## Final



# FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Bureau of Watershed Management



# NORTHWEST DISTRICT • OCHLOCKONEE–ST. MARKS BASIN



# Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for Juniper Creek, WBID 682

Richard Wieckowicz, Ph.D., P.E.

Erin G. Wilcox Ben Ralys

September, 2008

# Acknowledgments

This analysis could not have been accomplished without significant contributions from staff in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Watershed Assessment Section. George Jackson and William Weatherspoon provided most of the recent flow and data logger collections. Tricia McClenahan provided the basin delineations and Florida land use aggregations. Editorial assistance was provided by Jan Mandrup-Poulsen and Linda Lord.

Map production assistance wa s provided by Ben Ralys.

For additional information on the watershed management approach and impaired waters in the Ochlockonee–St. Marks River Basin, contact: Jan Mandrup-Poulsen Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management

Watershed Assessment Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3555
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 jan.mandrup-poulsen@dep.state.fl.us Phone: (850) 245–8448 Fax: (850) 245–8434

Access to all data used in the development of this report can be obtained by contacting:

Erin G. Wilcox Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management

Watershed Assessment Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3555
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 erin.wilcox@dep.state.fl.us Phone: (850) 245–8442 Fax: (850) 245–8536

Florida Department of Environmental Protection ii

# Contents

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ___________________________________ 1

1.1 Purpose of Report ______________________________________________ 1

1.2 Identification of Waterbody ______________________________________ 1

1.3 Background ___________________________________________________ 4



# Chapter 2: DESCRIPTION OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEM ________ 5

2.1 Statutory Requirements and Rulemaking History ____________________ 5

2.2 Information on Veri fied Impairments ______________________________ 5



# Chapter 3. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND TARGETS _______________________ 8

3.1 Classification of the Wa terbody and Criteria App licable to the TMDL ___ 8

3.2 Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets ______________________________________________ 9

3.2.1 Reference Stream and Lake Approach _________________________ 9



# Chapter 4: ASSESSMENT OF SOURCES _______________________ 10

4.1 Types of Sources _____________________________________________ 10

4.2 Potential Sources of Nutrients in the Juniper Creek Watershed _______ 10

4.2.1 Point Sources ____________________________________________ 10

4.2.2 Land Uses and Nonpoint Sources ____________________________ 14

4.3 Summary of Nutrient Loadings into Juniper Creek from Various Sources _____________________________________________ 26



# Chapter 5: DETERMINATION OF ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY _______ 31

5.1 Determination of Loading Capacity _______________________________ 31

5.1.1 ADEM Model _____________________________________________ 31

5.1.2 Data Used in the Dete rmination of the TMDL ____________________ 32

5.1.3 TMDL Development Process ________________________________ 38

5.1.4 Critical Conditions for DO/Seasonality _________________________ 39



# Chapter 6: DETERMINATION OF THE TMDL ____________________ 41

6.1 Expression and Allocat ion of the TMDL ___________________________ 41

6.2 Load Allocation _______________________________________________ 42

iii Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# 6.3 Wasteload Allocation __________________________________________ 42

6.3.1 NPDES Wastewater Discharges _____________________________ 42

6.3.2 NPDES Stormwater Discharges ______________________________ 42

6.4 Margin of Safety ______________________________________________ 42



# Chapter 7: NEXT STEPS: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND BEYOND _____________________ 43

7.1 Basin Management Action Plan __________________________________ 43



# References _______________________________________________ 44

Appendices _______________________________________________ 48

Appendix A: Background Information on Federal and State Stormwater Programs—NPDES MS4 Data ___________________________ 48

Appendix B: Summary of Land Use Loads and Trends by Category ______ 49

Appendix C: Summary of Perm itted Point Source Loads ________________ 59

Appendix D: Summary of Measured USGS Loads ______________________ 64

Appendix E: Summary of Juniper Creek Water Quality Spatial Trend Data ________________________________________________ 65

Appendix F: Summary of Juniper Creek Water Quality Time Trend Data ___ 68

Appendix G: Summary of Juni per Creek Biology Data __________________ 73

Appendix H: USGS, Depart ment Flow Data ___________________________ 75

Appendix I: Ground Water Data in th e Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin _____ 77

Appendix J: Juniper Creek Modeli ng Study Using the ADEM Model ______ 85

Appendix K: Photos of Various Waterbodies in the Juniper Creek Watershed ___________________________________________ 94

Appendix L: Public Comments _____________________________________ 98



# List of Tables

Table 2.1. Verified Impaired Segments in the Ochlockonee–St.
Marks Basin _______________________________________________ 6

Table 2.2. Summary of DO Exceedances for Juniper Creek, WBID
682 ______________________________________________________ 7

Table 3.1. EPA Set of Reference Streams in North Florida ___________________ 9

Table 3.2. EPA Stream Nutrient Targets _________________________________ 9

Table 4.1. Point Sources in the Juniper Creek Watershed, WBID
682 _____________________________________________________ 11

iv Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Table 4.2a. Classification of Land Use Categories in the Juniper Creek Watershed __________________________________________ 15

Table 4.2b. Classification of Land Use Categories in Gadsden County __________________________________________________ 17

Table 4.3. WMM Model Annual L oads, 1984–2006 ________________________ 22

Table 4.4a. Summary of BOD 5 

# Loads to the Juniper Creek
Watershed, 1997 __________________________________________ 27

Table 4.4b. Summary of TKN Loads to the Juniper Creek
Watershed, 1997 __________________________________________ 28

Table 4.4c. Summary of TN Loads to t he Juniper Creek Watershed,
1997 ____________________________________________________ 29

Table 4.4d. Summary of TP Loads to the Juniper Creek Watershed,
1997 ____________________________________________________ 30

Table 5.1. Organizations That Are Sampling in the Juniper Creek
Watershed _______________________________________________ 34

Table 5.2. Statistical Annual Summary for Juniper Creek, WBID 682 __________ 34

Table 5.3. Statistical Summary of Observed Data from Juniper Creek, WBID 682, 1979–2007 ________________________________ 37

Table 5.4. Summary of the TN Reduction Needed for Juniper Creek, WBID 682, Using EPA Reference Streams ________________ 38

Table 5.5. Summary of BOD 5 

# and Nutrient Reductions for Juniper Creek, WBID 682 __________________________________________ 39

Table 6.1. TMDL Components for Juniper Creek, WBID 682 _________________ 42



# List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Juniper Creek Watershed in Florida, and Major Geopolitical Features ________________________________________ 2 Figure 1.2. WBIDs in the Juniper Creek Watershed, Including
WBIDs 682, 691, 714, 726, 732, and 737 ________________________ 3 Figure 3.1. Juniper Creek at SR 65A _____________________________________ 8 Figure 4.1. Wastewater Facilities in the Juniper Creek Watershed _____________ 12 Figure 4.2. Quincy Farms Wastewater System and Monitoring Well Locations in the Juniper Creek Watershed ______________________ 13 Figure 4.3a. Principal Land Uses in Gadsden County ________________________ 18 Figure 4.3b. Principal Land Uses in the Juniper Creek Watershed,
WBIDs 682, 691, 714, 737, 732 and 726 ________________________ 19 Figure 4.4. Population Density in Gadsden C ounty, Florida, in 2000 ___________ 20 Figure 5.1. Monitoring Sites in the Juniper Creek Watershed _________________ 33 Figure 5.2a. Chart of DO Observations fo r Juniper Creek, WBID 682 ____________ 34 Figure 5.2b. Chart of BOD 5 

# Observations for Juniper Creek, WBID
682 _____________________________________________________ 35 Figure 5.2c. Chart of TKN Observations for Juniper Creek, WBID 682 ___________ 35 Figure 5.2d. Chart of TN Observations for Juniper Creek, WBID 682 ____________ 36

v Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## vi Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# Web sites

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Watershed Management

TMDL Program

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lega l/Rules/shared/62-303/62-303.pdf

STORET Program

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.htm

2006 305(b) Report

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/ tmdl/docs/2006_Integrated_Report.pdf

Criteria for Surface Wate r Quality Classifications

http://www.dep.state.fl.u s/water/wqssp/classes.htm

Basin Status Report

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm

Water Quality Assessment Report

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm



# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4: Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/

National STORET Program

http://www.epa.gov/storet/

# Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Report

This report presents the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for dissolved oxygen (DO) for Juniper Creek, located in the Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin. The waterbody was verified as impaired for DO and fecal coliform, and was included on the Verified List of impaired waters adopted by Secretarial Order on June 3, 2008.

The TMDL establishes the allowable loadings to J uniper Creek that would restore the waterbody so that it meets its applicable water quality impairment threshold for DO. A separate TMDL document addresses the fecal coliform impairment (Wieckowicz, 2008).



# 1.2 Identification of Waterbody

The Juniper Creek Watershed, located in Gadsden County, Florida, has an 8.84-square-mile (mi 2 

## ) drainage area ( Figure 1.1 ). There are no major centers of population in the watershed. However, the small community of Sawdust lies at the creek’s headwaters. The city of Quincy is

located several miles to the northeast.

Juniper Creek is about 4.6 miles long and reaches from State Road (SR) 65 going west to SR 65A and Telogia Creek. It is a second-order stream fed by the Floridan aquifer and industrial

runoff. Additional information about the creek’s hydrology and geology are available in the Basin Assessment Report for the Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin (Florida Department of Environmental Protection [Department], 2003). The Telogia Creek wasteload allocation report (Wieckowicz, 1981) provides additional historical information about Telogia Creek and Juniper

Creek.

For assessment purposes, the Department has divided the Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin into water assessment polygons with a unique w ater b ody id entification (WBID) number for each watershed or stream reach. The basin is divided into numerous segments ( Figure 1.2 ), and this TMDL report primarily addresses the Juniper Creek Watershed, including WBIDs 682, 691, 714,
726, 732, and 737.

1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 1.1. Juniper Creek Watershed in Florida, and Major Geopolitical

Features

2 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 1.2. WBIDs in the Juniper Creek Watershed, Including WBIDs 682,

691, 714, 726, 732, and 737

3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# 1.3 Background

This report was developed as part of the Department’s watershed management approach for restoring and protecting state waters and addressing TMDL Program requirements. The watershed approach, which is implemented using a cyclical management process that rotates through the state’s 52 river basins over a 5-year cycle, provides a framework for implementing the TMDL Program–related requirements of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida).

A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet water quality standards, including its applicable water quality criteria and its designated uses. TMDLs are developed for waterbodies that are verified as not meeting their water quality standards. They provide important water quality restoration goals that will guide

restoration activities.

This TMDL report will be followed by the development and implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan, or BMAP, to reduce the amount of nutrients and five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 

## ) that contributed to the verified DO impairments in Juniper Creek. These activities will depend heavily on the active participation of the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD), local governments, businesses, and other stakeholders. The Department will work with these organizations and individuals to undertake or continue reductions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established TMDLs for impaired

waterbodies.

4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Chapter 2: DESCRIPTION OF WATER QUALITY

PROBLEM

2.1 Statutory Requirement s and Rulemaking History

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a list of surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards (impaired waters) and establish a TMDL for each pollutant causing the impairment of listed waters on a schedule. The Department has developed such lists, commonly referred to as 303(d) lists, since 1992. The list of impaired waters in each basin, referred to as the Verified List, is also required by the FWRA (Subsection 403.067[4], Florida Statutes [F.S.]), and the state’s 303(d) list is amended annually to include basin updates.

Florida’s 1998 303(d) list included 24 waterbodies in the Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin. However, the FWRA (Section 403.067, F.S.) stated that all previous Florida 303(d) lists were for planning purposes only and directed the Department to develop, and adopt by rule, a new science-based methodology to identify impaired waters. After a long rulemaking process, the Environmental Regulation Commission adopted the new methodology as Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) (Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, or IWR), in April

2001. The IWR was modified in 2007.



# 2.2 Information on Ve rified Impairments

The Department used the IWR to assess water quality impairments in the Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin and has verified the impairments listed in Table 2.1

. Table 2.2 summarizes the number of DO exceedances in Juniper Creek, WBID 682. Data were collected in 1979, 1992,
1993, 2006, and 2007.

5 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 2.1. Verified Impaired Segments in the Ochlockonee–St. Marks

Basin

WBID Waterbody Segment Parameters Assessed using

the IWR Priority for

TMDL Development Projected Year

of TMDL Development

427 Swamp Creek Fecal Coliform Low 2008

563 Unnamed Drain Fecal Coliform, Turbidity Low 2018

582 Lake Jackson Outlet Unionized Ammonia Low 2014

628 Black Creek Fecal Coliform Low 2018

647 Alford Arm DO Medium 2008

682 Juniper Creek DO, Fecal Coliform Medium 2008

684 Mule Creek Fecal Coliform Low 2018

689 Lake Overstreet Drain Fecal Coliform Low 2018

716 Caney Branch Fecal Coliform Low 2018

756 Lake Lafayette Drain DO Medium 2008

757 Bear Creek Fecal Coliform Low 2018

807 Munson Slough (below Lake Munson) DO, Unionized

Ammonia Medium 2013

808 Copeland Sink Drain DO Low 2014

809 Megginnis Arm Run Fecal Coliform Low 2018

820 Godby Ditch Fecal Coliform Low 2018

879 Hammock Creek DO Low 2014

896 Polk Creek Fecal Coliform Low 2018

913 Big Creek Fecal Coliform Low 2018

919 Unnamed Slough Fecal Coliform Low 2018

921 Harvey Creek Fecal Coliform Low 2018

965 Sweetwater Branch Fecal Coliform Low 2018

971 Chicken Branch Fecal Coliform Low 2018

977 Moore Branch Fecal Coliform Low 2018

1006 Wakulla River Biology Medium 2008

1024 Black Creek Fecal Coliform Low 2008

1028 McBride Slough Fecal Coliform Low 2018

1049 Big Branch Fecal Coliform Low 2018

1054 Black Creek DO Low 2014

1124 Big Boggy Branch Fecal Coliform Low 2018

1300 Telogia Creek Fecal Coliform, Iron Medium 2008

1303 Quincy Creek Fecal Coliform, Iron Low 2018

8026 Coastapalach Gulf West Shellfish Medium 2008

8999 Gulf Coast Mercury (in Fish Tissue) Low 2011

1248B Ochlockonee Bay Fecal Coliform Low 2018



## 6 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

### Parameters Priority for Projected Year

WBID Waterbody Segment Assessed using

the IWR TMDL of TMDL Development Development

1248C Ochlockonee Bay Fecal Coliform Low 2018

1297B Ochlockonee River Iron Medium 2013

1297C Lake Talquin DO, TSI Medium 2013

1297D Lake Talquin TSI Medium 2013

1297E Ochlockonee River Iron Medium 2013

1297F Ochlockonee River Iron Medium 2013

540A Tallavanna Lake TSI Medium 2008

756A Upper Lake Lafayette Fecal Coliform, DO Low 2018

756B Lake Piney Z DO, TSI Medium 2008

756C Lower Lake Lafayette DO, TSI Medium 2008

791N Lake Miccosukee TSI Low 2014

8025B Mashes Island Bacteria High 2008

8026B Shell Point Bacteria Low 2018

807C Lake Munson DO, TSI, Turbidity Medium 2008

807D Munson Slough (above Lake Munson) DO, Fecal Coliform, Turbidity Low 2008

971B Lake Weeks DO Medium 2008

Note: The parameters listed in Table 2.1 provide a complete picture of the impairment in the Ochlockonee– St. Marks Basin, but this TMDL only addresse s DO impairment in the Juniper Creek Watershed.



