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 was 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 Verified Impairments ______________________________ 5

Chapter 3. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS AND TARGETS _______________________ 8

3.1 Classification of the Waterbody and Criteria Applicable 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 Determination 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 Allocation 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 Permitted 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 Juniper Creek Biology Data __________________ 73

Appendix H: USGS, Department Flow Data ___________________________ 75

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

Appendix J: Juniper Creek Modeling 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 Loads, 1984–2006 ________________________ 22

Table 4.4a. Summary of BOD5 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 the 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 BOD5 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 County, Florida, in 2000 ___________ 20

Figure 5.1. Monitoring Sites in the Juniper Creek Watershed _________________ 33

Figure 5.2a. Chart of DO Observations for Juniper Creek, WBID 682 ____________ 34

Figure 5.2b. Chart of BOD5 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/legal/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 Water Quality Classifications 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/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 Juniper 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 

(mi2

) 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 waterbody identification (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 (BOD5) 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 Requirements 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 Verified 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 addresses 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 Applicable 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 75th 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 

75th

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, including 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 regulation 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 Nutrients 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 the 

public. 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 sewage treatment and disposal system (OSTDS). 

Treated effluent is disposed of through spray irrigation 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 (BOD5) 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), BOD5, TSS, NO23-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, 

BOD5, 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. BOD5 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 increased by an order of magnitude from about 50 

to 500 mg/L and parallels BOD5. 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 BOD5 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 described 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 Mi2 % 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 Mi2 % 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 Mi2 % 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 Mi2 % 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 Mi2 % 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 Mi2 % 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 Mi2 % 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 Mi2 % 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/mi2

 (10 persons/mi2 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/mi2

. 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 
NONPOINT SOURCE RUNOFF LOADING MODELS

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) RL = [Cp + (CI – Cp) IMPL] * I 

Where: 

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

IMPL = fractional imperviousness of land use L, 

I = long-term average annual precipitation (inches/year), 

CP = pervious area runoff coefficient, and 

CI = 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, ML, is computed for each land use L by the 

following equation: 

(2) ML = EMCL * RL * K 

Where: 

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

EMCL = event mean concentration of runoff from land use L (mg/L); EMC varies by land use 

and pollutant, 

RL = 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+03 3.8011E+04 3.7659E+05 

1985 3.1899E+04 2.9509E+03 4.6165E+04 4.5737E+05 

1986 3.4734E+04 3.2131E+03 5.0267E+04 4.9801E+05 

1987 2.6700E+04 2.4699E+03 3.8641E+04 3.8283E+05 

1988 2.7896E+04 2.5806E+03 4.0372E+04 3.9998E+05 

1989 3.6031E+04 3.3331E+03 5.2144E+04 5.1661E+05 

1990 2.1903E+04 2.0262E+03 3.1698E+04 3.1405E+05 

1991 4.7512E+04 4.3952E+03 6.8761E+04 6.8124E+05 

1992 3.3511E+04 3.2694E+03 5.0216E+04 4.9751E+05 

1993 3.3387E+04 3.0885E+03 4.8318E+04 4.7870E+05 

1994 4.9473E+04 4.5765E+03 7.1597E+04 7.0934E+05 

1995 3.3222E+04 3.0733E+03 4.8080E+04 4.7634E+05 

1996 2.9455E+04 2.7247E+03 4.2627E+04 4.2232E+05 

1997 3.6750E+04 3.3996E+03 5.3185E+04 5.2693E+05 

1998 3.1568E+04 2.9202E+03 4.5685E+04 4.5262E+05 

1999 2.4173E+04 2.2362E+03 3.4984E+04 3.4660E+05 

2000 2.3887E+04 2.2097E+03 3.4569E+04 3.4249E+05 

2001 3.1074E+04 2.8745E+03 4.4971E+04 4.4554E+05 

2002 3.2122E+04 2.9715E+03 4.6488E+04 4.6057E+05 

2003 3.2155E+04 2.9746E+03 4.6535E+04 4.6104E+05 

2004 3.5053E+04 3.2426E+03 5.0729E+04 5.0260E+05 

2005 3.5742E+04 3.3063E+03 5.1726E+04 5.1247E+05 

2006 2.6192E+04 2.4230E+03 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 wastewater 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 of 

