# Site

- Specific Information in Support of Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Ochlockonee Bay

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

August 16, 2010Draft ii August 2010 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

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

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

.............................................................................................. 5 Biological Summary

............................................................................................................... 8 Water Quality Studies

......................................................................................................... 10

Waters on the 303(d) List

..................................................................................................... 12
Numeric Nutrient Criteria Recommendations

...................................................................... 13
References

.......................................................................................................................... 14Draft iii August 2010 

### List of Tables

Table 1a. Checklist of nutrient enrichment symptoms for Ochlockonee Bay

............................................... 2 Table 1b. Checklist of additional environmental factors for Ochlockonee Bay

............................................ 3 Table 2. Physical characteristics of Ochlockonee Bay.

................................................................................. 5 Table 3a. Level 1 land use in the Ochlockonee Basin, by planning units adjacent to Ochlockonee Bay.

................................................................................................ ............................................. 8 Table 3b. Level 1 land use in the Ochlockonee Basin, by planning units adjacent to Ochlockonee Bay.

................................................................................................ ............................................. 8 Table 4a. Modeled river, removal, input, and oceanic fluxes for NO 3 +NO2 in Ochlockonee Bay (moles/second).

........................................................................................................................ 11 Table 4b. Modeled river, removal, input, and oceanic fluxes for PO 4 in Ochlockonee Bay (moles/second).

........................................................................................................................ 11
Tabl e 5. Waterbodies in Ochlockonee Bay on the Cycle 2 (2009) Verified List for impairments.

.............. 12



### List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of the Ochlockonee River and Bay Basin, showing public lands and urban areas.

............... 4 Figure 2. Location and boundaries of planning units in the Ochlockonee

– St. Marks Basins, in relation to Ochlockonee Bay.

...................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3. Map of Ochlockonee Basin land uses.

........................................................................................... 7 Figure 4. Saltmarsh and tidal flat habitats of Ochlockonee Bay.

................................................................ . 9 Figure 5. Areas of Ochlockonee Bay open for oyster harvesting during part of the year.

......................... 10Draft 1 August 2010 

### Executive Summary

This report was prepared by t he Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), in cooperation with local scientists, to support the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Ochlockonee 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.

Ochlockonee Bay is a coastal plain estuary in Wakulla and Franklin Counties, Florida. The major freshwater inflow is the Ochlockonee River, which originates in Worth County, Georgia. Protected lands, including t he Talquin State Forest, Apalachicola National Forest

, and the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge

, comprise the lower 105 square kilometers ( km 2 ) of the river’s relatively un disturbed watershed ( Seitzinger 1987).

Kaul and Froelich ( 1984) produced a nutrient budget for nitrogen (N)

, phosphorus (P) , and silica ( Si ) for Ochlockonee Bay, and characterized the system as a simple, unperturbed estuary. They found that the b ay exhibits both P and N limitation.

S alt marsh, tidal flats, and oyster beds are the principal habitats in Ochlockonee Bay. L imited biological data are available for the system, but there have been no reports of adverse impacts to biological communities from nutrients or other factors (Tables 1a and 1b) . T he biological communities in this estuary are healthy, and the appropriate approach for developing numeric nutrient criteria is to maintain nutrient levels within the range of natural variability. However, there are currently insufficient data to determine appropriate criteria, and FDEP recommends that additional monitoring be conducted to collect the needed data.Draft 2 August 2010 Table 1a. Checklist of nutrient enrichment sympto ms for Ochlockonee Bay

- = Empty cell/no data N/A = Not applicable Response Variable Observed Historically ? Observed Currently ? Explanation Source

Low dissolved oxygen ( DO ) (hypoxia/anoxia) No No Ochlockonee Bay is shallow, well

- mixed, and flushes rapidly to the Gulf of Mexico

. Kaul and Froelich 1984

Reduced clarity No No Secchi depths range from 0.6 to
5.0 meters ( m ). Kaul and Froelich 1984

