# FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Water Resource Management



# Basin Status Report NORTHWEST DISTRICT • GROUP 1 BASIN • NOVEMBER 2001



# Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Water Resource Management



# Basin Status Report


# Ochlockonee and St. Marks NOVEMBER 2001

# Acknowledgments

The Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins Status Report was prepared by th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks Rivers Basin Team, Florida Department of Environmental Protec tion, as pa rt of a fi ve-year cy cle to re store and protect Florida’s water quality. Team members include the following:

Richard Hick s, Basin Coordinator Richard Wieckowicz , Surface Water Quality Assessment Lead Author Linda Lord , Department Editor and Writer Barbara Donner Doug Gilbert Erin Glombowski Kimberly Jackson Paul Lee Michael Sc heinkman Tom Seal Zack Sh elley David Wainwright

Production assistance provided by Educational Serv ices Program Florida State University 210 Sliger Building 2035 E. Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800

Map produc tion assistance provided by Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center Florida State University University Ce nter, C2200 Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641

For additional information on the watershed management approach used to addr ess impaired waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins, contact: Richard Hicks, P.G., Basin Coordinator Watershed Pl a nning and Coordi nation Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair St one Road , Mail Station 3565 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 richard.w.hicks@dep.state.fl .us Phone: (850) 921-95 97; Suncom: 291-9597 Fax: (850) 921-5217 

# 5 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# Preface

Content Features

• Executive Summary: Appears at the beginning of every report

and provides an overarching view of the watershed management approach, its implementation, and how this approach will be used to identify impa ired waters.

• Chapter Summary: Appears at the beginning of every chapter and

provides an overvi ew of th e chapter.

• Sidebar: Appears throughout the report and provides additional

information pertinent to the text on that page.

• Noteworthy: Appears on pages near text that needs additional information bu t is too lengthy to fi t in a sidebar.

• Defi nitions: Appear at the side of pages where scientifi c terms occur

that ma y not be familiar to all readers. The word being defi ned is bold-faced in the text.

• References: Appear at the end of every chapter and provide a complete listin g of all sources used within the text.

• Appendices: Appear at the end of each report and provide additional

information on subj ects, such as bioassessment methodology, rainfall and stream fl ow, type s of natural communitie s, STORET stations, water quality statistics, land use, and permitted facilities. 

# 7 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# Executive Summary

Ochlockonee and St. Marks

The Status Report for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins is part of the fi rst phas e of the statewide, watershed approach of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department). The report, which contains maps, char ts, graphs , tables, and a set of appendices, provides a
pre liminary evaluation of th e status of water quality and associated biological resources in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins. In addition, it identifi es known an d suspected water quality impairments and water quality monitoring need s, and summarizes existing and planned water quality restor ation plans and projects. Through its watershed management activities, the Department will work with local interests to support local actions and supplement strong existing programs to improve water quality and restore and protect ecologic al resour ces in the basins. This report mark s a beginning for implementing the Department’s watershed approach for restoring and protecting water resources and addressing total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements in the Ochlockonee an d St. Marks River Basins. (TMDL represents the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate without exceeding the quality standards. ) During the next few years, considerable data collection an d analysis will be done to establish TMDLs for impaired waters. A watershed management plan to reduce the amount of pollutants will be produced also. Subsequent activities will depend heavily upon the active participation of local governments, businesses, and other watershed stakeholders. In particular, the Department will need commitments from these groups and individuals to undertake activities that will reduce the amount of pollutan ts from poin t and nonpoint sources and achieve the established TMDLs for individu al impaired waterbodies. This Status Repo rt describe s how the watershed management approach will be used to establish a process for identifying impaired waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins and for limiting pollution in thosewaters by adopting TMDLs. The process described here provides a framework fo r implementing the requirements of the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Ac t and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. Thereport broadly characterizes the basin’s hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting, as well as historical, curr ent, and proposed watershed management activi ties and processes. In addition , it describes the status of surface water and ground water resources and ecological resources. The report also contains a planning list of potentially impaired waterbodies, a summary of waterbodies that can be delisted for certain parameters, and a summary of waters that are confi rmed as no t impaired. As a next step , the data used as a basis for placing waters on the pla nning list will be reexamined and verifi ed, an d additional data will 

# 9 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marksbe collected through strategic monitoring. Information summarized in the Status Report is used to identify information gaps for the verifi cation of water qualit y impairment and TMDL development and will drive the development of a strategic monitoring plan. The Department will then develop a verifi ed list of impaired wate rs fo r which TMDLs may be developed. The list will be adopted by Secretarial Order. Once adopted, the list will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as th e state’s Section 303(d) list for the basin.
Summary of Potentially Impaired Waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins Tables 3.2 and 3.3 provide summaries of the status of assessed and potentially impaired waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins, based on STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) data from 1989 to 1998 an d the most recent fi sh consumption advisory report provided by the Florida Departme nt of Health . The following is a summary of water quality by water type for waters with suffi cient data.

Overall Data Sufficiency • Streams, rivers, springs, lakes, and estuaries in these two river basins

comprise 35 7 waterbodies or segments used in the assessment of water quality. A total of 99 of these were fully or partially assessedfor a series of water quality parameters that include nutrients, conventional paramete rs that have wate r quality standards, metals, biology, and fi sh consumption advisory status. • A total of 258 waterbodies or segments were not assessed due to the

lack of suffi cient data. • There were not suffi cient data to determine impairment or lack of

impairment in sp rings or estuaries in this preliminary assessment. • Waterbodies assessed were categorized as either streams or lakes.

Streams • There are approximately 1,860 miles of streams and rivers in the

two rive r basins. Approximately 21 percent of the stream miles were assessed fo r nutrients and 1 stream/stream segment was found potentially impaired ; 29 percent were assessed for conventional parameters and 14 streams/st ream segments were found potentially impaired; and approximately 5 percent were assessed for metals, with 1 stream segment foun d potentially impaired. • Potential impairments based on biological data were found in 9

streams/st ream segments. • Potential impairments based on fi sh consumption advisories (for

mercury) were list ed fo r 7 streams/stream segments. • The most common potential impairments for streams were found

to be for fi sh consumption, bacteria (fecal and/or total coliform in 9 streams/stream segments), biology, and dissolved oxygen (DO) (5 streams/st ream segments). Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 10Lakes • There are approximately 139 square miles of lakes in the 2 river

basins. Approximately 11 percent of the total lake area was assessedfor nutrients and 5 lakes/lake segments were found impaired; 72 percent wa s assessed for conventionals and 3 found potentially impaired; and no lake s were assessed for metals. • Potential impairment based on biological data was found for 1 lake. • Potential impairments based on fi sh consumption advisories were

found for 4 lakes. • The most common potential impairments for lakes were found to be

for nutrients, fi sh consumption, and DO (3 lakes/lake segments). 

# 11 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# Table of Contents

Ch apter 1: Florida’ s Watershed Manageme nt Approach and the Ochlocknee and St. Mark s River Basins Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Chapter Summary.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Purposes and Content of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Watershed Management Approach, Total Maximum Da ily Loads, and Fl orida Watershed Restoration Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Northw est District

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 References.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Ch apter 2: Basin Ov erview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Chapter Summary.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Basin Setting .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Hydrologic Setting .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Physiography .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Rivers and Streams .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Ochlockonee River Basin .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 St. Mark s River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . 33 Urban Streams

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Springs .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Lakes .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Lake Talquin .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Lakes Iamoni a and Miccosukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Lake Jackson and Associated Lake s .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Lake Lafayette . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Lakes Bradford, Hiawat ha, an d Cascade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Lake Munson .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Urban Lakes .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Other Lakes .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Wetlands and Estuaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 Surface Water Classification s and Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Surface Water Classifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 39 Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . 40 Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Ecological Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Ecoregions and Natural Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Threatened and Endangered Sp ecies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Socioeconomic Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Land Use .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Point Sources .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Nonpoint Sources.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Remediation Activities

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Delineated Ground Water Contaminatio n Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Hydrologic Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Water Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Historical, Current, an d Ongoing Watershed Management Activities and Processes.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Creation of Conservation and Preserva tion Lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Elimination of Wastewater Discharges to Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Tallahassee Area Stormwater Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Local Stormwater Activities and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 City of Tallahassee Stormwater Pollution Reduction Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 

# 13 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSurface Water Improv ement and Management (SWIM) Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Lake Jackso n Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 St. Mark s River Watershed Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 55 Lake Restoration and Habita t Enhancement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Lake Jackso n Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 55 Lake Munson Restoration .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Other Lakes .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Ground Water Protecti on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 References.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Ch apter 3: Status of Wate r Quality and Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . 59 Chapter Summary.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Status of Surface Water Qual ity.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Impaired Waters Rule Methodol ogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Chemistry Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . 61 Biological Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Fish Consumption Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Planning Units .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Potentially Impaired Waters of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Impaired Waterbodies and Segmen ts.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Impairments by Parameters of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Water Quality Evaluation by Basin Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 North Ochlockonee Rive r .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 South Ochlockonee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 73 Lake Iamonia . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Lake Jackson .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Telogia Creek .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Sopchoppy River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . 77 St. Mark s River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . 77 Lake Miccosukee

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Lake Lafayette . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Lake Munson/Fred George Sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Lost Creek/Fisher Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . 81 Wakulla River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . 82 Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Ground Water Qual ity Assessment

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Methodology .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Ground Water Analytes of Concern (GWACs ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Assessment of Regional Ground Water Qu ality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Ground Water Status .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Status of Regional Ground Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Status of Grou nd Water Analytes of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Ground Water/Surf ace Wate r Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Evaluation of Ecological Resource Protection Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 North and South Ochloc konee Rive r Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Lakes Iamonia, Jackson, Miccosukee, Lafayette, an d Munson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Telogia Cree k and Sopchoppy River Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 St. Marks River, Wakulla River, and Lost Creek/Fi sher Creek Planning Unit s. . . . . . . . . . 92 Coastal Watersheds an d Apalachee Bay Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 References.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Ch apter 4: Planni ng List of Potentiall y Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Chapter Summary.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 The Planning List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Relationship between the Planning List and th e 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Waters To Be Delisted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Monitoring Other Waters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Reference.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 14Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Appendix A: Threatened or Endangered Species and Other Designations. . . . 107 Appendix B: Land Use in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Appendix C: Permitted Wastewater and Solid Waste Facilities in the Ochlockonee and St . Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Appendix D: Land Use Loading Model for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Ochlockonee River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 St. Marks Rive r Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Model Required Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 Appendix E: Basin Status Report Assessment Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Federal and State Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Watershed Management Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Impaired Waters Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 STORET .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Basin Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 60 Appendix F: Bioassessments by Planning Unit and Supporting Data. . . . . . . . 163 North Ochlockonee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 South Ochlockonee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Lake Iamonia .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Lake Jackson .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Telogia Creek .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Sopchoppy River .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 St. Marks River.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Lake Miccosukee

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Lake Lafayette . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Lake Munson/Fred George Sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Lost Creek/Fisher Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Wakulla River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Coastal Watershed/Ap alachee Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Conclu sions .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 References .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Appendix G: Water Quality Data for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . 172

Tables Table 2.1: N amed Spring s in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 2.2: SWIM Priori ty Water bodies in the Ochlockone e and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 2.3: Natura l Communities in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 2.4: Population Summary Stat istics fo r Selected Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 3.1: Ochlockonee an d St. Marks Basins Planning Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table 3.2: Assess ment Status Summary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table 3.3 Potent ially Impaired WBID s in Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins According to the Impaired Waters Ru le. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Table 3.4: Basi n Resource Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Table 3.5 Status Monito ring Indicator/Analyte List for Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Table 3.6: Ba sin Resource Indices for Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Table 3.7: Result s of Mann-Whitney Statistical Tests Comparing Ground Water Analyte Concentrations in RU 1 and RU 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Table 3.8: Summar y of Nitrate Levels in Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Table 3. 9: Summary of Ecological Resource Protection Concerns, Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Table 4.1: Planning List Summary of All Causes of Potential Impairment, Including the 1998 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Table 4.2: Planning List of Constituents Proposed for Delisting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Table 4.3: Waters with Constitu ents Not Impaired According to the Impaired Waters Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 

# 15 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable A-1: List ed Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Table A-2: Nonliste d Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Table B-1: Ochlockonee/St . Marks Land Use Totals and Percentages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Table B-2: Georgia Land Use in th e Upper Ochlockonee River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Table C-1: Ochlockonee/St . Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Table C-2: Ochlocko nee/St. Marks Wastewater Faciliti es Not Discharg ing to Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Table C-3: Ochlockone e/St. Marks Soli d Waste Landfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Tables D-1 throug h D-18C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 –157 Table F-2: Steam Conditio n Index (SCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Table F-5: Bioasses sment Summar y for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basins for the Period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Figures Figure 1.1: The Watershed Management Schedule for the State’ s Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 1.2: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s Northwest District, Basin Groups 1 throug h 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 2.2: Physiographic Region s .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 2.3: Cross-Section of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 2.4: Surface Water Resour ces of th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 2.5: Leve l 1 Land Use Summary for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 2.6: Permitted Domestic and Industrial Wastewater Facilities Regulated by State and Federal Agencies in the Ochl ockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . 47 Figure 2.7: Permitted Land fills an d Hazardous Waste Sites in the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 3.1: Planning Un it Location s and Boundaries in the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure 3.2: Segments with Waterbody Identification (WBID) Numbers in the Ochlockonee Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 3.3: Segments with Waterbody Identification (WBID) Numbers in the St. Mark s Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Figure 3.4: Ochlockonee an d St. Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Nutrients According to th e Impaired Surface Waters Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 3.5: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basi n Waters Potentially Impaired for Conventional Wate r Quality Pollutants According to the Impaired Surface Waters Ru le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 3.6: Ochlockonee an d St. Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Metals According to the Impaired Surfac e Waters Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure 3.7: Ochloc konee and St. Ma rks Basin Waters with Potentially Impaired Biology Accordin g to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Figure 3.8: Nitrate Concentration Tren d in Wakulla Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Figure 4.1: Planni ng List fo r All Causes of Potential Impairment Except Fish Advisories, with Overlay of 1998 303(d) List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 16

# Chapter 1: Florida’s Watershed Management Approa ch and the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basi ns Status Report

Chapter Summary

The Status Report identifies the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins’ (referred to as the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins) potential water quality impairments and water quality monitoring needs, and summarizes existing plans and projects for restoring and protecting water quality. An assessment report will be published in 18 months, whic h will include the collection of additional monitoring information.

This preliminary re port, addressed to a broad audience of potential stakeh olders in the basin, initiates the watershed management cycle in the Ochlockonee andSt. Marks Basins as part of the statewide, watershed-based approach to water resource managementdesigned by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department). Under the watershed management approach, Florida’s water resources are managed on the basis of natural boundaries such as river basins, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. The approach is implemented usin g a cyclical management process in which divers e stakeholders in each of the state’s river basins work cooperatively to identify and solve water resource problems.

This introductory chapter describes the purpose andcontent of the report and explains the watershed management approach. It then details how the watershed management approach will be used to establish a process for identifying impaired waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins and for limiting pollution in those waters by adopting total maximum da ily loads (TMDLs). The process provides a framework for implementing the requirements of the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. 

# 17 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### Purposes and Content of the Report

This Status Repo rt provides a preliminary identifi cation ofthe Ochlockonee an d St. Marks Basins’ water quality impairments in order to

assess wate r quality monitoring needs and summarize existing water quality restoration plans and projects. The report is addressed to a broad audience of potentia l stakeholders, including decision makers from federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments; public and private interests; and individual citizens. The report is th e fi rst of severa l steps to be taken in this basin to implement the Department ’s statewide, watershed management approach for restoring and protecting water quality and addressing total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements. In approximately 18 months, the Department will release an assessment report that will include additional data, a more complete eval uation of surfac e water and ground water quality and biological resources, and a list of waterbodies that will be included on the verifi ed list of impaired waters to be adopted by the Department. During this intervening period, Department staff will work cooperatively with local governme nt an d stakeholders to collect additional data and to identify wa ter quality restoration and protection needs. This work will supplement existing programs to improve water quality and protect and restore ecological resources. Chapter 2 characterizes the basins’ hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic settings as well as historical, curr ent, and proposed watershed management acti vities an d processes. Chapter 3 presents assessment results for surface water and ground water quality, as well as an evaluation of ecological resources. For surface water, it includes an analysis of major water quality parameters, water quality issues by planning unit, trends in water quality, and pollutant loadings. For ground water, it describes the water quality status of confi ned an d unconfi ned wate r resources. For ecological resources, it summarizes ecological protection priorities and major ecological indicators pote ntially relate d to water quality problems in thebasins. Chapter 4 contains a planning list of potentially impaired waterbodies for which additional data and information will be gathered. It also describes the relationship between the planning list and subsequent verifi ed and Section 303(d) lists and provides a list of waters proposed for delisting.

The Watershed Management Approach, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and Flor ida Watershed Restoration Act This report su pports the fi rst phase of the Department’s watershed management approach . Under this approach, water resources are managed on the basi s of natural boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulatory bounda ries; emphasis is placed on public involvem ent in decision making. Instead of focusing only on individual sources of pollution, water resources are assessed from a basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative effe cts of human activities. The approach is not new, nor does it comp ete with or repl ace existing programs. Rather than relying on 

### Total Maximum Daily Load The maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterb ody ca n assimilate without exceeding applicable water quality standards. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 18single solutions to address aquatic resource issues, it is intended to improve the health of surf ace water and ground water resources by strengthening coordination am ong such activities as monito ring, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, wetland restoration, land acquisition, and public involvement. The watershed management approach is the framework for implementing TMDL s as required by Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and th e Florida Watershed Restoration Act (see Noteworthy on pages23–24). TMDLs must be developed for all waters that do not meet applicable wate r quality standards and are thus defi ned as “impaired waters.” TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding load reductions allocated, as part of the Department’s watershed management approach, which rotates through the state’s 52 basins over a 5-year cycle (see Figure 1.1 ). Ex tensive public participation will be crucial throughout the cycle’s fi ve phases th at follow.

• Phase 1: Watershed Evaluation. The Department will conduct

pre liminary evaluations of the status of the quality of surface water and ground water. This information will be used to generate a pla nning list of potent ially impaired waters for which TMDLs may be needed. At the end of Phase 1, a Basin Status Report, identical to this report , will be produced and a strategic monitoring plan will be developed.

• Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring. Monitoring will be conducted

to help verify wh ether waters are, in fact , impaired and to collect the da ta needed to calibr ate and verify models for TMDL development. At the end of the second phase, an assessment report will be produced. This report will contain an updated and more thorough assessment of wate r quality, associated biological resources, and current restoration plans and projects. Waters that are verifi ed as being impaired will be plac ed on a basin-specifi c list of impair ed waters that will be adopted by the Department th rough a Secretarial Order. This verifi ed list will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as th e state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin.

• Phase 3: Developing and Adopting TMDLs. TMDLs for priority

impaired waters in th e watershed will be developed and adopted by rule. Because TMDLs cannot be developed for all listed waters during a si ngle watershed management cycle, due to fi scal and technical limitations, wa terbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in the Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, Section 62-303, Florida Administrative Code.

• Phase 4: Developing Watershe d Management Plans. A watershed

management plan , including TMDL implementation plans specifying how pollutant loadings from po int an d nonpoint sources of pollu

# 19 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Markstion will be allocated and reduced, will be developed. The plans will include regulatory and nonregulatory (i.e., voluntary), structural and nonstructural improvemen ts. The involv ement of affected stakeholders in this phase will be especially critical.

• Phase 5: Implementing Watershe d Management Plans. Implementation of the activities specifi ed in th e watershed management plan will begin.

The watershed management approach is an iterative process. One of it s key components is that the effectiveness of management activities (TMDL implementation ) will be monitored in successive cycles. Monitoring conducted in Phas e 2 of subsequent cycles will be targeted at evaluating whether water quality objectives are being met and whether individualwaters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the implementation of scheduled rest oration activities , whether required or voluntary, to ensure continued progress towards meeting the TMDLs.

Figure 1.1: The Watershed Management Schedule for the State’s Basins Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 20This approach is intended to protect and enhance the ecological structure, function, and integrit y of Florida’s watersheds by promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the cumulative effects of human activities on a watershed basis. The approach provides a framework for setting priorities and focusing the Department’s resources on protecting and restoring wa ter quality, and aims to increase cooperation among state, regional, local, and federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement, the approach encourages stewardship by all Floridians to preserve water resources for future generations. The watershed approa ch is intended to speed up projects by focusing funding an d other resources on priority water quality problems, strengthening public support, establishing agreements, and funding multiagency projects. It avoids duplication by building on existing assessments and restor ation activities and promotes cooperative monitoring programs. It encourages acco untability fo r achieving water quality improvements through i mproved monitoring and by establishing TMDLs.



### The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Northwest District
Figure 1.2 shows the order in which the basin management cycle will be implemente d in the Department’s Northwest District basin groups. These grou ps were identifi ed on th e basis of the U.S. Geological Survey’s hydrologic unit codes for th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins (see Noteworthy on page 23 for a list of these codes). The Ochlockonee and St. Marks Rivers, Group 1 basins and the fi rst to be assessed , are the subject of this Status Repo rt. The Grou p 2 basins, assessed in the latter part of 2001, include the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Chipola, and New Rivers and Apalachicola Bay. Th e Group 3 basins, the Choctawhatchee River and Bay and St . Andrew Bay, will be assessed in 2002. The Group 4 basins, the Escambia, Blackwater, and Yellow Rivers and Pensacola Bay, will be assessed in 2003 , and Group 5, Perdido River and Bay, in 2004. In 2005, th e cycle will begin again for the Group 1 basins, Ochlockonee and St. Marks. 

# 21 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksFigure 1.2: Schedu le for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s Northwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 22All watersheds in th e UnitedStates are classified and organized on the basis of a nationwide system deve loped by th e United States Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS delineates watersheds based on su rface hydrologic features. This sy stem divi des the country into a hierarchy of 21 regions, 222 subregions, 352 accounting units, and 2,149 cataloguing units. An eight-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of tw o digits for each level in th e hydrologic unit system is used to iden tify majo r river basins. In the Department’s Northwest District , the USGS has identified two HUCs: Lower Ochlockonee Rive r (03120003) • Apalachee Bay-St . Marks River (03120001). 

### Summary of Cl ean Water Act Requirements Rela ted to the TMDL Program

Congress enac ted the Clean Water Act in 19 72 with the goal of restoring and maintainingthe “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters”—33 U.S.C. § 1251( a). Theultimate goal of the act is to eliminate the “discharge of [all] pollutants into navigable waters”—33 U.S.C. § 1251(a )(1). The TMDL program is an important step towards cleaning up our rivers. The Clea n Water Act sets out the federal requirements that Florida must follow in implementing its TMDL program un der the Florida Watershed Restor ation Ac t. The Clean Wa ter Act and th e federal TMDL program in clude th e following provisions:

• Requires states to establish water qual ity standa rds that will protect the public health and welfare—33 U.S.C. § 13 13(c)(2).

• Requires states to identify waters that do not meet applicable wate r quality standards (Water Qualit y Limited Segments, or WQLSs) and identify the pollutants causing the water qualit y threats— 33 U.S.C. § 13 13(d)(1)(A–B).

• Requires the states to establish for each WQLS the TMDL for each pollut ant that canbe introduced into that waterbody without violating water quality standards— 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(C). • Requires that each TMDL be established “at a level necessary to implem ent the applicable wate r quality standards with seasonal va riations and a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality”—33 U.S.C. § 13 13(d)(1)(C).

• Requires st ates to update their 303(d) list of impaired waters (WQLSs) ev ery two years or else the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA) will be re quired to de velop a complete WQLS list and/or TMDLs for the impaired waters on behalf of the st ate—33 U.S.C. § 13 13(d)(2).

• Requires EPA approval or disapproval within 30 days , once the WQLS list and TMDLs are submitted. If ap proved, the list and TMDL s are to be incorporated into th e state’s water quality management plan— 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2). 

### The Watershed Classification System Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 23 Noteworthy

### The Florida Watershed Restoration Act

In recognition of the important role that TMDLs pl ay in restoring state waters, th e 1999 Florida Legislature enac ted th e Florida Watershed Restor ation Ac t. Inaddition to clarifying the Department’s stat utory authority to establish TMDLs, the act established a process for identifying and listing impaired waters and for develo ping TMDLs and theassociated watershed management plans need ed to al locate and achie ve the needed pollutant load reduct io ns. The le gislation contains th e following provisions:

• Establishes that the 303(d) list submitted to the EPA in 1998 is for planning pu rposes only.

• Requires the Department to adopt 303(d) li sting criteria (that is, th e methodology used to define impair ed wate rs) by rule.

• Requires the Department to verify impairme nt and thenestablish basin-specific verified lists. Th e Department must also evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs are sufficient to meet water quality standards, list the specific pollutant(s) and concen tration(s) causing impairment, an d adopt the basin-specific 303(d) list by Secretarial Order. • Requires the Department’s Secretary to adopt TMDL allocations by rule. The legislation requires the Department to establish “reasonable and equitabl e” allocations of TMDLs, but does not mandate how allocati ons will be made among individual sources.

• Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing treatment leve ls and management practices; the differing impacts that pollutant

sources ma y have; the availability of treatment technologies, best management practices (BMPs) , or other pollutant reductio n measures; the feasibility, cost s, and benefits of achiev ing the al location; reasonable time frames for implementation; the potential applicability of moderating provisions; and th e extent that nonattainment is caused by pollution from outside Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alteration to a waterbody.

• Required a report to the legislature by February 2001 addressing the allocation process.

• Authorizes the Department to develop ba sin plan s to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the water management districts, the Florida Department of Agricu lture an d Consumer Services, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, regulated parties, and environmental groups in assessing waterbodies for impairment, collecting data for TMDLs,developing TMDLs, and conducting at leas t one public meeting in the watershed. Implementation is voluntary if no t covered by regulatory programs.

• Authorizes th e Department and the Florid a Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to de velop interim

measures an d B MPs to address nonpoint sources. While BMPs would be adopted by rule, they will be voluntary if no t covered by regulatory programs. If th ey are adopted by rule and the Department verifies their effectiveness,then implementation will provide a presumption of compliance with water qu ality standards.

• Directs the Department to document the effectiveness of th e combined regulatory/ voluntar y approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005 . The report will include part icipation rates and recommendati ons fo r statutory ch anges. 

## Noteworthy 

# 24 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### References

Federal Clean Water Act, Se ction 30 3(d). Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-303. Identifi ca tion of Impaired Waters Rule. Florida Wate rshed Restoration Act. 

# 25 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# Chapter 2: Basin Overview

Chapter Summary

Water qualit y issues cannot be understood without a general understanding of the entire Ochlockonee andSt. Marks Basins. This chapter characterizes their hydrologic setting—including climate, physiography, and surface water and ground water resources—as well as their ecolog ical and socioeconomic setting. The chapter also summarizes historical, current, and proposed watershed management issues and activities in the basins. 

# 27 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### Basin Setting

The Lowe r Ochlockonee River Basin and the Apalachee Bay-St. Marks River Basi n are located in the Big Bend region of northwestern Florida and southern Georgia (see Figure 2.1 ). This is one of the more pristine areas of Florida, with a much lower population and fewer stresses on the environm ent. Vast areas of land remain relatively undeveloped and many waterbodies ha ve no t been signifi cantly modifi ed. More than one third of the basin area is protected as publicly owned conservation lands. Consequently, rivers , streams, lakes, estuaries, and springs continue to provide great recreati onal opportunit ies to area residents and critical habitat for wildlife. However, in some areas urban and residential development, agricultural practi ces, and other infl uences threaten th e health of watersheds and have adversely affected waterbodies. Extending fr om southern Georgia, throug h Florida, to the Gulf of Mexico, th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins drain a combined area of more than 3,60 0 square miles. In Florida, the area includes all of Leon and Wakulla Coun ties, signifi cant parts of Gadsden and Jeff erson Counties, plus smaller part s of Liberty and Franklin Counties. Although they exist as two distinct hydrol ogic basins, the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins both drain to Apalac hee Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. The physiography, geology, ecology, an d socioeconomic settings in both basins are similar. 

### Sources of Information

Much of the info rmation about the Ochlockonee and St . Marks Basins in this chapter was obtained from the Water Resources At las of Florida, 1998, produced by the Florid a State University Institut e of Science and Public Affairs (Fernald and Purdum, 1998). Informatio n about the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basi ns was also obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Surf Your Watershed Web site (http: // www.epa.gov/ surf 2/states/fl/) and from the Water Resources Data for the United States (http://water.usgs.gov.nwis). Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 28Figure 2.1: Geopolitic al Ma p of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

# 29 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### Hydrologic Setting

Physiography This area contains broa d uplands in the north and coastal lowlands to the south. The physiograp hic region s are shown in Figure 2.2 . There is an approximate 200-foot change in elevation from the Georgia-Florida state line to the coast. The Tifton Uplands region (locally known as the Tallahasse e Hills) consists of clay-capped ridges that have been eroded and dissected by streams. Th e potential for runoff in the upland area is relatively high, whereas in the fl at sandy coastal lowlands, runoff potential is lo w and most rainfall recharges ground water directly. An escarpment , the Cody Scarp, physically divides the upland from the lowland region. Much of th e Gulf Coastal Lowlands region is a karst plain where sinkholes form, natural limestone springs occur, and streams disappear underground. This area is know n as the Woodville Karst Plain. The remaining part of th e coastal lowland is river fl oodplain, forested we tland, and coastal marsh. Along the coasta l marsh belt, the area includes mostly natural, sparsely developed shorelines and a healthy and diverse estuary system in Apalachee Bay. Figure 2.3 shows a north-to-south, cross-section view of the two basins.

Figure 2.2: Phys iographic Regions 

### Escarpment A steep face abruptly terminating high lands. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 30Figure 2.3: Cross-Sect ion of the Ochlockonee and St. Ma rks Basins

Rivers and Streams

Ochlockonee River Basin The Ochlockone e Basin drains 2,416 square miles and extends through 11 Florid a and Georgia counties. This total basin area is the seventh largest for Flor ida rivers (Fernald and Purdum, 1998). Approximately 1,080 square miles of this area (48 percent of the total basin) is in Florida. The U.S. Geological Survey has divided the basin into two units, the Uppe r Ochlockonee Basin (in Georgia) and the Lower Ochlockonee Basin (ex tending from south Georgia into Florida). Rivers and streams of the Lowe r Ochlockonee Basin (approximately 1,500 square miles in area) include th e Ochlockonee River and literally hundreds of tributaries that feed it as it fl ows throug h Florida to Apalachee Bay (see Figure 2.4 ). The main tributarie s of the Ochlockonee River in Florida are Telogia Creek, Little River, and th e Sopchoppy River. Most of these rivers and streams

are alluvial

. 

### Allu vial Rivers and Streams

These occu r in valleys surrounded by their own sedimentary material and develop their characteristics based on the discharge an d sediment load that is availa ble. Alluvial rivers and streams form featur es such as meanders, chan nel bars , and islands. The stream bottom cons ists of shifting sand with varying am ounts of detritus in quieter reaches and limest one outcroppings in some areas. Primarily surface tributaries feed the alluvialstreams typical of much of the Ochlockonee Basin, pa rticularly in the Tifton Uplands region . Their flow is variable because it depends largely on rainfall and surface runoff rather than ground water recharge. 

# 31 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksThe Ochlockone e River originates in Worth County, far north of the Georgia-Florida state line, and receives fl ow from innumera ble trib utaries along its 206-mile course southward to Ochlockonee Bay. From the Florida-Georgia state line, the Ochlockonee River fl ows southw ard and southwestward across northwestern Leon County and eastern Gadsden County before it reaches a reservoir, Lake Talquin. At the town of Havana, before it reaches the lake, the Ochlockonee River fl ows at an annualized average rate of 1,530 cubic feet per second (cfs) according to the U.S. Geological Survey . Most of the streams that form in the northern part of the Lowe r Ochlockonee converge or discharge into the river north of the dam at Lake Talqui n. These include Little River and its tributaries—Bear Creek, Rocky Comfort Creek, and Ocklawaha Creek—plus numerous minor streams. Figure 2.4: Surf ace Water Resources of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 32Between th e U.S. Geological Survey gauging station at Havana and one below the Lake Talquin Dam, the Ochlockonee River grows larger with the additional fl ow from it s tributaries above the dam (2,500 cfs) and meanders southward from the dam to its mouth at Ochlockonee Bay. Below Lake Talquin, the ma jor tributaries to th e Ochlockonee River are Telogia Creek and the Sopch oppy River. Telogia Creek, an alluvial stream, originates in the northwestern part of the basin. The Sopchoppy River is the largest blackwater st ream in the basin, originating in a large swamp known as Bradwell Bay. Ne arer th e Ochlockonee River mouth at Ochlockonee Bay, Crooked River and several smaller tidal creeks also discharge to the river and bay. Flows are tidally infl uenced in the Ochlockonee River near the coast, th e Sopchoppy River, and the Crooked River. River and stream fl ow is a combinatio n of runoff from rainfall, ground water seepage, and springs. Ground water provides water continuously to the stream or river; this is called the stream’s basefl ow. Basefl ow in the northern pa rt of th e Ochlockonee Basin (north of the Cody Scarp) comes from seep s and springs from shallow, relatively poorly yielding aquifers (Pascale and Wagner , 1982). In the southern part below the Cody Scarp (Sopch oppy River an d lower part of Ochlockonee River), basefl ow comes from th e upper part of the Floridan aquifer system. The basefl ow of most of th e streams in the Ochlockonee Basin is low compared with streams in other area s of nort hwestern Florida.

St. Marks River Basin Surface water hydr ology in the St. Marks Basin differs from that of the Ochlockone e Basin. The Ochlockonee Basin is an integrated alluvial drainage system al most entirely dr ained by the Ochlockonee River and its tributaries. The Apalachee- St. Mark s Basin is disjointed, with no integrated drainage from most of th e northern part of the basin, a short coastal draina ge system composed of local streams draining coastal regions, and the St . Marks River being the only somewhat continuous integrated drainage syste m. The total area of the Apalachee-St. Marks Basin is 1,204 square miles. There are more than 590 total river miles in the basin, of which more than 460 miles are perennial rivers and streams. The St. Mark s Basin contains two primary rivers, the St. Marks River and its major tribut ary, th e Wakulla River. A number of other streams also exis t in the basin but are not tributaries to either the St. Marks or the Wakulla. Figure 2.4 shows the rivers and streams of the St. Marks Basin. Th e drainage basin of the St. Marks River itself is approximately 871 square miles (the twelfth largest for Florida rivers) and the river is about 37 miles in length. The headwaters of the St. Marks River are in the Tallahassee Hills of northeastern Leon Co unty. The St. Marks River remains swampy and poorly defi ned as it fl ows southward to the Cody Scarp. Just north of the Leon-Wakulla County line , the St. Marks River enters the Woodville Karst Plain and is fed by Floridan aquifer springs, becoming wider and clearer as more ground wa ter enters from spring fl ows. 

### Spring-fed Rivers and Streams

Spring-fed rivers and streams, characteristic of the Wo odville Karst Plain, are fed primar ily by Florid an aquifer springs. Typically, their ri ver channels follow fracture patt erns in the limestone and their wate rs are clear and are similar to grou nd water in chemical composition. Th e water is highly buffered by the limestone and has a neutral pH. In areas near spring vents, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels may be low becaus e of the ground water contribution. Spring-fed rivers and streams respond more slowly than alluvial streams to precipitation. 

### Blackwater Rivers

Blackwater rivers are given their name because the water is stained dark brown due to tannic an d humic acids. These streams, originating in acidic swamps and flatwoods, are dark brown and acid ic from decaying plant materials. They are typically slow and meandering and exist as their own distinctive ecosystem characterized by highly acidic (low pH) water and low biological diversity. 

# 33 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksNear th e Leon-Wakulla County line, the St. Marks River fl ows southward to Natural Bridge, where it disappears into a sinkhole. Approximately 1 mile to the south, the St. Marks River emerges at St. Marks Spring as a spring-fed river that is considerably larger and has different chemical characteristics than the stream that di sappeared at Natural Bridge. Several springs rise and disappear underground in this area. After emerging at St. Marks Spring, it fl ows southw ard as a well-defi ned spring-fed river, fl owing at an average rate of 747 cfs. In east cent ral Wakull a County, the St. Marks River joins with the Wakulla River, its largest tributary. The Wakulla River is a classic springfed river that originates at Wakulla Springs and fl ows sout h for approximately 10 mile s to its confl uence with the St. Marks River. From the confl uence, the St. Marks River widens and fl ows in a dredged channel to Apalachee Bay, approximately 3 miles to the south. Tidal effects extend upstream in both the St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers for about 6 miles from the rive r mouth. Other signifi cant streams in th e St. Marks Basin include Munson Slough, Lost Creek, and Fisher Creek. These streams share a common characteristic after they enter the Woodville Karst Plain. They become “lost” as they disappear underground into sinkholes. Munson Slough, which forms in the southern part of Leon County, is a major conveyance of stormwater from Tall ahassee. South of Tallahassee, Lake Munson detains water fl owing in Munson Slough. South of Lake Munson, Munson Slough fl ows southeastward to Eight Mi le Pond an d Ames Sink, where it disappears. Historical accounts and topographic evidence indicate that there used to be a continuous surface connection between Munson Slough and the Wakulla River before sinkholes diverted and captured the stream (Hendry and Sproul, 1966). Fisher Creek, Lost Creek, and smaller streams in their vicinity ar e blackwater streams that originate in fl atwood swamps in the southwestern part of the St. Marks Basin. These streams fl ow sout h and southeastward before they disappear, recharging ground water. Closer to the coast, numerous tidal streams (creeks) discharge directly to th e estuary. The largest, East River and Stoney Bayou, originate at impounded wetlands in the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge and fl ow into Apalachee Bay ne ar th e mouth of the St. Marks River. Farther to the west is Spring Creek, a notable local creek that is associated with the largest magnitude spring system in Florida. Tidal fl uctuations dominate fl ow in these creeks along the coastal area to varying extents.

Urban Streams Networks of urban stre ams provid e stormwater drainage from the Tallahassee area. Often described as ditches, these channelized streams receive heavy load s of stormwater runoff from roadways, parking lots, commercial and industrial sites, and other pave d surfaces in the city. The four main drainage basi ns in the City of Tallahas see and Leon County Stormwater Management Plan (Bartel et al., 1991) include the Lake Munson, Lake Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 34Jackson, Lake Lafayette, and Fred Geo rge Sink Basins. The Lake Munson Basin, the largest and most urbanized, drains approximately 57 percent of the urba n Tallahassee area (Bartel and Ard, 1992). It contains Munson Slough; th e Central, East, and West Drainage Ditches and St. Augustine Branch; plus many smaller ditches and streams. The Lake Jackson Basin includes several sh ort branches (most notable are Meginniss Arm Branch, Jackson Height s Branch, and Fords Arm Lexington Branch) that drain into Lake Jackson. The Lake Lafayette Basin includes a series of branches and ditches in the eastern part of the city and Leon County that drain into the Lake Lafayette Chain of La kes (most notable are the Park Avenue Tributary, McCord Park Drainage Ditch, Northe ast Draina ge Ditch, the Alford Arm Tributary, an d Lafayette Creek). The Fred George Sink Drainage Basin is internally draine d to a sinkhole and there are no signifi cant trib utaries (Northwest Flor ida Wate r Management District, 1991). Presently, the City of Tallahasse e is involved in an assessment of hydrology and water quality within the urba n drainage system (p ersonal communication with John Cox, City of Tallahassee, 2000).
Springs Springs provid e the most direct and obvious connection between ground wa ter and surface water (see Figure 2.3 ). Spri ngs are ab undant in th e Woodville Karst Plain of the St. Marks Basin. Six of Florida’s 27 fi rst magnitude springs, or springs with fl ows greate r than 100 cubic feet per second, are located in the St. Marks Basin. Nine other named springs and countles s unnamed smaller springs and seeps also are found in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. Most of the fl ow in the St. Marks River and virtuall y all of the fl ow in th e Wakulla River is from springs. Springs cont ributing to the St . Marks River include Horn Springs (north of Natural Bridge ) and St. Marks Spring (where it emerges). Several springs, including Natural Bridge Spring an d the Rhodes Springs group, rise and disappear un derground in the Natural Bridge area. Wakulla Springs, one of the la rgest freshwater springs in the world, is the site of a state park (Edward Ball Waku lla Spri ngs State Park). Also in Wa kulla County is the River Sink group, which includes a network of springs that do not occur in association with any river. These include River Sink Spring and Kini Spring, both fi rst magnitud e, plus several other named springs. Submarine springs contribute a signifi cant fl ow of fres h water to the estuary. The submarine Spring Creek Springs group is considered to have the highest discharge of all Florida springs
groups

. Table 2.1 provides summary information for the named springs in the Ochlockone e and St. Marks Basins.

