# Site

- Specific Information in Support of Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Greater Apalachee Bay

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration Standards and Assessment Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection Tallahassee, FL 32399

August 13, 2010Draft ii August 2010 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

............................................................................................................... 1 Geographic and Physical Description

..................................................................................... 3 Sources and Fates of Nutrients

.............................................................................................. 3
Point Sources

...................................................................................................................... 13 City of Tallahasse e Nitrate Contribution

........................................................................................ 14 

### Nonpoint Sources

................................................................................................................ 14 Biological Summary

............................................................................................................. 14

SAV in the Econfina/Fenholloway Systems

.................................................................................... 17 Phytoplankton Density and Taxa in the Fenholloway/Econfina Systems

......................................... 22 SAV in the Steinhatchee Estuary

................................................................................................... 22 Presence and Frequency of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the Econfina/Fenholloway Systems

................................................................................................ ........................................ 27 Shellfish Production and Frequency/Duration of Bed Closures in Wakulla County

........................... 27 

### Water Quality Studies

......................................................................................................... 30
IMAP Proba bilistic Sampling

......................................................................................................... 31 Preliminary Assessment of Optical Water Quality in Florida’s Big Bend Region

– Carlson and Yarbro, FWRI

................................................................................................ ................................ 35 LakeWatch Program

..................................................................................................................... 35 St. Marks/Wakulla Sampling

........................................................................................................ 37 City o f Tallahassee Data on Nitrate Contributions

......................................................................... 44 Fenholloway/Econfina Studies

...................................................................................................... 44 EPA 1999 Nutrient Study

............................................................................................................... 56 Steinhatchee Estuary Sampling, Project COAST, 1997

–

present

....................................................... 56 SRWMD Monitoring in the Steinhatchee Estuary

........................................................................... 61 

### Existing Regional Nutrient Loading Models, HydroQual Inc.

................................................. 63 Waters on the 303(d) List

..................................................................................................... 64 Impairment for Bacteria Not Necessarily Indicative of Anthropogenic Impact

................................ 65 

### Numeric Nutrient Criteria Recommendations

...................................................................... 67 References

.......................................................................................................................... 71 Appendix A: Long

- Term (1971

– 2004) Response of the Econfina and Fenholloway Drainages (Apalachee Bay) to the Discharge of Pulp Mill Effluents: Nutrient Loading , Limitation and Distribution.

................................................................................................ . 76 Appendix B: Rainfall and Seagrass Coverage Figures of the Fenholloway and Econfina Systems (from BVA Research for Buckeye Florida L.P.)

......................................................... 77 Appendix C: Apalachee Bay Nutrient Criteria Support Analysis from HydroQual

.................. 85Draft iii August 2010 

### List of Tables

Table 1. Checklist of potential nutrient enrichment symptoms in greater Apalachee Bay (excluding the Fenholloway River).

............................................................................................. 2 Table 2. Physical characteristics of Apalachee Bay.

..................................................................................... 9 Table 3. Land use percentages for the St. Marks and Wakulla River Basins.

............................................... 9 Table 4. 2001 and 2006 seagrass habitat, and the change that occurred, 2001

– 06, for the St. Marks, Aucilla, and Econfina Rivers (from Carlson, FWRI)

....................................................... 17
Table 5. Taxa

- specific phytoplankton blooms in the Fenholloway and Econfina Estuaries, 2005

– 09 (BVA data).

........................................................................................................................... 28 Table 6. Occurrence of potentially harmful algal taxa in the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers and Estuaries, 2005

– 09.

........................................................................................................... 29 Table 7. Annual reported dockside commercial landings of shellfish for Wakulla County, Florida (FDACS data).

............................................................................................................................ 30 Table 8. Summary statistics for the Big Bend area probabilistic sampling effort in July 2002 as part of the FMRI IMAP Program. The 75 th and 90 th percentiles are estimated based on a log normal distribution.

.................................................................................................... 31 Table 9. Mean values of chlorophyll a, TN, and TP for three water quality sampling events at nine LakeWatch coastal sites in Apalachee Bay, collected in 2001.

......................................... 36 Table 10. Summary of selected water quality characteristics in the St. Marks and Wakulla River systems and Apalachee Bay (data from Florida STORET 2007) (Lewis et al. 2009).

................. 40 Table 11. Summary of selected water quality characteristics in the Wakulla River system (data from Florida STORET 2007) (Lewis et al. 2009).

........................................................................ 40 Table 12. Latitudes and longitudes for discrete water quality stations for the Fenholloway and Econfina Estuaries (from BVA).

................................................................................................ . 48 Table 13. Comparison between station geometric means for 2007 (n = 11, or 12 monthly samples) and uncorrected and phaeophytin

- corrected chlorophyll a (μg/L)
measurements.

......................................................................................................................... 61 Table 14. Annual geometric mean concentrations of chlorophyll a (uncorrected), TN, and TP for Station STN060C1 in the Steinhatchee Estuary, sampled by SRWMD.

..................................... 63 Table 15. Impaired waters in the greater Apalachee Bay planning units.

................................................. 65 Table 16. TN and TP loads and concentrations for the St. Marks, Aucilla, Econfina, and Steinhatchee Rivers. All loading numbers are based on annual geometric means.

................ 68
Table A

- 1. Latitudes and longitudes for discrete water quality stations for the Fenholloway and Econfina Estuaries (from BVA data).

......................................................................................... 79
Table A

- 2. Data collected from 10 BVA monitoring stations listed in Table A

- 1.

....................................... 80Draft iv August 2010 

### List of Figures

Figure 1. Greater Apalachee Bay region, including major rivers and conservation areas.

.......................... 4 Figure 2. Composite map of the St. Marks River Planning Unit, including the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, and Verified List waters, and potential pollution sources (FDEP 2003).

............... 6 Figure 3. Composite map of the Aucilla/Wacissa, Econfina, Fenholloway, Steinhatchee, and Other Coastal Basin Planning Units, including the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, and Verified List waters.

.................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4. Apalachee Bay Basin land use from FLUCCS. Agricultural = 849.05 km 2 or 14.06% of land use, commercial and residential = 446.14 km 2 or 7.39%, extraction = 9.52 km 2 or 0.158%, infrastructure = 66.44 km 2 or 1.1%, natural = 888.41 km 2 or 14.71%, silviculture = 2,121.23 km 2 or 36.23%, a nd water and wetlands = 1,656.82 km 2 or 28.54% (Charbonneau 2010).

................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Steinhatchee River Basin land use with FLUCCS. Agriculture = 36.85 km 2 or 1.8% of land use, commercial residential = 29.67 km 2 or 1.449%, extraction = 0.06 km 2 or 0.003%, infrastructure = 4.76 km 2 or 0.233%, natural = 28.7 km 2 or 1.402%, silviculture = 883.07 km 2 or 43.140%, and water/wetlands = 1,063.89 km 2 or 51.973% (Charbonneau 2010).

................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 6. Conservation land in the Steinhatchee River Basin (Charbonneau 2010).

.................................. 12 Figure 7. The major tributaries of the greater Apalachee Bay area and the drainage basins for 3 of the major rivers and the Apalachee Bay CDA (Charbonneau 2010).

.................................... 13 Figure 8. Seagrass habitat change for the St. Marks River to Ochlocknee River, 2001

– 06 (from Carlson, FWRI).

......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 9. Seagrass habitat change for the Econfina River to St. Marks River, 2001

– 06 (from Carlson, FWRI).

......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 10. Seagrass habitat change for the Fenholloway River to Econfina River, 2001

– 06 (from Carlson, FWRI).

......................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 11. Seagrass density for four taxa of seagrasses for Stations E08 and F10 (from BVA data).

................................................................................................ ........................................ 19 Figure 12. Seagrass density for five taxa of seagrasses for Stations EO9 and F16 (from BVA data).

........ 20
Fi gure 13. Seagrass density (shoots/m 2 ) for each BVA discrete monitoring station, 2005

– 09 (from BVA data).

....................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14. Seagrass and macroalgal biomass for the discrete water quality monitoring stations (2008 BVA data).

....................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 15. Phytoplankton density for two cognate stations in the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers. Each graph represents a given year from 2005 to 2009 (from BVA data).

.................. 24 Figure 16. Phytoplankton taxa diversity (H) data for the Econfina and Fenholloway stations, 2004

– 09 (from BVA data).

........................................................................................................ 25 Figure 17. Locations of the 25 fixed sampling sites for the Steinhatchee Seagrass Monitoring Program (from Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve d ata).

..................................................... 26 Figure 18. Occurrence (%) of various seagrass species in the Steinhatchee Estuary, 2000

– 09 (Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve data).

.................................................................................... 26Draft v August 2010 Figure 19. Average total seagrass coverage for the Steinhatchee Estuary, 2003

– 08 (Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve data). Braun

- Blaunquet abundance codes: 1 = <5% cover; 2 = 5%

- 25% cover; 3 = 25%

- 50% cover; 4 = 50%

- 75% cover; 5 = 75%

- 100% cover.

................. 27 Figure 20. Site locations and TN concentrations (μg/L) of Big Bend sites sampled in July 2002 as part of the FMRI IMAP probabilistic sampling. Note that the highest concentrations of N were found in the salt marshes.

........................................................................................ 32 Figure 21. Location and chlorophyll a concentrations (μg/L) of all Apalachee Bay sites sampled as part of the FMRI IMAP probabilistic sampling. Sites were sampled once between 2000 and 2004.

......................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 22. Location and TN concentrations (μg/L) of all Apalachee Bay sites sampled as part of the FMRI IMAP probabilistic sampling. Sites were sampled once between 2000 and 2004.

................................................................................................ ......................................... 34 Figure 23. Location and TP concentrations (μg/L) of all Apalachee Bay sites sampled as part of the FMRI IMAP probabilistic sampling. Sites were sampled once between 2000 and 2004.

................................................................................................ ......................................... 35 Figure 24. LakeWatch 2001 site locations in Apalachee Bay.

.................................................................... 36 Figure 25. Water quality stations in the Lower St. Marks River Basin and Apalachee Bay (boxes indicate station groups) (Lewis et al. 2009).

............................................................................. 38 Figure 26. Wakulla River water quality stations (boxes indicate station groups) (Lewis et al. 2009).

................................................................................................ ........................................ 39 Figure 27. (Top) N and (bottom) P concentrations in the St. Marks River (data from Florida STORET 2007) (Lewis et al 2009).

............................................................................................. 42 Figure 28. (Top) N and (bottom) P concentrations in the Wakulla River (data from Florida STORET 2007) (Lewis et al. 2009).

............................................................................................ 43 Figure 29. Map showing positions of sampling stations in the Econfina and Fenholloway River estuarine systems over the total sampling period. Additional charts indica te the sampling regimes associated with various field activities carried out during the 1970

– 2004 sampling period (Livingston).

........................................................................................... 45 Figure 30. Locations of BVA discrete water quality monitoring stations for the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers.

.................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 31. Seagrass sample locations for the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers, August 2009 (from BVA).

............................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 32. DO (mg/L) recorded at the Econfina and Fenholloway stations during the growing season from May through October (2004

– 09) (from BVA).

..................................................... 49 Figure 33. Top left graph shows particulate carbon at each station, top right graph shows particulate N at each station, and bottom graph shows particulate P for each station, 2006

– 09 (from BVA).

................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 34. Graphs of TDN and TDP (mg/L) for each station during the growing season from May through October, 2006

– 09 (from BVA).

.................................................................................... 51 Figure 35. Water color data summarized by cognate stations for the Buckeye Florida project, 2004

– 09 (from BVA).

................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 36. Chlorophyll a (mg/L) for each station during the growing season from May through October, 2004

– 09 (from BVA).

................................................................................................ . 52Draft vi August 2010 Figure 37. Chlorophyll a data summarized by cognate stations, 2004

– 09, Buckeye Florida project (from BVA).

............................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 38. Measured TP, TN, and chlorophyll a for the Econfina River area, Stations E06, E08, E09, E10, and E11 (annual calculations include May through October data only) (data f

rom BVA; calculations by HydroQual).

.................................................................................... 54 Figure 39. Measured TP, TN, and chlorophyll a for the Fenholloway River area, Stations F06, F10, F11, and F16 (annual calculations include May

– October data only) (data from BVA; calculations by HydroQual).

...................................................................................................... 55 Figure 40. Locations of Project COAST sampling sites in the Steinhatchee Estuary. Sites 1 and 2 are in the river channel but mean salinities at those sites are greater than 5 ppt (Charbonneau 2010).

................................................................................................................ 57 Figure 41. Monthly average TN, TP, and uncorrected chlorophyll a for 10 estuarine stations in the Steinhatchee Estuary, collected by Project COAST, 1997

–

2008 (Frazer and Jacoby 2010).

................................................................................................ ........................................ 58 Figure 42. Annual average salinity plotted as a predictor of (1) annual geometric mean TN, (2) annual geometric mean TP, and (3) annual geometric mean uncorrected chlorophyll a at 10 sites in the Steinhatchee Estuary, 1997

– 2007. Linear trend lines fitted for TN and TP, and a 2 nd

- order polynomial fitted for chlorophyll a, for demonstration
purposes.

................................................................................................ ................................... 59 Figure 43. Relationship between individual sample analyses of uncorrected chlorophyll a and phaeophytin

- corrected chlorophyll a for 10 sites sampled monthly in the Steinhatchee Estuary in 2007 and the first part of 2008.

............................................................................... 60 Figure 44. Location of the Steinhatchee Sound Station (STN060C1) sampled by the SRWMD.

................. 62 Figure 45. TKN for the Steinhatchee station (2002

– 09) (from McKinney 2010).

....................................... 62 Figure 46. All available TN and TP data for Steinhatchee Estuary Site STN060C1, sampled by the SRWMD.

................................................................................................ .................................... 63 Figure A

- 1. Seasonal rainfall for Perry, Florida, 1998

– 2009. Top graph shows 1998

– 2002 data, and bottom graph shows 2003

– 09 data (from BVA).

............................................................... 78 Figure A

- 2. Discharge compared with 1977

–

2009 annual average for the Fenholloway and Econfina Rivers (from BVA).

...................................................................................................... 79 Figure A

- 3. Distribution and abundance of seagrasses in the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuaries and Apalachee Bay, 1992 (from BVA).

...................................................................................... 81 Figure A

- 3. Distribution and abundance of seagrasses in the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuaries and Apalachee Bay, 1992 (from BVA).

...................................................................................... 82 Figure A

- 5. Percent coverage for the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuaries and Apalachee Bay, 2005 (from BVA).

...................................................................................................................... 83 Figure A

- 6. Percent coverage for the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuaries and Apalachee Bay, 2009 (from BVA).