Increased chlorophyll a concentrations No No No increased chlorophyll a concentrations have been reported for this system. -

Phytoplankton blooms (nuisance or toxic) No No Ochlockonee Bay has not experienced the e pisodic Karenia brevis blooms that

natura ll y occur in the Panhandle

. Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWCC) Fish and Wildlife Research Institute ( FWRI ) http://research.myfwc.com/f eatures/category_main.asp?i
d=2309 Problematic epiphyte growth N/A N/A S ee below for subm erged aquatic vegetation ( SAV). -

Problematic macroalgal growth No No No problematic macroalgal growth has been reported for the system. -

SAV community changes or loss N/A N/A Due to the highly colored tannic water, SAV is only present at the mouth of the bay, and in adjacent Apalachee Bay and Alligator Harbor. SAV
in neighboring areas is stable. -

Emergent vegetation community changes or loss No No No marsh loss reported for this system. -

Coral/hardbottom community changes or loss N/A N/A None present.

-

Impacts to benthic community No No While n o quantified information is available on Ochlockonee Bay benthic organisms , observations suggest that human stressors are not present

. R. Frydenborg, FDEP, personal c ommunication

, 2010

Fish kills No No No fish kills reported for Ochlockonee Bay. FWRI http://research.myfwc.com/f ishkill/Draft 3 August 2010 Table 1b. Checklist of additional environmental factors for Ochlockonee Bay

- = Empty cell/no data

Factors Observed? Explanation Source Increased nutrient loading or concentrations from historic al levels No Few historic al or current data

. -

Mitigating factors that could prevent nutrient expression Yes Very tannic, high

- color system. Kaul and Froelich
1984 Other significant stressors to biological communities No Much of the lower Ochlockonee Basin is conservation and managed forest lands; much of the Ochlockonee Bay shoreline is in public ownership (Bald Point State Park) FDEP 2003

, 2006

Natural episodic events contributing to nutrient regime ( e.g., seasonal or hydrologically driven) Yes Fluctuations in Ochlockonee River discharge affect nutri ent regime; hurricanes and other storms have impacts. High percentage of wetland land use in the lower Ochlockonee and Sopchoppy Basins

. Kaul and Froelich 1984; FDEP 2003



### Geographic and Physical Description

Ochlockonee Bay is a coastal plain estuary in Wakulla and Franklin Counties, Florida (Figure 1) . The Apalachicola National Forest and the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge comprise the lower 105 km 2 of the river’s relatively un disturbed watershed (Seitzinger 1987). The bay is small (8.5 km long by 2 km wide ), rapidly flushed, well

- mixed , and relatively shallow (1 to 2 m average depth). There are extens ive shoals (sand and mud flats) throughout the bay, many becoming e xposed at low tide (Lazarevich 2007). Salinities in the bay range from 5 to 30 parts per thousand ( ppt ) . Ochlockonee Bay receives tannin

- rich waters from the Ochlockonee

– Sopchoppy River system (Miller 2010). Table 2 summarizes the bay’s

p hysical characteristics

.
The major freshwater inflow is the Ochlockonee River, which originates in Worth County, Georgia. The river has inputs from many tributaries along its 206

- mile course to Ochlockonee Bay. The mean flow for the Ochlockonee River at the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS) station near Havana ( above Lake Talquin )

, with a 78

- year period of record, is about 618 cubic feet per second (CFS) (Pascale and Wagner 1981)

. Downstream of the Talquin D am , the 79

- year period of record mean flow is about 1,350 cfs. The increase is due to input from Little River, Bear Creek, Rocky Comfort Creek, Ocklawaha Creek, and many smaller streams ( Northwest Florida Water Management District [ NWFWMD ] 2006 ). Average discharges are highest in the spring, moderate in summer

, and lowest in fall and early winter.