Lakes Lakes provid e many advantages including recharge to ground water, important habitats, and a variety of recreational opportunities. Many lakes also receiv e stormwater from urban areas. Lakes in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins comprise more than 30,000 watershed acres. According to th e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are 324 lakes 

# 35 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marksin the Ochlocko nee Basi n and 329 lakes in the St. Marks Basin, totaling 24,261 and 11,892 acres, respectively. However, only 21 of these lakes exceed 100 acre s. Figure 2.4 shows only the largest of the lakes in the two basins. Most of th e area’s lakes are found in the Tallahassee Hills physiographic region. Descriptions of the most well-known la kes in the Ochlockonee an d St. Marks Basins are provided below.

Lake Talquin The western part of this region contains Lake Talquin, the eighteenth largest lake in Florida. The lake, cr eated for powe r generation in 1929 by the construction of the Jackson Bluff Dam on the Ochlockonee River, is the second oldest la rge reservoir in the state. While it continues to be used for power generation, it is probably now more important for recreational
purposes. Numerous fi sh camps and homes are located on the lake. Lake Talquin re ceives fl ow from th e Ochlockonee River and most of its major tributaries in the northern part of the basin. Name

Indian Springs White Springs Crays Rise Horn Springs
Natural Brid ge Spring* Rhodes Springs St. Ma rks Spring* Indian Springs Newport Spring Kini Spring*
Panacea Mine ral Sp rings River Sink Spring* Spring Creek Springs* Wakulla Springs* McBride Spring Sally Ward Spring Shepherd Spring Table 2.1: Named Springs in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Basin

Ochlockonee Ochlockonee Ochlockonee

St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks St. Marks Discharge (cfs)

0.48
1.88
82
28.8
106
14 to 18.6
519
0.11
8.24
176
0.11
165 2,003
390

**

**
No data Comments

Seep spring Seep spring Submarine spring in Ochlockonee River

(1) 4 small springs avg. 1958–1973

(1) Six small springs (1) Submarine spring in Apalachee Bay, (2)

*—First magnitud e springs listed by Rosenau et al., 1977. **—Very mino r flow generally combined with Wakulla Springs discharge. Note 1—These spring s have been reclassified as karst windows, which are now considered to be aquifer conduits, temporarily expose d to the surface because of collapse of the conduit roof. Water remains within its conduit and continues its flow through the aquifer. Note 2—Flow at Spring Creek Springs ha s been measured twice: on 05/30/74 at 2,000 cfs and on 11/01/91 at 307 cfs (Davis, 1996).



### Lake Regions

Water resource managers have defined 47 la ke regions in Florida, based on physiograp hy, geology, vegetation, an d other characteristics (Griffith, 19 97). The Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins contain parts of four of these lake regi ons: the Tifton/ Tallahassee Upland s, the Norfleet/ Spring Hill Ri dge, the Big Bend Karst, and the Gulf Coast Lowlands. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 36Lakes Iamo nia an d Miccosukee Karst features ar e more evident east of the Ochlockonee River, and many lakes in th is area are formed in so lution basins an d swampy depressions. Two of the larger lakes in this region are Lake Iamonia and Lake Miccosukee. These lakes, formed in shallow solution basins, are swamp lakes (Wolfe et al., 1988); both are grass fi lled and contain only small open water areas. Both lakes drain when their karst drainage systems become unplugged or during peri ods of drought (Lane, 1986). Lake Iamonia has an intermit tent connection to the Ochlockonee River and receives infl ow from the rive r during high water. Lake Miccosukee, in the St. Marks Basin, receives infl ow from smal l tributary streams. Drainage from Lake Miccosukee is predominantly internal, but small streams provide a connection to a wetlan d area and sinkhole to the south. Currently an artifi cial control structure built around a sinkhole in Lake Miccosukee and an artifi cial control structure at the south end of the lake (near U.S. 90) are used to maintain water levels.

Lake Ja ckson and Asso ciated Lakes Lake Jackson, which also formed in interconnected solution basins, is a large, open waterbody that drains periodically through sinkholes, most recently in 1999 as a result of a prolonged drought. As of summer 2001, with the return of near-normal rainfall, the lake level has been slowly returning. Located in northern Tallahassee, Lake Jackson has been the area’s mo st heavily used recreational lake. Its recreational value is threatened, however, by the stormwater runoff it receives from roads, commercial areas, and residential subdivisions. Stormwater from the interstate highway co rridor (Interstat e 10) and the north and northwestern part of the city , roughly a third of the total area, is discharged to Lake Jackson. Stormwater pollutio n from development also threatens several smaller lakes in th e Lake Jackson drainage basin, most notably Lake Hall and Lake Carr. Located in the Ochlockonee Basin, Lake Jackson has the potential for overfl ow to th e Ochlockonee River during times of extreme rainfall.

Lake Lafayette Lake Lafayette is an area of freshwater ma rsh and limite d open water on th e east side of Tallahassee, in the St. Marks Basin. Its watershed includes th e eastern part of the city as well as residential areas east and northeast of the city . Like other lakes in the region, it too formed in a shallow series of interconnected solution depressions and periodically drains through sinkholes. Water levels ar e partially maintained by a series of manmade dikes that divide the lake into three segments. The Lake Lafayette Basin includes uppe r and lower Lake Lafayette, Piney Z Lake, Alford Arm, and thei r associated wetlands. Artifi cially impounded Lake Piney Z is managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). A dredged canal allows for overfl ow from th e Lake Lafayette chain to reach the St. Marks River during high wa ter (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997a). 

# 37 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksLike Lake Jackson, Lafaye tte is threatened by stormwater discharges from Tallahassee and reside ntial subdivisions.

Lakes Bradford, Hiaw atha, and Cascade These lakes, in southwestern Tallahassee, form the Bradford Brook Chain of Lake s that drain into Munson Slough. Lake Bradford, the largest of th e three lakes, is a heavily used recreational lake with residences on its northern side . Lakes Hiawatha and Cascade are much smaller and shallower and subject to draining during periods of drought. The two smaller lakes are classifi ed as blackwater lakes, having th e same ecology and chemistry as blackwater streams.

Lake Munson Lake Munson is located at the Cody Scarp transition between the Tallahassee Hills and th e coastal lowlands known as the Lake Munson Hills. Former ly a cypress swamp formed in a solution depression south of Tallahassee, Lake Mu nson wa s impounded decades ago as a millpond. In th e early 1950s, a new dam structure and control valves were installed

to cont rol fl ooding in the area to the south. As mentioned previously, Lake Munson receiv es urba n stormwater from more than half of the city of Tallahasse e and has suffered from decades of nutrient loading and sedimentation from stormwater and municipal wastewater (Bartel and Ard, 1992).

Urban Lakes According to the City of Tallahassee Lakes Program, there are more than 50 lake s and ponds within the city limits. Most receive urban stormwater runoff and many have become degraded by nutrients and/or sedimentation. Several lakes in the city, such as Lake Ella, Tom Brown Park Lake, an d Lake A. J. Henry, are centerpieces for city and county parks.

Other Lakes Below the Cody Scarp, within the sand ridges, karst plain, and coastal lowland regi on, ther e are other regionally important lakes. The sandhill region sout hwest of Tallahassee includes small, upland, clear lake s on sand ridges. This very small region includes only one of the larger to mid-size lake s in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. Moore Lake, in a relatively undisturbed area of the national forest, is completely landlocked. In th e Woodville Karst Plain, hundreds of small lakes and ponds have formed in sinkholes. These lakes are deeper and steeper than those in the Tallahassee Hills an d may have formed in collapsed sinkholes. There are also severa l larger, shallow lakes that formed in solution depressions in the southern part of the St. Marks Basin. The larger natural lakes in this area include Lake El len and Otte r Lake in Wakulla County. In the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge, se veral larg e shallow impoundments are manipulated to provide waterf owl habitat. The la rgest include East Pool and Stoney Bayou Pool. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 38

### Relict Ancient shoreline.



### Wetlands

Wetlands comprise most of Florida’s surface wate rbodies in terms of area.Prior to development, wetlands covered about half of the surface area of the state. In wetlands, the water table is at or near the land surf ace fo r a significant part of most years (Fernald and Purdum, 1998).



### Estuaries

Estuaries are sheltered, semienclosed, brackish bodies of water along the sh ore where fr esh water and salt water mix through tidal flows and currents. They include the mouths of ri vers, bays, and the sheltered waters between barrier islands and the mainland. The coastal area contains various other types of lakes: coastal dune lakes, fl atwood lakes, and river fl oodplain or oxbow lakes along the Ochlockonee River. Coastal dune lakes form in relict sand dune s along coastal and near coastal areas. An example is Tu cker Lake, in the sout hern part of th e Ochlockonee Basin in Franklin County. The region’s fl atw ood areas contain numerous shallow po nds that form in poorly drained areas. Oxbow lakes form where river channel meanders become isolated over time. There are several nota ble oxbow lakes along the Ochloc konee River, such as Bone Bluff Lake, Silver Lake, and Red La ke.

Wetlan ds and Estuaries Wetlands cover approx imately 18 percent of the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins. Figure 2.4 shows where major wetlan d areas exist. In the basins, wetlands exist as near-coastal marshes, in river fl oodplains, in areas of poor soil drainage adjacent to lakes, and in poorly drained swamps and “bays” of th e Apalachicola Coastal Lowlands. Most of the wetland areas exist as expansive, internally drained “bays” within the fl at Apalachicola Coastal Lowlan ds. Some of these serve as source waters for small streams, such as Bradwell Bay in western Wakulla County, which is the source of the Sopcho ppy River. Near-coastal marshes, river fl oodplains , and fl oodplains surrounding larger lakes constitute most of the remaining wetland areas. Closed sinkhole depressions that form swamps in the Woodville Karst Plain of th e St. Marks Basin are also important wetlands that provide recharge to ground water, th e network of springs, and eventually the rivers. Figure 2.4 also shows the region’s estuaries. The major estuary is Apalachee Bay, a large, open, shallow bay that receives water from the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Rivers, local tidal creeks and drains, and submarine springs. Smaller bays and inlets along the coastline feed into Apalachee Bay. Ochlockonee Bay lies at the mouth of the Ochlockonee River in Frankl in and Wakulla Coun ties. The other smaller bays include Levy Bay, Dickerso n Bay, Oyster Bay, and Goose Creek Bay. All of these are located alon g the Wakulla County coast. Apalachee Bay su pports a variety of aquatic habitats, including salt marshes, seagrass beds, oyst er bars and reefs, and hardbottom reefs. It also contains part of th e most extensive span of seagrass beds in the country, the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. This area is the largest aquatic preserve in Florida, encompassing about 450,000 acres of seagrass beds and salt marsh that extend southward and eastward from the St. Marks River to the Withlacoochee River. Apalachee Ba y is an important recreational and commercial fi shery in the region.

Surface Water Classification s and Special Designations

Surface Water Classifications Florida’s water quality classifi cation program, the foundation of Florida’s program of wa ter quality management, designates the “present and future most benefi cial uses” of the waters of the state (Chapter 403.061[10], Florida Statutes). Water quality standards are used to set the regulatory limits that ar e intended to maintain these uses for surface water and ground 

# 39 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Markswater. Florida’s surface waters are grouped into fi ve classifi cations, as follows, based on current or intended use:

Class I Potable water supplies Class II Shellfi sh propagation or harvesting Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fi sh and wildlife Class IV Agricultural water supplies Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters curren tly in this category)

Only tw o surface waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins ar e Class I. These are Quincy Creek, a tributary of the Little River in th e area north of Lake Talquin in the Ochlockonee Basin, and its tributary Holman Br anch. Quincy Creek in Gadsden County is used as a primary supply of wa ter for the city of Quincy (Class I potable water supply intake in Figure 2.4 ). Area s of Apalachee Bay along the Wakulla County coastline and Ochlockone e Bay within both Wakulla and Franklin Counties ar e designated as Class II waters because they include commercially viable oyst er beds ( Figure 2.4 ). Al l other waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins are designated Class III. This classifi cation includes rivers, streams, canals, lakes, ponds, impoundments, wetlands, and estuaries. There ar e no Class IV or V waters in the basins.

Special Designations Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) are those worthy of special protection due to thei r natural attributes (Chapter 403.061, Florida Statutes). They are listed in Sect ion 62-302.700, Florida Admini strative Code. The intent of an OFW designatio n is to maintain ambient water quality, even if these designations are more protective than those required under the waterbody’s surface water classifi cation. Most OFWs are associated with managed areas in the stat e or federal park system, such as aquatic preserves, national seashores, or wildlife refuges. Other OFWs may also be designated as “Special Waters” and identifi ed as such in Chapter 62-302 , Florida Administrative Code. Figure 2.4 shows OFWs in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. Two of these, Lake Jackson an d Apalachee Bay, are also State Aquatic Preserves. The Northwest Flor ida Wate r Management District (NWFWMD) also designates Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) priority waterbodies. In 1997, the district identifi ed priority waterb odies for preservation and/or re storation (NWFWMD, 1997a). Table 2.2 lists th e SWIM priority water bodies for the St. Marks Basin. Although a SWIM Plan has not been prepared fo r the entire Ochlockonee Basin, NWFWMD prepared the Lake Jackson Management Plan to address this SWIM waterbody (NWFWMD, 1 994 and 1997b).

Ground Water Resources Sources of high-quality, potable ground water underlie virtually all of Florida and support average withdrawals of more than 4.6 billion gallons per day. This remarkable resource supplies more than 90 percent of 

### Sources of Ground Water Information

Information on the ground water of the Ochlockone e and St. Marks Basins came from The Geology and Ground Water Resources of Leon County (Hendry an d Sproul, 1966); Geology of Wakulla Co unty, Fl orida (Rupert and Spencer, 1988); Water Resources of th e Ochlockonee River Area (Pascale and Wagner , 1982); Geology of Gadsden County (Rupert, 1990); andHydrogeology of the Northwest Florida Water Management District (Pratt et al., 1996). Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 40Florida’s more than 15.9 million residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001) with drinking water. Gr ound wate r resources also supply more than 50 percent of al l water needs, including agricultural, industrial, mining, and electric power generation. A signifi cant number of watersheds de pend on ground water infl ow as th e basefl ow fo r streams and springs. In the Ochlockone e and St. Marks Basins, ground water occurs primarily in th e Floridan aquifer, a vast carbonate aquifer system that exists throughout most of Florida as well as southern parts of Alabama, Georgia, and the Caro linas. Figure 2.3 shows the aquifer system in cross-section. The Floridan aquife r is the source of water for potable supply, irrigation, and industrial uses thro ughout most of th e two basins. The Tallahassee municipal wellfi eld is the primary user of ground water from this aquifer. In th e Tifton Uplands/Tallahassee Hills upland region, the Suwannee Limestone and Oc ala Grou p limestone formations (Tertiary age) comprise the aquifer syst em and are confi ned by clay ey sediment of the Micc osukee Formation and Hawt horn Group cl ays and dolomi tic sediment s. West of th e Ochlockonee River in Gadsden County, the limestone units of the Floridan aquife r are less porous and permeable, the aquifer does not produce very we ll, and th e amount of ground water available for irrigation and municipal wa ter supply is restricted. Water quality in the Floridan aquifer west of the Ochlockonee River is also of poorer quality, having a higher diss olved minera l content. Ground water/surfac e water interaction is important in this part of the state. In the Tifton Uplands/Tallahassee Hills, north of the Cody Scarp, th e Floridan aquifer is under artesian pressure, confi ned by a thick overburden of sedi ment that affo rds a degree of protection against pollution. However, breaches in the confi ning layer, mainly sinkho les, provide pathways for recharge and the introduction of contaminants. In the karst plain, th e Floridan aquifer is shallow and unconfi ned an d interacts with surface water. It is the source of springs that provide basefl ow, sust aining the rivers and stream s of the St. Marks Basin. In the Woodville Karst Plain, there is a direct route for precipitation to recharge the aquifer. In lowland areas wher e the aquifer is unconfi ned, ground water ma y occur at the land surface in numerous lowland ponds, sinkholes, and swamps. In areas where ground wate r discharges to the surface, it can infl uence the water chemistry in spring-fed st reams and rivers. Table 2.2: SWIM Priority Waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Waterbody Basin
St. Marks St. Marks Ochlockonee Ochlockonee St. Marks Ochlockonee St. Marks Ri ver (including Wakulla River and Apalachee Bay) Lake Munson Ochlockonee Ri ver and Bay Lake Iamonia Lake Miccosukee Lake Jackson

Source: Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997 and 2000. 

# 41 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### Ecological Setting

Ecoregions and Natural Communities The northern, upla nd, part s of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins lie in th e Southeastern Plains ecoregion. In its natural state, this ecoregion contains mixe d hardwood and pine forests growing on smooth to irregular plains, with well-drained loamy and sandy soils. Subecoregions include the Tifton Uplands/Tallahas see Hills and Southern Pine Plains and Hills. The Southern Coasta l Plain ecoregion contains the southern part of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. It mainly comprises fl at plains that are of ten covered with standing water, mixed forests, and fl oodplain forests. It also contains a highland area with many lakes. This area includes the Gulf Coast Flat w oods subecoregion. Standing water covers more than half of th e region. Subecoregions ar e made up of natural communities. In spite of human impacts, th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins support diverse natural communities and spec ies. Bottomland hardwoods dominate the wetlands and shorelines of the river channels, pines and various hardwoods dominate upland areas, an d either freshwater or saltwater marsh or dune vegetation occupies coastal areas. Seagrass meadows and oyster reefs provide habitat diversity in submerge d areas. Because of their close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, th e Apalachicola National Forest, and the St. Marks Wildlife Management Area, the rivers and their tributaries retain many of their original aquati c and terrestrial species. Table 2.3 lists the acreage and percentage of basin area for each natural community in these subecoregions and describe s its characteristics. Of about 1.5 million acres in the basin, disturbed community types cover almost 443,000 acres, or 29 percent, and natural communitiesoccupy about 1,080,000 acres, or 71 percent. Of the disturbed communities, shru b and brush occupy the largest area (almost 265,000 acres), followed by barr en land (about 101,000 acres), and grass and agricultural land (about 76, 000 acres). Uplands comprise more than 764,000 acres, or half of the basins’ total

area. Predominant upland types are pinelands (almost 565,000 acres), hardwood hammock (more than 168,00 0 acres), and mixed hardwood pine (almost 30, 000 acres). Other upland communities such as sandhill, oak scrub, sand pine scrub, dry prairie, and coastal strand occupy a total of almost 2, 770 acres. Wetlands comprise almost 281,000 acres, or 18 percent of the basins. Major wetland types include hardwood swamp (more than 135,000 acres),
cypress swam p (almost 60,000 acres), shrub swamp (more than 39,000 acres), coastal salt marsh (more than 24,000 acres), and freshwater marsh (more than 22,000 acres). Bay swamp, the smallest wetland community type, covers 137 acres. Open water (including both fresh water and salt water) occupies more than 35,000 acres of the basins, or 2 percent. It includes the basin’s inland freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers, and creeks and the brackish and saline waters of the St. Marks River Estuary and portions of Apalachee Bay. 

### Sources of Ecological Information

Most of the info rmation for this section was taken from Ecosys tems of Florida (Myers and Ewell, Eds., 1990); Florida Natural Areas Inventory (http: www.fnai.org) and Closin g theGaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System: Recommendations to Meet Mini mum Goal s for Declin ing Wildlife Species and Rare Plant and Animal Communities (Cox et al., 1994). Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 42Area in Acres

564,211

29,244

168,182

24,267

22,083

59,790

135,394

39,211

35,141

76,008

264,636

101,909 Percent of Total Area

37

1.9

11

1.6

1.5

3.9

8.9

2.6

2.3

5

17.4

6.7 Characteristics

Includes north and south Flor ida pine flat woods, south Florida pi ne rocklands, scrubby flatwoods, and commercial pine plantation s. Cypress do mes, bayh eads, titi swamps, and freshwater mars hes ar e commonly inters persed in isolated depression s throughout th is co mmunity. Southern extens ion of the Pied mont southern mixed hardwoods, occu rring ma inly on clay soils of the northern Panhandle. Also included are upland fore sts in whicha mixture of conifers and hardwoods dominate the overstory.
Includes the ma jor upland hardwood associations that occur statewide on fairly rich sandy soils.

Herbaceous and shrubby we tland communities that include cordgrass, needlerush , and transitional or high salt marshes, occurr ing statewid e in b rackish waters along protected low energy estuarine sh orelines. We tla nd communities that are dominated by a wide assortment of herbaceous plant sp ecies grow ing on sand, clay, marl, and organic soils in ar eas wher e water depths and inundation regimes vary. Regularly inundated commu nities that form a forested buffer along large rivers, creeks, lakes, or occur in depressions as circul ar domes or linear strands. Strongly dominated by bald cypress or pond cypress.
Association of we tland adapted trees, composed of stands of hardwoods or ha rdwood-cypress mixt ure. Oc curs on organic soils an d forms forested floodplain of non-alluvial rivers, creeks, and broad lake basins. Dominated by low-gr owing, woody shrubs or small trees; these are usuall y found in wetland areas that are experiencing environmental change. Changes result from natural or human pertur bations such as al tered hydroperiod, fire, clear-cu tting or land clearing, and siltation.

Com monly comprises the open wate r areas of inland lakes, ponds, rive rs, and streams and the brackish and saline waters of estu aries, bays, and tidal creeks.

Upland communities with ve ry low-growin g grasses and forbs. Intensively managed sites such as improved pastures, lawns, go lf courses, r oad shoulders, cemeteries, or weedy fallow agri cultural fields.
Association includes a va riety of situations where natural upland communities have rece ntly been disturbed and are recovering throug h natural su ccessional processes. Includes unvegetated areas such as graded construction sites, clearcut s, and beaches. Table 2.3: Natural Communities in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Community Type

UPLAND Pinelands

Mixed hardwood pine

Hardwood hammock

WETLAND Coastal sa lt marsh

Freshwater marsh

Cypress swamp

Hardwood swamp

Shrub swamp

OPEN WATER Water

DISTURBED COMMUNITIES Grass and agricultural land

Shrub and brush

Barren land

Note: Natural communities that comprise less than 1 percent of the total area are not excluded. Source: Co x et al., 1994. 

# 43 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksThreatened and En dangered Species A number of species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins are federally or state listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern. Some specie s are only on the federal list and others are only on the state list. These listed species are also ranked globally or statewide as rare or unique by the Florid a Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). A recent inventory of these basins included 2 fi sh, 11 amphibians and reptiles, 12 birds, 4 mammals, 4 invertebrates, and approximately 45 plant species that are on one or more of thes e lists. Of these species, almost two-thirds, or more than 58percent, use or live in the basin’s various freshwater, saltwater, and/or wetland commun ities. Appendix A includes a summary of the listed species ( Table A-1 ) as well as critical nonlisted ( Table A-2 ) species in the Ochlockonee an d St. Marks Basins.



### Socioeconomic Setting

Population Tallahassee, the region’s largest city in size and in population, is located between the two rivers and its urban and suburban areas lie in both basins.Other population centers in the area, much smaller in size, include Woodville an d Bradfordville in Leon County; Quincy, Havana, Greensboro, and Gretna in Ga dsden County; Mont icello in Jeffer son County; and Crawfordville, Sopchoppy, St. Marks, Medart, Panacea, and Ochlockonee Bay in Wa kulla County . Quincy (in the Ochlockonee Basin) is the second largest incorporated population center (see Figure 2.1 ). By co unty, Leon County is th e largest in population, followed by Gadsden, Wakulla, and Jefferson. Table 2.4 shows population statistics by county.

Leon Gadsden

Jefferson Wakulla Tallahassee Quincy, Havana, Gretna, Midway Monticello St. Marks, Sopchoppy, Crawfordville Population Centers in Basin County 192,493 41,105

11,296 14,202 Population 1990 Census 239,452 45,087

12,902 22,863 Population 2000 Census
+24 +10

+14 +61 Percent Change Table 2.4: Population Summary Statistics for Selected Counties

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http:// www.census.gov/ Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 44Land Use Water qualit y in a basin is directly linked to land use. Land use information, develo ped by NWFWMD in 1995, is presented in this section. The condition of waterbodies, the ecological diversity and overall good water quality are related to land use. In a large percentage of the two-basin area , most of the land area (more than 57 percent in 1995) exists as natural forest and managed pines and much (more than 22 percent in 1995) exists as wetlands. Managed pine forests (coniferous plantation and forest regeneration areas, in 39 percent of the area) still have considerable valu e as habitat and as buffers against more potentially adverse land

uses. The 1995 land use map shows that agricultural land use occurs in approximately 8 percent of the two-basin area overall, with the primary category being pa stureland. Row croplands were less than 1 percent of the basin area south of the Florida-Georgia state line. However, there is a far larger agricultural area in the Georgia portion of the Ochlockonee River Basin. In 1995, approximately 7 percent of the basin area was classifi ed as urban land use, although low-density urban sprawl probably now affects a greater proportion of the basin than this fi gure wo uld sugg est. Figure 2.5 summarizes land uses in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins.

Figure 2.5: Le vel 1 Land Use Summary for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins T otals

Unknown

Tr ansportation

and Utilities

Barren Land
Urban and Built Up

W ater

We tlands

Ra ngeland
Agriculture

Forested02000004000006000008000001000000120000014000001600000

Area in AcresLand Use Categories 

# 45 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksAppendix B provides more detailed information on land use in the Florida ( Table B-1 ) and Georgia ( Table B-2 ) portions of these basins.
Point and Nonp oint Sour ces of Pollution Point and nonpoi nt source s of pollution are associated with the land uses in th e basins. Point sources contributing pollution to surface water or ground wate r originate from discrete, well-defi ned area s such as a facility discha rge from the end of a pipe, a disposal well, or a wastewater sprayfi eld. They generally fall into two major types: domestic wastewater sources, which consist of sewage from homes, businesses, and institutions; and industrial wa stewater sources, which include wastewater, runoff, and leachate from industrial or commercial storage, handling, or processing facilities. Tables C-1 and C-2 in Appendix C provide summaries of the wastewater facilities in the portions of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins within Florida.

Point So urces

Permitted Facilities Disc harging to Su rface Water Currently, there are about 12 permitted facilities discharging domestic or non-domestic effl uent to surface water in the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins (Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater Facilities Regulation [WAFR] database). These are shown in Figure 2.6. In Florida, most domestic wa stewater facilities in the two basins now discha rge secondarily treated wastewater to percolation basins or land apply their effl uent, resulting in a discharge to ground water rather than surface water. The City of Tallahassee operates the largest domestic wastewater treatment facility in the two basins (with a design capacity of 27.5 million gallons pe r day [mgd]). This effl uent is land applied. The largest domestic wastewater discharge to surface water is by the City of Quincy municipal wastewater plant, operating at a design capacity of 1.5 mgd and discharging effl uent to Quincy Creek. Nondomestic permitted facilities in the basins include effl uent from petroleum remediation sites, stormwater runoff from industrial sites, power plant coolin g water, and industrial wastewater effl uent. The number of industrial wa stewater facilities that discharge to surface waters continues to decrease as technologi cal advances provide alternatives to industries.According to Department records, Englehard Corporation, a mining operation with mining and relate d industrial discharges, has the largest industrial discha rge to surface water in the Ochlockonee Basin of Florida. It is permitted by the Department to discharge 2.16 mgd to surface water. St. Mark s Powder, Inc., has the largest permitted industrial wastewater discha rge to surface water in the St. Marks Basin (a design fl ow rate of 0.79 mgd). There are numerous domestic and industrial wastewater facilities discharging to surf ace water north of the Florida-Georgia state line. Discha rges of untreated and partially treated domestic and industrial wastewater from plants in Georgia are documented and may be contributing to Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 46Figure 2.6: Permitted Domestic and Industrial Wastewater Facilities Regulated by State and Federal Agencies in th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins
degraded water quality in the Ochlockonee River itself, Lake Talquin, and Lake Iamo nia (Pop e and McGlynn, 2001).

Permitted Facilities Disc harging to Ground Water The Ochlockone e and St. Marks Basins contain approximately 75 permitted domestic and nondomestic wastewater facilities that discharge to ground water by way of sprayfi elds, percolation ponds, or drain fi elds ( Figure 2.6 ). Th e City of Tallahassee Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant (desig n capacity of 27.5 mgd) operates a land application sprayfi eld in th e St. Marks Basin that accommodates most of the city’s wastewater. It constitutes the la rgest wastewater discharge in the two basins. No basinwide ground water issues have been linked to any of these permitted facilities. 

# 47 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksAccording to the Department’s database, the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins contain four Class I, II, or III municipal solid waste landfi lls that have been permitted. Class I and II landfi lls receive general municipal and domest ic solid waste. Class III landfi lls contain construction and demolition debris , yard trash, and other materials that were not consi dered to produce leachates that pose a threat to public health or the environment. There are also approximately 25 private construction and debris (C&D) landfi lls in the two basins ( Figure 2.7 ). Th e Department is currently review ing al l active C&D landfi ll requirements. There are also numerous closed , uncontrolled landfi ll sites within the two basins that do no t fall under permitting requirements because they operated prior to the adoption of so lid waste re gulations. Info rmation on pe rmitted solid

Figure 2.7: Permitted Landfills and Hazardous Waste Sites in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 48waste landfi lls, C&D dumps, transfer sites, and other solid waste handling facilities fo r an area that includes the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins is provided in Table C-3 of Appendix C

. Nonpoint Sources Rainfall transports poll utants, such as nutrients, heavy metals, and sediments, left on the landscape by human activities and natural sources. The rain that falls on land becomes stormwat er runoff, which fl ows over the land surfac e and through the ground, carrying nonpoint source pollution from many differ ent sources to the basin’s streams and rivers. Nonpoint sources includ e atmospheric deposition, as well as runoff or leaching from agricult ural, urban, and unvegeta ted lands. Stormwater in urban area s typically contains fertilizers, metals, bacteria, pesticides, sediments, and petroleum compounds. In agricultural areas, the common pollutants in stormwater loads are fertilizers, bacteria, eroded sediments, and pesticid e residues. Air pollution no t only affects human health but can also affect water quality. Atmospheric deposition on land or wate r through “wet” or “dry” processes is an importan t nonpoint source. Wet deposition occurs when pollutants are bound in water droplets and fall out as rain or fog. Dry deposition occurs as particles settle from the air onto land or water. Both forms of deposition contribute signifi cant loads of nutrie nts, heav y metals, and othe r chemicals to lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. In Florida, most air pollutants are from fossil fuel combustion, mainly power plants and motor vehicles. Other signifi cant source s of air pollutants include waste incineration, sulfuric acid production, and the combustion of plant and animal biomass. Th e air pollutants of greatest concern in Florida include sulfur dioxide an d nitrogen compounds, which contribute to eutrophication of lakes an d estuaries. Mercury that ends up in wetlands, lakes, and streams can be converted by bacteria to methylmercury, a toxic form that is accumulated and biomagnifi ed at each link in the food chain. Some forms of nonp oint source co ntamination stem from activities that have long been consi dered benign or even benefi cial. For example, increases in nutrient levels in spring-fed stre ams and rivers often are related to no single source, but to practices long permitted and condoned. Fertilizer applications to enhance agricultural crop yields and make lawns greener often exceed the plants’ capacity for uptake; this wastes the fertilizer and allows it to leach into the ground water. In low-density urban and rural area s, individual septic tanks and drainfi elds are used for domestic wastewater disposal. Even properly sited systems can contribute nutrients to ground wa ter and even low levels of nutrients in a ground water system can create signifi cant problems in spring-fed rivers, streams, and estuaries. The previous discussion of urba n streams and area lakes identifi ed some of the waterbodies most vulnerable to stormwater runoff from urban and possibly agricultural areas. As part of this assessment of the status of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, a model was developed as a predictive to ol to generall y identify potential problems associated with runoff fr om variou s land uses in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

### Eutrophication A process by which a waterbody becomes rich in dissolved nutrients, often lead ing to algal blooms, low dissolved oxyg en, and changes in community composition. Eutrophicationoccurs naturally, but can be accelerated by huma n activites that increase nutrient in puts to the waterbody. 

# 49 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksBasins

. Appendix D provides the results of this model and supporting documentation.

Remediation Activities Contaminated site reme diation activiti es cove r a broad spectrum of programs to clean up grou nd water an d soil contamination. These include state-managed hazardous waste, dry-cleaning, and petroleum cleanup programs; as well as federal cleanu ps un der the Comprehensive Environmental Response , Conservation, Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund, an d Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
programs. The EPA’ s National Priorities List (NPL) is a comprehensive list of the uncontrolled hazard ous waste si tes that pose the greatest threat to human health or th e environment. The agency’s Superfund Program administers the cleanup of NPL sites, and under the federal Superfund law, states are required to provide 10 percent matching funds for site remediation. There are no NPL si tes within the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. The Department’s stat e-funded cleanup prog ram admini sters the cleanup of contaminated hazardous wa ste sites wh en enforcement action taken agains t responsible parties is unsuccessful or when no responsible party is identifi ed. There is one state-managed hazard ous wast e cleanup site in the Ochlocko nee and St . Marks Basins ( Figure 2.7 ). Post and Lumber Pr es er vi ng Co mp any (Site ID No. 000000000107) is the site of a former

w ood-treating facility in the Ochlockonee Basin near Quincy. Petroleum and dry-cleaning solvent sites comprise by far the bulk of the contaminated site s in the state and in these particular basins. Current database inventory records indicate that there are more than 100 petroleum facilities and approximat ely 22 dry-cleaning sites in the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins that are eligible for cleanup under the state program. By defi nition, eligible si tes have documented contamination. Generally, there is no basinwide picture of ground water conditions. The majority of gr ound wate r data are from assessment reports and remedial action plans fo r contaminated sites. This information focuses on the extent of site contamination and the effectiveness of remedial action at individual site s and is diffi cult to ap ply to a regional setting.

Delineated Ground Water Contamination Areas The Department establ ished the Deline ation Program in 1988 inresponse to the discovery of ground water contaminated by ethylene dibromide (EDB), a soil fumigant used to control nematodes in citrus groves and row crops. Although the program does not include all sources of contaminated ground wate r, it wa s expanded to include ground water contaminated by ot her pesticides, industrial so lvents, and nutrients. Itsfocus is to protect public health and minimize the potential for crosscontamination of adjacent ground water resources. The St. Mark s Basin contains a total of 3,255 delineated acres, all in three ar eas of Tall ahassee ( Figure 2.7 ). Thes e areas were delineated for ground water contaminated by chlorinated solvents (tetrachloroethylene and/or trichloroethylene). It is believed the contamination in the Floridan Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 50aquifer originated from improper disposal of solvents from dry-cleaning facilities, wholesale supply faciliti es, or indust rial users. Twenty-fi ve drycleaning facilities in Le on County have document ed contaminat ion; soil and/or ground wa ter at two of them are currently being remediated. By 1990, th e City of Tallahassee Water Department had identifi ed contamination from lo w levels of these solvents in seven of the public water supply wells serving Tallahassee residents. The seven wells are located in tw o of these delineated areas. The city addressed the concern over public health by installing treatment systems at the wellheads to remove the contaminants by activa ted carbon fi ltration.

Hydrologic Modifications Hydrologic modifi cations includ e human-made features such as dams, channelized streams and canals, wa ter control structures on large lakes, and impervious surfaces . All of these modifi cation s infl uence a wa tershed’s condition an d the way stormwater fl ows and pollut ants ar e attenuated by the natural syst ems. In some basins, water use also infl uences natural hydrology. Two la rge lakes in the two basins are artifi cially impounded. Lake Talquin, the area’s largest lake, is an impoundment of the Ochlockonee River that was originally created to provide hydroelectric power. It detains water from the Ochlockonee River and smaller streams in the upper part of th e basin. Lake Munson, south of Tallahassee, is maintained as an impoundment to provide fl oodwater equalization, protecting residential areas to th e south. It receives urban stormwater via the city’s network of stormwater ditches. Water control structures on Lake Miccosukee and the Lake Lafayett e chain regulate water levels and artifi cially control water levels in waterbodies that used to normally respond to natural climatic fl uctuations by draining and refi lling. Artifi cially maintaining water levels in lakes contributes to eutrophication, uncontrolled growth of aquatic vegetation, and general decline in water quality and the overall lake ecology. As discusse d earlier, a drainage network of channelized streams and ditches in the urban Tallahassee area and roadside ditches is used to transport st ormwater runoff from paved urban areas, roadways, and lowlying areas. Stormwater is routed to area lakes, stormwater retention ponds, and wetlands. Newer development projects are required to provide onsite stormwater retention and soakage areas and swales to capture runoff, but retrofi t is needed for much of the older parts of the city. Stormwater de tention in urban areas like Tallahassee is low because of the la rge area covered by impervious surfaces such as buildings, parking lots, and pave d roadways. In urban areas, impervious surfaces typically cover from 30 percent of medium-density residential areas up to 90 percent of areas that are commercially developed. Direct runoff from impervious surfaces allows for no fi ltration or treatm ent of pollutants.

Water Use Ground wate r and surface water are used for water supply in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. In 1990, water use in the two basins 

# 51 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marksaveraged more than 75 mgd (EPA, 2000). More than 80 percent of the water consumed comes from ground water sources. The main uses of water in the tw o basins are for public supply (39 percent) and irrigation (28 percent). Most ground water use is in the St. Marks Basin (61 percent), with th e largest amount used for public supply. Most surface water use is in the Ochlocko nee Basi n (93 percent), with the largest amount used for irrigation. Wate r levels in Telogia Creek, a source of irrigation water in the northwestern part of the Oc hlockonee Basi n, ar e signifi cantly lo wered by irrigation water withdrawals during ti mes of low water. The Department has recommende d that NWFWMD establish minimum fl ows and levels (MFLs) fo r Telogia Creek (Struhs, 2000).



### Historical, Curr ent, and Ongoing Watershed Management Ac tivities and Processes

NWFWMD manage s water resources of the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins. The Department regulates water quality issues, and the basins are located in its Northwest District. Headquarters of the Northwest District ar e in Pensacola and there is a branch offi ce of th e Northwest District in Tallahassee. Additional regulatory, planning, and management activities are carried out by a number of other agencies at federal, state, regional, and local levels. Over th e years, management plans and activities in the basins have addressed such issues as preservation of designated water bodies, re storation of polluted lakes, sewage discharge, and urban stormwater pollution. The following sections summarize some of the historical, current, and ongoing management an d planning activities for addressing resource preservation and water qualit y restoration in the basins.