### TSI – Trophic State Index



## Table 2.2. Summary of DO Exceedances for Juniper Creek Watershed,

WBID 682

WBID N DO N DO <5 Minimum Maximum Mean

682 26 10 2.4 mg/L 10 mg/L 6.15 mg/L

Mg/L – Milligrams per liter



## 7 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Chapter 3. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICABLE WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS AND TARGETS

3.1 Classification of the Waterbody and Criteria Ap plicable to the TMDL

Florida’s surface waters are protected for five designated use classifications, as follows:

Class I Potable water supplies Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, wellbalanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV Agricultural water supplies Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

Juniper Creek and its tributaries are Class III fresh waterbodies (with a designated use of recreation, propagation and the maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife). The water quality criterion applicable to the impairment addressed by this TMDL is the Class III criterion for DO. The pollutants contributing to this impairment is TN. Figure 3.1 shows Juniper Creek at SR 65A.

Figure 3.1. Juniper Creek at SR 65A

8 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# 3.2 Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets

The DO criterion (Subsection 62-302.530[30], F.A.C.) requires that DO shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained.



# 3.2.1 Reference Stream and Lake Approach

In determining nutrient and DO TMDLs for several waterbodies in the Leon County area, the EPA (2006) used seven reference streams from this area to set a nutrient targets of 0.72 mg/L for total nitrogen (TN) ( Tables 3.1 and 3.2 ), based on the 75 th 

## percentile value of the combined

data.

Table 3.1. EPA Set of Reference Streams in North Florida

Storet ID Station Nickname Station Description Waterbody Name

22030061 LLOYDDREF Lloyd Creek S.R. 158a Jefferson Co. Lloyd Creek

31010140 NMOS REF North Mosquito Ck North Mosquito Creek

22020062 OKLREF Oklawaha Ck Oklawaha Creek

31010050 CRKREF Crooked Creek @ Hwy. 20 Gadsden Co. Crooked Creek

31010142 FLTREF Flat Creek @ Hwy.12 Gadsden Co. Flat Creek

22020049 MULEREF Mule Creek @ SR 12 Liberty Co. Mule Creek

31010051 SETREF Sweetwater Creek @ Hwy. 270 Liberty Co. Sweetwater Creek



## Table 3.2. EPA Stream Nutrient Targets

Parameter No of

Stations No. of Data

Points Units 75 th



### Percentile of

All Reference

Data TMDL Target

TN 7 47 mg/L 0.72 0.72



## 9 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Chapter 4: ASSESSMENT OF SOURCES

4.1 Types of Sources

An important part of the TMDL analysis is the identification of pollutant source categories, source subcategories, or individual sources of nutrients in the watershed and the amount of pollutant loading contributed by each of these sources. Sources are broadly classified as either “point sources” or “nonpoint sources.” Historically, the term “point sources” has meant discharges to surface waters that typically have a continuous flow via a discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe. Domestic and industrial wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) are examples of traditional point sources. In contrast, the term “nonpoint sources” was used to describe intermittent, rainfall-driven, diffuse sources of pollution associated with everyday human activities, incl uding runoff from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, and mining; discharges from failing septic systems; and atmospheric deposition.

However, the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act redefined certain nonpoint sources of pollution as point sources subject to regulat ion under the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. These nonpoint sources included certain urban stormwater discharges, including those from local government master drainage systems, construction sites over five acres, and a wide variety of industries (see Appendix A for background information on the federal and state stormwater programs).

To be consistent with Clean Water Act definitions, the term “point source” will be used to describe traditional point sources (such as domestic and industrial wastewater discharges) and stormwater systems requiring an NPDES stormwater permit when allocating pollutant load reductions required by a TMDL (see Section 6.1 ). However, the methodologies used to estimate nonpoint source loads do not distinguish between NPDES stormwater discharges and non-NPDES stormwater discharges, and as such, this source assessment section does not make any distinction between the two types of stormwater.



# 4.2 Potential Sources of Nutrient s in the Juniper Creek Watershed

4.2.1 Point Sources

In Gadsden County, there is currently one permitted wastewater treatment facility located in the Juniper Creek Watershed ( Figure 4.1 ). Quincy Farms (FLA010088, expiring October 25, 2009;

see Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2 ) grows and processes mushrooms and sells compost to thepublic. The plant started operation around March 12, 1982. Process water is obtained from onsite wells. The water not consumed in the mushroom growing process, along with contact stormwater, is disposed of through an on-site se wage treatment and disposal system (OSTDS). Treated effluent is disposed of through spray i rrigation to a man-made wetland. The system was designed for no discharge to surface waters.

The 0.179-million-gallons-per-day (mgd) Long Term Average industrial wastewater treatment system consists of a 0.5-million-gallon recycle basin, 2 lagoons (stabilization ponds) of 1.5 and 3.6 million gallons, and a 30-acre manmade wetland with a 27-acre spray irrigation area. The recycle basin collects and reuses nutrient-rich runoff from the composting process. The lagoons are lined with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) to prevent discharge to ground water. The

10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## lagoons reduce carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 

## ) through aerobic-anaerobic processes and total suspended solids (TSS) through settling.

The facility is permitted through Florida’s Industrial Wastewater program. In the unlikely event of a discharge, the only permit limit is for pH (6.5 to 8.5 standard units [su]). The following parameters are report only: Flow (Q), BOD 5 

## , TSS, NO 23 

## -N, and TKN. Additional parameters monitored for the wells are conductivity and water levels in the wells. Figure 4.2 contains a layout of the wastewater system and the monitoring wells in relation to Juniper Creek on the

north.

Appendix C shows effluent data plotted vs. time for the following parameters: Q, TEMP, pH,

BOD 5 

## , TKN, and TSS. Flow (Q) was reduced from about 0.4 mgd in early 2000 to a range of 0.05 to 0.3 mgd through 2007. Temperature was fairly consistent through this period (about 18 to 25 oC). pH rose slightly from about 7.5 to 8.0 su. BOD 5 

## rose, from about 50 to 100 mg/L to values exceeding 500 to 1,000 mg/L, starting in May 2005. TKN varied from about 20 to 180 mg/L, with no apparent trend. The graphs show a large decrease in TKN starting in about 2006. However, the paper copies of permit files do not reflect this decrease but note that TKN exceeded 400 mg/L in December 2006. TSS in creased by an order of magnitude from about 50 to 500 mg/L and parallels BOD 5



## . Tables 4.4a through 4.4d summarize annual point source loads to Juniper Creek for 1997. Appendix C contains annual summaries for 2000-–2006.

Appendix C summarizes monitoring well data. Of the 8 monitoring wells examined, 5 wells had nitrate concentrations greater than 10 mg/L. Monitoring well MWC-3 had 11 of 31 samples exceeding 10 mg/L.

Table 4.1. Potential Sources in the Juniper Creek Watershed-WBID 682

NPDES

Permit

Number Facility Name City Mailling

Address Type of Facility Facility

Status Design Capacity

(mgd) Watershed WBID

FLA010088 Quincy Farms Quincy Industrial Active 0.179 Juniper

Creek 682



## Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permittees

Within the Juniper Creek Watershed there are no Phase I or Phase II NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits.

11 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 4.1. Wastewater Facilities in the Juniper Creek Watershed

12 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 4.2. Quincy Farms Wastewater System and Monitoring Well

Locations in the Juniper Creek Watershed

13 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# 4.2.2 Land Uses and Nonpoint Sources

Nutrient and BOD 5 

## loadings to the Juniper Creek Watershed are generated from nonpoint sources in the watershed. Potential nonpoint sources of nutrients are characterized by their pathway or delivery to the river, tributary runoff, ground water, sediment nutrient release, and atmospheric deposition. They can also be descri bed by the type of land use where the sources are generated.

Land Uses

The spatial distribution and acreage of different land use categories in Florida were identified using the 1995 land use coverage (scale 1:40,000) contained in the Department’s geographic information system (GIS) library. Land use categories in the watershed (Gadsden County) were aggregated using the simplified Level 1/Level 3 codes tabulated in Tables 4.2a and 4.2b

. Figures 4.3a and 4.3b show the acreage of the principal land uses in the watershed. As shown

in Table 4.2a , land use is heavily dominated by upland forests, which comprise 57.68 percent of the entire watershed. Other measurable land uses include agriculture (28.17 percent), urban and built-up (5.39 percent), and wetlands (5.67 percent). There are several large nurseries located in and around the watershed. For example, Hackney Nursery, located just to the north of Juniper Creek, operates on both sides of Highway 65A (Juniper Creek Rd.).

14 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 4.2a. Classification of Land Use Categories in the Juniper Creek

Watershed

Level 1

Code Land Use Acreage Mi 2 

### % of WBID

Watershed

WBID 682, Juniper Creek

1000 Urban and Built-up 128.26 0.20 5.17

2000 Agriculture 913.28 1.43 36.84

3000 Rangeland 78.30 0.12 3.16

4000 Upland Forests 1,104.91 1.73 44.57

5000 Water 8.46 0.01 0.34

6000 Wetlands 245.87 0.38 9.92

7000 Barren Lands 0.00 0.00 0.00

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 2,479.07 3.87 100.00

Level 1

Code Land Use Acreage Mi 2 

### % of WBID

Watershed

WBID 691, Long Branch

1000 Urban and Built-up 57.17 0.09 7.97

2000 Agriculture 327.78 0.51 45.71

3000 Rangeland 21.15 0.03 2.95

4000 Upland Forests 273.54 0.43 38.15

5000 Water 14.33 0.02 2.00

6000 Wetlands 23.05 0.04 3.22

7000 Barren Lands 0.00 0.00 0.00

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 717.03 1.12 100.00

Level 1

Code Land Use Acreage Mi 2 

### % of WBID

Watershed

WBID 714, Unnamed Run

1000 Urban and Built-up 40.66 0.06 21.92

2000 Agriculture 47.88 0.07 25.81

3000 Rangeland 0.00 0.00 0.00

4000 Upland Forests 88.43 0.14 47.67

5000 Water 1.13 0.00 0.61

6000 Wetlands 7.40 0.01 3.99

7000 Barren Land 0.00 0.00 0.00

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 185.49 0.29 100.00



## 15 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

### Level 1

Code Land Use Acreage Mi 2 

### % of WBID

Watershed

WBID 737, Unnamed Run

1000 Urban and Built-up 14.56 0.02 1.26

2000 Agriculture 88.90 0.14 7.72

3000 Rangeland 11.01 0.02 0.96

4000 Upland Forests 993.55 1.55 86.32

5000 Water 1.28 0.00 0.11

6000 Wetlands 38.96 0.06 3.39

7000 Barren Land 0.00 0.00 0.00

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 2.70 0.00 0.23

Total 1,150.95 1.80 100.00

Level 1

Code Land Use Acreage Mi 2 

### % of WBID

Watershed

WBID 732, Unnamed Run

1000 Urban and Built-up 8.75 0.01 1.86

2000 Agriculture 36.22 0.06 7.69

3000 Rangeland 18.27 0.03 3.88

4000 Upland Forests 400.22 0.63 84.92

5000 Water 1.48 0.00 0.32

6000 Wetlands 6.32 0.01 1.34

7000 Barren Land 0.00 0.00 0.00

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 471.27 0.74 100.00

Level 1

Code Land Use Acreage Mi 2 

### % of WBID

Watershed

WBID 726, Unnamed Run

1000 Urban and Built-up 55.33 0.09 8.41

2000 Agriculture 177.34 0.28 26.96

3000 Rangeland 12.29 0.02 1.87

4000 Upland Forests 398.30 0.62 60.56

5000 Water 3.74 0.01 0.57

6000 Wetlands 10.75 0.02 1.63

7000 Barren Land 0.00 0.00 0.00

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 657.75 1.03 100.00



## 16 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

### Level 1

Code Land Use Acreage Mi 2 

### % of WBID

Watershed

Juniper Creek Watershed

1000 Urban and Built-up 304.73 0.48 5.39

2000 Agriculture 1,591.40 2.49 28.17

3000 Rangeland 141.02 0.22 2.49

4000 Upland Forests 3,258.95 5.09 57.68

5000 Water 30.42 0.05 0.54

6000 Wetlands 332.34 0.50 5.67

7000 Barren Land 0.00 0.00 0.00

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 2.70 0.00 0.05

Total 5,661.56 8.83 100.00



## Table 4.2b. Classification of Land Use Categories in Gadsden County

Level 1

Code Land Use Acreage Mi 2 

### % of County

Gadsden County

1000 Urban and Built-up 21, 691.60 33.89 6.42

2000 Agriculture 43,886.81 68.57 12.98

3000 Rangeland 8,764.68 13.69 2.59

4000 Upland Forests 233,163.80 364.32 68.98

5000 Water 9,152.93 14.30 2.71

6000 Wetlands 18,175.10 28.40 5.38

7000 Barren Land 52.56 0.08 0.02

8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 3,115. 13 4.87 0.92

Total 338,002.61 528.13 100.00



## 17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 4.3a. Principal Land Uses in Gadsden County

18 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 4.3b. Principal Land Uses in the Juniper Creek Watershed, WBIDs

682, 691, 714, 737, 732 and 726

19 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Population

According to the U.S Census Bureau (2008), the population density in Gadsden County in the year 2000 was at or less than 87.4 people/mi 2 

## (10 persons/mi 2 

## is the minimum used by the Census Bureau) ( Figure 4.4 ). The Bureau reports that for Gadsden County, which includes WBIDs 682, 691, 714, 737, 732, and 726, the total population for 2000 was 45,087, with 15,867 occupied housing units and 17,703 total housing units. For all of Gadsden County, the Census Bureau reported a housing density of 34.3 housing units/mi 2 

## . This places Gadsden County among the lowest in housing densities in Florida U.S. Census Bureau Website, 2008). This ranking is also supported by land use coverage, which shows that only 5.39 percent of land use in the Juniper Creek watershed is delineated as urban and built-up.

Figure 4.4. Population Density in Gadsden County, Florida

20 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## N ONPOINT 

## S OURCE 

## R UNOFF 

## L OADING 

## M ODELS



## Surface Water Runoff. A spreadsheet model developed by the Department’s Watershed Assessment Section, using methods comparable to those of the Watershed Management Model (WMM) developed by Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM ), is typically used to estimate the watershed surface water runoff loads associated with rainfall. The model is designed to estimate annual or seasonal pollutant loadings from a given watershed (CDM, 1998).

The fundamental assumption of the model is that the amount of stormwater runoff from any given land use is in direct proportion to annual rainfall. The quantity of runoff is controlled by the fraction of the land use category that is characterized as impervious and the runoff coefficients of both pervious and impervious areas. The governing equation is as follows:

(1) R L 

## = [C p 

## + (C I 

## – C p 

## ) IMP L 

## ] * I

Where:

R L 

## = total average annual surface runoff from land use L (inches/year),

IMP L 

## = fractional imperviousness of land use L, I = long-term average annual precipitation (inches/year),

C P 

## = pervious area runoff coefficient, and

C I 

## = impervious area runoff coefficient.

The model estimates pollutant loadings based on nonpoint pollution loading factors (expressed as pounds/acre/year) that vary by land use and the percent imperviousness associated with each land use. The pollution loading factor, M L


## , is computed for each land use L by the following equation:

(2) M L 

## = EMC L 

## * R L 

## * K

Where:

M L 

## = loading factor for land use L (pounds/acre/year),

EMC L 

## = event mean concentration of runoff from land use L (mg/L); EMC varies by land use and pollutant,

R L 

## = total average annual surface runoff from land use L computed from Equation (1) (inches/year), and
K = 0.2266, a unit conversion constant.

