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 the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Rivers Basin Team, Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection, as part of a five-year cycle to restore and 

protect Florida’s water quality. Team members include the following:

Richard Hicks, 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 Scheinkman 

Tom Seal 

Zack Shelley 

David Wainwright 

Production assistance provided by

Educational Services Program

Florida State University

210 Sliger Building

2035 E. Dirac Dr.

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800

Map production assistance provided by

Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center

Florida State University

University Center, C2200

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641

For additional information on the watershed management 

approach used to address impaired waters in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks River Basins, contact:

Richard Hicks, P.G., Basin Coordinator

Watershed Planning and Coordination Section

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

richard.w.hicks@dep.state.fl.us

Phone: (850) 921-9597; Suncom: 291-9597

Fax: (850) 921-5217 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 5

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 impaired waters. 

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

provides an overview of the 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 but is too lengthy to fi t in a sidebar. 

• Definitions: Appear at the side of pages where scientific terms occur 

that may not be familiar to all readers. The word being defined is 

bold-faced in the text.

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

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

information on subjects, such as bioassessment methodology, rainfall 

and stream flow, types of natural communities, STORET stations, 

water quality statistics, land use, and permitted facilities.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 7

Executive Summary

Ochlockonee and St. Marks

The Status Report for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins is 

part of the first phase of the statewide, watershed approach of the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (Department). The report, which 

contains maps, charts, graphs, tables, and a set of appendices, provides a 

preliminary evaluation of the status of water quality and associated biological resources in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins. In addition, 

it identifies known and suspected water quality impairments and water 

quality monitoring needs, and summarizes existing and planned water 

quality restoration 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 ecological resources in the basins.

This report marks 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 and 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 and 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 pollutants from point and nonpoint sources and achieve the 

established TMDLs for individual impaired waterbodies. 

This Status Report describes 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 those 

waters by adopting TMDLs. The process described here provides a framework for implementing the requirements of the 1999 Florida Watershed 

Restoration Act and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. The 

report broadly characterizes the basin’s hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting, as well as historical, current, and proposed watershed 

management activities 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 confirmed as not impaired. 

As a next step, the data used as a basis for placing waters on the 

planning list will be reexamined and verifi ed, and additional data will 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 9
be collected through strategic monitoring. Information summarized in 

the Status Report is used to identify information gaps for the verification 

of water quality 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 waters for 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 the 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 and the most recent fish consumption advisory report provided by 

the Florida Department of Health. The following is a summary of water 

quality by water type for waters with sufficient data.

Overall Data Sufficiency

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

comprise 357 waterbodies or segments used in the assessment of 

water quality. A total of 99 of these were fully or partially assessed 

for a series of water quality parameters that include nutrients, conventional parameters that have water quality standards, metals, biology, 

and fish consumption advisory status.

• A total of 258 waterbodies or segments were not assessed due to the 

lack of sufficient data.

• There were not sufficient data to determine impairment or lack of 

impairment in springs 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 river basins. Approximately 21 percent of the stream miles were 

assessed for nutrients and 1 stream/stream segment was found potentially impaired; 29 percent were assessed for conventional parameters 

and 14 streams/stream segments were found potentially impaired; 

and approximately 5 percent were assessed for metals, with 1 stream 

segment found potentially impaired.

• Potential impairments based on biological data were found in 9 

streams/stream segments.

• Potential impairments based on fish consumption advisories (for 

mercury) were listed for 7 streams/stream segments.

• The most common potential impairments for streams were found 

to be for fish consumption, bacteria (fecal and/or total coliform in 

9 streams/stream segments), biology, and dissolved oxygen (DO) (5 

streams/stream segments).

10 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Lakes 

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

basins. Approximately 11 percent of the total lake area was assessed 

for nutrients and 5 lakes/lake segments were found impaired; 72 percent was assessed for conventionals and 3 found potentially impaired; 

and no lakes were assessed for metals.

• Potential impairment based on biological data was found for 1 lake.

• Potential impairments based on fish consumption advisories were 

found for 4 lakes.

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

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

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 11

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Florida’s Watershed Management Approach and

the Ochlocknee and St. Marks River Basins Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Purposes and Content of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Watershed Management Approach, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Northwest District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter 2: Basin Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Basin Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Hydrologic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

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

Rivers and Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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

St. Marks River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Urban Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

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

Lake Talquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Lakes Iamonia and Miccosukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Lake Jackson and Associated Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

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

Lakes Bradford, Hiawatha, and Cascade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Lake Munson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

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

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

Wetlands and Estuaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Surface Water Classifications 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 Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Contamination Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Hydrologic Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Water Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Historical, Current, and Ongoing Watershed Management Activities and 

Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Creation of Conservation and Preservation 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

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 13
Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Lake Jackson Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

St. Marks River Watershed Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Lake Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Lake Jackson Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Lake Munson Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Other Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Ground Water Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Chapter 3: Status of Water Quality and Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . 59

Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Status of Surface Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Impaired Waters Rule Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chemistry Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Biological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

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

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Potentially Impaired Waters of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Impaired Waterbodies and Segments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Impairments by Parameters of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Water Quality Evaluation by Basin Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

North Ochlockonee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

South Ochlockonee River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Lake Iamonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Lake Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Telogia Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Sopchoppy River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

St. Marks 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 Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

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

Assessment of Regional Ground Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Ground Water Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Status of Regional Ground Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Status of Ground Water Analytes of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Ground Water/Surface Water Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Evaluation of Ecological Resource Protection Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

North and South Ochlockonee River Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Lakes Iamonia, Jackson, Miccosukee, Lafayette, and Munson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Telogia Creek and Sopchoppy River Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

St. Marks River, Wakulla River, and Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Units. . . . . . . . . . 92

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Chapter 4: Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

The Planning List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Relationship between the Planning List and the 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Waters To Be Delisted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Monitoring Other Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

14 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
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 River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Model Required Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

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/Apalachee Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

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

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

Tables

Table 2.1: Named Springs in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 2.2: SWIM Priority Waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 2.3: Natural Communities in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 2.4: Population Summary Statistics for Selected Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 3.1: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Planning Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 3.2: Assessment Status Summary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 3.3 Potentially Impaired WBIDs in Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

According to the Impaired Waters Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 3.4: Basin Resource Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table 3.5 Status Monitoring Indicator/Analyte List for Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table 3.6: Basin Resource Indices for Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 3.7: Results of Mann-Whitney Statistical Tests Comparing Ground Water 

Analyte Concentrations in RU1 and RU3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 3.8: Summary of Nitrate Levels in Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 3.9: Summary of Ecological Resource Protection Concerns, Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks 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 Constituents Not Impaired According to the

Impaired Waters Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 15
Table A-1: Listed Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

 Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table A-2: Nonlisted 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 the Upper Ochlockonee River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Table C-1: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface 

 Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table C-2: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Not Discharging to Surface 

 Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Table C-3: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Solid Waste Landfills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Tables D-1 through D-18C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140–157

Table F-2: Steam Condition Index (SCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Table F-5: Bioassessment Summary 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 through 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 2.2: Physiographic Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 2.3: Cross-Section of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 2.4: Surface Water Resources of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 2.5: Level 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 Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . 47

Figure 2.7: Permitted Landfills and Hazardous Waste Sites in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 3.1: Planning Unit Locations and Boundaries in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks 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. Marks Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 3.4: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for 

Nutrients According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 3.5: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for 

Conventional Water Quality Pollutants According to the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 3.6: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for 

Metals According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 3.7: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basin Waters with Potentially Impaired 

Biology According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure 3.8: Nitrate Concentration Trend in Wakulla Springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 4.1: Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment Except Fish 

Advisories, with Overlay of 1998 303(d) List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

16 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Chapter 1: Florida’s Watershed Management 

Approach and the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

River Basins 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, which will include the collection of additional 

monitoring information.

This preliminary report, addressed to a broad audience 

of potential stakeholders in the basin, initiates the 

watershed management cycle in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins as part of the statewide, watershed-based approach to water resource management 

designed 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 using a cyclical management process in 

which diverse stakeholders in each of the state’s river 

basins work cooperatively to identify and solve water 

resource problems.

This introductory chapter describes the purpose and 

content 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 daily 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.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 17
Purposes and Content of the Report

This Status Report provides a preliminary identification of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins’ water quality impairments in order to 

assess water quality monitoring needs and summarize existing water quality 

restoration plans and projects. The report is addressed to a broad audience 

of potential stakeholders, including decision makers from federal, state, 

regional, tribal, and local governments; public and private interests; and 

individual citizens.

The report is the first of several 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 evaluation of surface 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 government and stakeholders to collect additional data and to 

identify water 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, current, and proposed watershed 

management activities and 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 confined and unconfined water resources. For ecological resources, it summarizes ecological protection priorities and major 

ecological indicators potentially related to water quality problems in the 

basins. 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 Florida Watershed Restoration Act

This report supports the first phase of the Department’s watershed 

management approach. Under this approach, water resources are managed 

on the basis of natural boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political 

or regulatory boundaries; emphasis is placed on public involvement in decision making. Instead of focusing only on individual sources of pollution, 

water resources are assessed from a basinwide perspective that considers 

the cumulative effects of human activities. The approach is not new, nor 

does it compete with or replace existing programs. Rather than relying on 

Total Maximum Daily 

Load

The maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate 

without exceeding applicable water 

quality standards.

18 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
single solutions to address aquatic resource issues, it is intended to improve 

the health of surface water and ground water resources by strengthening 

coordination among such activities as monitoring, stormwater management, 

wastewater treatment, wetland restoration, land acquisition, and public 

involvement.

The watershed management approach is the framework for implementing TMDLs as required by Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water 

Act and the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (see Noteworthy on pages 

23–24). TMDLs must be developed for all waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and are thus defined 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). Extensive public participation will be crucial throughout the cycle’s 

five phases that follow.

• Phase 1: Watershed Evaluation. The Department will conduct 

preliminary evaluations of the status of the quality of surface water 

and ground water. This information will be used to generate a 

planning list of potentially 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 whether waters are, in fact, impaired and to collect 

the data needed to calibrate 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 water quality, associated biological resources, and current restoration plans and projects. Waters that are verifi ed as being 

impaired will be placed on a basin-specific list of impaired waters that 

will be adopted by the Department through a Secretarial Order. This 

verifi ed list will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters 

for the basin.

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

impaired waters in the watershed will be developed and adopted by 

rule. Because TMDLs cannot be developed for all listed waters 

during a single watershed management cycle, due to fiscal and technical limitations, waterbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in 

the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, Section 62-303, 

Florida Administrative Code. 

• Phase 4: Developing Watershed Management Plans. A watershed 

management plan, including TMDL implementation plans specifying how pollutant loadings from point and nonpoint sources of polluBasin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 19
tion will be allocated and reduced, will be developed. The plans will 

include regulatory and nonregulatory (i.e., voluntary), structural and 

nonstructural improvements. The involvement of affected stakeholders in this phase will be especially critical.

• Phase 5: Implementing Watershed Management Plans. Implementation of the activities specifi ed in the watershed management 

plan will begin.

The watershed management approach is an iterative process. One 

of its key components is that the effectiveness of management activities 

(TMDL implementation) will be monitored in successive cycles. Monitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent cycles will be targeted at evaluating 

whether water quality objectives are being met and whether individual 

waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the implementation of scheduled restoration 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

20 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
This approach is intended to protect and enhance the ecological structure, function, and integrity 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 water 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 approach is intended to speed up projects by focusing 

funding and 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 restoration activities and promotes cooperative monitoring programs. 

It encourages accountability for achieving water quality improvements 

through improved 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 implemented in the Department’s Northwest District basin groups. 

These groups were identifi ed on the basis of the U.S. Geological Survey’s 

hydrologic unit codes for the 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 first to be assessed, are the subject 

of this Status Report. The Group 2 basins, assessed in the latter part of 

2001, include the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Chipola, and New Rivers 

and Apalachicola Bay. The 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, the cycle will begin again for the Group 1 basins, Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 21
Figure 1.2: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the 

Department’s Northwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5

22 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
All watersheds in the United 

States are classified and organized on the basis of a nationwide 

system developed by the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS). 

The USGS delineates watersheds 

based on surface hydrologic features. This system divides 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 two digits for each level 

in the hydrologic unit system 

is used to identify major river 

basins. In the Department’s 

Northwest District, the USGS has 

identified two HUCs: Lower 

Ochlockonee River (03120003) • 

Apalachee Bay-St. Marks River 

(03120001).

Summary of Clean Water Act Requirements 

Related to the TMDL Program

Congress enacted the Clean 

Water Act in 1972 with the 

goal of restoring and maintaining 

the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s 

waters”—33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The 

ultimate 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 Clean Water Act sets out the 

federal requirements that Florida 

must follow in implementing its 

TMDL program under the Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act. The 

Clean Water Act and the federal 

TMDL program include the following provisions:

• Requires states to establish 

water quality standards that 

will protect the public health 

and welfare—33 U.S.C. 

§ 1313(c)(2).

• Requires states to identify 

waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards 

(Water Quality Limited Segments, or WQLSs) and identify 

the pollutants causing the 

water quality threats— 

33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(A–B).

• Requires the states to establish for each WQLS the TMDL 

for each pollutant that can 

be 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 implement the applicable water quality standards 

with seasonal variations 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. 

§ 1313(d)(1)(C).

• Requires states to update their 

303(d) list of impaired waters 

(WQLSs) every two years or 

else the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) will 

be required to develop a complete WQLS list and/or TMDLs 

for the impaired waters on 

behalf of the state—33 U.S.C. 

§ 1313(d)(2).

• Requires EPA approval or disapproval within 30 days, once 

the WQLS list and TMDLs are 

submitted. If approved, the list 

and TMDLs are to be incorporated into the state’s water 

quality management plan—

33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2).

The Watershed 

Classification System

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks Noteworthy 23
The Florida Watershed Restoration Act

In recognition of the important 

role that TMDLs play in restoring 

state waters, the 1999 Florida 

Legislature enacted the Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act. In 

addition to clarifying the Department’s statutory authority to 

establish TMDLs, the act established a process for identifying 

and listing impaired waters and 

for developing TMDLs and the 

associated watershed management plans needed to allocate 

and achieve the needed pollutant 

load reductions. The legislation 

contains the following provisions:

• Establishes that the 303(d) list 

submitted to the EPA in 1998 is 

for planning purposes only.

• Requires the Department to 

adopt 303(d) listing criteria 

(that is, the methodology used 

to define impaired waters) by 

rule.

• Requires the Department to 

verify impairment and then 

establish basin-specific verified lists. The Department 

must also evaluate whether 

proposed pollution control 

programs are sufficient to 

meet water quality standards, 

list the specific pollutant(s) 

and concentration(s) causing 

impairment, and 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 equitable” allocations of 

TMDLs, but does not mandate 

how allocations will be made 

among individual sources.

• Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing 

treatment levels and management practices; the differing impacts that pollutant 

sources may have; the availability of treatment technologies, best management 

practices (BMPs), or other pollutant reduction measures; the 

feasibility, costs, and benefits 

of achieving the allocation; 

reasonable time frames for 

implementation; the potential 

applicability of moderating 

provisions; and the 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 basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating 

with the water management 

districts, the Florida Department of Agriculture and 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 least one public 

meeting in the watershed. 

Implementation is voluntary 

if not covered by regulatory 

programs.

• Authorizes the Department 

and the Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services to develop interim 

measures and BMPs to 

address nonpoint sources. 

While BMPs would be adopted 

by rule, they will be voluntary 

if not covered by regulatory 

programs. If they are adopted 

by rule and the Department 

verifies their effectiveness, 

then implementation will provide a presumption of compliance with water quality 

standards.