Creation of Conservation and Preservation Lands Because of the relatively low density of development, particularly in the coastal lowland regi on, most of the basins’ rivers and lakes and the estuary

ar e in relatively good condition. This is due largely to the creation of the St. Mark s Wildlife Refuge and the Apalachicola National Forest in the 1930s by th e federal government. Together, these publicly owned areas comprise more than 630, 000 acres and cont ain most of the wetlands and coastal areas of th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins ( Figure 2.1 ). As long as this land remains undeveloped and is responsibly managed, this signifi cant buffer will continue to provide protec tion to the rive rs and coastal environment. State-funded land acquis itions have also been important. Many of these help to protect water quality. The Nature Conservancy of Florida has been instrumental in brokering many critical land acquisitions, with state funding provided through various programs such as Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever. The establishment of the Edward A. Ball Wakulla Springs State Park in the 1980s was especially signifi cant. This 2,800-acre area includes Wakulla Springs, the source of the Wakulla River and one of Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 52the la rgest and deepest freshwater springs in the world. Land acquisition continues to be an important goal in the St. Marks Basin, with the goal being to create a buffer zone around Wakulla Springs and the St. Marks River corridor. In 1999 and 2000, an additional acquisition of land was

a dded to the Wakulla Springs buffer. Part of this has been added to the Wakulla Spring s State Park, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) Division of Forestry is managing part as the Wakulla State Fo rest. In the Ochlockonee Basin, state acquisitions include public lands around Lake Talquin (J oe Budd Wildlife Management Area, Lake Talqui n State Recreation Area, and Bear Creek State Recreation Area). Land conservation and acquisition efforts are under way on other fronts. Greenways acquisition projects in the Tallahassee area have included corridor s adjacent to lakes that will provide signifi cant protection of these resource s from pollution as well as serving as recreational lands. Under variou s state and regional funding plans, conservation lands are being sought and acquired along river corridors, in wetlands, and in recharge areas. Recent acquisitions (using state and local funds) include buffers adjacent to Lake Munson, Lake Jackson (Elinor Clapps-Phipps Park/Overstreet acquisitio n, Okeeheepke acquisitio n), and Heri tage Trail/ Lake Piney Z an d the Miccosukee Greenway and Alford Property (near Lake Lafayette). Using state funding and assisted by the Nature Conservancy, NWFWMD also acquired a substantial buffer on the south side of Lake Jackson. Currently, conservation easements are also being sought in critical areas, most notably in the Upper St. Marks River Basin.

Elimination of Wast ewater Discharges to Surfac e Water The City of Tallahassee constructed a land application system for disposal of munici pal wastewater in the late 1970s and eliminated the direct discharge of muni cipal sewage to Munson Slough in the early 1980s. This has been the most signifi cant st ep toward improving water quality in Lake Munson. During the same period, Wakulla County created a municipal wastewater treatment facility (spray irrigation) and required coastal residents and businesses in the communities of Panacea and Ochlocko nee Bay to connect to the central system and discontinue the use of individual septic tanks. More recently, the City of Havana implemented a similar spray irrigation facility to eliminate wastewater discha rge to surface water.

Tallahassee Area Stor mwater Management The City of Tallahassee Stormwater Management Division (SMD) and the Leon County Public Works Department have carried out most of th e stormwater management activities to date. Activi ties have focused on implementing dr ainage improvements, carryi ng out stormw ater retrofi ts, and restoring Tallah assee lakes. The City of Tallahas see and Leon Countyrepresent the only local governments in northwest Florida to receive delegation of th e statewide stormwater rule (Chapter 62-25, Florida Administrative Code). The program, administered locally by the City of Tallahassee 

# 53 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksGrowth Management Department and Leon County Growth and Environmental Management, addres ses stormwater treatment for new construction. It has long be en documented that municipa l wastewater discharges have degraded urban stormwater channels and Lake Munson. The cessation of sewage discharges gave some relief to these waterbodies. However, not until the 1980 s was urban stormwater pollution addressed as a signifi cant concern to water quality. Since then, state and local governments and the general public have become more aware of th e need for stormwater treatment, and there are increasi ng numbers of stormwater projects and use of nonstructural management practices. The nonstructural stormwater practices include public information, staff training, incident repo rts, an d other activities to address and prevent polluted stormwater.

Local Stormwat er Activities and Projects In accordance wi th the 1990 Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan, a stormwater ordinance and a stormwater utilities department were created. From the resultant Stormwater Master Plan, local stormwater planners developed a list of approximately 20 capital improvement projects to address fl ooding and drainage improvements. Many of these projects, being implemented by th e City of Tallahassee, will also include a stormwater treatment or restoration component. The City of Tallahassee has constructed 11 regional facilities throughoutthe community that incorporate both water quality treatment as we ll as fl ood prevention into their design. Development guidelines and permitting requirements to prevent or minimize stormwater contamination were also th e result of the Comprehensive Plan and the stormwater ordinance. New developments ar e now required to include adequate stormwater treatment measures. Redeveloped si tes must also be retrofi tted to provid e treatment, and efforts ar e made to preserve sensitive areas.

City of Tallahassee Stormwater Pollution Reduction Program In 1 999, the City of Tallahassee SMD began implementing a Stormwater Pollution Reduct ion Program. The program will incorporate strategic stormwater retrofi ts an d a management program to reduce stormwater pollution from existing develo ped areas. Initial phases of the process that are under way include a monitoring program, a basin assessment, and an assessment of current leve l of stormwater treatment. In upcoming years, a list of stormwater treatment al ternatives and a fi nancial plan will be developed and presented to the City Commission for review and approval. Milestones for implementation of th e selected stormwater treatment alternatives will then be included in the Co mprehensive Plan.
Surface Water Improv ement and Management (SWIM) Plans Under th e 1987 SWIM Act (amended in 1989), the Lake Jackson Management Plan and the SWIM Plan for the St. Marks River, Wakulla River, and Apalachee Bay we re produced.

Lake Ja ckson Manage ment Plan Under the SWIM progra m, NWFWMD de veloped a plan to address degradation of Lake Jackson by urban stormwater. This plan, submitted in 1990 an d updated in 1994 and 1997, addresses priority issues in four program Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 54areas: water quality, pres ervation and restoration, watershed management, and public educat ion an d awareness. Essential activities outlined in the plan include removing contaminated sediments, retrofi tting existing development, and introduc ing strict stormwater requirements for new development. Various monitoring an d restoration activities have been performed. Some of these projects ar e not currently funded, but may be at a later date.

St. Marks River Watershed Plan In th e 1997 SWIM Plan for the St. Marks Basin, NWFWMD identifi ed several monitoring and inventory projects. Restoration needs have not been identifi ed fo r the main river systems. The plan did not address restoration needs of lake s in the basin (Lakes Munson, Lafayette, and Miccosukee) because of cost an d uncertainty about the relationship between the condition of the lakes and po tential environmental impacts on the rivers and estuary. Some of the SWIM Plan projec ts that we re proposed are complete , others are under way, and still others may occur at a later date based on available funds.
Lake Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Projects Restoration and ha bitat enhancem ent projects have been conducted to address several lakes, partly through state funding, partly by federal grants, and partly by Leon County. Much of the state funding for habitat enhancement and restor ation of lakes has been made available through FWC. The 1999 Florida Forever legislation includes a fi sheries restor ation program targeting Florida lakes deemed to be in priority need of attention. Starting in July 2001, funding will be made available to FWC to perform lake drawdowns, remove muck an d sediments, reestablish native submersed and emergent vegetation, implement tussock control measures, an d carry out other enhancements to fi shery habitat through 2010.

Lake Ja ckson Restoration Historically, La ke Jackson has periodically drained when sinkholes form and has refi lled during wet-weathe r periods. Lake restoration efforts have coincided with the lake drawdown. Beginning in 1990, an interagency team - —including NWFWMD, the Department , FWC, and Leon County—conducted severa l phases of a restoration after prolonged drought and sinkholes drained th e lake and provided opportunity for access. The most comprehensive effort, during the 1999–2000 Lake Jackson drawdown, was started quickly because it was not known how long the lake would remain dry. Nutrient-laden deposits of organic muck and sediment were removed from Meginniss Arm, Fords Arm, Church Cove, and the southern part of the main lake. Theseactions were part of the project scope described in the Lake Jackson Management Plan.

Lake Munson Restoration Lake Munson , a 225-acre impoundment, receives stormwater from Tallahassee and prov ides fl oodwater equalization for areas downstream. Deltas of transported sediment and accumulati ons of orga nic muck ha ve choked the lake and blanketed the bottom. The Lake Munson Action Plan was implemented af ter record fl ooding in Leon County by a series of tropical storms 

### Tussock An area of raised solid grou nd in a marsh, which is bo und together by roots of vegetation. 

# 55 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marksand depressions in 1994. Leon County began the Lake Munson project in late 1 999. Current activities include removing a sediment delta at the entry point of Munson Slough into the lake ; creating a wet detention area in Lake Henrietta upstream from Lake Munson to provide fl oodwater equalization and improve the quality of water fl owing to the lake ; and regrading and stabilizing Munson Slough to reduce erosion. In a future project, FWC intends to remove muck from the remainder of the lake bottom.

Other Lakes The FWC has be en responsible for restoration and habitat enhancement projects fo r several other area lakes: Miccosukee, Iamonia, Piney Z, and Talquin. FWC’s Aquati c Resources Enhancement Section initiated an extreme drawdown of La ke Miccosukee in March 1999 and closed the lake to fi shing. Muck was then removed from four sites around the lake. In the process, approximately 25 acres of th e lake bottom were scraped. To control woody tussocks and oxidize organic material , 1,300 acres on the bottom were burned. Lake Iamoni a was also a target for habitat enhancement during the drought. During 2000, the FWC removed muck from approximately 26 acres of the bottom on the north shore along the Lake Iamonia Landing boat ramp. A controlled burn alon g the western shore was implemented in the winter of 2000 to remove tussocks. A project to restore Lake Piney Z in the Lake Lafayette chain was conducted from 1996 to 1998. It included a drawdown, muck removal, the creation of six earthen fi shing fi ngers and fi ve wildlife island s, and the installation of a water control structure in th e 197-acre lake. The City of Tallahassee also purchased 407 acres of surrounding land. The site is now called Lake Piney Z Fish Management Area. Progressive fi shing regulations have been implemented in the portion opened to the publ ic in 2001. An artifi cial drawdown of Lake Talquin has been used as a prescribed habitat management practice on several occasions. In 1998 , under the supervision of the FWC, Lake Talq uin wa s partially drawn down 10 feet for 6 months to allow for the oxidation and compaction of accumulated organic muck. Native aquatic plants (bulrush and American cupscales) were pl anted to reestablish emergent littoral vegetati on. Winter rye grass seed was planted to provide nursery areas for the newly spawned sport fi sh. While this practice created a temporary hardship on area marinas and fi sh camps, the drawdown stimulated the fi shery and improved the lake’s overall health.

Ground Water Protection As required by th e Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan, an Aquifer Protection Program was established to protect wellheads, delineate highrecharge areas and areas most susceptible to ground water contamination, and identify contaminated areas. The City of Tallahassee Aquifer Protection Program is responsible fo r implementing the Aquifer Recharge/Wellhead Protection Ordinance of 1992 . Projects in which the City has been involved include a karst inventory of Leon Co unty an d a wellhead protection assessment and modeling project funded by the EPA. NWFWMD and the U.S. Geological Survey have provided suppor t to the city. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 56Bartel, R. L., and F. B. Ard. 1992. USEPA Clean Lakes Program, Phase I Diagnostic Feasib ility Report for Lake Munson. Northwest Florida Water Management District, Water Resources Special Report 92-4, August 1992. Bartel, R. L., R. Areanga, N. Wooten, F. B. Ard, and T. Benoit. August 1991 (revised Oc tober 19 92). City of Tallahasse e and Leon County Stormwater Management Plan. Northwest Florida Water Management District, Water Resour ces Assessme nt 91-1. City of Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department Home Page. Available: http:// www.ci.tallahassee.fl .us/citytlh/planning/ tlcpdhp.html Cox, J. 2 000. City of Tallahassee St ormwater Management. Personal communication regard ing City of Tall ahassee Stormwater Pollution Reduction Program. Cox, J. , R. Kautz, M. McLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closin g the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, Florida. Florida Game an d Freshwater Fish Commission, Offi ce of Environmental Services. Davis, H. 1996. Hydrogeologic Investigation and Simulation of GroundWater Flow in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of North-Central Florida and Southwestern Georgi a and Delineation of Contributing Areas for Selected City of Tallahassee Water Supp ly Wells. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4295. Fernald, E. A., and E. D. Purdum, Eds. 1998. Water Resour ces Atlas of Florida. Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University. Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-302. Surface Wate r Quality Standards. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Wastewater Facilities Re gulation da tabase. Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Florida Rivers Assessment. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Available: http://www.fnai.org Griffi th, G. E. August 1997. Lake Regi ons of Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, EPA/ R-97 /127. Hendry, C. W., and C. R. Sproul. 1966. Geology an d Ground-Water Resources of Leon County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Bulletin No. 47. Lane, E. 1986. Karst in Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology, Special Publication No. 29. Lower Ochlockonee Basin. Available: ht t p://www.epa.gov/surf/HUCS/ hucinfo/ 0312 0003 Myers, R. L. , and J. J. Ewel, Eds. 1990. E cosystems of Florida. University of Central Fl orida Press. Northwest Florid a Water Management District. 2000. District Water Management Plan. 

### References 

# 57 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksNorthwest Florid a Water Management District. May 1997a. St. Ma rks Watershed Surface Water Improv ement and Management Plan. Program Development Series 97-1. Northwest Flor ida Wate r Management District. November 1997b. Lake Jackson Mana gement Plan Addendum. Program Development Series 97-4. Northwest Florid a Water Management District. June 1994. Lake Ja ckson Management Plan. Program Development Series 94-2. Pascale, C. A. , and J. R. Wagner. 1982. Water Resour ces of the Ochlockonee River Area , Northwest Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Open File Report 81-1121. Pope, K. R., and S. E. McGlynn. 2001. Interstate Issues Regarding Water Quality in the Ochlockonee River. Florida Lake Management Society 12th Annual Conference Proceedings. Pratt, T. R. , C. J. Richards, K. A. Milla, J. R. Wagner, J. L. Johnson, and R. J. Curr y. 19 96. Hydrogeology of the Northwest Florida Water Management District. Northwest Florida Water Management District, Special Repo rt 96-4. Rosenau, J. C., G. L. Faulkner, C. W. Hendry, and R. W. Hull. 1977. Springs of Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletin No. 31 (revised). Rupert, F. R. 1990. Geology of Gadsden County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey Bull etin No . 62. Rupert, F. R., and S. Spencer. 1988. Geology of Wakulla County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No. 60. Struhs, D. 2000. FDEP Letter to NWFWMD regarding minimum fl ows and levels for Telogia Creek. United States Ce nsus Bure au. Available: http://www.census.gov/ United States Environmenta l Protection Agency. 2000. Surf Your Watershed Internet Site. Apalachee Bay-St. Marks River Basin. Available: htt p://www.epa.gov/surf/HUCS/hucinfo/03120001 United States Geol ogical Survey. Water Resources Data fo r the United States. Available: http://water.usgs.gov.nwis Upper Ochlocko nee Basin. Available: http://www.epa.gov.surf/HUCS/ hucinfo/ 0312 0002 White, W. A. 1970. The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology Bulletin No. 51. Wolfe, S. H. , J. A. Reidenauer, and D. B. Means. 1988. An Ecological Characterization of the Florida Panhandle. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 58

# Chapter 3: Status of Water Quality and Ecological Resources

Chapter Summary

This chapte r summarizes the current status of surface water and ground water qualit y and ecological resources in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Group 1 Basins.

The primary purp ose of evaluating the status of surface water qualit y is to determine if individual waterbodies or smaller drainage basins identified with a unique waterbody identification (WBID) number are potentiallyimpaired. These waters, which must meet specific thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality requirementsin the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Section 62-303, Florida Administrative Code), will be listedon the state’s planning list of impaired waters. Where sufficient data are available, t he assessment also addresses temporal and spatial trends in water quality.

The ground water quality assessment identifies ground water inputs and the water quality status of confined and unconfined supplies in the basin.

The ecologic al resources evaluation discusses protection and preservation priorities, including Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas that are important to preserving biological diversity in the region. It also describes major ecolog ical indicators in the form of species and natural communities that are potentially related to water quality problems in the basin, as well as other ecological issues and problems. 

# 59 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksThis chapte r presents a preliminary assessment of surface and ground water quality in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. It summarizes concentrations of ke y water quality indicators (e.g., nutrients, chlorophyll

a , DO, and microbiological parameters) for each basin, with summaries provided fo r each planning unit and surface water segment within planning units, as appropriat e. The report also notes where applicable surface water quality criteria have been exceeded and graphically summarizes report fi ndings, noting potential water quality problems and where there is insuffi cient information for assessment. Ground water quality is presented via a Basin Resource Index (BRI) that identifi es ground water issues th at are regional in scope. The results of this preliminary assessment will be used to prioritize monitoring activities in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. The chapter includes information from a wide variety of readily available da ta sources an d includes some qualitative information. However, the main source of surface water quality data is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ST Orage an d RETrieval (STORET) database for the 10-year period of 1989 to 1998, and the main source of data for the ground wate r assessment is the Department’s Generalized Water Information System (GWIS) . Other data sources used for the report include the Department’s Biology da tabase, as well as fi sh consumption advisory information and be ach advisory data from the Florida Department of Health (D OH). Upon completion of monitoring in Phase 2, an additional, more detailed assessment will be completed for the basin that will include a use attainment assessment for waters in the basin. This assessment will serve as the basi s for the Section 305(b) water quality assessment for the basin (a requirement unde r the federal Clean Water Act). It will also include a verifi ed list of impaired wa ters, which upon adoption by the Secretary, will be submitted to EPA as the 303(d) list for the basin (see sidebar).



### Status of Surface Water Quality

The Status Report does not provide the basis for determining whether waters attain their designated uses. Instead, it identifi es waters that may not meet thei r designated uses. Waters that do not meet their designated

uses ar e considered potentially impaired and are therefore included on a pla nning list for verifi cation of impair ment throug h further study. To be placed on the planning list, waters must meet specifi c thresholds for data suffi ciency and data quality contained in Chapter 62-303 (Identifi cation of Impair ed Surfac e Waters). This “Impaired Waters Rule” (IWR),which was developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory Committee, provides a science-based methodology for identifying impaired waters. Waters on th e planning list will be prioritized for additional monitoring in Phase 2 of the Watershed Management Cycle to verify whether they are, in fact , impaired and should be included on the state’s 303(d) verifi ed list of impaired waters. 

### Section 303(d) Listed Waters

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop lists of surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality criteria and develop TMDLs for listed waters on a prioritized schedule. The most recent 303(d) list from the states was required by EP A in 1998. That 303(d) list provided by Florida included these waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Ma rks Basins.

Ochlockonee Basin Little River Black Creek Ochlockonee River St. Mark s River Swamp Creek Lake Iamonia Outlet Meginniss Arm Run Harbinwood Estates Drain Juniper Creek

St. Mark s Basin Lake Mi ccosukee Black Creek Ward Creek Munson Slough Lake Lafayette Drain Munson Sink Central Drai nage Ditch St. Augustine Branch East Draina ge Ditch Godby Ditch Lake Bradford Lake Munson Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 60In addition to identifying potentially impaired waters, the Status Report contains a list of the pollutants associated with impairments. However, th ere is no attempt in it to identify specifi c sources or causes of potential impairments. Detailed information on the causes of impairment will be develo ped during Phase 2 of the cycle, and during TMDL development, if the water is included on the verifi ed list.
Impaired Waters Rule Methodology To determin e the status of surface water quality in the basins, three categories of data —chemistry data, biological data, and fi sh consumption advisories— were evaluated to determine po tential impairment. The main source of water quality data was information collected between 1989 and 1998 an d stored in EPA’s STORET database, where all data collected using federal or state funds must be entered. Flow data came from the U.S. Geological Survey’s stream gages. Other sources in cluded the Department’s Biology database and fi sh consumption advisory information from DOH. Appendix E contains a more detailed description of the methodology.

Chemistry Data The chemistry data from STORET used in this evaluation were also used fo r preparing the state’s 2000 305(b) report. The stations were determined to be ambient surface water stations, and information from point sources or wells was purposely excluded. The data included the following pa rameters.

Metals Arsenic, aluminum , cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc Nutrients Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State Index (TSI ) (chlorophyll a , total nitrogen, and total phosphor us) for lakes Conventionals Dissolved oxygen (DO), feca l coliforms, total coliforms, pH , and unionized ammonia

The requirements fo r waters to be included on the planning list include a minimum of 10 temporally independent samples from the period of 1989 to 1998, unless there were 3 exceedances of water quality or one exceedance of an acute toxicity criterion within a three-year period. To determine if a wate r should be placed on the planning list for each parameter, the chemical da ta were analyzed using a comput er program written to evaluate the langua ge in the IWR, with two exceptions. First, unionized ammonia da ta were no t analyzed by the program, but rather with an Excel spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criterion could not be programm ed, th e incomplete listings for pH were not included. They will be further examined while additional data are collected during Phase 2 of the watershed cycle. The data for metals and conventional paramete rs were comp ared with the stat e surface water quality criteria in Section 62-302.530, Florida 

### Impaired Waters Rule (IWR)

Section 62-303 of the FloridaAdministrative Code, the Identification of Impa ired Surface Waters Rule, defines th e threshold for determining if waters should be included on the state’s planning list and verified list. The rule addresses specific chemical parameters, nutrient impairment with numeric wate r qu ality criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption advisories, or ecological impairment.

Potential impairments are determined by assessing whether a waterbody or segment meets the criteria for inclusion on the pl anning list. The criteria for the planning list are less stringent than the criter ia for th e verified list. Once a waterb ody is on th e planning list, addition al data and info rmation will be gathered and examined to determine if the water should beincluded on the verified list or if additional data collecti on is ne eded to make that determination.



### Exceedance The amount by wh ich something, especially a pollutant, ex ceeds a standard or permissi ble meas urement. 

# 61 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksAdministrative Code. Ch apter 62-303 (Identifi cation of Impa ired Su rface Waters) contains a table of sample numbers versus exceedances. A waterbody is placed on the planning list if there is at least 80 percent confi dence that th e actual criteria exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10 percent. Potential nutr ient impairme nt wa s evaluated by calculating annual mean chlo rophyll a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, th e TSI was calculated using chlorophyll a , total phosphorus, and tota l nitrogen measurements. Direct evidence of imbalances of fl ora and faun a in waterbodies was also considered in the evaluation of nutrient impairments. In estuarin e areas, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 mg/L or if annual mean chlo rophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values fo r at least two consecutive years. For streams, a water was consi dered nutrient enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 mg /L or if the annual mean increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive years. A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units was consi dered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean color less than or equal to 40 platinum cobalt units was consi dered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a la ke was considered nutrient enriched if there was an increase in TSI over the 1989 to 1998 period or if TSI measurements were 10 units higher than historical values.

Biological Data The biological data were assess ed using th e IWR as guidance. Appendix E includes the bioassessment methodology and summarizes the results of each bioassessmen t test used in assessments of potential impairments. Tables F-2 and F-5 in Appendix F contain the results of Stream Condition Index (SCI), Rapid Bioreconnaissance (BioRecon) and Lake Condition Index (LCI ) assessments, index thresholds, and selected results from artifi cial substrate analyses (Hester-Dendy analyses) in the basin. All tests employed and data analyzed were based on measurements of the integrity of surface water macroinvertebrate communities. The Department generated all th e data used according to its standard operating procedures. Waters that me t the criteria for inclusion on the planning list are indicated by placing “biolo gy” as the parameter of impairment.

Fish Consumpt ion Advisories Fish consumption advisories were based on DOH’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories for surface waters because of high levels of me rcury in fi sh tissue. Potential impairments identifi ed fo r individual water bodies in this assessment were based solely on these fi sh consumption advisory reports. Waterbodies with “limited consumption” or “no consumption” stat us were considered po tentially impaired. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 62Planning Units Pla nning units help organize inform ation and manageme nt strategies around prominen t subbasin characteristics. The Department has identifi ed 13 watershed-base d planning units in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. These provide a geographic basis for assessment, reporting, and pla nning activities under the wate rshed management approach. Table 3.1 lists thes e pla nning units, and Figure s 3.1 and 3.2 show their locations and boundaries within the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, respectively.

Planni ng Unit

North Ochloc konee River South Ochloc konee River

Lake Iamonia Lake Jackson Telogia Creek Sopchopp y River St. Mark s River Lake Miccosukee Lake Lafayette Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Wakulla River Coastal Watershe ds and Apalachee Bay Description

Ochlockonee Ri ver and all tributaries in Florida that drain into Lake Talquin Ochlockonee Rive r and all tributaries south of Lake Talquin except Telogia Creek and Sopc hoppy River Lake Ia monia Basin Lake Jack son Basin Telogia Cr eek Basin and all tr ibutaries Sopchoppy Ri ver Basin and all tributaries St. Mark s River Basin including all tributaries except Wakulla River Lake Miccos ukee Basin Lake Lafayette Basin Combined area of La ke Munson and Fred George Sink Basins Combined area including Lost Creek and Fisher Creek watersheds Wakulla Ri ver Basin including all tributaries Apalachee Bay an d all watersheds that drain directly to the bay and not within St . Marks or Ochlockonee River drainage Table 3.1: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Planning Units

Potentially Impaired Waters of Concern This section identifi es the wate rs in each planning unit that have been determined to be potentially impaired for one or more data categories. The po tential impairments are presented by waterbody segment. The assessment used to dete rmine po tential impairment is based on the previously described methodolog y for identifying waters to be included on the state’s planning list. This is used as a preliminary assessment to identify potentially impaired waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. The utility of this assessment process, however, was limited by the available data. The individual stations were grouped within subbasins to represen t individual waterbodies or segments. Figure s 3.2 and 3.3 show the segments with waterbody identifi cation (WBI Ds) numbers in th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, respectively. WBIDs can represent individual waterbodies, aggregations of waterbodies, or segments of larger wa ter bodies. Data suffi ciency has been a limiting factor in the preliminary assessment of impair ed waters in these basins. Some waterbodies lack data overall, whil e others have data that are not applicable to the assessment of impairments. In Phase 2, the assessment will include a more robust data set that includes what is currently present, existing data not currently in the STORET database, and data from monito ring that will be conducted based on th e preliminary assessment. 

# 63 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksFigure 3.1: Planning Unit Loca tions and Boundaries in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 64Figure 3.2: Segments with Waterbody Identifica tion (WBID) Numbers in the Ochlockonee Basin 

# 65 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksFigure 3.3: Segments with Waterbody Identifi cation (WBID) Numbers in the St. Marks Basin Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 66Impaired Waterbod ies and Segments The Ochlockone e Basin contains 287 waterbodies or segments, which are categorize d as streams, lakes, blackwaters, springs, or estuaries. Seventy of these WBID s have been delineated in the St. Marks Basin. Table 3.2 summarizes the water quality assessment status for each of the waterbody types in th e basins’ 13 planning units, as it is limited by data availability. Appendix G provides more detailed information on water quality assessment status (s ee side bar). Assessment status is base d on a waterbody or segment having data in STORET fo r the parameter categories described above that are suffi cient for an assessment per the IWR methodology. Fully assessed waters have suffi cient data for all assessment criteria (nutrients, conventionals, biology, metals, etc.). Partially assessed waters have suffi cient data for some of the criteria. Waters that were not assessed have insuffi cient data for all criteria. 

### Appendix G

This appendix, availa ble in electronic format, cont ains a Micr osoft EXCELworkbook of tabulated data and statistical information that support the results of the prelimin ary su rface water assessment. Contents of Appendix G are listed below.
Table G-1 Ochloc konee/St. Marks Planning Units an d WBIDs Report Card Table G-2 Ochlocko nee/St. Ma rks List of Basin Planning Units Table G-3. 1 North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3. 2 South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3. 3 Lake Iamonia Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3. 4 Lake Jackson Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3. 5 Telogia Creek Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3. 6 Sopchoppy River Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3. 7 St. Marks Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3. 8 Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3. 9 Lake Lafayette Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3.10 Lake Munson Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3.11 Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3.12 Waku lla Rive r Planning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-3.13 Coas tal Waters heds and Apalachee Bay Plan ning Unit Stats 1989–99 Table G-4 Ochloc konee/St. Marks Summary of Co nventional Exceedances Table G-5 Ochlockonee/St.Marks Summary of Meta l Exceed ances Table G-6 List of Flow and Water Level Gage Sites Notes: WBID—Waterbody identification number, co uld represent entire waterbody or segment of a waterbod y. Water bodies are assigned to the follow ing categories : Streams, Lakes, Blackwaters, Springs, Estuaries Detailed summary informatio n is provided in Tables G-1 and G-2 in Appendix G. Table 3.2: Assessment Status Summary Information

North Ochloc konee Rive r South Ochloc konee Rive r Lake Ia monia Lake Jackson Telogia Creek Sopchopp y River St. Mark s River Lake Miccosukee Lake Lafayette Lake Munson/Fre d George Sink Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Wakulla Rive r Coastal Wate rsheds and Apalache e Bay Plann ing Unit
109 49 12 8 80 9 28 4 9 13 8 8 20 Total WBIDs
21 8 7 4 4 3 11 3 1 5 2 4 7 WBIDs Fully

Assessed
0 0 0 2 3 1 2 0 3 4 1 3 0 WBIDs Pa rtially Assessed
88 41 5 2 73 5 15 1 5 4 5 1 13 WBIDs Not Assessed 

# 67 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksFigure 3.4: Ochlocko nee and St. Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Nutrients According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Impairments by Parameters of Concern

Nutrients Figure 3.4 shows the waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins that ar e potentially impaired for nutrients. Nutrient impairment status was also evaluated by consid ering evidence that would suggest imbalances of fl ora or fa una in waterbodies. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 68Figure 3.5: Ochlockone e and St. Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Conventional Water Quality Pollutants According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Water Qualit y Standard Exceed ances Figure 3.5 shows the waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins that ar e potentially impaired for conventional pollutants. Appendix G provides statistical summar ies of wate r quality data in each planning unit and statewide me dian va lues

. 

# 69 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksMetals Figure 3.6 shows the waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins that ar e potentially impaired for metals. Appendix G provides a more detailed summary of metal exceedances by planning unit and WBID.

Figure 3.6: Ochlockonee and St . Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Metals According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 70Figure 3.7: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basin Waters with Potentially Impaired Biology According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Biology Figure 3.7 shows the waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basin with po tentially impaired biology. Appendix F provides a detailed summary of biologic al sampling re sults in the basins, by waterbody or segment and planning unit.

Fish Consumption Advisories In th e basins, Lake Jackson is the only signifi cant waterb ody in the unlimited consumptio n category for fi sh. Limited consumption advisories have been issued by th e Department of Health for Lake Miccosukee, Lake Iamonia, Lake Talquin, St. Marks River, Ochlockonee River, Sopchoppy River, an d Crooked River. Most other waterbodies have not been assessed. 

# 71 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksWater Qual ity Evaluation by Basin Plan ning Unit This section summarizes water quality and water quality-related issues in the 13 planning units of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. It includes a summary of wate rbodies in the planning unit, land use and point source issues, ecological impacts (if observed), and a discussion of potential water quality impairments based on the impaired waters rule. Table 3.3 contains a summary of potentially impaired waterbodies or segments in the basins by pla nning unit. Detailed information on water quality that supports Table 3.3 is provided in Appendix G.

• North Ochlockonee River

General De scription The Nort h Ochlockonee River contains numerous tributaries in Georgia and Florid a and is impounded in Florida as Lake Talquin to provide hydr oelectric power and recreation. About 95 miles of the river’s 211 miles are in Georgia. Signifi cant tribut ary inputs in Georgia include the Ochlockonee River, Oquina Creek, Bridge Creek, and Tired Creek. Some of th e signifi cant Florid a tributaries, such as Swamp Creek, Attapulgus Creek, and Little River, originate in Georgia.

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges There are severa l major surface discharges in this system, including the ones in Georgia (Wieckowicz et al., 2000; GDNR-EPD, 2000a–i). The ones in Florida include the Engelhard Corporation mine, the City of Quincy domestic sewage treatment plant discharge (1.5 mgd) to Quincy Creek, and the Quincy Cluster petroleum cleanup sites. The City of Havana domestic sewage treatment plant (0.4 mgd) discharged to Lewis Creek and the Ochlockonee River above U.S. 27 until 1999, but now land-applies its effl uent. The City of Tallahassee Hopkins Power Plant discha rges cooling water (1.87 mgd) to Unnamed Branch (Beaver Creek) and Lake Talquin. The Attapulgus, Georgia operations of Englehard Corporation also has a signifi cant industrial wast ewater discha rge to the system just north of th e Florida-Georgia line, potentially affecting Attapulgus Creek and Little River. The lack of dilution fl ow in th e Ochlockonee River was evident during the recent dr ought (1997-20 01) when a fl ow of 0. 4 cfs was measured (Wieckowicz et al., 2000) at Georgia’s S.R. 3, approximately 59 miles downstream from th e headwaters. Agriculture is the dominant land use in the Geor gia portio n of the Ochlockonee Basin (GDNR-EPD, 1996). The combinatio n of cultivated/exposed earth and pasture categories is 43.9percent. Land use in the Florida portion of the North Ochlockonee planning unit is mainly upland forest (67.8 percent) followed by wetlands (7.7 percent), and urban and built-up (7.7 percent).
Ecological Problems Lake Talqui n has a documented problem with invasive aquatic vegetation (water lettuc e and water hyacinth) and is on a list of waterbodies targeted by th e Department (FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2000). The overgrowth of invasive plants may be related to the nutrient 

### Information on Land Use and Poi nt Sources in Planning Units

A detailed assessment of water quality in the basins for th e purpose ofTMDL development requires identification of the source(s) of waterbody impairment. As pa rt of th e statusassessment, information was gathered on land use and on permitted facilities that discharge wastewater. Land use is described for each planning unit in the following discussi on. Tables in Appendix B support summary information provided in this report related to land use in the basin planning units. Table B-1 is a summary of th e land use totals and percentages fo r the various planning units in Florida. The land us e for the portion of th e Ochlockonee Basin in Georgia is given in Table B-2 . Domestic and industrial surface di scharge facilities in the Ochl ockonee and St. Mark s Basins of Florida are listed with their design flows in Table C-1 of Appendix C . The present nonsurface discharge facilities are listed in Table C-2 of Appendix C . The landfills or solid wast e facilities in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins are listed in Table C-3 of Appendix C

. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 72load ca rried to th e lake by the Ochlockonee River and other tributaries (Pope and McGlyn n, 2001 ).

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows 10 potentially impaired waterbodies or segments in the pla nning unit. These incl uded Little River, Lake Tallavana, Harvey Creek, two segments of Lake Talquin, two segments of the Ochlockonee River, an d Quincy Creek. Potential impairments were noted for conventionals (5 WBIDs), nutrients (1 WBID), biology (1 WBID), and fi sh consumption adviso ry (4 WBIDs).

• South Ochlockonee River

General De scription The starting po int for th e planning unit is the Jackson Bluff Dam on Lake Talqui n at S.R. 20. Numerous small blackwater tributaries drain the Apalachicola Forest to the east and west of the Ochlockonee. Signifi cant tributaries incl ude Syfrett Creek, Telogia Creek, and the Sopchoppy River. The latter two tributaries are included in their own planning units. Few water qualit y data have been collected in the South Ochlockonee pla nning unit.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There are no known direct surface discharges to the Ochlockonee River in this planning unit. Land use is primarily upland forest (51.3 percent) and wetlands (43.0 percent), with only 0.9 percent urban and built-up.

Ecological Problems Our references included no studies to indicate any other confi rmed ecological problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows three waterbodies or segments listed as potentially impaired fo r this planning unit: Black Creek for conventionals and biology, a segment of the Ochlockonee River for metals (iron) and a fi sh advisory, and another segmen t of the Ochlockonee River for DO and a fi sh advisory.

• Lake Iamonia

General De scription This shallow lake has few major tributaries. The on e with the greatest potential impact is the Killearn Lakes Basin, which contains Pine Hill Lake, Petty Gulf Lake, Lake Dianna , and Lake Monkey Business. All of these lake s drain into the Lester Cove tributary. Other tributaries include Lake Arro whead (Cromartie Arm), Plantation H Tributary, Foshalee Slough , and Strickland Arm. Some of these are impounded lakes and have been designated by the Department as stormwater treatment ponds. Lake Iamonia drains to a major sink on its north shore and to the Ochlockone e River on the west. However, the Ochlockonee River can 

# 73 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 3.3: Potentially Impaired WBIDs in Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins According to the Impaired Waters Rule

North Ochlockonee River Little River Lake Tallavana Unnamed Branch (Beaver Creek) Harvey Creek Lake Talquin Lake Talquin Ochlockonee River Ochlockonee River Quin cy Creek South Ochloc konee River Black Creek Ochlockonee River Ochlockonee River Lake Iamonia Lake Ia monia Outlet Lake Jackson Meginniss Arm Run Telogia Creek Telogia Creek Sopchoppy River Sopchopp y River St. Mark s River Black Creek St. Mark s River Lloyd Cree k (Copeland Sink Drain) Lake Miccosukee Caney Branch Lake Miccosukee Lake Lafayette Lake Lafayette Drain

Lake Munson/Fre d George Sink Munson Sink (Ames Sink) Munson Slough Lake Munson

Lake Hiawatha Waku lla River McBride Slough Big Boggy Branch Coastal Wate rsheds and Apalachee Bay Crooked River

Planning Unit/ Waterbody or

Segment

424 540A 855 921 1297C 1297D 1297E 1297F 1303

1024 1297A 1297B

442

809

1300

998

628 793B 808

716 791L

756

807A 807D 807C

878C

1028 1124

1241 WBID

Stream Lake Stream Stream

Lake Lake Stream Stream Stream

Stream Stream Stream

Lake

Stream

Stream

Stream

Stream Stream Stream

Stream

Lake

Lake

Stream Stream

Lake

Lake

Stream Stream

Stream Waterbody Type

22.8 0.25

5 5.7 22.9 18.1 14.1 11.4 9.4

4.3 82.9 26.1

8.5

0.3

51.6

37.2

10.7 56 3.1

4.2 24.9

1.3

0.5 2.3 4.4

0.06

0.9 5

20.7 Mile/Sq.

Miles

16 4 1 1 11 3 13 9 10

2 7 7

9

3

22

10

1 9 1

2 7

14

1 7 31

4

2 3

15 # Stat ions

X

X

X

X Nutrients

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X XConventionals Metals

X X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

X Biology

X X X X

X X

X

X

X

X Fish Advisory

F.Colif., T.Colif. Nutrients (lake, lake trend) Biology F.Colif. Fish Fish T.Colif., F. Colif., biol ogy, fish T.Colif., F. Colif., fish F.Colif., T.Colif.

F.Colif., biology Metals (i ron), fish DO, fish

Fish

DO, nutrients (stream)

F.Colif., T.Colif.