Agriculture 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 Deposition 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 air 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 (μg/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 μg/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/mi2

. 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 into Juniper Creek from Various Sources 

Table 4.4a summarizes the annual average BOD5 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 BOD5 Loads to the Juniper Creek Watershed, 

1997 

Estimated Annual Loading Year(s) Flow 

(mgd) 

BOD5 (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 BOD5, TKN, 

and other nutrients from several of the 6 small tributary 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 mi2

) 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 (BOD5, 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/mi2

. 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 BOD5 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 Environmental 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

Year

Annual average DO (MG/L)

34 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Figure 5.2b. Chart of BOD5 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

Year

Annual 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

Year

Annual 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

Year

Annual 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 70th

Percentile 

75th

Percentile 

682 TEMP 10 DEGC 30 7.7000E+00 2.6260E+01 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+02 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+02 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 5.1000E-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 1.4909E+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+00 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+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

682 TKN 625 MG/L 28 3.6000E-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+00 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+03 2.4000E+03 2.4500E+03

682 FCOLI 31625 N/100ML 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 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+00 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 BOD5 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 75th 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 BOD5 and TKN at Juniper Creek at SR 65A are compared with the 

ADEM model, this provides the 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 BOD5 and Nutrient Reductions for Juniper 

Creek, WBID 682 

Parameter Median 

(mg/L) 

ADEM 

Model 

(mg/L) 

Difference % Reduction 

Quincy Farms 

BOD5* 587 5 582 99.148211 

TKN* 9.663 0.7 8.963 92.755873 

Juniper Creek 

BOD5 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 Department’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 occurs 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 7Q10 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 ≅ ∑ WLAswastewater + ∑ WLAsNPDES 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 terms (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 practical” 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) 

Wastewater MOS 

(% 

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 Wastewater Discharges 

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

for BOD5 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 the development of this TMDL. An implicit 

MOS was provided by the conservative decisions 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 precipitation 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/reports/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 Coastal 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 achieve 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 requirements, 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 Phase I NPDES Stormwater Program in 1990. 

These stormwater discharges include certain discharges that are associated with industrial activities 

designated by specific standard industrial classification (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 water 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 easily 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 Use 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 Protection 
Concentrations 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 0 
Septic Tanks 

(See CD for entire table)

Date Year 

Gadsden 

County 

No. of 

Tanks 

New 

County 

Tanks 

Cum 

No. of 

Tanks 

Gal/cap/ 

day* 

Q 

(cfs/tank**) 

80% 

Q 

(cfs) 

DA= 

BOD5 

(mg/L) 

528.