...................................................................................................................... 84Draft 1 August 2010 

### Executive Summary
This report was prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), in cooperation with local scientists, 1

G reater Apalachee Bay is a high

- salinity, relatively shallow, wind

- driven estuary in the Big Bend of Florida , adjacent to and contiguous with the Gulf o f Mexico

. The greater Apalachee Bay system extends from the area just east of Ochlockonee Bay to the Steinhatchee River, and also includes t he Aucilla, Econfina, Fenholloway
, and St. Marks R ivers

. The coast is dominated by highly developed Spartina/Juncu s saltwater marshes a with very high wetlands/open water ratio compared with the alluvial es tuaries to the west (Livingston 2000). The inshore marine habitat of Apalachee Bay serves as a physically stressed but highly productive nursery for the developing stages of offshore forms, many of which form the basis of the region’s sports and commercial species. The bay ’s extensive seagrass beds are responsible for the high primary production of the bay and also serve as a dominant habitat feature

. Ph ytoplankton productivity is relatively low in the largely oligotrophic offshore parts of Apalachee Bay. The highly complex, extremely productive food webs of the inshore marine systems of this area are principally driven by the seagrass beds and secondarily, by the Spartina/Juncus marshes

. to support the development of site

- specific numeric nutrient criteria for greater Apalachee Bay. The primary purpose of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria is to protect healthy
, well

- balanced natural populations of flora and fauna from the effects of excess nutrient enrichment.

While t he five major tributaries provide nutrients to the bay, the nutrients are primarily derived from natural sources (leaf litter and the Hawthorne geologic formation)

. Nutrient limitation experiments in the Fenhollo way and Econfina systems indicate that inshore areas of both systems are generally limited b y nitrogen (N) , wh ile farther offshore, experiments showed increased phosphorus (P) limitation.

Seagrasses , which are the endpoint of concern in Apalachee Bay, remain relatively undisturbed by human activity , except for the nearshore Fenholloway system , which has been historically affected by pulp mill effluent but is currently undergoing restoration

. Barry A. Vittor and Associates Inc. (BVA) analyzed the relationship between seagrass density, percent photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) on the bottom, water column chlorophyll a concentrations
, and water color n the Fenholloway and Econ fina systems. These relationships were described by a linked hydrodynamic water quality model, and it was demonstrated that PAR of 15% light on the bottom and chlorophyll a of 6.1 micrograms per liter ( **μ** g/L ) (not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time) would fully support a healthy, well

- balanced
seagrass community in the Fenholloway system

.

The Steinhatchee Estuary has been sampled monthly since 1997 as part of Project COAST
, led by Tom Frazier of the University of Florida (UF) . Data were available from the other tributaries as well. Based upon data extending from 1971 to the present (predominantly from Livingston) , the greater Apalachee B ay is currently healthy and fully supports its designated use, except for a small area near the Fenholl o way River (see T able 1). A Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL ) has been completed and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) for the Fenholloway River, and it is expected to be implemented within the next five years, resulting in the full restoration of the Fenholloway system. Therefore, except f or the Fenholloway, maintaining the current nutrient regime (which varies as a function of rainfall) is the recommended criterion for the bay. Since the bay has been demonstrated to be healthy
, the existing nutrient load will be fully protective.

1 Contributors to this report included Dr. Skip Livingston
, Dr. Carl Way, Tom Gallagher, Cristhian Mancilla
, Melissa Charbonneau, Nia Wellendorf, and Randy Snipes.Draft 2 August 2010 Table 1. Checklist of potential nutrient enrichment symptoms in greater Apalachee Bay (e xcluding the Fenholloway River ).

- = Empty cell/no data Response V ariable Observed H istorically ? Observed C urrently ? Explanation Source

Low dissolved oxygen ( DO ) (hypoxia/anoxia) In Certain Areas In Certain Areas D O concentrations a re lower than the 4.0 milligrams per liter ( mg /L ) C lass III marine water quality criteri on in the minimally disturbed Econfina system due to natural phenomena associated with swamp inputs

. The EPA is currently evaluating site -s pecific alternative criteria for DO in the area. The Econfina and Fenholloway both originate from backwater swamps and have natural low DO. There have not been adverse effects due to the low DO in the Econfina system

. Livingston 2010; EPA 1999; Florida 303(d) list; BVA 2005

– 09

Reduced clarity No No A 1999 EPA study showed that water color for the Econfina Estuary averaged 160 platinum cobalt units (PCUs)

. Color varies naturally as a function of tannins from the extensive swamps

. BVA 2005

– 09

Increased chlorophyll

a concentrations No No Chlorophy ll a levels throughout the bay were consistently less than 6 mg/L found in the minimally disturbed Econfina system , which the EPA used as a reference system to derive the Fenholloway TMDL. BVA 2005

– 09 ; EPA 1999

Phytoplankton blooms (nuisance or toxic) No No No adverse effects from potentially harmful algae, including the red tide

– causing organism
, Karenia brevis has been observed

. BVA 2005

– 09

Problematic epiphyte growth No No N o problematic epiphyte growth has been reported for any of the g reater Apalachee Bay systems

. -

Problematic macroalgal growth No No No evidence was found of problematic macroalgal growth. BVA 2005

– 09

Submerged aquatic vegetation ( SAV ) community changes or loss Yes No Other than historical losses near the mouth of the Fenholloway due to a p ulp mill discharge ( addressed by a TMDL )
, the l oss and subsequent r e- growth of SAV near the river mouths appears to be a natural phenomenon associated with hydrologic events, which reduce salinity and increase water color ( from tannins). BVA 2005

– 09 ; Project COAST
seagrass mapping

Emergent or shoreline vegetation community changes or loss No No No change in this community was found in any reports or literature. -

Coral/hardbottom community changes or loss No No Hardbottom typically occurs approximately 20 miles from shore, and no change in this community was found in any reports or literature. -

Impacts to benthic community No No No evidence of impacts to benthic communities has been found , except for the nearshore Fenholloway system , which will be addressed by an EPA approved TMDL

. -

Fish kills No No - -Draft 3 August 2010 

### Geographic and Physical Description

Greater Apalachee Bay is a high

- salinity, relatively shallow, wind

- driven estuary in the Big Bend of Florida , adjacent to and contiguous with the Gulf of Mexico

. Table 2 lists the bay’s major physical characteristics. The greater Apalachee Bay system extends from the are a just east of Ochlockonee Bay to the Steinhatchee River, and also includes the Aucilla, Econfina, Fenholloway , and St. Marks R ivers. The Apalachee Bay Coastal Drainage Area (CDA) includes nine Florida c ounties ( Wakulla, Franklin, Liberty, Gadsden, Leon, Jefferson, Madison, Taylor, and Lafayette ) and 4 Georgia c ounties ( Decatur, Grady, Thomas, and Brooks ).

The surface area of Apalachee B ay comprises 85,112 acres, much of which is included in the Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve, which is also designated as an Outstanding Florida W ater (OFW)

. The Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve includes most of the Wakulla and St. Marks Rivers southward toward the mouth of the Steinhatchee R iver

. The net movement of water is from east to west, with the rive r inputs mixing with the more saline G ulf water

. Figure 1 shows the greater Apalachee Bay region, including major rivers and conservation areas.

Figure 2 shows a composite map of the St. Marks River Planning Unit, including the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, and Verified List waters, and potential pollution sources (FDEP 2003); Figure 3 provides the same information for the Aucilla/Waucissa, Econfina, Fenholloway, Steinhatchee, and O ther C oastal B asin P lanning U nits. Table 3 shows the major land uses and percentages in the Wakulla River and St. Marks Basins. Figures 4 and 5 show land uses in the Apalachee Bay and Steinhatchee Basin
, respectively, and Figure 6 shows conservation land in the Steinhatchee Basin

.


### Sources and Fates of Nutrients
The Apalachee Bay Estuary has five major tributaries: the St. Marks, Aucilla, Fenholloway, Econfina, and, Steinhatchee Rivers (Figure 7)

. While these contribute nutrients to the bay, the nutrients are primarily derived from natural sources (leaf litter a nd the Hawthorne geologic formation). Phytoplankton productivity in Apalachee Bay is generally low compared with the alluvial systems to the west (Livingston 2010)

. Nutrient limitation experiments in the Fenholloway and Econfina systems indicate that the inshore areas of both systems are generally N limited, while farther offshore, experiments showed increased P limitation. Higher total inorganic nitrogen/total inorganic phosphorus ( TIN/TIP ) ratios indicated increased P limitation
, showing the increasing importance of P to offshore areas of the Gulf.Draft 4 August 2010 Figure 1

. Greater Apalachee Bay region , including major rivers and conservation areas.Draft 5 August 2010Draft 6 August 2010 Figure 2

. Composite map of t he St. Marks River Basin shows cycle 2 impairments for Ammonia, DO, Nutrients, and other. (FDEP 2009).Draft 7 August 2010Draft 8 August 2010 Figure 3

. Composite map of the Suwannee Basin shows Aucilla/Wacissa, Econfina, Fenholloway, Steinhatchee Rivers and cycle 2 impairments for Ammonia, DO, Nutrients, and other. (FDEP 2009)Draft 9 August 2010 Table 2. Physical characteristic s of Apalachee Bay.
Data Values Source Estuarine surface area ( square kilometers [ km 2 ]) 1, 773 km 2 Smith 2003 ; N ational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N OAA ) Watershed area (km 2 ) 11,909.475 km 2 EPA 1999 Land use See F igures 5 and 6 S uwannee River Water Management District (S RWMD ) land use layers ( Florida Land Use, Cover and Form Classification System [ FLUCCS ]) Mean depth (m eters [m] ) 3.0 m EPA 1999 Volume ( cubic meters [ m 3 ] ) 3,398,212 m 3 Smith 2003 ; NOAA Tidal range (m) .75 m EPA 1999 Tidal freshwater inflow ( 1,000 cubic meters per second [1, 000

m 3 s -1 ]) 150 m 3 /s EPA 1999

Mean water residence time (days) 3 days Charbonneau 2010

Table 3

. Land use percentages for the St. Marks and Wakulla River Basins. Summary of Acres St. Marks (%) Total Wakulla (%) Total Urban and built

- up 6.68% 20.20% Agriculture 13.02% 2.85% Rangeland 1.11% 4.34% Upland forest 57.26% 62.03% Water 2.41% .67% Wetlands 19.12% 8.54% Barren land .01% .03% Transportation, communications, and utilities .40% 1.33%

% TOTAL: 100% 100%Draft 10 August 2010 Figure 4

. Apalachee Bay Basin land use from FLUCCS. Agricultural = 849.05 km 2 or 1 4 .06% of land use , commercial and residential = 446.14 km 2 or 7 .3 9% , extraction = 9.52 km 2 or 0.1 58 % , infrastructure = 66.44 km 2 or 1.1% , natural = 888.41 km 2 or 14.71 % , silviculture = 2, 121.23 km 2 or 3 6.23 % , and water and wetlands = 1,656.82 km 2 or 28.54% (Charbonneau 2010).Draft 11 August 2010 Figure 5

. Steinhatchee River Basin land use with FLUCCS. Agriculture = 36.85 km 2 or 1.8 % of land use,

c ommercial r esidential = 29.67 km 2 or 1.449%, e xtraction = 0.06 km 2 or 0.003%, i nfrastructure = 4.76 km 2 or 0.233%, n atural = 28.7 km 2 or 1.402%, s ilviculture = 883.07 km 2 or 43.140%, and

w ater /w etlands = 1,0 63.89 km 2 or 51.973% (Charbonneau 2010).Draft 12 August 2010 Figure 6. C onservation land in t he Steinhatchee River Basin (Charbonneau 2010).Draft 13 August 2010 Figure 7. T he major tributaries of the grea ter Apalachee Bay area and the drainage basins for 3 of the major rivers and the Apalachee Bay C DA (Charbonneau 2010).



### Point Sources There are several point sources in the lower St. Marks River (below St. Marks Spring rise). These include the city of Tallahassee Purdom Power Plant (Curtis 1997), the Murphy Oil Corporation tank farm, the St. Marks Refinery site, and the St. Marks domestic sewage treatment plant. The St. Marks sewage plant started piping treated domestic wastew ater to the power plant for industrial reuse in 1999. The Tallahassee Southeast Farm, in the west central part of the planning unit, is a large, 2,163

- acre wastewater reuse facility that uses sprayfields to treat most of the city’s municipal wastewater. The potential impact of this facility on nitrate

- nitrogen concentrations in ground water and springs has been assessed by the N orthwest Florida Water Management District (N WFWMD ) (Chelette et al. 2002).

The Buckeye pulp mill is the major point source that discharges into Apalachee Bay via the Fenholloway River. The facility discharges into the Fenholloway River upstream of U.S. Highway 98, about 20 miles from the mouth of the river. Buckeye has a design flow of 43.8 MGD.Draft 14 August 2010 City of Tallahassee Nitrate Cont r ibution City of Tallahassee Public Supply Wells

The c ity of Tallahassee provided nitrate nitrite ( NO2+NO3 -N) data for 29 Floridan a quifer public supply wells in its system. Due to their relatively long open

- hole intervals, regular pumping, long periods of record, large zones of contribution
, and high

- discharge volumes, these wells are of particular interest. Specifically, the data represent the best available insight into the spatial distribution of NO2+NO3

- N in the Floridan a quifer beneath the semiconfined portion of the study area. Data from the 29 c ity of Tallahassee wells were then aggregated in to several subsets based on location. The semiconfined well dataset (716 va lues from 27 wells, excluding the 2 Woodville wells) showed no significant trend in NO2+NO3

- N concentration over time. The median concentration from this set of wells was 0.33 mg

- N/L (n=716, mean=0.35, standard deviation [ stdev ] =0.17).

For the 20 c ity o f Tallahassee wells south of I nterstate 10, the median concentration was 0.36 mg

- N/L (n=556, mean=0.38, stdev=0.16). Lastly, the 6 southernmost wells (south of Tram Road/Orange Avenue and adjacent to the Cody Scarp) had a median concentration of 0.48 mg

- N/L (n=208, mean=0.48, stdev=0.16). These results show an increasing trend in NO2+NO3

- N from north to south in Leon County under th e semiconfining unit (NWFWMD 2002).

Wastewater Treatment Facilities According to FDEP records, there are 69 wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) in Leon and Wakulla C ounties. Of the 59 WWTFs within the semiconfined and unconfined areas, 21 are domestic and 38 are industrial. The total design capacity of the WWTFs, both domestic and industrial, is 38.05 million gallons per day (MGD)

. The majority of this capacity (32.06 MGD ) is for domestic plants operated by the c ity of Tallahassee. The remaining facilities have a combined capacity of slightly less than 6 MGD (NWFWMD 2002)

. Commercial Fertilizer Application City of Tallahassee records indicate a 1999 application of 44,000 kg

- N to 691 h ectares (h a) at its facility. Since the Southeast Sprayfield ( SESF ) is the only area designated as pasture and cropland in the unconfined portion of Leon County, the N application to the SESF is assumed to represent all the commercial fertilizer applied to this area (NWFWMD 2002).