Fish

Biology DO, biology Biology

Biology DO, fish

DO, biology, nutrients (imbalance of flora an d fauna)

DO, F.Colif., T. Colif., biology DO, F.Colif., T. Colif., biology Nutrients (imbalance of flora and fauna) Nutrients (lake trend)

DO T.Colif., biology

Fish

Potential Impairment

Notes: WBID—Waterbody identification number Miles—Miles for streams and blackwaters, square miles for lakes and estuaries # Stations—Number of stat ions within that WBID X—Potentially impaired per the IWR criteria DO—Dissolved oxygen F.Colif. —F ecal coliform T.Colif.—Tot al coliform Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 74contribute signifi cant fl ows and lo ads to Lake Iamoni a at the Meridian Road north and south bridge s during certain high fl ow peri ods.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There is only one signifi cant surface/ground wa ter discharge within this planning unit, th e Talquin Electric dome stic wastewater sprayfi eld (0.7 mgd), in the Lester Cove Tributary Basin. Studies of the impact of th e present sprayfi eld by a Leon County consultant (McGlynn, 1999) and the Department led to the construction of a berm on the sprayfi eld perimeter. The berm acts as a buffer for the adjoining Lester Creek. Land us e is mainly upland forest (65.2 percent), followed by wetlands (16.8 percent) , agriculture (8 percent), and urban and built-up (6.8 percent). Urban land uses are concentrated in the Killearn Lakes Basin.

Ecological Problems Aquatic plant grow th is a concern. Accumulations of organic muck from decomposin g aquatic vegetation have choked the lake, prompting the FWC to initiate a project to enhance habitat and restore the lake by removing muck and tussocks that form mounds that choke open water areas (personal communication with Michael Hill, FWC, November 2000). The Department requests annual funding for hydrilla, water hyacinth, and water lettuce control in Lake Iamonia (FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management , 2 000).

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows only one waterbody listed as potentially impaired in the pla nning unit, Lake Ia monia Outl et (Lake Iamo nia) fo r a fi sh advisory. Lakes Dianna an d Arrowhead exceed criteria for lake trend nutrients, but they ar e designated as stormwater treatment ponds and, as such, are not subject to regulation as waters of the state. No bioassessment data were available for the Lake Iamonia planning unit.

• Lake Jackson

General De scription Lake Jackso n is a closed basin with internal drainage to at least two named sinks, Porter Sink an d Lime Sink. Approximately every 25 years, the lake naturally drains into one or more sinkholes. The lake most recently drai ned in October 1999 and it has not fully recovered from th e extended drought. Signifi cant tributar ies to the lake include Megi nniss Arm Run, Fo rds Arm, Meridian Creek, Butlers Mill Creek (Indian Moun ds Stat e Park), and Jackson Heights Creek in Harbinwood Estates.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There are no known surface discharges in the planning unit. However, numerous do mestic wa ste pump stations, septic tanks, and stormwater facilities ca n and do affect water quality in the basin. One example is the pump statio n at the headwaters of Butlers Mill Creek. Land use is 

### Berm An elongated ridge. 

# 75 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marksdominated by ur ban and built-up (37.1 percent), followed by upland forest (36.1 percent) and wetlands (9.3 percent).

Ecological Problems Before th e natural drawdown of the lake in 1999, its ecological problems were bein g studied. As related by Livingston (1997), algal blooms were common in portions of Lake Jack son by the late 1980s. Meginniss Arm, th e arm receiving the heaviest load of urban stormwater, contained sediments with detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals that were attributed to polluted stormwater. Hydrilla dominated the

eastern portion of the lake. Blue-green algal blooms were also becoming a problem in Lake Hall (Livingston, 1997). Lake Jackson, Lake Hall, and Carr Lake are funded for invasive aquatic plant control through the Department (FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2000). According to Livingston (1997), fi sh in Lake Jackson showed a high incidence of disease, including tu mors, sores, damaged gills and fi ns, bacterial an d parasitic infections, and internal abnormalities. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations, wh ich provid e an indicator of the lake’s biological health, were also reported to be low in both number and species richness. Since the natura l drawdown in 1999 and subsequent restoration activities, the lake has not returned to normal stage and the results of restoration have no t been measured.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 (based on the limited data set) includes one waterbody listed as potentially impa ired. Meginn iss Arm Ru n was listed as potentially impaired fo r DO and stream nutrients. Based on the reports of past imbalances of fl ora an d fauna, algal blooms, and overgrowth of invasive species, Lake Jackson would have been placed on the list as potentially impaired fo r nutrients. However, due to the extended drying period and the massiv e restoration effort to remove nutrient-laden muck and sediment, Lake Jackso n is not being included as potentially impaired at this time. No bioassessment data were available fo r waters in this planning unit. When the STORET database is updated, additional potential impairments may be identifi ed fo r this planning unit.
• Telogia Creek

General De scription Major tributaries to Telogia Creek include Pitman Branch, Little Telogia Creek, Juniper Creek, Yon Creek, Mule Creek, Panther Creek, Big Creek, Stokes Branch Cree k, and Yellow Creek. The NWFWMD has declared the northern pa rt of Telogi a Creek a Water Caution Area because of the lack of stream fl ow in th e basin (see page 51 on water use in Chapter 2).

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges There are thre e known surface discharges in the planning unit. Timber Energy Resour ces is an intermittent fl ow to a branch of Stokes Branch Creek (Barrett, 1999). The facility is a waste wood-fueled power plant that wa s formerly a naval stores facility (Reichhold Chemical). The basin 

### Benthic Occurring at the bott om of a body of water. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 76also contains two petroleum cleanu p sites, Junior Food Store No. 240 and Grubbs Petroleu m. The Town of Gretna’s sewage treatment plant (0.35 mgd) is currently a domestic reuse wastewater facility that formerly discha rged to an overland fl ow/spray facility near th e headwaters of Telogia Creek. Upland forest (64. 5 percent) and wetlands (19.4 percent) are dominant land uses , with urban and built-up contributing a small fraction (2.8 percent).
Ecological Problems Our references included no studies to indicate any other confi rmed ecological problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows only one waterbody listed as potentially impaired. Telogia Cree k was listed for fecal coliform and total coliform.

• Sopchoppy River

General De scription The rive r has its headwaters in the Apalachicola National Forest, where the West an d East Branches join south of Otter Camp. Monkey Creek is th e only tributary. Water qualit y is generally very good. The U.S. Geological Survey uses the Sopch oppy River as a national ambient water quality monitoring site to represent pristine water quality.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There are no known surface discharges. Land cover is predominately wetlands (51.7 percen t) and upla nd forest (44. 5 percent), with only a very small fraction in the urban and built-up (0.8 percent) category.

Ecological Problems Our references included no studies to indicate any other confi rmed ecological problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows that one waterbody is potentially impaired. Sopchoppy River is listed for a fi sh consumption advisory.

• St. Marks River

General De scription The St. Mark s River originates as an intermittent stream in eastern Leon County near U.S. 90. It fl ows southwar d through low-density residential areas, pine plantation land, and wetland areas and receives direct fl ow from few tributaries. In one northern area of the planning unit, the stream basi n is adjacent to a karst system. This system includes the Blac k Creek/Still Creek/Bird Sink Basin, Long Pond Creek/Patty Sink Basin, Copeland Sink Basin, an d Lloyd Creek Sink Basin. No connection betwee n these sinks and the St. Marks River has been established. Further south, there are several potential or “pseudo” tributaries to the river 

# 77 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marksincluding Burnt Mill Creek, Sweetwat er Creek, and Moore Creek. These tributarie s may infl uence the river during very high fl ows. Furt her to the south, the Limestone Creek system, Gum Creek, and Willow Creek feed the river. Be low this ar ea, th e Horn Springs group and Chicken Branch contribute appreciabl y to the river’s fl ow. Furthe r south, at Natural Bridge, the St. Mark s River disappears underground. It reemerges at St. Marks Spring furthe r to the south and proceeds southward to its confl uence with the Wakulla River.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There are seve ral poin t sources in the lower St. Marks River (below St. Mark s Spring rise). These include the City of Tallahassee Purdom Power Plan t (Curtis, 1997), the Murphy Oil Corporation tank farm, the St. Mark s Refi nery tank farm , and the St. Marks domestic sewage treatment plant. The St. Marks sewage plant started piping its treated domestic wastewater to the power plant for industrial reuse in 1999. The Tallahassee Southeast Farm , in the west central part of the planning unit, is a large 2,163-acre wastewat er reuse facility that uses sprayfi elds to treat most of the city’s municipal wastewater. Appendix B shows that the dominant land uses in th e planning unit are upland forest (57.3 percent) and wetlands (19.1 percent), whil e the urban and built-up category accounts for only 6.7 percent.
Ecological Problems Invasive aquati c vegetation is a problem in the St. Marks River. Dominant invasive plants in clude hydrilla, wa ter hyacinth, and water lettuce (FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2000). At th e town of St. Marks, four docking terminals carry, offl oad, process, and distribute petroleum products and bulk chemicals. Numerous documented oi l spills through the years, including a spill of about 10,000 gallons in 1978, have contaminated bottom sediments in the area. The most heavil y contaminated site is directly above the confl uence of the Wakulla River an d the St. Marks River, at the barge-turning basin west of the town of St. Marks (Olsen et al., 1981; Bell, 1980). After years of data collection an d study, a plan was devised in 1984 for dredging and removing the wors t of the contaminated sediments. No action has been taken to remove or disturb the sediments, and no recent information is available on the biological effects of these historical spills.
Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows three potentially impaired waterbodies, including Black Creek, a segment of the St. Marks River (793B), and Lloyd Creek (Copeland Sink Drain). All three were potentially impaired for biology. St. Marks River also was potentially impaired due to low DO.

• Lake Miccosukee

General De scription The fl ow into Lake Miccosukee includ es Ward Cr eek (wit h headwaters in Thomas County , Georgia), Panther Creek, Dry Creek, Caney Branch, and Noname Creek. Lake Miccosukee drains to sinks on both its north Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 78and sout h ends and has been dry or partially ponded for the past year. Caney Branch and Noname Creek have maintained basefl ow even during the recent drou ght (1998–2001). However, the other streams have been intermit tent.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There are no major point sources in the basin. However, a Georgia state hospital has a permit to discharge to the headwaters of Ward Creek. The majo r land use is upland forest (65.4 percent), followed by agriculture, including plant nurseries (13.2 percent) . The urban and built-up category comprises 2. 2 percent of the basin.

Ecological Problems The water leve l in Lake Miccosukee is manipulated and artifi cially maintained. The over growth of native and nonnat ive vegetation in the lake is a problem. Like other lakes in the area, invasive aquatic vegetation requires control measures (FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2 000).
Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows two potentially impaired waterbodies, Caney Branch and Lake Miccosukee . Caney Branch is potentially impaired for biology. Lake Miccosukee is potentially impaired because of a fi sh consumption advisory an d low DO.

• Lake Lafayette

General De scription The lake consists of four separate parts: Upper Lake Lafayette, Lake Piney Z, Alford Arm, and Lower Lake Lafayette. Flows into Upper Lake Lafayette includ e the Northeast Drainage Ditch, Park Avenue Drainage Ditch, Lafaye tte Creek, an d occasionally Lake Piney Z, while outfl ows drain to th e Upper Lake Lafayette Sink. Lake Piney Z can fl ow to Upper Lake Lafayette or Lower Lake Lafayett e. Alford Arm and several small tributar ies fl ow to Lowe r Lake Lafayette, which drains to the St. Marks River.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges Point source facilities include Talquin Electric sewage treatment plant (Meadows at W oodrun), which discharges to a percolation pond adjacent to th e Lake Heritage Tributary, which in turn drains to Lower Lake Lafayette. This facili ty also bord ers the Leon County Landfi ll along U.S. 27 sout h of Lower Lake Lafayette. The major land use consists of urban and built- up (4 3 percent) followed by upland forest (30.1 percent).
Ecological Problems Lake Lafayette ha s been impounded at several places and is divided into a series of four distinct wetlands and waterbodies—Upper and Lower Lake Lafayette, Lake Piney Z, and Al ford Arm. Upper Lafayette, which receives residential, commercial, and industrial urban runoff through Lafayette Creek, pe riodically drains through a sinkhole. Fish kills and 

# 79 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marksblooms of to xic blue-g reen algae have periodically been observed (Livingston, 1997). Lake Piney Z, an impoundment, had reached an advanced state of eutrophication from stormwater ru noff an d was the subject of a recent restoration effort by FWC. Lake McBride, Millston e Creek, and No-Name Pond are in the northern part of the Lake Lafayette watershed. Because these waterbodies are clos e to a rapidly developing area northeast of Tallahassee, they are vulnerable to degradation by stormwater runoff. No-Name Pond shows evidence of degradation by nutrients, with increasing turbidity, phytoplankton blooms, infestat ion by pond weed and othe r noxious aquatic plants, and fi sh kills during low water months (Livingston, 1997).

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows one potentially impaired waterbody in the planning unit, Lake Lafayette Drain, which is the basin that contains the Lake Lafayette Chain of Lake s (Upper Lafayette, Piney Z, and Lower Lafayette) and its main drainage. This segment is potentially impaired for DO and biology. Prev ious work ha s also indicated that there have been signifi cant ecological concer ns, po tentially associated with nutrients. An update of the STORET database in Phas e 2 is anticipated to provide a better determination of th e status of waterbodies in this planning unit.

• Lake Munson/Fred George Sink

General De scription The northernmost part of this syst em is Fred George Sink, a closed basin. Drainage is from Huntington Tributary and Fred George Creek to a sink near Fred George Road. The Lake Munson Basin includes West Drainage Ditch (whi ch collects wate r from the San Luis Tributary, RR Tributary, Nort h and West Branches of Gum Creek, Bradford Brook, Cascade Lake, Lake Hiaw atha, and Lake Bradford), Central Drainage Ditch, St . Augustine Branch, and East Drainage Ditch. It also includes Munson Slough and Lake Munson . Munson Slough terminates at Eight Mile Pond and Ames Sink (also known as Munson Sink).

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges Since 1984 , all of the signifi cant point sour ces have been removed from direct discharge to the drainage basin, including the City of Tallahassee’s Lake Bradford , Dale Mabry, and T.P. Smith sewage treatment plants. Most of th e treated effl uent, with a design fl ow of 19.84 mgd, is land -applied at the City of Tallah assee Southeast Farm wastewater sprayfi eld on Tram Road in the St . Marks planning unit. However, some wastewater effl uent and municipal sludge are land-appli ed at th e T.P. Smith facility and on land at the Tallahasse e airport. Other point sources ( Appendix B ) are nonsurface discha rges with sprayfi elds or percolation ponds. Land use is dominated by upland forest (4 7.4 percent) , followed by urban and built-up (38.5 percent). This pla nning unit ha s a larger area in the urban/built-up category than the other pla nning units. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 80Ecological Problems Lake Munson ha s for more than 60 years received a heavy load of nutrients, toxi cs, and sediment s from stormwater runoff and treated sewage effl uent. In 1982, it was classifi ed as hypereutroph ic an d the seventh most degraded lake in the state. The discharges of treated sewage were eliminated in 1984, improving water quality to the point that the lake was reclassifi ed as eutrophic. However, runoff from more than 23, 000 acres, including more than half of Tallahassee, continues to fl ow into Lake Munson from Munson Slough. Problems observ ed in recent years include fi sh kills, algal blooms, invasive exotic spec ies (primari ly water hyacinth and hydrilla), high nutrient and bacteria levels, low DO levels, reduced numbers and low productivity of game fi sh, and reports of fi sh with sores. Studies during the 1980s also found pesticid es an d metals concentrations in amounts that were 10 to 10 0 times greater than other area lakes such as Miccosukee, Iamonia, and Jackson. The contaminants include polychlorinated biphenyls (P CBs), chlordane, DDT an d its breakdown products, dieldrin, lead, chromium, copper, and zinc , all of which concentrate in lake sediments. The accumulation of organic muck , degraded water quality, and reduced water depth lowered fi sh biomass by at least 75 percent between 1976 and 1987. As a result, sport fi shing was all but eliminated (Bartel and Ard, 1992; Bocz and Hand, 1985; Livingston , 1997; and Lake Munson Action Plan, 1994).

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows four potentially impaired waterbodies in the planning unit. These include Munson Sink (Ames Sink) for DO; Munson Slough for DO, fecal coliform, total coliform, and biology; and Lake Hiawatha for lake nutrient trends. Lake Munson is also included for nutrients based on the observed im balance of fl ora an d fauna (i.e., algal mats, fi shery decline, and aquatic vegeta tion overgrowth).

• Lost Creek/Fisher Creek

General De scription Both Fisher Cree k and Lost Creek originate in the Apalachicola National Forest so uth of Tallahassee and remain for the most part in the national forest. Both st reams disappear into sinkholes as they enter the W oodville Karst Plain. This planning unit also includes an area of small, upland, clea r lakes on sand ridges. The most notable lake is Moore Lake.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There are no known point sources in the planning unit. However, the City of Tallahassee Municipal Airport (in the land use category of transportation) is at the headwaters of the basin. Land use is dominated by upland forest (59.9 percen t) an d wetlands (35.7 percent), with a small amount of urba n and built-up (1.8 percent). 

# 81 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksEcological Problems Our references included no studies to indicate any confi rmed ecological problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows that no potentially impaired waterbodies have been confi rmed in th e planning unit. There were no bioassessment data.

• Wakulla River

General De scription The headwaters of this relatively short river are in Wakulla Springs State Park south of Tallahassee. Major tributaries include Sally Ward Spring, McBrid e Slough, and Big Boggy Branch. Most of the river fl ow originates at Wakulla Springs.

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There is only one signifi cant point source in the planning unit. St. Mark s Powder, which manufactures smokeless gun propellants, discha rges to Big Boggy Branch, which is tidally affected. Land use consists of upland forest (62.0 percent) foll owed by a signifi cant urban an d built-up fraction (20.2 percent) , which is mostly low density residential.
Ecological Problems Invasive aquati c vegetation is a problem in the Wakulla River. Dominant invasive plants in clude hydrilla, wa ter hyacinth, and water lettuce (FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2000). Although hydrilla has been present in the lower Wakulla River for years, it was just discovered in the Wakulla Spring s pool relatively recently, where it has quickly formed dense beds and replaced native eel grass. There may be a correlation between hydrilla growth and an increase in nutrient concentrations in the spring water. According to Wakull a Springs State Park bird count records, there has been a conspicuous decline in the limpkin population along the river (Scott Savery, Florida Department of Environmental Protection data records). The decline of th is state-li sted species may be related to the hydrilla infestation or othe r potential water quality related factor. Accelerated growth of dense algal mats has also been observed in the Wakulla River; this may be caused by th e increased nutrient concentrations discharged by springs.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows two potentially impaired waterbodies. McBride Slough wa s potentially impaired for DO, and Big Boggy Branch was potentially impaired for total coliform and biology.

• Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay

General De scription The pla nning unit, whic h consists of Apalachee Bay and a series of streams south of U.S. 98, includes Dickerson Bay, Oyster Bay and the Spring Cree k system, Shell Point, Walker Creek, Goose Creek Bay, the mouth of th e St. Marks River, East River, and Pinhook River. Spring Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 82Creek, and the large contribution from its marine spring discharge, is the major stream . Spring Creek Springs is the largest magnitude spring system in Florida, with an average fl ow (in 1970 ) of 2,003 cfs (Rosenau et al., 1977).

Potential Sour ces and Permit ted Discharges There are no known surface discharges. Several wastewater facilities discha rge to percolation ponds or sprayfi elds. These include the Shell Point sewage treatment plant (0.024 mgd) and Wakulla County sewage treatment plan t (0.2 mgd).

Ecological Problems Few da ta were foun d to document the condition of the estuary and its associated watersheds. Fe w studies have been conducted in Apalachee Bay. This assessment identifi ed no ecolog ical problems.
Potentially Impaired Assessment Units Table 3.3 shows one waterbody listed as potentially impaired: Crooked River for fi sh consumption advisories. No bioassessment data were available.



### Ground Water Quality Assessment
This Status Report eval uates th e basin’s regional ground water quality using data collecte d from the DEP Status Network, a monitoring network based on random sampling and designed to answer broad-based, statewide to basinw ide questions. The Status Network was developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory Committee to provide a scientifi c and statistically base d methodology for evaluating Florida’s statewide ground and surface water quality. Regional ground wa ter quality is assessed using a BRI that evaluates the monitoringresults at individual wells and interprets them in a basinwide context. Individual pollutants are identifi ed an d targeted for further investigation during Phase 2 of the basin rotation cycle. Ground Wate r Analytes of Concern (GWACs) are also identifi ed. Precipitation is abundant in Florida, and ground water levels are typically near or at land surface. Thus, for much of the year, ground water discharges to surface waterbodies, providing the basefl ow fo r most streams. This creates the po tential for elevated concentrations of ground water constituents to adversely infl uence surface water quality. GWACs are constituents that exist at concentrations elevated above levels of concern for environmental health (in surface water), but below levels of concern fo r public health (based on drinking water criteria in ground water) . For example, ground water with a nitrate (as N) concentration of 9. 0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) is below the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L, bu t might cause adverse ecological impacts when discharged into a surface waterbody water with a background concentration of 0.5 mg/L. The infl uence of GWACs is often apparent in Florida’s many 

# 83 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Markssprings where ground and surface water interact and integrating ground and surface water protection efforts is necessary to safeguard both resources.
Methodology
Ground Water Analytes of Concern (GWACs) Florida has a single designated use for ground water—drinking water. However, Florida surface water is protected for fi ve designated use classifi cations. GWACs identify thos e analytes that exist at concentrations that do not necessarily pose a thre at to public health via ground water, but could adversely impact the environmental health of surface waters. GWACs are identifi ed using data collected by Flor ida’s Status Network, an integrated ground an d surface water-quality monitoring network. The water management districts and selected counties cooperate with the Department in the operation and sampling of the network. The network is based on random sampling of wells within a basin and answers broadbased, statewide-to-basinwide questions. The design enables the tracking of overall progress toward environmental management goals. The Status Netw ork divide s the state into 20 individual basins, four basins per water management district. Each year a basin is sampled in each district, prov iding a comprehensive statewide assessment over a 4-year period. Focusing on the ground water portion of the network, 30 ground water samples are collected from the confi ned aquifer an d 30 samples are collected fr om th e unconfi ned aquife r (including springs) in a basin. Thus, for an y given year, approximately 300 total ground water samples are collected—15 0 from the confi ned aquifer and 150 from the unconfi nedaquifer. The Ochlockonee-St. Marks Basin has been designated as Reporting Unit 1 (RU 1 ). The confi ned aquifer is ground water over laid bya relatively impervious layer, su ch as clay , that inhibits the exchange of water and chemicals between aquifers above and below the layer. An unconfi ned aqui fer has no confi ning unit betwee n the zone of ground water saturation and the ground surface—es sentially a surfi cial or water table aquifer. In the Ochlockonee an d St. Marks Basins, the Floridan aquifer is both confi ned and unconfi ned, depending on its location. Generally, in areas above (north of) the Cody Scarp, the Floridan is a confi ned aquife r. Sout h of the scarp in the Woodville Karst Plain, the Floridan is poorly confi ned to unconfi ned. Unconfi ned aquife r sampling locations north of the Cody Scarp are representati ve of the surfi cial aquifer system that lies above the confi ning unit, no t the Floridan aquifer. Using year 2000 Status Network data, the median concentration of each measured anal yte was compared with the median concentration of the same analyte measured in the remain ing three basins in the appropriate water management district. Data for the other three basins were provided by the Department ’s Background Monitoring Network sampled during 1996–1 999 (the Background Network has been replaced by the Status Network). Comparison s were made for confi ned and unconfi ned gr ound

water. A Mann-Whitney statistical test (Mendenhall et al., 1981) was used to compare th e median concentrations. If the median concentration for any Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 84analyte in the sampled basin is signifi cantly elevated , then it is considered a GWAC for a potential contribution to the impairment of a surface waterbody. Elevated nutrients in grou nd water, such as nitrate, are of particular concern because of their potential to adversely impact surface water. A Basin Ratio can also be calculated for each GWAC to indicate the relative severity of the impact to ground waters.

Assessment of Regional Ground Water Quality Regional ground wa ter quality is assessed using a BRI that evaluates the monitoringresults at individual wells and interprets them in a basinwide context. Individual pollutants are identifi ed an d targeted for further investigation duri ng Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. BRIs indicate over all ground water quality on a regional scale. Each BRI is determined by th e percentage of Status Network wells with analyte concentrations exce eding primar y or secondary drinking water standards (i.e., maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]) or health-/aesthetic-based ground wate r guidance concentration levels. Primary MCLs are humanhealth based; secondary MCLs are based on aesthetic considerations.

Two BRIs , one for human health and one for aesthetics, are calculated. If more than 10 percent of the randomly sampled Status Network wells in a region are classifi ed as “ A ” or “ C ,” then the entire region is categorized for Action or Concern ( Table 3.4 ). BRIs ar e not calculated in basins where the da ta population is le ss than 20 samples. Since all possible analytes are not sampled, an “ N ” label (signifying No Basis fo r Action or Concern ) does not mean that the sample provides no risk, but that there is not enough data to determine a need for Department action. BRI results should be carefully evaluated and only statements concerning ground water quality based on the measured analytes should be made

. Table 3.5 is a summary of the Status Network analytes.

Ground Water Status This section characterize s regional ground water status, based on the BRIs, and th e status of GWACs. Additionally, a discussion on the interaction of ground water and surface water in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins is included.
Status of Regi onal Ground Water Quality

Confined Ground Water Thirty well s in the Status Network were sampled during 2000 to assess water quality in confi ned aqui fers. Table 3.6 shows the BRI results for confi ned ground water. The number of wells sampled and the percentage exceeding criter ia fo r the two indices are listed. The BRI (health) and

Index BRI (health)

BRI (aesthetics) Wells Exceed 10% >10% of well s in region categorized as A >10% of well s in region categorized as C Yes No Yes No Regional Category A–Action Recommended N–No basis for Ac tion or Concern C–Concern N–No basis for Ac tion or Concern Table 3.4: Basin Resource Indices 

# 85 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksBRI (aesthetics) ar e “N,” indicating that no regional problems exist and that confi ned ground wa ter appears to be of good quality. However, the Status Network is sm all an d not extensive enough to identify all contamination issues. Confi ned ground wate r samples from two wells exceed the drinking water standard for fecal coliform. Additionally, the Status Network did not detect the contamination associated with chlorinated solvent plumes delineated in the Tallah assee area.
Unconfined Ground Water Thirty unconfi ned ground water wells in the Status Network were sampled during 2 000. Table 3.6 shows the BRI results for unconfi ned grou nd water. The tabl e lists the number of wells sampled and the percentage exceeding ground wate r criteria for the two indices. The BRI (health) and BRI (aesthetics) ar e “N,” indicating that no regional problems exist and that unconfi ned ground wate r appears to be of good quality. However, ground water pollution may exis t at individual wells in the basin. For example, fecal coliform exceeded the maximum co ntaminant leve l for drinking water in 3 of the 30 samples. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 86

Table 3.5: Status Monitoring Indicator/Analyte List for Gr ound Water

Indicator

Calcium Magn es ium Sodium Pota ss ium Chloride Sulfate Fluoride Alkalinity Nitrate+Nitrite Ammonia Kjeldahl Nitrogen Phosphorus Organic Carbon Dissolve d Solids Suspended Solids Turbidity Color Total Coliform Fecal Coliform E. Coli Enterococci Water Temperature pH Specific Conductance Dissolve d Oxygen Depth to Water Land Surface Elevation

“ Micro” land use Primary

160 mg/L

4 mg/L

10 mg/L

4 colonies/100 ml 4 colonies/100 ml** Secondary

250 mg/L 250 mg/L 2 mg/L

500 mg/L

15 color units

<6.5, >8.5 MCL Threshold Dissolved or Total

Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

Notes: MCL—Maximum contaminant level **—Used as a surrogate for Total Coliform mg/L—Milligrams per literStatus of Ground Wate r Analytes of Concern

Confined Ground Water Sodium ( Na ) is a GWAC and is the only parameter displaying a signifi cantly higher median concen tration for the Ochloc konee and St. Mark s Basins (3.85 mg/L) than for the remainder of the NWFWMD (2.85 mg/L). Th is is shown in Table 3.7 . This is a “basin” ratio of 1.35 (3.85/2.85) representing only a slight increase, especially when compared with the maximum co ntaminant leve l for sodium of 160 mg/L. The exac t cause of this slight increase is not known. However, it may indicate an increase in saline water (e.g ., saltwate r intrusion). It could also indicate that a higher proportion of confi ned well s tap into ground water zones with naturall y higher concentrations of sodium.

Unconfined Ground Water Phosphorus and orthophosphate are GWACs, with basin ratios of 2.20 and 1.30 , respectively (see Table 3.7 ). These analytes may refl ect na tural conditions in differ ent zones of the aquifer that are composed of phosphatecontaining rock (Maddox et al ., 1992). It is possible that they also refl ect land use activities that are introducin g nutrients to the ground water.

Table 3.7: Results of Mann-Whitney Statistical Tests Comparing Ground Water Analyte Concentr ations in RU 1 and RU 3

Confined Ground Water Sodium Unconfined Gr ound Water Specific conductance Calcium Magn es ium Alkalinity Color Sodium Chloride Phosphorus Orthopho sphorus Analyte

mg/L

umhos/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Measurement Unit

3.85

87.00 4.20 0.64 5.19 100.00

3.10 5.30 0.02 0.013 Median Concentration RU 1

2.85

39.50 1.24 0.05 1.00 15.00 2.20 3.40 0.01 0.010 Median Concentration RU 3

1.35

2.20 3.39 12.31 5.19 6.67 1.41 1.56 2.20 1.30 RU 1 /RU 3 R atio

Notes: RU 1 —Northwest Florida Reporting Unit A RU 3 —Northwest Florida Report ing Unit s B, C, and D mg/L—milligrams per liter umhos/cm—micromhos per centimeter (Note, α — 0.05 for each test) (Only analytes displaying significantly elevated concentrations are listed.) Table 3.6: Basin Resource Indices for Ground Water

BRI (Health) Total Wells Percent of Wells

BRI (Aesthetics) Total Wells Percent of Wells N 28 93.3 %

N 30 100.0% A 2 6.7 %

C 0 0.0 % N 27 90.0 %

N 27 90.0 % A 3 10.0 %

C 3 10.0 % Unconfined Gr ound Water Confined Ground Water 

# 87 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksGround Wa ter/Surfac e Water Interaction Florida has a high water table and a porous sandy land cover. It is underlaid by a thic k sequence of bedded limestone and dolomite that allows the rapid transport of surf ace fl ows into ground water. Together, the surfi cial sands and the limestone and dolomite s form an enormous reservoir that provides proportionally larger quantities of ground wate r than in any other state. Because of the high water table and unique geology, interactions between ground water and surface wa ter are more prevalent in Florida than in other states. These features also make the state’s ground water very vulnerable to contamination from activities on the surface. Limited information hampers the identifi cation of GWAC s and regional ground wate r indices. To supplement these evaluations, information was also obtained from repo rts by various groups, including the Department, NWFWMD, an d U.S. Geological Survey. In the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, a particular effort was made to gather additional information to document the status of the waters hed base d on the interaction between ground water and surface wate r, which is pr esen ted below. Ground wate r and surface water interactions commonly occur in the St. Mark s Basin. This interaction is most visible in the Woodville Karst Plain, located betwee n the Cody Scarp and the Gulf of Mexico. Basefl ow is the ground wate r discharge to a stream from the saturated zone below the water table. Spring s form when ground water fl ows ou t to the surface through natural openings in the ground . Six of Florida’s 27 fi rst magnitude spri ngs, or springs with fl ows greater than 100 cubic feet per second, are located here (see page 35 in Chapter 2). These springs discharge water from the Floridan aquifer and contribu te most of the basefl ow to th e St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers in this area. In northern Flor ida, th e Floridan aquifer is confi ned and under artesian pressure until it reaches th e Woodville Karst Plain, where water is released in large quanti ties from spri ngs that discharge to rivers , lakes, and offshore. The karst plai n itself is also a signifi cant recharge ar ea for th e Floridan aquifer. Local rainfall in th e Woodville Karst Plain infi ltrates to grou nd water or is coll ected in pond s and wetlands that connect to the aquifer via sinkholes. Springs also discha rge this local water received by the aquifer. In recent years, nitrat e has become a contaminant of concern in ground water in many parts of Florida. Nitrate does not naturally occur in Florida ground wate r at concentrations higher than 0.1 mg/L (Maddox et al., 1992). It has been document ed that el evated concentrations of nitrate in ground water commonly result from agricultural and urban land use practices in ground wate r recharge areas. The proximity of these areas to points of discha rge (springs) can result in elevated nutrient levels in the receiving surface waterbodies. Overall, nitrat e levels in wells of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins are consi derably lower than the drinking water standard and currently cause no public health concerns except in isolated instances. However, increasing nitrate concen trations in Flor idan aqui fer springs in the basins are a signifi cant ecological concern. Current ground water quality standards were developed to protect drinki ng water. The standard for nitrate does not address the fact that, in Florida, ground water becomes surface water when it fl ows from springs. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 88What is safe for human consumption is, in the case of nitrate, sometimes detrimental to the receiving surface waterbodies. Monitoring by several or ganizations indicates that there are increasing nitrate concen trations in some of the springs of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. The U.S. Geological Survey has the most comprehensive data set for the springs in the area, although data are not available for all springs and are not
very recent in some cases. Table 3.8 is a summary of the most recent nitrate results for springs with data. In th e two springs with the most complete sampling history, River Sink Spring an d Wakulla Springs, data show that nitrate concentrations have increased. In Rive r Sink Spring, the sampling record extends back to April 1956, when the nitrate level was below detection limits. The most recent sample collected from River Sink Spring (in February 2000) contained a nitrate concentration of 0. 2 mg/L. This indicates a modest increase.

Nitrate levels in Wakulla Springs have increased more signifi cantly. Although nitrate was not identifi ed as a GW AC, wate r quality data indicate that th e nitrate concentration in the springs has increased, from between 0.10 mg/L an d 0.33 mg/L in the 1970s to approximately 1 mg/L in recent years. Figure 3.8 shows the nitrate concentration trend in Wakulla Springs. Assuming a nitrat e concentration on the order of 1 mg/L and an average fl ow of 350 cubic feet pe r second from Wakulla Springs, this amounts to 340 tons of nitrate per year being expelled from Wakulla Springs (Chelette, 2001). This nitrate load could be th e cause of ecological imbalances noted in the Wakulla River. The NWFWMD an d U.S. Geological Survey are currently studying elevated nitrate levels in the Floridan aquifer system of the Woodville Karst Plain. Table 3.8: Summary of Nitrate Levels in Springs

St. Mark s River

Wakulla River

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planni ng Unit Horn Spring Newport Spring Natural Brid ge Spring Rhodes Spring St. Marks Spring

Indian Spring McBride Spring River Sink Spring Sally Ward Spring Wakulla Springs

Panacea Mine ral Sp rings Spring Creek Springs Spring

1.2 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.16

0.2 0.58 0.2 1.0 0.83

0.06 0.05 Nitrate Level (mg/L)
3/2/72 3/2/72 2/14/85 10/8/71 2/14/85

3/17/72 2/17/99 2/14/00 3/19/99 2/17/00

3/16/72 8/14/73 Date

In St. Ma rks River In St. Ma rks River In St. Ma rks River

St. Marks Rive r rise

Flows to Wa kulla River Increasing trend Flows to Wa kulla River Main source of Wakulla River, increasing trend Remarks

Notes: Reported concentr ations are in mill igrams per liter for total or di ssolved concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen, or nitrate+ nitrite ni trogen. These are from most recently avai lable data. Data sources include th e U.S. Geological Survey (http://water.usgs.gov/fl/nwis) and the NWFWMD. 

# 89 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### Evaluation of Ecol ogical Resource Protection Issues

Some waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins have special ecological resource protecti on concerns . Some have special state designations as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Others provide critical habitat for plant or animal species that have been designated as needing protection. The ecological protection concerns in this evaluation include threatened or endangered species, rare and imperiled fi sh or mollusks, signifi cant wading bird rookeries, manatee aggregation area s, and sea turtle nesting areas. Indicators of ecological problems that ma y result from a decline in surface water quality have been addressed in the planning unit discussions. Table 3.9 is a summary of ecological protecti on issues by pla nning unit. Information in this section was compiled in a geographic information system (GIS) database from detailed su rveys conducte d by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNA I) an d FWC. It also incorporates summary information from other biological reso urces assessme nts that have been completed in the basins over the years by various groups.

North and Sout h Ochlockonee River Planning Units The entire Ochlocko nee Rive r has been designated as an OFW. Of the 258 individual wate rbodies and segments in these planning units, 41 have documented ecological prot ection needs. Both pla nning units ha ve a va riety of listed an imal an d plant species. Both contain eagle nests and wading bird rookeries and both contain rare and imperiled aquatic species. Currently, the Ochlockonee River contains four federally listed endangered or threatened species of freshwater mussels (personal communication from Jerrell Daigle , FDEP) that are also ranked by FNAI as rare or imperiled. All occur in the main channel of the Ochlockonee River above Lake Talquin. They ma y occur downstream of the lake, but that reach of the river has not been thoroughly sampled. Historically, the Ochlockonee River contained abundant, health y populations of large freshwater mussels in the Unionidae 

### Nitrate in Florida Springs

Elevated nitr ates are a common and growing problem in Florida springs, with steady rises in nitrate levels observed in many Florida springs over the past 30 years (Florida Springs Task Force, 2000). Nitrate was once a very minor constituent of Florida spring water. Typical nitrate concentrations were less than 0.2 milligrams per lite r (mg/L). Today many Florida springs discha rge water that has more than 1.0 mg/L of nitrat e. It is believed that nitrate levels as low as 1 mg/L or less ca n cause a significant shift in the balance of spring ecological communities, leading to the degradation of biological systems. Figure 3.8: Ni trate Concentration Trend in Wakulla Springs Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 90family. Nineteen species of unionid mussels were recorded in the early 1970s. Two species, the Ochlockone e arcmussel ( Alasmidonta wrightiana ) and the Ochlockonee moccasinshell ( Medionidus simpsonianus ) are endemic to the river, meaning that they do no t occur anywhere else. The Ochlockonee arcmussel is unlisted . It has not been collected since the 1930s and is considered extinct. Th e Ochlockonee moccasinshell is listed as endangered; only two live specim ens have been found since 1974. Two other freshwater mussel species, the oval pigtoe ( Pleurobema pyriforme ) and the shiny-rayed pocketbook ( Lamp silis subangulata ), formerly collec ted in large numbers, have declined dramatically and are now listed as endang ered. However, the large-sized purple bankclimber ( Elliptoideus sloatianus ), listed as threatened in the Florida portion of th e Ochlockonee, appears to be holding its own. Several colonies of 25 to 30 individuals—including some young—have been found, ma king this the fi rst record of a viable, breeding population since the early 1970s. The Gulf st u rgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) is federally listed as threatened and state listed as a species of special concern (FNAI). It is also ranked by FNAI as rare and imperiled. The sturgeon sometimes frequents the lower Ochlockonee River during its annual spawning runs, but the Lake Talquin Dam blocks it from further upstream migration. Reproducing populations have no t been reported in the lower Ochlockonee, possibly because of the lack of spawning habitat. Th e riverbed must meet a number of requirements for the fi sh to spawn successfully, including gravel substrate of a particular size, a high surface velocity with benthic eddies, and a particular water chemistry and temperature.