• Directs the Department to 

document the effectiveness 

of the combined regulatory/

voluntary approach and 

report to the legislature by 

January 1, 2005. The report 

will include participation rates 

and recommendations for statutory changes.

24 Noteworthy Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks
References

Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d).

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-303. Identifi cation of Impaired 

Waters Rule.

Florida Watershed Restoration Act.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 25

Chapter 2: Basin Overview

Chapter Summary

Water quality issues cannot be understood without a 

general understanding of the entire Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins. This chapter characterizes their hydrologic setting—including climate, physiography, and surface water and ground water resources—as well as their 

ecological and socioeconomic setting. The chapter also 

summarizes historical, current, and proposed watershed 

management issues and activities in the basins.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 27
Basin Setting

The Lower Ochlockonee River Basin and the Apalachee Bay-St. Marks 

River Basin 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 environment. Vast areas of land remain relatively undeveloped and 

many waterbodies have not been significantly 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 recreational opportunities to area residents and critical habitat 

for wildlife. However, in some areas urban and residential development, 

agricultural practices, and other influences threaten the health of watersheds and have adversely affected waterbodies.

Extending from southern Georgia, through Florida, to the Gulf of 

Mexico, the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins drain a combined area of 

more than 3,600 square miles. In Florida, the area includes all of Leon and 

Wakulla Counties, significant parts of Gadsden and Jefferson Counties, 

plus smaller parts of Liberty and Franklin Counties. Although they exist as 

two distinct hydrologic basins, the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins both 

drain to Apalachee Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. The physiography, geology, 

ecology, and socioeconomic settings in both basins are similar.

Sources of Information

Much of the information about the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

in this chapter was obtained from 

the Water Resources Atlas of Florida,

1998, produced by the Florida State 

University Institute of Science and 

Public Affairs (Fernald and Purdum, 

1998). Information about the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins was also 

obtained from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Surf Your Watershed Web site (http://www.epa.gov/

surf2/states/fl/) and from the Water 

Resources Data for the United States 

(http://water.usgs.gov.nwis).

28 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 29
Hydrologic Setting

Physiography

This area contains broad uplands in the north and coastal lowlands to 

the south. The physiographic regions 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 Tallahassee Hills) consists of clay-capped ridges that have been eroded 

and dissected by streams. The potential for runoff in the upland area is 

relatively high, whereas in the flat sandy coastal lowlands, runoff potential 

is low and most rainfall recharges ground water directly. An escarpment, 

the Cody Scarp, physically divides the upland from the lowland region. 

Much of the Gulf Coastal Lowlands region is a karst plain where sinkholes 

form, natural limestone springs occur, and streams disappear underground. 

This area is known as the Woodville Karst Plain. The remaining part 

of the coastal lowland is river floodplain, forested wetland, and coastal 

marsh. Along the coastal 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: Physiographic Regions

Escarpment

A steep face abruptly terminating high 

lands.

30 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 2.3: Cross-Section of the Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks Basins

Rivers and Streams

Ochlockonee River Basin

The Ochlockonee Basin drains 2,416 square miles and extends through 

11 Florida and Georgia counties. This total basin area is the seventh 

largest for Florida 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 Upper Ochlockonee Basin (in Georgia) and the Lower Ochlockonee 

Basin (extending from south Georgia into Florida). Rivers and streams of 

the Lower Ochlockonee Basin (approximately 1,500 square miles in area) 

include the Ochlockonee River and literally hundreds of tributaries that 

feed it as it flows through Florida to Apalachee Bay (see Figure 2.4). The 

main tributaries of the Ochlockonee River in Florida are Telogia Creek, 

Little River, and the Sopchoppy River. Most of these rivers and streams 

are alluvial.

Alluvial Rivers and 

Streams

These occur in valleys surrounded by 

their own sedimentary material and 

develop their characteristics based 

on the discharge and sediment load 

that is available. Alluvial rivers and 

streams form features such as meanders, channel bars, and islands. The 

stream bottom consists of shifting 

sand with varying amounts of detritus 

in quieter reaches and limestone outcroppings in some areas. Primarily 

surface tributaries feed the alluvial 

streams typical of much of the Ochlockonee Basin, particularly in the 

Tifton Uplands region. Their flow is 

variable because it depends largely on 

rainfall and surface runoff rather than 

ground water recharge.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 31
The Ochlockonee River originates in Worth County, far north of the 

Georgia-Florida state line, and receives flow from innumerable tributaries 

along its 206-mile course southward to Ochlockonee Bay. From the 

Florida-Georgia state line, the Ochlockonee River flows southward 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 flows 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 Lower Ochlockonee converge or discharge into the river north of the 

dam at Lake Talquin. These include Little River and its tributaries—Bear 

Creek, Rocky Comfort Creek, and Ocklawaha Creek—plus numerous 

minor streams.

Figure 2.4: Surface Water Resources of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

32 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Between the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station at Havana and one 

below the Lake Talquin Dam, the Ochlockonee River grows larger with the 

additional flow from its tributaries above the dam (2,500 cfs) and meanders 

southward from the dam to its mouth at Ochlockonee Bay. Below Lake 

Talquin, the major tributaries to the Ochlockonee River are Telogia Creek 

and the Sopchoppy River. Telogia Creek, an alluvial stream, originates in 

the northwestern part of the basin. The Sopchoppy River is the largest 

blackwater stream in the basin, originating in a large swamp known as 

Bradwell Bay. Nearer the Ochlockonee River mouth at Ochlockonee Bay, 

Crooked River and several smaller tidal creeks also discharge to the river 

and bay. Flows are tidally influenced in the Ochlockonee River near the 

coast, the Sopchoppy River, and the Crooked River.

River and stream flow is a combination 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 baseflow. Baseflow in the 

northern part of the Ochlockonee Basin (north of the Cody Scarp) comes 

from seeps and springs from shallow, relatively poorly yielding aquifers 

(Pascale and Wagner, 1982). In the southern part below the Cody Scarp 

(Sopchoppy River and lower part of Ochlockonee River), baseflow comes 

from the upper part of the Floridan aquifer system. The baseflow of most 

of the streams in the Ochlockonee Basin is low compared with streams in 

other areas of northwestern Florida. 

St. Marks River Basin

Surface water hydrology in the St. Marks Basin differs from that of 

the Ochlockonee Basin. The Ochlockonee Basin is an integrated alluvial 

drainage system almost entirely drained by the Ochlockonee River and 

its tributaries. The Apalachee-St. Marks Basin is disjointed, with no 

integrated drainage from most of the northern part of the basin, a short 

coastal drainage system composed of local streams draining coastal regions, 

and the St. Marks River being the only somewhat continuous integrated 

drainage system. 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. Marks Basin contains two primary rivers, the St. Marks River 

and its major tributary, the Wakulla River. A number of other streams 

also exist 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. The 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 County. The St. Marks River remains swampy and 

poorly defined as it flows 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 water enters from spring flows.

Spring-fed Rivers and 

Streams

Spring-fed rivers and streams, characteristic of the Woodville Karst Plain, 

are fed primarily by Floridan aquifer 

springs. Typically, their river channels 

follow fracture patterns in the limestone and their waters are clear and 

are similar to ground water in chemical composition. The water is highly 

buffered by the limestone and has 

a neutral pH. In areas near spring 

vents, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels 

may be low because 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 and humic 

acids. These streams, originating in 

acidic swamps and flatwoods, are 

dark brown and acidic 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.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 33
Near the Leon-Wakulla County line, the St. Marks River flows 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 disappeared at Natural Bridge. Several 

springs rise and disappear underground in this area. After emerging at St. 

Marks Spring, it flows southward as a well-defined spring-fed river, flowing 

at an average rate of 747 cfs.

In east central Wakulla 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 flows south for approximately 10 miles to its confluence with the St. Marks River. From the 

confluence, the St. Marks River widens and flows 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 river mouth.

Other significant streams in the 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 Tallahassee. South of Tallahassee, Lake Munson 

detains water flowing in Munson Slough. South of Lake Munson, Munson 

Slough flows southeastward to Eight Mile Pond and 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 are blackwater streams that originate in flatwood swamps in the 

southwestern part of the St. Marks Basin. These streams flow south and 

southeastward before they disappear, recharging ground water. 

Closer to the coast, numerous tidal streams (creeks) discharge directly 

to the estuary. The largest, East River and Stoney Bayou, originate at 

impounded wetlands in the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge and flow into 

Apalachee Bay near the 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 fluctuations dominate flow in 

these creeks along the coastal area to varying extents.

Urban Streams

Networks of urban streams provide stormwater drainage from the Tallahassee area. Often described as ditches, these channelized streams receive 

heavy loads of stormwater runoff from roadways, parking lots, commercial 

and industrial sites, and other paved surfaces in the city. The four main 

drainage basins in the City of Tallahassee and Leon County Stormwater 

Management Plan (Bartel et al., 1991) include the Lake Munson, Lake 

34 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Jackson, Lake Lafayette, and Fred George Sink Basins. The Lake Munson 

Basin, the largest and most urbanized, drains approximately 57 percent of 

the urban Tallahassee area (Bartel and Ard, 1992). It contains Munson 

Slough; the Central, East, and West Drainage Ditches and St. Augustine 

Branch; plus many smaller ditches and streams. The Lake Jackson Basin 

includes several short branches (most notable are Meginniss Arm Branch, 

Jackson Heights 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 Lakes (most notable are the Park Avenue Tributary, 

McCord Park Drainage Ditch, Northeast Drainage Ditch, the Alford Arm 

Tributary, and Lafayette Creek). The Fred George Sink Drainage Basin 

is internally drained to a sinkhole and there are no significant tributaries 

(Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1991). Presently, the City 

of Tallahassee is involved in an assessment of hydrology and water quality 

within the urban drainage system (personal communication with John Cox, 

City of Tallahassee, 2000).

Springs

Springs provide the most direct and obvious connection between 

ground water and surface water (see Figure 2.3). Springs are abundant 

in the Woodville Karst Plain of the St. Marks Basin. Six of Florida’s 27 

first magnitude springs, or springs with flows greater than 100 cubic feet 

per second, are located in the St. Marks Basin. Nine other named springs 

and countless unnamed smaller springs and seeps also are found in the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. Most of the flow in the St. Marks 

River and virtually all of the flow in the Wakulla River is from springs. 

Springs contributing 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 and the Rhodes Springs group, rise and 

disappear underground in the Natural Bridge area. Wakulla Springs, one of 

the largest freshwater springs in the world, is the site of a state park (Edward 

Ball Wakulla Springs State Park).

Also in Wakulla 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 first magnitude, plus 

several other named springs. Submarine springs contribute a significant 

flow of fresh 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 Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins.

Lakes

Lakes provide many advantages including recharge to ground water, 

important habitats, and a variety of recreational opportunities. Many lakes 

also receive stormwater from urban areas. Lakes in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins comprise more than 30,000 watershed acres. According 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are 324 lakes 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 35
in the Ochlockonee Basin and 329 lakes in the St. Marks Basin, totaling 

24,261 and 11,892 acres, respectively. However, only 21 of these lakes 

exceed 100 acres. Figure 2.4 shows only the largest of the lakes in the 

two basins.

Most of the area’s lakes are found in the Tallahassee Hills physiographic region. Descriptions of the most well-known lakes in the Ochlockonee and 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, created for power generation in 1929 by 

the construction of the Jackson Bluff Dam on the Ochlockonee River, is 

the second oldest large reservoir in the state. While it continues to be used 

for power generation, it is probably now more important for recreational 

purposes. Numerous fish camps and homes are located on the lake. Lake 

Talquin receives flow from the 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 Bridge Spring*

Rhodes Springs

St. Marks Spring*

Indian Springs

Newport Spring

Kini Spring*

Panacea Mineral Springs

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 magnitude springs listed by Rosenau et al., 1977.

**—Very minor flow generally combined with Wakulla Springs discharge.

Note 1—These springs have been reclassified as karst windows, which are now considered to be aquifer conduits, 

temporarily exposed 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 has 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 lake regions in Florida, 

based on physiography, geology, vegetation, and other characteristics 

(Griffith, 1997). The Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins contain parts of four 

of these lake regions: the Tifton/

Tallahassee Uplands, the Norfleet/

Spring Hill Ridge, the Big Bend Karst, 

and the Gulf Coast Lowlands.

36 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Lakes Iamonia and Miccosukee

Karst features are more evident east of the Ochlockonee River, and 

many lakes in this area are formed in solution basins and 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 periods of drought (Lane, 1986). Lake Iamonia has 

an intermittent connection to the Ochlockonee River and receives inflow 

from the river during high water. Lake Miccosukee, in the St. Marks Basin, 

receives inflow from small tributary streams. Drainage from Lake Miccosukee is predominantly internal, but small streams provide a connection 

to a wetland area and sinkhole to the south. Currently an artificial control 

structure built around a sinkhole in Lake Miccosukee and an artificial 

control structure at the south end of the lake (near U.S. 90) are used to 

maintain water levels.

Lake Jackson and Associated 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 most 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 corridor (Interstate 10) and the north and northwestern part of 

the city, roughly a third of the total area, is discharged to Lake Jackson. 

Stormwater pollution from development also threatens several smaller lakes 

in the Lake Jackson drainage basin, most notably Lake Hall and Lake Carr. 

Located in the Ochlockonee Basin, Lake Jackson has the potential for 

overflow to the Ochlockonee River during times of extreme rainfall.

Lake Lafayette

Lake Lafayette is an area of freshwater marsh and limited open water 

on the east side of Tallahassee, in the St. Marks Basin. Its watershed 

includes the 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 are partially maintained by a series of manmade dikes that divide the lake into three segments. The Lake Lafayette 

Basin includes upper and lower Lake Lafayette, Piney Z Lake, Alford Arm, 

and their associated wetlands.

Artificially impounded Lake Piney Z is managed by the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). A dredged canal allows 

for overflow from the Lake Lafayette chain to reach the St. Marks River 

during high water (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997a). 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 37
Like Lake Jackson, Lafayette is threatened by stormwater discharges from 

Tallahassee and residential subdivisions.

Lakes Bradford, Hiawatha, and Cascade

These lakes, in southwestern Tallahassee, form the Bradford Brook 

Chain of Lakes that drain into Munson Slough. Lake Bradford, the largest 

of the 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 the same ecology and 

chemistry as blackwater streams.

Lake Munson

Lake Munson is located at the Cody Scarp transition between the 

Tallahassee Hills and the coastal lowlands known as the Lake Munson 

Hills. Formerly a cypress swamp formed in a solution depression south 

of Tallahassee, Lake Munson was impounded decades ago as a millpond. 

In the early 1950s, a new dam structure and control valves were installed 

to control flooding in the area to the south. As mentioned previously, 

Lake Munson receives urban stormwater from more than half of the city 

of Tallahassee 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 lakes 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, and 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 region, there are other regionally important lakes.

The sandhill region southwest of Tallahassee includes small, upland, 

clear lakes on sand ridges. This very small region includes only one of the 

larger to mid-size lakes in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. Moore 

Lake, in a relatively undisturbed area of the national forest, is completely 

landlocked.

In the 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 and may have formed in collapsed sinkholes. There are 

also several 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 Ellen and Otter Lake in Wakulla County. In the St. Marks 

Wildlife Refuge, several large shallow impoundments are manipulated to 

provide waterfowl habitat. The largest include East Pool and Stoney Bayou 

Pool.

38 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Relict

Ancient shoreline.

Wetlands

Wetlands comprise most of Florida’s 

surface waterbodies 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 surface for a 

significant part of most years (Fernald 

and Purdum, 1998). 