The data required for applying the spreadsheet model include the following:

• Area of all the land use categories,

• Percent impervious area of each land use category,

• EMC for each pollutant type and land use category,

21 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## • Percent EMC of each pollutant type that is in suspended form, and

• Annual precipitation.

The WMM model was run using annual precipitation data from the Quincy, Florida gage for 1984 through 2006. Table 4.3 and Appendix B summarize the results.

Table 4.3. WMM Model Annual Loads, 1984–2006

Year TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr) BOD (lbs/yr) TSS (lbs/yr)

1984 2.6265E+04 2.4297E+0 3 3.8011E+04 3.7659E+05

1985 3.1899E+04 2.9509E+0 3 4.6165E+04 4.5737E+05

1986 3.4734E+04 3.2131E+0 3 5.0267E+04 4.9801E+05

1987 2.6700E+04 2.4699E+0 3 3.8641E+04 3.8283E+05

1988 2.7896E+04 2.5806E+0 3 4.0372E+04 3.9998E+05

1989 3.6031E+04 3.3331E+0 3 5.2144E+04 5.1661E+05

1990 2.1903E+04 2.0262E+0 3 3.1698E+04 3.1405E+05

1991 4.7512E+04 4.3952E+0 3 6.8761E+04 6.8124E+05

1992 3.3511E+04 3.2694E+0 3 5.0216E+04 4.9751E+05

1993 3.3387E+04 3.0885E+0 3 4.8318E+04 4.7870E+05

1994 4.9473E+04 4.5765E+0 3 7.1597E+04 7.0934E+05

1995 3.3222E+04 3.0733E+0 3 4.8080E+04 4.7634E+05

1996 2.9455E+04 2.7247E+0 3 4.2627E+04 4.2232E+05

1997 3.6750E+04 3.3996E+0 3 5.3185E+04 5.2693E+05

1998 3.1568E+04 2.9202E+0 3 4.5685E+04 4.5262E+05

1999 2.4173E+04 2.2362E+0 3 3.4984E+04 3.4660E+05

2000 2.3887E+04 2.2097E+0 3 3.4569E+04 3.4249E+05

2001 3.1074E+04 2.8745E+0 3 4.4971E+04 4.4554E+05

2002 3.2122E+04 2.9715E+0 3 4.6488E+04 4.6057E+05

2003 3.2155E+04 2.9746E+0 3 4.6535E+04 4.6104E+05

2004 3.5053E+04 3.2426E+0 3 5.0729E+04 5.0260E+05

2005 3.5742E+04 3.3063E+0 3 5.1726E+04 5.1247E+05

2006 2.6192E+04 2.4230E+0 3 3.7906E+04 3.7555E+05

Lbs/yr – Pounds per year



## Baseflow. The baseflow component of stream flow can be estimated using the Baseflow program (Arnold et al., 1995, 1999). One method of estimating baseflow loading is to assign ground water concentrations from well data in the area to the flow generated above. The total annual load (lbs/day or lbs/yr) to a stream is then computed as:

L = L (WMM Storm load) + L (Baseflow load)

22 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## As no continuous flow gage data were available for Juniper Creek, this load was not computed.

Septic Tanks

OSTDS’s, including septic tanks, are commonly used where providing central sewer is not costeffective or practical. When properly sited, designed, constructed, maintained, and operated, OSTDS’s are a safe means of disposing of domestic waste. The effluent from a well-functioning OSTDS is comparable to secondarily treated wast ewater from a sewage treatment plant. When not functioning properly, OSTDS’s can be a source of coliforms, pathogens, and other pollutants to both ground water and surface water.

As of 2007, Gadsden County had roughly 16,381 septic systems (Florida Department of Health [FDOH] Website, 2008). Data for septic tanks are based on 1970 to 2007 Census results, with year-by-year additions based on new septic tank construction. The data do not reflect septic tanks that have been removed going back to 1970. From fiscal years 1991 to 2007, 1,761 permits for repairs were issued (FDOH Website, 2008). Based on the number of permitted septic tanks and housing units located in the county, approximately 40.7 percent of the housing units are connected to a wastewater treatment facility, about 56.9 percent use septic tank systems, and 2.4 percent use other systems.

To estimate the TN and TP loading per septic system, the EPA methodology was used. The mean household use in Tampa, Florida, is 65.8 gallons/per capita/day (gal/cap/day) (EPA, 2002). The Department used a value of:

Qseptic = 70 gal/cap/day* 2.6 persons /household*0.1337 (cuft/gal)*(1 day/(24*3600 sec).

Thus, Qseptic = 2.8164E-04 cubic feet per second [cfs]/tank. To represent the water quality exiting the septic tank, the mean values of 50.5 mg/L for TN and 9.0 mg/L for TP were used (EPA, 2002). Appendix B shows the estimates from 1970 through 2006 for Gadsden County.

Tables 4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for 1997.

Boats

There are no boats contributing to nutrient loading in the watershed.

Agriculture

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Ruddy et al., 2006) has estimated nutrient inputs to the land surface at the county level from livestock, fertilizer use, and atmospheric deposition. Appendix D shows the estimates from 1987 through 2001 for Gadsden County. Tables 4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for 1997.

Livestock

The USGS (Goolsby et al., 1999) developed methods to estimate the nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) content of manure generated by various types of livestock. The method accounts for the different life cycles of the animals on an annual basis and whether the animals were in confined or unconfined conditions. Losses of nitrogen due to storage, handling, and

volatilization have also been determined. Appendix D shows the estimates from 1987 through 2001 for Gadsden County. Tables 4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for 1997.

23 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Fertilizer

Several methods have been used to allocate state fertilizer data to counties. State fertilizer sales data, in tons, were compiled through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Census ofAgriculture from 1945 through 1985. The USGS (Alexander et al., 1990) used county fertilizedacreage data from the Census to allocate the state-level sales to fertilizer use within individual counties. The USGS also compiled additional data from 1985 through 2001 (Battaglin et al., 1995). It was assumed that fertilizer sold within the county was used in the same year. Fertilizer in tons of product was converted to tons of nitrogen and phosphorus based on the chemical composition data for each product. In addition, fertilizer was divided into farm (agricultural) and nonfarm (urban) land use. Appendix D shows the estimates from 1987 through 2001 for Gadsden County. Tables 4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for 1997.

Atmospheric Deposition

The annual summaries of wet deposition in kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) were obtained by the USGS from the National Atmospheric Depositio n Program (NADP) Website (NADP, 2002). Nationwide wet deposition sites were utilized and developed into 1 kilometer (km) resolution grid cells. Annual wet deposition for each county by year was then developed from the grid cells within each county. Appendix B contains tables of TN (kilograms/year). No TP data were developed, because concentrations were not considered significant and samples were subject

to contamination.

The wet and dry atmospheric deposition rates (kilograms/hectare/year) for Gadsden County were calculated separately from the USGS, as noted in Tables 4.4a through 4.4d . NADP data from 1984 through 2006 for the Quincy, Florida site (FL14) were used and applied to the Gadsden County areas with values converted to lbs/yr. Appendix B includes these data. Dry deposition was assumed equal to wet deposition (wet:dry ratio = 1.00) based on studies in the Tampa Bay area (Poor et al., 2001; Pribble et al., 1999). However, there are some monitoring sites (Pollman et al., 2003) where the wet:dry ratio is much lower (Sumatra, Florida wet:dry ratio = 1:0.19). Wet deposition data at the Sumatra, Florida site (SUM156; Clean Air Status and Trends Network [CASTNET] Website, 2007) were comparable to the Quincy site (FL14).

Additional studies from the Department’s ai r pollution files (Rogers, 2006) have compiled information on nitrogen oxide emissions (tons/yr) by county for various source categories, including stationary point, stationary area, on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, and total sources.

TP deposition data from early studies in Florida (Brezonik et al., 1983) show wet+dry TP deposition of 59 milligrams/square meter/year. However, this analysis showed that dry deposition accounted for 80 percent of the total. Concentrations in Florida studies from 1955 to 1975 ranged from 26 to 50 micrograms per liter ( μ g/L). The USGS (Irwin et al., 1980) monitored TP in bulk precipitation (1977–78) at a site in Leon County near the Ochlockonee River and U.S. Highway 27. Results for 5 samples gave a mean TP of 0.03 mg/L (30 μ g/L) and a range of 0.01 to 0.05 mg/L.

Domesticated Animals

Domesticated animals can also provide a source of nutrients to the Juniper Creek Watershed. The number of households (HH) can be used to estimate the numbers of dogs, cats, and horses

24 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## in each county. Using nationwide figures from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Website (2004; available: www.avma.org ), the numbers are as follows:

NDOGS = 0.58* HH

NCATS = 0.66* HH

NHORSES = 0.05*HH

The fecal loading rates from a variety of farm and domestic animals are well documented in the literature (EPA, 2001). However, the nutrient loading rates for dogs and cats were much more difficult to find. Bruce Warden of California’s Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board estimated that an average 45-pound dog produces 13 lbs/yr of TN and 2 lbs/yr of TP (Warden, 2007). Using household Census figures from 1990 and 2000, linear interpolation was used to estimate the number of dogs (NDOGS) for each year from 1970 through 2006 and the corresponding load.

Domestic cats are not considered equivalent to dogs, because many use a litter box. However, the number of feral or wild cats (NFERALCATS) can be quite large. Veterinary research in Canada (Funaba, 2005) tested a variety of cat foods and measured the input and output of TN, TP, and other nutrients based on an average cat with a body weight of 4 kilograms.

The same loading rates are used for domestic horses and ponies, and for agricultural horses (Ruddy et al., 2006). Appendix B shows the estimates from 1970 to 2005 for Gadsden County.

Tables 4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for 1997.

Wildlife

Another possible source of nutrients to Juniper Creek could be wild animals. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) (Knight, 2004) notes that there are major wildlife areas along much of the Pine Barren Creek watershed in Escambia County. The white-tailed deer population has been estimated at various densities (Knight, 2004); however, this TMDL analysis used a deer density of 1/50 acre or 12.8/mi 2 

## . Assuming similar wildlife densities in this area, Appendix B shows the estimated deer population for the Ochlockonee– St. Marks Basin. Using the average TN and TP loading per animal (Ontario, 2007), the annual

TN and TP loads to the watershed can be calculated.

Migratory waterfowl and other wild bird populations have been estimated annually from 1998 to 2006 (Birdsource Website, 2007; Knight, 2003), as shown in Appendix B . The numbers of waterfowl and other birds are compiled annually through the Christmas bird count. Some birds may frequent wetland areas, while others may congregate near landfills.

Studies of nutrient loading from migratory waterfowl showed that median TN is 3.15 grams/day/bird and TP is 0.45 grams/day/bird (Post et al., 1998). USGS summaries (Ruddy et al., 2006) of livestock nutrient loading show values for chickens and hens, and for tom and hen turkeys, that are similar to these numbers.

The most recent TMDL work (Benham, 2007) quantifying wildlife contributions to fecal coliform divides the load among eight categories of wildlife: deer, raccoons, muskrats, beavers, geese, ducks, wild turkeys, and other. Appendix B shows the estimates for Gadsden County. Tables

4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for 1997.

25 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Spills

The Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA, 2007) maintains a Website (available: www.eoconline.org ) that lists pollutant spills by date, time, county, reported amount, and description. Pollutants may be wastewater, petroleum, or other types of waste. Appendix B lists the summaries (Ziegmont, 2005) for Gadsden County. Using the annual estimate of gallons spilled and typical nutrient values for raw wastewater, TN and TP loads can be

estimated. Tables 4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for 1997.

Sewage Line Leaks–Infiltration/Exfiltration

Estimates of chronic sewage line leaks to ground water or nearby streams and lakes are not readily available for most municipalities. A Department drinking water staff (Hoofnagle, 2008) review of engineering texts suggests that about 15 percent of usage (drinking water line flow) is unaccounted-for water. This includes drinking water line leaks, fire fighting, and line flushing.

Recent EPA Permitting Policy (Mehan, 2003) estimates that leaking sewer lines contribute about 5 percent of the WWTP design flow before reaching the treatment facility. Additional EPA research (Amick, 2000) has documented leakage rates in California, Maryland, and Kentucky that varied from 11.9 to 49.1 percent. The best documented study was for Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the leakage rate was 10 percent of the average daily base wastewater flow.

No information is available on sewer lines in the Juniper Creek watershed, and therefore this analysis assumes that no sewer leaks occur. Tables 4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for

1997.

Sludge/Residuals

The amount of residuals (dry tons/yr) generated in Gadsden County was tabulated for 1994 through 2005, as shown in Appendix B (Department, 2007). The TN nutrient content was assumed to be 5.0 percent of the dry weight and TP was 2.5 percent of the dry weight (Barker, 2007). Tables 4.4a through 4.4d contain the loads for 1997. The limited data available for this county suggest that little of the sludge generated is reported.



# 4.3 Summary of Nutrient Loadings in to Juniper Creek from Various Sources

Table 4.4a summarizes the annual average BOD 5 

## loadings from point sources (2000) and each of the nonpoint source categories (1997) detailed above generated within Gadsden County and the Juniper Creek Watershed. Missing data are shown as a zero load. Tables 4.4b through

4.4d summarize the annual TKN, TN, and TP loads, respectively, to the Juniper Creek Watershed for the categories noted above. Appendix B provides a detailed breakdown for each category for other years.