### Nonpoint Sources
The EPA (2009) states, “The vast majority of the nonpoint source runoff in the Econfina River Basin and Fenholloway River watershed are natural background levels of pollutants running of f wetlands, forest and other non anthropogenic areas. Nonpoint source runoff in the basin is attributed to natural background loads and does not adversely impact n atural water quality conditions.”



### Biological Summary
Seagrasses are important marine foundation species and are highly productive plants (Hughes et al. 2009). Their extensive root systems and dense, structured leaf canopies form habitat and provide food for a wide array of organisms, including commercially and recreationally important fish and invertebrates, wading birds, manatees, and sea turtles (Short and Wyl lie

- Echeverria 1996; Williams and Heck 2001; Wren 2009). Seagrasses enhance sediment stability, decrease wave energy, increase waterDraft 15 August 2010 clarity, provide and stabilize habitats, and provide food and feeding pathways (see reviews by Phillips and McRoy 1980 ; Mc Roy and Helfferich 1977 ; Zieman and Zieman 1989).

Adverse impacts to seagrasses come from a variety of sources, including reduced water quality and clarity, overgrazing, and physical damage from boats, dredging and development. M onitoring seagrasses ha s become one of the best methods for determining the overall condition of the nearshore aquatic environment because these plants are sensitive to environmental stressors

. Seagrass communities have been proposed as “coastal canaries”

— biological indicators of changing coastal conditions (Orth et al. 2006).

Seagrasses are adversely impacted by anthropogenic nutrient enrichment (Orth and Moore 1983; Tomasko et al. 1996). Reduced underwater light penetration appears to be a primary driver of seagrass decline

. The accepted thinking on this process is that increased inputs of N and P lead to the excess growth of phytoplankton and epiphytic algae
, reduc ing available light to the seagrasses and causing decreased seagrass productivity and ultimately the large -sca le loss of seagrasses (Duarte 1995). This explanation, while valid, does not give a complete picture of the synergistic factors controlling seagrass production. “Top

- down” food web effects must also be considered. In controlled, in situ experimental
stu dies in St. Joseph Bay, Florida, Heck et al. (2000), found that mesograzers (amphipods, caridean shrimp, gastropods, hermit crabs) controlled the effects of nutrient enrichment on the abundance of epiphytes. It is therefore critical to consider the role o f “top

- down” effects from overfishing or other food web disruptions in assessments of nutrient enrichment in Apalachee Bay

.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) Fish and Wildlife Research Institute ( FWRI ) is currently involved in a project to assess water quality in Florida’s Big Bend region

. Since 2002, FWRI scientists have conducted annual monitoring surveys of seagrass beds in this area

. Although the data are collected only once a year, seven years of data provide some insight into the forces controlling water clarity and seagrass abundance in Florida’s Big Bend. Figures 8 through 10 show seagrass habitat change for three different coastal areas, and Table 4 shows 2001 and 2006 seagrass h abitat , in acre s, and the change that occur r ed from 2001 to 2006 for the St. Marks, Aucilla, and Econfina Rivers.Draft 16 August 2010 Figure 8

. Seagrass habitat c hange for the St. Marks River to Och l ocknee River , 2001

– 06 ( from Carlson, FWRI )

.

Figure 9

. Seagrass habitat c hange for the Econfina River to St. Marks River , 2001

– 06 ( from Carlson, FWRI ).Draft 17 August 2010 Figure 10

. Seagrass habitat change for the Fenholloway River to Econfina River , 2001

– 06 ( from Carlson , FWRI )

.

Table 4 . 2001 and 2006 seagrass habitat, and the change that occurred , 2001

– 06, for the St. Marks, Aucilla, and Eco nfina Rivers ( from Carlson, FWRI )

- = Empty cell/no data Note: Original table was in acres, converted to km 2

. Habitat Type St. Marks (West) St. Marks (East) Aucilla Econfina All Regions 2001 habitat area (km 2 ) - - - - - Patchy seagrass 0.931 3.075 3.723 0.567 8.292 Continuous seagrass 63.576 63.171 99.350 115.375 341.473 All seagrass 64.506 66.247 103.073 115.942 349.765 2006 habitat area (km 2 ) - - - - - Patchy seagrass 4.775 7.203 4.653 1.133 17.765 Continuous seagrass 56.332 59.205 98.581 114.890 329.009 All seagrass 61.107 66.408 103.235 116.023 346.775 Change 2001

– 06 (km 2 ) - - - - - Patchy seagrass 3.844 4.127 0.890 0.566 9.473 Continuous seagrass

- 7.081

- 3.965

- 0.768

- 0.485

- 12.464 All seagrass

- 3.399 .161 0.121 0.080

- 2.990

S

AV in the Econfina/Fenholloway Systems
BVA Study of the Econfina and Fenholloway Systems, 2004

– 09Draft 18 August 2010 BVA analyzed the relationship between seagrass density, % PAR on the bottom, water column chlorophyll a concentrations and water color for data collected from 10 monitoring stations in the Fenhollo way and Econfina systems during 2006, 2007, 2008
, and 2009 ( BVA 2007, 2008, 2009). Seagrass densities showed a significant positive correlation with % PAR and si gnificant inverse correlations with chlorophyll a and water color. Percent PAR was inverse ly correlated with both chlorophyll a and water color, indicating that the se are the physical variables most r esponsible for determining the distribution and abundance of SAV

.

BVA also found that t ransparency and color in the Econfina and Fenholloway systems are greatly influenced by regional climatic factors
, including seasonal rainfall and riverine discharge. Rainfall data from 1998 to 200 9 for the Fenhollo way River are shown in Figure C- 11 in Appendix C
, and river discharge data for 1977 to 2009 are compared with the 33

- yea r annual average in Figure C- 12 in Appendix C. The years 2003 and 2005 were extremely wet
, with high rainfall and riverine discharge, while 2006, 2007, 2008
, and 2009 were drier
, with lower rainfall and riverine discharge. Drought conditions prevailed in the region during 2006 and 2007. During 2003, 2004 and 2005, water color was high and % PAR on the bo ttom was low co mpared with 2006 to 2009 ( BVA 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009).

S eagrass data from the Econfina and Fenholloway systems indicate a gradual increase in the distribution and abundance of seagrasses from 2005 to 2009
, coinciding with decrease d water color and increase d light availability (Figure 13)

. Figure s 11 and 12 show t axa

- specific seagrass densities for cognate Stations E0 9 and F16 from 2006 to 2009; both stations show a gradual shift in seagrass assemblage composition from a dominance o f Halophila to a dominance of Syringodium . T hese data indicate a succession of seagrasses after the extremely wet conditions in the region from 2003 to 2005 that had reduced the distribution, abundance
, and community composition of seagrasses.Draft 19 August 2010 Figure 11 . Seagrass d ensity for four taxa of seagrasses for Stations E08 and F10 (from BVA data).Draft 20 August 2010 Figure 12. Seagrass density for five taxa of seagrasses for Stations EO9 and F16 (from BVA data).Draft 21 August 2010 Figure 1 3

. Seagrass density (shoots/m 2 ) for each BVA discrete monitoring station , 2005

– 09 ( from BVA data ).

Historical seagrass coverage information is available for the Econfina and Fenholloway region from a 1952 aerial photograph that depicts the area before the operation of the Buckeye Florida pulp mill, from 1992 and 2001 seagrass surveys by Livingston (1994), and from 2005, 2007, 2008
, and 2009 surveys by BVA. In the 1952 aerial photograph
, there were no seagrasses in the mouth of the Fenholloway River
, and no seagrasses have been found at this station in subsequent years because the flow and salinity regime of the Fenholloway E stuary was not optimal for seagrass settlement. However, at the remaining stations in both the Econfina and Fenholloway systems, there has been considerable year

- to

- year variatio n in seagrass abundance (note the change in distribution and abundance of seagrass from 1992
, to 2001
, to 2005
, to 2009; Appendix C
, Figures C- 14 through C

- 17 ).

The distribution and abundance of seagrasses in the Econfina and Fenholloway systems have been quantitatively investigated at various intervals between 1972 and 2009 (Livingston 1994 ; BVA 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). The data indicate that there has been significant inter - and intra

- annual variation in seagrass distribution and abundance in both systems. From 1972 to 19 73, stations in the Fenholloway system had lower seagrass abundance than their Econfina cognates
, with the lowest concentrations at the r iver mouths and with the highest abundances found in areas west of the Econfina mouth. In 1992 and 19 93, seagrass abundances were very low in both systems , with t he EconfinaDraft 22 August 2010 system dominated by Syringodium
, Thalassia
, and Halodule
, and the Fenholloway dominated by Halodule and Syringodium

.

From 1999 to 2001, there was a return of higher seagrass abundances in both syst ems. The h ighest biomass was found in the near offshore areas of the Econfina and the offshore, westernmost areas of the Fenholloway. In the Fenholloway, Syringodium dominated the assemblage with an increase in the abundance of Halophila englemannii

. In 2005
, seagrasses were present at only 5 of 142 stations in the Fenholloway system , while seagrasses were abundant in the Econfina syste m but in lower densities than in 2001. In 2006
, seagrass abundances were high at the Econfina stations and along Fenholloway transects between Stations F10 and F11 to offshore S tation F16. In 2007 and 2008
, seagrass abundances were even higher than in 20 06 at the Econfina stations
, and seagrasses even appeared at Fenholloway S tation F14 in 2008. The pattern of seagrass distribution and abundance in 2009 continued the pattern seen in 2007 and 2008.

For more seagrass information
, see Dr. R. J. Livingston’s report on research from the Fenholloway and Econfina systems from 1970 to 2002 ( Appendix A ) and the results of B VA’s research ( Appendix B)

. Phytoplankton D ensity and T axa in the Fenholloway/Eco n fina Systems Figures 15 and 16 show p hytoplankton density and taxa diversity in the Fenholloway and Econfina systems.

S

AV in the Steinhatchee Estuary FDEP’s Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve has been monitoring SAV (seagrass and macroalgae) at 25 fixed sites (Figure 17) in the Steinhatchee area via Braun

- Blaunqu et species coverage estimates since 2000, with estimates of total cover since 2003. At each site, 4 random 1 m 2 quadrats are assessed. The coverage for each seagrass species, rooted macroalgae, and drift algae are assessed using the following abundance c odes: 1 = <5% cover; 2 = 5 %- 25% cover; 3 = 25 %- 50% cover; 4 = 50 %- 75% cover; and 5 = 75 %- 100% cover. Also included in the sampling effort are sediment type, sediment depth, number of scallops and urchins, water quality parameters, horizontal Secchi, and presence of prop scars and blowout. Water quality parameters that are measured include temperature, salinity, pH, DO, light attenuation, nutrients, and total suspended solids (TSS) (Charbonneau 2010). The species composition of the seagrasses and proportion of macroalgae and bare ground remained constant over the 2000 to 2009 sampling period (Figure 18). Total coverage within the 1 m 2 quadrats was stable at approximately 50% to 75% from 2003 to 2008 (Figure 19).Draft 23 August 2010 Figure 14. Seagrass and macroalgal biomass for the discrete water quality monitoring stations (2008 BVA data).Draft 24 August 2010 Figure 1 5

. Phytoplankton density for two cognate stations in the Econfina and Fenholloway R ivers. E ach graph represents a given year from 2005 to 2009 ( from BVA data ).Draft 25 August 2010 Figure 1 6 . P hytoplankton taxa diversity (H) data for the Econfina and Fenholloway stations , 2004

– 09 ( from BVA data ).Draft 26 August 2010 Figure 17. Locations of the 25 fixed sampling sites for the Steinhatchee Seagrass Monitoring Program (from Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve data).

Figure 18. Occurrence (%) of various seagrass species in the Steinhatchee Estuary, 2000

– 09 (Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve data).Draft 27 August 2010 Figure 19 . Average total seagrass coverage for the Steinhatchee E stuary, 2003

– 08 (Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve data). Braun

- Blaunquet abundance codes : 1 = <5% cover; 2 = 5 %- 25% cover; 3 = 25 %- 50% cover; 4 = 50 %- 75% cover; 5 = 75 %- 100% cover

.

Presence and F requency of H armful A lgal B looms (HABs) in the Econfina/Fenholloway Systems
BVA (2009) identified specific phytoplankton taxa at the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuary monitoring stations between 2005 and 2009

. Table s 5 and 6 show t hese data

. The frequencies and magnitudes of specific taxa blooms were similar in both systems, with considerable intra - and interannual variation. Based on data collected from 2004 to 2009, it can be concluded that there is no difference in the occurrence of algal blooms between the Fenholloway and Econfina River Es tuaries , and that the sporadic occurrence of the bloom taxa is a natural event

.

The K. brevis dinoflagellate has been historically found in Apalachee Bay, but very sporadic ally . It is believed that these blooms develop offshore, and easterly winds and in coming tides bring them closer to shore. The most recent K. brevis bloom in the Apalachee Bay area was transported from offshore
waters to Wakulla County in November 2005, and yielded a peak concentrati on of 23,333 cells/L ( Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services [ FDACS ] 2009).

Shellfish P roduction and F requency/ D uration of B ed C losures in Wakulla County From 1997 through 2007, the annual reported commercial landings of shellfish in Wakulla County averaged 38,335 pounds, with an an nual dockside value of $64,321 (FDACS 2009). This accounted for 1.9% of shellfish landings and 1.8 % of shellfish value in Florida (FDACS). The primary species of shellfish harvested is the eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) (FDACS). The northern har d- shell clam or quahog ( Mercenaria spp.) is also found in Apalachee Bay bu t not in commercially viable quantities (FDACS 2009). The winter oyster

- harvesting season
, currently defined for Wakulla County by the Marine Fisheries Commission
, is September 1 th rough May 31 (FDACS 2009).

T able 7 lists t he annual dockside commercial landings of shellfish reported from 1997 through 2007 in Wakull a County by FDACS

. There are currently no shellfish or aquaculture leases, shellfish nursery facilities , oyster resour ce enhancement projects, depuration facilities, or wet storage facilities in the

area (FDACS 2009).Draft 28 August 2010 Table 5

. Taxa

- specific phytoplankton blooms in the Fenholloway and Econf ina Estuarie s, 2005

– 09 ( BVA data ).Draft 29 August 2010 Table 6

. O ccurrence of potentially harmful algal taxa in the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers and Estuaries, 2005

– 09

.

