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, P.W. Inglett, K.
Sharma Inglett, K. Ramesh Reddy, T.K. Fraze, C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips,
R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, R.G. Hamann, and K.A. McKee. 2008. Summary
and Synthesis of the Available Literature on the Effects of Nutrients on
Spring Organisms and Systems.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Re
port.pdf"
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Rep
ort.pdf , University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

 Scott, T.M., G.H. Means, R.P. Meegan, R.C. Means, S.B. Upchurch, R.E.
Copeland, J. Jones, T. Roberts, and A. Willet. 2004. Springs of Florida.
Bulletin No, 66. Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, FL. 677 pp.

 Katz, B.G., H.D. Hornsby, J.F. Bohlke and M.F. Mokray. 1999. Sources
and chronology of nitrate contamination in spring water, Suwannee River
Basin, Florida. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 99-4252. Reston, VA.

 Brown M.T., K. Chinners Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, P.W. Inglett, K.
Sharma Inglett, K. Ramesh Reddy, T.K. Fraze, C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips,
R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, R.G. Hamann, and K.A. McKee. 2008. Summary
and Synthesis of the Available Literature on the Effects of Nutrients on
Spring Organisms and Systems.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Re
port.pdf"
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Rep
ort.pdf , University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

 Ibid.

 Katz, B.G., H.D. Hornsby, J.F. Bohlke and M.F. Mokray. 1999. Sources
and chronology of nitrate contamination in spring water, Suwannee River
Basin, Florida. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 99-4252. Reston, VA.

 Doyle, R.D. and R.M. Smart. 1998. Competitive reduction of noxious
Lyngbya wollei mats by rooted aquatic plants. Aquatic Botany 61:17-32.

 Stevenson, R.J., A. Pinowska, A. Albertin, and J.O. Sickman. 2007.
Ecological condition of algae and nutrients in Florida springs: The
Synthesis Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 58 pp.

Bonn, M.A. and F.W. Bell. 2003. Economic Impact of Selected Florida
Springs on Surrounding Local Areas. Report prepared for the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL.

 Pinowska, A., R.J. Stevenson, J.O. Sickman, A. Albertin, and M.
Anderson. 2007. Integrated interpretation of survey for determining
nutrient thresholds for macroalgae in Florida Springs: Macroalgal
relationships to water, sediment and macroalgae nutrients, diatom
indicators and land use. Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Tallahassee, FL.

 Stevenson,R.J., A. Pinowska, and Y.K. Wang. 2004. Ecological condition
of algae and nutrients in Florida springs. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL.

!

f

g

h

m

p

—

¤

¥

hµ

g

h

Ú

Û

¥

¦

¨

©

Ç

×

Ù

Û

ä

ᄀ킄ሂā㜀$␸䠀$葠ː摧瀀ä	ሀā㄀$摧䜈£

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

h

hh

hh

h

hh

j®

v

Ž

Ž

™

 hÝ

hÝ

hÝ

@

¬

hµ

 hµ

hµ

hµ

hµ

h

h

 h!^

”ÿô

\

”ÿô

\

”ÿô

\

”ÿô

\

”ÿô

\

Ý

Þ

W

Ç

 hÑ

 h8

ᘆꩨ

hª

'

'

+

N

Y

[

j

k

-

Š

Ž

Æ

Ç

h

h

 h}

 h}

kd

hÂ[

hÂ[

 h

 hM

 h

h

¦

Î

Ï

ó

¦

«

Î

Ï

á

h

 h

h

>

瑹䰺Ā

 hG

hÆsá† hž

hÆsá† hž

hÆsá† hž

¤

¥

T

^

_

h

k

n

t

–

—

Å

Ì

ç

è

@

A

¤

¥

ᘆ앨

 h

¬

@

@

¬

¬

/

”ÿô

将

将

将

将

将

ᘆ앨

ᘌ앨

gdÅ

ᘉ앨

䠀Īᔏ罨䰳ᘀ앨

䠀Īᔏㅨ꽹ᘀ앨

䠀Īᔌ瑨쑂ᘀ앨

ᘉ앨

㘀脈ᔏ罨䰳ᘀ앨

㘀脈ᘆ앨

ᘏ앨

ᔌ뱨譚ᘀ앨

ᘑ앨

䌀ᑊ䠀Ī䩡 ᔔ쁨뱹ᘀ앨

ᘎ앨

ᔏ饨㱟ᘀ앨

䠀Īᔏ罨䰳ᘀ앨

䠀Īᘆ앨

ᔌ杨⸳ᘀ앨

gdÅ

gdÅ

ytb

gdÅ

ytb

ᄀ킄ሂā㜀$␸䠀$葠ː摧䔳Í

 h

õñõñêãñãñãñõñÜñãñãñãñõñÕÎñÎñÎñÎñõñÇñ
ÕÇñÇñÇñÇñõñÕÇñÎñÇñõñÀñÕñÀñÇñÀñÀñõñÀñ
ÕñÀñ h§

 h§

(

 h

, J.M. Lloyd, T.M. Scott, S.B. Upchurch and R. Copeland. 1992.
Florida’s Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program – Background
Hydrochemistry. Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 34.
Tallahassee, FL.