26 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 4.4a. Summary of BOD 5 

## Loads to the Juniper Creek Watershed,

1997

Estimated Annual Loading Year(s) Flow (mgd) BOD 5 

### (lbs/yr)

Gadsden County Juniper Creek

Watershed

Point Sources

Quincy Farms FLA010088 2000 0.2300 2.9848E+04

Nonpoint Sources

Department Atmospheric Deposition Wet+Dry 1997

USGS Atmospheric Deposition 1997

USGS Nonfarm Fertilizer Use 1997

USGS Farm Fertilizer Use 1997

USGS Unconfined Livestock 1997

USGS Confined Livestock 1997

Total USGS Agriculture 1997

Total Baseflow 1997

Total Ground Water Seepage Loss 1997

Total Septic Tanks 1997 1.6839E+06 2.3850E+04

Total Spills Sewage 1997

Total Leaks Sewage 1997

Total Sludge/Residuals Loading 1997

Total Surface Runoff WMM Model 1997 5.3185E+04

Total Wildlife 1997

Total Domestic Animals 1997

Total Nonpoint Source Load 1997 2.3000E-01 1.6839E+06 1.0688E+05



## 27 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 4.4b. Summary of TKN Loads to the Juniper Creek Watershed,

1997

Estimated Annual Loading Year(s) Flow (mgd) TKN (lbs/yr)

Gadsden County Juniper Creek

Watershed

Point Sources

Quincy Farms FLA010088 2000 0.2300 2.7237E+04

Nonpoint Sources

Department Atmospheric Deposition Wet+Dry 1997

USGS Atmospheric Deposition 1997

USGS Nonfarm Fertilizer Use 1997

USGS Farm Fertilizer Use 1997

USGS Unconfined Livestock 1997

USGS Confined Livestock 1997

Total USGS Agriculture 1997

Total Baseflow 1997

Total Ground Water Seepage Loss 1997

Total Septic Tanks 1997 3.7803E+05 5.3542E+03

Total Spills Sewage 1997

Total Leaks Sewage 1997

Total Sludge/Residuals Loading 1997

Total Surface Runoff WMM Model 1997

Total Wildlife 1997

Total Domestic Animals 1997

Total Nonpoint Source Load 1997 2.3000E-01 3.7803E+05 3.2591E+04



## 28 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 4.4c. Summary of TN Loads to the Juniper Creek Watershed,

1997

Estimated Annual Loading Year(s) Flow (mgd) TN (lbs/yr)

Gadsden County Juniper

Creek

Watershed

Point Sources

Quincy Farms FLA010088 2000

Nonpoint Sources

Department Atmospheric Deposition Wet+Dry 1997 2.0076E+06 3.3603E+04

USGS Atmospheric Deposition 1997 1.0048E+06 1.6819E+04

USGS Nonfarm Fertilizer Use 1997 1.2206E+05 4.4325E+03

USGS Farm Fertilizer Use 1997 2.5783E+06 9.3626E+04

USGS Unconfined Livestock 1997 4.1129E+05 1.4935E+04

USGS Confined Livestock 1997 1.9455E+05 7.0646E+03

Total USGS Agriculture 1997 3.3062E+06 1.2006E+05

Total Baseflow 1997

Total Ground Water Seepage Loss 1997

Total Septic Tanks 1997 3.8567E+05 5.4624E+03

Total Spills Sewage 1997

Total Leaks Sewage 1997

Total Sludge/Residuals Loading 1997 0.0000E+00

Total Surface Runoff WMM Model 1997 3.6750E+04

Total Wildlife 1997 1.6247E+06 2.7195E+04

Total Domestic Animals 1997 1.9137E+05 2.7105E+03

Total Nonpoint Source Load 1997 0.0000E+00 1.1826E+07 3.6266E+05



## 29 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 4.4d. Summary of TP Loads to the Juniper Creek Watershed,

1997

Estimated Annual Loading Year(s) Flow (mgd) TP (lbs/yr)

Gadsden County Juniper

Creek

Watershed

Point Sources

Quincy Farms FLA010088 2000

Nonpoint Sources

Department Atmospheric Deposition Wet+Dry 1997 2.1411E+04 3.5838E+02

USGS Atmospheric Deposition 1997

USGS Nonfarm Fertilizer Use 1997 1.7844E+04 6.4797E+02

USGS Farm Fertilizer Use 1997 4.6074E+05 1.6731E+04

USGS Unconfined Livestock 1997 1.3372E+05 4.8558E+03

USGS Confined Livestock 1997 6.0794E+04 2.2076E+03

Total USGS Agriculture 1997 6.7310E+05 2.4442E+04

Total Baseflow 1997

Total Ground Water Seepage Loss 1997

Total Septic Tanks 1997 6.8733E+04 9.7350E+02

Total Spills Sewage 1997

Total Leaks Sewage 1997

Total Sludge/Residuals Loading 1997 0.0000E+00

Total Surface Runoff WMM Model 1997 3.3996E+03

Total Wildlife 1997 8.9548E+02 1.4989E+01

Total Domestic Animals 1997 3.0940E+04 4.3822E+02

Total Nonpoint Source Load 1997 0.0000E+00 1.4682E+06 5.4069E+04



## 30 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Chapter 5: DETERMINATION OF ASSIMILATIVE

CAPACITY

5.1 Determination of Loading Capacity

One way to assess the target loading and existing loading for a stream or watershed is to use hydrologic and water quality modeling. Many of these models depend on the relationship between flow and surface water drainage area as well as the relationship between land use and soils and pollutant delivery. Juniper Creek’s DO levels depend on the loading of BOD 5 

## , TKN,

and other nutrients from several of the 6 small tri butary systems over its length of 4.6 miles. The only named tributary is Long Branch (WBID 691). The industrial discharger (Quincy Farms) was also shown to be a contributing source in the past (2000) and may still potentially contribute loading to Juniper Creek.



# 5.1.1 ADEM Model

Because of the possible influence of a discharger in Juniper Creek, the Department explored the use of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management’s (ADEM) Spreadsheet Water Quality Model (2001). This model requires inputs of the flow and hydrology of the creek, inputs of headwaters and tributary water quality, and estimates for some of the model decay coefficients. The following briefly summarizes the inputs:

1. Minimal flow data were available for Juniper Creek itself. The Department made several miscellaneous flow measurements at SR 65A in 1979 (Wieckowicz, 1981), 2006, and 2008. These flow data were compiled along with daily USGS gaged flows made on Telogia Creek (02330100) near Bristol ( Appendix H ). This gage is located on SR 20 downstream of Juniper Creek. In general, the Department used the daily flow/drainage area ratios (Q/DA) from the USGS site and the drainage areas of individual Juniper Creek tributaries to calculate flows within Juniper Creek. In addition, the 7-day, 10-year low flow Q7/10/DA (37 cfs/126 mi 2 

## ) ratio from Telogia Creek was also used for Juniper Creek (Rumenik et al., 1996).

2. The drainage areas for the individual tributaries were based on the WBID areas for five of six tributaries. One tributary was manually planimetered to obtain the drainage area.

3. The ADEM model provides default values for many of the standard model coefficients and some of the concentrations (BOD 5 

## , ORGN, and NH3N). The model also provides a regression formula to calculate stream velocity as a function of stream flow (Q).

4. The model was segmented with 8 sections based on the headwaters, 6 tributaries, and 1 discharger over a distance of 4.6 miles.

5. As few data were available describing the prospective effluent flow path from the Quincy Farms discharge to Juniper Creek, the Department assumed that the effluent enters between Tributary 1 (Trib 1) and Tributary 2 (Trib 2). The effluent can enter as either surface or ground water. A DO value of 2.0 mg/L was assumed to represent the effluent, as no permit data were available. Quincy Farms effluent data

31 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## were also summarized from paper files, obtained from the Northwest District Tallahassee Branch Office and computerized Wastewater Facilities Regulation Database (WAFR) files. Appendix C includes these data.

6. To match data availability in Juniper Creek with effluent data, the summer period of 2006 was used for modeling. Appendix C briefly summarizes effluent data for June, July, and August 2006. In general, 2 effluent water quality samples were available for each month. The Department decided to use the July 19–20, 2006 period to calibrate the ADEM model. During this time, Telogia Creek flow was about 60 cfs at USGS Gage 02330100. Using the Q/DA method outlined above, this translates to

about 0.4762 cfs/mi 2 

## . Three effluent scenarios were assumed: A (0 percent pollutant removal), B (90 percent removal), C (99 percent removal) with effluent DO of 2.0 mg/L and an additional 3 scenarios (D, E, and F) with effluent DO of 6.0 mg/L

and lower BOD 5 

## levels. Appendix J shows the model results.



# 5.1.2 Data Used in the Determination of the TMDL

Figure 5.1 shows the sampling locations in the Juniper Creek Watershed. Table 5.1 lists the organizations that sample in the watershed. Table 5.2 contains an annual statistical summary

for the watershed. Figures 5.2a through 5.2d show annual average plots, and Table 5.3 provides a statistical summary of observed data from 1979 through 2007.

32 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 5.1. Monitoring Sites in the Juniper Creek Watershed

33 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 5.1. Organizations That Are Sampling in the Juniper Creek

Watershed

Organization

USGS

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed Assessment

Section

Northwest Water Management District

Florida Department of Environment al Protection, Northwest District



## Table 5.2. Statistical Annual Summary for Juniper Creek, WBID 682

WBID Year DO BOD TKN TN

682 1979 7.40 N/A N/A N/A

682 1992 8.60 N/A 0.41 0.96

682 1993 6.67 N/A 0.65 1.20

682 2006 6.08 1.05 0.66 0.94

682 2007 4.10 2.35 1.01 1.74

N/A – Not available



## Figure 5.2a. Chart of DO Observations for Juniper Creek, WBID 682

Juniper Creek (WBID 682)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

YearAnnual average DO (MG/L)



## 34 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 5.2b. Chart of BOD 5 

## Observations for Juniper Creek, WBID 682

Figure 5.2c. Chart of TKN Observations for Juniper Creek, WBID 682 Juniper Creek (WBID 682)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

YearAnnual average BOD (MG/L)

Juniper Creek (WBID 682)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

YearAnnual average TKN (MG/L)



## 35 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Figure 5.2d. Chart of TN Observations for Juniper Creek, WBID 682

Juniper Creek (WBID 682)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

YearAnnual average TN (MG/L)



## 36 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 5.3. Statistical Summary of Observed Data from Juniper Creek,

WBID 682, 1979–2007

WBID Parameter Code Units N Min Max Mean Median 70 th



### Percentile 75 th



### Percentile

682 TEMP 10 DEGC 30 7.7000E+00 2.6260E+0 1 1.8659E+01 1.9500E+01 2.4112E+01 2.4410E+01

682 TURB 76 NTU 4 3.6000E+00 6.6000E+00 5.3500E+00 5.6000E+00 6.3300E+00 6.3750E+00

682 SECCHI 77 INCHES 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 COLOR 80 PTCO 29 8.7000E+00 1.5000E+0 2 1.0097E+02 1.0000E+02 1.2600E+02 1.3000E+02

682 FCOND 94 US/CM 7 8.0000E+00 1.1200E+02 6.1857E+01 4.8000E+01 1.0100E+02 1.0100E+02

682 LCOND 95 US/CM 25 2.9000E+01 2.0000E+0 2 8.5400E+01 7.7000E+01 8.7600E+01 9.3000E+01

682 DO 299 MG/L 29 2.4000E+00 1.0200E+01 6.0228E+00 6.2000E+00 7.4000E+00 7.5000E+00

682 DO 300 MG/L 3 6.8000E+00 8.4000E+00 7.4000E+00 7.0000E+00 7.5600E+00 7.7000E+00

682 DO 301 % 4 6.1176E+01 8.1132E+01 7. 3100E+01 7.5045E+01 7.9785E+01 8.0010E+01

682 BOD5 310 MG/L 23 5.100 0E-01 3.0000E+00 1.2757E+00 1.2000E+00 1.2800E+00 1.4500E+00

682 COD 340 MG/L 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 PH 400 SU 28 4.6000E+00 8.1000E+00 6.1329E+00 6.0000E+00 6.4000E+00 6.5200E+00

682 ALK

CACO3 410 MG/L 27 6.5000E-01 8.0000E+01 1.490 9E+01 1.1000E+01 1.2200E+01 1.4000E+01

682 TS 500 MG/L 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 TSS 530 MG/L 25 2.0000E+00 1.5000E+02 1.1880E+01 4.0000E+00 4.0000E+00 5.0000E+00

682 TN 600 MG/L 27 5.6000E-01 2.6000E+00 1.0847E+00 8.8000E-01 1.2840E+00 1.3650E+00

682 ORGN 605 MG/L 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 NH3NDISS 608 MG/L 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+0 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 NH3N 610 MG/L 24 1.7304E-02 2.7000E-01 9.5944E-02 7.0000E-02 1.3100E-01 1.4250E-01

682 NO2N 615 MG/L 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 TKNDISS 623 MG/L 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+0 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 TKN 625 MG/L 28 3.600 0E-01 1.3000E+00 7.0036E-01 6.3000E-01 8.2800E-01 8.9500E-01

682 NO23N 630 MG/L 28 4.0000E-02 1.5000E+0 0 3.6739E-01 2.3000E-01 3.8000E-01 4.3750E-01

682 TP 665 MG/L 28 5.2000E-02 6.8000E+00 6.5979E-01 2.1000E-01 3.1000E-01 3.6750E-01

682 OP04P 671 MG/L 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 TOC 680 MG/L 26 1.5000E-01 2.2000E+01 1.1033E+01 9.9000E+00 1.2000E+01 1.2750E+01

682 TOTCOLI 31501 N/100ML 20 6.0000E+01 2.5000E +04 2.9721E+03 2.1000E+0 3 2.4000E+03 2.4500E+03

682 FCOLI 31625 N/100ML 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+0 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 CHLA 32211 UG/L 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 PHAEOP 32218 UG/L 24 1.3000E+00 6.7000E+0 0 2.3292E+00 1.7000E+00 2.1400E+00 2.5000E+00



## 37 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# 5.1.3 TMDL Development Process

There are several possible approaches to developing a BOD 5 

## and nutrient-based TMDL for Juniper Creek. Two such approaches are described in detail below.

Method 1—Develop Reference Stream Nutrient Target Concentrations from

Similar Streams

EPA developed nutrient TMDLs (EPA, 2005) for several tributary streams to Munson Slough in Leon County based on nutrient concentrations for reference streams in north Florida. Tables

3.1 and 3.2 list the 7 reference streams, used along with the nutrient concentrations based on

the 75 th 

## percentile values (TN sref 

## ) for TN.

If the median values for TN at Juniper Creek at SR 65A are compared with the EPA reference streams, the following calculation provides the needed percent reductions ( Table 5.4 ):

TN% Reduction= 100% * (TN median- TN sref 

## )/ TN median

This methodology assumes that limiting these nutrients will remove the anthropogenic portion of the load contributing to the lowering of DO in Juniper Creek.

The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and USGS collected intensive water quality and flow data in the Telogia Creek Watershed in 1979, prior to the Quincy Farms startup in 1982. Plots of water quality vs. River Mile on Telogia Creek ( Appendix E ) did not show any visible impact from Juniper Creek at that time . No comparable intensive survey data are available for the present conditions.

Table 5.4. Summary of the TN Reduction Needed for Juniper Creek,

WBID 682, Using EPA Reference Streams

Parameter Median (mg/L) EPA

TMDL

75% Difference %

Reduction

TN 0.88 0.72 0.16 18.18



## Method 2—Develop Stream Nutrient Target Concentrations from ADEM DO Modeling

This method relies on the ADEM DO model results presented earlier. The 6 effluent modeling scenarios A, B, C, D, E, and F showed that even with treatment levels of 90, 95, and 99 percent, DO does not meet the 5.0 mg/L criterion in Juniper Creek. Increasing the effluent DO and decreasing other parameters further does elevate DO in the creek above 4.0 mg/L. This approach assumes that all the effluent flow reaches Juniper Creek.

If the median values for BOD 5 

## and TKN at Juniper Creek at SR 65A are compared with the ADEM model, this provides t he projected percent reductions ( Table 5.5 ). The value of using this added modeling approach is that it supports the supposition that there are natural

38 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## conditions impacting Juniper Creek such that DO levels would not meet the DO freshwater

criterion.

Table 5.5. Summary of BOD 5 

## and Nutrient Reductions for Juniper

Creek, WBID 682

Parameter Median (mg/L) ADEM

Model (mg/L) Difference % Reduction

Quincy Farms

BOD 5 

### * 587 5 582 99.148211

TKN* 9.663 0.7 8.963 92.755873

Juniper Creek

BOD 5 

### 1.2 1 0.2 16.666667

TKN 0.63 0.33 0.3 47.619048

*Data are annual averages from 2006 permit data. See Appendix C.



## Several intensive surveys conducted by the De partment’s Watershed Assessment Section in 2008 involved the deployment of YSI loggers at three locations in the Juniper Creek Watershed: Juniper Creek at SR 65A, Long Branch at SR 274, and an Unnamed Tributary at SR 65A east

of Nicole Rd. Appendix F includes plots of these data.