Estuaries

Estuaries are sheltered, semienclosed, brackish bodies of water 

along the shore where fresh water 

and salt water mix through tidal 

flows and currents. They include the 

mouths of rivers, bays, and the sheltered waters between barrier islands 

and the mainland.

The coastal area contains various other types of lakes: coastal dune 

lakes, flatwood lakes, and river floodplain or oxbow lakes along the Ochlockonee River. Coastal dune lakes form in relict sand dunes along coastal 

and near coastal areas. An example is Tucker Lake, in the southern part 

of the Ochlockonee Basin in Franklin County. The region’s flatwood areas 

contain numerous shallow ponds that form in poorly drained areas. Oxbow 

lakes form where river channel meanders become isolated over time. There 

are several notable oxbow lakes along the Ochlockonee River, such as Bone 

Bluff Lake, Silver Lake, and Red Lake.

Wetlands and Estuaries

Wetlands cover approximately 18 percent of the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins. Figure 2.4 shows where major wetland areas exist. In the 

basins, wetlands exist as near-coastal marshes, in river floodplains, in areas 

of poor soil drainage adjacent to lakes, and in poorly drained swamps and 

“bays” of the Apalachicola Coastal Lowlands. Most of the wetland areas 

exist as expansive, internally drained “bays” within the flat Apalachicola 

Coastal Lowlands. Some of these serve as source waters for small streams, 

such as Bradwell Bay in western Wakulla County, which is the source of the 

Sopchoppy River. Near-coastal marshes, river floodplains, and floodplains 

surrounding larger lakes constitute most of the remaining wetland areas. 

Closed sinkhole depressions that form swamps in the Woodville Karst Plain 

of the St. Marks Basin are also important wetlands that provide recharge to 

ground water, the 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 Franklin and Wakulla Counties. The other smaller bays include 

Levy Bay, Dickerson Bay, Oyster Bay, and Goose Creek Bay. All of these 

are located along the Wakulla County coast.

Apalachee Bay supports a variety of aquatic habitats, including salt 

marshes, seagrass beds, oyster bars and reefs, and hardbottom reefs. It also 

contains part of the 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 Bay is an important recreational and 

commercial fishery in the region.

Surface Water Classifications and Special Designations

Surface Water Classifications

Florida’s water quality classification program, the foundation of Florida’s program of water quality management, designates the “present and 

future most beneficial uses” of the waters of the state (Chapter 403.061[10], 

Florida Statutes). Water quality standards are used to set the regulatory 

limits that are intended to maintain these uses for surface water and ground 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 39
water. Florida’s surface waters are grouped into five classifications, 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 currently in this category)

Only two surface waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins are Class I. These are Quincy Creek, a tributary of the Little 

River in the area north of Lake Talquin in the Ochlockonee Basin, and its 

tributary Holman Branch. Quincy Creek in Gadsden County is used as a 

primary supply of water for the city of Quincy (Class I potable water supply 

intake in Figure 2.4). Areas of Apalachee Bay along the Wakulla County 

coastline and Ochlockonee Bay within both Wakulla and Franklin Counties are designated as Class II waters because they include commercially 

viable oyster beds (Figure 2.4). All other waters in the Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks Basins are designated Class III. This classification includes 

rivers, streams, canals, lakes, ponds, impoundments, wetlands, and estuaries. There are no Class IV or V waters in the basins.

Special Designations

Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) are those worthy of special protection 

due to their natural attributes (Chapter 403.061, Florida Statutes). They 

are listed in Section 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code. The intent 

of an OFW designation 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 state or federal park system, such as aquatic preserves, national seashores, or 

wildlife refuges. Other OFWs may also be designated as “Special Waters” and 

identified 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 and Apalachee Bay, are also State Aquatic Preserves.

The Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) also 

designates Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) priority 

waterbodies. In 1997, the district identified priority waterbodies for preservation and/or restoration (NWFWMD, 1997a). Table 2.2 lists the SWIM priority waterbodies for the St. Marks Basin. Although a SWIM Plan has not been 

prepared for the entire Ochlockonee Basin, NWFWMD prepared the Lake 

Jackson Management Plan to address this SWIM waterbody (NWFWMD, 

1994 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 Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

came from The Geology and Ground 

Water Resources of Leon County

(Hendry and Sproul, 1966); Geology 

of Wakulla County, Florida (Rupert 

and Spencer, 1988); Water Resources 

of the Ochlockonee River Area (Pascale and Wagner, 1982); Geology of 

Gadsden County (Rupert, 1990); and 

Hydrogeology of the Northwest Florida Water Management District (Pratt 

et al., 1996).

40 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Florida’s more than 15.9 million residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001) with 

drinking water. Ground water resources also supply more than 50 percent 

of all water needs, including agricultural, industrial, mining, and electric 

power generation. A significant number of watersheds depend on ground 

water inflow as the baseflow for streams and springs.

In the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, ground water occurs primarily in the Floridan aquifer, a vast carbonate aquifer system that exists 

throughout most of Florida as well as southern parts of Alabama, Georgia, 

and the Carolinas. Figure 2.3 shows the aquifer system in cross-section. 

The Floridan aquifer is the source of water for potable supply, irrigation, 

and industrial uses throughout most of the two basins. The Tallahassee 

municipal wellfield is the primary user of ground water from this aquifer.

In the Tifton Uplands/Tallahassee Hills upland region, the Suwannee 

Limestone and Ocala Group limestone formations (Tertiary age) comprise 

the aquifer system and are confined by clayey sediment of the Miccosukee 

Formation and Hawthorn Group clays and dolomitic sediments. West 

of the Ochlockonee River in Gadsden County, the limestone units of 

the Floridan aquifer are less porous and permeable, the aquifer does not 

produce very well, and the amount of ground water available for irrigation 

and municipal water supply is restricted. Water quality in the Floridan 

aquifer west of the Ochlockonee River is also of poorer quality, having a 

higher dissolved mineral content.

Ground water/surface water interaction is important in this part of 

the state. In the Tifton Uplands/Tallahassee Hills, north of the Cody 

Scarp, the Floridan aquifer is under artesian pressure, confined by a thick 

overburden of sediment that affords a degree of protection against pollution. However, breaches in the confining layer, mainly sinkholes, provide 

pathways for recharge and the introduction of contaminants. In the karst 

plain, the Floridan aquifer is shallow and unconfined and interacts with 

surface water. It is the source of springs that provide baseflow, sustaining 

the rivers and streams of the St. Marks Basin. In the Woodville Karst Plain, 

there is a direct route for precipitation to recharge the aquifer. In lowland 

areas where the aquifer is unconfined, ground water may occur at the land 

surface in numerous lowland ponds, sinkholes, and swamps. In areas where 

ground water discharges to the surface, it can influence the water chemistry 

in spring-fed streams 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 River (including Wakulla River and Apalachee Bay)

Lake Munson

Ochlockonee River and Bay

Lake Iamonia

Lake Miccosukee

Lake Jackson

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

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 41
Ecological Setting

Ecoregions and Natural Communities

The northern, upland, parts of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

lie in the Southeastern Plains ecoregion. In its natural state, this ecoregion 

contains mixed hardwood and pine forests growing on smooth to irregular 

plains, with well-drained loamy and sandy soils. Subecoregions include 

the Tifton Uplands/Tallahassee Hills and Southern Pine Plains and Hills. 

The Southern Coastal Plain ecoregion contains the southern part of the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. It mainly comprises flat plains that 

are often covered with standing water, mixed forests, and floodplain forests. 

It also contains a highland area with many lakes. This area includes the 

Gulf Coast Flatwoods subecoregion. Standing water covers more than half 

of the region.

Subecoregions are made up of natural communities. In spite of human 

impacts, the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins support diverse natural 

communities and species. Bottomland hardwoods dominate the wetlands 

and shorelines of the river channels, pines and various hardwoods dominate 

upland areas, and either freshwater or saltwater marsh or dune vegetation 

occupies coastal areas. Seagrass meadows and oyster reefs provide habitat 

diversity in submerged areas. Because of their close proximity to the Gulf 

of Mexico, the Apalachicola National Forest, and the St. Marks Wildlife 

Management Area, the rivers and their tributaries retain many of their 

original aquatic and terrestrial species. Table 2.3 lists the acreage and 

percentage of basin area for each natural community in these subecoregions 

and describes its characteristics.

Of about 1.5 million acres in the basin, disturbed community types 

cover almost 443,000 acres, or 29 percent, and natural communities 

occupy about 1,080,000 acres, or 71 percent. Of the disturbed communities, shrub and brush occupy the largest area (almost 265,000 acres), followed by barren 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 168,000 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 swamp (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 information for this 

section was taken from Ecosystems 

of Florida (Myers and Ewell, Eds., 

1990); Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

(http:www.fnai.org) and Closing the 

Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System: Recommendations to Meet Minimum Goals for 

Declining Wildlife Species and Rare 

Plant and Animal Communities (Cox 

et al., 1994).

42 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Area 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 Florida pine flatwoods, south 

Florida pine rocklands, scrubby flatwoods, and commercial 

pine plantations. Cypress domes, bayheads, titi swamps, 

and freshwater marshes are commonly interspersed in isolated depressions throughout this community.

Southern extension of the Piedmont southern mixed hardwoods, occurring mainly on clay soils of the northern 

Panhandle. Also included are upland forests in which 

a mixture of conifers and hardwoods dominate the overstory.

Includes the major upland hardwood associations that 

occur statewide on fairly rich sandy soils.

Herbaceous and shrubby wetland communities that 

include cordgrass, needlerush, and transitional or high 

salt marshes, occurring statewide in brackish waters along 

protected low energy estuarine shorelines.

Wetland communities that are dominated by a wide assortment of herbaceous plant species growing on sand, clay, 

marl, and organic soils in areas where water depths and 

inundation regimes vary.

Regularly inundated communities that form a 

forested buffer along large rivers, creeks, lakes, or occur in 

depressions as circular domes or linear strands. Strongly 

dominated by bald cypress or pond cypress.

Association of wetland adapted trees, composed of stands 

of hardwoods or hardwood-cypress mixture. Occurs on 

organic soils and forms forested floodplain of non-alluvial 

rivers, creeks, and broad lake basins.

Dominated by low-growing, woody shrubs or small trees; 

these are usually found in wetland areas that are experiencing environmental change. Changes result from natural or human perturbations such as altered hydroperiod, 

fire, clear-cutting or land clearing, and siltation.

Commonly comprises the open water areas of inland lakes, 

ponds, rivers, and streams and the brackish and saline 

waters of estuaries, bays, and tidal creeks.

Upland communities with very low-growing grasses and 

forbs. Intensively managed sites such as improved pastures, lawns, golf courses, road shoulders, cemeteries, or 

weedy fallow agricultural fields. 

Association includes a variety of situations where natural 

upland communities have recently been disturbed and are 

recovering through natural successional processes.

Includes unvegetated areas such as graded construction 

sites, clearcuts, 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 salt 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: Cox et al., 1994.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 43
Threatened and Endangered 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 species 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 Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). A recent inventory of these 

basins included 2 fish, 11 amphibians and reptiles, 12 birds, 4 mammals, 

4 invertebrates, and approximately 45 plant species that are on one or 

more of these lists. Of these species, almost two-thirds, or more than 58 

percent, use or live in the basin’s various freshwater, saltwater, and/or wetland communities. Appendix A includes a summary of the listed species 

(Table A-1) as well as critical nonlisted (Table A-2) species in the Ochlockonee and 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 and Bradfordville in Leon County; Quincy, Havana, Greensboro, 

and Gretna in Gadsden County; Monticello in Jefferson County; and 

Crawfordville, Sopchoppy, St. Marks, Medart, Panacea, and Ochlockonee 

Bay in Wakulla County. Quincy (in the Ochlockonee Basin) is the second 

largest incorporated population center (see Figure 2.1). By county, Leon 

County is the 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 

County in Basin

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/

44 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Land Use

Water quality in a basin is directly linked to land use. Land use 

information, developed 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 value 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 pastureland. 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 figure would suggest. Figure 

2.5 summarizes land uses in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. 

Figure 2.5: Level 1 Land Use Summary for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Totals

Unknown

Transportation

and Utilities

Barren Land

Urban and Built Up

Water

Wetlands

Rangeland

Agriculture

Forested

0

200000400000600000800000

1000000120000014000001600000

Area in Acres

Land Use Categories

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 45
Appendix 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 Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

Point and nonpoint sources of pollution are associated with the land 

uses in the basins. Point sources contributing pollution to surface water or 

ground water originate from discrete, well-defined areas such as a facility 

discharge from the end of a pipe, a disposal well, or a wastewater sprayfield. 

They generally fall into two major types: domestic wastewater sources, 

which consist of sewage from homes, businesses, and institutions; and 

industrial wastewater 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 Sources

Permitted Facilities Discharging to Surface Water

Currently, there are about 12 permitted facilities discharging domestic 

or non-domestic effluent to surface water in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins (Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater Facilities Regulation [WAFR] database). These are shown in 

Figure 2.6. 

In Florida, most domestic wastewater facilities in the two basins now 

discharge secondarily treated wastewater to percolation basins or land apply 

their effluent, 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 per day [mgd]). This effluent 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 

effluent to Quincy Creek.

Nondomestic permitted facilities in the basins include effluent from 

petroleum remediation sites, stormwater runoff from industrial sites, power 

plant cooling water, and industrial wastewater effluent. The number of 

industrial wastewater facilities that discharge to surface waters continues 

to decrease as technological advances provide alternatives to industries. 

According to Department records, Englehard Corporation, a mining operation with mining and related industrial discharges, has the largest industrial 

discharge to surface water in the Ochlockonee Basin of Florida. It is 

permitted by the Department to discharge 2.16 mgd to surface water. 

St. Marks Powder, Inc., has the largest permitted industrial wastewater 

discharge to surface water in the St. Marks Basin (a design flow rate of 

0.79 mgd). 

There are numerous domestic and industrial wastewater facilities 

discharging to surface water north of the Florida-Georgia state line. 

Discharges of untreated and partially treated domestic and industrial wastewater from plants in Georgia are documented and may be contributing to 

46 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 2.6: Permitted Domestic and Industrial Wastewater Facilities Regulated by State 

and Federal Agencies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

degraded water quality in the Ochlockonee River itself, Lake Talquin, and 

Lake Iamonia (Pope and McGlynn, 2001).

Permitted Facilities Discharging to Ground Water

The Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins contain approximately 75 

permitted domestic and nondomestic wastewater facilities that discharge 

to ground water by way of sprayfields, percolation ponds, or drain fields 

(Figure 2.6). The City of Tallahassee Municipal Wastewater Treatment 

Plant (design capacity of 27.5 mgd) operates a land application sprayfield 

in the St. Marks Basin that accommodates most of the city’s wastewater. 

It constitutes the largest wastewater discharge in the two basins. No 

basinwide ground water issues have been linked to any of these permitted 

facilities.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 47
According to the Department’s database, the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks 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 domestic solid waste. Class III landfi lls contain construction and demolition debris, yard trash, and other materials that were not 

considered 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). The Department 

is currently reviewing all active C&D landfi ll requirements. There are 

also numerous closed, uncontrolled landfi ll sites within the two basins that 

do not fall under permitting requirements because they operated prior to 

the adoption of solid waste regulations. Information on permitted solid 

Figure 2.7: Permitted Landfills and Hazardous Waste Sites in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins

48 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
waste landfi lls, C&D dumps, transfer sites, and other solid waste handling 

facilities for an area that includes the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins is 

provided in Table C-3 of Appendix C.