 Katz, B.G., H.D. Hornsby, J.F. Bohlke and M.F. Mokray. 1999. Sources
and chronology of nitrate contamination in spring water, Suwannee River
Basin, Florida. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 99-4252. Reston, VA.

Brown M.T., K. Chinners Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, P.W. Inglett, K.
Sharma Inglett, K. Ramesh Reddy, T.K. Fraze, C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips,
R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, R.G. Hamann, and K.A. McKee. 2008. Summary
and Synthesis of the Available Literature on the Effects of Nutrients on
Spring Organisms and Systems.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Re
port.pdf"
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Rep
ort.pdf , University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

 Scott, T.M., G.H. Means, R.P. Meegan, R.C. Means, S.B. Upchurch, R.E.
Copeland, J. Jones, T. Roberts, and A. Willet. 2004. Springs of Florida.
Bulletin No, 66. Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, FL. 677 pp.

 Brown M.T., K. Chinners Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, P.W. Inglett, K.
Sharma Inglett, K. Ramesh Reddy, T.K. Fraze, C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips,
R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, R.G. Hamann, and K.A. McKee. 2008. Summary
and Synthesis of the Available Literature on the Effects of Nutrients on
Spring Organisms and Systems.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Re
port.pdf"
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Rep
ort.pdf , University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

 Brown M.T., K. Chinners Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, P.W. Inglett, K.
Sharma Inglett, K. Ramesh Reddy, T.K. Fraze, C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips,
R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, R.G. Hamann, and K.A. McKee. 2008. Summary
and Synthesis of the Available Literature on the Effects of Nutrients on
Spring Organisms and Systems.     HYPERLINK
"http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Re
port.pdf"
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Rep
ort.pdf , University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

 Stevenson, R.J., A. Pinowska, A. Albertin, and J.O. Sickman. 2007.
Ecological condition of algae and nutrients in Florida springs: The
Synthesis Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 58 pp.

Cowell, B. C. and C. J. Dawes. 2004. Growth and nitrate-nitrogen uptake
by the cyanobacterium Lyngbya wollei.  J. Aquatic Plant Management 42:
69-71.

 Gao, X.. 2008. Nutrient TMDLs for the Wekiva River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A,
and 2956C) and Rock Springs Run (WBID 2967). Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.

 Mattson, R. A., E. F. Lowe, C. L. Lippincott, D. Jian, and L. Battoe.
2006. Wekiva River and Rock Springs Run Pollutant Load Reduction Goals.
St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida.

 Gao, X.  2008.  Nutrient TMDLs for the Wekiva River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A,
2956C) and Rock Springs Run (WBID 2967).  Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.

 Stevenson, R.J., A. Pinowska, A. Albertin, and J.O. Sickman. 2007.
Ecological condition of algae and nutrients in Florida springs: The
Synthesis Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 58 pp.

 Proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Dissolved Oxygen and
Nutrient in the Everglades. Prepared by U.S. EPA Region 4. September
2007.

 State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).

 Proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Dissolved Oxygen and
Nutrient in the Everglades. Prepared by U.S. EPA Region 4. September
2007.

 Clean Water Act section 101(a)(2) states that it is a national goal for
water quality, wherever attainable,  to provide for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation
in and on the water

 A variance is a temporary modification to the designated use and
associated water quality criteria that would otherwise apply.  It is
based on a use attainability demonstration and targets achievement of
the highest attainable use and associated criteria during the variance
period.

  Refer to Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.

 EPA was not able to estimate costs for municipal stormwater systems
because the need for incremental controls is uncertain.

 PAGE

 PAGE   194

Insert made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edit made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edit made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edit made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edit madepursuant to OMB comment.

Edit made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edits made to this paragraph pursuant to OMB comment.

Edit made pursuant to OMB comment.

Insertion made pursuant to OMB comment.

Insertion made pursuant to OMB comment.

Insert made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edits made pursuant to OMB comment.

Insert made pursuant to OMB comment.

Insert made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edit made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edit made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edit made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edits made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edits made pursuant to OMB comment.

Insert made pursuant to OMB comment.

Edits made pursuant to OMB comments.

Edits to this section made pursuant to OMB.

Divide by

Fraction

Delivered

Divide by

Average

Streamflow

DPV

for all Other

Reaches

DPV for Terminal

Reaches

Estimate Protective

Load