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, 2010 
Draft 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 .......................................................................................................................... 14
Draft 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 NO3 +NO2 in Ochlockonee Bay 

(moles/second). ........................................................................................................................11

Table 4b. Modeled river, removal, input, and oceanic fluxes for PO4 in Ochlockonee Bay 

(moles/second). ........................................................................................................................11

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

 

Executive Summary

This report was prepared by the 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 the Talquin State Forest, Apalachicola National Forest, and the St. Marks National 

Wildlife Refuge, comprise the lower 105 square kilometers (km2

) of the river’s relatively undisturbed 

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 

bay exhibits both P and N limitation. 

Salt marsh, tidal flats, and oyster beds are the principal habitats in Ochlockonee Bay. Limited 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). The 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 symptoms 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 episodic 

Karenia brevis blooms that

naturally 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 See below for submerged 

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 no quantified 

information is available on 

Ochlockonee Bay benthic 

organisms, observations 

suggest that human stressors 

are not present. 

R. Frydenborg, FDEP, 

personal communication, 

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 historical

levels

No Few historical 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 nutrient 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 km2 of 

the river’s relatively undisturbed 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 extensive 

shoals (sand and mud flats) throughout the bay, many becoming exposed 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 

physical 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 Dam, 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 protected 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, Lake 
Draft 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 (km2) 17 to 30 km2 Miller 2010

Watershed area (km2) 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)

Average 10 days

(range 1.5 to 44 days)

Kaul and Froelich 1984

Salinity and salinity zones Few salinity fronts, 

eddies, or reversals; 

well mixed;

vertical salinity 

gradient <1 ppt

Lazarevich 2007

Kaul and Froelich 1984

Sources and Fates of Nutrients 

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 Watersheds 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, representing 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 Basins, in relation 

to Ochlockonee Bay. 
Draft 7 August 2010

 

Land uses in the South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit are primarily upland forest (51%) and wetlands 

(43%), with only 0.9% urban and built-up (Figure 3 and Tables 3a and 3b). Land uses in the Sopchoppy 

River Planning 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. 

Stormwater runoff enters Ochlockonee Bay through the Ochlockonee and Sopchoppy Rivers and their 

tributaries, and as overland sheet flow. This runoff potentially delivers suspended sediments and 

nutrients to the estuary. However, the very small percentage of urban and built-up land uses indicates 

that the contribution from nonpoint sources 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-NTN), 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) NH4 and nitrate (NO3) for Ochlockonee Bay are 0.96 and 7.11 kilograms per 

hectare per year (kg ha-1 yr-1), respectively. 

Figure 3. Map of Ochlockonee Basin land uses. 
Draft 8 August 2010

 

Table 3a. Level 1 land use in the Ochlockonee Basin, by planning units adjacent to Ochlockonee Bay. = Empty cell/no data

Summary of Acres (totals) South Ochlockonee Sopchoppy Coastal Watersheds

1000 (Urban and built-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 forests) 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 land) 31.40 - 495.87

8000 (Transportation, 

communications, and utilities)

270.84 114.01 285.05

TOTAL ACRES 208,012.64 87,349.91 161,687.19

Table 3b. Level 1 land use in the Ochlockonee Basin, by planning units adjacent to Ochlockonee Bay. = Empty cell/no data 

Summary of Acres (%) South Ochlockonee Sopchoppy Coastal Watersheds

1000 (Urban and built-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 forests) 51.27% 44.47% 46.30%

5000 (Water) 2.01% 1.40% 2.33%

6000 (Wetlands) 43.00% 51.70% 43.27%

7000 (Barren land) 0.02% - 0.31%

8000 (Transportation, 

communications, and utilities)

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. Indicator species of the saltmarsh community include black 

needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), which form dense, 

uniform stands throughout the edges of Ochlockonee Bay. Saltwort (Batis maritima), glasswort 

(Salicornia virginica), sea ox-eye (Borrichia frutescens), and marsh elder (Iva frutescens) are also present. 

In the upper reaches of the river mouth, where the tidal marshes begin to blend with freshwater 

marshes and swamps, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) is a common species (FDEP 2006). 

The tidal marsh and creek communities of Ochlockonee Bay provide essential 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, needlefish, 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, mud 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, muskrats, and raccoons. 

Tidal flats are another important estuarine habitat in Ochlockonee Bay. They are characterized as 

expansive, relatively open areas of intertidal zones that lack dense populations of sessile plant and 

animal species. This community supports a large population of infaunal organisms as well as a variety of 

transient planktonic and pelagic organisms (e.g., tube worms, sand dollars, mollusks, isopods,

amphipods, burrowing shrimp, and an assortment of crabs). These areas also provide excellent foraging

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 bay 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 

rainfall, which is correlated with bacteria influx from the largely natural watershed (see the discussion 

on bacteria below).

Figure 4. Saltmarsh and tidal flat 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. 

Tables 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 (NO3+ NO2) and orthophosphate (PO4) (dissolved reactive phosphate [DRP] + 

particulate reactive phosphate [PRP]). The 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 NO3+NO2 flux. The flux out 

of the estuary is about 70% of the riverine flux. Thus internal NO3+NO2 removal exceeds internal 

NO3+NO2 input. Kaul and Froelich also observed that NO3 and PO4 were often both completely 
Draft 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 

regeneration 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 NO3 +NO2 in Ochlockonee Bay 

(moles/second). 

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 4b. Modeled river, removal, input, and oceanic fluxes for PO4 in Ochlockonee Bay 

(moles/second).

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 0.0047
Draft 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 decade. 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 regarding 

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 heavy 

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 

indicator organisms and the risk of human pathogen exposure. FDEP recognizes that fecal coliform and 

Enterococci 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 indicates the presence of anthropogenic nutrients.

For the bacterial indicator concept to work optimally, many assumptions must hold true (Harwood 

2010). One of the most important assumptions is that 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 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, 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 human 
Draft 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 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 does 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 (Harwood 2010).

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 currently 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 the 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 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 can 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.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. Water quality assessment report: Ochlockonee–

St. Marks, Northwest District, Group 1 basin. 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) 

website. 2010. Available: http://research.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 

edition. Available: http://www.fnai.org/naturalcommguide.cfm. 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA). 2009. Comments regarding pending EPA Clean Water Act, recreational 

water quality criteria. 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 Lake Superior watersheds. 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 bacteria 

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 technical 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: Relationship 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 Survey 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: The importance of benthic 

denitrification. Mar. Ecol.-Prog. 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.