Lakes Iamonia, Jackson, Miccosukee, Lafayette, and Munson Lake Jackso n has been designated as an OFW and State Aquatic Preserve. Lake Hall , a smaller lake to the east of Lake Jackson and in the same planning unit, is th e site of Maclay State Gardens and is also an OFW. Of the 45 subbasins in these planning units, 16 were reported to contain threatened or endangered species or other ecological resource protection priorities. State and Table 3.9: Summary of Ecological Resource Protection Concerns, Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Planning Units

Planni ng Unit North Ochlockonee South Ochlockonee Lake Ia monia Lake Jackson Telogia Creek Sopchopp y River St. Mark s River Lake Miccosukee Lake Lafayette Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Wakulla River Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Outstanding Florida Waters X X

X

X X

X X State Aquatic Preserves

X

X Federal or State Listed Species X X X X X X X X X X

X X X Rare or Imperiled Fish

or Mollusks X X

X

X Eagle Nests X X X X

X X X

X X Wading Bird Rookeries X X

X

X

X 

# 91 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marksfederally protected species exist in all of these planning units. Active eagle nests have also been inve ntoried in al l of them, except for the Lake Munson planning unit. No documented bird rookeries were identifi ed from th e da tabase, although other documentatio n exists to indicate that Lower Lake Lafayette, in the Lake Lafayette pla nning unit, contai ns an import ant wood stork rookery (Livingston, 1997). Th e inventory does not include data to indicate the presence or absence of rare and impe riled fi sh or invertebrates. Lakes are not included in the available database for rare an d imperiled species.

Telogia Cr eek an d Sopchoppy River Planning Units The Sopch oppy River, in the Apalachicola National Forest, is an OFW. According to the inventory, 23 of the 89 waterbodies and segments in these two pla nning units have ecological resource pr otection ne eds that pertain to listed species. Both planning units have some inventory data identifying listed species. The inventor y did not fi nd documentation of eagle nest s, wading bird rookeries,

or rare an d imperiled species in either planning unit.

St. Mark s River, Wakulla River, and Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Units Except fo r a small area near the town of St. Marks, the St. Marks River is an OFW, as is the entire Wakulla River. All the planning units contain many federally and state-listed threatened and endangered animals and plants. Listed species or other concerns such as eagle nests or rare and imperiled aquatic species exist in 18 of the 43 waterbodies or segments in these planning units. West Indian manatees are popula r seasonal visitors to both the St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers. According to inventory records, there are active eagle nests in both the St. Mark s and Wakulla River planning units and an active wading bird rookery in the St . Marks River planning unit. There is a confi rmation that rare and imperiled fi sh species occur in the St. Marks River. Currently, no rare and imperiled invertebrates (musse ls) ar e found in inventory records for these planning units.

Coastal Watersheds and Ap alachee Ba y Planning Unit Parts of th e Apalachee Bay estuary adjacent to the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge in Wakulla Co unty ar e OFWs. The Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve, encompassing approximately 700,000 acres of Florida’s Gulf Coast, extends from the mout h of the St. Marks River eastward to beyond the watershed boundary. Listed sp ecies occu r in all 20 watersheds associated with this planning unit. Seven contain eagle nests, and on e contains an active wading bird rookery. Rare and imperiled fi sh were documented for two of the watersheds. Three endangered marine reptiles inhabit Apalachee Bay and may use the beaches south of Ochlockonee Bay for nesting: the Atlantic loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ), leatherbac k turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ). Thes e species are also ranked by FNAI as rare and imperiled. Se a turtles are a nomadic species that spend most of their lives in open marine wa ters, except for the mature females who briefl y come ashore every few years to nest on coastal beaches. The endangered West Indian manatee ( Trichechus mana tus latirostris ) also uses the estuary and Wakulla and lower St. Marks Rivers as summer feeding grounds before migrating south for the winter. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 92

### References

Barrett, P. L. 19 99. Proposed Plan of Study to Establish a Thermal Mixing Zone for Timber Energy Resources, Inc., Telogia Plant Telogia, Florida. FDEP Permit FL0039951-001-IW7c, August 26, 1999. Bartel, R. L., and F. B. Ard. August 1992. U.S. EP A Clean Lakes Program, Phase I, Diagnostic Feasibility Report for Lake Munson. Northwest Florida Water Management District, Water Resources Special Report 92-4. Bell, F. W. December 17, 1980. An Economic Analysis of the Proposed Restoration of the St. Marks River, Florida. Bo cz, C., and J. Hand. 1985. Lake Muns on: A Case Study for the Water Quality Effects of Sewage Diversion and Stormwater Cleanup Practices. Water Quality Monitoring Re port. NWFWMD WRP 88-1. Chelette, A. R. 2001. Examinatio n and Prediction of Nitrate Loading and Response in the Surface Water/Ground Water System in the Lower St. Marks/ Wakulla Rivers. Florida Lake Management Society 12th Annual Conference Proceedings. Copeland, R. 2001. DRAFT General Di scussion for each Group 1 Assessment Reports for Year 2000. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Ground Water Protection Section, Technical Document, 2001-01. Curtis, J. 1997. City of Tallahassee Purd om Unit 8 Site Certifi cation Application. Vols. 1-4, Ratheon Engine ers and Constructors, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp., March 7, 1997. Daigle, J. FDEP Watershed Assessment Section. 2000. Personal communication regarding threatened and endangered species in Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management. Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program of Florid a Public Waters-Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1 999–2000. Available: htt p://www.dep.state.fl .us/stland/bapm/contract.htm Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-302. Surface Water Qu ality Standards. Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-303. Identifi ca tion of Impa ired Surface Waters Rule. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Available: http:// wld.fwc.state.fl .us Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. August 1, 1997. Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern, Offi cial Lists. Available: htt p://www.state.fl .us/fwc/pubs Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Available: http://www.fnai.org Florida Springs Task Force. November 2000. Florida’s Springs—Strategies for Protection and Restoration. GDNR-EPD, 2000a. Georgia Department of Natura l Resources Environmental Protection Department. GDNR-EPD, 2000b. Draft Ochlockonee Rive r Basin Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs, June 2 000. GDNR-EPD, 2000c. Draft TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliform for Oquina Creek Ochlockonee River Ba sin, June 2 000. GDNR-EPD, 2000d. Draft TMDL Evaluation for 3 Segments: Little Attapulgus Creek, Attapulgus Cre ek, and Swamp Creek in the Ochlockonee River Basin, June 2 000. 

# 93 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksGDNR-EPD, 2000e. Draft TMDL Evaluation for Bridge Creek Ochlockonee River Basin, June 2000. GDNR-EPD, 2000f. Draft TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliform for Big Creek Ochlockonee River Ba sin, June 2 000. GDNR-EPD, 2000g. Draft TMDL Evaluation for Little Ochlockonee River Watershed—Lower Little Ochlockonee River Segment, Big Creek Segment, Lost Creek Segment, Upper Little Ochlockonee River Segment, Ochlockonee River Basin (Fecal Coliform), June 2 000. GDNR-EPD, 2000h. Draft TMDL Evaluation for Tired Creek Watershed—Tired Creek Segment, Little Tired Creek Segmen t, Parker s Mill Segment, Ochlockonee River Bas in (Fecal Coliform), June 2000. GDNR-EPD, 2000i. Draft TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliform for Olive Creek, Ochlockonee River Ba sin, June 2 000. GDNR-EPD, 1996. Water Qualit y in Georgia 1994-1995. GAEPD, 1984. Ochlockonee River Ba sin Water Quality Management Plan, Second Edition, First Update. GAEPD, 1982. Water Qualit y Monitoring Data for Georgia Streams 1982. Hill, M. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Personal communication regardin g restoration actions in lakes of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. Lake Munson Action Plan. January 1994. A Report with Recommendations, produced by th e Lake Munson Action Team for the Leon County Board of County Commissioner s and the Citizens of Leon County. Livingston, R. J. 1997. Effects of Urban Development on the Lakes of Leon County (1988–1997). Center for Aquatic Research and Resource Management (CARRMA) Report to Leon Co unty, Januar y 12, 1998. Maddox, G. L., J. M. Lloyd, T. M. Scott, S. B. Upchurch, and R. E. Copeland, Eds. 1992. Florida Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program—Volume 2, Background Hydrogeochemistry. Florida Geological Survey, Special Publication No. 3 4. Mendenhall, W., R. L. Scheaffer, and D. D. Wackerly. 1981. Mathematical Statistics with Applicat ions. Second Edition. Boston: Duxbury Press. McGlynn, S. E. 19 99. Lester Cove Study, Base Fl ow Report and Storm Report. McGlynn Laboratories. Olsen, L. A. , W. J. Ihle, L. T. Ross, J. D. Ryan, S. Sheinbaum, and M. S. Zimmerman. 1981. Environmental Studies of an Oil Polluted Area of the St. Marks River, Florida. FDEP Biological Section. Pope, K. R., an d S. E. McGlynn. 2001. Intersta te Issues Regard ing Water Quality in the Ochlockonee River. Florida Lake Managment Society 12th Annual Conference Proceedings. Rosenau, J. C., G. L. Fa ulkner, C. W. Hendry, and R. W. Hull. 1977. Springs of Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletin No. 31 (revised). Savery, S. FDEP Wakulla Springs State Park, Bird Count Records. Wieckowicz, R., D. Wainwright, and E. Glombowski. 2000. Ochlockonee River Basin—Data Summary. FDEP fi les, unpublished. Wieckowicz, R., D. Wainwright, E. Gl ombowski, and Z. Shelley. 2001. Summary of FDEP Water Quality and Flow Data for the St. Marks and Ochlockonee River Ba sins. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 94

### Chapter Summary

This chapte r provides the Department’s “planning list” of potentially impaired surface waters in the basin, describes the relationship between the planning list and subsequent verified and 303(d) li sts, an d provides a list of waters that the Department intends to delist from the 1998 303(d) list. 

# Chapter 4: Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters 95 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### The Plan ning List

The methodology used to develop the planning list follows the tenet of “independent applicability, ” which means that a water will be listed if any of it s designated uses are potentially impaired. As such, the planning list (see Table 4.1 ) can be thought of as a summary of any potential impairment noted in the assessment chapter. The table lists each waterbody, why it was listed as potentially impaired, and the parameters of concern. The tabl e also states whether the water was listed on the 1998 303(d) list. As describe d in the introduction to Chapter 3, waters on the planning list must meet specifi c thresholds and da ta suffi ciency and da ta quality requirements contained in Section 62-303, Florida Administrative Code. Waters that were previo usly on th e 1998 303(d) list but for which there were insuffi cient data for an assessment are included on the planning list. Previously listed wa ters will also receive higher priority for monitoring and TMDL development. Waters that are not on the planning list either have suffi cient data to determine that they are not impaired or they have insuffi cient da ta to ma ke a determination. The WBID s on the planning list and on the 1998 303(d) list can be locate d in Figure s 3.2 and 3.3 of Chapter 3.

Figure 4.1: Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment Except Fish Advisories, with Overlay of 1998 303(d) List Note: Fish advisories are listed in the text. Figure 4.1 shows waters on the pl a nning list graphically. Although th e entire watershedfor the listed water is highlighted, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has been assessed, and other waters in the watershe d may not be potentially impaired. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 96North Ochlockonee River Little River**

Ochlockone e River Lake Talquin Lake Talquin Quincy Creek Unnamed Branch Harvey Creek Lake Tallavana* Swamp Creek

Ochlockonee River

South Ochlockonee River Ochlockonee River

Ochlockonee River Black Creek Lake Iamonia Lake Ia monia Outlet Lake Jackson Meginniss Arm Run**

Harbinwood Es tates Drain

Te logia Creek Telogia Creek* Juniper Creek Sopchoppy River Sopchopp y River St. Mark s River Black Creek St. Mark s River

Lloyd Cree k (aka Copeland Sink Drain) Lake Mi ccosukee Lake Miccosukee Caney Branch Ward Creek Lake Lafayette Lake Lafayette Drain Table 4.1: Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment, Including the 1998 303(d) List

424

1297E 1297C 1297D 1303 855 921 540A 427

1297F

1297B

1297A 1024

1035

809*

746

1300 682

998

628 793A/B

808

791L 716 459

756 Stream

Stream Lake Lake Stream Stream Stream Lake Stream

Stream

Stream

Stream Stream

Lake

Stream

Stream

Stream Stream

Stream

Stream Stream

Stream

Lake Stream Stream

Lake X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X

X X

X

XX X X

X

XX X X

XX Planning Unit and Basin WBID Waterbody Type Potentially Impaired Based on

IWR On 1998 303(d) List of

Potentially

Impaired Waters Constituents of Concern*

Nutrients, TSS, turbidity, bacteria Bacteria, biology, fish Fish Fish Bacteria Biology Bacteria Nutrients Nutrients, ba cteria, TSS, turbidity Bacteria , nutrients,turbidity, fish

Nutrients, bacter ia, turb idity, fish
, DO DO, metals (iron), fish Bacteria
, biology

Nutrients, bacteria, fish

BOD, TSS, turbidity, DO, nutrients BOD, TSS, turbidity, nutrients

Bacteria Turbidity, nutr ients, bacteria

Fish

DO, biology DO , bacteria, sediments, biology Biology

DO
, fish Biology DO, bacteria

Nutrients , bacteria, turbidity, DO, biology 

# 97 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksLake Munson Munson Slough

Munson Sink (aka Ames Sink) Lake Munson Lake Hiawatha* Central Drai nage Ditch

St. Augustine Branch

East Draina ge Ditch

Godby Ditch

Lake Bradford Wakulla River Big Boggy Branch McBride Slough Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Crooked Rive r Stream

Stream

Lake Lake Stream

Stream

Stream

Stream

Lake

Stream Stream

Stream Table 4.1 (continued)

Notes: *—Waterbody or segmen t meets criteria to be on Verified List of impaired waters **—Water body or segment meets criteria fo r being on Verified List and is also on 1998 303(d) list WBID—Waterbody iden tification number IWR—Impaired Waters Rule ***—Notes under Constituent of Concern Nutrients—Chorophyll ( a ) for streams and estuaries; Tropic State Index for lakes; ecological imbalance. TSS—Total suspended solids Fish—Fish consumpt ion advisory based on mercury Bacteria—Fecal coliforms or total coliform s in water DO—Dissolved oxygen BOD—Biological oxygen demand COD—Chemical oxygen demand Constituent in it alics —Identified as po tentially impaired an d on Planning List of impaired waters Constituent in regu lar font—Listed in 1998 303( d) list of impaired waters Constituent in bold font —Identified as pote ntially impaired (o n Planning List ) and listed on 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters Planning Unit and Basin WBID Waterbody Type Potentially Impaired Based on

IWR On 1998 303(d) List of

Potentially

Impaired Waters Constituents of Concern*

807D

807A

807C 878C 857

865

916

820

878A

1124 1028

1241 X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X Nutrients, turbidity, biology, bacteria, DO Nutrients, DO, bacteria, biology Nutrients Nutrients BOD, COD, nutrients, bacteria, TSS, turbidity BOD, TSS, nutrients, bacteria, turbidity BOD, nutrients, bacteria, TSS, turbidity BOD, nutrien ts, TS S, turbidity DO

Biology, bacteria DO

Fish Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 98

### Relationship between the Planning List and the 303(d) List

The pla nning list is th e fi rst step of a two-step process to develop the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. As part of the watershed management approach , these potentially impaired waters will be further assessed during Phase 2 to verify whet her they are impair ed. In addition to more thoroughly eval uating the data used to place these waters on the pla nning list (inc luding verifi cation of quality as surance and data suffi ciency requirements), the Department, working with local stakeholders, will identify other existing data and collect additional data as needed to complete the assessme nt. Detailed stra tegic monitoring plans will be developed for each basin in cooperation with existing monitoring programs, with monitoring initia lly focu sed on verifi cation of an y impairment. Once th e additional monitoring is completed, the data will be assessed and the Depart ment will de velop a verifi ed list of impaired waters. This list of waters fo r which the Department will develop TMDLs will be adopted by Secretarial Order. Once adopted, the list will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the state’ s 303(d) list for the basin. As required bythe 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act, the planning list wi ll be submit ted to the EPA for informational purposes only and will no t be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory program. However, the list is ex tremely importan t, as it driv es monitoring in th e basin and is the precursor to the verifi ed list. As such, stakeholders are encouraged to review the planning list very carefully, including the data used by th e Department to produce the list. If stakeholders have access to recent data (collected in the last 10 years) that were not used, they should work with the Department to upload the data into STORET or submit the da ta to th e Department so that it can be used in the full assessment conducted in Phase 2. Local stakeholders are also encouraged to participate actively in the implementation of strategic monitoring. Local stakeholde rs may also have plans to addr ess th e potential impairment identifi ed on th e planning list. If they feel their plans provide reasonable assuranc e that water quality standards will be met in the future, they should contact Department staff and provide documentation to support their restor ation plans. As required by the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, th e Department will not place waters on the verifi ed list if proposed or existing pollut ion control mechanis ms ar e expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards. In fact, some local stakeholders may want to develop restoration plans so that their waters are not listed on the 303(d) list. 

# 99 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### Waters To Be Delisted

It should be note d that not all of the waters on the 1998 303(d) list were placed on the impaired waters rule (IWR) planning list (see Table 4.1 ). Th e planning list included only those waters listed in 1998 that did not have suffi cient data. The Department plans to request the EPA to remove from the 303(d) list the waters and paramete rs in Table 4.2 . These waters met the data suffi ciency requirements of the planning list, but were not identifi ed as potentially impaired usin g the pla nning list methodology. As such , suffi cient data exist to indicate the waters should be delisted, and they will no t be placed on the planning list. It should be noted that both listing an d delisting decisions are parameter specifi c, an d some waters may remain on the list for other parameters. Documentation to support the process used in creation of this list is provided in Table G-1 of Appendix G (the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Planning Units and WBIDs Report Card). This section presents th e waters that are not impaired for one or more constituents according to the IWR methodology. The constituents that have suffi cient data to be assessed and are not impaired are listed for individual waters in Table 4.3

. Figure s 3.4 to 3.7 of Chapter 3 show the location of the waters no t impaired for nutrients, conventionals, metals, and biology, respectively . Note that some of the waters are also listed in Table 4.1 because the waters are potentially impaired for other constituents. The North Ochlockonee pl a nning unit has th e largest number of waters that have suffi cient data to determine that they are not impaired. This planning unit also ha s the largest number of waters that are potentially impaired and the la rgest number of STORET stations used in the assessment (see Table G-1 in Appendix G ).

Planni ng Unit/Waterbody or Segment
Lake Miccosukee Ward Creek North Ochlockonee River Swamp Creek Telogia Creek Juniper Creek WBID

459

427

682 Waterbody Type

Stream

Stream

Stream Constituents Proposed for Delisting

DO, bacteria

Nutrients, bacteria , TSS, turbidity

DO, turbidity, nutrients, bacteria

Notes: BOD, COD, TSS not included as specific pa rameters using IWR as sessment methodology DO —Dissolved oxygen BOD—Biochemical oxygen demand COD—Chemical oxygen demand TSS—Total suspended solids Nutrients—Chlorophyll ( a ) for streams and estuaries; TSI for lakes Bacteria—Fecal coliform s; Total coliforms Table 4.2: Planning List of Constituents Proposed for Delisting Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 100Planning Unit/ Waterbody or Segment WBID Waterbody Type

North Ochlockonee River Willacoochee Creek Little River Swamp Creek Hurricane Creek Monroe Creek Bear Creek Ocklawaha Creek Unnamed Branch Harvey Creek Freeman Creek Lake Talquin Lake Talquin Oc hlockonee River Oc hlockonee River South Ochlockonee River Smith Creek Oc hlockonee River Oc hlockonee River Lake Iamonia Monkey Business Outlet Monkey Business Pond Lake Backus Petty Gulf Lake Lake Jackson Lake Jackson Lake Overst reet Drain Lake Hall Te logia Creek Tallahassee Creek Juniper Creek Yellow Creek Telogia Creek Sopchoppy River Sopchoppy River Oc hlockonee Bay St. Marks River St. Marks River Copeland Sink Drain Moriah Creek Lloyd Creek St. Marks River Polar Mill Branch Burnt Mill Creek Lake Wooten Lake Ee rie Lake Mi ccosukee Ward Creek Caney Branch 410 424 427 540 711 757 811 852 921 954 1297C 1297D 1297E 1297F

1147 1297A 1297B

546 546B 564B 564C

582 689 689A

579 682 1052 1300

998 1248B

793B 808 1121 791A

862 918 918A 971A

459 716 Stream Stream Stream Stream Stream Stream Stream Stream Stream Stream Lake Lake Stream Stream

Stream Stream Stream

Lake Lake Lake Lake

Lake Lake Lake

Stream Stream Blackwater Stream

Stream Stream

Stream Stream Stream Stream

Stream Stream Lake Lake

Stream Stream Conventionals Nutrients, biology Conventionals Conventionals Conventionals Conventionals Biology Biology Biology Conventionals Conventionals Conventionals Nutrients Nutrients

Biology Nutrients, conventionals Nutrients

Nutrients Nutrients Nutrients Nutrients

Nutrients, fish advisory Nutrients Nutrients

Conventionals Conventionals Conventionals Nutrients, biology

Nutrients, biology Conventionals

Nutrients Conventionals Biology Conventionals

Biology Biology Nutrients Nutrients

Conventionals Biology Table 4.3: Waters with Constituents Not Impaired According to the Impaired Waters Rule

Constituen ts Not Impaired 

# 101 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksLake Lafayette Lake Lafayette Drain Lake Munson Munson Slough (below lake) Munson Sink Munson Slough (above lake) Lake Bradford Silver Lake Lost Creek/Fi sher Creek Lost Creek Wakulla River Wakulla River Trout Pond McBride Slough Big Boggy Branch Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Direct Runo ff to Bay Dickerson Bay Direct Runo ff to Bay Ochlockonee Bay Oc hlockonee Bay Chaires Creek 756

807 807A 807D 878A 878B

995

1 006 1 006A 1028 1124

1176 1223 1239 1248A 1248C 1255 Lake

Stream Stream Stream Lake Lake

Stream

Stream Spring Stream Stream

Estuary Stream Stream Estuary Stream Estuary Conventionals

Conventionals Nutrients Nutrients Nutrients Biology

Conventionals

Conventionals, biology Nutrients Biology Nutrients

Conventionals Conventionals Conventionals Conventionals Conventionals Conventionals

Note : Bold/italicized text indicates waters on the planning list for other constituents. Table 4.3 (continued)

Planning Unit/ Waterbody or Segment WBID Waterbody Type Constituen ts Not Impaired



### Monitoring Other Waters

As identified in Chapter 3, ther e are many waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins for which there are insufficient water quality data for an assessme nt. These are shown in the watersheds identified in Figure 4.1 . Because of resource limitations, it will not be possible for the Department to monitor all of th ese water bodies within these basins during the first watershed management cycle. The priori ty for st rategic monitoring during Phase 2 of the cycl e will be to conduct monitoring and data gathering to addres s potentially impaired waters identified on the planning list (see Table 4.1 ). Whil e the Depart ment plans to monitor these waters during subsequent wa tershed cycles, lo cal stakeh olders may want to take the in itiati ve to monitor these waters sooner and the Department would like to coordinate with these local efforts. Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

# 102

### Reference

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-303. Identifi ca tion of Impaired Surface Wate rs Rule. 

# 103 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# Table of Conten ts—Appendices

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Appendix A: Threatened or Endangered Species and Other Designations. . . . 107 Appendix B: Land Use in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Appendix C: Permitted Wastewater and Solid Waste Facilities in the Ochlockonee and St . Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Appendix D: Land Use Loading Model for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Ochlockonee River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 St. Marks Rive r Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Model Required Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 Appendix E: Basin Status Report Assessment Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Federal and State Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Watershed Management Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Impaired Waters Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 STORET .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Basin Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 60 Appendix F: Bioassessments by Planning Unit and Supporting Data. . . . . . . . 163 North Ochlockonee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 South Ochlockonee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Lake Iamonia .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Lake Jac kson . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Telogia Creek .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Sopchoppy River .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 St. Marks River.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Lake Miccosukee

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Lake Lafayette . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Lake Munson/Fred George Sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Lost Creek/Fisher Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Wakulla River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Coastal Watershed/Ap alachee Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Conclu sions .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 References .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Appendix G: Water Quality Data for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . 172 

# 105 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 	 

 

    107



## Appendix A: Threatened or Endanger ed Species and Other Designations

Table A-1: Listed Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Table A-2: Non-listed Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 	 

 

    108

Table A-1: Listed Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Scient ific Name* Common Na me Fe deral Protection

Status State Protection

Status F NAI Gl obal Rank F NAI State Rank

Fish Acipen ser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon LT LS G3T2 S2 Micropterus noti us Suwann ee bass N LS G3 S3 Am phibians an d Reptiles Alligator missis sippiensis Ameri can alligator T(S/A) LS G5 S4 Ambystoma ci ngulatum Flatwoods salamander LT PS G2 G3 S2 S3 Ca re tt a caretta Atlantic loggerhead LT LT G3 S3 Dermochely s coriacea Leatherback turtle LE LE G3 S2 Dr ym ar chon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake LT LT G4T3 S3 G opherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise N LS G3 S3 Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley turtle LE LE G1 S1 M acroclemys temminckii Alligator snapping N LS G3G4 S3 Pitu ophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida pine snake N LS G4T3? S3 Pseudemy s concinna Suwannee cooter N LS G5T3 S3 R ana capito Gopher frog N LS G3G4 S3 Birds Am mo dr am us maritimus Scott’s seaside N LS G4T2 S2 Aramus guarauna Limpkin N LS G5 S3 Cistot horus palustris Mar ian’s ma rsh wren N LS G5T 3 S3? Eg re tt a caerulea Little blue heron N LS G5 S4 Egretta thul a S nowy egret N LS G5 S4 Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron N LS G5 S4 Eudocimus albus White ibis N LS G5 S4 Ha em at opus palliatus American N LS G5 S3 Ha liaeetus leuc ocephalus Bald eagle LT LT G4 S3 M yct eria americana Wood stork LE LE G4 S2 Picoides bore alis Red-cockaded LE LT G3 S2 St erna antillarum Least tern N LT G4 S3 Mammals Myotis gris escens Gray bat LE LE G3 S1 Sciurus ni ger sher mani Sh erm an’s fox squirrel N LS G5T2 S2 Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee LE LE G2 S2 Ursu s americanus Florida black bear N LT G5T2 S2 In vertebrates Elliptoideus sloatianus Purple bankclimber LT N G2 S? Medi onidis simpsonianus Ochlockonee LE N G1 S1 Pleurobema pyriforme O val pi gtoe LE N G2 S? Villosa subangulata Shiny-rayed LE N G2 S?

* Species list ed in boldface type use or live in freshw ater, saltwater, and/or wetland communities. ** The Florid a black bear is a listed species everywhere in Florida but Columbia and Baker Counties and the A palachicola National Forest. **# Proposed for federal delisting because of the species’ recovery.** 	 

 

    109

Table A-1 continued: Listed Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Scientific Name* Common Name Federal Protection Status State Protection Status F NAI Gl obal Rank F NAI State Rank

Plants Agri moni a incisa Incised groove-bur N LE G3 S2 A ndropogon arctatus Pine-woods bluestem N LT G3 S3 A sclepias viridula Southe rn milk w eed N LT G2 S2 B aptisia si mplicifolia Scare-weed N LT G3 S3 Bricke llia cordifolia Flyr’s brickell-bush N LE G2G3 S1 Calamintha dentata Toothed savory N LT G3 S3 Ca la mo vi lf a curtissii Curtiss’ sandgrass N LT G3 S3 Caly canthus floridus Sweet shrub N LE G5 S2 Car ex chapmanii Chapman’s sedge N LE G3 S2 C onradina glabra Apalachicola rosemary LE LE G1 S1 Dr osera intermedia Spoon-leaved sundew N LT G5 S3 El eocharis rostellata Beaked spikerush N LE G5 S1 Erythronium umb ilicatum Trout lily N LE G5 S2 Forestiera godfreyi God frey’s privet N LE G2 S2 Ge ntiana penne lliana Wiregrass gentian N LE G3 S3 Hexast ylis arifolia Heartleaf N LT G5 S3 Hyme nocallis godfreyi God frey’s spiderlily N LE G1 S1 Lachnocaulon digynum Bog button N LT G3 S2? Leitneria floridana Corkwood N LT G3 S2 Liatris provincialis Godfre y’s blazing star N LE G2 S2 Lilium michauxii Carolina lily N LE G4G5 S1S2 Lilium superbum Turk ’s cap lily N LE G5 S1 Lythrum curtissii Curtiss’ loosestrife N LE G1 S1 Ma gnolia ashei Ashe’s magnolia N LE G2 S2 M agnolia pyramidata Pyramid magnolia N LE G4 S3 Malaxis unifolia Gr een ad der’s mouth N LE G5 S3 Najas filifolia Narrowleaf naiad N LT G1 S1 Pinguicula ionantha Violet-flowered LT LE G2 S2 Pity opsis flexuosa Bent golden aster N LE G3 S3 Polygonum meisnerianum var. beyrichianum Mexican tear-thumb N LE G 5?T5? S2

P ycnanthemum floridanum Florida mountain-mint N LT G3 S3 Rh exia salicifol ia Pa nhandle N LT G2 S2 R hododendron alabamiense Alabama rhododendron N LE G4 S2 R hododendron austrinum Orange azalea N LE G3 S3 R hododendron chapmanii Chapman’s LE LE G1Q S1 Rh yn chospora stenophylla Narrow-leaved N LT G4 S2S3 Ri bes echinellum Miccosukee gooseberry LT LE G1 S1 Sa lix er io cephala Heart-leaved willow N LE G5 S1 Sarracenia leucophylla White-top pitcherplant N LE G3 S3 Schw albea americana Chaffseed LE LE G2 S1 Si deroxylon lycioides Gopherwood buckthorn N LE G5 S2 Stac hydeoma graveolens Mock pennyroyal N LE G2 S2 Stewarti a malacodendron Silky camellia N LE G4 S3 Xyris longisepala Karst pond xyris N LE G2 S2 Xy ri s scabrifolia Harper’s yellow-eyed grass N LT G3 S3

* Species listed in boldface type live in or use freshwater, saltwater, and/or wetland communities. 	 

 

    110

Table A-1 continued : List ed Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Note: Th e Federal Protection Status column indicates the official federal endangerment status or level of le gal protection, under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Classification, for the plant or animal species, subspecies, or variety as proposed or determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oce anic and Atmospheric Administration (marine species). The federal classifications are as follows:
LE = Listed as Endangered. LT = Listed as Threatened. T(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance. N = Not currently listed, nor curr ently bein g considered for listing.
The State Protection Status column shows the official state endangerment status or level of legal protection fo r animals listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and plants listed by the Florida De partment of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). The state classifications are as follows:

Animal s listed by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission LE = Listed as Endangered. LT = Listed as Threatened. LS = Listed as Species of Special Concern. PS = Propo sed as Species of Special Concern N = Not currently listed, nor curr ently bein g considered for listing.
Plants listed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) LE = Listed as Endangered. LT = Listed as Threatened. N = Not currently listed, nor curr ently bein g considered for listing.
The FNAI Global Rank characterizes relative rarity or endangerment worldwide, with G1 being critically imperile d globally because of extreme rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction, and G5 being demonstrably secure globally. Similarly, the FNAI State Rank of S1 through S5 characterizes relative rarity or endangerment in Florida. The rankings are based on many factors, the most important being the
es ti ma te d number of occurrences, estimated abundance (number of individuals), range, estimated adequately protected occurrences, relative threat of destruction, and ecological fragility.

Sources: Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, http://www.state.fl.us/fwc/pubs; Marois, Katherine C., Tracking List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals and Natural Communities of Florida (T allahassee: Florida Natural Areas Inventory, June 1999); Ashton, Ray E. (Ed.); Rare and E

ndangered Biota of Florida (G ai nesville: University Press of Florida, 1992); Wunderlin, Richard P., Guide to the Vascular Pl ants of Florida (G ainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998). 	 

 

    111

Table A-2: Nonlisted Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Scientific Name* Common Name FNAI Gl obal Rank F NAI State Rank

Fish
A cantharchus pomotis Mud sunfish G5 S3 Am eiurus serracanthus Spotted bullhead G3 S3 Cyprinel la leedsi Banne rfin shiner G3G4 S3 Notropis cummingsae Dusky shiner G5 S4 Am phibians an d Reptiles Ag kistrodon contortrix Copperhead G5 S2 Ambystoma ti grinum Tiger salamander G5 S3 Am phiuma pholeter One-toed amphiuma G3 S3 Clemm ys gutta ta Spotted turtle G5 S3? Cr otalus adamanteus Eastern diamondback rattle snake G4 S3

De sm ognathus apalachicolae Apalachicola dusky salamander G3 S3

Eu m eces anthracinus Coal skink G5 S3 He mi d actylium scutatum Four-toed salamander G5 S2 Lampropeltis getula goini Apalachicola G5T2 S2 Ner odia clarkii clarkii Gulf salt marsh snake G4T3 S3? No t ophthalmus perstriatus Striped newt G2G3 S2S3 Pr ocambarus horsti Big Blue Spring cave G1G2 S1 Birds A ccipeter cooperii Cooper’s hawk G5 S3? Ard ea alba Great egret G5 S4 Elanoides forf icatus Swallow-tailed kite G5 S2 S3 Laterallus jamai censis Black rail G4 S3? Ny ctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned G5 S3? Ny cticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night- G5 S3? Ra llus longirostris scott ii Fl orida clapper rail G5T3? S3? R ecurvirostra americana American avocet G5 S1 S2 Sterna maxima Royal tern G5 S3 Mammals Mu st ela frenata olivacea Southeastern weasel G5T4 S3? Myotis aust roriparius S outheastern bat G3G4 S3 Ne ofiber alleni Round-tailed muskrat G3 S3 So re x l ongirostris longirostris Southeastern shrew G5T5 S4 Scientific Name Common Name FNAI Gl obal Rank F NAI State Rank
* Species list ed in boldface type live in or use freshwater, saltwater, and/or wetland
co mmuniti es. 	 

 

    112

Table A-2 continued: Nonlisted Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Scientific Name* Common Name FNAI Gl obal Rank F NAI State Rank

In vertebrates Alasmi donta wrightiana Ochlockonee arc- GX SH Cr angonyx grandimanus Florida cave G2G3 S2 Cr angonyx hobbsi Hobbs’ cave G2G3 S2S3 Cr angonyx sp 1 Woodville karst cave amph i pod G2 S?

Me galonaias nervosa Washboard G5 S3 Procambarus orcinus Woodville karst cave crayfish G1G2 S1

U tterbackia pe ggyae Florida floater G3 S3 Plants Ca re x te nax Sandhill sedge G5? S3 Heli anthus debilis spp. tardiflorus Late flowering beach sunflower G5T3 S3

My ri ophyllum laxum Piedmont water- G3 S2 S3 Rh yn chospora decurrens Decurrent beakrush G3G4 S3S4 St achys hyssopifolia var. lythroides Tallahassee hedgene ttle G5T1 S1
* Species list ed in boldface type live in or use freshwater, saltwater, and/or
we tl and communities.

Note: Th e FNAI Global Rank characterizes relative rarity or endangerment worldwide, with G1 being critically impe riled globally because of extreme rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction, and G5 being demonstrably secure globally. Similarly, the FNAI State Rank of S1 through S5 characterizes
re la ti ve rarity or endangerment in Florida. The rankings are based on many factors, the most important being th e estimated number of occurrences,
es ti ma te d abundance (number of individuals), range, estimated adequately protected occurrences, relative threat of destruction, and ecological fragility.

Sources: Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of S

pecial Concern, Official Lists, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, http://www.state.fl.us/fwc/pubs; Marois, Katherine C., Tra cking List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals and Natural Comm unities of Florida (Tallahass ee: Florida Natural Areas Invent ory, June 1999); Ashton, Ray E. (Ed.); Ra re and Endangered Biota of Florida (Gaine sv ille: Un iv er si ty Pr e ss of Florida, 1992); Wunderlin, Richard P., Guide to the Vascular Pl

ants of Florida (Gainesv ille: University Pre ss of Florida, 1998). 	 

 

    113



## Appendix B: Land Use in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

TABLE B-1: Ochloc konee and St. Marks Land Use Totals and Percentages TABLE B-2: Geor gia Land Use in the Upper Ochlockonee River Basin 	 

 

   114TABLE B-1 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Land Use Totals and PercentagesSUMMARY St. LAKE LAKE LAKE FISHER/LOST WAKULLANORTH SOUTH LAKE LAKE TELOGIA SOPCHOPPYCOASTALOF ACRES (Totals) MARKS MICC. LAF. MUNSON CREEK RIVER OCHL. OCHL. IAMONIA JACKSON CREEKTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotal0 Total 14,248.31 - - - - - -- - - - -1000 (Urban and Built -Up) 11,704.87 3,516.78 23,180.32 22,624.35 1,587.30 16,038.83 20,840.17 1,865.86 3,585.88 10,224.79 4,553.90 715.32 7,916.992000 (Agriculture) 22,823.85 21,527.20 7,949.99 690.15 531.68 2,262.29 25,117.13 854.944,214.24 1,189.01 15,294.17 770.63 3,543.993000 (Rangelands) 1,939.94 257.55 358.22 119.47 992.82 3,448.19 6,626.74 4,727.47 190.01 18.78 5,320.36 521.10 848.804000 (Upland Forests) 100,408.28 107,027.19 16,228.46 27,820.58 51,935.31 49,258.86 182,529.44 106,643.98 34,427.839,955.08 105,067.86 38,847.29 74,855.575000 (Water) 4,218.82 6,271.32 2,226.43 1,024.28 324.35 535.99 11,149.38 4,181.071,370.65 3,327.09 502.62 1,223.68 3,773.936000 (Wetlands) 33,527.07 9,969.78 3,422.50 3,937.15 30,921.10 6,779.66 20,853.46 89,437.09 8,862.98 2,565.31 31,599.47 45,157.88 69,966.997000 (Barren Land) 22.34 - - 14.80 - 27.0051.85 31.40 - - 91.66 - 495.878000 (Transportation, 697.98 761.18 536.91 2,471.47 392.34 1,055.93 2,231.73270.84 136.37 315.21 371.03 114.01 285.05Communications, Utilities)TOTALACRES:175,343.16 163,579.31 53,902.82 58,702.25 86,684.89 79,406.75 269,399.90 208,012.64 52,787.97 27,595.28 162,801.08 87,349.91 161,687.19SUMMARY St. LAKELAKE LAKE FISHER/LOST WAKULLANORTH SOUTH LAKE LAKE TELOGIA SOPCHOPPYCOASTALOF ACRES (%) MARKS MICC. LAF. MUNSON CREEK RIVER OCHL. OCHL. IAMONIA JACKSON CREEKTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotalTotal0 Total 0.00% 8.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%1000 (Urban and Built -Up) 6.68% 2.15% 43.00% 38.54% 1.83% 20.20% 7.74% 0.90% 6.79% 37.05% 2.80% 0.82% 4.90%2000 (Agriculture) 13.02% 13.16% 14.75% 1.18% 0.61% 2.85% 9.32% 0.41% 7.98% 4.31% 9.39% 0.88% 2.19%3000 (Rangelands) 1.11% 0.16% 0.66% 0.20% 1.15% 4.34% 2.46% 2.27% 0.36% 0.07% 3.27% 0.60% 0.52%4000 (Upland Forests) 57.26% 65.43% 30.11% 47.39% 59.91% 62.03% 67.75% 51.27% 65.22% 36.08% 64.54% 44.47% 46.30%5000 (Water) 2.41% 3.83% 4.13% 1.74% 0.37% 0.67% 4.14% 2.01% 2.60% 12.06% 0.31% 1.40% 2.33%6000 (Wetlands) 19.12% 6.09% 6.35% 6.71% 35.67% 8.54% 7.74% 43.00% 16.79% 9.30% 19.41% 51.70% 43.27%7000 (Barren Land) 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.31%8000 (Transportation, 0.40% 0.47% 1.00% 4.21% 0.45% 1.33% 0.83% 0.13% 0.26% 1.14% 0.23% 0.13% 0.18%Communications, Utilities)%TOTAL:100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 	 

 

    115

TABLE B-2 Georgia Land Use in the Upper Ochlockonee River Basin
CLASS NAME % ACRES Open Water 0.5 5,230.5 Cl ea r Cu t/Y o ung Pine 4.6 44,978.2 Pa sture 12.9 126,412.8 Cu lt iv at ed /E x posed Earth 31.0 303,919.5 Low Density Urban 1.2 11,476.6 High Density Ur ban 0.4 4,116.6 Emerge nt Wetland 2.4 23,374.8 Scrub/Shrub We tland 0.2 2,157.0 Forested Wetland 5.2 50,441.0 C oniferous Forest 6.4 62,475.9 Mi xe d Forest 30.6 300,098.6 Hardwood Forest 3.7 36,026.8 Salt Marsh 0.0 0.0 Brackish Ma rsh 0.0 0.0 Tidal Flats/ Beaches 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 99.1 970,708.3

* Data bs ed on Landsat TM imagery, 1988-1990, with pixel resolution of 200 ft.sq.
We tl ands less than 1 acre excluded, Percent error + 15. 	 