Nonpoint Sources

Rainfall transports pollutants, such as nutrients, heavy metals, and 

sediments, left on the landscape by human activities and natural sources. 

The rain that falls on land becomes stormwater runoff, which flows over the 

land surface and through the ground, carrying nonpoint source pollution 

from many different sources to the basin’s streams and rivers.

Nonpoint sources include atmospheric deposition, as well as runoff 

or leaching from agricultural, urban, and unvegetated lands. Stormwater 

in urban areas 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 pesticide residues.

Air pollution not only affects human health but can also affect water 

quality. Atmospheric deposition on land or water through “wet” or “dry” 

processes is an important 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 significant loads of nutrients, heavy metals, 

and other chemicals to lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. In Florida, most air 

pollutants are from fossil fuel combustion, mainly power plants and motor 

vehicles. Other significant sources of air pollutants include waste incineration, sulfuric acid production, and the combustion of plant and animal 

biomass. The air pollutants of greatest concern in Florida include sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen compounds, which contribute to eutrophication 

of lakes and 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 nonpoint source contamination stem from activities that 

have long been considered benign or even beneficial. For example, increases 

in nutrient levels in spring-fed streams 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 areas, individual septic tanks and drainfields are used for domestic 

wastewater disposal. Even properly sited systems can contribute nutrients 

to ground water 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 urban 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 tool to generally identify potential problems associated 

with runoff from various land uses in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Eutrophication

A process by which a waterbody 

becomes rich in dissolved nutrients, 

often leading to algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen, and changes in community composition. Eutrophication 

occurs naturally, but can be accelerated by human activites that increase 

nutrient inputs to the waterbody.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 49
Basins. Appendix D provides the results of this model and supporting 

documentation.

Remediation Activities

Contaminated site remediation activities cover a broad spectrum of 

programs to clean up ground water and soil contamination. These include 

state-managed hazardous waste, dry-cleaning, and petroleum cleanup 

programs; as well as federal cleanups under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as 

the Superfund, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

programs. 

The EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL) is a comprehensive list of the 

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that pose the greatest threat to human 

health or the 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 sites within the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. 

The Department’s state-funded cleanup program administers the 

cleanup of contaminated hazardous waste sites when enforcement action 

taken against responsible parties is unsuccessful or when no responsible 

party is identifi ed. There is one state-managed hazardous waste cleanup site 

in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins (Figure 2.7). Post and Lumber 

Preserving Company (Site ID No. 000000000107) is the site of a former 

wood-treating facility in the Ochlockonee Basin near Quincy.

Petroleum and dry-cleaning solvent sites comprise by far the bulk of 

the contaminated sites in the state and in these particular basins. Current 

database inventory records indicate that there are more than 100 petroleum 

facilities and approximately 22 dry-cleaning sites in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins that are eligible for cleanup under the state program. By 

definition, eligible sites have documented contamination. 

Generally, there is no basinwide picture of ground water conditions. 

The majority of ground water data are from assessment reports and remedial action plans for contaminated sites. This information focuses on the 

extent of site contamination and the effectiveness of remedial action at 

individual sites and is diffi cult to apply to a regional setting.

Delineated Ground Water Contamination Areas

The Department established the Delineation Program in 1988 in 

response 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 water, it was expanded to include ground water 

contaminated by other pesticides, industrial solvents, and nutrients. Its 

focus is to protect public health and minimize the potential for crosscontamination of adjacent ground water resources.

The St. Marks Basin contains a total of 3,255 delineated acres, all 

in three areas of Tallahassee (Figure 2.7). These areas were delineated 

for ground water contaminated by chlorinated solvents (tetrachloroethylene 

and/or trichloroethylene). It is believed the contamination in the Floridan 

50 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
aquifer originated from improper disposal of solvents from dry-cleaning 

facilities, wholesale supply facilities, or industrial users. Twenty-five drycleaning facilities in Leon County have documented contamination; soil 

and/or ground water at two of them are currently being remediated.

By 1990, the City of Tallahassee Water Department had identifi ed 

contamination from low levels of these solvents in seven of the public water 

supply wells serving Tallahassee residents. The seven wells are located 

in two of these delineated areas. The city addressed the concern over 

public health by installing treatment systems at the wellheads to remove the 

contaminants by activated carbon fi ltration.

Hydrologic Modifications

Hydrologic modifications include human-made features such as dams, 

channelized streams and canals, water control structures on large lakes, 

and impervious surfaces. All of these modifications influence a watershed’s 

condition and the way stormwater flows and pollutants are attenuated by 

the natural systems. In some basins, water use also influences natural 

hydrology. 

Two large lakes in the two basins are artificially 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 the basin. Lake Munson, south of Tallahassee, is maintained as an 

impoundment to provide floodwater equalization, protecting residential 

areas to the south. It receives urban stormwater via the city’s network 

of stormwater ditches. Water control structures on Lake Miccosukee 

and the Lake Lafayette chain regulate water levels and artificially control 

water levels in waterbodies that used to normally respond to natural 

climatic fluctuations 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 discussed earlier, a drainage network of channelized streams and 

ditches in the urban Tallahassee area and roadside ditches is used to 

transport stormwater 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 detention in urban areas like Tallahassee is low because of 

the large area covered by impervious surfaces such as buildings, parking 

lots, and paved 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 filtration or treatment of pollutants.

Water Use

Ground water and surface water are used for water supply in the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. In 1990, water use in the two basins 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 51
averaged 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 two basins are for public supply (39 percent) and irrigation (28 

percent). Most ground water use is in the St. Marks Basin (61 percent), 

with the largest amount used for public supply. Most surface water use is 

in the Ochlockonee Basin (93 percent), with the largest amount used for 

irrigation. Water levels in Telogia Creek, a source of irrigation water in the 

northwestern part of the Ochlockonee Basin, are significantly lowered by 

irrigation water withdrawals during times of low water. The Department 

has recommended that NWFWMD establish minimum flows and levels 

(MFLs) for Telogia Creek (Struhs, 2000).

Historical, Current, and Ongoing Watershed 

Management Activities and Processes

NWFWMD manages water resources of the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins. The Department regulates water quality issues, and the 

basins are located in its Northwest District. Headquarters of the Northwest 

District are in Pensacola and there is a branch offi ce of the 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 the years, management plans and activities in the basins have 

addressed such issues as preservation of designated waterbodies, restoration 

of polluted lakes, sewage discharge, and urban stormwater pollution. The 

following sections summarize some of the historical, current, and ongoing 

management and planning activities for addressing resource preservation 

and water quality restoration in the basins.

Creation of Conservation and Preservation Lands

Because of the relatively low density of development, particularly in the 

coastal lowland region, most of the basins’ rivers and lakes and the estuary 

are in relatively good condition. This is due largely to the creation of the 

St. Marks Wildlife Refuge and the Apalachicola National Forest in the 

1930s by the federal government. Together, these publicly owned areas 

comprise more than 630,000 acres and contain most of the wetlands and 

coastal areas of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins (Figure 2.1). As 

long as this land remains undeveloped and is responsibly managed, this 

significant buffer will continue to provide protection to the rivers and 

coastal environment.

State-funded land acquisitions 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 significant. This 2,800-acre area 

includes Wakulla Springs, the source of the Wakulla River and one of 

52 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
the largest 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 

added to the Wakulla Springs buffer. Part of this has been added to 

the Wakulla Springs State Park, and the Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (DACS) Division of Forestry is managing part as the 

Wakulla State Forest. In the Ochlockonee Basin, state acquisitions include 

public lands around Lake Talquin (Joe Budd Wildlife Management Area, 

Lake Talquin 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 corridors adjacent to lakes that will provide significant protection 

of these resources from pollution as well as serving as recreational lands. 

Under various 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 acquisition, Okeeheepke acquisition), and Heritage Trail/

Lake Piney Z and 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 Wastewater Discharges to Surface Water

The City of Tallahassee constructed a land application system for 

disposal of municipal wastewater in the late 1970s and eliminated the 

direct discharge of municipal sewage to Munson Slough in the early 

1980s. This has been the most significant step 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 Ochlockonee 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 

discharge to surface water.

Tallahassee Area Stormwater Management 

The City of Tallahassee Stormwater Management Division (SMD) 

and the Leon County Public Works Department have carried out most 

of the stormwater management activities to date. Activities have focused 

on implementing drainage improvements, carrying out stormwater retrofits, 

and restoring Tallahassee lakes. The City of Tallahassee and Leon County 

represent the only local governments in northwest Florida to receive delegation of the statewide stormwater rule (Chapter 62-25, Florida Administrative Code). The program, administered locally by the City of Tallahassee 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 53
Growth Management Department and Leon County Growth and Environmental Management, addresses stormwater treatment for new construction. 

It has long been documented that municipal 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 1980s 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 the need for stormwater treatment, and 

there are increasing numbers of stormwater projects and use of nonstructural 

management practices. The nonstructural stormwater practices include public 

information, staff training, incident reports, and other activities to address and 

prevent polluted stormwater.

Local Stormwater Activities and Projects

In accordance with 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 

flooding and drainage improvements. Many of these projects, being implemented by the City of Tallahassee, will also include a stormwater treatment or 

restoration component. The City of Tallahassee has constructed 11 regional 

facilities throughout the community that incorporate both water quality treatment as well as flood prevention into their design. Development guidelines 

and permitting requirements to prevent or minimize stormwater contamination 

were also the result of the Comprehensive Plan and the stormwater ordinance. 

New developments are now required to include adequate stormwater treatment 

measures. Redeveloped sites must also be retrofi tted to provide treatment, and 

efforts are made to preserve sensitive areas.

City of Tallahassee Stormwater Pollution Reduction Program

In 1999, the City of Tallahassee SMD began implementing a Stormwater 

Pollution Reduction Program. The program will incorporate strategic stormwater retrofi ts and a management program to reduce stormwater pollution 

from existing developed areas. Initial phases of the process that are under 

way include a monitoring program, a basin assessment, and an assessment of 

current level of stormwater treatment. In upcoming years, a list of stormwater 

treatment alternatives and a financial plan will be developed and presented to 

the City Commission for review and approval. Milestones for implementation 

of the selected stormwater treatment alternatives will then be included in the 

Comprehensive Plan.

Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plans

Under the 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 were produced.

Lake Jackson Management Plan

Under the SWIM program, NWFWMD developed a plan to address 

degradation of Lake Jackson by urban stormwater. This plan, submitted in 

1990 and updated in 1994 and 1997, addresses priority issues in four program 

54 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
areas: water quality, preservation and restoration, watershed management, and 

public education and awareness. Essential activities outlined in the plan 

include removing contaminated sediments, retrofi tting existing development, 

and introducing strict stormwater requirements for new development. Various 

monitoring and restoration activities have been performed. Some of these 

projects are not currently funded, but may be at a later date.

St. Marks River Watershed Plan

In the 1997 SWIM Plan for the St. Marks Basin, NWFWMD identified 

several monitoring and inventory projects. Restoration needs have not been 

identified for the main river systems. The plan did not address restoration 

needs of lakes in the basin (Lakes Munson, Lafayette, and Miccosukee) because 

of cost and uncertainty about the relationship between the condition of the 

lakes and potential environmental impacts on the rivers and estuary. Some of 

the SWIM Plan projects that were 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 habitat enhancement 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 restoration of lakes has been made available through FWC. The 1999 

Florida Forever legislation includes a fisheries restoration 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 and sediments, reestablish native submersed and emergent vegetation, 

implement tussock control measures, and carry out other enhancements to 

fishery habitat through 2010. 

Lake Jackson Restoration

Historically, Lake Jackson has periodically drained when sinkholes form 

and has refilled during wet-weather 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 several phases of a restoration after prolonged drought and sinkholes 

drained the 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. These 

actions 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 provides floodwater equalization for areas downstream. Deltas 

of transported sediment and accumulations of organic muck have choked 

the lake and blanketed the bottom. The Lake Munson Action Plan was 

implemented after record flooding in Leon County by a series of tropical storms 

Tussock

An area of raised solid ground in a 

marsh, which is bound together by 

roots of vegetation.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 55
and depressions in 1994. Leon County began the Lake Munson project in late 

1999. 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 floodwater equalization and improve the 

quality of water flowing 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 been responsible for restoration and habitat enhancement 

projects for several other area lakes: Miccosukee, Iamonia, Piney Z, and Talquin.

FWC’s Aquatic Resources Enhancement Section initiated an extreme drawdown of Lake Miccosukee in March 1999 and closed the lake to fishing. Muck 

was then removed from four sites around the lake. In the process, approximately 

25 acres of the lake bottom were scraped. To control woody tussocks and oxidize 

organic material, 1,300 acres on the bottom were burned.

Lake Iamonia 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 along 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 fishing fingers and five wildlife islands, and the installation of a water 

control structure in the 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 fishing regulations have been implemented in the portion 

opened to the public in 2001.

An artificial 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 Talquin was 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 planted to reestablish emergent 

littoral vegetation. Winter rye grass seed was planted to provide nursery areas 

for the newly spawned sport fish. While this practice created a temporary 

hardship on area marinas and fish camps, the drawdown stimulated the fishery 

and improved the lake’s overall health.

Ground Water Protection

As required by the 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 for implementing the Aquifer Recharge/Wellhead Protection Ordinance of 1992. Projects in which the City has been involved include a karst 

inventory of Leon County and a wellhead protection assessment and modeling 

project funded by the EPA. NWFWMD and the U.S. Geological Survey have 

provided support to the city.

56 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Bartel, R. L., and F. B. Ard. 1992. USEPA Clean Lakes Program, Phase I 

Diagnostic Feasibility 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 October 1992). City of Tallahassee and Leon County 

Stormwater Management Plan. Northwest Florida Water Management 

District, Water Resources Assessment 91-1.

City of Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department Home Page. 

Available: http://www.ci.tallahassee.fl .us/citytlh/planning/

tlcpdhp.html

Cox, J. 2000. City of Tallahassee Stormwater Management. Personal communication regarding City of Tallahassee Stormwater Pollution Reduction Program.

Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. McLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the 

Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, Florida. Florida 

Game and 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 Georgia and Delineation of Contributing Areas for Selected 

City of Tallahassee Water Supply Wells. U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 95-4295.

Fernald, E. A., and E. D. Purdum, Eds. 1998. Water Resources Atlas 

of Florida. Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State 

University.

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-302. Surface Water Quality 

Standards.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Wastewater 

Facilities Regulation database.

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 Regions of Florida. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA/R-97/127.

Hendry, C. W., and C. R. Sproul. 1966. Geology and 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: http://www.epa.gov/surf/HUCS/

hucinfo/03120003 

Myers, R. L., and J. J. Ewel, Eds. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University 

of Central Florida Press.

Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2000. District Water 

Management Plan.

References

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 57
Northwest Florida Water Management District. May 1997a. St. Marks 

Watershed Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan. Program 

Development Series 97-1.

Northwest Florida Water Management District. November 1997b. Lake 

Jackson Management Plan Addendum. Program Development Series 

97-4.

Northwest Florida Water Management District. June 1994. Lake Jackson 

Management Plan. Program Development Series 94-2.

Pascale, C. A., and J. R. Wagner. 1982. Water Resources 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. Curry. 1996. Hydrogeology of the Northwest Florida Water 

Management District. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 

Special Report 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 Bulletin 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 flows 

and levels for Telogia Creek.

United States Census Bureau. Available: http://www.census.gov/

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Surf Your Watershed 

Internet Site. Apalachee Bay-St. Marks River Basin. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/surf/HUCS/hucinfo/03120001 

United States Geological Survey. Water Resources Data for the United States. 

Available: http://water.usgs.gov.nwis

Upper Ochlockonee Basin. Available: http://www.epa.gov.surf/HUCS/

hucinfo/03120002 

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.