The Ochlockonee Bay Basin spans parts of Franklin, Wakulla, Liberty, Leon, and Gadsden Counties in Florida, and extends into Georgia (Figure 1)

. The basin is one of the more pristine areas of Florida, with a low population density and fewer stresses on the environment than in many other areas of the state (FDEP 2003). Principal land uses in the Florida portion of the basin include forestry, with residential and urban land uses around the cities of Tallahassee and Quincy. More than one

- third of the basin is protected as publicly owned conservation and managed forest lands. Most of the basin from Lake Talquin to the bay consists of p rotected lands , including the Talquin State Forest, Joe Budd Wildlife Management Area, Apalachicola National Forest , St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge , and Tate’s Hell
State Forest

. Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) in the basin include the Ochlockonee River

, LakeDraft 4 August 2010 Jackson Aquatic Preserve

, Lake Talquin State Park

, Ochlockonee River State Park

, Mashes Sands County Park

, Bald Point State Park, and Sopchoppy River

. Much of the shoreline of Ochlockonee Bay is also preserved by local, state, or federal entities.

Figure 1. Map of the Ochlockonee River and Bay Basin , showing public lands and urban areas

.Draft 5 August 2010 Table 2 . Physical characteristics of Ochlockonee Bay

. Physical Characteristic Values Source
Estuarine surface area (km 2 ) 17 to 30 km2 Miller 2010

Watershed area (km 2 ) 6, 257 km2 NWFWMD 2006

Mean depth (m) 1 m;
3 to 7 m(in channel) ; 1 to 2 m (outside channel) Kaul and Froelich 1984 Lazarevich 2007

Tidal range (m) .6 m Kaul and Froelich 1984

Tidal freshwater inflow (cubic meters per day [m3/d]) 4 m3/d Miller 2010

Mean water residence time (days) Av erage 10 days ( range 1.5 to 44 days) Kaul and Froelich 1984

Salinity and salinity zones Few salinity fronts, eddies

, or reversals ;

w ell mixed ;

v ertical salinity gradient <1 ppt Lazarevich 2007 Kaul and Froelich 1984



### Sources and Fates of N utrients

Sources of nutrients to Ochlockonee Bay include point source discharges, nonpoint source inputs (septic tanks, stormwater from urban and agricultural areas), natural inputs ( plant leaf litter), and atmospheric deposition.

Ochlockonee Bay straddles the South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit, Sopchoppy River Planning Unit, and Coastal Wa tersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit (Figure 2 ). There are no direct point source discharges in any of the 3 planning units, but several wastewater facilities in the Apalachee Bay Planning Unit discharge to percolation ponds or sprayfields, represent ing a total volume of 0.284 million gallons per day (mgd).Draft 6 August 2010 Figure 2

. Location and boundaries of planning units in the Ochlockonee

– St. Marks Basin s , in relation to Ochlockonee Bay

.Draft 7 August 2010 Land uses in the South Ochlockonee River Planning U nit are primarily upland forest (51%) and wetlands (43%), with only 0.9% urban and built

- up (Figure 3 and Table s 3a and 3b )

. Land uses in the Sopchoppy River Plannin g Unit are predominately wetlands (51.7%) and upland forest (44.5%), with only 0 .8% urban and built

- up. Land uses in the Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit are primarily upland forest (46.3%) and wetlands (43.3%), with 5% urban and built

- up.

S tormwater runoff enters Ochlockonee Bay through the Ochlockonee and Sopcho ppy River s and their tributaries, and as overland sheet flow. This runoff potentially delivers suspended sediments and
nutrients to the estuary. However, t he very small percentage of urban and built

- up land uses indicate s that the contribution from nonpoint source s is very small. Estimates of natural sources of nutrient inputs such as leaf litter remain unquantified.

Atmospheric deposition data for the basin are available from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program’s National Trends Network (NADP -N TN), which has a collection site in Sumatra, Florida (FL 23). Based on loading data for the most recently reported year (2008), the estimates for atmospheric loading of (nitrogen ammonia) NH 4 and nitrate ( NO 3 ) for Ochlockonee Bay are 0.96 and 7.11 kilograms per hectare per year ( kg ha - 1 yr -1 ) , respectively.