BOD

(lbs/d

1/1/1970 1970 3,085 3,085 3.0850E+03 70 2.82E-04 8.6886E-01 2.2050E+02 1.03261/1/1971 1971 277 3,362 3.3620E+03 70 2.82E-04 9.4687E-01 2.2050E+02 1.12541/1/1972 1972 342 3,704 3.7040E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.0432E+00 2.2050E+02 1.23981/1/1973 1973 498 4,202 4.2020E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.1835E+00 2.2050E+02 1.40651/1/1974 1974 521 4,723 4.7230E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.3302E+00 2.2050E+02 1.58091/1/1975 1975 368 5,091 5.0910E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.4338E+00 2.2050E+02 1.70411/1/1977 1976 408 5,499 5.4990E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.5487E+00 2.2050E+02 1.84071/1/1978 1977 363 5,862 5.8620E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.6510E+00 2.2050E+02 1.96221/1/1979 1978 354 6,216 6.2160E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.7507E+00 2.2050E+02 2.08071/1/1980 1979 176 6,392 6.3920E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.8002E+00 2.2050E+02 2.13961/1/1981 1980 275 6,667 6.6670E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.8777E+00 2.2050E+02 2.23161/1/1982 1981 281 6,948 6.9480E+03 70 2.82E-04 1.9568E+00 2.2050E+02 2.32571/1/1984 1982 340 7,288 7.2880E+03 70 2.82E-04 2.0526E+00 2.2050E+02 2.43951/1/1983 1983 350 7,638 7.6380E+03 70 2.82E-04 2.1512E+00 2.2050E+02 2.55671/1/1984 1984 375 8,013 8.0130E+03 70 2.82E-04 2.2568E+00 2.2050E+02 2.68221/1/1985 1985 300 8,313 8.3130E+03 70 2.82E-04 2.3413E+00 2.2050E+02 2.78261/1/1986 1986 446 8,759 8.7590E+03 70 2.82E-04 2.4669E+00 2.2050E+02 2.93191/1/1987 1987 423 9,182 9.1820E+03 70 2.82E-04 2.5860E+00 2.2050E+02 3.07351/1/1988 1988 433 9,615 9.6150E+03 70 2.82E-04 2.7080E+00 2.2050E+02 3.21841/1/1989 1989 311 9,926 9.9260E+03 70 2.82E-04 2.7956E+00 2.2050E+02 3.32251/1/1990 1990 509 10,435 1.0435E+04 70 2.82E-04 2.9389E+00 2.2050E+02 3.49291/1/1991 1991 450 10,885 1.0885E+04 70 2.82E-04 3.0657E+00 2.2050E+02 3.6435

52 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
53 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Date Year 

Gadsden 

County 

No. of 

Tanks 

New 

County 

Tanks 

Cum 

No. of 

Tanks 

Gal/cap/ 

day* 

Q 

(cfs/tank**) 

80% 

Q 

(cfs) 

DA= 

BOD5 

(mg/L) 

528.

BOD

(lbs/d

1/1/1992 1992 550 11,435 1.1435E+04 70 2.82E-04 3.2206E+00 2.2050E+02 3.82761/1/1993 1993 450 11,885 1.1885E+04 70 2.82E-04 3.3473E+00 2.2050E+02 3.97821/1/1994 1994 450 12,335 1.2335E+04 70 2.82E-04 3.4740E+00 2.2050E+02 4.12891/1/1995 1995 627 12,962 1.2962E+04 70 2.82E-04 3.6506E+00 2.2050E+02 4.33871/1/1996 1996 370 13,332 1.3332E+04 70 2.82E-04 3.7548E+00 2.2050E+02 4.46261/1/1997 1997 451 13,783 1.3783E+04 70 2.82E-04 3.8818E+00 2.2050E+02 4.61361/1/1998 1998 457 14,240 1.4240E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.0106E+00 2.2050E+02 4.76651/1/1999 1999 260 14,500 1.4500E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.0838E+00 2.2050E+02 4.85361/1/2000 2000 242 14,742 1.4742E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.1519E+00 2.2050E+02 4.93461/1/2001 2001 204 14,946 1.4946E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.2094E+00 2.2050E+02 5.00281/1/2002 2002 206 15,152 1.5152E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.2674E+00 2.2050E+02 5.07181/1/2003 2003 242 15,394 1.5394E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.3356E+00 2.2050E+02 5.15281/1/2004 2004 270 15,664 1.5664E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.4116E+00 2.2050E+02 5.24321/1/2005 2005 303 15,967 1.5967E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.4969E+00 2.2050E+02 5.34461/1/2006 2006 414 16,381 1.6381E+04 70 2.82E-04 4.6135E+00 2.2050E+02 5.4832
Atmospheric Deposition 

(See CD for entire table) 

Date Year 

NADP14 

Quincy 

Annual Rain 

(cm) 

NADP14 

Quincy 

Annual Rain 

(in) 

NWS 

Tallahassee 

Annual Rain 

(in) 