 

    116



## Appendix C: Permitted Wastewater and Solid Waste Facilities in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

TA B LE C-1: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface Water TA B LE C-2: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities not Discharging to Surface Water TA B LE C-3: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Solid Waste Landfills 	 

 

   117TABLE C-1 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface WaterTREATMENT_PROCESS_SUMMARYPERMDES.FACIL WAFR CAP CAP LAT LONG 5TH YEARNAMEIDFACILDESCRIPTION(MGD)(MGD)DDMMSSDDMMSSINSPECTIONDATE(S)St. Marks Planning UnitSAM O. PURDOM GEN STATION FL0025526 10230 Industrial Wastewater Chlorination, pHneutralization andstabilization30 9 46.7 84 11 57.19 July-95MURPHY OIL CORPORATION FL0032433 16046 Industrial WastewaterST.MARKS WWTP FL0040835July-98ST MARKS REFINERY (AMERICANINTL REFINERY)FL0035220 10236 Industrial Wastewater Collection lagoon withstabilizationponds0.016 0.016 30 9 53 84 12 23.52 January-96Lake LafayettePlanning UnitGREENWOOD MHP FL0022772 10147 Domestic WWTP Extended aeration sandfilter tocreekandnaturaldepression0.02 0.02 30 25 21.4 84 13 7.54AMOCOSTANO.60456 FLG040033 16288 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)Lake Munson Planning UnitFLORIDA MINING ANDMATERIALSFL0034754 Ind. WW 0.006 March-93, April-93,June-93ARVAH B. HOPKINS GENERATINGSTATIONFL0025518 10142 Industrial Wastewater Oil/gas fueled steamelectric power plant1.87 1.87 30 27 3.2 84 23 58.92 Dec.-85, May-95,Feb.-96, June-96HANDEXOFFLORIDA,INC.FLG830379 16460 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)Discharge treated groundwater30 27 30 82 0 0REFRESHMENTSERVICESPEPSI FLG910156 16739 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)permit cancelled 1/7/99DEERTREE HILLS MOBILE HOMEPARKFL0038199 10170 Domestic WWTP Extended aeration w/teriary filter and reclaimedwater discharge0.015 0.015 30 26 18.4 84 21 52.78 December-98Wakulla Planning UnitPRIMEXTECHNOLOGIES,INC.FL0002518 10235 Industrial Wastewater spray irrig. w/ effluentindirectlyto Big BoggyBranchand Wakulla River0.786 0.79 30 10 51.8 84 13 12.22 November-95,December-97 	 

 

   118TABLE C-1 continued Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface WaterNorth Ocklockonee Planning UnitQUINCY,CITYOF(STP) FL0029033 10075 Domestic WWTP Contact stabilization; toQuincy Creek, LittleRiver and then LakeTalquin1.5 1.5 30 35 2.28 84 33 14.14 November-91, March97, November-95,June-00HAVANA, TOWN OF (STP) FL0030333 10076 Domestic WWTP High rate trickling filter.Effluent to Womack MillCreek0.4 0.4 30 36 52 84 24 49.99ENGELHARD CORP. (QUINCYPLANT)FL0002577 10089 Industrial Wastewater Detention forsedimentation ofsolids12.8 12.8 30 36 2.48 84 34 22.63 November-96ENGELHARDCORP.(COMPLEX-A) FL0038466 16016 Industrial Wastewater Detention forsedimentation ofsuspended solids.2.16 November-96ENGELHARDCORP(COMPLEXC)FL0038474 10090 Industrial Wastewater Detention forsedimentation ofsolids2.16 30 35 57.7 84 34 24.52 November-96ENGELHARDCORP.(COMPLEX F) FL0039101 16021 Industrial Wastewater Detention forsedimentation ofsolids.2.16 November-96OILDRICORPORATION FL0040827 10080 Industrial Wastewater Impoundment/siltbarrier/rip-rap2.16 2.16 30 36 52 84 33 15QUINCY CLUSTER - SYSTEM 3(LOLLEYS & SOUTH)FLG910836 18333 Petro. CleanupGP (longterm) 30 3516.7 84 34 56.94QUINCY CLUSTER - SYSTEM 1(QUINCY CITGO)FLG910837 18334 Petro. CleanupGP (longterm) 30 3517.9 84 34 58.29QUINCY CLUSTER - SYSTEM 2(BEAN & NEELY BP)FLG910838 18335 Petro. CleanupGP (longterm) 30 3516.2 84 34 58.91Lake Iamonia Planning UnitFDOT KATE IRELAND/FOSHALEEFARMFLG910616 17659 Petro. CleanupGP (longterm)Lake JacksonPlanning UnitLAKEWOOD AREASTP, TALQUINELECTRICN/AFebruary-87PRINTING HOUSE N/AOctober-84TelogiaPlanning UnitTIMBERENERGYRESOURCES FL0039951 10174 Industrial Wastewater Intermittent dischargefromWWTF for an 14MW wastewood fueledpower plant.30 20 8.52 84 49 5.88 November-91,October-93, August93JUNIORFOODSTORENO.240 FLG830331 16438 Petro. CleanupGP (longterm) 30 23 15 84 48 0GRUBBSPETROLEUM SITES FLG830450 16497 Petro. CleanupGP (longterm) 30 3243.5 83 51 54.77BPOILCOMPANYFLG910291 16918 Petro. CleanupGP (longterm) 	 

 

   119TABLE C-2 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Not Discharging to Surface WaterAVER.PLANNING WAFR FACILITY DES. FLOW WAFR LAT LAT LAT LONG LONG LONG5THYEARNAMEUNITFAC. IDSITE IDTYPE/DESC.(MGD)Discharge Groups -NS_DESCRIPTIONFAC.DDMMSSDDMMSSINSPECTIONTALLAHASSEEEASTKOA ST. MARKS FLA010133 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.0068 REUSE/SECONDARYTREATMENT10133 30 28 39.78 83 54 57.74BIGBENDTRUCK PLAZA (CAPITAL CITY PLAZA WWTP) ST. MARKS FLA010134 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.042 reuse system 10134 30 29 0.71 84 1 34.48ST. MARKS WWTF ST. MARKS FLA102318 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.05 Industrial Reuse System 10231 30 9 11.39 84 12 27.42 Jul-98TEXACOTRADING & TRANSPORTATION ST. MARKS FLA010131 Ind. WW 10131 30 29 2.01 84 1 42.01FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. ST. MARKS FLA010132 Ind. WW 10132 30 29 3.84 84 1 30.32MCKENZIE SERVICE CO. INC. ST. MARKS FL0042161 Ind. WW 10234 30 9 35.82 84 11 57.26HYCRESTDAIRY, INC. ST. MARKS FLA181803 Ind. WW 18180IFASRESEARCH LABORATORY MICCOSKEE FLA010135 Dom. WWTP 10135 30 40 0.01 83 55 0MEADOWS-AT-WOODRUN WWTF LAFAYETTE FLA010159 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.07 REUSE SYSTEM 10159 30 25 17.79 84 8 10.2FALLSCHASE LAFAYETTE FLA010172 Dom. WWTP 0.175 10172 30 27 47.41 84 12 46.29LAFAYETTE KENNELS LAFAYETTE FLA010153 Ind. WW 10153 30 25 53 84 11 19TP SMITH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY MUNSON FLA010139 R-001 Dom. WWTP 19.84 Southeast Farm andSouthwest Sprayfield10139 30 23 29.25 84 19 20.9TP SMITH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY MUNSON FLA010139 R-002 Dom. WWTP 19.84 Southeast Farm Pump Station.(SECOND R-001)10139 30 23 29.25 84 19 20.9LAKE BRADFORD ROAD WWTP MUNSON FLA010140 R-001 Dom. WWTP 4.5 SOUTHEAST FARM ANDSOUTHWEST SPRAYFIELD10140 30 25 34.29 84 18 4.88TALLAHASSEEMUNICIPAL AIRPORT STP MUNSON FLA010141 Dom. WWTP 0.06 10141 30 24 27.34 84 21 20.61LAKE BRADFORD ESTATES STP MUNSON FLA010148 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.036 EFF: DRAINFIELD: LAKEBRADFORD MHP STP10148 30 24 24.2 84 19 26.47SOUTHERN BELL TRAILER PARK MUNSON FLA010151 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.015 reuse system 10151 30 27 28.46 84 22 25.23SOUTHERN BELL TRAILER PARK MUNSON FLA010151 R-002 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10151 30 27 28.46 84 22 25.23WESTERNESTATESMHP MUNSON FLA010152 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 EF TO REUSE SYSTEM R001 10152 30 26 6.3 84 22 22.28SANDSTONE RANCH WWTF MUNSON FLA010167 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.0707 Effluent 10167 30 26 4.76 84 23 43.44BORDENINC. DISTRIBUTION CENTER MUNSON FLA010143 Ind. WW 10143 30 25 50 84 20 10BUDGETRENT A CAR MUNSON FLA010144 Ind. WW 10144 30 25 49 84 21 10CAPITAL EUROCARS, INC. MUNSON FLA010145 Ind. WW 10145 30 27 25 84 21 26RAINBOWCARWASHMUNSONFLA010149 G-001 Ind. WW DRAIN FIELD - DISCHARGEFROM SAND FILTER10149 30 26 6.47 84 22 22.45COURTESY CARS MUNSON FLA010154 G-001 Ind. WW drain field 10154 30 27 23.8 84 22 13.59 	 

 

   120TABLE C-2 continued Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Not Discharging to Surface WaterLAKE JACKSON ANIMAL HOSPITAL MUNSON FLA010158 Ind. WW 10158 30 29 38.4 84 19 31.83FLINT EQUIPMENT CO. MUNSON FLA010160 Ind. WW 10160 30 27 29.55 84 22 54.06ISLANDFOOD STORE, LTD. MUNSON FLA010161 Ind. WW 10161 30 26 25.02 84 18 50.93ISLANDFOOD STORE, LTD MUNSON FLA010162 Ind. WW 10162 30 26 15.54 84 16 12.24DOLLARRENT A CAR MUNSON FLA010163 Ind. WW 10163 30 24 8.99 84 21 6.6JACKSON-COOK INC. MUNSON FLA010164 Ind. WW 10164 30 26 20 84 20 5G.W.HUNTER, INC. # 337 (CHEVRON) MUNSON FLA010166 Ind. WW 10166 30 24 0.01 84 16 0.01SOUTHDOWN, INC. / TALLAHASSEE MUNSON FLA010168 Ind. WW 10168 30 26 3.71 84 17 55.69DAVISREFINING CORPORATION MUNSON FLA010169 Ind. WW 10169 30 24 42 84 18 13NATIONAL HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD LAB - FSU MUNSON FLA016533 G-001 Ind. WW 0.075 discharge system to lawnirrigation16533 30 25 28.54 84 19 35.35SOUTHDOWN, INC. / TALLAHASSEE MUNSON FLA016653 Ind. WW 16653 30 26 6 84 17 48.92PROCTOR ACURA LOST FLA010150 R-002 Ind. WW 10150 30 21 16 84 27 30WOODVILLE ELEM SCHOOL WAKULLA FLA010136 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.01 reuse system 10136 30 18 50.03 84 14 47.64DISCVILLAGE WWTP WAKULLA FLA010137 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 Land Application System 10137 30 18 16.61 84 13 42.72SHADEVILLEELEMENTARY WWTF WAKULLA FLA010227 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.016 EFF TO ABSORP FIELD:SHADEVILLEELEM SCH10227 30 12 54.06 84 19 13.07WAKULLA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CTR WAKULLA FLA010228 Dom. WWTP 0.02 10228 30 11 34.36 84 22 20.04OYSTER BAY ESTATES STP WAKULLA FLA010237 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.06 REUSE SYSTEM 10237 30 15 33.97 84 18 58.4RIVERPLANTATION ESTATES WWTP WAKULLA FLA010241 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.025 EF TO PERC POND: RIVERPLANTATIONCLOSED10241 30 12 18.12 84 15 5.94WINCO UTILITIES, INC. WAKULLA FLA016544 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.495 Sprayfield Irrigation System 16544 30 15 23.66 84 13 6.06LEWISWOOD CENTER & SELF SVC STORAGE WAKULLA FLA010155 G-001 Ind. WW 0.0013 Drainfield after sandfilter/septic tank10155 30 19 35.79 84 14 59.16MIKE'S LAUNDRY WAKULLA FLA010156 Ind. WW 0.0027 10156 30 19 5 84 14 55ACECOINLAUNDRY WAKULLA FLA010232 Ind. WW 0.0068 10232 30 11 4.73 84 22 28.15MUDBUSTERS WAKULLA FLA010233 Ind. WW 10233 30 12 41 84 22 13LANDOF WAKULLA D.B.A. QUIK LUBE WAKULLA FLA010239 Ind. WW 10239 30 12 23.93 84 21 57.43WAKULLA STATION CNTY CAFE & LAUNDROMAT WAKULLA FLA185965 Ind. WW 18596HAVANA, TOWN OF (STP) N. OCHL FL0030333 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.4 REUSE SYSTEM 10076 30 36 52.03 84 24 49.99RENTZ MHP N. OCHL FLA010079 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012 EF TO DRAINFIELD:MCLENDON PARK STP10079 30 33 0.05 84 31 21.83NICHOLSON FARMHOUSE RESTAURANT N. OCHL FLA010084 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.006 REUSE SYSTEM 10084 30 36 37.22 84 28 1.28HAVANAMIDDLE SCHOOL WWTP N. OCHL FLA010085 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10085 30 37 15.71 84 24 5.71 	 

 

   121TABLE C-2 continued Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Not Discharging to Surface WaterFORT BRADEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL N. OCHL FLA010138 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.011 Absorption Field 10138 30 26 25.26 84 30 57.85WESTVIEWMOBILE HOME PARK N. OCHL FLA010146 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10146 30 26 34 84 24 12LAKE JACKSON WWTF (AKA LAKEWOOD) N. OCHL FLA010171 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.3 REUSE SYSTEM 10171 30 32 8.57 84 22 0.35FLYING J, INC. N. OCHL FLA016632 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 Effluent discharge toabsorption beds16632 30 29 34.71 84 25 43.94WILLIAMSTRAVELCENTERS WWTF N. OCHL FLA182923 Dom. WWTP 0.013 18292 30 29 42.84 84 26 2.51ROBERTSSANDCOMPANY, INC. N. OCHL FLA010082 Ind. WW 10082 30 28 22.46 84 39 25.9FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO. #14 N. OCHL FLA010083 R-001 Ind. WW 0.005 reuse system 10083 30 30 19.64 84 42 35.6FDOT MAINTENANCE FACILITY TRUCK WSH N. OCHL FLA010087 Ind. WW 10087 30 29 29.69 84 25 22.36COASTALLUMBERCO. N. OCHL FLA010091 Ind. WW 0 10091 30 38 1.32 84 24 9.28IFASRESEARCH LABORATORY N. OCHL FLA010092 Ind. WW 10092 30 32 25 84 35 50CROWDER SAND PROCESSING PLANT N. OCHL FLA017081 Ind. WW 17081 30 28 19.48 84 39 23.45DIVISION OF FORESTRY DISTRICT OFFICE N. OCHL FLA017296 Ind. WW 17296LIBERTY 67 MINE S. OCHL FLA010178 Ind. WW 10178 30 1 5.91 84 36 40.16KILLEARN LAKES SUBDIVISION IAMONIA FLA010173 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.7 sprayfield irrigation system 10173 30 35 35.01 84 13 12.57KILLEARN LAKES SUBDIVISION IAMONIA FLA010173 R-002 Dom. WWTP 0.7 rapid infiltration basins 10173 30 35 35.01 84 13 12.57AMOCO/SING OIL CO. IAMONIA FLA010165 Ind. WW 10165 30 33 53.11 84 12 52.04GREENSBORO HIGH SCHOOL TELOGIA FLA010074 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012 EFFLUENT 10074 30 34 17.07 84 44 5.69LIBERTY CO INTERMEDIATE HEALTH CARE TELOGIA FLA010176 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012 STP Effluent 10176 30 25 23.94 84 54 59.73LIBERTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION TELOGIA FLA010179 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.2 STP Effluent 10179 30 28 5.98 84 51 47.86GRETNA,TOWNOF (STP) TELOGIA FLA100781 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.35 REUSE SYSTEM 10078 30 37 51.53 84 39 58.59QUINCYMUSHROOM FARM TELOGIA FLA010088 R-001 Ind. WW Spray Irrigation/CreatedWetland10088 30 32 1.79 84 41 25.25SHULER, DAVID TELOGIA FLA010177 Ind. WW 10177 30 21 6.35 84 49 38.16ENGELHARDCORPORATION TELOGIA FLA016194 Ind. WW 16194SHELLPOINTSTP COASTAL FLA010242 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.024 EF TO PERC POND: SHELLPOINT STP10242 30 3 31.19 84 17 22.21WAKULLA COUNTY WWTF COASTAL FLA010225 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.2 reuse system 10225 30 4 55.41 84 25 0.51WAKULLA CO HIGH SCHOOL COASTAL FLA010226 Dom. WWTP 0.018 10226 30 6 22.63 84 22 29.58WAKULLA MIDDLE SCHOOL COASTAL FLA010229 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.018 REUSE SYSTEM 10229 30 7 36.43 84 22 19.74WAKULLA MANOR COASTAL FLA010238 R-OO1 Dom. WWTP 0.024 reuse system 10238 30 5 5.64 84 23 12.87MURPHYOIL CORPORATION COASTAL FL0032433 R-001 Ind. WW SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM 16046HANNONLIMESTONE PIT COASTAL FLA010240 Ind. WW 10240 30 9 37.12 84 17 30.41 	 

 

   122TABLE C-3Ochlockonee-St. Marks WACS LandfillsTOTAL Cell WaterTot. Surf. Oper. Waste Meas. Refuse TableWACSPop. Mon. Mon. Beg. Expec Quan./ Des Unit Liner Loc NPDESLeach. Depth DepthFAC IDNameCityServedWellsPointsYearLifeDayCap.TypeTypeTypePermitDisch..(FT)(FT)5851 BRYD TRANSFER STATION QUINCY5729 BYRD LANDFILL QUINCY 9000 8 2 1975 7 75 CYD E N 6 405699 CONCORD DUMP HAVANA 200 0 1970 N 6 205962 ENGELHARD-BLOCK II DOGTOWN 2 1983 50 25 655701 ENGELHARD-LA CAMELIA SLF DOGTOWN 2 0 1981 50 CYD N O Y 25 655702 ENGELHARD-SWISHER SLF DOGTOWN 2 0 1981 50 CYD N F N 25 655871 GADSDEN COUNTY TRANSFER STATION QUINCY5700 GADSDEN EAST LANDFILL HAVANA 6000 10 2 1979 0 15 TON N N 25 405697 GREENSBORO JUNIPER DUMP GREENSBORO 300 0 0 82 CYD N N 3 505726 GRETNA VOLUME REDUCTION PLANT GRETNA 4000005698 HARDAWAY DUMP HARDAWAY 300 0 0 55 CYD N N 6 305692 HAVANA DUMP HAVANA 2000 0 1962 197 CYD N N 8 205696 JAMIESON DUMP JAMIESON 200 0 1970 0 41 CYD N 6 305694 LAKE TALQUIN #1 DUMP LAKE TALQUIN 150 0 1968 38 CYD N N 6 1205695 LAKE TALQUIN #2 DUMP QUINCY 150 0 0 37 CYD N N 705693 MIDWAY DUMP MIDWAY 300 0 1970 0 41 CYD N N 6 105834 SAILOR C & D FACILITY QUINCY 199136851 JEFFERSON CO CENTRAL C & D L/F MONTICELLO36850 JEFFERSON COUNTY SLF (CAPPS) CAPPS 10000 16 1 1980 20 50 CYD C N 4 356567 LLOYD DUMP LLOYDN6569 WAUKEENAH SLF WAUKEENAH 10000 4 1 1973 0 200 200 CYD N O N N 15 217890 ALLEN'S EXCAVATION, INC.- TRAM RD. TALLAHASSEE8102 BRIDGES TREE FARM C&D FACIL. TALLAHASSEE 1991 108050 BURCH C & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1991 27909 CALLAWAY C & D DEBRIS DISPOSAL TALLAHASSEE6661 CAPITOLA DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3000 N O 4 57036 CODY-TRAM RD DUMP TALLAHASSEE 600 0 1972 4 TON C O N N 7 188009 COUNCIL RENTAL PROPERTY,INC.(C & D) TALLAHASSEE 208272 CROSSWAY DISPOSAL FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1993 108662 CROWDER LF TALLAHASSEE 0 0 1984 20 50 TON C O N N 157897 DONALD E. RUTLAND-RUTLAND CONST. TALLAHASSEE7063 EISENHOWER PIT TALLAHASSEE8162 F.J.MARRONE C & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1992 28182 FERRELL C & D LANDFILL TALLAHASSEE 1992 15 	 

 

   123TABLE C-3 continued Ochlockonee-St. Marks WACS Landfills8132 FLORIDA DEVELOPERS, INC TALLAHASSE 1992 107079 FT BRADEN (JOE THOMAS RD) DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3000 0 1974 5 TON N O N N 6 77033 FT BRADEN DUMP (OLD SITE) TALLAHASSEE 500 0 C N N 12 147034 LAKE TALQUIN/BLOUNT RD DUMP BLOXHAM 2000 0 2 TON N O N N 4 77032 LAKEWOOD DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3000 1972 C N N 15 147943 LEON COUNTY BOARD OF CNTY COMM TALLAHASSEE7992 MCNEILL COMPANY, INC. TALLAHASSEE6662 MICCOSUKEE DUMP MICCOSUKEE 2500 N O 10 148290 MITCHELL BROTHERS, INC. TALLAHASSEE 1993 207914 MORRISON HAULING/TRAM RD PIT TALLAHASSEE7927 MYLES SAHLGREN C & D DEBRIS DISP. TALLAHASSEE8633 NORFLEET MINE SANITARY LANDFILL TALLAHASSEE 0 0 1983 5 30 CYD C O N Y7994 PERFORMANCE RUBBER RETREADINGPLANTTALLAHASSEE8471 PRIME HOLDINGS, INC C&D TALLAHASSEE8443 RANKIN AVENUE PIT TALLAHASSEE11232 RANKIN AVENUE PIT TALLAHASSEE8189 SANDCO,INC TALLAHASSEE 1992 258266 SOLOMON CONSTRUCTION CO OF QUINCY TALLAHASSEE 1993 148039 SONAS SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE7281 TALLAHASSEE DUMP (OLD AIRPORT LF) TALLAHASSEE 100000 7 1961 333 CYD N O N N 30 407324 TALLAHASSEE TRASH DUMP TALLAHASSEE 120000 7 1968 250 TON N O N N 30 206663 TOWER RD DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3500 TON N O 15 147915 TOWER ROAD C & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE6664 TRAM RD DUMP TALLAHASSEE 141000 6 C O 8 78286 TRAM ROAD PIT TALLAHASSEE 1993 206660 US 27 SOUTH LANDFILL TALLAHASSEE 175700 19 2 1976 7 445 TON P O N 10 328040 W. SHUFORD DAVIS C & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1991 38154 WILLIAMS CONCRETE CONST CO #2 (C&D) TALLAHASSEE 1992 107858 WILLIAMS CONCRETE CONST.CO. (C & D) TALLAHASSEE 87035 WOODVILLE DUMP WOODVILLE 3000 0 1958 10 6 TON C O N N 8 149012 HOSFORD DUMP HOSFORD 3700 0 0 1955 700 CYD N F N 6 614595 CRAB SCRAP COMPOST R,D&D PROJECT CRAWFORDVILLE 1014498 CRAWFORDVILLE DUMP CRAWFORDVILLE3500 1 2 4 TON C N N 2 614499 DUGGAR CEMETERY DUMP IVAN14587 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INC. ST. MARKS 6014628 HARRELL BROTHERS SOPCHOPPY 1992 3014500 HYDE PARK (#1) DUMP HYDE PARK 1400 0 C N N 3 1014503 HYDE PARK (#2) DUMP HYDE PARK 1400 0 7 2 TON C N N 10 10 	 

 

   124TABLE C-3 continued Ochlockonee-St. Marks WACS Landfills14629 J STRICKLAND & C. THOMANN-TAYLOR ARRON 1992 114494 LOWER BRIDGE LANDFILL CRAWFORDVILLE13700 5 1984 5 270 CYD P O Y 1314494 LOWER BRIDGE LANDFILL CRAWFORDVILLE13700 5 1984 5 270 CYD P O Y 1314463 MEDART CENTRAL SLF MEDART 9300 5 1977 25 TON N N N 4 1514497 MEDART DUMP MEDART 0 N N 6 414501 NEWPORT STATION DUMP NEWPORT 0 N N N 0 214496 PANACEA DUMP PANACEA 2500 0 4 TON N N N 2 1014502 SMITH CREEK DUMP (RURAL) 0 N N N 10 314495 SOPCHOPPY DUMP SOPCHOPPY 1100 0 5 1 TON N N N 1 214504 SPRING CREEK DUMP SPRING CREEK 1000 0 1973 2 2 TON C N N 2 414660 STOUTAMIRE, JAMES C&D CRAWFORDVILLE14632 WAKULLA CTY LOWER BRIDGE TS CRAWFORDVILLE14661 WELCH, JAMES T C&D CRAWFORDVILLE14666 WITHERS' PIT SOPCHOPPY 	 

 

    125



## Appendix D: Land Use Loading Model for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Est imates of land us e areal based loading rates (expressed as pounds/acre/year/land use) and instream loads (expressed as po unds/year) were predicted for areas located wi th in th e Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins (Figure 1). Long-term (1989 - 1998) annual average load estimates based on rainfall and acreages of 12 land uses were made fo r each selected area. For the three Ochlockonee River subbasins, model runoff coefficients used to calculate estimates of runoff water volumes were calibrated to the 1998– 1998 annual average water volumes measured at each USGS gage. Because of gaps in the flow gage record, only 1997 and 1998 were used for calibration in the two St. Marks subbasins. In order to provide the best estimate of annual average conditions, all of the data was used for ca libration. Theref ore, at th is time, no vali dation of runoff coefficients has been a ttempted. Estimates of loading rates were based on values

re ported by Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) as the Southeast Regional Event Mean Concentration (EMC) factors as provided in the model documentation. No sens itivity analysis of the EMCs used to calculate loading estimates has been performed at this time. Wa te r quality data collected from stations close to each USGS flow gage were used with the m easured flows to calculate measured instream loads. The measured versus predicted fl ow s and loads are presented in Appendix D for each area where sufficient data were lo cated. Version 4.15 of the CDM Watershed Management Model (WMM) was used as the assessment tool. It is important to note that this is only an estimate of the nonpoint source loads (surface and ground water) from areas that directly contribute surface water runoff to the Ochloc konee and St. Marks Rivers and their tributaries. No loading estimates were made for point sources or for sub-surface runoff from internally drained

areas. For the purposes of this section of the report, the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River watersheds were divided into “modeling” subbasins established based on the location of long-term flow gages and water quality stations. These modeling subbasins do not necessarily correspond to the Pla nning Units discussed in other sections of the report. Five subbasins were identifi ed based on the location of selected USGS flow stations Figu re 1 . The two ma jor basi ns are divided as indicated by the heavy dark line. The Ochlockonee Basin was further divided into three subbasins, I, II, and III. Subbasin I is th e area tributary to USGS gage 02329000 located near Havana, Fl., Subbasin II is the

ar ea be tw een th is gage and gage 02330000 located near Bl ox ha m, an d Subbasin III is the area below gage 02330000. The St. Marks Basin was divided into two subbasins, IV and V. Subbasin IV is composed of the area above the springs at Natural Bridge and Subbasin V is compos ed of the area downstream of the springs at Natural Bridge. USGS gage 02326900 is located just south of the springs at Natural Bridge Road. While this gage actually measures the flow into Subbasin V from the springs just upstream, it is used fo r th is re port as a rough approximation of the flow exiting Subbasin IV through the sinks just abov e the springs. The subbasins were furt her subdivided into ar eas suspected as di

r ectly contributing surface and sub-surface runoff to the main river or it’s tributaries (white on Figure 1 ) and areas that were identified as non-contributing to surface runoff 	 

 

    126



### bu t ma y still contribute sub-surface runoff (gray on Figure 1 ). The five subbasins were named: U pper Ochlockonee or Subbasin I, Middle Ochlockonee or Subbasin II, Lower Oc hl oc ko n ee or Subbasin III, Upper St. Marks or Subbasin IV, and Lower St. Marks or Subbasin V. Th e lower portions of both river systems are influenced by tides. Once the modeled area was divided into subbasins, the total acreage for each land use within each subbasin was determined. Because portions of the watersheds maybe in te rn a lly drained (not contributing to surface runoff directly to the river), those areas should be identified and removed from the modeled area. Acres identified as internally drained were calculated by GIS staff using GIS software and land use shape files. Acres within Georgia were ca lculat ed from land use data in EPA's BASINS modeling software. Tables F- 1 and F-2 of A ppendix D provide estimates of the area considered contri buting and non-contributing to surface runoff. The small area identified as noncontributing in Subbasin I is the area tributary to Lake Jackson. This area was removed from the modele d area. As can be seen on Figu re 1 , over 50 percent of the St. Marks watershed was identified as internally drained or not contributing direct surface water runoff to the river. This created heightened uncertainty for modeling in the St. Marks Basin. These internally drained areas, while not contributing directly to surface runoff, certainty contribute to sub-surface runoff (e.g., ground water inflows). Rainfall infiltrating into the ground in non-contributing areas may eventually contribute to the ground water in terflow to the ri ver by way of di stri buted inflow along the river or through spring flow directly to the river. Additionally, the water entering the river from spring flow may contain elements of water that has recently infiltrated into the system; older locally derived ground water, as well as ground water from catchments outside the surface drainage (such as internally drained areas). Implementation of BMPs in watersheds such as these, were the amount of acreage considered internally drained is significant and larg e fractions of the river’s flow are from springs will require special consideration and attention. A ppendix D contains a complete description of the model, EMC factors, rainfall volume estimation tech niques, internally drained areas, model calibration, measured and predicted water volumes and loadings for each of the subbasins. As documented in Table D-13 , the Wa tershed Ma nagement Model, using default EMC values, predicted total ni trogen (TN), total phosphorous (TP), and total suspended solids (TSS) within the literature ranges for relative error in a screening level model that was not calibrated for water quality. It should be noted that a “delivery ratio” of 1 was used in all model runs. The de livery ratio is the fr action of suspended material (TSS or particulate forms of

nu tr ie nt s) that reaches the mouth of the basin. A delivery ratio of zero means no

su sp en ded or particulate matter leaves the basin and 1 indicates that 100 percent of this material l eaves th e basin. Therefore our predictions represent the maximum theoretical annual average loadings that should occur. This is in contrast to the measured in-stream data that represents our best estimate of what actually passed through the watershed. The result s discussed below are a summary of the findings for land use acreage’s, TSS, TN, and TP for the entire Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins (minus internally drained areas). The reader should note that for this phase of the Basin evaluation, several land use types were given the same EMC values such that they generated the same load/ acre/inch of rainfall. This was done to allow these land uses to be evaluated separately. Agriculture/Pasture and Cropland used the same EMCs, Forest/Rural Open 	 

 

    127



### and Open Herbaceous used the same EMCs, and Commercial and High Density Residential used the same EMCs. The model can be easily re-run if different more appropriate EMCs are derived or discovered. It is important to remember that this evaluation does no t account for acreage or loads from ar eas delineated as internally drained. For example, in Table D-1 it can be seen that about 50 percent of the total acreage for high density residential in the Ochlockonee Basin is located in internally drained areas. Within the St. Marks Basin, Table D-2 lists 14,673 acres of cropland, of which only 48 acres are located in areas that directly contribute surface runoff to the river. This information is presented to demonstrate the im portance of evaluating those areas that contribute surface water runoff to the river system separately from those areas that do not. It is equally important to remember that th e loads generated in the internally drained areas do not necessarily stay in place, but may runoff as sub-surface runoff (ground wate r) and eventually contribute loadings to a surface waterbody.



## Ochlockonee River Basin
Figu re 2 presents the relative percentage of each land use category to the total acreage of the entire Ochlockonee Basin (minus internally drained area). This figure shows that the land uses forest/rural open (52%), cropland (25%), and wetlands and open water (16%) make up 93 percent of the total land use. General agriculture/pasture and cropland make up 27.7 percent of the total acreage and all residential land uses combined make up 2.4 percent of the total. These land uses combine to make up 98 percent of the total acreage in the Basin.

Th e loadings estimated for each land use are the stormwater induced loadings and not from point sources. This is important to remember when lookin g at the loadings for categories like industri al and comme rcial. Figu re 3 depicts the relative contribution of each land use subbasin combination to the total area of the basin. The figure is ordered from upstream to downstream (Upper is upstream and Lower is at the mouth of the basin). This graphic can be used with Figure 2 to deter mine which subbasin contributes the larg est percentage of each land use category. For example, Forest/Rural Open is 52 percent of the total basin and each subbasin contains about equal percentages of the total. Cropland makes up about 25 percent of the total land use and about 90 percent of this is in the U pper subbasin. Wetlands make up 14 percent of the total acreage with almost 75 percent of them in the Lower subbasin. Figure 4 is a gr aphic showing the general distribution of each land use within the entire basi n (including non-contributing area). Figu re 5 contains the results by land use for TSS for the entire basin as a percentage of the total TSS load. Figure 6 contains the relative contribution of eac h subbasin to the total TSS loadings. The EMCs for each land use were not modified between subbasins due to a lack of subbasin land-use-specific data. Because the land use EMCs were not varied betw een subbasins the relative contribution of each land use within each subbasin will not vary between parameters. For thes e reasons, (the same EMC used in each

s ubbasin) Figure 6 only needs to be presented once. For TSS, it can be seen that while forest s make up 52 percent of the total acreage they are only 28 percent of the TSS load. Conversely, general agriculture/pasture an d cropland make up 28 percent of the total 	 

 

    128



### acreage but generate 55 percent of the TSS load. These figures can be used to show that cropland is 25 percent of the basin acreage, 49 percent of the TSS load, and that the majority of the cropland is in the Upper subbasin. Figures 7 and 8 contain th e relative contribution of each land use to the total basin TN and TP loading respectively. Refer to Figu re 6 for the relative subbasin contribution. These figures depict the relative importan ce of forest, cropland, agriculture/pasture, and wetlands land uses to the nutrient loadi ngs. These land uses make up 92 percent of the TN load and 89 percent of the TP load. R ecall that Appendix D contains all of the results and additional discussion.



## St. Mark s Basin

Fi gure 9 presents the relative percentage of each land use category to the total acreage of the entire St Marks Basin (minus internally drained area). This figure shows that the land uses forest/r ural op en (59%), wetlands and open water (20%), and agriculture/pasture (5.8%) make up about 85 percent of the total land use. Recall that th ere was almost no cropland within areas that directly contribute to surface runoff. Th e loadings estimated for each land use are the stormwater induced loadings and not from point sources. This is important to remember when lookin g at the loadings for categories like industri al and comme rcial. Figu re 10 depicts the relative contribution of each land use/subbasin combination to the total area of the basin. The figure is ordered from upstream to downstream (Upper is upstream and Lower is towards the mouth of the basin). This graphic can be used with Figure 9 to deter mine which subbasin contributes the larg est percentage of each land use category. For example, Forest/Rural Open is 59 percent of the total basin and about 70 percent of it is in the Lower subbasin. Wetlands make up 18 percent of the total acreage with each subbasin almost equally contributing. Figu re 11 is a gr aphic showing the general distribution of each land use within the entire basin (including non-contributing area). Figure 12 contains the results by land use for TSS for the entire basin as a percentage of the total TSS load. Figure 13 contains the

re la ti ve contribution of each subbasin to the total TSS loadings. The EMCs for each land use were not modified between subbasins due to a lack of subbasin land-use-specific data. Because the land use EMCs were not varied between subbasins the relative contribution of eac h land use within each subbasin will not vary between parameters. For thes e reasons, (the same EMC used in each subbasin) Figure 13 only n eeds to be presented once. For TSS, it can be seen that while forests make up 59 percent of the total acreage they are only 41 percent of the TSS load. Conversely, general agriculture/pasture makes up only 5.8 percent of the total acreage but generates nearly 15 percent of the TSS load. Thes e figures can be used in combination to show for example, combined residential land uses make up 11 percent of the total acreage, 75 percent is in the Lower

s ubbasin and they contribute 23 percent of the TSS load. Figures 14 and 15 contain the relative co ntribution of each land use to the total basin TN and TP loading respectively. Refer to Figure 13 for the relative subb asin contribution. These figures depict the relative importance of forest, ag ricultur e/pasture, wetlands, and residential land uses to the nutrient loadings of this basin. These land uses make up 93 percent of the TN and TP loads from th e contributing areas within this basin. Recall that A ppendix D contains all of the results and additional discussion. 	 