58 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Chapter 3: Status of Water Quality and 

Ecological Resources

Chapter Summary

This chapter summarizes the current status of surface 

water and ground water quality and ecological resources 

in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Group 1 Basins. 

The primary purpose of evaluating the status of surface 

water quality is to determine if individual waterbodies 

or smaller drainage basins identified with a unique 

waterbody identification (WBID) number are potentially 

impaired. These waters, which must meet specific thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality requirements 

in the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Section 62-303, Florida Administrative Code), will be listed 

on the state’s planning list of impaired waters. Where sufficient data are available, the 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 ecological 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 

ecological 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.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 59
This chapter presents a preliminary assessment of surface and ground 

water quality in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. It summarizes 

concentrations of key water quality indicators (e.g., nutrients, chlorophyll 

a, DO, and microbiological parameters) for each basin, with summaries 

provided for each planning unit and surface water segment within planning 

units, as appropriate. The report also notes where applicable surface water 

quality criteria have been exceeded and graphically summarizes report 

findings, noting potential water quality problems and where there is insufficient information for assessment. Ground water quality is presented via 

a Basin Resource Index (BRI) that identifies ground water issues that 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 data sources and includes some qualitative information. However, 

the main source of surface water quality data is the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database for the 

10-year period of 1989 to 1998, and the main source of data for the 

ground water assessment is the Department’s Generalized Water Information System (GWIS). Other data sources used for the report include 

the Department’s Biology database, as well as fish consumption advisory 

information and beach advisory data from the Florida Department of 

Health (DOH). 

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 basis for the Section 305(b) water quality assessment for the basin 

(a requirement under the federal Clean Water Act). It will also include a 

verifi ed list of impaired waters, 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 identifies waters that may 

not meet their designated uses. Waters that do not meet their designated 

uses are considered potentially impaired and are therefore included on a 

planning list for verification of impairment through further study. To 

be placed on the planning list, waters must meet specific thresholds for 

data sufficiency and data quality contained in Chapter 62-303 (Identification of Impaired Surface 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 the 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 EPA in 1998. That 303(d) 

list provided by Florida included these 

waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins.

Ochlockonee Basin

Little River

Black Creek

Ochlockonee River 

St. Marks River 

Swamp Creek

Lake Iamonia Outlet

Meginniss Arm Run

Harbinwood Estates Drain

Juniper Creek

St. Marks Basin

Lake Miccosukee 

Black Creek

Ward Creek

Munson Slough

Lake Lafayette Drain

Munson Sink

Central Drainage Ditch

St. Augustine Branch

East Drainage Ditch

Godby Ditch

Lake Bradford

Lake Munson 

60 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
In addition to identifying potentially impaired waters, the Status 

Report contains a list of the pollutants associated with impairments. However, there is no attempt in it to identify specific sources or causes of 

potential impairments. Detailed information on the causes of impairment 

will be developed 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 determine the status of surface water quality in the basins, three 

categories of data —chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption 

advisories— were evaluated to determine potential impairment. The main 

source of water quality data was information collected between 1989 and 

1998 and 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 included the Department’s 

Biology database and fish 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 for 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 parameters.

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 phosphorus) for lakes

Conventionals Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms, total coliforms, pH, and unionized ammonia 

The requirements for 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 water should be placed on the planning list for each parameter, 

the chemical data were analyzed using a computer program written to 

evaluate the language in the IWR, with two exceptions. First, unionized 

ammonia data were not analyzed by the program, but rather with an Excel 

spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criterion could 

not be programmed, the 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 parameters were compared with 

the state surface water quality criteria in Section 62-302.530, Florida 

 Impaired Waters Rule 

(IWR)

Section 62-303 of the Florida 

Administrative Code, the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, 

defines the 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 water quality 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 planning list. The criteria 

for the planning list are less stringent 

than the criteria for the verified list. 

Once a waterbody is on the planning 

list, additional data and information 

will be gathered and examined to 

determine if the water should be 

included on the verified list or if additional data collection is needed to 

make that determination.

Exceedance

The amount by which something, 

especially a pollutant, exceeds a standard or permissible measurement.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 61
Administrative Code. Chapter 62-303 (Identification of Impaired Surface 

Waters) contains a table of sample numbers versus exceedances. A waterbody is placed on the planning list if there is at least 80 percent confidence 

that the actual criteria exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10 

percent.

Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual 

mean chlorophyll a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. 

For lakes, the TSI was calculated using chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, 

and total nitrogen measurements. Direct evidence of imbalances of flora 

and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the evaluation of nutrient 

impairments.

In estuarine areas, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the 

annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 mg/L or if annual 

mean chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive years. For streams, a water was 

considered 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 

considered 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 

considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 40. In 

addition, a lake 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 assessed using the IWR as guidance. Appendix E includes the bioassessment methodology and summarizes the results 

of each bioassessment 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 

artificial 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 the data used according to its standard operating procedures. Waters 

that met the criteria for inclusion on the planning list are indicated by 

placing “biology” as the parameter of impairment.

Fish Consumption Advisories

Fish consumption advisories were based on DOH’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories for surface waters because of high 

levels of mercury in fish tissue. Potential impairments identifi ed for individual waterbodies in this assessment were based solely on these fish consumption advisory reports. Waterbodies with “limited consumption” or 

“no consumption” status were considered potentially impaired. 

62 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Planning Units 

Planning units help organize information and management strategies 

around prominent subbasin characteristics. The Department has identifi ed 

13 watershed-based planning units in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins. These provide a geographic basis for assessment, reporting, and 

planning activities under the watershed management approach. Table 3.1 

lists these planning units, and Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show their locations and 

boundaries within the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, respectively.

Planning Unit

North Ochlockonee River

South Ochlockonee River

Lake Iamonia

Lake Jackson

Telogia Creek

Sopchoppy River

St. Marks River

Lake Miccosukee

Lake Lafayette

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek

Wakulla River

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

Description

Ochlockonee River and all tributaries in Florida that drain into Lake Talquin

Ochlockonee River and all tributaries south of Lake Talquin except Telogia 

Creek and Sopchoppy River

Lake Iamonia Basin 

Lake Jackson Basin

Telogia Creek Basin and all tributaries

Sopchoppy River Basin and all tributaries

St. Marks River Basin including all tributaries except Wakulla River

Lake Miccosukee Basin

Lake Lafayette Basin

Combined area of Lake Munson and Fred George Sink Basins

Combined area including Lost Creek and Fisher Creek watersheds

Wakulla River Basin including all tributaries

Apalachee Bay and 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 identifies the waters in each planning unit that have been 

determined to be potentially impaired for one or more data categories. 

The potential impairments are presented by waterbody segment. The 

assessment used to determine potential impairment is based on the previously described methodology 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 represent individual waterbodies or segments. Figures 3.2 and 3.3

show the segments with waterbody identification (WBIDs) numbers 

in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, respectively. WBIDs can 

represent individual waterbodies, aggregations of waterbodies, or segments 

of larger waterbodies. 

Data sufficiency has been a limiting factor in the preliminary assessment of impaired waters in these basins. Some waterbodies lack data 

overall, while 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 monitoring that will be conducted based 

on the preliminary assessment.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 63
Figure 3.1: Planning Unit Locations and Boundaries in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

64 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 3.2: Segments with Waterbody Identification (WBID) Numbers in the Ochlockonee Basin

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 65
Figure 3.3: Segments with Waterbody Identification (WBID) Numbers in the St. Marks Basin

66 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Impaired Waterbodies and Segments

The Ochlockonee Basin contains 287 waterbodies or segments, which 

are categorized as streams, lakes, blackwaters, springs, or estuaries. Seventy 

of these WBIDs have been delineated in the St. Marks Basin. Table 3.2 

summarizes the water quality assessment status for each of the waterbody 

types in the basins’ 13 planning units, as it is limited by data availability. 

Appendix G provides more detailed information on water quality assessment status (see sidebar). 

Assessment status is based on a waterbody or segment having data in 

STORET for the parameter categories described above that are sufficient 

for an assessment per the IWR methodology. Fully assessed waters have 

sufficient data for all assessment criteria (nutrients, conventionals, biology, 

metals, etc.). Partially assessed waters have sufficient data for some of the 

criteria. Waters that were not assessed have insufficient data for all criteria. 

Appendix G

This appendix, available in electronic 

format, contains a Microsoft EXCEL 

workbook of tabulated data and statistical information that support the 

results of the preliminary surface 

water assessment. Contents of 

Appendix G are listed below.

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

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 Wakulla River Planning 

Unit Stats 1989–99

Table G-3.13 Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay Planning Unit Stats 

1989–99

Table G-4 Ochlockonee/St. Marks 

Summary of Conventional 

Exceedances

Table G-5 Ochlockonee/St.Marks 

Summary of Metal Exceedances

Table G-6 List of Flow and Water 

Level Gage Sites

Notes:

WBID—Waterbody identification number, could represent entire waterbody or segment of a waterbody. Waterbodies are assigned to the following categories: Streams, 

Lakes, Blackwaters, Springs, Estuaries

Detailed summary information is provided in Tables G-1 and G-2 in Appendix G.

Table 3.2: Assessment Status Summary Information

North Ochlockonee River

South Ochlockonee River

Lake Iamonia

Lake Jackson

Telogia Creek

Sopchoppy River

St. Marks River

Lake Miccosukee

Lake Lafayette

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek

Wakulla River

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

Planning 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 Partially 

Assessed

88

41

5

2

73

5

15

1

5

4

5

1

13

WBIDs Not 

Assessed

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 67
Figure 3.4: Ochlockonee 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 are potentially impaired for nutrients. Nutrient impairment status was 

also evaluated by considering evidence that would suggest imbalances of 

flora or fauna in waterbodies.

68 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 3.5: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basin Waters Potentially Impaired for Conventional Water 

Quality Pollutants According to the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Water Quality Standard Exceedances

Figure 3.5 shows the waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

that are potentially impaired for conventional pollutants. Appendix G 

provides statistical summaries of water quality data in each planning unit 

and statewide median values. 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 69
Metals

Figure 3.6 shows the waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

that are 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

70 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 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 potentially impaired biology. Appendix F provides a detailed summary of biological sampling results in the basins, by waterbody or segment 

and planning unit. 

Fish Consumption Advisories

In the basins, Lake Jackson is the only significant waterbody in the 

unlimited consumption category for fish. Limited consumption advisories 

have been issued by the Department of Health for Lake Miccosukee, Lake 

Iamonia, Lake Talquin, St. Marks River, Ochlockonee River, Sopchoppy 

River, and Crooked River. Most other waterbodies have not been assessed.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 71
Water Quality Evaluation by Basin Planning 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 waterbodies 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 planning unit. Detailed information on water quality that 

supports Table 3.3 is provided in Appendix G.

• North Ochlockonee River

General Description

The North Ochlockonee River contains numerous tributaries in Georgia and Florida and is impounded in Florida as Lake Talquin to provide 

hydroelectric power and recreation. About 95 miles of the river’s 211 

miles are in Georgia. Significant tributary inputs in Georgia include the 

Ochlockonee River, Oquina Creek, Bridge Creek, and Tired Creek. Some 

of the significant Florida tributaries, such as Swamp Creek, Attapulgus 

Creek, and Little River, originate in Georgia.

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

There are several 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 effluent. The City of Tallahassee Hopkins Power Plant discharges cooling water (1.87 mgd) to Unnamed Branch (Beaver Creek) and 

Lake Talquin. The Attapulgus, Georgia operations of Englehard Corporation also has a significant industrial wastewater discharge to the system just 

north of the Florida-Georgia line, potentially affecting Attapulgus Creek 

and Little River.

The lack of dilution flow in the Ochlockonee River was evident during 

the recent drought (1997-2001) when a flow of 0.4 cfs was measured 

(Wieckowicz et al., 2000) at Georgia’s S.R. 3, approximately 59 miles 

downstream from the headwaters. Agriculture is the dominant land use 

in the Georgia portion of the Ochlockonee Basin (GDNR-EPD, 1996). 

The combination of cultivated/exposed earth and pasture categories is 43.9 

percent. 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 Talquin has a documented problem with invasive aquatic vegetation (water lettuce and water hyacinth) and is on a list of waterbodies 

targeted by the Department (FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 

2000). The overgrowth of invasive plants may be related to the nutrient 

Information on Land Use 

and Point Sources in 

Planning Units

A detailed assessment of water quality in the basins for the purpose of 

TMDL development requires identification of the source(s) of waterbody 

impairment. As part of the status 

assessment, information was gathered on land use and on permitted 

facilities that discharge wastewater. 

Land use is described for each planning unit in the following discussion. 

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 the land use totals and 

percentages for the various planning 

units in Florida. The land use for the 

portion of the Ochlockonee Basin in 

Georgia is given in Table B-2. Domestic and industrial surface discharge 

facilities in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks 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 waste facilities in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins are listed 

in Table C-3 of Appendix C. 

72 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
load carried to the lake by the Ochlockonee River and other tributaries 

(Pope and McGlynn, 2001). 

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 shows 10 potentially impaired waterbodies or segments in 

the planning unit. These included Little River, Lake Tallavana, Harvey 

Creek, two segments of Lake Talquin, two segments of the Ochlockonee 

River, and Quincy Creek. Potential impairments were noted for conventionals (5 WBIDs), nutrients (1 WBID), biology (1 WBID), and fish 

consumption advisory (4 WBIDs). 

• South Ochlockonee River

General Description

The starting point for the planning unit is the Jackson Bluff Dam on 

Lake Talquin at S.R. 20. Numerous small blackwater tributaries drain the 

Apalachicola Forest to the east and west of the Ochlockonee. Significant 

tributaries include Syfrett Creek, Telogia Creek, and the Sopchoppy River. 

The latter two tributaries are included in their own planning units.

Few water quality data have been collected in the South Ochlockonee 

planning unit. 

Potential Sources and Permitted 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 confirmed 

ecological problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 shows three waterbodies or segments listed as potentially 

impaired for this planning unit: Black Creek for conventionals and biology, a segment of the Ochlockonee River for metals (iron) and a fish 

advisory, and another segment of the Ochlockonee River for DO and a 

fish advisory.

• Lake Iamonia

General Description

This shallow lake has few major tributaries. The one 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 lakes drain into the Lester Cove tributary. Other tributaries 

include Lake Arrowhead (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 Ochlockonee River on the west. However, the Ochlockonee River can 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 73
Table 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

Quincy Creek

South Ochlockonee River

Black Creek

Ochlockonee River

Ochlockonee River

Lake Iamonia 

Lake Iamonia Outlet

Lake Jackson 

Meginniss Arm Run

Telogia Creek

Telogia Creek

Sopchoppy River

Sopchoppy River

St. Marks River

Black Creek

St. Marks River

Lloyd Creek (Copeland Sink 

Drain)

Lake Miccosukee

Caney Branch

Lake Miccosukee

Lake Lafayette

Lake Lafayette Drain

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink 

Munson Sink (Ames Sink)

Munson Slough

Lake Munson

Lake Hiawatha

Wakulla River

McBride Slough

Big Boggy Branch

Coastal Watersheds 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

# Stations

X

X

X

X

Nutrients

X

X

X

X

X

X

 X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Conventionals 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., biology, fish

T.Colif., F.Colif., fish

F.Colif., T.Colif.

F.Colif., biology

Metals (iron), 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 and 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 stations within that WBID

X—Potentially impaired per the IWR criteria

DO—Dissolved oxygen

F.Colif.—Fecal coliform

T.Colif.—Total coliform

74 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
contribute significant flows and loads to Lake Iamonia at the Meridian 

Road north and south bridges during certain high flow periods. 