NADP14 

Precip-Wt 

Conc 

NH4 

(mg/L) 

NO3 

(mg/L) 

TN 

(mg/L) 

NADP14 

Wet 

Deposition 

Rate 

NH4 

(kg/ha/yr) 

1/1/1983 1983.00 1/1/1984 1984.00 111.7500 43.9961 56.2000 0.1200 0.6220 0.2338 1.3400 1/1/1985 1985.00 135.7200 53.4331 62.9300 0.0730 0.4100 0.1494 0.9900 1/1/1986 1986.00 147.7800 58.1811 71.7800 0.0440 0.5150 0.1505 0.6500 1/1/1987 1987.00 113.6000 44.7244 67.8200 0.0770 0.5490 0.1839 0.8700 1/1/1988 1988.00 118.6900 46.7283 48.4600 0.0640 0.7470 0.2185 0.7600 1/1/1989 1989.00 153.3000 60.3543 63.5900 0.1440 0.6360 0.2556 2.2100 1/1/1990 1990.00 93.1900 36.6890 45.7300 0.1530 0.7300 0.2838 1.4300 1/1/1991 1991.00 202.1500 79.5866 72.2500 0.0680 0.5380 0.1744 1.3700 1/1/1992 1992.00 147.6300 58.1220 62.7800 0.0740 0.5440 0.1804 1.0900 1/1/1993 1993.00 142.0500 55.9252 51.9300 0.1140 0.7110 0.2492 1.6200 1/1/1994 1994.00 210.4900 82.8701 89.8900 0.0620 0.4570 0.1514 1.3100 1/1/1995 1995.00 141.3500 55.6496 52.4000 0.1660 0.6140 0.2678 2.3500 1/1/1996 1996.00 125.3200 49.3386 56.7200 0.1090 0.5650 0.2124 1.3700 1/1/1997 1997.00 156.3600 61.5591 64.2500 0.0910 0.6300 0.2130 1.4200 1/1/1998 1998.00 134.3100 52.8780 58.8300 0.0960 0.5990 0.2099 1.2900 1/1/1999 1999.00 102.8500 40.4921 50.0700 0.0950 0.6900 0.2297 0.9800 1/1/2000 2000.00 101.6300 40.0118 44.5100 0.1230 0.7680 0.2691 1.2500 1/1/2001 2001.00 132.2100 52.0512 63.4500 0.1010 0.6110 0.2165 1.3400 1/1/2002 2002.00 136.6700 53.8071 56.4000 0.0850 0.5390 0.1878 1.1600 1/1/2003 2003.00 136.8100 53.8622 65.3000 0.1130 0.6280 0.2297 1.5500 1/1/2004 2004.00 149.1400 58.7165 56.8300 0.0820 0.5640 0.1911 1.2200 1/1/2005 2005.00 152.0700 59.8701 68.2800 0.1100 0.5510 0.2100 1.6700 

1/1/2006 2006.00 111.4400 43.8740 49.3400 0.1510 0.6810 0.2712 1.6800 

54 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Spills 

Date Year 

No. of 

Spills 

(yr) 

Q 

(mg/yr) 

Q 

(mgd) 

Q 

(cfs) 

TN 

(mg/L) 

TN 

(lbs/day) 

TN 

(lbs/yr) 

TP 

(mg/L) 

1/1/1983 1983 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1984 1984 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1985 1985 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1986 1986 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1987 1987 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1988 1988 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1989 1989 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1990 1990 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1991 1991 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1992 1992 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1993 1993 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1994 1994 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1995 1995 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1996 1996 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1997 1997 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1998 1998 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/1999 1999 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/2000 2000 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/2001 2001 10 5.7100E-01 1.5644E-03 2.4205E-03 4.0000E+01 5.2185E-01 1.9048E+02 1.0000E+01/1/2002 2002 7 2.1500E-02 5.8904E-05 9.1138E-05 4.0000E+01 1.9649E-02 7.1720E+00 1.0000E+01/1/2003 2003 3 1.6400E-01 4.4932E-04 6.9519E-04 4.0000E+01 1.4988E-01 5.4708E+01 1.0000E+01/1/2004 2004 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/2005 2005 4.0000E+01 1.0000E+01/1/2006 2006 18 8.9605E-02 2.4549E-04 3.7983E-04 4.0000E+01 8.1892E-02 2.9891E+01 1.0000E+0