 

    129 	 

 

   130Figure 2Ochlockonee River Total Basin Land Use As Percent(6)commercial0.2%(2)agriculture/pasture3.0%(8)major roads0.1%(3)low densityresidential1.6%(4)medium densityresidential0.5%(1)forest/rural open52.0%(12)open/herbaceous1.2%(11)cropland24.7%(10)wetlands14.0%(9)water1.7%(7)light industrial0.5%(5)highdensityresidential0.3%0%20%40%60%80%100% (1) forest/r ural open (2) agricult ure/pasture

(3 ) lo w density residential
(4) m edium density residential

(5 ) high density residential (6) commercial (7) light industrial (8) major roads (9) w ater (1 0) w e tl ands (11) cr opland

(1 2) o pen/herbaceousFigure 3Ochlockonee River Subbasin Relative Land Use As PercentUpperMiddleLowerFigure 4Ochlockonee River Land use 	 

 

    131

Fi g ure 5 Ochl ockonee River Total Basin Total Suspended Solids As Percent

(5) high density

reside ntial

0.8%

(7) light industrial 2.1% (9) water

0.8% (10) we tlan ds 6.6% (11) cr opland 49.1% (12) open/herbaceous 0.7%

(1) forest/rural open 28.5%

(4) medium density reside ntial

1.5% (3) low density

reside ntial

1.9%

(8) major roads 1.0%

(2) agriculture/pasture 6.4%

(6) commercial 0.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

(1) forest/rural open (2) agricult ure/pasture (3) low d ensity residential (4) medium d ensity residential (5) high d ensity residential (6) comm ercial (7) light industrial (8) major roads (9) w ater

(10) w e tl ands (11) cr opland (12) o pen/herbaceous Fi g ure 6 Ochl ockonee River Subbasin Total Susp ended Solids As Percent

Upper
Middle

Lower 	 

 

    132

Figure 7 Ochlocko nee River Total Nitrogen As Percent

(6) co mmercial 0.3% (2) a g riculture/ pasture 4.0%

(8) major roads 0.2% (3) low density resi dential

2.0% (4) m edium density resi dential

0.8% (1) forest/r ural open 37.6% ( 12) open/herbaceous 0.9%

( 11) cropland 31.3%

( 10) wetlands 19.5%

(9) water 2.1% (7) li g ht industrial 0.8% (5) hi g h density resi dential

0.5%

Figure 8 Ochl ockonee River Total Basin Total Phosphorus As Percent

(5) high density residential

0.5%

(7) light industrial 1.1%

(9) water

2.6% (10) we tlan ds 23.0% (11) cr opland 41.6% (12) open/herbaceous 0.5% (1) forest/rural open 19.1%

(4) medium density reside ntial

1.6% (3) low density

reside ntial

4.0%

(8) major roads 0.4% (2) agriculture/pasture 5.4%

(6) commercial 0.4% 	 

 

   133Figure 9St. Marks River Total BasinLand Use As Percent(5)high densityresidential0.0%(7)light industrial1.1%(9)water1.9%(10)wetlands18.0%(11)cropland0.0%(12)open/herbaceous2.3%(1)forest/rural open59.2%(4)medium densityresidential3.5%(3)low densityresidential7.7%(8)major roads0.1%(2)agriculture/pasture5.8%(6)commercial0.4%0 %20%40%60%80%100% (1 ) f ore s t/r ur al o pe n (2 ) a gr ic u lt u re /p a s tur e (3 ) lo w de ns it y r es id en tial (4 ) m ed iu m d e ns ity re s ide n tial (5 ) h igh de n s ity res id en tia l (6) c ommercial (7 ) ligh t in d us tria l (8 ) major r oa d s (9 ) w a te r
( 1 0 ) w etla nd s ( 11) cr op la nd (12) op en/herbaceousFigure10S t.Marks R iver S ubbasin R elative Land U se As P ercentUpperLowerFigure 11St. Marks River Land Use 	 

 

    134

Figure 12 St. Marks Rive r Total B asin Total Suspended So lids As Percent

(6) commercial 1.2%

(2) a g riculture/ pasture 14.6% (8 ) ma jo r roads 0.5%

(3) low density resi dential

11.3% (4) medium density resi dential

12.0% (1) forest/rural open 41.5% (1 2) open/herbaceous 1.6% (11) cr opland 0.1% (10) we tlands 10.4% (9) water

1.1%

(7) li g ht industrial 5.8%

(5) hi g h density

resi dential

0.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

(1 ) fo

re s t/r ural open (2) agric ulture/pasture

(3 ) low density residential

(4 ) me

di um density residential

(5 ) high density residential (6) commercial

(7 ) light industrial

(8 ) ma

jo

r r oads

(9) water

( 10) wetlands

( 11) cropland

( 12) open/herbaceous Fi g ure 13 St. Mar ks River Subbasin Relative Total Sus p ended Solids As Percent

U pper

Lower 	 

 

    135

Figure 14 St. Marks Rive r Total Basin Total Nitrogen As Percent

(5 ) high density residential 0.0% (7 ) li ght industrial 1.9%

(9) water

2.4%

( 10) wetlands

25.4% ( 11) cropland 0.0% ( 12) open/herbaceous 1.7%

(1) fo res t/rural open 44.7%

(4 ) m edium density
re si dential

5.5% (3 ) lo w density residential 9.8% (8 ) ma jo r r oads 0.1%

(2) agriculture/pasture 7.9% (6) commercial 0.6%

Figure 15 St. Marks River Total Basin Total Phosphorus As Percent

(6) commercial 0.7% (2) agriculture/pasture 10.4% (8 ) ma jo r r oads 0.2%

(3 ) lo w density residential 19.1% (4 ) m edium density re si dential

10.5% (1) fo res t/rural open 23.6% ( 12) open/herbaceous 0.9% ( 11) cropland 0.0%

( 10) wetlands

29.3%

(9) water

2.8%

(7 ) li ght industrial 2.5%

(5 ) high density residential 0.0% 	 

 

    136



## Documentation

Est imates of land use areal based loading rates (expressed as pounds/acre/year/land use) and instream load s (exp ressed as pounds/year) were predicted for ar eas located within the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins ( Figure 1 ). Longte rm ( 1989 - 1998) annual average load estimates based on rainfall and acreages of 12 la nd uses were made for each selected area. For the three Ochlockonee River subbasins, model runoff coe fficients used to calculate estimates of runoff water volumes were calibrated to the 1998– 1998 annual average water volumes measured at each USGS gage. Because of gaps in the flow gage record, only 1997 and 1998 were used for calibration in the two St. Marks subbasins. In order to provide the best estimate of annual average conditions, all of the data was used for calibration. Therefore, at this time, no validation of runoff coefficients has been a ttempted. Estimates of loading rates were based on values repo rted by Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) as the Southeast Regional Event M ean Concentration (EMC) factors as provided in the model documentation. No sensitivity analysis of the EMC’s used to calculate loading estimates has been performed at this time. Water quality data collected from stations close to each USGS flow gage were used with the measured flows to calculate measured instream loads. The measured

ve rs us predicted flows and loads are compared for each area where sufficient data were lo cated. Version 4.15 of the CDM Watershed Management Model (WMM) was used as the assessment tool. It is important to note that this is only an estimate of the nonpoint source loads (surface and ground water) from areas that directly contribute surface water runoff to the Ochloc konee and St Marks Rivers and their tributaries. No loading estimates were made for point sources or for sub-surface runoff from internally drained areas within the two basins. The Watershed Ma nagement Model (WMM) was orig inally develo ped by CDM in th e early 1990s under contract to DEP. CDM has provided for updates and enhancements to the model. The documentation and the code have been obtained from Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project through the Internet at ( http://www.waynecounty.com/rougeriver/geninfo/new/newmain.html)



### .

Watershed Management Model (WMM)

The W MM establishes a framework for assessi ng pollution control strategies within a watershed. It calculates estimates of pollutant loadings based on land use. Each land use is a combination of pervious and impervious areas. Two runoff coefficients, one for pervious area and another for impervious area, control total runoff volume. The annual

ra in fa ll is lin ea rl y converted into surface runoff. Runoff coefficients, land use types, surface areas, and percentage of pervious and impervious surface of each land use are included in this conversion. Nonpoint pollution loadings are the products of total surface runoff, EMC concentrations of runoff from a given land use, and the total acerage of each land use. The mode l provides nationwi de or regional values for EMCs, and they serve as the default values if local data are not available. 	 

 

    137



### The mode l can be used to lo cate and prioritize nonpoint source (NPS) and point source problem areas using existing data. These methods can differentiate the significance of different sources of po llutants and between pollutants. This type of analysis can assist in the allocation of resources for additional monitoring, implementation of management plans, and identify where more complex procedures sh ould be util i zed. 

## Model Required Data

A list of bo th the data required to run the W MM model an d data or information

re quired to understand how water moves through each subbasin is provided below.

The W MM can be used to estimate annual or seasonal nonpoint source loads for up to twelve pollutants:

∗ biochemica l oxygen demand (BOD)

∗ chemi cal oxygen demand (COD)

∗ total su spended solids (TSS)

∗ total di ssolved solids (TDS)

∗ total phos phorus (TP)

∗ dissolved phosphorus (DP)

∗ total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)

∗ nitrate + nitrite (NO 23 

### )

∗ l ead

∗ copper

∗ zinc, and

∗ cadmiu m.

Ther e are options to substitute several parameters of choice.

The mode led Waters hed can be divided into several subbasins. Each subbasin can be compos ed of up to twelve land uses:

∗ forest /open

∗ agriculture/pasture

∗ cropland

∗ lo w density single family residential

∗ medi um density sf/institutional

∗ high density residential

∗ co mmercial

∗ o ffice/light industrial

∗ water

∗ wetlands, and

∗ major roads. 	 

 

    138



### Substitu tions can be made for different land use categories, but the modeler must keep track of the changes independently from the model.

List of requ ired data:

1. To calculate loads, the model uses event mean concentrations (EMC) for each pollutant. EMCs are defined using the average storm pollutant mass loading divided by the storm runoff volume. It is assumed that one inch of rain releases a specific amount of pollutant (EMC) from the surf ace of the basin regardless of any other factors su ch as rain intensity, climate, or position of the land use area with respect to the st r eam.

2. The acreage of each land use category within each subbasin must be provided. The percent of impervious area must be provided for each land use. If these data are unavailable, default average percentages from an internal table are used.

3. The average annual precipitation must be ta ken from me teorological records. Although an average value is used directly for computations, diurnal or more frequent data are preferable. Such a detailed record of precipitation will help in calculating annual baseflow, which must be provided to W MM or set to zero. Agai n, daily or more fre quent flow records at local gages are preferable to separate baseflow from surface runoff computations. The average baseflow pollutant concentrations are also among the required data.

4. In or der to calculate the total average annual surface runoff from each land use, pervious and impervious area runoff coefficients must be known. The manual for WMM does not elaborate on these coefficients. The typical values of 0.95 for impervious area and 0.20 for pervious area ar e used as initial values. These values can be adjusted during model calib ration to match available runoff data. Typical ranges of th e runoff coefficients are (0.85 - 1.0) for impervious area and (0.05 - 0.30) for pe rvious area.

5. A detaile d topographical map of the watershed is required. The map should allow for the calculation of slopes of local terrain, and lengths of overland paths, and stream channel lengths. These data should allow for a calculation of travel time contours and long-term pollutant deposition rates.

6. The cross-section characteristics of the stream channels are also required.

7. Water quality calibration typically requires 3 to 5 years of monitoring data. The monitoring data should include samples collected over a range of storm events.

8. Pollutant loadings from point source discharges should also be estimated if such sources exist in the watershed.

9. The mode l will ask for best manage ment pr actices (BMPs) used in the watershed. Thes e specific BMPs would be those that address surface water runoff quality and 	 

 

    139



### loadi ngs. It should be noted that land based activities can also alter ground waterquality and the loadings of pollutants entering surface waterbodies from “subsurface” runoff.

10. Rainfall and runoff data should be collected from many years. The associated water quality data must come from the years that were included in the rainfall and runoff data.

The typi cal run of WMM is composed of the following steps:

a. Application of annual rainfall – runoff data for the calibration of pervious area runoff coefficient, impervious area runoff coefficient, and percentages of directly connected impervious area (DCIA) for all land uses, b. Va lidation or co rrection of de fault EMCs ba sed on av a ilable water quali ty data , and

c. S imulation for an analysis of the system or prediction of future s cenarios.

The M odeled Basins:

Ochlocko nee and St. Marks River Watersheds



### For the purposes of this section of the report, the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River watersheds were divided into “modeling” subbasins established based on the location of long-term flow gages and water quality stations. These modeling subbasins do not necessarily correspond to the Pla nning Units discussed in other sections of the report. Five subbasins were identifi ed based on the location of selected USGS flow stations Figure 1. The two major basins are divided as indicated by the heavy dark line. The Ochlockonee Basin was further divided into three subbasins, I, II, and III. Subbasin I is th e area tributary to USGS gage 02329000 located near Havana, Fl., Subbasin II is the

ar ea be tw een th is gage and gage 02330000 located near Bl ox ha m, an d Subbasin III is the area below gage 02330000. The St. Marks Basin was divided into two subbasins, IV and V. Subbasin IV is composed of the area above the springs at Natural Bridge and Subbasin V is compos ed of the area downstream of the springs at Natural Bridge. USGS gage 02326900 is located just south of the springs at Natural Bridge Road. While this gage actually measures the flow into Subbasin V from the springs just upstream, it is used fo r th is re port as a rough approximation of the flow exiting Subbasin IV through the sinks just abov e the springs. Each of the subbasins were further subdivided into areas suspected as directly contributing surface and sub-surface runoff to the main river or it’s tributar ies (whi te on Figure 1 ) and areas that were identified as non-contributing to surface runoff but may still contribute sub-surface runoff (gray on Figure 1 ). The five

s ubbasins were named: Upper Ochlockonee or Subbasin I, Middle Ochlockonee or Subbasin II, Lower Ochlockonee or Subbasin III, Upper St. Marks or Subbasin IV, and Lower St. Ma rks or Subbasin V. The lower portions of both river systems are influenced by tides. 	 

 

    140

Land Use/ Acr eages: 

### Once the modeled area was divided into subbasins, the total acreage for each land use within each subbasin was determined. Because portions of the watersheds maybe in te rn a lly drained (not contributing to surface runoff directly to the river), those areas should be identified and removed from the modeled area. Acres identified as internally drained were calculated by GIS staff using GIS software and land use shapefiles. Acres within Georgia were ca lculat ed from land use data in EPA's BASINS modeling software. Tables F- 1 and F-2 provide estimates of the area considered contributing and noncontributing to surface runoff. The small area identified as non-contributing in Subbasin I is the area tributary to Lake Jackson. This area was removed from the modeled area. As can be seen on Figure 1 , over 50 percent of the St. Marks watershed were identified as internally drained or not co ntributing direct su rface water runoff to the river. This created heightened uncertainty for modeling in the St. Marks Basin. These internally drained areas, while not contributing directly to surface runoff, certainty contribute to sub-surface runoff (e.g. ground water inflows). Rainfall infiltrating into the ground in non-contributing areas may eventually contribute to the ground water interflow to the river by way of di stributed inflow al ong the rive r or thro ugh spring flow dir ectly to the river. Additionally, the water entering the river from spring flow may contai n el ements of water that has recently infiltrated into the system; older locally derived ground water, as well as ground water from catchments outside the surface drainage (such as internally drained areas). Im plementation of BMPs in watersheds such as these, were the amount of acreage considered internally drained is significant and large fractions of the river’s flow are from springs will require special consideration and attention.

  
Contributi ng and Non-Contributing Area to Surfa ce Runoff in Ochlockonee Watershed

L AND USE Subbasin Acres Modeled NonContri buting (I) UPPER (II) MIDDLE (III) LOWER TOTALS (I) UPPER Fo re s t/R ural Open 327,199 220,609 264,041 811,849 9,955 Agricu lture/Pasture 10,253 20,444 16,847 47,544 1,302 Low Dens ity Resid. 12,418 8,062 5,105 25,585 1,493 Medi um Density Resid. 2,684 3,712 1,893 8,289 2,507 High Dens ity Resid. 1,948 2,409 395 4,752 4,750 Commercial 1,979 1,077 301 3,357 458 Industrial 3,493 2,912 1,001 7,406 116 Highway 576 1,415 309 2,300 211 Water 4, 769 10,272 11,995 27,036 3,327 We tla nd s 27,046 16,848 175,287 219,181 2,565 Cropland 340,864 44,797 227 385,888 27 Open/H erbaceous 640 6,516 10,850 18,006 884 TO TA LS 733,869 339,073 488,251 1,561,193 27,595 	 

 

    141

  
Contributi ng and Non-Contributing Areas to Surface Runoff in St. Marks Ri ver Wate rshed

L AND USE Contrib Non-Contrib Contrib Non-Contrib U PPER UPPER LOWER LOWER TOTALS Fo re s t/R ural Open 29,899 150,272 78,290 141,130 399,591 Agricu lture/Pasture 4,123 37,466 6,536 5,290 53,415 Low Dens ity Resid. 2,935 11,815 11,135 7,781 33,666 Medi um Density Resid. 878 7,278 5,603 5,611 19,370 High Dens ity Resid. 0 9, 865 25 11,289 21,179 Commercial 36 2,440 658 4,473 7,607 Industrial 8 860 1,945 2,579 5,392 Highway 73 1, 065 51 1,544 2,733 Water 570 10,042 2,905 4,795 18,312 We tla nd s 17,008 21,771 15,976 95,907 150,662 Cropland 48 14,594 0 31 14,673 Open/H erbaceous 481 2,034 3,706 2,496 8,717 TO TA LS 56,059 269,502 126,830 282,926 735,317

Rainfall:



### In order to prepare rainfall data for the subbasins, rain gages were identified on the map of the watershed. Six stations were selected: Monticello, Tallahassee, and Quincy, in Florida and M oultrie, Thomasvill e, and Morgan in Georgia. The Ochlockonee-St. Marks Rive r watershed ar ea was divided into polygons following the Thiessen method of areal rainfall determination ( Figure 16 ). The weights of each rain gage station were calculated for each subbasin as listed below (sum of weights should equal to one).

For Subba sin I: Mo ultrie 0.2921, Morgan 0.0202, Quitman 0.1856, Monticello 0.1856, Tallahassee 0.0646, Quincy 0.2518, for S ubbasin II: Ta lla ha ss ee 0.2518, Quincy 0.7482, fo r Subbasin III: Ta lla ha ss ee 0.7677, Quincy 0.2323, for S ubbasin IV: Quitman 0.3620, Monticello 0.3620, Tallahassee 0.2760, for S ubbasin V: Quitman 0.0312, Monticello 0.0312, Tallahassee 0.9376. 	 

 

    142

Figure 16 Thiessen Polygons

Table D-3 sh ow s th e or ig in al ra in fa ll da ta in in ch es r eco rd ed at th e si x st a tio ns fo r ye ar s 1989 – 1998:

T

able D-3

Measured Rainfall (inc hes/year)

Year MONTICELLO MOULTRIE QUITMAN TALLAHASSEE MORGAN QUINCY 1989 67.6 49.3 51.4 63.6 49.3 61.1 1990 41.8 33.7 33.4 45.7 59.2 40.5 1991 73.9 67.7 74.5 72.3 29.1 87.8 1992 54.0 57.5 56.6 62.8 60.3 59.2 1993 47.1 53.0 51.6 51.9 59.1 58.1 1994 92.8 73.3 76.4 89.9 50.8 88.2 1995 56.5 46.0 44.7 52.4 34.4 58.0 1996 64.7 37.0 53.3 56.7 48.2 40.7 1997 67.6 55.9 58.7 64.3 58.3 66.5 1998 61.5 53.2 65.7 58.8 58.7 62.6 average 62.8 52.7 56.6 61.8 50.7 62.3



### Th e rainfall data used in the model for each subbasin, based on the preceding table and the previously described weights assigned to each rain gage station, are listed in Table D-4. 	 

 

    143

T

able D-4

Thessian Derived Rainfall Estimates (inc hes/year)

Year S ubbasin I Subbasin II Subbasin III Subbasin IV Subbasin V 1989 56.98 61.73 63.02 60.63 63.34 1990 38.15 41.81 44.49 39.84 45.19 1991 74.69 83.90 75.90 73.68 72.42 1992 57.51 60.11 61.96 57.37 62.33 1993 52.98 56.54 53.34 50.05 51.74 1994 81.87 88.63 89.51 86.06 89.57 1995 50.91 56.59 53.70 51.10 52.29 1996 47.60 44.73 52.98 58.37 56.84 1997 61.85 65.95 64.81 63.47 64.23 1998 59.90 61.64 59.68 62.28 59.10 Average 58.24 62.16 61.94 60.28 61.71

97-98 Average 62.87

Flows:


### Hydrologic data used in the Ochlockonee-St. Marks River basin analysis encompassed the period 1989 – 1998. Annual flow data in acre-feet were aggregated from da ily flows recorded by each of the three USGS stream gage stations and are presented in Table D-5 . Only the flows from Subbasins I, II, and into Subbasin V could be assess ed. However, as described previously, the flows recorded at USGS gage 02326900 were used as an approximation of the flow exiting Subbasin IV. The row la be le d sum depicts the accumulated flow volume from upstream to downstream.

T

able D-5
Total Accumulated Measured Volumes (acre-feet/year)

Year Flow fr om Subbasin I Flow from Subbasin II Flow from Subbasin IV 1989 425,201 799,946
1990 478,225 861,227
1991 1,505,998 2,318,670
1992 739,823 1,144,784 1993 769,632 1,153,833
1994 1,673,268 2,622,290 1995 641,946 1,037,270 1996 602,865 1,053,045
1997 834,813 1,426,116 535,329
1998 1,060,655 1,505,980 554,269

Su m 8
, 732,426 13,923,160 1,089,598

Av er age 873,243 1,392,316 544,799 	 

 

    144



### From Table D-5 the outflow volumes from individual subbasins were calculated. E ach outflow is a result of the total flow recorded at the mouth of the basin minus the total flow incoming from the upstream basin. Table D-6 provides the measured annual

ru no ff vo lu me s for each subbasin.

T able D-6

Measured volumes (acr e feet/year)

Year Flow fr om Subbasin I Flow from Subbasin II Flow from Subbasin IV 1989 425,201 374,745
1990 478,225 383,002
1991 1,505,998 812,672 1992 739,823 404,960
1993 769,632 384,200
1994 1,673,268 949,022 1995 641,946 395,324
1996 602,865 450,181
1997 834,813 591,302 535,329
1998 1,060,655 445,325 554,269

Av er age 873,243 519,073 544,799

M odel:



### Table D-7 contains the final annual averaged rainfall and flow values used in the model.

T able D-7
10-year average measured ra infall a nd runoff

Flow from Su bbasin I Flow from Subbasin II Flow from Subbasin IV Rain Fa ll (inc h) 58.24 62.16 62.87 Ru no ff (ac-ft) 873,243 519,073 544,799



### E ssentially, two parameters of WMM need to be adjusted (calibrated) to obtain a ba la nc e between measured rainfall and streamflow and predictions of surface and subsurface runoff: pervious area and impervious area runoff coefficients. For the Deep Cr eek watershed (tributary of Suwannee River, unpublished DEP Report 1998) these parameters were calibrated to the values 0.12 for pervious runoff coefficient and 0.92 for impervious runoff coefficient. Typically, a pervious runoff coefficient of 0.20 and an impervious runoff coefficient of 0.95 are used . On ce the best fit was obtained for runoff coefficients, estimates of baseflow were made in an a ttempt to understand the relative 	 

 

    145



### importan ce of ground water contributions in each subbasin. The values used for the percentages of directly connected impervious area (DCIA) for each land use are shown in Table D-8 for all of the five subbasins. For modeli ng the Ochlockonee Basin the small amount of internally drained area (the Lake J ackson subbasin) was subtracted from the total area. Based on the predictions of annual surface runoff from the final selected DCIAs, runoff coefficients, acreage of contributing area, and rainfall a baseflow was estimated for each subbasin to account for the diff erence between the predicted annual surface runoff and the annual measured streamflow (page 30, WMM Manual). More robust statistical methodologies are being examined to estimate baseflow. Baseflows used to obtain a final water balance in the Ochlockonee Basin are 6.8 inch/year estimated for Subbasin I and 10.5 inch/year were

us ed fo r Subbasins II and III. These values represent on an average annual basis a

me as ure of the relative importance of all ground water in flows within each subbasin to the flow of the main river system. For the St Marks Basin an e ff ective calibration was not practicable due to the complexity of it’s drainage and limited available information. In an effort to make the best possible use of available data seve ral scenar ios were examin ed. Once runoff coefficients for pervious and impervious area were selected the contribution from baseflow was examined to determine the relative importance of ground water inflows. If it were assumed that there was no surface runoff from the area identified as internally drained (over 50 percent of the basin) a baseflow of 27 inch/year would be required to obtain a flow bala nce. Use of a baseflow of 11.5 inch/year still resulted in under predicting the measured flow by over 100 percent. This information (large amount of interna lly drained acreag e and large baseflow) point to a ground water dominated surface water system. Initially, model runs were made over the entire basin (contributing and non-contributing areas). Thes e results are available upon request. For this report the predicted loadings are based only on the contributing acreage. However, in order to obtain rea listic instream water quality using only the contributing area and default EMCs would require baseflow concentrations that were unrealistically high. The procedure used for predictions was to calculate surface runoff from the contributing area, set baseflow to 11.5 inchs/year , and ma ke up the missing water volume from spring flow. Following this procedure resulted in realistic predictions of instream water quality and flows usi ng the default EMCs and median values from the GWIS database for baseflow and spring flow. What remains highly uncertain is the fate of the load generated within the no n-contributing area. The result s provided in this report are from the contributing areas, with a baseflow of 11.5 inch/year and the using the median values for baseflow concentration. The median values for baseflow were obtained from the DEP Generalized Water Information System (GWIS). Addition al scenarios coul d be modeled, as additional information becomes available. However, in order to accurately characterize th e relationship between surface and subsurface flows, a more detailed understanding of areas characterized as internally drained should be obtained. Additionally, because of the strong role played by ground water contributions to river flow, a detailed understanding of ground water sources and chemical constituents will be required. 	 

 

    146

T able D-8

Per centages for Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA)

Land use Default value(%) Calibrated DCIAs Used in al l su bbasins Fores t/Rural 0.50 0.5 Open/H erbaceous 0.50 0.5 Urban Open 0.50 0.5 Agricu ltural/Pasture 0.50 0.5 Cropland 0.50 0.5 Low Dens ity Residen tial 10. 00 2.0 Medi um Density Residential 30.00 5.0 High Dens ity Residen tial 50. 00 10.0 Commercial 90.00 10.0 Industrial 75.00 10.0 Highways 36.00 8.0 We tlands 30. 00 10.0 Water 30.00 10.0



### Table D-9 presents the final predictions of water volumes as a result of the calibration of parameters of WMM. Included are the measured and predicted volumes wi th th e Relative Percent Error (RPE). The equation for RPE is from Thomann (1982) as cited on page 5-13 of EPA Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations: Book III Estuaries, Part 2 (March 1990). 

### Relative Percent Error is (|(measured – predicted)|/ measured) * 100

T

able D-9

Measured and Predicted Ru noff Vo lumes (acr e feet/year)

S ubbasin I Subbasin II Subbasin IV Pr ed ic te d runoff 873,343 529,311 543,727 Me as ured runoff 873,243 519,073 544,799 Rela tive Percent Error 0.01 1.97 0.20

Water Qual ity/Lo ads:


### After the water volume balance was obtained, the land use specific loads were

s imu la te d by WMM for each subbasin. Table D-10 incl udes the default EMC values repres entative for Southeastern United States used for this calculation. Default EMC’s for croplands we re not incl uded as defaults in the model. Therefore, for this screening level modeling, EMCs for cropland were set to the same values as used for general agriculture. 	 

 

    147

  
Event M ean Concentration Values

BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS Fores t/Rural Open 1 0. 004 0.31 0.94 0.05 11 Agricu lture/Pasture 4 0.2 3 0.58 1.74 0.34 55 Low Dens ity Residential 15 0 .33 0.63 1.34 0.44 27 Medi um Density Residential 9 0.27 0.27 1.77 0.45 59 High Dens ity Residential 8 0. 09 0.67 1.03 0.20 42 Commercial 8 0.09 0.67 1.03 0.20 42 Industrial 14 0.20 0.40 1.47 0.28 77 Highways 11 0.15 0.34 1.51 0.40 121 Water/We tlands 3 0.0 9 0.20 1.10 0.17 5 We tlands 5 0. 10 0.40 1.10 0.19 5 Cropland 4 0 .23 0.58 1.74 0.34 55 Open Herba ceous 1 0. 004 0.31 0.94 0.05 11

M easured Loads:


### Only one flow station (Upper Ochlockonee, Subbasin I) had long-term water quality data from stations sampled in the vicinity of the long-term flow gage. Measured flows were used with the measurements of water quality to calculate instream estimates of lo ads for this subbasin. For each parameter, monthly average concentrations for the period 1989 – 1998 were calculated. These monthly average concentrations were multiplied by the monthly aver age flows to generate estimates of the “measured” monthly loads. Th ese average monthly loads were summed up to generate estimates of long-term average annual loads. Because the data was sparse and not every month had a sample result we used th e following procedure to fill in the missing data. From the available monthly data an average was developed over all of the years. These monthly averages were used to fill in months when no samples were collected. Recall that Total Nitrogen (TN) is not a mode led parameter. It is calculated as the sum of TKN plus NO23. Table D-11 provides the total accumulated loads measured at the mouth of Subbasin I. This is the only subbasin to have sufficient long-term water quality data for calibration.

  
Loads Calcul ated from instream measured data (flows and concentrations) (lbs./ year)

DP NO23 TKN TP TSS S ubbasin I 163,991 1,647,883 1,414,193 422,688 233,124,280 	 

 

    148

Predicte d Loads:



### Ther e was only one subbasin where sufficient long-term water quality data could be associated with a flow station. As a consequence, only Subbasin I (Upper Ochlockonee) can be used to compare measured and predicted loads. For the purpose of calibration thr ee different assumptions were tested with respect to the concentration of substances in ground water making up baseflow. These were (1) that the baseflow concentrations were zero, (2) that concentrations were equal to the median value of the unconfined aquifer in Reporting Unit A (Ochlockonee-St. Marks), and (3) that concentrations were equal to the upper quartiles of the same data. No ground water data existed for BOD so values of 0.0 and 1.0 were assumed. Total nitrogen is presented as the sum of TKN + NO 23 

### . The values used to repres ent baseflow concentrations are listed in Table D-12

.

  
Measured Con centrations for Base flow Cali bra tion

BASE FLOW BOD TKN NO 23 TN TP DP TSS Ze ro 0000000 Median mg /l 1.0 0.03 0

. 029 0.059 0.022 0.013 4.0 U

ppe r Qu ar tile 1.0 0.107 0.460 0.567 0.055 0.056 29.0



### The result of calibration (adjusting DCIAs) in Su bbasin I is shown in Table D-13

.

  
Results for Baseflow Ca libration, Total Measured and Predic ted Loads for the U pper Ochlockonee (Subbasin I) includ ing Relative Percen t Erro r (lbs./ year).

Baseflow Co n centrations Equal Zero BOD TKN NO 23 TN TP Ortho-P TSS

meas u red 1,414,193 1,647,883 3,062,076 422,688 163,991 233,124,280
p redicted 3,842,236 1,662,691 557,324 2,220,015 255,458 154,444 40,174,132 RPE 18 66 27 40 6 83 Baseflow Con centrations Equal Median BOD TKN NO 23 TN TP Ortho-P TSS

meas u red 1,414,193 1,647,883 3,062,076 422,688 163,991 233,124,280
p redicted 4,973,088 1,696,617 590,119 2,286,735 280,337 169,145 44,697,541 RPE 20 64 25 34 3 81 Baseflow Co n centrations Equal Upper Quartile BOD TKN NO 23 TN TP Ortho-P TSS

meas u red 1,414,193 1,647,883 3,062,076 422,688 163,991 233,124,280
p redicted 4,973,088 1,783,692 1,077,516 2,861,208 317,655 217,772 72,968,849 RPE 26 35 7 25 33 69



### It can be seen from thes e results for al l paramete rs and al l comb inations of baseflow concentration that the RPE was within the range of values reported in the literature for screeni ng level models. From this effort, it can be seen that the model under predicts 	 

 

    149



### NO 23 

### and over predicts TKN such that prediction of TN is fairly good. The NO 23 

### concentration of baseflow would have to be significantly greater than the 75 percentile of the GWIS data to match the measured NO 23 

### load. Conversely, us i ng 0.0 for the baseflow concentration of TKN still resulted in over predicting the load. Use of the median concentration for ortho-p resulted in the best fit to the measured load. It should be noted that the same reductions in RP E coul d be achieved in the model by other means, such as incr easing the EMC values or by changing the relationship between other model coefficients and parameters. However, before any conclusion is drawn as to how di fferent the EMCs in thes e watersheds are from the regional values, basin specific i nvestigations should be undertaken. The model (without water quality calibration) had its gr eatest error predicting NO 23 

### and TSS. If these parameters are important within these watersheds, future work should focus efforts on a greater characterization of the factors that control TSS, and NO 23 

### sources and sinks. In order to provide information on the relationship between land use, loadings and the individual subbas ins; Tables D (A-C) 14 through 18 were prepared depicting the predictions of loadings for each parameter/subbasin combination and expressed as lb s./acre/year. The tables include the total acreage for each land use/subbasin combination so that annual average load by land use/subbasin can be calculated. This presentation will also allow these loading rates to be compared to results from other watersheds. 	 

 

    150

Table D-14A (baseflow concentrations equal zero) Ochlocko n ee Subbas in I (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 327,199 1.636 0.007 0.507 1.538 0.082 18.001 Agricu lture/Pasture 10, 253 6.546 0.376 0.949 2.847 0.556 90.005 Low Dens ity Resid. 12,418 26.922 0.592 1.131 2.405 0.790 48.460 Me dium Density Resid. 2,684 19.004 0.570 0.570 3.737 0.950 124.581 Hi gh Density Resid. 1,948 21.115 0.238 1.768 2.719 0.528 110.856 Commercial 1,979 21.115 0.238 1.768 2.719 0.528 110.856 Industrial 3,493 36.952 0.528 1.056 3.880 0.739 203.237 Hi ghway 576 26.711 0.364 0.826 3.667 0.971 293.822 Water 4, 769 7.918 0.238 0.528 2.903 0.449 13.197 We tlands 27, 046 13.197 0.264 1.056 2.903 0.501 13.197 Cropland 340,864 6.546 0.376 0.949 2.847 0.556 90.005 Open/H erbaceous 640 1.636 0.007 0.507 1.538 0.082 18.001 Su m 733,869 Average 5

. 236 0.210 0.759 2.266 0.348 54.743

Table D-15A (baseflow concentrations equal zero) Ochlocko n ee Subbasin II (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 220609 1.747 0.007 0.541 1.642 0.087 19.213 Ag riculture/Pasture 20444 6.986 0.402 1.013 3.039 0.594 96.063 Lo w De ns ity Re si d. 8062 28.734 0.632 1.207 2.567 0.843 51.722 Me dium Density Resid. 3712 20.283 0.608 0.608 3.989 1.014 132.967 Hi gh Density Resid. 2409 22.537 0.254 1.887 2.902 0.563 118.318 Commercial 1077 22.537 0.254 1.887 2.902 0.563 118.318 Industrial 2912 39.439 0.563 1.127 4.141 0.789 216.916 Hi ghway 1415 28.509 0.389 0.881 3.914 1.037 313.599 Wa te r 10272 8.451 0.254 0.563 3.099 0.479 14.085 We tla nd s 16848 14.085 0.282 1.127 3.099 0.535 14.085 Cropland 44797 6.986 0.402 1.013 3.039 0.594 96.063 Op en /H er ba ceo us 6516 1.747 0.007 0.541 1.642 0.087 19.213 Su m 339072 Average 5

. 065 0.134 0.699 2.119 0.262 39.553 	 

 

    151

Table D-16A (baseflow con centrations equal zero) Ochlocko n ee Subbasin III (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 264,041 1.740 0.007 0.540 1.636 0.087 19.145 Agricu lture/Pasture 16, 847 6.962 0.400 1.009 3.028 0.592 95.723 Low Dens ity Resid. 5,105 28.633 0.630 1.203 2.558 0.840 51.539 Me dium Density Resid. 1,893 20.211 0.606 0.606 3.975 1.011 132.496 Hi gh Density Resid. 395 22.457 0.253 1.881 2.891 0.561 117.899 Commercial 301 22.457 0.253 1.881 2.891 0.561 117.899 Industrial 1,001 39.300 0.561 1.123 4.126 0.786 216.148 Hi ghway 309 28.408 0.387 0.878 3.900 1.033 312.489 Water 11,995 8.421 0.253 0.561 3.088 0.477 14.036 We tla nd s 175,287 14.036 0.281 1.123 3.088 0.533 14.036 Cropland 227 6.962 0.400 1.009 3.028 0.592 95.723 Open/H erbaceous 10, 850 1.740 0.007 0.540 1.636 0.087 19.145 Su m 488,251 Average 6

. 977 0.136 0.776 2.269 0.289 21.371

Table D-17A (baseflow concentrations equal zero) St Marks Subbasin IV (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fores t/Rural Op en 29,899 1.694 0.007 0.525 1.592 0.085 18.631 Agricu lture/Pasture 4, 123 6.775 0.390 0.982 2.947 0.576 93.157 Low Dens ity Resid. 2,935 27.865 0.613 1.170 2.489 0.817 50.157 Me dium Density Resid. 878 19.670 0.590 0.590 3.868 0.983 128.945 Hi gh Density Resid. 0 21.855 0.246 1.830 2.814 0.546 114.739 Commercial 36 21.855 0.246 1.830 2.814 0.546 114.739 Industrial 8 38.246 0.546 1.093 4.016 0.765 210.355 Hi ghway 73 27.647 0.377 0.855 3.795 1.005 304.114 Water 570 8.196 0.246 0.546 3.005 0.464 13.659 We tlands 17, 008 13.659 0.273 1.093 3.005 0.519 13.659 Cropland 48 6.775 0.390 0.982 2.947 0.576 93.157 Open/H erbaceous 481 1.694 0.007 0.525 1.592 0.085 18.631 Sum 56,059 Average 7

. 472 0.160 0.768 1.397 0.311 26.457 	 

 

    152

Table D-18A (baseflow concentrations equal zero) St Marks Subbasin V (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fores t/Rural Op en 78,290 1.734 0.007 0.538 1.630 0.087 19.073 Agricu lture/Pasture 6, 536 6.936 0.399 1.006 3.017 0.590 95.367 Low Dens ity Resid. 11,135 28.526 0.628 1.198 2.548 0.837 51.347 Me dium Density Resid. 5,603 20.136 0.604 0.604 3.960 1.007 132.004 Hi gh Density Resid. 25 22.374 0.252 1.874 2.881 0.559 117.461 Commercial 658 22.374 0.252 1.874 2.881 0.559 117.461 Industrial 1,945 39.154 0.559 1.119 4.111 0.783 215.346 Hi ghway 51 28.303 0.386 0.875 3.885 1.029 311.328 Water 2, 905 8.390 0.252 0.559 3.076 0.475 13.983 We tlands 15, 976 13.983 0.280 1.119 3.076 0.531 13.983 Cropland 0 6.936 0.399 1.006 3.017 0.590 95.367 Open/H erbaceous 3, 706 1.734 0.007 0.538 1.630 0.087 19.073 Su m 126,830 Average 7

. 558 0.158 0.713 2.146 0.298 33.727

Table D-14B (baseflow concentrations equal medians) Ochlocko n ee Subbas in I (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 327,199 3.177 0.027 0.552 1.584 0.116 24.165 Agricu lture/Pasture 10, 253 8.087 0.396 0.994 2.894 0.590 96.169 Low Dens ity Resid. 12,418 28.463 0.612 1.175 2.451 0.824 54.624 Me dium Density Resid. 2,684 20.545 0.590 0.615 3.784 0.984 130.745 Hi gh Density Resid. 1,948 22.656 0.258 1.813 2.765 0.562 117.020 Commercial 1,979 22.656 0.258 1.813 2.765 0.562 117.020 Industrial 3,493 38.493 0.548 1.100 3.926 0.773 209.400 Hi ghway 576 28.252 0.384 0.870 3.713 1.005 299.986 Water 4, 769 9.459 0.258 0.573 2.950 0.483 19.361 We tlands 27, 046 14.738 0.284 1.100 2.950 0.535 19.361 Cropland 340,864 8.087 0.396 0.994 2.894 0.590 96.169 Open/H erbaceous 640 3.177 0.027 0.552 1.584 0.116 24.165 Su m 733,869 Average 6

. 777 0.230 0.804 2.312 0.382 60.907 	 

 

    153

Table D-15B (baseflow concentrations equal medians) Ochlocko n ee Subbasin II (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 220,609 4.126 0.038 0.610 1.713 0.140 28.730 Ag riculture/Pasture 20,444 9.366 0.433 1.082 3.110 0.646 105.580 Low Dens ity Resid. 8,062 31.114 0.663 1.276 2.638 0.895 61.239 Me dium Density Resid. 3,712 22.662 0.639 0.677 4.060 1.066 142.484 Hi gh Density Resid. 2,409 24.916 0.284 1.956 2.973 0.616 127.835 Commercial 1,077 24.916 0.284 1.956 2.973 0.616 127.835 Industrial 2,912 41.819 0.594 1.196 4.213 0.841 226.434 Hi ghway 1,415 30.888 0.420 0.950 3.985 1.089 323.116 Water 10,272 10.831 0.284 0.632 3.170 0.531 23.603 We tlands 16, 848 16.465 0.313 1.196 3.170 0.588 23.603 Cropland 44,797 9.366 0.433 1.082 3.110 0.646 105.580 Open/H erbaceous 6, 516 4.126 0.038 0.610 1.713 0.140 28.730 Su m 339,073 Average 7