The Juniper Creek site showed a slight diurnal pattern, with TEMP varying between about 16o and 22oC. DO varied slightly, from 6.1 to 7.1 mg/L. Long Branch had a similar TEMP variation, but DO was generally below 3.0 mg/L. The Unnamed Tributary had the most unusual daily variations for TEMP and DO and will need further investigation. The Department’s 1998 Ecosummary ( Appendix G ) suggests that pumping from Juniper Creek to an agricultural irrigation pond may affect stream flows in the watershed.

Summary

Based on the various methods discussed above, Table 6.1 provides the suggested values for TMDL limits for Juniper Creek, WBID 682.



# 5.1.4 Critical Conditions for DO/Seasonality

The critical condition for DO in a given watershed depends on many factors, including the presence of point sources and the land use pattern in the watershed. Typically, the critical condition for nonpoint sources is an extended dry period followed by a rainfall runoff event. During the wet weather period, rainfall washes off nutrients that have built up on the land surface under dry conditions. However, significant nonpoint source contributions can also appear under dry conditions without any major surface runoff event. This may happen when nonpoint sources contaminate the surficial aquifer and nutrients are brought into the receiving waters through baseflow. In addition, sediments that have accumulated for months may provide

a flux of nutrients to the water column under certain weather or DO conditions. The critical

39 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## condition for point source loading typically occu rs during periods of low stream flow, when

dilution is minimized.

The Department examined both DO and flow for Juniper Creek as well as variable effluent conditions. The data show that DO was reduced to about 2.0 mg/L during the summer of 2006 ( Appendix F ). During this same period, Telogia Creek was near or below its historical 7 

## Q 10 

## low flow of 37 cfs ( Appendix H ), and Juniper Creek would also be expected to have been at its lowest flows. From May 2005 to the present, Quincy Farms effluent levels were at their highest ( Appendix C ).

40 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Chapter 6: DETERMINATION OF THE TMDL

6.1 Expression and Allocation of the TMDL

The objective of a TMDL is to provide a basis for allocating acceptable loads among all of the known pollutant sources in a watershed so that appropriate control measures can be implemented and water quality standards achieved. A TMDL is expressed as the sum of all point source loads (wasteload allocations, or WLAs), nonpoint source loads (load allocations, or LAs), and an appropriate margin of safety (MOS), which takes into account any uncertainty concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality:

TMDL = ∑

 WLAs + ∑

 LAs + MOS

As discussed earlier, the WLA is broken out into separate subcategories for wastewater discharges and stormwater discharges regulated under the NPDES Program:

TMDL ≅ ∑

 WLAs wastewater 

## + ∑

 WLAs NPDES Stormwater 

## + ∑

 LAs + MOS

It should be noted that the various components of the revised TMDL equation may not sum up to the value of the TMDL because (a) the WLA for NPDES stormwater is typically based on the percent reduction needed for nonpoint sources and is also accounted for within the LA, and (b) TMDL components can be expressed in different term s (for example, the WLA for stormwater is typically expressed as a percent reduction, and the WLA for wastewater is typically expressed as mass per day).

WLAs for stormwater discharges are typically expressed as “percent reduction” because it is very difficult to quantify the loads from MS4s (given the numerous discharge points) and to distinguish loads from MS4s from other nonpoint sources (given the nature of stormwater transport). The permitting of stormwater discharges also differs from the permitting of most wastewater point sources. Because stormwater discharges cannot be centrally collected, monitored, and treated, they are not subject to the same types of effluent limitations as wastewater facilities, and instead are required to meet a performance standard of providing treatment to the “maximum extent practica l” through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs).

This approach is consistent with federal regulations (40 CFR § 130.2[I]), which state that TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time (e.g., pounds per day), toxicity, or other appropriate measure . The TMDL for the Juniper Creek Watershed is expressed in terms of concentration of nutrients (TN) and represents the maximum daily load the creek can assimilate and maintain the DO criterion ( Table 6.1 ).

41 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Table 6.1. TMDL Components for Juniper Creek, WBID 682

WBID Parameter TMDL mg/L WLA

LA (% reduction) MOS Wastewater (% reduction) NPDES

Stormwater (% reduction)

682 TN 0.72 Meet any permit limits 18.18 18.18 Implicit



# 6.2 Load Allocation

Based on existing medians for Juniper Creek, WBID 682 (TN = 0.88 mg/L; see Table 5.3 ), a TN reduction of 18.18 percent is needed from nonpoint sources.



# 6.3 Wasteload Allocation

Not applicable; there are no permitted point source discharges in the Juniper Creek watershed.



# 6.3.1 NPDES Wastew ater Discharges

The facility is required to meet all state criteria as a condition of its permit, including the criteria

for BOD 5 

## and TKN.

As part of this TMDL, these facilities, and any future discharge permits issued in the Juniper Creek Watershed, are required to meet the state Class III criterion for DO. Any future allocations will require a reduction in nonpoint sources such that these values are not exceeded.



# 6.3.2 NPDES Stormwater Discharges

There are no MS4 permit facilities in the Juniper Creek watershed.



# 6.4 Margin of Safety

Consistent with the recommendations of the Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (Department, 2001), an implicit MOS was used in t he development of this TMDL. An implicit MOS was provided by the conservative decis ions associated with a number of modeling assumptions and the development of assimilative capacity.

42 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Chapter 7: NEXT STEPS: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

DEVELOPMENT AND BEYOND

7.1 Basin Management Action Plan

Following the adoption of this TMDL by rule, the next step in the TMDL process is to develop an implementation plan for the TMDL, which will be a component of the BMAP for the

Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin. This document will be developed over the next year in cooperation with local stakeholders and will attempt to reach consensus on more detailed allocations and on how load reductions will be accomplished. The BMAP will include the following:

• Appropriate allocations among the affected parties;

• A description of the load reduction activities to be undertaken;

• Timetables for project implementation and completion;

• Funding mechanisms that may be utilized;

• Any applicable signed agreement;

• Local ordinances defining actions to be taken or prohibited;

• Local water quality standards, permits, or load limitation agreements; and

• Monitoring and follow-up measures.

43 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# References

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. September 2001. Spreadsheet Water Quality Model. Water Quality Branch.

Alexander, R.B., and R.A. Smith. 1990. County level estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use in the United States, 1945 to 1985. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

90-130.

Alexander, R.B., R.A. Smith, and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature, Vol. 403, Feb. 17, 2000. Available:

www.nature.com.

Ambrose, R.B., T.A. Wool, J.P. Connolly, and R.W. Schanz. 1988. WASP4, A Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model—Model theory, user’s manual, and programmer’s guide.

EPA/600/3-87/039.

American Veterinary Medical Association Website. 2004. Available: http://www.avma.org

.

Arnold, J.G., and P.M. Allen. 1999. Automated methods for estimating baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(2): 411-424.

Arnold, J.G., P.M. Allen, R. Muttiah, and G. Bernhardt. 1995. Automated base flow separation and recession analysis techniques. Ground Water 33(6): 1010-1018.

Battaglin, W.A., and D.A. Goolsby. 1995. Spatial data in geographic information system format on agricultural chemical use, land use, and cropping practices in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4176. Available: http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri944176

.

Birdsource Website. 2007. Available: http://www.birdsource.org/

.

Blackburn, R.D., L.W. Weldon, R.R. Yeo, and T.M. Taylor. 1969. Identification and distribution of certain similar-appearing submersed aquatic weeds in Florida. JAPM 8: 17-21.

Brezonik, P.L., C.D. Hendry, Jr., E.S. Edgerton, R.L. Schulze, and T.L. Crisman. 1983. Acidity, nutrients, and minerals in atmospheric precipit ation over Florida: Deposition patterns, mechanisms, and ecological effects. EPA-600/3-83-004.

Brown, M., K.C. Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, K.R. Reddy, P.W. Inglett, K.S. Inglett, T.K. Frazer, C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips, R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, and K.A. McKee. April 28,

2008. Summary and synthesis of the available literature on the effects of nutrients on spring organisms and systems. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Water Institute.

Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/report s/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_Report.pdf

.

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. September 1998. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, Wayne County, Michigan. Technical memorandum. User’s manual: Watershed Management Model Version 4.0. RPO-NPS-TM27.01.

44 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## ———. 1998. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, Wayne County, Michigan. User’s manual: Watershed Management Model, Version 4.1. PRO-NPSTM27.02.

Chapra, S. 1997. Surface water-quality modeling. McGraw Hill Science/Engineering/Math.

Clean Air Status and Trends Network Website. 2007. Available: http://www.epa.gov/castnet/

.

Colt, J. 1984. Computation of dissolved gas concentrations in water as functions of temperature, salinity, and pressure. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 14.

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-302, Surface water quality standards.

———. Rule 62-303, Identification of impaired surface waters.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. September 2001. Florida aquaculture . Issue No. 11.

———. 2003. Florida agricultural fast facts.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Website. 2001. Available: http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/SEAS/SEAS_intro.htm

.

Florida Department of Community Affairs Website. 2007. Available: www.eoconline.org

.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. September 2003. Basin assessment report:

Ochlockonee and St. Marks. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/stmarks/assessment.htm

Florida Department of Health Website. 2008. Available: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/

.

Goolsby, D.A., W.A. Battaglin, G.B. Lawrence, R.S. Artz, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P. Hooper, D.R. Keeney, and G.J. Stensland. 1999. Flux and sources of nutrients in the MississippiAtchafalaya River Basin—Topic 3 report for the integrated assessment on hypoxia in the

Gulf of Mexico. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Ocean Office. NOAA Coasta l Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series

No. 17.

Irwin, G.A., and R.T. Kirkland. 1980. Chemical and physical characteristics of precipitation at

selected sites in Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report

80-81.

Jozwiak, S. 2005. Florida Department of Environmental Protection NPDES Program, NPDES MS4 permitted facilities in Northwest District, personal communication.

Kumar, N. 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, personal communication.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program Website. 2002. Available: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/

.

45 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Nicol, J.P., and S. McClelland. February 1984. Automated water quality analysis report development (AWQARD). Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Water Quality Technical Series, Vol. 3, No. 13.

Northwest Florida Water Management District Website. 2008. Available: http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/

.

Pollman, C.D., and S. Roy. August 20, 2003. Examination of atmospheric deposition chemistry and its potential effects on the lower St. Johns Estuary, Tasks 1 through 4. Tetra Tech final report, submitted to the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Poor, N., R. Pribble, and H. Greening. 2001. Direct wet and dry deposition of ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium, and nitrate to Tampa Bay Estuary, FL, USA. Atmos. Environ. 35:3947-

3955.

Post, D.M., J.P.Taylor, J.F.Kitchell, M.H.Olson, D.E. Schindler, and B.R. Herwig. 1998. The role of migratory waterfowl as nutrient vectors in a managed wetland. Conservation Biology, Vol. 12, 910-920.

Pribble, R., and A. Janicki. 1999. Atmospheric deposition contributions to nitrogen and phosphorus loadings in Tampa Bay: Intensive wet and dry deposition data collection and analysis, August 1996–July 1998. Interim data report. Tampa Bay Estuary Program

Technical Publication #05-99.

Reckhow, K., and M.H. Henning. September 5, 1990. Using EUTROMOD Version 3.0 Watershed and Lake Modeling Software. North American Lake Management Society, TechTransfer, Duke University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Rogers, T. 2006. Nitrogen oxide emissions for Florida counties 2002, personal communication.

Ruddy, B.C., D.L. Lorenz, and D.K. Mueller. 2006. County-level estimates of nutrient inputs to the land surface of the conterminous United States, 1982–2001. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5012.

Rumenik, R.P., and J.W. Grubbs. 1996. Low-flow characteristics of Florida streams. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4165.

Runkel, R.L., C.G. Crawford, and T.A. Cohn. 2004. Load Estimator (LOADEST): A FORTRAN program for estimating constituent loads in streams and rivers. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods. Book 4, Chapter A5.

Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander, and G.E. Schwarz. 2003. Natural background concentrations of

nutrients in streams and rivers of the conterminous United States. Environmental Science & Technology Vol. 37, No. 14.

Smith, R.A., G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Alexander. December 1997. Regional interpretation of water-quality monitoring data. Water Resources Research, Vol. 33, No. 12, 2781-2798.

U.S. Census Bureau Website. 2003. Census data. Available:

——–. 2007. Available: http://www.census.gov/

.

46 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## 47 Florida Department of Environmental Protection ——–. 2008. Available: http://www.census.gov/

.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available: http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp

.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Protocol for developing nutrient TMDLs. First

edition. EPA 841-B-99-007.

——–. November 2005. TMDL for Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins, Florida: Nutrients

and coliform.

——–. 2008. WASP7.2 manual. Ecosystems Research Division, Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program. Available: www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/html/wasp.html

.

U. S. Geological Survey Website. 2005. Available: http://www.usgs.gov/

.

Wieckowicz, R. 1981. Telogia Creek Basin intensive survey documentation and wasteload

allocation documentation. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Water Quality Technical Series, Vol. 2, No. 28.

Ziegmont, C. 2007. Florida Department of Environmental Protection permitting, data sources for spills, personal communication. Referred to Website at http://www.eoconline.org

.

# Appendices

Appendix A: Background Information on Federal and State Stormwater Programs—NPDES MS4 Data

In 1982, Florida became the first state in the country to implement statewide regulations to address the issue of nonpoint source pollution by requiring new development and redevelopment to treat stormwater before it is discharged. The Stormwater Rule, as authorized in Chapter 403, F.S., was established as a technology-based program that relies on the implementation of BMPs that are designed to achiev e a specific level of treatment (i.e., performance standards) as set forth in Rule 62-40, F.A.C. In 1994, the Department’s stormwater treatment requirements were integrated with the stormwater flood control requirements of the state’s water management districts, along with wetland protection r equirements, into the Environmental Resource Permit regulations.

Rule 62-40, F.A.C., also requires the water management districts to establish stormwater pollutant load reduction goals (PLRGs) and adopt them as part of a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan, other watershed plan, or rule. Stormwater PLRGs are a major component of the load allocation part of a TMDL. To date, stormwater PLRGs have been established for Tampa Bay, Lake Thonotosassa, the Winter Haven Chain of Lakes, the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee, and Lake Apopka. No PLRG had been developed for Newnans Lake when this report was published.

In 1987, the U.S. Congress established Section 402(p) as part of the federal Clean Water Act Reauthorization. This section of the law amended the scope of the federal NPDES permitting program to designate certain stormwater discharges as “point sources” of pollution. The EPA promulgated regulations and began implementing the P hase I NPDES Stormwater Program in 1990. These stormwater discharges include certain discharges that are associated with industrial activities designated by specific standard industrial classifica tion (SIC) codes, construction sites disturbing 5 or more acres of land, and master drainage systems of local governments with a population above 100,000, which are better known as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). However, because the master drainage systems of most local governments in Florida are interconnected, the EPA implemented Phase I of the MS4 permitting program on a countywide basis, which brought in all cities (incorporated areas), Chapter 298 urban wa ter control districts, and the Florida Department of Transportation throughout the 15 counties meeting the population criteria. The Department received authorization to implement the NPDES Program in 2000.

An important difference between the federal NPDES and the state’s stormwater/environmental resource permitting programs is that the NPDES Program covers both new and existing discharges, while the state’s program focuses on new discharges only. Additionally, Phase II of the NPDES Program, implemented in 2003, expands the need for these permits to construction sites between 1 and 5 acres, and to local governments with as few as 1,000 people. While these urban stormwater discharges are now technically referred to as “point sources” for the purpose of regulation, they are still diffuse sources of pollution that cannot be eas ily collected and treated by a central treatment facility, as are other point sources of pollution such as domestic and industrial wastewater discharges. It should be noted that all MS4 permits issued in Florida include a reopener clause that allows permit revisions to implement TMDLs when the implementation plan is formally adopted.