Note: A bundances shown in bold represent a bloom (defined as abundance greater than 1,000,000 cell s /L). Blue re presents Econfina stations
, and g r een represents Fenholloway stations.Draft 30 August 2010 Table 7

. Annual reported dockside commercial landings of shellfish for Wakulla County, Florida ( FDACS data )

.

- = Empty cell/no data N/A = Not Available Year Oysters (p ounds) Oysters ( $ v alue) Clams (pounds ) Clams ($ v alue ) Wakulla County - - - - 1997 24,209 102,919 0 0
1998 14,701 106,084 0 0
1999 15,166 43,407 0 0
2000 24,567 31,092 0 0
2001 71,155 51,625 0 0
2002 55,465 90,407 0 0
2003 33,742 120,251 0 0
2004 19,931 43,729 0 0
2005 27,473 31,090 0 0
2006 65,891 32,222 0 0
2007 70,013 54,712 0 0 Wakulla County average 38,335 64,321 0 0 Florida average 2,049,991 3,632,782 N/A N/A



### Water Quality Studies

Several water quality studies have been conducted in g reater Apalachee Bay. Each study is listed below and then described in more detail in subsequent sections :

**•** The Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI ) , now the FWRI
, conduct ed an Inshore Marine Monitoring Assessment Program (IMAP) that sampled Apalachee Bay in 2002

.

**•** The L akeWatch Program coordinated water quality sample collection at nine sites in Apalachee Bay
, and each site was sampled three times : in January, March, and May 2001.

**•** Water quality data from a variety of sites representative of the St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers as well as adjacent areas of Apalachee Bay were retrieved from the Florida STORET database and are summarized. The data were collected by various agencies and organizations (e.g., FMRI, FDEP, LakeWatch) with varying characteristics, sampling procedu res , and analytical methods.

**•** Dr. Robert J. Livingston of Florida State University (FSU) conducted a long

- term water quality analysis in the Econfina/Fenh olloway Estuaries from 1970 to 2004.

**•** BVA perfor m ed a water quality study in the Econfina and Fenholloway E stuaries from 2004 to 2009.Draft 31 August 2010 **•** The EPA ’s Ecological Assessment Branch in Athens, Georgia
, conducted a nutrient study of the Econfina and Fenholloway systems for TMDL purposes

. The EPA

s ampling periods were December 1998, March 1999, June 1999
, and August

– S eptember 1999

.

**•** Dr. Tom Fraz er of UF studied the Steinhatchee E stuary ( Project COAST ) from 1997 to the present

.

**•** The SRWMD carried out monitoring at a site in the Steinhatchee Estuary from 1995
to the present

.

IMAP Probabilistic Sampling The FMRI sampled the Big Bend as part of its IMAP. IMAP is a probabilistic design sampling program in which 30 samples are collected to statistically represent the condition of an area at a given point in time. Thirty sites within the Big Bend, concentra ted in Deadman’s Bay off the Steinhatchee River, were sampled from July 23 through 30, 2002 (Figure 20 ). Geometric mean concentrations of TN, TP , and chlorophyll a (phaeophytin

- corrected) were calculat ed ( Table 8)

. The geometric mean concentration for ch lorophyll a was low
, at 2.46 μg/L. Geometric means for TN and TP were moderate, at 660 and 28 μg/L, respectively . All values were comparable to values reported for this area for longer periods (see Figure 41 ) and for other estuaries in the region that receive highly colored water and have intact coastal marshes ( e.g., Econfina and Waccasassa)

.

Table 8 . Summary statistics for the Big Bend area probabilistic sampling effort in July 2002 as part of the FMRI IMAP Program . The 75 th and 90 th percentiles are estimated based on a log normal distribution. Analyte Geometric Mean Log

- estimated 75 th
Percentile Log

- estimated 90 th
Percentile Chlorophyll a (corrected, μg/L) 2.46 3.85 5.76

TN (μg/L) 660 765 874 TP (μg/L) 28 41 57

Other sites in Apalachee Bay were sampled for the IMAP Program in various years as part of statewide and regional sampl ing

. Figures 20 through 23 present p ictorial representations of the data distribution. Note that the highest nutrient concentrations we re found immediately adjacent to the coastal fringe marshes. Values for TN were higher in the Steinhatchee Estuary compared with sites farther north in Apalachee Bay, and values for TP were similar throughout. Note that the interpretation of these data is limited because each site was only sampled once, and during different years in some cases.Draft 32 August 2010 Figure 2 0

. Site locations and TN concentrations (μg/L) of Big Bend sites sampled in July 2002 as part of the FMRI IMAP probabilistic sampling. Note that the h ighest concentrations of N were found in the salt marshes.Draft 33 August 2010 Figure 2 1

. Location and chlorophyll a concentrations (μg/L) of all Apalachee Bay sites sampled as part of the FMRI IMAP probabilistic sampling. Sites were sampled once between 2000 and 2004.Draft 34 August 2010 Figure 2 2

. Location and TN concentrations (μg/L) of all Apalachee Bay sites sampled as part of the FMRI IMAP probabilistic sampling. Sites were sampled once between 2000 and 2004.Draft 35 August 2010 Figure 2 3

. Location and TP concentrations (μg/L) of all Apalachee Bay sites sampled as part of the FMRI IMAP probabilistic sampling. Sites were sampled once between 2000 and 2004.

Preliminary Assessment of Optical Water Quality in Florida’s Big Bend Region

– Carlson and Yarbro, FW RI The FWRI has been monitoring seagrass at 100 random points along the Big Bend Coast, from St. Marks to Suwannee Sound, since 2002. From 2004 to 2009, it also collected optical water quality data at each site once during each summer. S alinity, Secchi depth, turbidity, TSS, color, chlorophyll a , and light attenuation in the water column were measured at each sampling point. Preliminary results show a gradient of chlorophyll a and turbidity along the coast, with higher values near the Su wannee River and declining concentrations along the Big Bend to St. Marks. Values for chlorophyll a are similar to values obtained from other data sources. P reliminary analyses for the entire study area suggest that chlorophyll a and turbidity are more h ighly correlated with light attenuation than color (P

. Carlson and L

. Yarbro, FWRI, pers

. comm., July 31, 2010 ).

L akeWatch Program

The L akeWatch Program coordinated water quality sample collection at marine sites statewide during 2001 (Hoyer et al. 2002)

. Nine sites were sampled in Apalachee Bay (Figure 24 ), and each site was sampled 3 times, on January 1, March 23, and May 17, 2001. Mean chlorophyll a per site ranged from 0.93 to 2.90 μg/L, TN ranged from 190 to 287 μg/L, and TP ranged from 7.93 to 15.17 μg/L ( Table 9).Draft 36 August 2010 Table 9

. Mean values of chlorophyll a , TN, and TP for three water quality sampling events at nine L akeWatch coastal sites in Apalachee Bay, collected in 2001.
Station Mean Chlorophyll a (μg/L, uncorrected) Mean TN (μg/L) Mean TP (μg/L)
TAY1 1.00 190 7.93
TAY2 0.93 196 8.30
TAY3 0.93 233 10.00
WAK1 2.27 287 14.27
WAK2 1.70 213 12.23
WAK3 2.10 223 13.10
WAK4 2.90 280 15.17
WAK5 1.47 240 12.03
WAK6 1.33 233 10.87

Figure 24

. LakeWatch 2001 site locations in Apalachee Bay.Draft 37 August 2010 St. Marks/Wakulla Sampling Water quality data from a variety of sites representative of the St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers as well as adjacent areas of Apalachee Bay were retrieved from the Florida STORET database and are summarized here. The data were collected by various agencies and organizations (e.g., FMRI, FDEP, LakeWatch) using varying characteristics, sampling procedures
, and analytical methods (Lewis et al

. 2009). These are combined and presented here only to provide an overview of environmental characteristics in the various reaches of the system.

Data were retrieved from 44 sites scattered throughout the Wakulla and St. Marks Rivers and the adjacent waters of Ap alachee Bay. Twenty

- nine sites were examined from the lower tidal reaches of both rivers along with sites in Apalachee Bay (Figure 25) to evaluate inputs to the estuarine portion of the system. Twenty

- four sites were examined from the Wakulla River (Figu re 26) to assess downstream water quality trends from the head springs to the confluence with the St. Marks. Nine sites were common to both analyses. Sites were chosen where collections spanned a range of sampling dates; single

- sample collections were av oided when possible (Lewis et al. 2009).

For the estuarine comparison, stations were combined into four groups representing the upper reach of tidal influence, the middle and lower reach es of the estuary, and Apalachee Bay (including adjacent embayments s uch as Dickerson and Oyster Bays). Water quality characteristics varied spatially and temporally throughout the collection sites
, with specific conductance/salinity increasing and most of the other characteristics generally decreasing with movement downst ream (Lewis et al. 2009). Table 10 summarizes water quality characteristics in the St. Marks and Wakulla River systems and Apalachee Bay, and Table 11 summarizes water quality characteristics in the Wakulla River system.Draft 38 August 2010 Figure 2 5. Water quality stations in the Lower St. Marks River Basin and Apalachee Bay (boxes indicate station groups) (Lewis et al

. 2009).Draft 39 August 2010 Figure 26

. Wakulla River water quality stations ( boxes indicate station groups) (Lewis et al

. 2009).Draft 40 August 2010 Table 10

. Summary of selected water quality characteristics in the St. Marks and Wakulla River system s and Apalachee Bay (

data from F lorida STORET 2007 ) (Lewis et al

. 2009).

Table 11. Summary of selected water quality characteristics in the Wakulla River system ( data from F

lorida STORET 2007 ) (Lewis et al

. 2009).Draft 41 August 2010 Nutrient concentrations (both N and P ) were generally low throughout the St. Marks/Apalachee Bay system, except in the upper reach of the Wakulla River ( i.e., Wakulla Spring s, where higher levels of nitrates ha ve resulted in an increased density of nuisance aquatic plants). Nitrate+nitrite concentrations in the upper tidal reach of the Wakulla River (U.S. Highway 98 Bridge) averaged 3 times greater than those observed on the St. Marks River at Newport (U.S. Hig hway 98 Bridge) (Table 1 0 ; Figure 27 ). Orthophosphate concentrations in the Wakulla, on the other hand, were only about half those noted for the St. Marks (Table 1 0 ). Ammonium values were low in the upper tidal reaches of both rivers. Ammonium and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) generally increased with distance downstream, while nitrate+nitrite and orthophosphate generally decreased (Table 1 0 ). TN and TP were lower in Apalachee Bay than in the rivers. Some seasonality was noted in levels of nitrate+nitr ite in the upper tidal reaches of both rivers but not in orthophosphate. Chlorophyll concentrations were generally low throughout much of the system, with sporadic peaks in the rivers, particularly in the middle and lower tidal reaches (Table 8), where le vels averaged 5.1 and 6.1 grams per liter (g/L), respectively. Values in these reaches were observed to exceed 10 g/L on several occasions.

To examine downstream trends in water quality in the Wakulla River, stations were combined into four groups representing the head springs and the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the river, as shown in Figure 2 8 . Water quality characteristics varied spatially and temporally throughout the collection sites, with specific conductance/salinity, DO, and chlorophyll generally increasing and most of the other characteristics decreasing with movement downstream (Table 1 1 ).Draft 42 August 2010 Figure 2 7. (Top) N and ( bottom ) P concentrations in the St. Marks River (

data from F lorida STORET 2007 ) (Lewis et al 2009).Draft 43 August 2010 Figure 2 8. (Top) N and ( bottom ) P c oncentration s in the Wakulla River (

data from F lorida STORET 2007 ) (Lewis et al

. 2009).Draft 44 August 2010 City of Tallahassee Data on Nitrate Contribution s City of Tallahassee Public Supply Wells

The c ity of Tallahassee provided NO2+NO3

- N data for 29 Floridan a quifer public supply wells in its system (Appendix A, Table A -5, Figure A- 43 ). Due to their relatively long open

- hole intervals, regular pumping, long periods of record, large zones of contribution a nd high discharge volumes, these wells are of particular interest. Specifically, the data represent the best available insight into the spatial distribution of NO2+NO3

- N in the Floridan a quifer beneath the semiconfined portion of the study area. Data fro m the 29 c ity of Tallahassee wells were then aggregated in to several subsets based on location. The semiconfined well dataset (716 values from 27 wells, excluding the 2 Woodville wells) showed no significant trend in NO2+NO3

- N concentration over time. Th e median concentration from this set of wells is 0.33 mg

- N/L (n=716, mean=0.35, stdev=0.17).

For the 20 c ity of Tallahassee wells south of I nterstate 10, the median concentration was 0.36 mg

- N/L (n=556, mean=0.38, stdev=0.16). Lastly, the 6 southernmost wells (south of Tram Road/Orange Avenue and adjacent to the Cody Scarp) had a median concentration of 0.48 mg

- N/L (n=208, mean=0.48, stdev=0.16). These results show an increasing trend in NO2+NO3

- N from north to south in Leon County under the semiconfining unit.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities According to FDEP records, there are 69 WWTFs in Leon and Wakulla C ounties (Appendix A, Table A -6, Figure A- 46). Of the 59 WWTFs within the semiconfined and unconfined areas, 21 are domestic and 38 are i ndustrial. The total design capacity of the WWTFs, both domestic and industrial, is 38.05 MGD

. The majority of this capacity (32.06 MGD ) is for domestic plants operated by the c ity of Tallahassee. The remaining facilities have a combined capacity of sli ghtly less than 6 MGD

. Commercial Fertilizer Application

The c ity of Tallahassee records indicate a 1999 application of 44,000 kg

- N to 691 ha at its facility. Since the SESF is the only area designated as pasture and cropland in the unconfined portion of Leon County, the N application to the SESF is assumed to represent all the commercial fertilizer applied to this area.

Fenholloway/Econfina Stud ies

Dr. R. J. Livingston Long

- Term Study
, 1970

– 2004 (F SU )
Dr. R. J. Livingston carried out a long

- term study of the Fenholloway and Econfina areas from 1970 to 2004. Figure 2 9 shows t he study area, with a full complement of sampling stations

. A Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) , led by FDEP , was performed from 1991 through 1994 in support of evaluating the feasibil ity of changing the designated use classification of the Fenholloway River from Class V ( navigation, utility
, and industrial ) to Class III ( recreation and a well

- balanced population of fish and wildlife ) (FDEP 1994).

E xtensive biological studies were pre formed during the UAA
, and it was determined that approximately 24 km 2 (9 square miles [ mi 2 ] ) of seagrasses offshore of the Fenholloway River had been adversely affected by the Buckeye Florida pulp mill effluent discharge
, compared with the relatively natural Aucilla and Econfina nearshore areas (Livingston et al. 1998 a ). The study showed that light limitation due to the higher color from the Fenholloway River ( caused by the discharge of treated wastewater from the mill ) was the primary factor affecting seagrass growth. The study recommended that color reduction beDraft 45 August 2010 based on annual averages found in what was considered to be a potential seagrass habitat about 1.5 miles offshore of the Fenholloway River (Station F10).