. 444 0.165 0.768 2.190 0.314 49.070

Table D-16B (baseflow concentrations equal medians) Ochlocko n ee Subbasin III (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 264,041 4.120 0.038 0.609 1.707 0.139 28.662 Ag riculture/Pasture 16,847 9.341 0.431 1.078 3.100 0.644 105.240 Low Dens ity Resid. 5,105 31.012 0.661 1.272 2.629 0.892 61.056 Me dium Density Resid. 1,893 22.591 0.637 0.675 4.046 1.063 142.014 Hi gh Density Resid. 395 24.836 0.284 1.950 2.963 0.614 127.417 Commercial 301 24.836 0.284 1.950 2.963 0.614 127.417 Industrial 1,001 41.679 0.592 1.192 4.198 0.838 225.666 Hi ghway 309 30.787 0.418 0.947 3.971 1.085 322.006 Water 11,995 10.801 0.284 0.630 3.159 0.530 23.553 We tla nd s 175,287 16.415 0.312 1.192 3.159 0.586 23.553 Cropland 227 9.341 0.431 1.078 3.100 0.644 105.240 Open/H erbaceous 10, 850 4.120 0.038 0.609 1.707 0.139 28.662 Su m 488,251 Average 9

. 357 0.167 0.845 2.340 0.341 30.889 	 

 

    154

Table D-17B (baseflow concentrations equal medians) St. Mark s Su bbasin IV (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fores t/Rural Op en 29,899 4.300 0.041 0.601 1.670 0.142 29.056 Ag riculture/Pasture 4,123 9.381 0.423 1.058 3.025 0.633 103.581 Low Dens ity Resid. 2,935 30.471 0.647 1.246 2.567 0.875 60.582 Me dium Density Resid. 878 22.276 0.624 0.666 3.947 1.041 139.369 Hi gh Density Resid. 0 24.461 0.280 1.906 2.892 0.604 125.163 Commercial 36 24.461 0.280 1.906 2.892 0.604 125.163 Industrial 8 40.852 0.580 1.168 4.094 0.822 220.780 Hi ghway 73 30.253 0.411 0.930 3.873 1.063 314.538 Water 570 10.802 0.280 0.622 3.083 0.522 24.083 We tlands 17, 008 16.265 0.307 1.168 3.083 0.576 24.083 Cropland 48 9.381 0.423 1.058 3.025 0.633 103.581 Open/H erbaceous 481 4.300 0.041 0.601 1.670 0.142 29.056 Sum 56,059 Average 10.078 0.194 0.843 2.301 0.368 36.881

Table D-18B (baseflow concentrations equal medians) St. Mark s Su bbasin V (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS Fores t/Rural Op en 78,290 4.340 0.041 0.613 1.708 0.144 29.498 Ag riculture/Pasture 6,536 9.542 0.433 1.081 3.095 0.647 105.791 Low Dens ity Resid. 11,135 31.132 0.661 1.274 2.627 0.894 61.771 Me dium Density Resid. 5,603 22.742 0.638 0.680 4.038 1.064 142.428 Hi gh Density Resid. 25 24.980 0.286 1.949 2.959 0.617 127.885 Commercial 658 24.980 0.286 1.949 2.959 0.617 127.885 Industrial 1,945 41.760 0.593 1.194 4.189 0.840 225.770 Hi ghway 51 30.909 0.420 0.950 3.963 1.087 321.752 Water 2, 905 10.996 0.286 0.635 3.155 0.533 24.408 We tlands 15, 976 16.589 0.314 1.194 3.155 0.589 24.408 Cropland 0 9.542 0.433 1.081 3.095 0.647 105.791 Open/H erbaceous 3, 706 4.340 0.041 0.613 1.708 0.144 29.498 Su m 126,830 Average 10.164 0.192 0.788 2.224 0.355 44.151 	 

 

    155

Table D-14C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile) Ochlocko n ee Subbas in I (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 327,199 3.177 0.093 1.216 1.703 0.167 62.688 Ag riculture/Pasture 10,253 8.087 0.463 1.658 3.012 0.641 134.692 Low Dens ity Resid. 12,418 28.463 0.679 1.840 2.570 0.874 93.147 Me dium Density Resid. 2,684 20.545 0.656 1.279 3.902 1.035 169.269 Hi gh Density Resid. 1,948 22.656 0.324 2.477 2.884 0.613 155.544 Commercial 1,979 22.656 0.324 2.477 2.884 0.613 155.544 Industrial 3,493 38.493 0.614 1.765 4.045 0.824 247.924 Hi ghway 576 28.252 0.451 1.534 3.832 1.056 338.510 Water 4, 769 9.459 0.324 1.237 3.068 0.533 57.885 We tlands 27, 046 14.738 0.350 1.765 3.068 0.586 57.885 Cropland 340,864 8.087 0.463 1.658 3.012 0.641 134.692 Open/H erbaceous 640 3.177 0.093 1.216 1.703 0.167 62.688 Su m 733,869 Average 6

. 777 0.297 1.468 2.431 0.433 99.430

Table D-15C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile) Ochlocko n ee Subbasin II (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 220,609 4.126 0.140 1.636 1.896 0.218 88.215 Ag riculture/Pasture 20,444 9.366 0.535 2.108 3.294 0.725 165.065 Lo w De ns ity Re si d. 8,062 31.114 0.765 2.301 2.822 0.974 120.724 Me dium Density Resid. 3,712 22.662 0.742 1.703 4.244 1.145 201.969 Hi gh Density Resid. 2,409 24.916 0.387 2.982 3.156 0.694 187.320 Commercial 1,077 24.916 0.387 2.982 3.156 0.694 187.320 Industrial 2,912 41.819 0.697 2.221 4.396 0.920 285.919 Hi ghway 1,415 30.888 0.522 1.976 4.168 1.168 382.601 Water 10,272 10.831 0.387 1.658 3.353 0.610 83.088 We tlands 16, 848 16.465 0.415 2.221 3.353 0.666 83.088 Cropland 44,797 9.366 0.535 2.108 3.294 0.725 165.065 Open/H erbaceous 6, 516 4.126 0.140 1.636 1.896 0.218 88.215 Su m 339,073 Av er ag e 7

. 444 0.268 1.793 2.373 0.393 108.555 	 

 

    156

Table D-16C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile) Ochlocko n ee Subbasin III (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fo re s t/R ural Open 264,041 4.120 0.140 1.634 1.891 0.218 88.147 Ag riculture/Pasture 16,847 9.341 0.534 2.104 3.283 0.723 164.725 Lo w De ns ity Re si d. 5,105 31.012 0.763 2.297 2.812 0.971 120.541 Me dium Density Resid. 1,893 22.591 0.740 1.701 4.229 1.141 201.499 Hi gh Density Resid. 395 24.836 0.386 2.975 3.146 0.692 186.902 Commercial 301 24.836 0.386 2.975 3.146 0.692 186.902 Industrial 1,001 41.679 0.695 2.217 4.381 0.917 285.151 Hi ghway 309 30.787 0.521 1.973 4.154 1.164 381.491 Water 11,995 10.801 0.386 1.656 3.342 0.608 83.038 We tla nd s 175,287 16.415 0.414 2.217 3.342 0.664 83.038 Cropland 227 9.341 0.534 2.104 3.283 0.723 164.725 Open/H erbaceous 10, 850 4.120 0.140 1.634 1.891 0.218 88.147 Su m 488,251 Average 9

. 357 0.269 1.871 2.523 0.420 90.374

Table D-17C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile) St. Mark s Su bbasin IV (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fores t/Rural Op en 29,899 4.300 0.153 1.724 1.871 0.228 94.206 Ag riculture/Pasture 4,123 9.381 0.536 2.181 3.226 0.719 168.732 Lo w De ns ity Re si d. 2,935 30.471 0.759 2.369 2.768 0.961 125.732 Me dium Density Resid. 878 22.276 0.736 1.789 4.147 1.127 204.520 Hi gh Density Resid. 0 24.461 0.392 3.029 3.093 0.690 190.314 Commercial 36 24.461 0.392 3.029 3.093 0.690 190.314 Industrial 8 40.852 0.692 2.292 4.295 0.908 285.930 Hi ghway 73 30.253 0.523 2.053 4.074 1.149 379.688 Water 570 10.802 0.392 1.745 3.284 0.608 89.234 We tlands 17, 008 16.265 0.419 2.292 3.284 0.662 89.234 Cropland 48 9.381 0.536 2.181 3.226 0.719 168.732 Open/H erbaceous 481 4.300 0.153 1.724 1.871 0.228 94.206 Sum 56,059 Av er ag e 10.078 0.306 1.966 2.501 0.454 102.031 	 

 

    157

Table D-18C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile) St. Mark s Su bbasin V (lbs./ac re/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO 23 TKN TP TSS Fores t/Rural Op en 78,290 4.340 0.153 1.736 1.909 0.230 94.648 Ag riculture/Pasture 6,536 9.542 0.545 2.204 3.296 0.733 170.942 Lo w De ns ity Re si d. 11,135 31.132 0.774 2.397 2.827 0.980 126.922 Me dium Density Resid. 5,603 22.742 0.750 1.803 4.239 1.150 207.578 Hi gh Density Resid. 25 24.980 0.398 3.073 3.159 0.703 193.036 Commercial 658 24.980 0.398 3.073 3.159 0.703 193.036 Industrial 1,945 41.760 0.705 2.317 4.390 0.926 290.920 Hi ghway 51 30.909 0.532 2.074 4.164 1.173 386.903 Water 2, 905 10.996 0.398 1.758 3.355 0.619 89.558 We tlands 15, 976 16.589 0.426 2.317 3.355 0.675 89.558 Cropland 0 9.542 0.545 2.204 3.296 0.733 170.942 Open/H erbaceous 3, 706 4.340 0.153 1.736 1.909 0.230 94.648 Su m 126,830 Av er ag e 10.164 0.304 1.911 2.425 0.441 109.301 	 

 

    158



## Appendix E: Basin Status Report Assessment Methodology
The Department relies on e nvironmental data from a variety of sources to carry out its mi ssion in protecti ng human health and the environm ent. Eff ective project planning, sampling design, and raw data review are essential to ensure that the data collected and analyzed are relevant to the decisions being made.



### Federal and State Requirements

Th e primary starting point for the Basin Status Report was the 305(b) assessment

re port. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to report biennially to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on their water quality. The 305(b)

re port provides information on the physical, chemical, biological, and cultural features of each river basin in the state. This initial assessment provides a common factual basis for identifying information sour ces and major issues, and determining future changes, strategies, and actions necessary to preserve, protect, and/or restore water quality in indi vi dual basins. Understanding the physical framework of each basin allows the development of a methodology and an accurate picture of the waters that are most impaired or vu lnerable to contamination. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to submit lists of surface waters that do not meet app licable water quality standards and establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each of these waters on a prioritized schedule. In 1999, the Florida le gislatur e enacted the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, which clarifies the Department’s statutory authority to establish TMDLs, and establishes a process for identifying and listing impaire d waters and for developing TMDLs and the associated watershed management plans needed to allocate and achieve the needed pollutant load

re ductions. Section 303(d) of the CWA and Chapter 403.067, Florida Statutes (F.S.), describe impaired waters as those waterbodie s or waterb ody segments that do not m eet applicable water quality standards. This is a broad term that includes designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating provisions. Using procedures defined in the draft Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, Section 62-303, Florida Admi nistrative Code, existing water quality data were evaluated to determine whether waters on the 1998 303(d) list in each basin were, in fact, impaired.



### Watershed Management Approach The Department 's statewide approach to water resource management, called the watershed ma nagement approach, is the framework for implementing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) as required by the federal and state governments. Rather than focusi ng on individual sources of pollution, each entire basin is assessed as a functioning system. The waters hed management approach will be imp lemented through the watershed management cycle, a five-phase process through which federal, state, regional, tribal, and loca l governme nts identify watersheds not meeting clean water or other natural

resour ce goals and work cooperatively to focus resources and implement effective 	 

 

    159



### strategies to restore water quality. The Basin Status Report initiates Phase 1 of the cycle fo r each basin. E ach Basin Status Report evaluates surface water quality and provides a broad overvi ew and analysis of the basin, characterizing its hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting, and historical, cu rrent, and proposed watershed management issues and activities. Each assessment includes an analysis of major water quality parameters; water quality issues by planning unit; an evaluation of ecological resources; land use potential and pollutant loadings; and a planning list of potentially impaired waters.



### Impaired Waters Rule

The IWR estab lishes the method ology to identify surface wa ters of the state that will be incl uded on the state’s planning list of waters to be assessed under Chapters 403.067(2) and (3), Florida Statutes. The methodology for developing the planning list in cl udes an evaluation of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use

s upport, fish and shellfish consumption use support, drinking water use support, and protection of huma n health. The rule also establishes a me thodology to identify impaired waters that will be included on the state’s verified list of impaired waters, for which the Department will calculate total maximu m daily loads (TMDLs ), un der Subsection 403.067(4), Florida Statutes. Th e basin status reports follow the methodology in Section 62-303.300, Florida Ad ministrative Code, to develop a planning list pursuant to Subsection 403.067(2), Florida Statutes. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), Florida Statutes, the planning li st w ill not be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory program. It will be submi tted to the EPA for inform ational purposes only. Waters on this planning list have been assessed pursuant to Chapter 403.067(3), Florida Statutes, as part of the Department’s watershed management approach . During this assessment, the Department will determine if the waterb ody is impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant di sc ha rg es using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, the verified list, of the IWR. The resultant verified list of impaired wa ters will then consist of the list of waters for which TM DLs will be developed by the Department.



### STORET

STORET is the EP A’s Oracle -bas ed STO rage and RET riev al data base. It is used to store the nation’s biol ogical, chemical, and physical wate r quality data for ground water and surface water. In Florida, federal, state, local, and interstate agencies; universities, contractors; laboratories; and volunteer organizations such as LakeWatch and the Bream Fisherman’s Association submit data to STORET. In early 1992, the EPA modernized STORET to take advantage of new technological and information manage ment developments. As a result , STORET now consists of two interrelated da tabase s. The Lega cy Data Cent er (LDC) stores historical water quality data from the 1960s until the end of 1998. The modernized STORET database contains data collected from 1999 onwards. 	 

 

    160



### Basin St atus Reports

Th e primary objective of the Basin Status Reports is to evaluate surface water quality data to determin e if indi vidual waterbodies and/or segments are potentially impaired ba se d on the IWR methodology in Section 62-303, Florida Administrative Code. Three categories—chemical data, biological data, and fish consumption advisories—were evaluated to determine if a water segmen t was/is potentially impaired. Potential impairments were determined by evaluating whether an assessment unit (a waterbody segment with a waterbody identification number, or WBID) met the planning list criteria defined in the IWR for specif ic chemical parameters, nutrient impairment, biological impairment, fish consumption advisory, or ecological impairment. As noted above, the rule identifies the criteria for determining if waters are to be incl uded on the planning list and/or verified list. The criteria for the planning list are less stringent than the criteria for the verified list. Once an assessment unit is placed on the pl a nning list, the data for each waterbody and/or segment will be examined based on IWR crit eria to de termine if the water sh ould be in cl uded on the verified list or if additional data are needed to make that determination. The chemistry data used in the basin assessments are taken from the EPA’s STORET database. The stations used for the chemical assessment were determined to be ambient surface water stations, and information from point sources or wells was specifically excluded. Stations were classified as one of five waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria described in the 305(b) report. The chemistry data for the planning list covers the period from 1989 to 1998. It includes parameters categorized as metals (e.g., arsenic, lead, and cadmium), nutrients (e.g., chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) or conventional parameters (e.g., oil and grease, fecal coliforms, and pH). The che mistry da ta for the verified list covers the period from 1994 to 1998 and includes the same parameters. The planning and verified lists will be amended to include any additional chemistry or biology data that are gathered or reported chemistry data from 1998 to the present, once those data are verified through the IWR protocol. The chemistry data were analyzed to determine if an assessment unit should be pl aced on the planning list for each of the above parameters. The analysis consisted of

r unning the data through a SAS computer program that was written according to the lan guage contained in the IWR, with two exceptions. First, the unionized ammonia data was not analyzed by the program, but rather by using an Excel spreadsheet. Second, the full language for pH could not be programmed, and thus the incomplete listings for pH are not included, but will be investigated further while additional data are being collected. Data analysis and statistical summaries of WBIDs, wa terbody types, and parame ters obtained through STORET data were co n ducted using Excel applications, SYSTAT statistical software, and ArcView GIS applications. The meta l and co nventional parameter data were compared with the state ‘s numeric criteria in Section 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code. A water was placed on the pl a nning list if there was at least 80 percent confidence that the actual criteria exceedance

ra te was greater than or equal to 10 percent. A table of sample sizes versus exceedances

ma y be fo und in Section 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, Table 1, of the IWR. Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating the Trophic State Index (TSI) for lakes and calculatin g annual mean chloro phyll a values fo r estu aries and 	 

 

    161



### st r eams. For lakes, the TSI was calculated based on procedures outlined in the 1996 305(b) report. Lakes with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units were considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. Lakes with a mean color less than or equal to 40 platinum cobalt units were considered nutrient enriched if th e annual means TSI exceeded 40. In addition, lakes were considered nutrient enriched if there was an increase in TSI over the 1989 to 1998 period or if TSI measurements were ten units higher th an historical values. In estuarine areas, if the annual mean chlorophyll

a values were gr eater than 11 μ g/L or if annual mean chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive years, the water was considered nutrient enriched. For streams, if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μ g/l or if the annual means increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive years, the water was considered nutrient enriched. Se gm en ts were placed on the planning list based on fish consumption advisories issued by th e Florida Department of Health, urging limited co nsumption or no consumption of fish in select Florida waters because of high levels of mercury or other contaminants in fish tiss ue. The biol ogy data were a ssessed usi ng the IWR as guidance. The purpose behind using bioassessment methodology in surface water characterizations is that biological components of the environment manifest long-term water quality conditions and thus provide a better indication of a waterbody’s true health than discrete chem ical or physical

measur ements alone. Similar to water quality criteria, bioassessm ent me thods in volve the identifi cation of a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpaired or least-impacted waters in a given region. Fo r the Basin Status Reports, the reference condition data were used to establish expected scores, ranging from best to worst, for various m easures of community structure and function, such as numbers or percentages of particular species or f eeding groups. Community structure and function data from waters of unknown quality within the same region as reference waters were compared with the expe cted scores of metrics to evaluate their biological integrities. Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Diptera, percent filter feeders) were used i ndependently and as an aggregated group called an index. Indices have advantages over individual metrics in that they can integrat e several related metrics into one scor e that reflects a wider range of biological variable s. A numb er of bi oasse ssment metrics and indices exist for assessing populations of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms (e.g., microscopic algae, uni cellular plankton), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, crayfish, sn ails, and mussels). Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in the bioass essments analyzed for the basin reports. This included data from sites designated as test and background sites for NPDES fifth-year inspections, but excluded data from effluent outfalls from discharging facilities or data from monitoring sites not cl early established to collect ambient water quality data. Because site-specific habitat and physicochemical assessment information (e.g., percent suitable macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities, extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian buffer zone widths) we re not availabl e at the time of reporting, they were not included here. However, habitat and physicochemical asse ssment information is instrumental in pinpoi nting the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and will be included in future 	 

 

    162



### reporting. Data used in the basin stat us reports we re obtained from the Department’s Biol ogical Database (SBI O) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality Database, where it could be substantiated that such data were generated in compliance with the bioassessment standard operating procedures referenced in Section 62-303.330, Florida Administrati ve Co de. Bioassessments were pr ovided for st r eams, lakes, canals and rivers. Scoring of the in di vi dual metrics of the LCI, except percent Diptera, were performed according to the follow ing formula:

100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = observed value

For pe r cent Diptera the following formula was used:

100 (100-B)/(100-A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = obser ved value

An average LCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the six metrics contained within the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders Epheme roptera, Odon ata and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; Shanno n-Wiener Index score; Hulb ert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals. LCI calcul ations are only provided for clear lakes (< 20 platinum cobalt units). Since

m acroinvertebrate-based indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in Florida accurately (> 20 platinum cobalt units), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A total SCI score was calculated by adding the scores of the seven metrics contained within the method, i.e., total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders Ephemero pter a, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent Chironomid taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and Florida Index. Definitions and specif ic methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data are referenced in the Basin Status Reports. Data were used from the da tabases noted above without regard to the randomness of sample site selection. The general period of record for data used in the analysis of lotic waters was January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1998. The period of record for data used in the analysis of lentic waters was June 21, 1995, through December 31, 1998. The

s easons are defined as follows: winter (1/1–3/31), spring (4/1–6/30), summer (7/1–9/30) and fall (10/1–12/31). Wet seasons are generally spring and summer and dry seasons are fall and winter , altho ugh conditions can vary within the state as a whole. 	 

 

    163



## Appendix F: Bioassessments by Planning Unit and Supporting Data

North Ochlockonee River SCI, BioRecon and Hester-Dendy data from twelve waters within this planning unit were available for analysis, from the period December, 1991 through September 1998. Waters incl uded Black Creek, Double Branch, G Creek, Hurricane Creek, Little River, Monroe Creek, Ocklawaha Creek, Quincy Creek, Swamp Creek, Three Pole Creek, Unnamed Branch and Willacoochee Creek. Those indicated as potentially impaired, due to failing scores or severely stressed conditions on at least one occasion during the period of record, included Black Creek, Unnamed Branch and Three Pole Creek. All others had passing scores on their respective assessments, indicating the planning unit is in relatively good condition. The results of assessm ents con ducted in Black Creek were highly variable during the period of record with no discernable pattern of improvement or decline. Inconsistencies also existed be tween th e results of SCI and BioRecon assessments in Black Creek conducted on the same day or within a few months of each other. This would indicate either some failur e in the application of the method, or perhaps seasonal effects specific to this waterbody, and further testing should be performed within Black Creek to determine its true quality. The U nnamed Branch and Three Pole Creek sites (STORET stations numbers 22020078 and 22020077) were located downstream and upstream respectively of the Hopkins Generating Plant. SCI and Hester-Dendy assessments conducted at these two site s on Ma y 1, 1995 indicated excellent/clean conditions in Three Pole Creek and poor/moderately stressed conditions in Unnamed Branch. Specific conductance within Unnamed Branch on this date was nearly 10 times higher than that at the background site in Thr ee Pole Creek, and it did not meet the biological integrity criterion of Rule 62- 302.530(11), FAC. However it should be pointed out that both sites failed the BioRecon on this date. Furt her st udy is required to address this inconsistency as well. Other waters within the planning unit suspected of environmental stress (but not strictly assessed as potentially impaired) were G Creek, portions of Ocklawaha Creek and portions of Quincy Creek.

South Ochlockonee River This pla nning unit was represented in the bioassessment record by one site within Sm it h Cr eek. Data were available for Smith Creek over the period May, 1994 to July, 1996. Only SCI assessments were conducted and all had either good or excellent results. More information from more sites within this plan ni ng unit is required to assess the overall condition of the planning unit as a whole, however available bioassessment data indi cates no potential impairments

. 	 

 

    164



### L ake Iamonia

Ther e were no bioassessment data available for this planning unit.

L ake Jackson

Ther e were no bioassessment data available for this planning unit.

Tel ogia Creek

Data from two waters within this planning unit, Mule Creek and Tallahassee Creek, indi cated good to excellent conditions. No potential impairments were observed in bioa ssessment results.

Sopchoppy River Data from the Sopchoppy River itself was analyzed from the period July, 1992 to Fe br uary, 1997. SCI assessments indicated good to excellent conditions over the period of r ecord. The results of Hester-Dendy analyses showed a moderate level of stress. In general however, this planning unit is in g ood sh ape, with no indicated potential impairments

.

St. Mark s River
Bioassessment da ta were available from three waters within this planning unit; Black Creek, Lloyd Creek and the St. Marks River itself. The general period of record was Ju ly
, 1992 to March, 1997. All bioassessment were either SCI or individual tests of species dominance and diversity via Hester-Dendy artificial substrate sampling. Black Cr eek had two failing SCI assessments, as well as Hester-Dendy data in di cating severe stress, during the period July, 1992 to February, 1997. These results pl ace Black Creek in the potentially impaired category. Hester-Dendy data for Black Cr eek was highly variable from 1992 to 1994 however, ranging from clean to severely stressed, within the same site. No correlations to water chemistry were discernable. This might in di cate temporary habitat impacts or inconsistency in the application of the analysis methods. Fu rther study is required. Fr om 1992 to 1997, Lloyd Creek appeared to be in fairly good shape, accept for two failed SCI assessments, which places it in the potentially impaired category. It should be pointed out however that SCI results fr om Lloyd Cr eek contradicted Hester-Dendy result s on two sample dates. Seasonal effects might have contributed to the differences observed betw een SCI and Hester-Dendy results in Lloyd Creek. Hester-Dendy samplers test the instream fauna while the SC I method tests instream fauna plus benthic fa un a. In the summer, when heavy rains and other weather-related effects alter the benthic habitat (from scouring, etc.), lower total number of taxa are generally observed. Sin ce the SCI integrates more individual metrics, it is a more comprehensive test of biological integrity than individual tests of species dominance or diversity. Data from the St. Marks Ri ver varied among th e sites tested, from severely stressed to excellent. Sites 22030124 and 22030125 were most severely stressed in 1996, with 	 

 

    165



### few taxa and low densities within those taxa, indicating potential impairment in this area of the river. Site 22030010 had a good number of EPT taxa in 1997 (9) which contributed heavily to the excellent SCI score in March of that year. Determining the causes of the wide variability in results from different areas of the St. Marks River requires further study of land uses proximal to b bioa ssessment sites.

L ake Miccosukee
Bioassessment da ta from one site within this planning unit, Caney Branch, indicated an improvement over a three-year period. The record shows two failed BioRecon assessments conducted in 1995 and 1996, which serve to categorize this site as potentially impaired
, ho wever an SCI assessment conducted in 1997 passed with excellent results. This might indicate a water quality improvement, but further study is required to confir m it.

L ake Lafayette Data analyzed for this planning unit co nsisted of only one Hester-Dendy analysis performed in Lake Lafayette Drain in February, 1990. The results indicated a severely stressed habitat, wi th very high densities of very few macroinvertebrate species, and diversity index scores ranging from 0 - 0. 29. Further study is r ecommended wi thin this unit, however based upon the bioassessment data available, Lake Lafayette Drain is considered potentially impaired

.

L ake Munson/Fred George Sink The only bioassessment data available for th is plan ning unit were the results of two SCI assessments conducted in Munson Slough on March 8, 1993, at different sites within the slo ugh. Result s of both assessments were very poor, which categorizes Munson Slo ugh as potentially impaired. Analysis of the re sults indicated that two metrics most likely had the greatest influence upon the low SCI scores; a high percentage of the dominant taxon (29% and 78% respectively) an d the absence of any EPT taxa (0 in both cases). These results indicate water quality conditions within the Slough which do not

s upport sensitive species. This is not always the result of anthropogenic impact, as sl o ughs typically drain other surface waters and are often characterized by slow-moving water with low dissolved oxygen levels. Mu nson Sl ough however is known to also have a high level of macroinvertebrate habitat smothering from sand and silt resulting from surface water runoff. This would indicate riparian buffer zone alterations somewhere within its drainage.

Lost Cr eek/Fisher Creek

Ther e were no bioassessment data available for this planning unit. 	 

 

    166



### W

akulla River Data from two waters within this planning unit, Big Boggy Branch and McBride Slo ugh, indicated good quality and no impairments for the most part, except for one site wi th in Bi g Boggy Branch, STORET station number 22030025. This site failed both the SCI and Hester-Dendy a ssessments, therefore Big Boggy Branch is indicated as potentially impaired. Results for McBride Slough were excellent, indicating no potential impairments

.

C

oastal Watershed/Apalachee Bay
Ther e were no bioassessment data available for this planning unit.



### Conclusions In evaluating the overall biologi cal integrity of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins ba sed upon bioassessment data, it should be stressed that limited data were available and, if possible, further bioassessments should be performed where clear trends or influences have not been indicated. Generally, bioassessment results indicated wide temporal and sp atial variability within and among sites, waterbodies and planning units. Many of the waters analyzed were indicated to have very good biological integrity during particular years or times of year, and poor to severely stressed conditions during others times, with no discernable temporal trends. Analysis of land uses and seasonal effects should be the key focus in the this basi n to shed light upon the probable causes for such wide variabilit y in bioa ssessment results.



### References

Ba rb ou r, M. T.
, J. Gerritsen, and J.S. White. 1996. Development of the Stream Condition Inde x (SCI) for Florida. Prep ared for the Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection. Tetra Tech, Inc. Owings Mills, Maryland.

Fr ie demann, M. and J. Hand. 1989. Typical Water Quality Values for Florida's Lakes, Streams and Estuaries. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Ta llahassee, Florida.

Pi el ou , E. 1997. Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

Ro ss, L. T. 1990. Methods for Aquatic Biology. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Tec hnical Series 10(1):1-47. Tallahassee, Florida. 	 

 

   167Table F- 2. Stream Condition Index (SCI) scoring and evaluation worksheet.5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 ScoreTotal Number of Taxa= 31 30-16 < 16 = 26 25-14 < 14 = 22 21-12 < 12EPT Index= 7 6-4 < 4 = 4 3-2 < 2 --- = 2 < 2# Chironomid Taxa= 9 8-5 < 5 = 7 6-4 < 4 = 7 6-4 < 4ntribution of Dominant Taxon= 22 23-61 > 61 = 29 30-64 > 64 = 31 32-66 > 66% Diptera--- = 50 > 50 --- = 37 > 37 --- = 47 > 47Florida Index= 16 15-8 < 8 = 7 6-4 < 4 = 8 7-5 < 5spension Feeders/Filterers= 12 11-6 < 6 --- = 7 < 7 --- = 7 < 727-33 26-31 25-2921-26 20-25 19-2414-20 13-19 13-187-13 7-12 7-125 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 ScoreTotal Number of Taxa= 27 26-14 < 14 = 27 26-14 < 14 = 18 17-9 < 9EPT Index= 6 5-3 < 3 = 4 3-2 < 2 --- = 3 < 3# Chironomid Taxa= 9 8-5 < 5 = 9 8-5 < 5 = 4 3-2 < 2ntribution of Dominant Taxon= 25 26-62 > 62 = 30 31-65 > 65 = 37 38-69 > 69% Diptera--- = 60 > 60 --- = 52 > 52 --- = 67 > 67Florida Index= 13 12-7 < 7 = 10 9-5 < 5 = 6 5-3 < 3spension Feeders/Filterers= 13 12-7 < 7 = 15 14-8 < 8 = 25 25-13 < 1327-33 27-33 26-3121-26 21-26 20-2514-20 14-20 14-197-13 7-13 7-13SummerIndex Period (May-October): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI)MacroinvertebrateDipnet (20 sweeps ofmost productivesubstrates)ValuePanhandle Peninsula NortheastTotal ScorePanhandleEvaluationExcellentPoorPeninsula NortheastExcellent ExcellentGood Good GoodPoor PoorVery Poor Very Poor Very PoorWinterIndex Period (November-April): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI)MacroinvertebrateDipnet (20 sweeps ofmost productivesubstrates)ValuePanhandle Peninsula NortheastTotal ScorePanhandleEvaluationExcellentPoorPeninsula NortheastExcellent ExcellentGood Good GoodPoor PoorVery Poor Very Poor Very Poor 	 

 

   168TableF-5.Bioassessment summary for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basin for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998.Biorecon HDWaterbody WBID Planning Unit STORETStation #SampleDateSCI # of Taxa FI Index # of EPTTaxaOverall Meets WQStds.Overall PotentiallyImpairedLake Lafayette Drain 756 Lake Lafayette 22030067 2/13/90SeverelyStressedYESCaney Branch 716 Lake Miccosukee 22030068 9/12/95 failed failed failed impaired YESCaney Branch 716 Lake Miccosukee 22030068 3/13/96 failed failed failed impaired YESCaney Branch 716 Lake Miccosukee 22030068 8/12/97 excellentNOMunson Slough 857 Lake Munson 22030064 3/8/93 verypoorYESMunson Slough 857 Lake Munson 22030065 3/8/93 verypoorYESBlack Creek1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 7/31/94 goodNOBlack Creek1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 2/15/95 poorYESBlack Creek 1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 9/7/95 failed failed failed impaired YESBlack Creek 1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 2/13/96 failed failed passed suspect NOBlack Creek1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 2/13/96 excellentNOBlack Creek 1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 8/12/97 passed passed passed healthy NOBlack Creek 1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 9/9/98 failed failed failed impaired YESBlack Creek 1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 9/9/98 goodNODouble Branch 798 North Ochlockonee 22020012 11/12/96 excellentNODouble Branch 798 North Ochlockonee 22020012 4/8/97 passed passed passed healthy NOG Creek 657 North Ochlockonee 22020123 8/19/97 passed failed failed suspect NOHurricane Creek 540 North Ochlockonee 22020122 8/19/97 excellentNOLittleRiver 424 North Ochlockonee 22020016 11/12/96 goodNOMonroe Creek 711 North Ochlockonee 22020124 8/19/97 excellentNOOcklawaha Creek 811 North Ochlockonee 22020062 8/1/94 goodNOOcklawaha Creek 811 North Ochlockonee 22020062 2/13/95 goodNOOcklawaha Creek 811 North Ochlockonee 22020062 9/7/95 passed failed passed suspect NOOcklawaha Creek 811 North Ochlockonee 22020062 2/13/96 passed passed passed healthy NOOcklawaha Creek 811 North Ochlockonee 22020062 8/12/97 passed failed passed suspect NOOcklawaha Creek 811 North Ochlockonee 22020062 8/12/97 excellentNOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020010 12/2/91Clean NO 	 

 

   169TableF-5.Bioassessment summary for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basin for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998.Biorecon HDWaterbody WBID Planning Unit STORETStation #SampleDateSCI # of Taxa FI Index # of EPTTaxaOverall Meets WQStds.Overall PotentiallyImpairedQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020010 11/6/95Clean NOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020046 11/12/96 excellentNOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020046 11/12/96Clean NOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020093 11/12/96 excellentNOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020093 11/12/96ModeratelyStressedNOSwamp Creek 427 North Ochlockonee 22020001 11/12/96 excellentNOThree Pole Creek 1297E North Ochlockonee 22020077 5/1/95 excellentNOUnnamed Branch 855 North Ochlockonee 22020078 5/1/95 poorYESThree Pole Creek 1297E North Ochlockonee 22020077 5/1/95Clean NOUnnamed Branch 855 North Ochlockonee 22020078 5/1/95 NO ModeratelyStressedYESThree Pole Creek 1297E North Ochlockonee 22020077 9/7/95 failed failed failed impaired YESUnnamed Branch 855 North Ochlockonee 22020078 9/7/95 failed failed failed impaired YESThree Pole Creek 1297E North Ochlockonee 22020077 6/4/96Clean NOUnnamed Branch 855 North Ochlockonee 22020078 6/4/96 NO SeverelyStressedYESWillacoochee Creek 410 North Ochlockonee 22020092 11/12/96 excellentNOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 7/8/92 excellentNOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 8/5/92Clean NOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 3/30/93ModeratelyStressedNOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 7/22/93 goodNOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 7/22/93ModeratelyStressedNOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 4/18/94ModeratelyStressedNOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 2/13/97 goodNOSmith Creek 1147 South Ochlockonee 22020064 5/11/94 excellentNOSmith Creek 1147 South Ochlockonee 22020064 2/15/95 goodNO 	 

 

   170TableF-5.Bioassessment summary for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basin for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998.Biorecon HDWaterbody WBID Planning Unit STORETStation #SampleDateSCI # of Taxa FI Index # of EPTTaxaOverall Meets WQStds.Overall PotentiallyImpairedSmith Creek 1147 South Ochlockonee 22020064 7/10/96 excellentNOBlack Creek628 St. Marks 22030066 7/8/92 poorYESBlack Creek 628 St. Marks 22030066 8/5/92Clean NOBlack Creek628 St. Marks 22030066 3/30/93SeverelyStressedYESBlack Creek628 St. Marks 22030066 7/22/93ModeratelyStressedNOBlack Creek628 St. Marks 22030066 3/22/94Clean NOBlack Creek628 St. Marks 22030066 2/6/97 poorYESLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 8/13/92 poorYESLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 8/13/92Clean NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 3/30/93 excellentNOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 3/30/93Clean NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 7/22/93 excellentNOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 7/22/93Clean NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 3/22/94 poorYESLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 3/22/94Clean NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 8/3/94 goodNOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 2/15/95 excellentNOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 2/6/97 excellentNOSt. Marks River 793B St. Marks 22030010 3/18/97excellentNOSt. Marks River 793B St.Marks 22030124 1/22/96SeverelyStressedYESSt. Marks River 793B St.Marks 22030125 1/22/96SeverelyStressedYESSt. Marks River 793B St. Marks 220300B2 3/4/97ModeratelyStressedNOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 9/8/92Clean NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 3/25/93Clean NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 7/20/93 excellentNO 	 

 

   171TableF-5.Bioassessment summary for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basin for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998.Biorecon HDWaterbody WBID Planning Unit STORETStation #SampleDateSCI # of Taxa FI Index # of EPTTaxaOverall Meets WQStds.Overall PotentiallyImpairedMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 7/20/93Clean NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 3/21/94Clean NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 8/1/94 excellentNOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 7/9/96 excellentNOTallahassee Creek 579 Telogia 22020018 8/22/97 goodNOBig Boggy Branch 1124 Wakulla 22030024 3/4/97Clean NOBig Boggy Branch 1124 Wakulla 22030025 12/15/97 poorYESBig Boggy Branch 1124 Wakulla 22030025 12/15/97SeverelyStressedYESMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 7/8/92 excellentNOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 8/5/92Clean NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 3/30/93 excellentNOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 3/30/93Clean NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 7/22/93 excellentNOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 7/22/93Clean NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 3/21/94Clean NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 2/11/97 excellentNOa Only test sites with associated background sites were evaluated. 	 

 

    172



## Appendix G: Water Quality Data for the Ochlockonee and St. Mark s Basins

TABLE G-1 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Planning Units and WBIDs Report Card TABLE G-2 Ochlockonee/St. Marks List of Basin Planning Units TABLE G-3.1 North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.2 South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.3 Lake Iamonia Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.4 Lake Jackson Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 T

ABL E G- 3.5 Telogia Creek Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.6 Sopchoppy River Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.7 St. Marks Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 T

ABL E G- 3.8 Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.9 Lake Lafayette Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.10 Lake Munson Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 T

ABL E G- 3.11 Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.12 Wakulla River Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 TABLE G-3.13 Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit Stats 1989-99 T

ABL E G- 4 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Summa ry of Conventional Exceedances T

ABL E G- 5 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Summary of Metal Exceedances T

ABL E G- 6 List of Flow and Water Level Gage Sites

Please note:

These tables are presented as a separate Microsoft EXC EL workbook fi le that is included on the CD. Appendix G cannot be opened with Acrobat Reader. It can only be opened with Microsoft Excel 97/98 or a later version.Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resource Management Bureau of Water Management 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 (850) 921-9926 www2.dep.state.fl.us/water/division