Figure 3

. Map of Ochlo ckonee Basin land uses.Draft 8 August 2010 Table 3a

. Level 1 l and u se in the Ochlockonee Basin, by planning units adjacent to Ochlockonee Bay

. = Empty cell/no data Summary of A cres (totals) South Ochlockonee Sopchoppy Coastal Watersheds 1000 (Urban and b uilt

- up) 1,865.86 715.32 7,916.99 2000 (Agriculture) 854.94 770.63 3,543.99 3000 (Rangelands) 4,727.47 521.10 848.80 4000 (Upland f orests) 106,643.98 38,847.29 74,855.57 5000 (Water) 4,181.07 1,223.68 3,773.93 6000 (Wetlands) 89,437.09 45,157.88 69,966.99 7000 (Barren l and) 31.40 - 495.87 8000 (Transportation,

c ommunications, and u tilities) 270.84 114.01 285.05

TOTAL ACRES 208,012.64 87,349.91 161,687.19

Table 3b

. Level 1 l and u se in the Ochlockonee Basin, by planning units adjacent to Ochlockonee Bay

. = Empty cell/no data Summary of A cres (%) South Ochlockonee Sopchoppy Coastal Watersheds 1000 (Urban and b uilt

- up) 0.90% 0.82% 4.90% 2000 (Agriculture) 0.41% 0.88% 2.19% 3000 (Rangelands) 2.27% 0.60% 0.52% 4000 (Upland f orests) 51.27% 44.47% 46.30% 5000 (Water) 2.01% 1.40% 2.33% 6000 (Wetlands) 43.00% 51.70% 43.27% 7000 (Barren l and) 0.02% - 0.31% 8000 (Transportation,

c ommunications, and u tilities) 0.13% 0.13% 0.18%

% TOTAL 100% 100% 100%



### Biological Summary

The Ochlockonee Bay system contains extensive estuarine and marine tidal marsh communities (Figure
4 ). These communities are characterized as expanses of grasses, rushes and sedges along coastlines of low wave energy and river mouths. I ndicator species of the saltmarsh community include b lack needlerush ( Juncus roemerianus ) and smooth cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora )

, w hic h form dense, uniform stands throughout the edges of Ochlockonee Bay. Saltwort ( Batis maritima ), glasswort ( Salicornia virginica ), s ea ox

- eye ( Borrichia frute scens ), and marsh elder ( Iva frutescens ) are also present. In the upper reaches of the river mou th, where the tidal marshes begin to blend with freshwater marshes and swamps, sawgrass ( Cladium jamaicense ) is a common species (FDEP 2006)

.

The t idal marsh and creek communities of Ochlockonee Bay provide essenti al habitat for marine organisms, and play a key role as nursery areas for saltwater fish that spend their early life stages in the protected marsh environment. Fishes frequently found in these communities include blacktip sharks, southern stingray, menhaden, sardines, anchovy, catfish, needl efish, killifish, bluefish, snapper, grunts, sheepshead, pinfish, seatrout, red drum, mullet, blenny, goby, trigger fish, filefish, and puffers.Draft 9 August 2010 Invertebrates dependent on the tidal marsh communities of Ochlockonee Bay include marsh snails, periwinkles, mu d snails, fiddler crabs, marsh crabs , green crabs, isopods, and amphipods. Vertebrates that depend on the tidal marshes include the diamondback terrapin, saltmarsh snake, wading birds, waterfowl, osprey, rails, marsh wrens, seaside sparrows, muskrat s, and raccoon s.

Tidal flats are another important estuarine habitat in Ochlockonee Bay. T hey are characterized as expansive, relatively open areas of intertidal zones that lack dense populations of sessile plant and animal species. This community supports a l arge population of infaunal organisms as well as a variety of transient planktonic and pelagic organisms (e.g., tube worms, sand dollar s, mollusks, isopods, amphipods, burrowing shrimp, and an assortment of crabs). These areas also provide excellent fo rag ing habitat for wading birds (FDEP 2006; Florida Natural Areas Inventory [ FNAI ] 2010).