55 

Florida 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 Protection 
Juniper Creek Wildlife Table 

(See CD for entire table)

Gadsden County Wildlife 

FRACTION OF NWATERFOWL N

STATE COUNTY YEAR POPULATION 

LAND AREA COUNTY IN 7.98 

SQMI BASIN 

FLORIDA GADSDEN 1990 41105 5.2813E+02 1.0000E+00 4.214E+03 TOTAL 5.2813E+02 4.214E+03 STATE COUNTY POPULATION FLORIDA GADSDEN 2000 45087 TOTAL * AVS WEB PAGE NDOGS=0.58*HH ** WWW.NRICD.ORG/LANDWATERCONNECTION/SCOOPONPOOP.HTM

AVE DOG=45LB TN= 1.3000E+01 

TP= 2.0000E+00 

*** **** RUDDY, 2006 

USGS SIR, 2006-5012 

HORSES AND PONIES 

TN=0.127 (KG/DAY/HORSE)*(2.2046 LB/KG)*(365 DAY/YR)= 

HORSES AND PONIES 

TP= 0.022 (KG/DAY/HORSE)*(2.2046 LB/KG)*(365 DAY/YR)= 

ONTARIO AGRICULTURE. WWW.OMAFRA.GOV.ON.CA/ENGLISH/NM/REGS/NMPRO/APPTCJ05.HTM WHITE TAIL DEER TN=(25.4/10.8)*HORSES= WHITE TAIL DEER TP=(7.9/2.9)*HORSES= KNIGHT, 2003 WATERFOWL DENSITY ESCAMBIA AVERAGE BASED ON BIRDSOURCE= 7.98/SQMI DEER DENSITY ESCAMBIA =1/ 50 AC.= 12.8/SQMI 

57 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Domesticated Animals 

(See CD for entire table) 

Gadsden 

Census of 

Pets 

 HOUSING 

 UNITS 

STATE COUNTY YEAR POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS SEWER SEPTIC OTHER SUM 

 

FLORIDA GADSDEN 1990 41105 13405 6046 8455 358 14859 

TOTAL 

 

 

 HOUSING 

 UNITS 

STATE COUNTY POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS 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 Permitted 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 See Permit Yes

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

Date

Flow (MGD)

59 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
TKN 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

Date

TKN (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

Date

BOD (MG/L)

60 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
TEMP 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

Date

TEMP (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

Date

pH (SU)

61 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
TSS 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

Date

TSS (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 Protection 
Year 

Flow 

Annual 

Average 

(mgd) 

BOD 

Annual 

Average 

(mg/L) 

BOD 

Annual 

Load 

(lbs/day) 

BOD 

Annual 

Load 

(lbs/yr) 

TKN 

Annual 

Average 

(mg/L) 

TKN 

Annual 

Load 

(lbs/day) 

TKN 

Annual 

Load 

(lbs/yr) 

TSS 

Annual 

Average 

(mg/L) 