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

There is only one significant surface/ground water discharge within 

this planning unit, the Talquin Electric domestic wastewater sprayfield

 (0.7 mgd), in the Lester Cove Tributary Basin. Studies of the impact 

of the present sprayfield by a Leon County consultant (McGlynn, 1999) 

and the Department led to the construction of a berm on the sprayfield 

perimeter. The berm acts as a buffer for the adjoining Lester Creek. 

Land use 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 growth is a concern. Accumulations of organic muck 

from decomposing 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, 2000).

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 shows only one waterbody listed as potentially impaired in 

the planning unit, Lake Iamonia Outlet (Lake Iamonia) for a fish advisory. 

Lakes Dianna and Arrowhead exceed criteria for lake trend nutrients, but 

they are 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 Description

Lake Jackson is a closed basin with internal drainage to at least 

two named sinks, Porter Sink and Lime Sink. Approximately every 25 

years, the lake naturally drains into one or more sinkholes. The lake 

most recently drained in October 1999 and it has not fully recovered 

from the extended drought. Significant tributaries to the lake include 

Meginniss Arm Run, Fords Arm, Meridian Creek, Butlers Mill Creek 

(Indian Mounds State Park), and Jackson Heights Creek in Harbinwood 

Estates.

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

There are no known surface discharges in the planning unit. However, 

numerous domestic waste pump stations, septic tanks, and stormwater 

facilities can and do affect water quality in the basin. One example is 

the pump station at the headwaters of Butlers Mill Creek. Land use is 

Berm

An elongated ridge.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 75
dominated by urban and built-up (37.1 percent), followed by upland forest 

(36.1 percent) and wetlands (9.3 percent).

Ecological Problems

Before the natural drawdown of the lake in 1999, its ecological problems were being studied. As related by Livingston (1997), algal blooms 

were common in portions of Lake Jackson by the late 1980s. Meginniss 

Arm, the 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), fish in Lake Jackson showed a high 

incidence of disease, including tumors, sores, damaged gills and fins, bacterial and parasitic infections, and internal abnormalities. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations, which provide an indicator of the lake’s biological 

health, were also reported to be low in both number and species richness.

Since the natural drawdown in 1999 and subsequent restoration activities, the lake has not returned to normal stage and the results of restoration 

have not been measured.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 (based on the limited data set) includes one waterbody listed 

as potentially impaired. Meginniss Arm Run was listed as potentially 

impaired for DO and stream nutrients. Based on the reports of past 

imbalances of flora and fauna, algal blooms, and overgrowth of invasive 

species, Lake Jackson would have been placed on the list as potentially 

impaired for nutrients. However, due to the extended drying period and 

the massive restoration effort to remove nutrient-laden muck and sediment, 

Lake Jackson is not being included as potentially impaired at this time. No 

bioassessment data were available for waters in this planning unit. When 

the STORET database is updated, additional potential impairments may be 

identifi ed for this planning unit.

• Telogia Creek

General Description

Major tributaries to Telogia Creek include Pitman Branch, Little Telogia 

Creek, Juniper Creek, Yon Creek, Mule Creek, Panther Creek, Big Creek, 

Stokes Branch Creek, and Yellow Creek. The NWFWMD has declared the 

northern part of Telogia Creek a Water Caution Area because of the lack of 

stream flow in the basin (see page 51 on water use in Chapter 2).

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

There are three known surface discharges in the planning unit. Timber 

Energy Resources is an intermittent flow to a branch of Stokes Branch 

Creek (Barrett, 1999). The facility is a waste wood-fueled power plant 

that was formerly a naval stores facility (Reichhold Chemical). The basin 

Benthic

Occurring at the bottom of a body of 

water.

76 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
also contains two petroleum cleanup sites, Junior Food Store No. 240 

and Grubbs Petroleum. The Town of Gretna’s sewage treatment plant 

(0.35 mgd) is currently a domestic reuse wastewater facility that formerly 

discharged to an overland flow/spray facility near the 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 confirmed 

ecological problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 shows only one waterbody listed as potentially impaired. 

Telogia Creek was listed for fecal coliform and total coliform.

• Sopchoppy River

General Description

The river has its headwaters in the Apalachicola National Forest, where 

the West and East Branches join south of Otter Camp. Monkey Creek 

is the only tributary.

Water quality is generally very good. The U.S. Geological Survey uses 

the Sopchoppy River as a national ambient water quality monitoring site to 

represent pristine water quality. 

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

There are no known surface discharges. Land cover is predominately 

wetlands (51.7 percent) and upland 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 confirmed 

ecological problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 shows that one waterbody is potentially impaired. Sopchoppy River is listed for a fish consumption advisory.

• St. Marks River

General Description

The St. Marks River originates as an intermittent stream in eastern 

Leon County near U.S. 90. It flows southward through low-density 

residential areas, pine plantation land, and wetland areas and receives direct 

flow from few tributaries. In one northern area of the planning unit, 

the stream basin is adjacent to a karst system. This system includes 

the Black Creek/Still Creek/Bird Sink Basin, Long Pond Creek/Patty 

Sink Basin, Copeland Sink Basin, and Lloyd Creek Sink Basin. No connection between these sinks and the St. Marks River has been established. 

Further south, there are several potential or “pseudo” tributaries to the river 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 77
including Burnt Mill Creek, Sweetwater Creek, and Moore Creek. These 

tributaries may influence the river during very high flows. Further to the 

south, the Limestone Creek system, Gum Creek, and Willow Creek feed 

the river. Below this area, the Horn Springs group and Chicken Branch 

contribute appreciably to the river’s flow. Further south, at Natural Bridge, 

the St. Marks River disappears underground. It reemerges at St. Marks 

Spring further to the south and proceeds southward to its confluence with 

the Wakulla River. 

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

There are several point sources in the lower St. Marks River (below 

St. Marks Spring rise). These include the City of Tallahassee Purdom 

Power Plant (Curtis, 1997), the Murphy Oil Corporation tank farm, the 

St. Marks Refinery 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 wastewater reuse facility that uses sprayfields to treat most of the 

city’s municipal wastewater. Appendix B shows that the dominant land 

uses in the planning unit are upland forest (57.3 percent) and wetlands 

(19.1 percent), while the urban and built-up category accounts for only 

6.7 percent.

Ecological Problems

Invasive aquatic vegetation is a problem in the St. Marks River. Dominant invasive plants include hydrilla, water hyacinth, and water lettuce 

(FDEP Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2000).

At the town of St. Marks, four docking terminals carry, offload, process, and distribute petroleum products and bulk chemicals. Numerous 

documented oil spills through the years, including a spill of about 10,000 

gallons in 1978, have contaminated bottom sediments in the area. The 

most heavily contaminated site is directly above the confluence of the 

Wakulla River and 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 and study, a plan was devised in 1984 for dredging and removing 

the worst 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 Description

The fl ow into Lake Miccosukee includes Ward Creek (with headwaters 

in Thomas County, Georgia), Panther Creek, Dry Creek, Caney Branch, 

and Noname Creek. Lake Miccosukee drains to sinks on both its north 

78 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
and south ends and has been dry or partially ponded for the past year. 

Caney Branch and Noname Creek have maintained baseflow even during 

the recent drought (1998–2001). However, the other streams have been 

intermittent.

Potential Sources and Permitted 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 major 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 level in Lake Miccosukee is manipulated and artificially 

maintained. The overgrowth of native and nonnative 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, 

2000).

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 fish consumption 

advisory and low DO.

• Lake Lafayette

General Description

The lake consists of four separate parts: Upper Lake Lafayette, Lake 

Piney Z, Alford Arm, and Lower Lake Lafayette. Flows into Upper Lake 

Lafayette include the Northeast Drainage Ditch, Park Avenue Drainage 

Ditch, Lafayette Creek, and occasionally Lake Piney Z, while outflows 

drain to the Upper Lake Lafayette Sink. Lake Piney Z can flow to Upper 

Lake Lafayette or Lower Lake Lafayette. Alford Arm and several small 

tributaries flow to Lower Lake Lafayette, which drains to the St. Marks 

River.

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

Point source facilities include Talquin Electric sewage treatment plant 

(Meadows at Woodrun), which discharges to a percolation pond adjacent 

to the Lake Heritage Tributary, which in turn drains to Lower Lake 

Lafayette. This facility also borders the Leon County Landfi ll along 

U.S. 27 south of Lower Lake Lafayette. The major land use consists of 

urban and built-up (43 percent) followed by upland forest (30.1 percent).

Ecological Problems 

Lake Lafayette has 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 Alford Arm. Upper Lafayette, which 

receives residential, commercial, and industrial urban runoff through 

Lafayette Creek, periodically drains through a sinkhole. Fish kills and 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 79
blooms of toxic blue-green algae have periodically been observed (Livingston, 1997). Lake Piney Z, an impoundment, had reached an advanced state 

of eutrophication from stormwater runoff and was the subject of a recent 

restoration effort by FWC.

Lake McBride, Millstone Creek, and No-Name Pond are in the northern part of the Lake Lafayette watershed. Because these waterbodies 

are close 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, infestation by pond weed and other noxious aquatic plants, and fish 

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 Lakes (Upper Lafayette, Piney Z, and Lower Lafayette) 

and its main drainage. This segment is potentially impaired for DO and 

biology. Previous work has also indicated that there have been significant 

ecological concerns, potentially associated with nutrients. An update of the 

STORET database in Phase 2 is anticipated to provide a better determination of the status of waterbodies in this planning unit.

• Lake Munson/Fred George Sink

General Description

The northernmost part of this system 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 (which collects water from the San Luis Tributary, 

RR Tributary, North and West Branches of Gum Creek, Bradford Brook, 

Cascade Lake, Lake Hiawatha, 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 Sources and Permitted Discharges

Since 1984, all of the significant point sources 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 the treated effluent, with a design flow of 19.84 mgd, is land-applied at 

the City of Tallahassee Southeast Farm wastewater sprayfield on Tram Road 

in the St. Marks planning unit. However, some wastewater effluent and 

municipal sludge are land-applied at the T.P. Smith facility and on land at 

the Tallahassee airport. Other point sources (Appendix B) are nonsurface 

discharges with sprayfields or percolation ponds. Land use is dominated by 

upland forest (47.4 percent), followed by urban and built-up (38.5 percent). 

This planning unit has a larger area in the urban/built-up category than 

the other planning units.

80 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Ecological Problems

Lake Munson has for more than 60 years received a heavy load of 

nutrients, toxics, and sediments from stormwater runoff and treated sewage 

effluent. In 1982, it was classifi ed as hypereutrophic and 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 flow into Lake 

Munson from Munson Slough.

Problems observed in recent years include fish kills, algal blooms, 

invasive exotic species (primarily water hyacinth and hydrilla), high nutrient and bacteria levels, low DO levels, reduced numbers and low productivity of game fish, and reports of fish with sores. Studies during the 1980s 

also found pesticides and metals concentrations in amounts that were 10 

to 100 times greater than other area lakes such as Miccosukee, Iamonia, 

and Jackson.

The contaminants include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane, DDT and 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 

fish biomass by at least 75 percent between 1976 and 1987. As a result, 

sport fishing 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 imbalance of flora and fauna (i.e., algal mats, fishery decline, 

and aquatic vegetation overgrowth).

• Lost Creek/Fisher Creek

General Description

Both Fisher Creek and Lost Creek originate in the Apalachicola 

National Forest south of Tallahassee and remain for the most part in the 

national forest. Both streams disappear into sinkholes as they enter the 

Woodville Karst Plain. This planning unit also includes an area of small, 

upland, clear lakes on sand ridges. The most notable lake is Moore Lake.

Potential Sources and Permitted 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 percent) and wetlands (35.7 percent), with a small 

amount of urban and built-up (1.8 percent).

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 81
Ecological Problems

Our references included no studies to indicate any confirmed ecological 

problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 shows that no potentially impaired waterbodies have been 

confirmed in the planning unit. There were no bioassessment data.

• Wakulla River

General Description

The headwaters of this relatively short river are in Wakulla Springs 

State Park south of Tallahassee. Major tributaries include Sally Ward 

Spring, McBride Slough, and Big Boggy Branch. Most of the river flow 

originates at Wakulla Springs.

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

There is only one signifi cant point source in the planning unit. 

St. Marks Powder, which manufactures smokeless gun propellants, discharges to Big Boggy Branch, which is tidally affected. Land use consists 

of upland forest (62.0 percent) followed by a significant urban and built-up 

fraction (20.2 percent), which is mostly low density residential.

Ecological Problems

Invasive aquatic vegetation is a problem in the Wakulla River. Dominant invasive plants include hydrilla, water 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 Springs 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 Wakulla 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 this state-listed species may be related to the hydrilla infestation or other potential water quality related factor. Accelerated growth of 

dense algal mats has also been observed in the Wakulla River; this may be 

caused by the increased nutrient concentrations discharged by springs.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 shows two potentially impaired waterbodies. McBride 

Slough was potentially impaired for DO, and Big Boggy Branch was 

potentially impaired for total coliform and biology.

• Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay

General Description

The planning unit, which consists of Apalachee Bay and a series of 

streams south of U.S. 98, includes Dickerson Bay, Oyster Bay and the 

Spring Creek system, Shell Point, Walker Creek, Goose Creek Bay, the 

mouth of the St. Marks River, East River, and Pinhook River. Spring 

82 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Creek, 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 flow (in 1970) of 2,003 cfs (Rosenau et al., 

1977).

Potential Sources and Permitted Discharges

There are no known surface discharges. Several wastewater facilities 

discharge to percolation ponds or sprayfields. These include the Shell 

Point sewage treatment plant (0.024 mgd) and Wakulla County sewage 

treatment plant (0.2 mgd).

Ecological Problems

Few data were found to document the condition of the estuary and its 

associated watersheds. Few studies have been conducted in Apalachee Bay. 

This assessment identifi ed no ecological problems.

Potentially Impaired Assessment Units

Table 3.3 shows one waterbody listed as potentially impaired: Crooked 

River for fish consumption advisories. No bioassessment data were available.

Ground Water Quality Assessment

This Status Report evaluates the basin’s regional ground water quality 

using data collected from the DEP Status Network, a monitoring network 

based on random sampling and designed to answer broad-based, statewide 

to basinwide questions. The Status Network was developed in cooperation 

with a Technical Advisory Committee to provide a scientific and statistically based methodology for evaluating Florida’s statewide ground and 

surface water quality.

Regional ground water quality is assessed using a BRI that evaluates 

the monitoring results at individual wells and interprets them in a basinwide context. Individual pollutants are identifi ed and targeted for further 

investigation during Phase 2 of the basin rotation cycle.

Ground Water 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 baseflow for most streams. This creates 

the potential for elevated concentrations of ground water constituents to 

adversely influence 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 for 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, but might cause adverse ecological impacts when discharged 

into a surface waterbody water with a background concentration of 0.5 

mg/L. The influence of GWACs is often apparent in Florida’s many 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 83
springs 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 five designated use classifications. GWACs identify those analytes that exist at concentrations that do 

not necessarily pose a threat to public health via ground water, but could 

adversely impact the environmental health of surface waters. 

GWACs are identifi ed using data collected by Florida’s Status Network, 

an integrated ground and 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 Network divides the state into 20 individual basins, four 

basins per water management district. Each year a basin is sampled in 

each district, providing 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 confined aquifer and 30 samples 

are collected from the unconfined aquifer (including springs) in a basin. 