Ochlockonee Bay is designated as Class II waters (shellfish propagation or harvesting). A large portion of the b ay is classified and regulated for shellfish harvesting by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). Figure 5 shows the shellfish harvesting area for Ochlockonee Bay that is conditionally approved for oyster harvesting. Approval for oyster harvesting is highly dependent upon rainf all, which is correlated with bacteria influx from the largely natural watershed (see the discussion on bacteria below).

Figure 4

. Saltmarsh and tidal fla t habitats of Ochlockonee Bay

.Draft 10 August 2010 Figure 5

. Areas of Ochlockonee Bay open for oyster harvesting during part of the year.



### Water Quality Studies

Kaul and Froelich (1984) developed an estuarine model of linear mixing, nutrient removal

, and input, and applied this model to nutrient data collected in Ochlockonee Bay over a 14

- month period, from October 1980 to November 1981. The purpose of the study was to produce a nutrient budget for N, P, and Si in a very simple, unperturbed estuary, in order to better understand the direction and extent of nutrient modification in estuaries and their controls on global marine productivity.

Table s 4a and 4b present model estimates of the riverine flux to the estuary (F Riv), input flux within the estuary (F In), removal flux within the estuary (F Rem), and flux out of the estuary to the Gulf of Mexico (F Est) , for nitrate/nitrite (NO 3+ NO2) and orthophosphate (PO 4) (dissolved reactive phosphate [DRP] + particulate reactive phosphate [PRP]). T he silica (Si) flux, while potentially important for diatoms, is not presented here. These estimates are based on nutrient data collected from October 1980 to November
1981.

Kaul and Froelich found that approximately 81% of the DRP riverine flux is removed biologically within the estuary. The DRP flux out of the estuary exceeds the DRP river flux, and thus input is greater than removal in the system. Biological uptake removes about 58% of the riverine NO 3+NO2 flux. The flux out of the estuary is about 70% of the riverine flux. Thus internal NO 3+NO2 removal exceeds internal
NO 3+NO2 in put. Kaul and Froelich also observed that NO 3 and PO4 were often both completelyDraft 11 August 2010 removed, suggesting the co

- limitation of these nutrient species. They conclude that Ochlockonee Bay enhances the reactive fluvial phosphate flux to the Gulf of Mexico (by activating fluvial particulates), and that nearly all P removed during primary production is quickly returned to the water column by regeneration. Biological productivity removes nutrients in an N:P ratio of about 8:1. In addition, seasonal variations in productivity follow changes in riverine nutrient fluxes rather than variations in regenerati on rates. Ochlockonee Bay is a relatively inefficient nutrient recycler, due to its small size and short water residence times

.

Table 4a

. Modeled river , removal
, input , and oceanic fluxes for NO 3 +NO2 in Ochlockonee Bay (moles/sec ond ).

Date F Riv F In F Rem F Est

10 -4- 80 0.099 0.194

- 0.178 0.115

11 -2- 80 0.291 0.260

- 0.054 0.498

12

- 15

- 80 0.0515 0.114

- 0.083 0.0827

1- 30

- 81 0.0935 0

- 0.094 0

2- 28

- 81 0.388 0

- 0.388 0

4-1- 81 1.134 0 0 1.134

4- 27

- 81 0.223 0

- 0.191 0.032

5- 27

- 81 0.098 0.167

- 0.160 0.104

6- 29

- 81 0.1887 0.223

- 0.247 0.163

7- 27

- 81 0.0488 0

- 0.049 0

8- 26

- 81 0.070 0.210 0 0.280

10

- 11

- 81 0.0782 0.135

- 0.130 0.083

11

- 21

- 81 0.021 0.0115

- 0.032 0

Table 4 b. Modeled river, removal, input, and oceanic fluxes for PO 4 in Ochlockonee Bay (moles/sec ond ).