T o restore seagrass es in this area of the Fenholloway system, water quality models deve loped by HydroQual, Inc. projected that a 50% reduction in the historical treated wastewater color from the Buckeye Florida p lant would be required to achieve a median color level of 36 PC Us at Station F10

. This color level would be comparable to conditions in the Econfina system.

Figure 29

. Map showing positions of sampling stations in the Econfina and Fenholloway R iver estuarine systems over the total sampling period. Additional charts indicate the sampling regimes associated with various field activities carried out during the 1970

–

2004 sampling period (Livingston)

.Draft 46 August 2010 B VA Water Quality Monitoring for Buckeye Florida
, 2004

– 09
B VA initiated a water quality monitoring program in 2004 for Buckeye Florida to (1) m onitor the relationship between nutrient loading due to Buckeye’s discharge and the occurrence of phyt oplankton blooms (both HABs and non

- noxious blooms) in Apalachee Bay, (2 ) monitor chlorophyll a in the system as a measure of water quality impairment, (3 ) monitor seagrass assemblages in the system in relation to regional climate, hydrology
, and water quality, and (4 ) annually assess seagrass communities in Apalachee Bay from the Aucilla River to Spring Warrior Creek

.

BVA sampled 5 stations in both the Fenholloway River (F06, F10, F11, F14, and F16) and Econfina River (E06, E08, E10, E11, and E09) drainages on a monthly basis (growing season, May through Octo ber) from 2005 to 2009 (Figure 30 ; Table 12 ). S tations E06

- F06, E08

- F10, E10

- F11, E11

- F14
, and E09

- F16 have been considered physically equivalent and were defined as “ cognates ” by Livingston (2004a, b) and BVA (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) for comparison purposes, with the Econfina River stations being the defined “r eference ” condition ( a s ite -s pecific a lternative c riteria [ SSAC ] was established for the Fenholloway River and E stuary for i ron, DO, and transpare ncy )

. In the SSAC , F DEP identified the Econfina River and Estuary as a minimally disturbed reference system and was used in the SSAC because it is similar to the Fenholl o way River
, except for the Buckeye point source discharge. The Econfina River has been demonstrated to have benign human land uses in the basin, healthy biological communities in freshwater portions, and diverse communities of algae, invertebrates, vegetation, and fish inhabiting the river and associated estuary (Livingston 2006). Additionally, a comprehensive seagrass survey was conducted in both the Econfina and Fenholloway E stuaries and Apalache e Bay (Figure 31 )

. Table B- 2 in Appendix B list s the data types collected by BVA from 2004 to 2009

. Figure 32 summarizes the DO data col lected at the 10 stations from 2004 to 2009. DO concentrations

w ere typically greater than 5 mg/ L at each station ; however, concentrations of less than 5 mg/ L were measured at the mouth of the Econfina and Fenholloway River s

. Figure 33 summarizes particulate carbon, N, and P data collected from 2006 to 2009. Figure 3 4 shows t otal d issolved n itr ogen (TDN) and
t otal dissolved p hosphorus (TDP). The highest nutrient levels were encountered in the mouth of the Fenholloway River (Station F06) and the monitoring station to the east of the mouth of the Fenholloway River in the typical path of the river plume (Station F14).

Figure 3 5 summarizes water column color data for 2004 to 2009

. Yearly average color at the mouth of each river has generally been higher at Fenholloway Station F06 compared with its Econfina cognate; however, in 2004, 2005, 2008
, and 2009
, the intra

- annual variation in color within a station was greater than the between

- station variation. Since 2004, the estuarine cognates E10

- F11, E08

- F10
, and E11

- F14 have shown considerable variations within and between year s such that, in general, pronounced color differences between cognate s tations are no longer apparent. There has been no difference in water color at cognate Stations E09 and F16 in Apalachee Bay; the low color seen at Stations E09 and F16 indicate s probable background levels in the bay proper and a region beyond the influen ce of riverine discharge.

Figures 3 6 and 3 7 summarize water column chlorophyll a data for 2004 to 2009. While there was variability in the range of chlorophyll a measured at the 10 stations, annual averages were typically less than 5 μg/ L , which is low compared with many other estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. Chlorophyll a values measured at offshore Stations E09 and F16 were extremely low
, indicating little phytopla nkton biomass in the bay proper

.Draft 47 August 2010 Phytoplankton data for the Fenholloway a nd Econfina stations were col lected monthly (May

– October) from 2005 to 200 9 (data were also collected in 2004 at several stations). Table 5 provides b loom data for specific phytoplankton taxa at the routine monitoring stations

. It should be noted that blooms in the two systems are transitory

— high phytoplankton densities detected in any one month are typically gone by the succeeding sampling period. The frequencies and magnitudes of specific taxa blooms were similar in both systems, with considerable intr a- and inter annual variation. Phytoplankton taxa diversity (H’) data between cognate stations has exhibited considerable i nterannual variation (Figure 16 ).

One of the first objectives established for the Fenholloway River monitoring program was to determ ine if there was a relationship between Buckeye’s pulp mill discharge and the occurrence of phyt oplankton blooms (both HABs and non

- noxious blooms) in Apalachee Bay. The potentially harmful algal taxa, Pseudo

- nitzschia pseudodelicatissima and Pseudo

- nitzschia cf. brasiliana , were commonly collected in both the Fenholloway and Econfina systems. Pseudo

- nitzschia species are considered harmful because of their potential to produce the toxin, domoic acid, which causes a mnesic s hellfish p oisoning ( ASP); however, Pseudo

- nitzschia is common and widespread in all Florida coastal waters. Based on data collected from 2004 to 2009, it was concluded that there is no difference in the occurrence of blooms and HABs between the Fenholloway and Econfina River E stuaries

. The red tide

– causing organism, K. brevis
, was not collected from any of the 10 monitoring stations between 2005 and 2009
, consistent with periodic red tide reports provided by FWRI

. Figures 38 and 39 shows the measured TP, TN, and chlorophyll a concentrations for the Econfina River and Fenholloway River areas, respectively. For more figures and tables from BVA, see Appendix B

.

Figure 30

. L ocations of BVA discrete water quality monitoring stations fo r the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers

.Draft 48 August 2010 Table 12 . Latitudes and longitudes for d iscrete water quality stations for the Fenholloway and E confina Estuaries ( from BVA )

. Fenholloway River Station Fenholloway River Latitude Fenholloway River Longitude Econfina River Station Econfina River Latitud e Econfina River Longitude
F06 29.98380 83.78330 E06 30.03711 83.92605

F10 29.95117 83.78517 E08 30.01283 83.93150

F11 29.96067 83.80750 E10 30.02400 83.95317

F14 29.95810 83.76280 E11 30.02398 83.90960

F16 29.90800 83.78516 E09 29.96966 83.93160

Figure 31

. Seagrass sample location s for the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers, August 2009 ( from BVA )

.Draft 49 August 2010 Figure 32

. DO (mg/L) recorded at the Econfina and F enholloway station s during the growing season from May through October (2004

– 09) ( from BVA )

.Draft 50 August 2010 Figure 33

. Top left graph shows particulate carbon at each station, top right graph shows particulate N at each station, and bottom graph shows particulate P for each station , 2006

– 09 ( from BVA )

.Draft 51 August 2010 Figure 34

. G raphs of TDN and TDP (

mg/L ) for each station during the growing season from May through October , 2006

– 09 ( from BVA)

.Draft 52 August 2010 Figure 3 5

. W ater color data summarized by cognate stations for the Buckeye Florida project, 2004

– 09 ( from BVA)

.

Figure 36

. Chlorophyll a (mg/ L) for each station during the growing s eason from May through October , 2004

– 09 ( from BVA)

.Draft 53 August 2010 Figure 37

. Chlorophyll a data summarized by cognate stations , 200 4– 09 , Buckeye Florida project ( from BVA).Draft 54 August 2010 Figure 3 8

. Measured TP, TN, and chlorophyll a for the Econfina River area , Stations E06, E08, E09, E10, and E11 ( annual calculations include May through October data only) (d ata from B VA; calculations by HydroQual )

.Draft 55 August 2010 Figure 3 9

. Measured TP, TN, and c hlorophyll a for the Fenholloway River area , Stations F06, F10, F11, and F16 ( annual calculations include May

– October data only) (d ata from B VA; calculations by HydroQual )

.Draft 56 August 2010 EPA 1999 Nutrient Study

T he EPA ’s Ecological Asse ssment Branch in Athens, Georgia
, completed a nutrient study of the Econfina

an d Fenholloway systems in 1999 ( EPA 2000). The objectives of the study included assessing phytoplankton blooms in the Fenholloway near shore areas, determin ing relationships between color and phytoplankton biomass in the two study areas, analy zing nutrient loading and color contributions from point sources, determin ing light profiles, and analy zing DO concentrations in the study areas. Sampling periods were as follows: December 1998 (full sampling), March 1999 (reduced sampling), June 1999 (reduced sampling), and August through Se ptember 1999 (reduced sampling)

. No phytoplankton blooms were noted during the four sampling periods, an observation backed up by pH and DO results.

The results of the EPA study indicated that c hlorophyll a concentrations were low in both estuaries, with maximum concentrations noted at 10 μg /L in the Fenholloway Estuary

. Results from Marine Algal Growth Potential Test s (AGPT) were hi gher in the Fenholloway system but were greater than 10 m g/L (a potential eutrophication threshold) only in June 1999. Nutrient addition experiments indicated that most of the samples in both estuaries were N limited. Bioavailable P was 5 times greater i n the Fenholloway Estuary compared w ith the Econfina
, wh ile bioavailable N was similar in both systems
, except for the June study period
, when the average f or the Fenholloway system was 5 times that of the reference area. The Buckeye TN and TP discharge constituted 97% of the point source load to the Fenholloway River , and n utrient concentrations in the Fenholloway River were about 10 times those in the Econfina River. The EPA study indicated that there were net releases of nutrients from the Fenholloway estuarine sediments
, wh ile there were net fluxes to sediments in the Econfina system.

C olor values for the Fenholloway River averaged 880 PCU s , while the reference Econfina River averaged 160 PCU s

. Light was found to be limiting to plant growth in the F enholloway Estuary ( less than 1% of surface illumination at 2- foot depths compared with greater than 10% in the Econfina Estuary ). DO was collected at 2 different sites and was ve ry low in the Fenholloway River, where it averaged 4.4 and 5.6 mg/L

, compar ed with the Econfina, where DO was 5.5 and 6.1 mg/L. DO averaged 3.4 mg/L in the Fenho lloway Estuary compared with 4.0 mg/L i n the Econfina. DO concentrat ions were occasionally lower than the 4.0 mg/L Class III marine water quality standard in both systems , and the EPA is currently evaluating a “natural background” SSAC for DO
, based on the conditions in the Econfina
, that was adopted by the state’s Environmental Regulation Commission ( ERC ) in May 2010

. Steinhatchee Estuary Sampling , Project COAST, 1 997

–

present

Ten sites in the Steinhatchee Estuary ha ve been sampled monthly since 1997 as part of P roject COAST (Figure 40 ), with Dr. Tom Frazer of UF as the principal investigator (PI)

. This project measures TN, TP
, chlorophyll a , light extinction coefficient, Secchi depth, color, salinity, DO , and temperature. Water quality analyses are conducted at UF by the LakeWatch P rogram. F DEP Aquatic Preserve staff provided a dataset through 2008. This is the most extensive and comprehensive dataset avail able for th e region. Dr. Frazer presented these results at the public meeting on February 23, 2010, for numeric nutrient criteria planning in Crystal River (Figure 41 ; Frazer and Jacoby 2010). Means for the whole area have remained stable over time, with a seasonal cycle of higher nutrients and chlorophyll a in the summer (Figure 40). Chlorophyll a and TP concentrations were higher than usual during 2004 and 2005, when the region experienced numerous hurricanes and abnormally high rainfall.

FDEP conducte d additional analyses of Project COAST data for the Steinhatchee Estuary. Annual geometric means of TN, TP, and chlorophyll a (uncorrected) were calculated for each station each year and plotted against annual mean salinity (Figure 4 2) . There is a clear negative relationship betweenDraft 57 August 2010 salinity and TN, and between salinity and TP. Geometric mean TN ranged from 400 to 800 μg/L at 0 to 10 ppt salinity, and from 250 to 500 μg/L at 20 to 35 ppt salinity. Geometric mean TP ranged from 25 to 55 μg/L at 0 to 10 p pt salinity, and from 10 to 25 μg/L at 25 to 35 ppt salinity. C hlorophyll a concentration s peak ed at 20 ppt salinity because that is the region in which phytoplankton are no longer limited by flow and tannins, but there are sufficient nutrients to sustain higher chlorophyll a levels than in the open nearshore area. This phenomenon is consistent with results found in the Suwannee, Waccasassa, and Withlacoochee Estuaries, and this “chlorophyll hump” is an important component of estuarine primary, and subsequent secondary, productivity.