48 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix B: Summary of Land U se Loads and Trends by Category

WMM 1997 for TN and TP (See CD for more WMM data)

Step 1: Runoff

Area (acre) % impervious Impervious

runoff

coef. Pervious

runoff

coef. Effective precipitat.

(in/year) Runoff(acrefeet)
Forest/Rural Open 3,259 0.5% 0.95 0.31 61.56 5,182.6

Urban Open 103 0.5% 0.95 0.04 61.56 24.4

Agricultural 1,591 0.0% 0.95 0.30 61.56 2,481.8

Low-density Residential 199 14.7% 0.95 0.15 61.56 273.7
Medium-density

Residential 2 28.1% 0.95 0.15 61.56 4.6

High-density Residential 0 67.0% 0.95 0.12 61.56 0.0

Highways 3 36.2% 0.95 0.69 61.56 10.8

Water 141 100.0% 0.95 0.00 61.56 687.3

Rangeland 30 0.0% 0.95 0.30 61.56 47.4

Wetlands 332 0.0% 0.95 0.23 61.56 383.6

Other 1 (Barren Land) 0 0.2% 0.95 0.30 61.56 0.0

Other 2 0.00 0.0% 0.95 0.00 61.56 0.0

Total 5,661.56 9,096.22

Step 2: Nutrient Loads

Original EMCs Suspended form Concentrations of particulate form


## Ctn (mg/L) Ctp (mg/L) % Stn % Stp CPtn (mg/L) CPtp (mg/L)
Forest/Rural Open 1.09 0.046 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Urban Open 1.12 0.18 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Agricultural 2.32 0.344 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Low-density Residential 1.64 0.191 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Medium-density Residential 2.18 0.335 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
High-density Residential 2.42 0.49 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Highways 2.23 0.27 0% 0% 0.00 0.00

Water 1.6 0.067 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Rangeland 2.32 0.344 0% 0% 0.00 0.00

Wetlands 1.01 0.09 0% 0% 0.00 0.00

Other 1 (Barren Land) 1.91 0.245 0% 0% 0.00 0.00

Other 2 0 0 0% 0%

Total



## 49 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionConcentrations of

dissolved form



## CDtn (mg/L) CDtp (mg/L) Delivery

Ratio TN load (lbs) TP load (lbs) % of

total

TN % of

total TP

1.09 0.05 1 15,361.9 648.3 42 19

1.12 0.18 1 74.2 11.9 0 0

2.32 0.34 1 15,657.4 2,321.6 43 68

1.64 0.19 1 1,220.7 142.2 3 4

2.18 0.34 1 27.2 4.2 0 0

2.42 0.49 1 0.0 0.0 0 0

2.23 0.27 1 65.7 8.0 0 0

1.60 0.07 1 2,990.2 125.2 8 4

2.32 0.34 1 299.3 44.4 1 1

1.01 0.09 1 1,053.6 93.9 3 3

1.91 0.25 1 0.0 0.0 0 0

1 0.0 0.0 0 0

36,750.2 3,399.6



## WMM 1997 for TSS and BOD (See CD for more WMM data)

Step 1: Runoff

Area (acre) % impervious Impervious

runoff

coef. Pervious

runoff

coef. Effective precipitat. (in/month) Runoff(acrefeet)
Forest/Rural Open 3,259 0.5% 0.95 0.31 61.5591 5,182.6

Urban Open 103 0.5% 0.95 0.04 61.56 24.4

Agricultural 1,591 0.0% 0.95 0.30 61.56 2,481.8

Low-density Residential 199 14.7% 0.95 0.15 61.56 273.7
Medium-density

Residential 2 28.1% 0.95 0.15 61.56 4.6

High-density Residential 0 67.0% 0.95 0.12 61.56 0.0

Highways 3 36.2% 0.95 0.69 61.56 10.8

Water 141 100.0% 0.95 0.00 61.56 687.3

Rangeland 30 0.0% 0.95 0.30 61.56 47.4

Wetlands 332 0.0% 0.95 0.23 61.56 383.6

Other 1 (Barren Land) 0 0.2% 0.95 0.30 61.56 0.0

Other 2 0.00 0.0% 0.95 0.00 61.56 0.0

Total 5,661.56 9,096.22



## 50 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## 51 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Step 2: Nutrient Loads

Original EMCs Suspended form Concentrations of particulate form


## Cbod (mg/L) Ctss (mg/L) % Sbod % Stss Cpbod (mg/L) CPtss (mg/L)
Forest/Rural Open 1.23 7.8 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Urban Open 7.4 72.8 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Agricultural 3.8 55.3 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Low-density Residential 4.3 16.9 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Medium-density Residential 7.4 26 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
High-density Residential 11 71.7 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Highways 6.7 49.1 0% 0% 0.00 0.00

Water 1.6 3.1 0% 0% 0.00 0.00
Rangeland 3.8 55.3 0% 0% 0.00 0.00

Wetlands 2.63 11.2 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 Other 1 (Barren Land) 0 0 0% 0% 0.00 0.00

Other 2 0 0 0% 0%

Total

Concentrations of

dissolved form



## Cdbod (mg/L) CDtss (mg/L) Delivery

Ratio BOD

Load (lbs) TSS

Load (lbs) % of

Total

BOD % of

Total

TSS

1.23 7.80 1 17,334.9 109,928.9 33 21

7.40 72.80 1 490.3 4,823.6 1 1

3.80 55.30 1 25,645.7 373,211.7 48 71

4.30 16.90 1 3,200.7 12,579.6 6 2

7.40 26.00 1 92.2 323.9 0 0

11.00 71.70 1 0.0 0.0 0 0

6.70 49.10 1 197.5 1,447.1 0 0

1.60 3.10 1 2,990.2 5,793.6 6 1

3.80 55.30 1 490.3 7,134.8 1 1

2.63 11.20 1 2,743.5 11,683.3 5 2

0.00 0.00 1 0.0 0.0 0 0

1 0.0 0.0 0 0Septic Tanks(See CD for entire table)DateYearGadsdenCountyNo. ofTanksNewCountyTanksCumNo. ofTanksGal/cap/day*Q(cfs/tank**)80%Q(cfs)DA=BOD5(mg/L)528.13BOD5(lbs/day)SQMIBOD5(lbs/yr)1/1/197019703,0853,0853.0850E+03702.82E-048.6886E-012.2050E+021.0326E+033.7691E+051/1/197119712773,3623.3620E+03702.82E-049.4687E-012.2050E+021.1254E+034.1075E+051/1/197219723423,7043.7040E+03702.82E-041.0432E+002.2050E+021.2398E+034.5254E+051/1/197319734984,2024.2020E+03702.82E-041.1835E+002.2050E+021.4065E+035.1338E+051/1/197419745214,7234.7230E+03702.82E-041.3302E+002.2050E+021.5809E+035.7704E+051/1/197519753685,0915.0910E+03702.82E-041.4338E+002.2050E+021.7041E+036.2200E+051/1/197719764085,4995.4990E+03702.82E-041.5487E+002.2050E+021.8407E+036.7184E+051/1/197819773635,8625.8620E+03702.82E-041.6510E+002.2050E+021.9622E+037.1619E+051/1/197919783546,2166.2160E+03702.82E-041.7507E+002.2050E+022.0807E+037.5944E+051/1/198019791766,3926.3920E+03702.82E-041.8002E+002.2050E+022.1396E+037.8095E+051/1/198119802756,6676.6670E+03702.82E-041.8777E+002.2050E+022.2316E+038.1454E+051/1/198219812816,9486.9480E+03702.82E-041.9568E+002.2050E+022.3257E+038.4888E+051/1/198419823407,2887.2880E+03702.82E-042.0526E+002.2050E+022.4395E+038.9042E+051/1/198319833507,6387.6380E+03702.82E-042.1512E+002.2050E+022.5567E+039.3318E+051/1/198419843758,0138.0130E+03702.82E-042.2568E+002.2050E+022.6822E+039.7899E+051/1/198519853008,3138.3130E+03702.82E-042.3413E+002.2050E+022.7826E+031.0156E+061/1/198619864468,7598.7590E+03702.82E-042.4669E+002.2050E+022.9319E+031.0701E+061/1/198719874239,1829.1820E+03702.82E-042.5860E+002.2050E+023.0735E+031.1218E+061/1/198819884339,6159.6150E+03702.82E-042.7080E+002.2050E+023.2184E+031.1747E+061/1/198919893119,9269.9260E+03702.82E-042.7956E+002.2050E+023.3225E+031.2127E+061/1/1990199050910,4351.0435E+04702.82E-042.9389E+002.2050E+023.4929E+031.2749E+061/1/1991199145010,8851.0885E+04702.82E-043.0657E+002.2050E+023.6435E+031.3299E+0652Florida Department of Environmental Protection53Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionDateYearGadsdenCountyNo. ofTanksNewCountyTanksCumNo. ofTanksGal/cap/day*Q(cfs/tank**)80%Q(cfs)DA=BOD5(mg/L)528.13BOD5(lbs/day)SQMIBOD5(lbs/yr)1/1/1992199255011,4351.1435E+04702.82E-043.2206E+002.2050E+023.8276E+031.3971E+061/1/1993199345011,8851.1885E+04702.82E-043.3473E+002.2050E+023.9782E+031.4521E+061/1/1994199445012,3351.2335E+04702.82E-043.4740E+002.2050E+024.1289E+031.5070E+061/1/1995199562712,9621.2962E+04702.82E-043.6506E+002.2050E+024.3387E+031.5836E+061/1/1996199637013,3321.3332E+04702.82E-043.7548E+002.2050E+024.4626E+031.6288E+061/1/1997199745113,7831.3783E+04702.82E-043.8818E+002.2050E+024.6136E+031.6839E+061/1/1998199845714,2401.4240E+04702.82E-044.0106E+002.2050E+024.7665E+031.7398E+061/1/1999199926014,5001.4500E+04702.82E-044.0838E+002.2050E+024.8536E+031.7715E+061/1/2000200024214,7421.4742E+04702.82E-044.1519E+002.2050E+024.9346E+031.8011E+061/1/2001200120414,9461.4946E+04702.82E-044.2094E+002.2050E+025.0028E+031.8260E+061/1/2002200220615,1521.5152E+04702.82E-044.2674E+002.2050E+025.0718E+031.8512E+061/1/2003200324215,3941.5394E+04702.82E-044.3356E+002.2050E+025.1528E+031.8808E+061/1/2004200427015,6641.5664E+04702.82E-044.4116E+002.2050E+025.2432E+031.9138E+061/1/2005200530315,9671.5967E+04702.82E-044.4969E+002.2050E+025.3446E+031.9508E+061/1/2006200641416,3811.6381E+04702.82E-044.6135E+002.2050E+025.4832E+032.0014E+06Atmospheric Deposition(See CD for entire table)DateYearNADP14QuincyAnnual Rain(cm)NADP14QuincyAnnual Rain(in)NWSTallahasseeAnnual Rain(in)NADP14Precip-WtConcNH4(mg/L)NO3(mg/L)TN(mg/L)NADP14WetDepositionRateNH4(kg/ha/yr)NO3(kg/ha/yr)TN(kg/ha/yr)1/1/19831983.001/1/19841984.00111.750043.996156.20000.12000.62200.23381.34006.95002.61161/1/19851985.00135.720053.433162.93000.07300.41000.14940.99005.56002.02551/1/19861986.00147.780058.181171.78000.04400.51500.15050.65007.61002.22391/1/19871987.00113.600044.724467.82000.07700.54900.18390.87006.24002.08571/1/19881988.00118.690046.728348.46000.06400.74700.21850.76008.87002.59401/1/19891989.00153.300060.354363.59000.14400.63600.25562.21009.75003.92051/1/19901990.0093.190036.689045.73000.15300.73000.28381.43006.80002.64771/1/19911991.00202.150079.586672.25000.06800.53800.17441.370010.88003.52231/1/19921992.00147.630058.122062.78000.07400.54400.18041.09008.03002.66101/1/19931993.00142.050055.925251.93000.11400.71100.24921.620010.10003.54061/1/19941994.00210.490082.870189.89000.06200.45700.15141.31009.62003.19111/1/19951995.00141.350055.649652.40000.16600.61400.26782.35008.68003.78781/1/19961996.00125.320049.338656.72000.10900.56500.21241.37007.08002.66431/1/19971997.00156.360061.559164.25000.09100.63000.21301.42009.85003.32861/1/19981998.00134.310052.878058.83000.09600.59900.20991.29008.05002.82111/1/19991999.00102.850040.492150.07000.09500.69000.22970.98007.10002.36541/1/20002000.00101.630040.011844.51000.12300.76800.26911.25007.80002.73351/1/20012001.00132.210052.051263.45000.10100.61100.21651.34008.08002.86671/1/20022002.00136.670053.807156.40000.08500.53900.18781.16007.37002.56641/1/20032003.00136.810053.862265.30000.11300.62800.22971.55008.59003.14521/1/20042004.00149.140058.716556.83000.08200.56400.19111.22008.41002.84791/1/20052005.00152.070059.870168.28000.11000.55100.21001.67008.38003.19111/1/20062006.00111.440043.874049.34000.15100.68100.27121.68007.59003.020554Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionSpillsDateYearNo. ofSpills(yr)Q(mg/yr)Q(mgd)Q(cfs)TN(mg/L)TN(lbs/day)TN(lbs/yr)TP(mg/L)TP(lbs/day)TP(lbs/yr)1/1/198319834.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/198419844.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/198519854.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/198619864.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/198719874.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/198819884.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/198919894.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199019904.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199119914.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199219924.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199319934.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199419944.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199519954.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199619964.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199719974.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199819984.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/199919994.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/200020004.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/20012001105.7100E-011.5644E-032.4205E-034.0000E+015.2185E-011.9048E+021.0000E+011.3046E-014.7619E+011/1/2002200272.1500E-025.8904E-059.1138E-054.0000E+011.9649E-027.1720E+001.0000E+014.9123E-031.7930E+001/1/2003200331.6400E-014.4932E-046.9519E-044.0000E+011.4988E-015.4708E+011.0000E+013.7471E-021.3677E+011/1/200420044.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/200520054.0000E+011.0000E+011/1/20062006188.9605E-022.4549E-043.7983E-044.0000E+018.1892E-022.9891E+011.0000E+012.0473E-027.4727E+0055Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Sludge/Residuals

Acres Gadsden County

Date Year Dry

Tons (tons/yr) TN (lbs/ac/yr) TN** (lbs/yr) TP** (lbs/yr)