A

(lb

2000 0.230 4.2632E+01 8.1776E+01 2.9848E+04 3.8903E+01 7.4623E+01 2.7237E+04 1.3247E+02 2.52001 0.120 9.8250E+01 9.7953E+01 3.5753E+04 7.1346E+01 7.1130E+01 2.5963E+04 5.4833E+01 5.42002 0.117 5.7083E+01 5.5502E+01 2.0258E+04 5.3714E+01 5.2227E+01 1.9063E+04 4.9667E+01 4.82003 0.103 5.4000E+01 4.6162E+01 1.6849E+04 5.8433E+01 4.9951E+01 1.8232E+04 6.8091E+01 5.82004 0.133 4.7364E+01 5.2447E+01 1.9143E+04 4.3485E+01 4.8153E+01 1.7576E+04 7.5182E+01 8.32005 0.108 1.7167E+02 1.5396E+02 5.6194E+04 7.6818E+01 6.8893E+01 2.5146E+04 6.5750E+01 5.82006 0.122 5.8709E+02 5.9590E+02 2.1751E+05 9.6627E+00 9.8078E+00 3.5798E+03 1.6136E+02 1.62007 0.145 3.8550E+02 4.6458E+02 1.6957E+05 3.0375E-01 3.6606E-01 1.3361E+02 1.6050E+02 1.9

63 

Florida 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 Creek 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

Date

DO (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

Date

TKN (mg/L)

68 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Discrete Sampling 

(See CD for entire table)

Station Station Description HUC 

Date 

MMDDYYYY 

73672 

Time 

WQ 

HHMM 

TOTDEPTH 

FT 81903 

SAMDEPTH 

FT3 

TEMP 

OC 10 

DO 

mg/L 

299 

PSAT 

% 

301 

COND 

μS/CM 

94 

7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 6/15/2006 1243 0.6 0.5 23.33 4.9 57.1 121 7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 2/16/2006 1327 0.75 0.5 11.78 9.78 90.3 53 7519 Juniper Crk 200 Yds ups SR 65A Bridge 03120003 11/9/2005 1411 0.5 0.5 17.65 6.76 70.8 68 7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 11/19/2005 1422 0.6 0.5 17.07 6.53 67.6 68 7519 Juniper Crk 200 Yds ups SR 65A Bridge 03120003 11/16/2005 1200 1.13 0.5 18.6 5.92 63 62 7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 11/16/2005 1210 0.54 0.54 18.29 5.86 62.1 63 7450 Long Branch at SR 274 03120003 4/22/2008 1006 2.92 0.5 18.78 1.37 14.8 43 7520 Juniper Creek at SR 65A 03120003 4/22/2008 1100 0.72 0.5 16.86 6.86 70.8 52 7430 Trib 1 to East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/22/2008 1150 0.5 0.5 16.31 9.51 97 45 7420 Trib 2 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/22/2008 1200 1.5 0.5 16.25 3.47 35.2 31 7410 Trib 3 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/22/2008 1210 1.2 0.5 20.31 5.54 61.2 40 7400 Trib 4 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/22/2008 1230 1 0.5 16.99 4.81 49.8 40 7450 Long Branch at SR 274 03120003 4/30/2008 1005 2 0.5 18.4 0.88 9.3 45 7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 4/30/2008 1045 0.9 0.5 16.26 6.59 66.9 61 7440 Trib 0 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1125 0.5 0.5 20.53 5 55.6 34 7430 Trib 1 to East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1135 0.8 0.5 14.23 10.18 100.3 40 7420 Trib 2 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1146 1.8 0.56 16.03 3.82 38.6 30 7410 Trib 3 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1200 1.1 0.5 20.37 5.55 61.5 38 7400 Trib 4 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1225 1 0.5 16.54 6.18 63.4 39 

69 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Logger Data 

Juniper @ SR 65A 

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0

5

10

15

20

25

Date /Time

Temperature (C)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Date /Time

Sp. Conductivity (umhos)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Date /Time

Salinity (ppt)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Date /Time

Dissolved Oxygen (% sat.)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

Date /Time

Dissolved 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 /Time

pH (su)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Date /Time

Turbidity (ntu)

Juniper Creek @ SR 65-A

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Date /Time

Depth (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/Time

Temperature (C)

\

Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Date/Time

Conductivity (umhos)

Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

Date/Time

Salinity (ppt)

Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Date/Time

Dissolved 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/Time

Dissolved 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/Time

pH (su)

Trib East of Nicole Rd. on SR 65-A

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Date/Time

Turbidity (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/Time

Depth (ft.)