Thus, for any given year, approximately 300 total ground water samples 

are collected—150 from the confined aquifer and 150 from the unconfined 

aquifer. The Ochlockonee-St. Marks Basin has been designated as Reporting Unit 1 (RU1

).

The confined aquifer is ground water overlaid by a relatively impervious layer, such as clay, that inhibits the exchange of water and chemicals 

between aquifers above and below the layer. An unconfined aquifer has 

no confining unit between the zone of ground water saturation and the 

ground surface—essentially a surficial or water table aquifer. In the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, the Floridan aquifer is both confined and 

unconfined, depending on its location. Generally, in areas above (north 

of) the Cody Scarp, the Floridan is a confined aquifer. South of the 

scarp in the Woodville Karst Plain, the Floridan is poorly confined to 

unconfined. Unconfined aquifer sampling locations north of the Cody 

Scarp are representative of the surficial aquifer system that lies above the 

confining unit, not the Floridan aquifer.

Using year 2000 Status Network data, the median concentration of 

each measured analyte was compared with the median concentration of the 

same analyte measured in the remaining 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 

1996–1999 (the Background Network has been replaced by the Status 

Network). Comparisons were made for confi ned and unconfined ground 

water.

A Mann-Whitney statistical test (Mendenhall et al., 1981) was used to 

compare the median concentrations. If the median concentration for any 

84 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
analyte in the sampled basin is significantly elevated, then it is considered 

a GWAC for a potential contribution to the impairment of a surface 

waterbody. Elevated nutrients in ground 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 water quality is assessed using a BRI that evaluates 

the monitoring results at individual wells and interprets them in a basinwide context. Individual pollutants are identifi ed and targeted for further 

investigation during Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle.

BRIs indicate overall ground water quality on a regional scale. Each 

BRI is determined by the percentage of Status Network wells with analyte 

concentrations exceeding primary or secondary drinking water standards 

(i.e., maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]) or health-/aesthetic-based 

ground water 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 are not calculated in basins where 

the data population is less than 20 samples.

Since all possible analytes are not sampled, an “N ” label (signifying 

No Basis for 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 characterizes regional ground water status, based on the 

BRIs, and the 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 Regional Ground Water Quality

Confined Ground Water

Thirty wells in the Status Network were sampled during 2000 to assess 

water quality in confined aquifers. Table 3.6 shows the BRI results for 

confined ground water. The number of wells sampled and the percentage 

exceeding criteria for the two indices are listed. The BRI (health) and 

Index

BRI (health)

BRI (aesthetics)

Wells Exceed 10%

>10% of wells in region 

categorized as A

>10% of wells in region 

categorized as C

Yes

No

Yes

No

Regional Category

A–Action Recommended

N–No basis for Action or Concern

C–Concern

N–No basis for Action or Concern

Table 3.4: Basin Resource Indices

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 85
BRI (aesthetics) are “N,” indicating that no regional problems exist and 

that confined ground water appears to be of good quality. However, the 

Status Network is small and not extensive enough to identify all contamination 

issues. Confined ground water 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 Tallahassee area.

Unconfined Ground Water

Thirty unconfined ground water wells in the Status Network were sampled 

during 2000. Table 3.6 shows the BRI results for unconfined ground water. 

The table lists the number of wells sampled and the percentage exceeding 

ground water criteria for the two indices. The BRI (health) and BRI (aesthetics) are “N,” indicating that no regional problems exist and that unconfined 

ground water appears to be of good quality. However, ground water pollution 

may exist at individual wells in the basin. For example, fecal coliform exceeded 

the maximum contaminant level for drinking water in 3 of the 30 samples.

86 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Table 3.5: Status Monitoring Indicator/Analyte List for 

Ground Water

Indicator

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassium

Chloride

Sulfate

Fluoride

Alkalinity

Nitrate+Nitrite

Ammonia

Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Organic Carbon

Dissolved Solids

Suspended Solids

Turbidity

Color

Total Coliform

Fecal Coliform

E. Coli

Enterococci

Water Temperature

pH

Specific Conductance

Dissolved 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 liter
Status of Ground Water Analytes of Concern

Confined Ground Water

Sodium (Na) is a GWAC and is the only parameter displaying 

a signifi cantly higher median concentration for the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins (3.85 mg/L) than for the remainder of the NWFWMD 

(2.85 mg/L). This 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 contaminant level for sodium of 160 mg/L.

The exact cause of this slight increase is not known. However, it may 

indicate an increase in saline water (e.g., saltwater intrusion). It could also 

indicate that a higher proportion of confined wells tap into ground water zones 

with naturally 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 reflect natural 

conditions in different zones of the aquifer that are composed of phosphatecontaining rock (Maddox et al., 1992). It is possible that they also reflect land 

use activities that are introducing nutrients to the ground water.

Table 3.7: Results of Mann-Whitney Statistical Tests Comparing Ground Water 

Analyte Concentrations in RU1 and RU3

Confined Ground Water

Sodium

Unconfined Ground Water

Specific conductance

Calcium

Magnesium

Alkalinity

Color

Sodium

Chloride

Phosphorus

Orthophosphorus

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 RU1

2.85

39.50

1.24

0.05

1.00

15.00

2.20

3.40

0.01

0.010

Median 

Concentration RU3

1.35

2.20

3.39

12.31

5.19

6.67

1.41

1.56

2.20

1.30

RU1

/RU3 Ratio

Notes:

RU1—Northwest Florida Reporting Unit A

RU3—Northwest Florida Reporting Units 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 %

Confined Ground Water Unconfined Ground Water

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 87
Ground Water/Surface Water Interaction

Florida has a high water table and a porous sandy land cover. It is underlaid 

by a thick sequence of bedded limestone and dolomite that allows the rapid 

transport of surface flows into ground water. Together, the surficial sands and 

the limestone and dolomites form an enormous reservoir that provides proportionally larger quantities of ground water than in any other state. Because of 

the high water table and unique geology, interactions between ground water 

and surface water 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 GWACs and regional 

ground water indices. To supplement these evaluations, information was 

also obtained from reports by various groups, including the Department, 

NWFWMD, and 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 watershed based on the interaction between ground water 

and surface water, which is presented below. 

Ground water and surface water interactions commonly occur in the 

St. Marks Basin. This interaction is most visible in the Woodville Karst Plain, 

located between the Cody Scarp and the Gulf of Mexico. Baseflow is the 

ground water discharge to a stream from the saturated zone below the water 

table. Springs form when ground water flows out to the surface through natural 

openings in the ground. Six of Florida’s 27 first magnitude springs, or springs 

with flows 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 contribute most of the baseflow to the St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers in 

this area.

In northern Florida, the Floridan aquifer is confi ned and under artesian 

pressure until it reaches the Woodville Karst Plain, where water is released in 

large quantities from springs that discharge to rivers, lakes, and offshore. The 

karst plain itself is also a signifi cant recharge area for the Floridan aquifer. Local 

rainfall in the Woodville Karst Plain infiltrates to ground water or is collected 

in ponds and wetlands that connect to the aquifer via sinkholes. Springs also 

discharge this local water received by the aquifer.

In recent years, nitrate has become a contaminant of concern in ground 

water in many parts of Florida. Nitrate does not naturally occur in Florida 

ground water at concentrations higher than 0.1 mg/L (Maddox et al., 1992). 

It has been documented that elevated concentrations of nitrate in ground 

water commonly result from agricultural and urban land use practices in 

ground water recharge areas. The proximity of these areas to points of 

discharge (springs) can result in elevated nutrient levels in the receiving surface 

waterbodies.

Overall, nitrate levels in wells of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

are considerably lower than the drinking water standard and currently cause 

no public health concerns except in isolated instances. However, increasing 

nitrate concentrations in Floridan aquifer springs in the basins are a signifi cant 

ecological concern. Current ground water quality standards were developed 

to protect drinking water. The standard for nitrate does not address the fact 

that, in Florida, ground water becomes surface water when it flows from springs. 

88 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
What is safe for human consumption is, in the case of nitrate, sometimes 

detrimental to the receiving surface waterbodies.

Monitoring by several organizations indicates that there are increasing 

nitrate concentrations 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 the two springs with the most complete sampling history, River Sink 

Spring and Wakulla Springs, data show that nitrate concentrations have 

increased. In River 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 identified as a GWAC, water quality data indicate 

that the nitrate concentration in the springs has increased, from between 0.10 

mg/L and 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 nitrate concentration on the order of 1 mg/L and an average flow of 350 

cubic feet per 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 the cause of ecological imbalances noted in the Wakulla River.

The NWFWMD and 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. Marks River

Wakulla River

Coastal Watersheds 

and Apalachee Bay

Planning Unit

Horn Spring

Newport Spring

Natural Bridge Spring

Rhodes Spring

St. Marks Spring

Indian Spring

McBride Spring

River Sink Spring

Sally Ward Spring

Wakulla Springs

Panacea Mineral Springs

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. Marks River

In St. Marks River

In St. Marks River

St. Marks River rise

Flows to Wakulla River

Increasing trend

Flows to Wakulla River

Main source of Wakulla 

River, increasing trend

Remarks

Notes: Reported concentrations are in milligrams per liter for total or dissolved concentrations of 

nitrate-nitrogen, or nitrate+nitrite nitrogen. These are from most recently available data. Data sources 

include the U.S. Geological Survey (http://water.usgs.gov/fl/nwis) and the NWFWMD.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 89
Evaluation of Ecological Resource 

Protection Issues

Some waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins have special 

ecological resource protection 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 fish or mollusks, signifi cant wading bird rookeries, 

manatee aggregation areas, and sea turtle nesting areas. Indicators of ecological 

problems that may result from a decline in surface water quality have been 

addressed in the planning unit discussions. Table 3.9 is a summary of ecological protection issues by planning unit.

Information in this section was compiled in a geographic information 

system (GIS) database from detailed surveys conducted by the Florida Natural 

Areas Inventory (FNAI) and FWC. It also incorporates summary information 

from other biological resources assessments that have been completed in the 

basins over the years by various groups.

North and South Ochlockonee River Planning Units

The entire Ochlockonee River has been designated as an OFW. Of the 

258 individual waterbodies and segments in these planning units, 41 have 

documented ecological protection needs. Both planning units have a variety 

of listed animal and 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 may occur downstream of the lake, but that reach of the river has 

not been thoroughly sampled. Historically, the Ochlockonee River contained 

abundant, healthy populations of large freshwater mussels in the Unionidae 

Nitrate in Florida Springs

Elevated nitrates 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 liter (mg/L). Today many Florida 

springs discharge water that has more 

than 1.0 mg/L of nitrate. It is believed 

that nitrate levels as low as 1 mg/L 

or less can cause a significant shift in 

the balance of spring ecological communities, leading to the degradation 

of biological systems.

Figure 3.8: Nitrate Concentration Trend in Wakulla Springs

90 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
family. Nineteen species of unionid mussels were recorded in the early 1970s. 

Two species, the Ochlockonee arcmussel (Alasmidonta wrightiana) and the 

Ochlockonee moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus) are endemic to the river, 

meaning that they do not occur anywhere else. The Ochlockonee arcmussel 

is unlisted. It has not been collected since the 1930s and is considered 

extinct. The Ochlockonee moccasinshell is listed as endangered; only two 

live specimens have been found since 1974. Two other freshwater mussel 

species, the oval pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme) and the shiny-rayed pocketbook 

(Lampsilis subangulata), formerly collected in large numbers, have declined 

dramatically and are now listed as endangered. However, the large-sized purple 

bankclimber (Elliptoideus sloatianus), listed as threatened in the Florida portion 

of the Ochlockonee, appears to be holding its own. Several colonies of 25 to 30 

individuals—including some young—have been found, making this the first 

record of a viable, breeding population since the early 1970s.

The Gulf sturgeon (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 not been reported in the lower Ochlockonee, possibly because of the lack 

of spawning habitat. The riverbed must meet a number of requirements for 

the fish 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 Jackson 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 the 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

Planning Unit

North Ochlockonee

South Ochlockonee

Lake Iamonia

Lake Jackson

Telogia Creek

Sopchoppy River

St. Marks 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

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 91
federally protected species exist in all of these planning units. Active eagle nests 

have also been inventoried in all of them, except for the Lake Munson planning 

unit. No documented bird rookeries were identified from the database, although 

other documentation exists to indicate that Lower Lake Lafayette, in the Lake 

Lafayette planning unit, contains an important wood stork rookery (Livingston, 

1997). The inventory does not include data to indicate the presence or absence 

of rare and imperiled fish or invertebrates. Lakes are not included in the available 

database for rare and imperiled species.

Telogia Creek and Sopchoppy River Planning Units

The Sopchoppy River, in the Apalachicola National Forest, is an OFW. 

According to the inventory, 23 of the 89 waterbodies and segments in these two 

planning units have ecological resource protection needs that pertain to listed 

species. Both planning units have some inventory data identifying listed species. 

The inventory did not find documentation of eagle nests, wading bird rookeries, 

or rare and imperiled species in either planning unit.

St. Marks River, Wakulla River, and Lost Creek/Fisher Creek 

Planning Units

Except for 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 popular seasonal visitors to both the St. Marks and Wakulla 

Rivers. According to inventory records, there are active eagle nests in both the 

St. Marks and Wakulla River planning units and an active wading bird rookery 

in the St. Marks River planning unit. There is a confirmation that rare and 

imperiled fish species occur in the St. Marks River. Currently, no rare and 

imperiled invertebrates (mussels) are found in inventory records for these planning 

units.

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit

Parts of the Apalachee Bay estuary adjacent to the St. Marks Wildlife 

Refuge in Wakulla County are OFWs. The Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve, 

encompassing approximately 700,000 acres of Florida’s Gulf Coast, extends from 

the mouth of the St. Marks River eastward to beyond the watershed boundary. 

Listed species occur in all 20 watersheds associated with this planning unit. Seven 

contain eagle nests, and one contains an active wading bird rookery. Rare and 

imperiled fish 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), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). These species are also ranked by FNAI as rare and 

imperiled. Sea turtles are a nomadic species that spend most of their lives in 

open marine waters, except for the mature females who briefly come ashore every 

few years to nest on coastal beaches. The endangered West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris) also uses the estuary and Wakulla and lower St. 

Marks Rivers as summer feeding grounds before migrating south for the winter. 

92 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
References

Barrett, P. L. 1999. 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. EPA 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.

Bocz, C., and J. Hand. 1985. Lake Munson: A Case Study for the Water Quality 

Effects of Sewage Diversion and Stormwater Cleanup Practices. Water Quality 

Monitoring Report. NWFWMD WRP 88-1.

Chelette, A. R. 2001. Examination 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 Discussion 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 Purdom Unit 8 Site Certifi cation Application. 

Vols. 1-4, Ratheon Engineers 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 Florida Public Waters-Annual Report for Fiscal Year 

1999–2000. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/stland/bapm/contract.htm

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-302. Surface Water Quality Standards.

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-303. Identifi cation of Impaired 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: http://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 Natural Resources Environmental Protection Department.

GDNR-EPD, 2000b. Draft Ochlockonee River Basin Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs, June 

2000.

GDNR-EPD, 2000c. Draft TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliform for Oquina Creek 

Ochlockonee River Basin, June 2000.

GDNR-EPD, 2000d. Draft TMDL Evaluation for 3 Segments: Little Attapulgus 

Creek, Attapulgus Creek, and Swamp Creek in the Ochlockonee River Basin, June 

2000. 

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 93
GDNR-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 Basin, June 2000.

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 2000.

GDNR-EPD, 2000h. Draft TMDL Evaluation for Tired Creek Watershed—Tired 

Creek Segment, Little Tired Creek Segment, Parkers Mill Segment, Ochlockonee 

River Basin (Fecal Coliform), June 2000.