Figure 40

. Locations of Project COAST sampling sites in the Stei nhatchee Estuary. Sites 1 and 2 are in the river channel but mean salinities at tho se sites are greater than 5 ppt (

Charbonneau 2010)

.Draft 58 August 2010 Figure 4 1

. Monthly average TN , TP , and uncorrected chlorophyll a for 10 estuarine stations in the Steinhatchee Est uary, collected by P roject COAST, 1997

–

2008 (Frazer and Jacoby 2010). 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Mar

- 96 Aug

- 97 Dec

- 98 May

- 00 Sep

- 01 Jan

- 03 Jun

- 04 Oct

- 05 Mar

- 07 Jul

- 08TN (ug/L) Steinhatchee Monthly Average Total Nitrogen (TN) 1997 through 2008 Estuarine Stations

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Mar

- 96 Aug

- 97 Dec

- 98 May

- 00 Sep

- 01 Jan

- 03 Jun

- 04 Oct

- 05 Mar

- 07 Jul

- 08TP (ug/L) Steinhatchee Monthly Average Total Phosphorus (TP) 1997 through 2008 Estuarine Stations

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mar

- 96 Aug

- 97 Dec

- 98 May

- 00 Sep

- 01 Jan

- 03 Jun

- 04 Oct

- 05 Mar

- 07 Jul

- 08CHL-a (ug/L) Steinhatchee Average Chlorophyll

- a (CHL

- a) 1997 through 2008 Estuarine StationsDraft 59 August 2010 Figure 4 2

. Annual average salinity plotted as a predictor of (1) annual geometric mean TN , (2 ) annual geometric mean TP , and (3 ) annual geometric mean uncorrected chlorophyll a at 10 sites in the Steinhatchee E stuary , 1997

–

2007. Linear trend lines fitted for TN and TP, and a 2 nd

- order polynomial fitted for c hlorophyll a, for demonstration purposes. y =

- 11.507x + 714.96 R2 = 0.681

0 200 400 600 800 1000

0 10 20 30 40Total nitrogen (μg/L)

Annual Average Salinity

y =

- 1.1287x + 49.997 R2 = 0.8031 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40Total Phosphorus (μg/L)

Annual Average Salinity

y =

- 0.0178x 2 + 0.6373x

- 0.5314 R2 = 0.6585

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 10 20 30 40Chlorophyll a (uncorrected; μg/L)

Annual Average SalinityDraft 60 August 2010 The Project COAST Program ana lyzed for chlorophyll a without phaeophytin correction from 1997 to 2006, but began correcting for phaeophytin in 2007. FDEP policy dictates that phaeophytin

- corrected data are preferable for assessment purposes, and thus a comparison between corrected an d uncorrected values is helpful. Data were available to correlate chlorophyll a corrected for phaeophytin

vs

. uncorrected values for 2007 (11 to 12 samples per site) and 2008 only (3 samples per site). The 2 measurements are very highly correlated (Figure 43), and the geometric means were typically within 1 μg/L of each other (Table 13). The highest geometric mean corrected chlorophyll a for 2007 was 5.79 μg/L at Station 2, which is located where the river channel opens out into the Gulf.

Figure 43

. Relationship between individual sample analyses of uncorrected chlorophyll a and phaeophytin

- corrected chlorophyll a for 10 sites sampled monthly in the Steinhatchee Estuary in 2007 and the first part of 2008. y = 0.8839x

- 0.1264 R2 = 0.988

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Corrected Chlorophylla(μg/L)

Uncorrected Chlorophyll a (μg/L) 

### Uncorrected vs. Corrected Chlorophyll a for Steinhatchee Estuary Sites, 2007

- 2008 (n=15 months at 10 sites)Draft 61 August 2010 Table 13

. Comparison between station geometric means for 2007 (n = 11 , or 12 monthly samples) and uncorrected and phaeophytin

- corrected chlorophyll a (μg/L) measurements. Site Uncorrected Corrected % Difference

1 2.18 1.65 24%

2 7.05 5.79 18%

3 2.54 2.01 21%

4 1.03 0.83 19%

5 1.00 0.84 15%

6 1.15 1.01 12%

7 1.76 1.44 18%

8 1.25 1.10 12%

9 1.46 1.36 7%

10 0.83 0.67 20%

S RWMD Monitoring in the Steinhatchee Estuary The SRWMD has monitored one site in the Steinhatchee Estuary since 2002 (with some sampling in 1995) (Figure 44) . Robbie McKinney from the SRWMD conducted LOWESS regression analysis for this site and presented the results at the February 23, 2010, public meeting in Crystal River. He did not detect any trend over time for NO 2+3 , ammonia, TP, or orthophosphate but noted a decreasing trend in TKN over time (Figure 45). Experts present at the meeting opined that the trend was probably related to changes in the amount of fresh water due to rain patterns, rather than to any real decline in TKN.

FDEP conducted additional analyses of these data, which were retrieved from STORET. All available TN and TP data are plotted in Figure 46, and Table 14 shows geometric means for years with greater than 4 data points. TN and TP at this site range from near detect to as high as 1.5 mg/L of TN and 80 μg/L of TP (Figure 46).Draft 62 August 2010 Figure 4 4. L ocation of the Steinhatchee Sound Station (STN060C1) sampled by the SRWMD

.

Figure 45. TKN for the Steinhatchee station (200 2– 09) (from McKinney 2010)

.Draft 63 August 2010 Figure 46

. All available TN and TP data for Steinhatchee Estuary Site STN060C1 , sampled by the SRWMD.

Table 14

. Annual geometric me an concentrations of c hlorophyll a (uncorrected), TN, and TP for Station STN060C1 in the Steinhatchee Estuary, sampled by SRWMD.

- = Empty cell/no data X = Fewer than four data points were available, and so the annual geometric mean was not calculated.

- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Chlorophyll a (μg/L) 1.09 X 1.63 3.39 5.06 1.43 1.44 1.65 TN (mg/L) 0.674 X X 0.998 0.606 X 0.493 X TP (mg/L) 0.013 0.023 0.018 X X X 0.022 0.040



### Existing Regional Nutrient Loading Models , HydroQ ual Inc. Tom Gallagher and Christhian Mancilla of Hydroqual prepared a document for FDEP that summarizes the analysis performed to support and assist the development of TN and TP criteria for several streams located in the Apalachee Bay area. T he objective of t his analysis was to present an approach for nutrient criteria development

. Existing TN , TP
, and flow data were analyzed
, and long

- term nutrient concentrations were estimated with flow as an explanatory variable

. For the analysis, nutrient data were obtained for the Econfina , Aucilla, St. Marks
, and Steinhatchee Rivers . TN and TP data w ere retrieved from the S RWMD website, the F lorida STORET online database, and the EPA STORET online database. Daily flow records were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) online data retrieval interface for several flow stations located along thes e rivers. The most downstream flow stations were selected for the analysi s and
, if long

- term flow measurements were not available or tidal influence was noticed, the next upstream flow station that met both criteria was then 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

31/31/199310/28/19957/24/19984/19/20011/14/200410/10/20067/6/20094/1/2012Total Phosphorus (mg/L)Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 

### Steinhatchee Estuary SRWMD Site STN060C1 Nutrients

TN

TPDraft 64 August 2010 selected. Several water quali ty stations were identified in the vicinity of the selected USGS flow stations. Table C- 2 (i n Appendix C ) lists t he selected water quality stations.

Figu res C

- 2 through C- 9 (i n Appendix C) present t emporal plots of TN and TP data for the selected station s. These figures also include daily flow records for time s when the nutrient data w ere collected. Assuming flow to be an explanatory variable for the TN and TP concentrations, relationships between measured daily flows and nutrient concentrations were developed. Figures C- 10 to C- 13 in Appendix C depict the developed flow

– concentration relationships for TN and
, similarly
, Figures C- 14 to C- 17 in Appendix C depict the equivalent relationships for TP.

These relationships allowed the calculation of long

- term daily nutrient concentrations (1950 to 2009) as defined by long

- term daily flows. Figures C- 18 to C- 21
, and Figures C- 22 to C- 25 (upper two panels)
, in Appendix C present the long

- term measured flows and computed long

- term nutrient concentrations for TN and TP, respectively. Because the EPA’s proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for flowing waters within the s tate

— specifically
, the proposed In

- stream Protection Values (IPVs)

— are based on annual geometric means, Figures C- 18 to C- 25 (bottom panel) in Appendix C summarize the annual geometric means corresponding to the computed long

- term nutrient concentrations for TN and TP. The EPA has proposed TN and TP IPVs of 0.824 and 0.043 mg/L, respectively, for the Panhandle region of Flor ida. These IPVs are indicated by the red dotted lines on Figures C- 18 to C- 25 (bottom panel) in Appendix C. (f or more information and the tables and figures from the HydroQual analysis
, see Appendix C)

.



### Waters on the 303(d) List

Of the various waters in the Apalachee Bay Basin , o nly the Fenholloway R iver has been placed on the 303(d) list for a parameter other than bacteria or mercury (see Table 1 5 ). The parameters listed for the Fenholloway (BOD, DO, and nutrients) are currently addressed by an EPA

- approved TMDL and by the ongoing NPDES permitting process

.Draft 65 August 2010 Table 15. Impaired waters in the greater Apalachee Bay planning units.

- = Empty cell/no data IIIM = Class III marine Planning Unit WBID Waterbody Segment Name Waterbody Type Waterbody Class Parameters Included on the 1998 303(d) List Parameters Assessed Using the IWR Concentration Causing Impairment

Coastal W atershed and Apalachee Bay 8026 Coastal Apalachee Gulf West Coastal 3M - Bacteria (in shellfish) Conditionally approved for shellfish Coastal W atershed and Apalachee Bay 8026B Shell Point Beach 3M - Bacteria (b each

a dvisories) >21 days of beach closures

Ochlockonee/ St. Marks 8999 Gulf Coast Coastal/ Estuary 3M

- Mercury (based on fish consumption advisory) >0.3mg/kg

Fenholloway 3473A Fenholloway at Mouth Estuary 3M BOD 5 day BOD Median BOD= 3.5 mg/L Fenholloway 3473A Fenholloway at Mouth Estuary 3M DO DO <4.0 mg/L

Fenholloway 3473A Fenholloway at Mouth Estuary 3M Nutrients Nutrients (c hlorophyll

a ) Median TN=2.39 mg/L;

m edian TP=0.64 mg/L;

m edian BOD=3.50 mg/L Other Coastal 8032A Dekle Beach Beach 3M - Bacteria >21 days of advisories in
year Other Coastal 8032B Keaton Beach Beach 3M - Bacteria > 21 days of advisories in
year Other Coastal 8032C Cedar Beach Beach 3M - Bacteria >21 days of advisories in
year Other C oastal 8032E Hagens Cove Beach Beach 3M

- Bacteria >21 days of advisories in
year Steinhatchee 3573C Steinhatchee River Estuary 3M - Fecal Coliform >400 counts/100mL

Impairment for Bacteria N ot N ecessarily I ndicative of A nthropogenic I mpact
The use of fecal coliforms as an indicator of the presence of human pathogens has been under scrutiny in Florida for the past decade. One of the priorities of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) is the need to improve microbial source tracking (MST) and pathogen

- detection methods for use under Gulf of Mexico conditions (GOMA 2009). The GOMA Pathogens Workgroup recently submitted comments regarding the status of EPA recreational water quality criteria (GOMA 2009). It expressed concern that the EPA recreational criteria were derived in places that do not represent Gulf of Mexico conditions, and that theDraft 66 August 2010 use of fecal indicators was not appr opriate for waters primarily influenced by natural animal sources. Areas in the Gulf of Mexico for which the workgroup thought the EPA criteria might not be appropriate included low

- population density coastal areas, areas of heavy rainfall, subtropical la titudes, and areas where waters contain a large amount of organic detritus material and/or colored dissolved organic
matter (CDOM) (GOMA 2009). Boehm et al. (2009) express similar concern about the current and proposed recreational criteria, and specifically call attention to the need for further research and revision in tropical waters and waters adversely impacted by urban runoff and animal feces. This is not to say that fecal coliform and enterococci bacteria cannot indicate human sources or cannot co

- occur with nutrient inputs, but that there is ample evidence to caution against assuming that the presence of these bacteria automatically indicates the presence of anthropogenic nutrients.

The following text is from a review conducted by Dr. V. Jody Harwo od of the University of South Florida as part of a n MST project she is conducting for F DEP:

The main groups of indicator bacteria for recreational water quality assessment in use today include fecal coliforms, or a specific member of that group, Escherichia coli, in fresh water and the genus Enterococcus in both fresh and estuarine/marine waters. However, in order for the indicator concept to work optimally there are many assumptions that must hold true. One of the most important assumptions is that ind icator bacteria must co

- occur with human pathogens when pathogens are present and pose a human health risk. Unfortunately, recent research has indicated that this assumption is often false by showing that the presence of indicator bacteria do not always correlate well with the presence of pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, or enteric viruses (Anderson et al. 2005 ; Bonadonna et al. 2002; Harwood et al. 2005; Lemarchand and Lebaron 2003 ; Lund 1996 ; Rees et al. 1998).

One important reason for the lack of correlation between traditional fecal indicator bacteria and pathogens is that the indicator bacteria are not specific to humans, or to other hosts known to shed human pathogens in their feces, but are present in the intesti nes of all warm

- blooded animals and some cold

- blooded animals (Souza et al. 1999). Because not all animals are equally likely to carry human pathogens, contamination from all sources does not represent an equal health risk. Thus, some sources of fecal contamination in water are of greater concern than others. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of naturalized or environmentally adapted strains indicator bacteria (both coliforms and enterococci) that are capable of persisting in a culturable form for extended periods, or even growing, in a wide variety of environmental matrices, including terrestrial soils, aquatic sediments, and attached to aquatic vegetation (Byappanahalli and Fujioka 1998 ; Byappanahalli et al. 2003; Ishii et al. 2006; Jeng et al. 2005 ; Ksoll et al. 2007; Solo

- Gabriele et al. 2000; Topp et al. 2003 ; Whitman et al. 2003). If indicator bacteria are persisting in environmental matrices their reintroduction into the water column, such as might occur during storms or high recreational activity, may lead to false positive indications regarding contamination and public health risk. As a result of these two confounding factors, it is now clear that simply measuring concentrations of waterborne indicator bacteria do not offer detailed

enou gh information to properly determine health risks associated with recreational
water use. Furthermore, this practice does not allow specific sources of contamination to be identified or targeted for remediation of water quality.Draft 67 August 2010 

### Numeric Nutrient Criteria Recommendations
Based upon data from 1971 to the present, Apalachee Bay is currently biologically healthy and fully supports its designated use, except for a small area near the Fenholloway River. A TMDL has been completed and approved by the EPA for th e Fenholloway River, and it is expected to be implemented within the next 5 years, resulting in the full restoration of the Fenholloway system. Therefore, except for the Fenholloway, maintaining the current nutrient regime is the recommended approach for the bay. Note that riverine inputs provide the predominant source of nutrients to the bay, and these nutrient loads naturally vary as a function of rainfall. Since the bay has been demonstrated to be healthy, maintaining the existing nutrient loads from the rivers will result in fully protective criteria.

Five major rivers flow into Apalachee Bay, and criteria have been established for each river system to maintain the overall health of the bay. Table 16 shows the TN and TP loads and concentrations for the main rivers in the greater Apalachee Bay area, excluding the Fenholloway (which is addressed via the EPA

- approved TMDL). The loading numbers were calculated by HydroQual, using flow data from USGS stations in the rivers, as well as data from water quality stations in the vicinity of the selected USGS stations. The full approach is explained above
, and Appendix C contains the tables and graphs supporting the approach.

The water quality station used for the St. Marks River is Station 3528, St. Marks at HWY 98 Newport. The sampling period for this station is 1998 to 2009
, and data were obtained from FDEP STORET. The water quality station used for the Aucilla River is Station AUC0501C1, Aucilla River at US 27 near Lamont. The sampling period for the station is 2000 to 2009, and data were obtained from the S RWMD

. W ater qu ality data for the Econfina River, received from the S RWMD via Florida STORET, were taken from two stations : Station ECN010C1, Econfina River near Perry, had a sampling period of 1989 to 1992
, and 1999
to 2009 ; and Station 6976, Econfina River at Cabbage Cove, had a sampling period of 1999 to 2009. W ater quality data for the Steinhatchee River, received from the S RWMD via F lorida STORET, also consisted of two stations : Station STN030C1, Steinhatchee River near Cross City, was sampled from 1999 to 2009 ; a nd Station 6978, Steinhatchee River near Ten n ile h ad a sampling period of 1999 to 2009.