Date F Riv F In F Rem F Est

10 -4- 80 0.0087 0.0322

- 0.0142 0.0266

11 -2- 80 0.0218 0.0622

- 0.0116 0.0725

12

- 15

- 80 0.0078 0.0171

- 0.0070 0.0180

1- 30

- 81 0.0096 0

- 0.0076 0.00198

2- 28

- 81 0.0335 0

- 0.0192 0.0145

4-1- 81 0.0725 0.0957

- 0.0313 0.0372

4- 27

- 81 0.0279 0

- 0.0231 0.0049

5- 27

- 81 0.0166 0.0799

- 0.0431 0.0534

6- 29

- 81 0.0251 0.0577

- 0.0282 0.0546

7- 27

- 81 0.0061 0.0129

- 0.0075 0.0115

8- 26

- 81 0.0111 0.0108 0 0.0219

10

- 11

- 81 0.0071 0.0193

- 0.0082 0.0182

11

- 21

- 81 0.0023 0.0042 0 0.0047Draft 12 August 2010 

### Waters on the 303(d) List

There are no impairments for Ochlockonee Bay for nutrients or DO; however, portions of the system are listed for fecal coliform (Table 5)

.

Table 5

. Waterbodies in Ochlockonee Bay on the Cycle 2 (2009) Verified List for impairments. Waterbody Name Type Waterbody Identification ( WBID ) Number Impairment(s)

Ochlockonee Bay Stream 1248C Fecal coliform Ochlockonee Bay Stream 1248B Fecal Coliform

The relationship between bacteria and anthropogenic nutrients is complex, because although potential sources of bacteria may also be sources of nutrients, the presence of fecal coliform or Enterococci bacteria does not necessarily indicate the presence of anthropogenic nutrients.

The use of fecal coliform as indicators of the presence of human pathogens has been under scrutiny in Florida for the past decad e. One of the priorities of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) is 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 rega rding the status of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) recreational water quality criteria (GOMA 2009). The workgroup expressed concern that the EPA recreational criteria were derived in places that do not represent Gulf of Mexico conditions, and that the use of fecal indicators was not appropriate for waters primarily influenced by animal sources. Areas in the Gulf of Mexico for which they thought the
EPA criteria might not be appropriate included low

- population

- density coastal areas, areas of he avy rainfall, subtropical latitudes, and areas where waters contain a large amount of organic detritus and/or colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) (GOMA 2009). Ochlockonee Bay falls into several of these categories: heavy rainfall, subtropical latitude, and large amounts of organic detritus/CDOM.

Boehm et al. (2009) express similar concern about the current and proposed recreational criteria, and specifically call attention to the need for further research to better quantify the relationship between
i ndicator organisms and the risk of human pathogen exposure. FDEP recognizes that fecal coliform and
E nterococci bacteria may indicate a human source , or may co

- occur with anthropogenic nutrient inputs

, but there is ample evidence to caution against assuming that the presence of these bacteria automatically indicate s the presence of anthropogenic nutrients.

F or the bacterial indicator concept to work optimally

, many assumptions must hold true (Harwood 2010)

. One of the most important assumptions is t hat indicator 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 a lways 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, nor to other hosts known to shed human pathogens in their feces, but are present in the intestines of all warm

- blooded animals and some cold

- blooded animals ( Souza et al. 1999 ). Because not all animals are equally likely to carry humanDraft 13 August 2010 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 of indicator bacteria (both coliform 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 and 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, which may occur during storms or hi gh 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 es not offer detailed enough 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 the remediation of water quality (Har wood 20 1 0)

.