1/1/1983 1983

1/1/1984 1984

1/1/1985 1985

1/1/1986 1986

1/1/1987 1987

1/1/1988 1988

1/1/1989 1989

1/1/1990 1990

1/1/1991 1991

1/1/1992 1992

1/1/1993 1993

1/1/1994 1994

1/1/1995 1995 0.53 5.3000E+01 2.6500E+01

1/1/1996 1996

1/1/1997 1997

1/1/1998 1998

1/1/1999 1999

1/1/2000 2000

1/1/2001 2001

1/1/2002 2002

1/1/2003 2003

1/1/2004 2004

1/1/2005 2005

1/1/2006 2006



## 56 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionJuniper Creek Wildlife Table(See CD for entire table)GadsdenCountyWildlifeFRACTIONOFNWATERFOWLNDEERNOTHERSTATECOUNTYYEARPOPULATIONLANDAREACOUNTY IN7.9812.8SQMIBASINFLORIDAGADSDEN1990411055.2813E+021.0000E+004.214E+036.760E+03TOTAL5.2813E+024.214E+036.760E+030.000E+00STATECOUNTYPOPULATIONFLORIDAGADSDEN200045087TOTAL*AVS WEB PAGENDOGS=0.58*HH**WWW.NRICD.ORG/LANDWATERCONNECTION/SCOOPONPOOP.HTMAVE DOG=45LBTN=1.3000E+01TP=2.0000E+00*******RUDDY,2006USGS SIR, 2006-5012HORSES ANDPONIESTN=0.127 (KG/DAY/HORSE)*(2.2046 LB/KG)*(365DAY/YR)=HORSES ANDPONIESTP= 0.022 (KG/DAY/HORSE)*(2.2046 LB/KG)*(365DAY/YR)=ONTARIO AGRICULTURE. WWW.OMAFRA.GOV.ON.CA/ENGLISH/NM/REGS/NMPRO/APPTCJ05.HTMWHITE TAIL DEERTN=(25.4/10.8)*HORSES=WHITE TAIL DEERTP=(7.9/2.9)*HORSES=KNIGHT, 2003WATERFOWL DENSITY ESCAMBIA AVERAGE BASED ON BIRDSOURCE= 7.98/SQMIDEER DENSITY ESCAMBIA =1/ 50 AC.= 12.8/SQMI57Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Domesticated Animals (See CD for entire table)

Gadsden

Census of

Pets

HOUSING

UNITS

STATE COUNTY YEAR POPULATION HO USEHOLDS SEWER SEPTIC OTHER SUM

FLORIDA GADSDEN 1990 41105 13405 6046 8455 358 14859

TOTAL

HOUSING

UNITS

STATE COUNTY POPULATION HO USEHOLDS SEWER SEPTIC OTHER SUM

FLORIDA GADSDEN 2000 45087 15867 18488

TOTAL

* AVS WEB PAGE NDOGS=0.58*HH NCATS=0.66*HH NHORSES=0.05*HH

** WWW.NRICD.ORG/LANDWATERCONNECTION/SCOOPONPOOP.HTM

AVE DOG=45LB TN= 1.3000E+01 (LB/YR/DOG)

TP= 2.0000E+00 (LB/YR/DOG)



## 58 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix C: Summary of Pe rmitted Point Source Loads

NPDES

Permit

Number Facility

Name Units Max/Min Annual
Average Monthly
Average Weekly
Average Single
Sample Monitoring
Frequency Sample
Type Monitoring

Location

Site

Number Discharges to
the Juniper

Creek

Watershed

FLA010088 Quincy

Farms Yes See Permit

Date vs. Flow at R-001 for Quincy Farms FLA010088

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1

7/24/1998 12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

DateFlow (MGD)



## 59 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionTKN vs. Date Quincy Farms FLA010088

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

7/24/1998 12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

DateTKN (MG/L)

BOD vs. Date Quincy Farms FLA010088

1 10 100 1000 10000

7/24/1998 12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

DateBOD (MG/L)



## 60 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionTEMP vs. Date Quincy Farms FLA010088

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

10/28/1995 3/11/1997 7/24/1998 12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006

DateTEMP (DEG.C)

pH vs. Date Quincy Farms FLA010088

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7/24/1998 12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

DatepH (SU)



## 61 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionTSS vs. Date Quincy Farms FLA010088

1 10 100 1000

7/24/1998 12/6/1999 4/19/2001 9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

DateTSS (MG/L)



### Quincy Farms Monitoring Wells (FLA010088)

Monitoring Well NO23N Samples >10mg/L Total No. of Samples

MW-5 0 0

MWB-1 1 32

MWC-3 11 31

MWC-5 0 2

MWC-5A 1 29

MWC-6 0 2

MWC-6A 1 29

MWI-2 1 30

TOTAL 15 155



## 62 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionYearFlowAnnualAverage(mgd)BODAnnualAverage(mg/L)BODAnnualLoad(lbs/day)BODAnnualLoad(lbs/yr)TKNAnnualAverage(mg/L)TKNAnnualLoad(lbs/day)TKNAnnualLoad(lbs/yr)TSSAnnualAverage(mg/L)TSSAnnualLoad(lbs/day)TSSAnnualLoad(lbs/yr)20000.2304.2632E+018.1776E+012.9848E+043.8903E+017.4623E+012.7237E+041.3247E+022.5411E+029.2751E+0420010.1209.8250E+019.7953E+013.5753E+047.1346E+017.1130E+012.5963E+045.4833E+015.4668E+011.9954E+0420020.1175.7083E+015.5502E+012.0258E+045.3714E+015.2227E+011.9063E+044.9667E+014.8291E+011.7626E+0420030.1035.4000E+014.6162E+011.6849E+045.8433E+014.9951E+011.8232E+046.8091E+015.8208E+012.1246E+0420040.1334.7364E+015.2447E+011.9143E+044.3485E+014.8153E+011.7576E+047.5182E+018.3251E+013.0386E+0420050.1081.7167E+021.5396E+025.6194E+047.6818E+016.8893E+012.5146E+046.5750E+015.8966E+012.1523E+0420060.1225.8709E+025.9590E+022.1751E+059.6627E+009.8078E+003.5798E+031.6136E+021.6379E+025.9782E+0420070.1453.8550E+024.6458E+021.6957E+053.0375E-013.6606E-011.3361E+021.6050E+021.9342E+027.0600E+0463Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix D: Summary of Measured USGS Loads

See CD for table.

64 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix E: Summary of Juniper Creek Water Quality Spatial Trend Data

There are currently no spatial trend data available for Juniper Creek.

Telogia Creek survey from 1979

65 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## 66 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## 67 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix F: Summary of Juniper Cr eek Water Quality Time Trend Data

Juniper Creek WBID 682

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

12/14/2005 2/2/2006 3/24/2006 5/13/2006 7/2/2006 8/21/2006 10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007

DateDO (mg/L)

Juniper Creek WBID 682

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4

12/14/2005 2/2/2006 3/24/2006 5/13/2006 7/2/2006 8/21/2006 10/10/2006 11/29/2006 1/18/2007

DateTKN (mg/L)



## 68 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionDiscrete Sampling(See CD for entire table)StationStation DescriptionHUCDateMMDDYYYY73672TimeWQHHMMTOTDEPTHFT 81903SAMDEPTHFT3TEMPOC 10DOmg/L299PSAT%301CONDμS/CM94SALPPT480pH SU406FIELDTURB NTU820787520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A031200036/15/200612430.60.523.334.957.11210.066.231.97520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A031200032/16/200613270.750.511.789.7890.3530.026.384.37519Juniper Crk 200 Yds upsSR 65A Bridge0312000311/9/200514110.50.517.656.7670.8680.036.037.47520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A0312000311/19/200514220.60.517.076.5367.6680.035.81.57519Juniper Crk 200 Yds upsSR 65A Bridge0312000311/16/200512001.130.518.65.9263620.036.0514.37520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A0312000311/16/200512100.540.5418.295.8662.1630.035.891.57450Long Branch at SR 274031200034/22/200810062.920.518.781.3714.8430.025.575.37520Juniper Creek at SR 65A031200034/22/200811000.720.516.866.8670.8520.025.4537430Trib 1 to East of NicoleRd031200034/22/200811500.50.516.319.5197450.023.931.17420Trib 2 East of Nicole Rd031200034/22/200812001.50.516.253.4735.2310.014.190.17410Trib 3 East of Nicole Rd031200034/22/200812101.20.520.315.5461.2400.024.9337400Trib 4 East of Nicole Rd031200034/22/2008123010.516.994.8149.8400.024.4307450Long Branch at SR 274031200034/30/2008100520.518.40.889.3450.025.4133.17520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A031200034/30/200810450.90.516.266.5966.9610.035.676.27440Trib 0 East of Nicole Rd031200034/30/200811250.50.520.53555.6340.014.391.87430Trib 1 to East of NicoleRd031200034/30/200811350.80.514.2310.18100.3400.024.232.37420Trib 2 East of Nicole Rd031200034/30/200811461.80.5616.033.8238.6300.014.2607410Trib 3 East of Nicole Rd031200034/30/200812001.10.520.375.5561.5380.024.91.27400Trib 4 East of Nicole Rd031200034/30/2008122510.516.546.1863.4390.024.59069Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Logger Data

Juniper @ SR 65A

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0 5 10 15 20 25

Date /TimeTemperature (C) Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Date /TimeSp. Conductivity (umhos)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035

Date /TimeSalinity (ppt) Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Date /TimeDissolved Oxygen (% sat.) Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8

7 7.2

Date /TimeDissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

5.55 5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8 5.85 5.9

Date /TimepH (su) Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Date /TimeTurbidity (ntu)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Date /TimeDepth (ft.)



## 70 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Trib. East of Nicole Rd.

Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

15.5

16 16.5

17 17.5

18 18.5

19

Date/TimeTemperature (C)

\ Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Date/TimeConductivity (umhos)

Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012

Date/TimeSalinity (ppt) Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Date/TimeDissolved Oxygen (% sat.) Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

Date/TimeDissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

4.35 4.4 4.45 4.5 4.55 4.6 4.65 4.7 4.75

Date/TimepH (su) Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4

Date/TimeTurbidity (NTU)

Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Date/TimeDepth (ft.)



## 71 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Long Branch at SR 274

Long Branch @ SR 274

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Date/TimeTemperature (C) Long Branch @ SR 274

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Date/TimeSp. Conductivity (umhos)

Long Branch @ SR 274

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Date/TimeSalinity (ppt) Long Branch @ SR 274

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Date/TimeDissolved Oxygen (% sat.) Long Branch @ SR 274

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Date/TimeDissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

Long Branch @ SR 274

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Date/TimepH (su) Long Branch @ SR 274

-20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Date/TimeTurbidity (NTU)

Long Branch @ SR 274

-0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

Date/TimeDepth (ft.)



## 72 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix G: Summary of Juniper Creek Biology Data

73 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## 74 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix H: USGS, De partment Flow Data

75 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionJuniper Creek miscellaneous flowsStationStation DescriptionHUCDateMMDDYYYY73672TimeWQHHMMTOTDEPTHFT 81903SAMDEPTHFT3WFT4D FT64AFTSQ51VFT/S55QCFS61WEFTDEFTAEFTSQVEFT/SQECFS7520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A031200036/15/200612430.60.57520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A031200032/16/200613270.750.5110.4034.4351.36966.0747519Juniper Crk 200 Ydsups SR 65A bridge0312000311/9/200514110.50.5200.50.117520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A0312000311/19/200514220.60.57519Juniper Crk 200 Ydsups SR 65A bridge0312000311/16/200512001.130.5152300.137520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A0312000311/16/200512100.540.547.50.3072.3040.87032.0057450Long Branch at SR 274031200034/22/200810062.920.5201.5007520Juniper Creek at SR65A031200034/22/200811000.720.57.30.8536.22450.44512.7717430Trib 1 to East of NicoleRd031200034/22/200811500.50.5250.450.33.3757420Trib 2 East of NicoleRd031200034/22/200812001.50.5150.90.20.277410Trib 3 East of NicoleRd031200034/22/200812101.20.5250.90.020.457400Trib 4 East of NicoleRd031200034/22/2008123010.5100.50.10.057450Long Branch at SR 274031200034/30/2008100520.57520Juniper Crk @ SR 65A031200034/30/200810450.90.57.20.7575.4480.41052.2377440Trib 0 East of NicoleRd031200034/30/200811250.50.5007430Trib 1 to East of NicoleRd031200034/30/200811350.80.5150.40.050.37420Trib 2 East of NicoleRd031200034/30/200811461.80.56120.9007410Trib 3 East of NicoleRd031200034/30/200812001.10.5150.8007400Trib 4 East of NicoleRd031200034/30/2008122510.576Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix I: Ground Water Data in the Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin

GENERATING

STATISTICS

ANALYTE GROUP: SPRING

INITIATIVE

NETWORK: ALL

WATER

RESOURCE: CONFINED

UNCONFINED

TMDL BASIN: OCHLOCKONEE

–ST. MARKS

COLLECTION

DATE: FROM: 1-JAN1980 TO: 8-MAY2008

RESULTS: MAX PER WELL

Parameter Name Coliform, Total (MF) Coliform, Fecal (MF) Enterococci,

Membrane Filter Water Temperature Turbidity Color

Parameter Code 31501 31616 31649 10 76 81

Units #/100ml #/100ml #/100ml degrees C ntu Pt-Co

Total Wells 118 153 61 241 199 136

Number BDLs 84 132 44 0 24 42

Number MCL/GCL

Exceedances 33 NA NA NA NA 38

Percent MCL/GCL

Exceedances 28% NA NA NA NA 27.90%

Minimum 0 0 0 11.9 0.025 2.5

1st Quartile 0 0 0 20.97 0.5 2.5

Median 0 0 0 21.4 1.6 5

3rd Quartile 10 0 2 22.1 12 22.5

Maximum 2000 900 1300 28.78 3900 4000

Interquartile Range 10 0 2 1.13 11.5 20

Mean 50.085 10.699 35.213 21.527 46.177 75.478

Standard Deviation 226.136 77.34 170.311 1.37 289.428 355.464

Relative Standard

Deviation 451.50% 722.87% 483.66% 6.36% 626.78% 470.95%

Standard Error 20.818 6.253 21.806 0.088 20.517 30.481

Variance 51137.531 5981.422 29005.77 1.877 83768.754 126354.307

Coefficient of

Skewness 664.445 415.012 620.271 31518.978 473.109 622.944



## 77 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionNumber Risk

Indicators NA 13 17 NA 64 NA

Percent Risk

Indicators NA 8.50% 27.90% NA 32.20% NA

Number SRA

Indicators 2 1 6 NA 33 38

Percent SRA

Indicators 1.70% 0.70% 9.80% NA 16.60% 27.90%

GENERATING

STATISTICS

ANALYTE GROUP: SPRING

INITIATIVE

NETWORK: ALL

WATER

RESOURCE: CONFINED

UNCONFINED

TMDL BASIN: OCHLOCKONEE

- ST. MARKS

COLLECTION

DATE: FROM: 1-JAN1980 TO: 8-MAY2008

RESULTS: MAX PER WELL

Parameter Name Specific Conductance,

Field Specific

Conductance Oxygen, Dissolved,

Field pH, Field Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3) Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Parameter Code 94 95 299 406 410 530

Units uS/cm uS/cm mg/L s.u. mg/L mg/L

Total Wells 241 140 231 236 134 61

Number BDLs 0 0 0 0 1 38

Number MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA NA NA 43 NA NA

Percent MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA NA NA 18.20% NA NA