The various water quality studies in the report for the St. Marks River show that nutrient concentrations were generally low throughout the St. Marks/Apalachee Bay sys tem, except in the upper reaches of the Wakulla River. Nitrate+nitrite concentrations in the upper tidal reaches of the Wakulla River (U.S. Highway 98 Bridge) average three times greater than those observed on the St. Marks at Newport (U.S. Highway 98 Bri dge).

Once the water reaches the bay, TN and TP are lower in the bay than in the upper tidal reaches of the river. The Fenholloway River is the only river in the greater Apalachee Bay area that historically had water quality problems and adverse effects to biological communities. Although t he mill has affected the water quality of the Fenholloway River since 1954, regulatory actions (a UAA and reclassification, TMDLs developed and approved for biochemical oxygen demand [BOD] and nutrients, and an SSAC developed for transparency) and subsequent improvements by the facility suggest that the system will be restored. FDEP is currently in the process of modifying the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Buckeye that will include actions required of the facility to fully meet the designated use.Draft 68 August 2010 Table 16

. T N and TP loads and concentrations for the St. Marks, Aucilla, Econfina, and Steinhatchee Rivers.

1 St. Marks loads (1950

– 2009) were calculated by HydroQual from USGS Statio n: 02326900 near Newport, and thus do not include Wakulla River nutrients. Concentration data are from LakeWatch 2001 estuarine s tations ; the sites used were WAK 1-3, sampled on January 10, March 23, and May 17, 2001

. 2 Aucilla loads (1950

– 2009) were calculated by HydroQual from USGS Station: 02326512 near Scanlon. Concentration data are from LakeWatch 2001 estuarine st ations; the sites used were TAY 1-3, sampled on January 10, March 23, and May 17, 2001.

3 Econfina loads (1950

– 2009) were calculated by HydroQual from USGS Station: 02326000 near Perry. Concentrations are annual geometric means for the Econfina River a rea, Stations E06, E08, E09, E10, and E11 ( a nnual calculations include May

– October data only). Data are from BVA , and calculations p erformed by HydroQual.

4 Steinhatchee loads were calculated by HydroQual from USGS Station: 02324000 near Cross City. Concentration data are from Project COAST (1997

– 2008). Monthly average TN and TP were collected for 10 estuarine stations in the Steinhatchee Est uary. System TN Loads (r anges) (lbs/day) TN Loads (l ong -t erm g eometric

m eans) (lbs/day) TP Loads (r anges) (lbs/day) TP Loads (l ong -t erm g eometric

m eans) (lbs/day) TN Concentration (l ong -t erm g eometric

m eans) (m g/L ) TP Concentration (l ong -t erm g eometric

m eans) (m g/L ) St. Marks 1 400 -4, 000 1, 337 70

- 340 155 0.36 0.04

Aucilla 2 100 -6, 000 2, 040 10

- 370 120 1.1 0.06

Econfina 3 100 -1, 700 478 1- 95 40 0.89 0.09

Steinhatchee 4 <100 -3, 500 760 1- 280 62 0.92 0.08

Numeric Nutrient Criteria

Methodology

For consistent application and for providing an appropriate level of protection, water quality criteria need to include magnitude, frequency, and duration components. The magnitude is a measure of how much of a pollutant may be present in the water without an unacceptable adverse effect. Duration is a measure of how long the pollutant may be above the magnitude, and frequency relates to how often the magnitude may be exceeded without adverse effects. It is preferred to derive the magnitude component of a criterion through a cause

- effect relationship (such as those measured through toxicity testing). The magnitude would then be set at a level that would protect a majority of the sensitive aquatic organisms inhabiting the system. Absent a demonstrated ca use

- effect relationship, the magnitude may be set at a level designed to maintain the current data distribution, accounting for natural temporal variability, when the current conditions are protective of the designated uses of the waterbody. Since a crite rion derived based on the existing data distribution has no direct link to any observed cause and effect relationship, it is assumed that maintaining the current data distribution will preserve the uses associated with that distribution.

The frequency an d duration components of the criteria are best established as additional descriptors of the reference condition data distribution. Specifically, these components should be part of a statistical test designed to determine whether the long

- term distribution of data has shifted upward ( or in some cases, downward) from the reference distribution. This test would then be used to determine whether future monitoring data are consistent with the magnitude (long

- term average) defined by the referenceDraft 69 August 2010 dataset. It is critical to account for the natural variability surrounding the magnitude expression and to control for statistical errors.

The derivation of the magnitude, frequency and duration components of the numeric nutrient criteria for the Greater Apalachee B ay Area is described briefly below. More details concerning the statistical approaches used can be found in the document “Overview of FDEP Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Development in Marine Waters” (FDEP 2010).

Magnitude

The magnitude component can b e set at a variety of values based on the frequency and duration that will be used to determine compliance. For the “healthy existing conditions” approach, FDEP established the magnitude at: a) an adjusted long

- term central tendency (geometric mean) of t he distribution, expressed as a long

- term geometric mean never to be exceeded; and b) an annual geometric mean, not to be exceeded more than two times over a five - year period. The long

- term average condition was adjusted to a level that represents an ins ignificant increase from the baseline. Allowing for an insignificant increase accounts for uncertainty in the estimate of the mean and partially addresses the fact that the reference based approach fails to identify a threshold of imbalance, and thus is h ighly prone to excessive Type I error. For the purpose of antidegradation evaluations, EPA has established that a ten percent change in a water quality parameter represents an insignificant departure from the historical condition, known as a de minimus ch ange (US Sixth Circuit Court 2008). Therefore, the long

term geometric mean limit was derived to allow for up to a ten percent increase in the long

- term geometric mean, which was calculated as the geometric mean of the annual geometric means of the long -t erm dataset for each segment of the waterbody.

Because it is not always practical to assess compliance with the criteria on the same long

- term basis, FDEP also developed criteria expressed as an annual geometric mean so that estuaries could be assessed

on an annual basis. It should be noted that the duration and frequency components of the criteria must be linked to the response timeframe of the sensitive endpoint. Short

- term averaging periods (e.g., 1 to 30 days) might be appropriate for nutrient criteria where a sufficiently robust cause

- effect relationship has demonstrated that a eutrophic response occurs over such timeframes. If however, such a short

term response cannot be demonstrated, or there is no indicati on of use impairment, longer averaging

pe riods should be used.

Since the duration and frequency components of the criteria must be consistent with the derivation of the magnitude component, the long

- term geometric mean target cannot simply be applied as an annual

mean. Doing so would result i n an unacceptability high Type I failure rate (identifying a healthy system as being impaired) since approximately 50 percent of the individual yearly means are expected to be above the long

- term mean. Therefore, the long

- term target must be adjusted to a llow for the application to a shorter duration with an acceptable Type I error rate of no more than a 10 percent.

An annual criterion with an approximate 10 percent Type I error rate for a given frequency was derived by appropriately accounting for the annual variability above the mean. This annual target concentration was derived as an upper percentile of the distribution of the annual geometric mean concentrations.Draft 70 August 2010 Previous proposals by EPA have utilized three

- year assessment periods to express the dura tion nutrient criteria components. Although it is possible to construct a test that achieves the 10 percent Type I error rate target over a 3

- year period, a slightly longer period (5 years) will provide better control for Type II error and will more full y capture climatic cycles ( e.g ., el nino, la nina), which tend to be longer than three years in Florida (and may actually be on a multi

- decadal scale). Furthermore, a five year period is more consistent with both the State’s five year 303(d) assessment and NPDES permit renewal cycles.

Given a five year a ssessment period, FDEP derived criteria expressed as an annual geometric mean by using the 75 th percentile of the annual geometric means from the long

- term dataset. FDEP demonstrated that setting the criteria at this percentile results in a magnitude that, when expressed as an annual geometric mean not to be exceeded more than twice during a five -y ear period, will achieve the targeted 10 percent error rate

. The magnitude component of the criteria (not to be exceeded more than twice in a 5 year period) was established to allow for two separate assessments:

**•** As an annual geometric mean for a network o f stations in a specified segment of the waterbody; and

**•** As an annual geometric mean for a single station in a given segment.

The two expressions of magnitude differ in the handling of within

- segment spatial variability. The network average magnitude wa s calculated based on the distribution of spatially averaged annual geometric means, while the single site magnitude was calculated using the distribution of station annual geometric means. Use of the network average magnitude is appropriate for assessing overall segment

status. However, a network average is only representative of overall segment status if it is relatively homogeneous. I f the segment is not well mixed, is very large, or contains localized nutrient sources, then there is a potential that isolated areas of enrichment may be masked in the network spatial

average. Therefore, the single station annual geometric mean has the benefit of assessing localized enrichment patterns. DEP has not decided whether both expressions of magnitude are need ed in all cases, and we are seeking additional feedback from local experts and stakeholders.

Summary of the Proposed Criteria

FDEP intends to propose three sets of potential criteria for greater Apalachee Bay when sufficient data are available : a) a long

- term g eometric mean concentration; b) an annual geometric mean of values from a network of stations over a given area, not to be exceeded more than twice in a five

- year period; and c) a n annual geometric mean of values from a single location, not to be exc eeded more than twice in a five

- year period. FDEP is in the process of collecting nutrients and chlorophyll a at 12 stations throughout Apalachee Bay. Until sufficient data are available to calculate concentration

- based criteria as described above, interi m criteria w ould consist of preventing increases in the loads from the St. Marks, Aucilla, Econfina, and Steinhatchee Rivers, as shown in Table 16. The Fenholloway River loads are addressed via an EPA approved TMDL.Draft 71 August 2010 

### References
Anderson, K. L., J. E. Whitlock, V. J. Harwood, and K. 2005. Persistence and differential survival of fecal indicator bacteria in subtropical waters and sediments. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 71:3041

– 3048.
Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc . (BVA)

. 2005. Eco logical monitoring of the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers, 2004. Report submitted to Buckeye Florida, February 2005.

——— . 2006. Ecological monitoring of the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers, 2005. Report submitted to Buckeye Florida, March 2006.

——— . 2 007. Ecological monitoring of the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers, 2006. Report submitted to Buckeye Florida, March 2007.

——— . 2008. Ecological monitoring of the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers, 2007. Report submitted to Buckeye Florida, February 2008

.

——— . 2009. Ecological monitoring of the Econfina and Fenholloway Rivers, 2008. Report submitted to Buckeye Florida, February 2009. Boehm, A.B., N.J. Ashbold, J.M. Colford, Jr., L.E. Dunbar, L.E. Fleming, M.A. Gold, J.A. Hansel, P.R. Hunter, A.M. Ichida, C.D. McGee, J.A. Soller, and S.B. Weisberg. 2009. A sea change ahead for recreational water quality criteria. Journal of Water and Health 07.1: 9

– 20.
Bonadonna, L., R. Briancesco, M. Ottaviani, and E. Veschetti. 2002. Occurrence of Cryptosporidium oocysts in sewage effluents and correlation with microbial, chemical and physical water variables. Environ

. Monit

. Assess

. 75:241

– 252. Byappanahalli, M. N., and R. S. Fujioka. 1998. Evidence that tropical soil environment c an support the growth of Escherichia coli

. Water Sci

. Technol

. 38:171

– 174. Byappanahalli, M. N., D. A. Shively, M. B. Nevers, M. J. Sadowsky, and R. L. Whitman. 2003. Growth and survival of Escherichia coli and enterococci populations in the macro

- alga Cladophora ( Chlorophyta ). Fems Microbiol

. Ecol

. 46:203

– 211.
Charbonneau, M. 2010. Steinhatchee

– Deadmans Bay background information. Presentation for February 23, 2010, public meeting on numeric nutrient criteria development, Crystal River.
Dolan, D. M , A. K. Yui, and R. D. Geist. 1981. Evaluation of river load estimation methods for total phosphorus. Great Lakes Research 7: 207

–

214.
Duarte, C.M. 1995. Submerged aquatic vegetation in relation to different nutrient regimes. Ophelia 41: 37

– 112. Flemer, D. A., R. J. Livingston
, and S. E. McGlynn. 1997. Phytoplankton nutrient limitation: seasonal growth responses of sub

- temperate estuarine phytoplankton to nitrogen and phosphorus —A n outdoor microcosm experiment. Estuaries 21: 145

– 159.

Florida De partment of Agr iculture and Consumer Services (FDACS)

. January 28, 2009. Comprehensive shellfish harvesting area survey of the St. Marks area, Wakulla County, Florida. Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section

. F lorida D epartment of E nvironmental P rote ction

. 1994. Use attainability analysis, Fenholloway River.

——— . 2002. Identification of impaired surface waters rule. FDEP Report 62

– 303.

——— . September 2003. Water quality assessment report: Ochlocknee and St. Marks. Tallahassee, FL: Division of Water Resource Management.Draft 72 August 2010 ——— . September 2003. Water quality assessment report: Suwannee (including Aucilla, Coastal, Suwannee, and Waccasassa Basins in Florida). Tallahassee, FL: Division of Water Resource Management.
Frazer, T

. , and C

. Jacoby. 2010. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll relationships in the Big Bend. Presentation for February 23, 2010, public meeting on numeric nutrient criteria development, Crystal River.

G ulf of Mexico Alliance (G OMA ). 2009. Comments regarding pending EPA Clean Water Act, recreational water quality criteria. Prepared for the EPA stakeholders workshop, October 6

– 7, 2009
, Chicago, IL.
Harwood, V. J., A. D. Levine, T. M. Scott, V. Chivukula, J. Lukasik, S. R. Farrah, and J. B. Rose. 2005. Vali dity of the indicator organism paradigm for pathogen reduction in reclaimed water and public health protection. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 71:3163

– 3170.
Heck, K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth

. 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows. Mar

. Ecol .- Prog

. Ser

. (253): 123

– 136.
Heck, K.L., J.R. Pennock , J.F. Valentine, L.D. Coen, and S.A. Sklenar. 2000. Effects of nutrient enrichment and small predator density on seagrass ecosystems: An experimental assessment

. Limn ol

. Oceanogr

. 45 (5): 1041

– 1057.
Hoyer, M. V., T. K. Frazer, S. K. Notestein
, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2002. Nutrient, chlorophyll, and water clarity relationships in Florida’s nearshore coastal waters with comparisons to freshwater lakes. Can . J. Fish

. Aquat

. Sci

. 59: 1

– 8. Hughes, A.R., S .L. Williams, C .M. Duarte, K .L. Heck
, Jr

. , and M

. Waycott

. 2009. Associations of concern: declining seagrasses and threatened dependent species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(5) 242

– 246. HydroQual, Inc. 2008. Summary of modeling to support nutrient TMDL development for the Fenholloway River.