### Numeric Nutrient Criteria Recommendations

Although there is evidence to indicate that maintaining the existing nutrient regime would fully support the designated use of Ochlockonee Bay, there c urrently are insufficient data to propose numeric criteria

. FDEP recommends that a monitoring program be established to secure the needed nutrient and chlorophyll a data

. When adequate data are available

, the criteria would be established using the “healthy existing conditions” approach described in th e document, Overview of FDEP Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Development in Marine Waters (FDEP 2010 ).Draft 14 August 2010 

### References

Anderson , K.L.
, J.E. Whitlock , and V.J. Harwood

. 2005

. Persistence and differential survival of fecal indicator bacteria in subtropical waters and sediments. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 71:3041

– 3048.
Boehm, A.B., N.J. Ashbold, J.M. Colford, Jr., L.E. Dunbar, L.E. Fleming, and M.A. Gold et al. 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 c ryptosporidium 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 can support the growth of Escherichia coli

. Water Sci

. Technol

. 38:171

– 174.
Byappanahal li, 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.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. Wa ter quality assessment report: Ochlockonee

– St. Marks , Northwest District, Group 1 b asin

. Available: http://tlhdwf2.dep.state.fl.us/basin411/stmarks/assessment/Ochlockonee

- GP1AR

- WEBX.pdf

.

——— . 2006. Bald Point State Park Unit management plan. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/BaldPointStatePark.pdf

.

——— . 2010 date. Overview of FDEP approaches for nutrient criteria development in marine waters. Standards and Assessment Section. Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI)

w ebsite. 2010. Available: http://r esearch.myfwc.com/features/category_main.asp?id=2309 and http://research.myfwc.com/fishkill/

. Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2010. Guide to the natural communities of Florida

— 2010

e dition. Avai lable: http://www.fnai.org/naturalcommguide.cfm

.
G ulf of Mexico Alliance (G OMA ). 2009. Comments regarding pending EPA Clean Water Act, r ecreational

w ater q uality c riteria. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stakeholders Workshop

, October 6

– 7, 2009

, Chicago, IL.
Ishii, S., W.B. Ksoll, R.E. Hicks, and M.J. Sadowsky. 2006. Presence and growth of naturalized Escherichia coli in temperate soils from L ake S uperior watershe ds. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 72:612

– 621.
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.
Harwood, V. J. 2010. Microbial source tracking markers for detection of human sewage and fecal contamination in environmental waters, relationships to pathogens and human Health outcomes: A literature review. Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Harwood, V.J., M. Brownell, and A. Kokajkic. 2005 . Identification of the sources of fecal indicator bacteria in Wakulla County, Florida: Final report. Department of Biology

, University of South Florida. Report produced under contract with the Florida Department of Health.Draft 15 August 2010 Kaul, L.W., and Froelich, P.N. 1984. Modeling estuarine nutrient geochemistry in a simple system. Geochim

. Cosmochim . Ac

. 48: 1417

– 1433.
Ksoll, W.B., S. Ishii, M.J. Sadowsky, and R.E. Hicks. 2007. Presence and sources of fecal coliform bacte ria in epilithic periphyton communities of Lake Superior. Appl

. Environ

. Microb

. 73:3771

– 3778.
Lazarevich, P. 2007. Surface circulation study of waters near Ochlockonee Bay, Florida

. Current meter facility t echnical report CMF

- 2007

- 1. Florida State University Department of Oceanography.

Lemarchand, K., and P. Lebaron

. 2003. Occurrence of Salmonella spp. and Cryptosporidium spp. in a French coastal watershed: R elationship with fecal indicators. Fems Microbiol

. Lett

. 218:203

– 209.
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.
Miller, D. P. 2010. Ochlockonee Bay overview

. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Nutrient Criteria Workshop.
Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD)

. 2006. Surface Water Improvement and Management Program priority list. Program Development Series 06

– 02.
Pascale and Wagner 1981 Water resources of the Ochlockonee River area, northwest Florida . U.S. Geological Surve y Water

- Resource Investigations.
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.
Seitzinger, S.P. 1987. Nitrogen biogeochemistry in an unpolluted estuary: T he importance of benthic denitrification. Mar. Ecol.

- Pr og. Ser., 41: 177

– 186.
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.

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.
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. FEMS Microbiol

. Ecol

. 44:303

– 308.
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(8): 4714

– 4719.