71 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Long Branch at SR 274 

Long Branch @ SR 274

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Date/Time

Temperature (C)

Long Branch @ SR 274

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Date/Time

Sp. Conductivity (umhos)

Long Branch @ SR 274

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

Date/Time

Salinity (ppt)

Long Branch @ SR 274

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Date/Time

Dissolved Oxygen (% sat.)

Long Branch @ SR 274

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Date/Time

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

Long Branch @ SR 274

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date/Time

pH (su)

Long Branch @ SR 274

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Date/Time

Turbidity (NTU)

Long Branch @ SR 274

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Date/Time

Depth (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, Department Flow Data 

75 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Juniper Creek miscellaneous flows 

Station Station Description HUC 

Date 

MMDDYYYY 

73672 

Time 

WQ 

HHMM 

TOTDEPTH 

FT 81903 

SAMDEPTH 

FT3 

W 

FT 

4 

D FT 

64 

A 

FTSQ 

51 

V 

FT/S 

55 

Q 

CFS 

61 

7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 6/15/2006 1243 0.6 0.5 7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 2/16/2006 1327 0.75 0.5 11 0.403 4.435 1.3696 6.074 7519 Juniper Crk 200 Yds ups SR 65A bridge 03120003 11/9/2005 1411 0.5 0.5 7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 11/19/2005 1422 0.6 0.5 7519 Juniper Crk 200 Yds ups SR 65A bridge 03120003 11/16/2005 1200 1.13 0.5 7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 11/16/2005 1210 0.54 0.54 7.5 0.307 2.304 0.8703 2.005 7450 Long Branch at SR 274 03120003 4/22/2008 1006 2.92 0.5 7520 Juniper Creek at SR 65A 03120003 4/22/2008 1100 0.72 0.5 7.3 0.853 6.2245 0.4451 2.771 7430 Trib 1 to East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/22/2008 1150 0.5 0.5 7420 Trib 2 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/22/2008 1200 1.5 0.5 7410 Trib 3 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/22/2008 1210 1.2 0.5 7400 Trib 4 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/22/2008 1230 1 0.5 7450 Long Branch at SR 274 03120003 4/30/2008 1005 2 0.5 7520 Juniper Crk @ SR 65A 03120003 4/30/2008 1045 0.9 0.5 7.2 0.757 5.448 0.4105 2.237 7440 Trib 0 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1125 0.5 0.5 7430 Trib 1 to East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1135 0.8 0.5 7420 Trib 2 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1146 1.8 0.56 7410 Trib 3 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1200 1.1 0.5 7400 Trib 4 East of Nicole Rd 03120003 4/30/2008 1225 1 0.5 

76 

Florida 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 Protection 
Number 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 Protection 
Number 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 Protection 
Number 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 Protection 
Number 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 Protection 
Number 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 Protection 
Number 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 Protection 
Variance 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 Modeling Study Using the ADEM Model 

ADEM Model Scenarios, Juniper Creek, WBID 682 

Quincy Farms Effluent 

Scenario Q 

(mgd) 

BOD5 

(removal 

%) 

BOD5

(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, miles

DO, mg/l

85 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Juniper 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, miles

CBODu, 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, miles

Flow, cfs

86 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Juniper Creek-A

NH3-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, miles

NH3-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, miles

DO, 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, miles

CBODu, mg/l

88 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Juniper 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, miles

Flow, cfs

Juniper Creek-B

NH3-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, miles

NH3-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, miles

DO, 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, miles

CBODu, mg/l

90 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Juniper 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, miles

Flow, cfs

Juniper Creek-C

NH3-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, miles

NH3-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, miles

DO, 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, miles

CBODu, mg/l

92 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Juniper 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, miles

Flow, cfs

Juniper Creek-C at Q710

NH3-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, miles

NH3-N, mg/l

93 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
Appendix K: Photos of Various Waterbodies 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/