——— . June 9, 2010. Apalachee Bay nutrient criteria support analysis. Technical Memorandum for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Ishii, S., W. B. Ksoll, R. E. Hicks, and M. J. Sadowsky. 2006. Presence and growth of naturalized Escherichia coli in temperate soils from Lake Superior watersheds. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 72:612

– 621.
Iverson, R. L.
, and H. F. Bittaker. 1986. Seagrass distribution and abundance in eastern Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. Est. Coastal Shelf Sci. 22: 577

– 602. Jeng, H. W. C., A. J. England, and H. B. Bradford. 2005. Indicator organisms associated with stormwater suspended particles and estuarine sediment

. J. Environ

. Sci

. Heal

. A 40:779

– 791.
Johnson, M.W., K.L. Heck, and J.W. Fourqurean. Nutrient content of seagrasses and epiphytes in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Evidence of phosphorus and nitrogen limitation

. Aquatic Botany (85)103

– 111. Ksoll, W. B., S. Ishii, M. J. Sadowsky, and R. E. Hicks. 2007. Presence and sources of fecal coliform bacteria in epilithic periphyton communities of Lake Superior. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 73:3771

– 3778.Draft 73 August 2010 Lemarchand, K., and P. Lebaron. 2003. Occurrence of Salmonella spp. and Cryptosporidium spp. in a French coastal watershed: Relationship with fecal indicators. Fems Microbiol

. Lett

. 218:203

– 209.
Lewis, F. G., N.D. Wooten, and R.L. Bartel

. 2009. Lower St. Marks River/Wakulla River/Apalachee Bay

resour ce characterization. Water Resources Special Report. Northwest Florida Water Management District.
Livingston, R. J

. 1975. Impact of kraft pulp

- mill effluents on estuarine and coastal fishes in Apalachee Bay, Florida, USA. Mar. Biol. 32:19

– 48.

——— . 1976. Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations of organisms in a north Florida estuary. Est. Coastal Mar. Sci. 4: 374

– 400.

——— . 1982. Trophic organization in a coastal seagrass system. Mar. Ecol.

- Prog. Series 7: 1

– 12.

——— . 1988. Inadequacy of species

- level designations for ecological studies of coastal migratory fishes. Env. Biol. Fishes 22: 225

– 234.

——— . 1993a. Biological study of the Perdido drainage system

. Unpublished report

.

——— . 1993b. River

– Gulf study. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

. Unpublished report

.

——— . 1993c. Estuarine w etlands

. In: J. Berry and M. Dennison ( E ds.), Wetlands : Guide to science, law, and technology (Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publications, pp. 128

– 153 ).

——— . 1994. Ecological Study of Jack’s Branch and Soldier Creek. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Tallahassee, Florida. Unpublished Report.

——— . 2000. Eutrophication processes in coastal systems: Origin and succession of plankton blooms and effects on secondary production in Gulf Coast estuaries. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.

——— . 2002. Trophic organization in coastal systems

. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.

——— . 2004a. Review of Econfina

- Fenholloway data with regard to regulatory requirements regarding Impaired Waters Rule. Report to Buckeye Florida, January 2004.

——— . 2004b. Final report: Effects of pulp mill effluents on the Fenholloway River

– Bay system. Report
to Buckey e Florida, July 2004.

——— . 2005. Restoration of aquatic systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.

——— . 2010. Long term (1971

– 2004) response of the Econfina and Fenholloway drainages (Apalachee Bay) to the discharge of pulp mill effluents: Nutrient loading, limitation and distribution. Unpublished report for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Livingston, R. J., A. W. Niedoroda, T. W. Gallagher, and A. Thurman. 1998a. Environmental studies of Perdido Bay. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Tallahassee, FL

. Unpublished

r eport. Livingston, R. J., S. E. McGlynn, and X. Niu. 1998b. Factors controlling seagrass growth in a gulf coastal system: Water and sediment quality and light. Aquat. Bot. 60: 135

– 159.
Lund, V. 1996. Evaluation of E

- coli as an indicator for the presence of Campylobacter jejuni and Yersinia enterocolitica in chlorinated and untreated oligotrophic lake water. Water Res

. 30:1528

– 1534.
McComb, A. J. 1995. Eutrophic shallow estuaries and lagoons. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.Draft 74 August 2010 McKinney, R. 2010. Crystal River. February 23, 2010. Springs Coast public workshop presentation in support of FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Estuarine and Coastal Waters.

McRoy, C.P., and C. H elfferich. 1977

. In : Seagrass ecosystems : A scientific perspective ( New York: Marcel Dekker ). Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD)

. April 2002. Nitrate loading as an indicator of nonpoint s ource pollution in the lower St. Marks

- Wakulla Rivers watershed

. Water Resources Special Report 48, 72, 85, 87, 89, 104. Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 222: 51

– 53.
Orth R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers
, and W.C. Dennison et al. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56 : 987

– 96. Phillips, R.C., and C.P. McRoy. 1980. Handbook of seagrass biology: An ecosystem perspective. New York: Garland STPM Press.
Rees, G., K. Pond, K. Johal, S. Pedley, and A. Rickards. 1998. Microbiological analysis of selected coastal bathing waters in the UK, Greece, Italy and Spain. Water Res

. 32:2335

– 2340.

Short
, F.T.
, and S. Wyllie

- Echeverria

. 1996. Natural and human induced disturbance of seagrasses. Environ

. Conserv

. 23 : 17

–

27.
Smith, S.V. 2003. Preliminary NOAA estuarine typology database.

Solo

- Gabriele, H. M., M. A. Wolfert, T. R. Desmarais, and C. J. Palmer. 2000. Sources of Escherichia coli in a coastal subtropical environment. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 66:230

– 237. Souza, V., M. Rocha, A. Valera, and L. E. Eguiarte. 1999. Genetic structure of natural populations of Escherichia coli in wild hosts on different continents. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 65:3373

– 3385.
Tomasko, D.A. C.J. Dawes, and M.O. Hall. 1996. The effects of anthropogenic nutrient enrichment on turtlegrass ( Thalassia testudinum ) in Sarasota Bay, Florida

. Estuaries 19: 448

– 456. Topp, E., M. Welsh, Y. C. Tien, A. Dang, G. Lazarovits, K. Conn, and H. Zhu. 2003. Strain

- dependent variability in growth and survival of Escherichia coli in agricultural soil. F ems Microbiol

. Ecol

. 44:303

– 308.

U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

. 1999. The ecological condition of estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. Offic e of Research and Development.

——— . 2000. Fenholloway Nutrient study

. Athens, GA: Ecological Assessment Branch.

——— . 2004. National coastal condition report II. EPA

- 620/R

- 03/002.

——— . April 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) the Fenholloway River, Bevins (Boggy) Creek, Econfina River Basin (Includes TMDLs for dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, unionized ammonia, fecal coliform, and dioxin). Atlanta, GA: Region 4.

——— . 2009. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients in the Fenholloway River, Econfina River Basin. Atlanta, GA: Region 4. Whitman, R. L., D. A. Shively, H. Pawlik, M. B. Nevers, and M. N. Byappanahalli. 2003. Occurrence of Escherichia coli and enterococci in Cladophora ( Chlorophyta ) in nearshore water and beach sand of Lake Michigan

. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 69:4714

– 4719.Draft 75 August 2010 Williams
, S.L.
, and K.L. Heck
, Jr

. 2001. Seagrass community ecology. In: M.D. Bertness , S.D. Gaines , and M.E. Hay (Eds .)
, Marine community ecology ( Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates ).
Wren, K.
, and S. Blitch

. 2010

. St. Joseph Bay. February 11, 2010. Apalachicola public workshop presentation in support of FDEP numeric nutrient criteria for estuarine and coastal waters

. Zieman, J.C.
, and R.T. Zieman. 1989. The ecology of the seagrass mea dows of the west coast of Florida: A community profile. U

. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.25).
Zimmerman, M. S., and R. J. Livingston. 1976a. The effects of kraft mill effluents on benthic macrophyte assemblages in a shallow bay system (Apalachee Bay, North Florida, U. S .A .). Mar. Biol. 34: 297

– 312.

——— . 1976b. Seasonality and physico

- chemical ranges of benthic macrophytes from a north Florida estuary (Apalachee Bay). Cont. Mar. Sci., University of Texas 20: 34

– 45.

——— . 1979. Dominance in benthic macrophyte assemblages from a north Florida estuary (Apalachee Bay). Bull. Mar. Sci. 29: 27

–

40

.Draft 76 August 2010 

### Appendix A: Long

- Term (1971

– 2004) Response of the Econfina and Fenholloway Drainages (Apalachee Bay) to the Discharge of Pulp Mil l Effluents: Nutrient Loading, Limitation and Distribution.
This unpublished r eport was written by Dr. Robert J. Livingston
, retired professor from F SU, for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. It outlines a long

- term study (1970

– 2004) by Dr. Livingston and his students on the Econfina and Fenholloway s ystem s (Apalachee Bay)

. The report is available at Apalachee nutrient reprt1 livingstondoc.doc

. The report includes results and discussion for rainfall and river flows, nutrient loading, a nd water quality in the Fenholloway and Econfina systems, light distribution, nutrient limitation, sediment quality, plankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, invertebrates, fishes, and restoration.

Livingston, R. J. 2010. Long -t erm (1971

– 2004) response of the Econfina and Fenholloway drainages (Apalachee Bay) to the discharge of pulp mill effluents: Nutrient loading, limitation and distribution. (Unpublished report) for The Florida Department of Environmental Protection.Draft 77 August 2010 

### Appendix B: Rainfall and Seagrass Coverage Figures of the Fenholloway and Econfina Systems ( from B VA Research for Buckeye Florida L.P. )

B VA initiated a water quality monitoring program in 2004 for Buckeye Florida (Buckeye) to m onitor the relationship betw een nutrient loading due to Buckeye’s discharge and the occurrence of phytoplankton blooms (both HABs and non

- noxious blooms) in Apalachee Bay ; monitor chlorophyll a in the system as a measure of water quality impairment ; monitor seagrass assemblages in the system in relation to regional climate, hydrology
, and water quality ; and annually assess seagrass communities in Apalachee Bay from the Aucilla River to Spring Warrior River. The following figures show rainfall, discharge, and seagrass change in the Econfina and Fenholloway systems.Draft 78 August 2010 Figure A-1

. Seasonal rainfall for Perry, Florida, 1998

–

2009. Top graph shows 1998

–

2002 data , and bottom graph shows 2003

– 09 data ( from BVA).Draft 79 August 2010 Figure A-2

. Discharge compared with 1977

–

2009 annual average for the Fenholloway and Econfina Rivers ( from BVA).

Table A- 1. Latitudes and l ongitudes for d iscrete water quality stations for the Fenholloway and Econfina E stuaries ( from BVA data )

. Fenholloway River Station Fenholloway River Station Latitude Fenholloway River Station Longitude Econfina River Station Econfina River Station Latitude Econfina River Station Longitude
F06 29.98380 83.78330 E06 30.03711 83.92605

F10 29.95117 83.78517 E08 30.01283 83.93150

F11 29.96067 83.80750 E10 30.02400 83.95317

F14 29.95810 83.76280 E11 30.02398 83.90960

F16 29.90800 83.78516 E09 29.96966 83.93160Draft 80 August 2010 Table A-2

. Data collected from 10 BVA monitoring stations listed in Table A-1.

- = Empty cell/no data *Nutrient data are from Chesapeake Bay Laboratory, M D. *Phytoplankton data are from Dr. A.K.S.K Prasad , F SU

.

- Years Collected Frequency of Collection Variables Measured Location in Water Column Nutrients 2005

- present Monthly from May

October Nitrogen ammonia ( NH 4 ); nitrate ( NO 3 ); nitrite nitrogen ( NO 2 ) ; phosphate ( PO 4 ); total dissolved phosphorus ( TDP ); Total dissolved nitrogen ( TDN ); ( PC ); ( PN ); ( PP ); silicate ( Si ) Subsurface

General water quality 2005

- present Monthly from May

October Temperature ; salinity ; specific conductance ; DO ; DO % saturation ; pH ; turbidity ; color ; Secchi depth Subsurface

Light 2006

- present Monthly from May

October % light on bottom with 4π PAR sensor Subsurface ; Bottom Light 2004

– 05 Monthly from May

October % light on bottom with 2π sensor Subsurface ; Bottom Phytoplankton 2005

- 2009 Monthly from May

October Chlorophyll a ; t axa abundance ;

c lass abundance ; t axa diversity ; t axa biovolume Water column

Seagrass 2006

- present Monthly from May

October Taxa

- specific density ; t axa

- specific biomass ;

m acroalgae composition ;

m acroalgae biomass –

Seagrass survey 2005

- present August Taxa

- specific density ; Secchi depth ; light Apalachee Bay from west of Econfina to Spring WarriorDraft 81 August 2010 Figure A-3

. D istribution and abundance of seagrasses in the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuaries and Apalachee Bay, 1992 ( from BVA).Draft 82 August 2010 Figure A

- 3. Distribution and abundance of seagrasses in the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuaries and Apalachee Bay, 1992 (from BVA).Draft 83 August 2010 Figure A- 5. Percent coverage for the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuaries and Apalachee Bay, 2005 ( from BVA)

.Draft 84 August 2010 Figure A- 6. Percent coverage for the Econfina and Fenholloway Estuaries and Apalachee Bay, 2009 ( from BVA)

.Draft 85 August 2010 

### Appendix C: Apalachee Bay Nutrient Criteria Support Analysis from HydroQual

This document summarizes the analysis performed to support and assist the development of TN and TP criteria for several streams located in the Apalachee Bay area. Existing TN, TP and flow data ha ve been analyzed and, considering flow to be an explanatory variable, long

- term nutrient concentrations have been estimated. Nutrient data were obtained for the following rivers: Econfina, Aucilla, St. Marks
, and Steinhatchee. TN and TP data was retrieved fr om the SRWMD website, the FDEP STORET online database, and the EPA STORET online database. Daily flow records were obtained from the USGS online data retrieval interface for several flow stations located along these rivers. This document includes

numerou s figures and tables to help illustrate the TN and TP for the Econfina, Aucilla, St. Marks, and Steinhatchee Rivers.

HydroQual, Inc. June 9, 2010. Apalachee Bay nutrient criteria aupport analysis. Technical memorandum f or the Florida Department of Envi ronmental Protection.