Minimum 12 14 0.03 3.42 0.325 2

1st Quartile 190 160 0.83 7.1075 106 2

Median 266 250 2.49 7.535 131 2

3rd Quartile 336 310 6.205 7.86 166.75 9

Maximum 12200 1100 10 11.09 451.104 1778

Interquartile Range 146 150 5.375 0.7525 60.75 7

Mean 332.842 254.857 3.484 7.277 138.953 52.754

Standard Deviation 789.524 174.656 2.92 1.034 71.236 231.475

Relative Standard

Deviation 237.21% 68.53% 83.81% 14.21% 51.27% 438.78%

Standard Error 50.858 14.761 0.192 0.067 6.154 29.637

Variance 623347.767 30504.771 8.529 1.069 5074.597 53580.522

Coefficient of

Skewness 927.807 2946.197 2726.712 13825.919 4012.845 675.071



## 78 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionNumber Risk

Indicators NA NA NA NA NA NA

Percent Risk

Indicators NA NA NA NA NA NA

Number SRA

Indicators 2 0 139 208 127 NA

Percent SRA

Indicators 0.80% 0% 60.20% 88.10% 94.80% NA

GENERATING

STATISTICS

ANALYTE GROUP: SPRING

INITIATIVE

NETWORK: ALL

WATER

RESOURCE: CONFINED

UNCONFINED

TMDL BASIN: OCHLOCKONEE

- ST. MARKS

COLLECTION

DATE: FROM: 1-JAN1980 TO: 8-MAY2008

RESULTS: MAX PER WELL

Parameter Name Ammonia, Dissolved (as N) Ammonia, Total (as N) Ammonia+Organic Nitrogen,

Dissolved Ammonia+ Organic Nitrogen, Total (as N) Nitrate+ Nitrite, Total (as N) Nitrate+ Nitrite,

Dissolved (as N)

Parameter Code 608 610 623 625 630 631

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Total Wells 146 103 141 103 103 148

Number BDLs 47 69 79 74 15 47

Number MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA NA NA NA 0 NA

Percent MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA NA NA NA 0% NA

Minimum 0.005 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.002 0.002

1st Quartile 0.01 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.009 0.01

Median 0.015 0.005 0.1 0.04 0.13 0.1125

3rd Quartile 0.06775 0.0205 0.16 0.081 0.455 0.52

Maximum 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.4 2.6 19

Interquartile Range 0.05775 0.0155 0.13 0.051 0.446 0.51

Mean 0.061 0.053 0.145 0.124 0.286 0.568

Standard Deviation 0.13 0.143 0.191 0.224 0.417 1.733

Relative Standard

Deviation 213.12% 269.81% 131.72% 180.65% 145.80% 305.11%

Standard Error 0.011 0.014 0.016 0.022 0.041 0.142

Variance 0.017 0.02 0.036 0.05 0.174 3.004

Coefficient of

Skewness 1292.308 1076.923 1753.927 1482.143 1745.803 918.35



## 79 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionNumber Risk

Indicators NA NA NA NA NA 1

Percent Risk

Indicators NA NA NA NA NA 0.70%

Number SRA

Indicators NA NA NA NA 26 39

Percent SRA

Indicators NA NA NA NA 25.20% 26.40%

GENERATING

STATISTICS

ANALYTE GROUP: SPRING

INITIATIVE

NETWORK: ALL

WATER

RESOURCE: CONFINED

UNCONFINED

TMDL BASIN: OCHLOCKONEE -

ST. MARKS

COLLECTION DATE: FROM: 1-JAN1980 TO: 8-MAY2008

RESULTS: MAX PER WELL

Parameter Name Phosphorus, Total (as P) Phosphorus, Dissolved (as P) Orthophosphate, Dissolved (as P) Organic Carbon, Total Calcium,

Dissolved Calcium,

Total

Parameter Code 665 666 671 680 915 916

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Total Wells 113 142 180 215 148 143

Number BDLs 11 16 37 104 0 0

Number MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA NA NA NA NA NA

Percent MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA NA NA NA NA NA

Minimum 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.48 0.21 0.15

1st Quartile 0.015 0.01 0.014 0.5 25.625 29.6

Median 0.029 0.03 0.026 1.1 38 39.8

3rd Quartile 0.05 0.06 0.0445 4.16 52.2 53.45

Maximum 1.8 1.9 1.8 170 170 174

Interquartile Range 0.035 0.05 0.0305 3.66 26.575 23.85

Mean 0.093 0.084 0.073 4.432 38.995 43.878

Standard Deviation 0.268 0.211 0.19 13.084 26.605 26.666

Relative Standard

Deviation 288.17% 251.19% 260.27% 295.22% 68.23% 60.77%

Standard Error 0.025 0.018 0.014 0.892 2.187 2.23

Variance 0.072 0.045 0.036 171.199 707.82 711.063

Coefficient of

Skewness 932.836 1052.133 1015.789 932.131 2968.803 3443.861



## 80 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionNumber Risk

Indicators NA NA NA NA NA NA

Percent Risk

Indicators NA NA NA NA NA NA

Number SRA

Indicators 61 81 91 NA NA NA

Percent SRA

Indicators 54% 57% 50.60% NA NA NA

GENERATING

STATISTICS

ANALYTE GROUP: SPRING

INITIATIVE

NETWORK: ALL

WATER

RESOURCE: CONFINED

UNCONFINED

TMDL BASIN: OCHLOCKONEE

- ST. MARKS

COLLECTION

DATE: FROM: 1-JAN1980 TO: 8-MAY2008

RESULTS: MAX PER WELL

Parameter Name Magnesium,

Dissolved Magnesium,

Total Sodium, Total Sodium,

Dissolved Potassium,

Dissolved Potassium,

Total

Parameter Code 925 927 929 930 935 937

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Total Wells 148 143 143 148 148 88

Number BDLs 0 0 1 0 9 0

Number MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA NA 1 NA NA NA

Percent MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA NA 0.70% NA NA NA

Minimum 0.2 0.29 0.93 0.71 0.025 0.2

1st Quartile 1.375 3.8 2.595 2.675 0.4 0.4875

Median 5.1 7.7 3.4 3.405 0.5255 0.63

3rd Quartile 10.325 11.9 4.56 4.8025 1.1 1.225

Maximum 57 52 167 130 13.2 40

Interquartile Range 8.95 8.1 1.965 2.1275 0.7 0.7375

Mean 6.835 9.168 7.634 7.258 0.945 1.701

Standard Deviation 7.261 8.225 17.728 14.686 1.348 4.612

Relative Standard

Deviation 106.23% 89.71% 232.22% 202.34% 142.65% 271.14%

Standard Error 0.597 0.688 1.482 1.207 0.111 0.492

Variance 52.724 67.659 314.269 215.689 1.817 21.268

Coefficient of

Skewness 2121.609 2407.781 1100.068 1250.783 1713.279 969.861



## 81 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionNumber Risk

Indicators NA NA NA 0 NA NA

Percent Risk

Indicators NA NA NA 0% NA NA

Number SRA

Indicators NA NA NA NA NA NA

Percent SRA

Indicators NA NA NA NA NA NA

GENERATING

STATISTICS

ANALYTE GROUP: SPRING

INITIATIVE

NETWORK: ALL

WATER

RESOURCE: CONFINED

UNCONFINED

TMDL BASIN: OCHLOCKONEE

- ST. MARKS

COLLECTION

DATE: FROM: 1-JAN1980 TO: 8-MAY2008

RESULTS: MAX PER WELL

Parameter Name Chloride, Total Chloride,

Dissolved Sulfate, Total Sulfate,

Dissolved Fluoride,

Dissolved Fluoride,

Total

Parameter Code 940 941 945 946 950 951

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Total Wells 138 153 200 148 148 154

Number BDLs 0 1 64 26 50 20

Number MCL/GCL

Exceedances 0 NA 0 NA NA 0

Percent MCL/GCL

Exceedances 0% NA 0% NA NA 0%

Minimum 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.025

1st Quartile 3.225 3.6 0.5 1.4175 0.0575 0.092

Median 4.6 4.5 2.525 3.2 0.145 0.17

3rd Quartile 6 6.1 6.925 6.85 0.31425 0.2475

Maximum 250 260 250 260 5 0.91

Interquartile Range 2.775 2.5 6.425 5.4325 0.25675 0.1555

Mean 12.862 11.041 7.283 7.304 0.329 0.205

Standard Deviation 33.308 28.49 22.312 21.917 0.624 0.16

Relative Standard

Deviation 258.96% 258.04% 306.36% 300.07% 189.67% 78.05%

Standard Error 2.835 2.303 1.578 1.802 0.051 0.013

Variance 1109.442 811.662 497.819 480.351 0.389 0.026

Coefficient of

Skewness 1020.355 1004.668 866.081 853.766 1349.359 2781.25



## 82 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionNumber Risk

Indicators NA 1 NA 1 3 NA

Percent Risk

Indicators NA 0.70% NA 0.70% 2% NA

Number SRA

Indicators 0 NA NA NA NA 0

Percent SRA

Indicators 0% NA NA NA NA 0%

GENERATING

STATISTICS

ANALYTE GROUP: SPRING

INITIATIVE

NETWORK: ALL

WATER

RESOURCE: CONFINED

UNCONFINED

TMDL BASIN: OCHLOCKONEE

- ST. MARKS

COLLECTION

DATE: FROM: 1-JAN1980 TO: 8-MAY2008

RESULTS: MAX PER WELL

Parameter Name Alkalinity, Dissolved (as CaCO3) Total

Dissolved Solids (TDS

measured)

Parameter Code 29801 70300

Units mg/L mg/L

Total Wells 143 217

Number BDLs 11 5

Number MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA 5

Percent MCL/GCL

Exceedances NA 2.30%

Minimum 0.5 7.5

1st Quartile 67.8 109

Median 124 151

3rd Quartile 153 193

Maximum 425 790

Interquartile Range 85.2 84

Mean 114.437 160.431

Standard Deviation 74.19 107.061

Relative Standard

Deviation 64.83% 66.73%

Standard Error 6.204 7.268



## 83 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionVariance 5504.143 11462.153

Coefficient of

Skewness 2956.072 3085.092

Number Risk

Indicators NA NA

Percent Risk

Indicators NA NA

Number SRA

Indicators 120 0

Percent SRA

Indicators 83.90% 0%



## 84 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix J: Juniper Creek Mode ling Study Using the ADEM Model

ADEM Model Scenarios, Juniper Creek, WBID 682 Quincy Farms Effluent

Scenario Q (mgd) BOD5 (removal %) BOD 5 (mg/L) CBODU (mg/L) NH3N (mg/L) ORGN (mg/L) TKN (mg/L) DO (mg/L)

A 0.4766 90 131 262 3.1 19 22.1 2

B 0.4766 95 65 130 1.55 9.52 11.07 2

C 0.4766 99 13 26 0.31 1.904 2.214 2

D 0.4766 99 13 26 0.31 1.904 2.214 6

E 0.4766 99.6 5 10 0.3 0.4 0.7 6

F 0.4766 99.9 2 4 0.3 0.4 0.7 6

Q710 0.4766 99 13 26 0.31 1.904 2.214 2



## Run A (See CD for other Run A graphs)

Juniper Creek-A
Dissolved Oxygen vs. Distance

-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesDO, mg/l



## 85 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionJuniper Creek-A

CBODu vs. Distance

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesCBODu, mg/l

Juniper Creek-A

Flow vs. Distance

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesFlow, cfs



## 86 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionJuniper Creek-A

NH 3 -N vs. Distance

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesNH3-N, mg/l



## 87 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Run B (See CD for other Run B graphs)

Juniper Creek-B
Dissolved Oxygen vs. Distance

-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesDO, mg/l

Juniper Creek-B

CBODu vs. Distance

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesCBODu, mg/l



## 88 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionJuniper Creek-B

Flow vs. Distance

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesFlow, cfs

Juniper Creek-B

NH 3 -N vs. Distance

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesNH3-N, mg/l



## 89 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Run C (See CD for other Run C graphs)

Juniper Creek-C
Dissolved Oxygen vs. Distance

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesDO, mg/l

Juniper Creek-C

CBODu vs. Distance

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesCBODu, mg/l



## 90 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionJuniper Creek-C

Flow vs. Distance

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesFlow, cfs

Juniper Creek-C

NH 3 -N vs. Distance

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesNH3-N, mg/l



## 91 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## Run C with Q710 (See CD for other Run C with Q710 graphs)

Juniper Creek-C
Dissolved Oxygen vs. Distance

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesDO, mg/l

Juniper Creek-C at Q710

CBODu vs. Distance

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesCBODu, mg/l



## 92 Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionJuniper Creek-C at Q710

Flow vs. Distance

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesFlow, cfs

Juniper Creek-C at Q710

NH 3 -N vs. Distance

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Distance, milesNH3-N, mg/l



## 93 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix K: Photos of Various Wate rbodies in the Juniper Creek Watershed

94 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## STA.# 7450 - Long Branch @ SR 274 STA. # 7450 - Long Branch @ SR 274

95 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## STA. # 7520 - Juniper Creek @ SR 65A STA.# 7520 - Juniper Creek @ SR 65A

Trib.25 Yards East of Nicole Rd. - Puddle Trib. East of Nicole Rd.

STA # 7430 - Trib. 1 East of Nicole Rd. STA.# 7430 - Trib. 1 East of Nicole Rd.

96 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## STA. # 7410 - Trib. 3 East of Nicole Rd. STA. # 7410 - Trib. 3 East of Nicole Rd.

STA.# 7400 - Trib. 4 East of Nicole Rd. STA.# 7400 - Trib. 4 East of Nicole Rd.

Trib. 5 just West of SR 65 on SR 65A - Dry Trib. 5 just West of SR 65 on SR 65A - Dry

97 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

# Appendix L: Public Comments

-----Original Message-----

From: Mandrup-Poulsen, Jan
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:53 AM
To: 'junipercreek@pineapp.hcsmail.com'

Cc: Wilcox, Erin G.; Gorham, Bonita
Subject: RE: Draft D.O. TMDL for Juniper Creek WBID 682

Dear Mr. Potts,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Department's Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) report prepared to address the low dissolved oxygen levels in Juniper
Creek (WBID 682), located in Gadsden County. We appreciate getting your
information regarding the nursery operations located it the adjoining
watershed. Based on your comments, we have added additional language in the
report, which will be re-posted on the TMDL web site shortly. In addition,
we have successfully completed the rule development process for this TMDL,
which is a necessary precursor to initiating the implementation phase,
wherein stakeholders will help the Department in developing the list of
projects and actions needed to restore Juniper Creek.

We look forward to your continued interest and involvement in restoring
Juniper Creek and hope you will help us to protect all of Florida's water

resources.

Sincerely,

Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, Administrator

Watershed Assessment Section

-----Original Message-----
From: junipercreek@pineapp.hcsmail.com
[mailto:junipercreek@pineapp.hcsmail.com]

Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 2:33 PM
To: Mandrup-Poulsen, Jan
Subject: Draft D.O. TMDL for Juniper Creek WBID 682

Dear Mr. Poulsen:

We are sending this e-mail to make a comment in response to the recent
draft Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for Juniper Creek WBID 682. We were pleased
to see this study is being undertaken on Juniper Creek, which runs along
our property in Gadsden County. It looks like a good effort has been put
forth to characterize the situation regarding nutrient pollutant loading
in the basin. However, we note you did not reference any potential

contribution from nurseries in the area which are several hundred acres in
size. For instance, a large outdoor plant nursery operates along the
north side of Juniper Creek, on either side of Highway 65-A (Juniper Creek
Road). This type of operation uses large amounts of fertilizers that may
be contributing nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) into the creek. We
did not see this mentioned in the draft report. We feel this should be
considered when developing the final report and the implementation plan.
Thank you for considering our comment, and thank you for your efforts on



## 98 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

## 99 Florida Department of Environmental Protection TMDLs. Please add us to your e-mail distribution list for future
developments, including any meetings, regarding this TMDL for Juniper

Creek.

Sincerely, Ronald R. Potts
Juniper Creek Road

## Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Water Resource Management

Bureau of Watershed Management

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
www.dep.state.fl.us/water/