GDNR-EPD, 2000i. Draft TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliform for Olive Creek, 

Ochlockonee River Basin, June 2000. 

GDNR-EPD, 1996. Water Quality in Georgia 1994-1995.

GAEPD, 1984. Ochlockonee River Basin Water Quality Management Plan, Second 

Edition, First Update.

GAEPD, 1982. Water Quality Monitoring Data for Georgia Streams 1982.

Hill, M. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Personal communication regarding restoration actions in lakes of the Ochlockonee and St. 

Marks Basins.

Lake Munson Action Plan. January 1994. A Report with Recommendations, 

produced by the Lake Munson Action Team for the Leon County Board of 

County Commissioners 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 County, January 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. 34. 

Mendenhall, W., R. L. Scheaffer, and D. D. Wackerly. 1981. Mathematical 

Statistics with Applications. Second Edition. Boston: Duxbury Press.

McGlynn, S. E. 1999. Lester Cove Study, Base Flow 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., and S. E. McGlynn. 2001. Interstate Issues Regarding Water Quality 

in the Ochlockonee River. Florida Lake Managment Society 12th Annual 

Conference Proceedings.

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).

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. Glombowski, and Z. Shelley. 2001. Summary 

of FDEP Water Quality and Flow Data for the St. Marks and Ochlockonee 

River Basins. 

94 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Chapter Summary

This chapter 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) lists, and 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

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 95
The Planning 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 its 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 table also states whether the water was listed on the 1998 303(d) list. 

As described in the introduction to Chapter 3, waters on the planning 

list must meet specific thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality 

requirements contained in Section 62-303, Florida Administrative Code. 

Waters that were previously on the 1998 303(d) list but for which there 

were insufficient data for an assessment are included on the planning list. 

Previously listed waters will also receive higher priority for monitoring 

and TMDL development. Waters that are not on the planning list either 

have sufficient data to determine that they are not impaired or they have 

insufficient data to make a determination.

The WBIDs on the planning list and on the 1998 303(d) list can be 

located in Figures 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 planning list graphically. 

Although the entire watershed 

for the listed water is highlighted, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has 

been assessed, and other waters 

in the watershed may not be 

potentially impaired.

96 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
North Ochlockonee River

Little River**

Ochlockonee 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 Iamonia Outlet

Lake Jackson

Meginniss Arm Run**

Harbinwood Estates Drain

Telogia Creek

Telogia Creek*

Juniper Creek

Sopchoppy River

Sopchoppy River

St. Marks River

Black Creek

St. Marks River 

Lloyd Creek (aka Copeland 

Sink Drain)

Lake Miccosukee

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 

 

 X X

 X X

 

 X 

 

 

 X X

 X 

 X

 

 X X

 

 

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, bacteria, TSS, 

turbidity

Bacteria, nutrients,turbidity, 

fish

Nutrients, bacteria, turbidity, 

fish, DO

DO, metals (iron), fish

Bacteria, biology

Nutrients, bacteria, fish

BOD, TSS, turbidity, DO, 

nutrients

BOD, TSS, turbidity, 

nutrients

Bacteria

Turbidity, nutrients, bacteria

Fish

DO, biology 

DO, bacteria, sediments, 

biology

Biology

DO, fish

Biology

DO, bacteria

Nutrients, bacteria, turbidity, DO, biology

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 97
Lake Munson

Munson Slough

Munson Sink (aka 

Ames Sink)

Lake Munson

Lake Hiawatha*

Central Drainage Ditch

St. Augustine Branch

East Drainage Ditch

Godby Ditch

Lake Bradford

Wakulla River

Big Boggy Branch 

McBride Slough

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

Crooked River 

Stream

Stream

Lake

Lake

Stream

Stream

Stream

Stream

Lake

Stream

Stream

Stream 

 

Table 4.1 (continued)

Notes: 

*—Waterbody or segment meets criteria to be on Verified List of impaired waters

**—Waterbody or segment meets criteria for being on Verified List and is also on 1998 303(d) list

WBID—Waterbody identification 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 consumption advisory based on mercury

Bacteria—Fecal coliforms or total coliforms in water

DO—Dissolved oxygen

BOD—Biological oxygen demand

COD—Chemical oxygen demand

Constituent in italics—Identified as potentially impaired and on Planning List of impaired waters

Constituent in regular font—Listed in 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters

Constituent in bold font—Identified as potentially impaired (on 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, nutrients, TSS, 

turbidity

DO

Biology, bacteria

DO

Fish

98 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Relationship between the Planning List and 

the 303(d) List

The planning list is the first 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 whether they are impaired. In addition 

to more thoroughly evaluating the data used to place these waters on 

the planning list (including verification of quality assurance and data sufficiency requirements), the Department, working with local stakeholders, 

will identify other existing data and collect additional data as needed 

to complete the assessment. Detailed strategic monitoring plans will be 

developed for each basin in cooperation with existing monitoring programs, 

with monitoring initially focused on verification of any impairment.

Once the additional monitoring is completed, the data will be assessed 

and the Department will develop a verifi ed list of impaired waters. This list 

of waters for 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 by the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act, the planning list will be submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only and 

will not be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory 

program. However, the list is extremely important, as it drives monitoring 

in the 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 the 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 data to the 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 stakeholders may also have plans to address the potential impairment identifi ed on the planning list. If they feel their plans provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met in the future, they 

should contact Department staff and provide documentation to support 

their restoration plans. As required by the Florida Watershed Restoration 

Act, the Department will not place waters on the verifi ed list if proposed 

or existing pollution control mechanisms are 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.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 99
Waters To Be Delisted

It should be noted 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). The planning list included only those waters listed in 1998 that did 

not have sufficient data. The Department plans to request the EPA to 

remove from the 303(d) list the waters and parameters in Table 4.2. These 

waters met the data sufficiency requirements of the planning list, but were 

not identifi ed as potentially impaired using the planning list methodology. 

As such, sufficient data exist to indicate the waters should be delisted, and 

they will not be placed on the planning list. It should be noted that both 

listing and delisting decisions are parameter specifi c, and 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 the waters that are not impaired for one or more 

constituents according to the IWR methodology. The constituents that 

have sufficient data to be assessed and are not impaired are listed for 

individual waters in Table 4.3. Figures 3.4 to 3.7 of Chapter 3 show the 

location of the waters not 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 planning unit has the largest number of waters that 

have sufficient data to determine that they are not impaired. This planning 

unit also has the largest number of waters that are potentially impaired and 

the largest number of STORET stations used in the assessment (see Table 

G-1 in Appendix G). 

Planning 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 parameters using IWR assessment 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 coliforms; Total coliforms

Table 4.2: Planning List of Constituents Proposed for Delisting

100 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Planning 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

Ochlockonee River

Ochlockonee River

South Ochlockonee River

Smith Creek

Ochlockonee River

Ochlockonee River

Lake Iamonia

Monkey Business Outlet

Monkey Business Pond

Lake Backus

Petty Gulf Lake

Lake Jackson

Lake Jackson

Lake Overstreet Drain

Lake Hall

Telogia Creek

Tallahassee Creek

Juniper Creek

Yellow Creek

Telogia Creek

Sopchoppy River

Sopchoppy River

Ochlockonee 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 Eerie

Lake Miccosukee

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

Constituents Not 

Impaired

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 101
Lake Lafayette

Lake Lafayette Drain

Lake Munson

Munson Slough (below lake)

Munson Sink

Munson Slough (above lake)

Lake Bradford

Silver Lake

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek

Lost Creek

Wakulla River

Wakulla River

Trout Pond

McBride Slough

Big Boggy Branch

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay

Direct Runoff to Bay

Dickerson Bay

Direct Runoff to Bay

Ochlockonee Bay

Ochlockonee Bay

Chaires Creek

756

807

807A

807D

878A

878B

995

1006

1006A

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

Constituents Not 

Impaired

Monitoring Other Waters

As identified in Chapter 3, there are many waterbodies in the Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks Basins for which there are insufficient water quality data 

for an assessment. 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 these waterbodies within these basins 

during the first watershed management cycle. The priority for strategic 

monitoring during Phase 2 of the cycle will be to conduct monitoring and 

data gathering to address potentially impaired waters identified on the 

planning list (see Table 4.1). While the Department plans to monitor 

these waters during subsequent watershed cycles, local stakeholders 

may want to take the initiative to monitor these waters sooner and the 

Department would like to coordinate with these local efforts. 

102 Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Reference

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-303. Identifi cation of Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule.

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 103

Table of Contents—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 River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Model Required Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

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/Apalachee Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

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

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

Basin Status Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 105

 	 

 

    107

Appendix A: Threatened or Endangered 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

Scientific Name* Common Name Federal

Protection

Status

State

Protection

Status

FNAI

Global

Rank

FNAI State

Rank

Fish

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon LT LS G3T2 S2

Micropterus notius Suwannee bass N LS G3 S3

Amphibians and Reptiles

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A) LS G5 S4

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander LT PS G2G3 S2S3

Caretta caretta Atlantic loggerhead LT LT G3 S3

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle LE LE G3 S2

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake LT LT G4T3 S3

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise N LS G3 S3

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley turtle LE LE G1 S1

Macroclemys temminckii Alligator snapping N LS G3G4 S3

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida pine snake N LS G4T3? S3

Pseudemys concinna Suwannee cooter N LS G5T3 S3

Rana capito Gopher frog N LS G3G4 S3

Birds

Ammodramus maritimus Scott’s seaside N LS G4T2 S2

Aramus guarauna Limpkin N LS G5 S3

Cistothorus palustris Marian’s marsh wren N LS G5T3 S3?

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron N LS G5 S4

Egretta thula Snowy egret N LS G5 S4

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron N LS G5 S4

Eudocimus albus White ibis N LS G5 S4

Haematopus palliatus American N LS G5 S3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle LT LT G4 S3

Mycteria americana Wood stork LE LE G4 S2

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded LE LT G3 S2

Sterna antillarum Least tern N LT G4 S3

Mammals

Myotis grisescens Gray bat LE LE G3 S1

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s fox squirrel N LS G5T2 S2

Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee LE LE G2 S2

Ursus americanus Florida black bear N LT G5T2 S2

Invertebrates

Elliptoideus sloatianus Purple bankclimber LT N G2 S?

Medionidis simpsonianus Ochlockonee LE N G1 S1

Pleurobema pyriforme Oval pigtoe LE N G2 S?

Villosa subangulata Shiny-rayed LE N G2 S?

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

** The Florida black bear is a listed species everywhere in Florida but Columbia and Baker Counties and

the Apalachicola 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

FNAI

Global

Rank

FNAI State

Rank

Plants

Agrimonia incisa Incised groove-bur N LE G3 S2

Andropogon arctatus Pine-woods bluestem N LT G3 S3

Asclepias viridula Southern milkweed N LT G2 S2

Baptisia simplicifolia Scare-weed N LT G3 S3

Brickellia cordifolia Flyr’s brickell-bush N LE G2G3 S1

Calamintha dentata Toothed savory N LT G3 S3

Calamovilfa curtissii Curtiss’ sandgrass N LT G3 S3

Calycanthus floridus Sweet shrub N LE G5 S2

Carex chapmanii Chapman’s sedge N LE G3 S2

Conradina glabra Apalachicola rosemary LE LE G1 S1

Drosera intermedia Spoon-leaved sundew N LT G5 S3

Eleocharis rostellata Beaked spikerush N LE G5 S1

Erythronium umbilicatum Trout lily N LE G5 S2

Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey’s privet N LE G2 S2

Gentiana pennelliana Wiregrass gentian N LE G3 S3

Hexastylis arifolia Heartleaf N LT G5 S3

Hymenocallis godfreyi Godfrey’s spiderlily N LE G1 S1

Lachnocaulon digynum Bog button N LT G3 S2?

Leitneria floridana Corkwood N LT G3 S2

Liatris provincialis Godfrey’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

Magnolia ashei Ashe’s magnolia N LE G2 S2

Magnolia pyramidata Pyramid magnolia N LE G4 S3

Malaxis unifolia Green adder’s mouth N LE G5 S3

Najas filifolia Narrowleaf naiad N LT G1 S1

Pinguicula ionantha Violet-flowered LT LE G2 S2

Pityopsis flexuosa Bent golden aster N LE G3 S3

Polygonum meisnerianum

var. beyrichianum

Mexican tear-thumb N LE G5?T5? S2

Pycnanthemum floridanum Florida mountain-mint N LT G3 S3

Rhexia salicifolia Panhandle N LT G2 S2

Rhododendron alabamiense Alabama rhododendron N LE G4 S2

Rhododendron austrinum Orange azalea N LE G3 S3

Rhododendron chapmanii Chapman’s LE LE G1Q S1

Rhynchospora stenophylla Narrow-leaved N LT G4 S2S3

Ribes echinellum Miccosukee gooseberry LT LE G1 S1

Salix eriocephala Heart-leaved willow N LE G5 S1

Sarracenia leucophylla White-top pitcherplant N LE G3 S3

Schwalbea americana Chaffseed LE LE G2 S1

Sideroxylon lycioides Gopherwood buckthorn N LE G5 S2

Stachydeoma graveolens Mock pennyroyal N LE G2 S2

Stewartia malacodendron Silky camellia N LE G4 S3

Xyris longisepala Karst pond xyris N LE G2 S2

Xyris 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: Listed Animal and Plant Species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Note: The Federal Protection Status column indicates the official federal endangerment status or level of

legal 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

Oceanic 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 currently being considered for listing.

The State Protection Status column shows the official state endangerment status or level of legal protection

for animals listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and plants listed by the Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). The state classifications are as follows:

Animals listed by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

LE = Listed as Endangered.

LT = Listed as Threatened.

LS = Listed as Species of Special Concern.

PS = Proposed as Species of Special Concern

N = Not currently listed, nor currently being 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 currently being considered for listing.

The FNAI Global Rank characterizes relative rarity or endangerment worldwide, with G1 being critically

imperiled 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

estimated 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 (Tallahassee: Florida Natural Areas Inventory, June 1999); Ashton, Ray E. (Ed.); Rare and

Endangered Biota of Florida (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1992); Wunderlin, Richard P., Guide

to the Vascular Plants of Florida (Gainesville: 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

Global

Rank

FNAI State

Rank

Fish

Acantharchus pomotis Mud sunfish G5 S3

Ameiurus serracanthus Spotted bullhead G3 S3

Cyprinella leedsi Bannerfin shiner G3G4 S3

Notropis cummingsae Dusky shiner G5 S4

Amphibians and Reptiles

Agkistrodon contortrix Copperhead G5 S2

Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander G5 S3

Amphiuma pholeter One-toed amphiuma G3 S3

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle G5 S3?

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern diamondback

rattlesnake

G4 S3

Desmognathus apalachicolae Apalachicola dusky

salamander

G3 S3

Eumeces anthracinus Coal skink G5 S3

Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed salamander G5 S2

Lampropeltis getula goini Apalachicola G5T2 S2

Nerodia clarkii clarkii Gulf salt marsh snake G4T3 S3?

Notophthalmus perstriatus Striped newt G2G3 S2S3

Procambarus horsti Big Blue Spring cave G1G2 S1

Birds

Accipeter cooperii Cooper’s hawk G5 S3?

Ardea alba Great egret G5 S4

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed kite G5 S2S3

Laterallus jamaicensis Black rail G4 S3?

Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned G5 S3?

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night- G5 S3?

Rallus longirostris scottii Florida clapper rail G5T3? S3?

Recurvirostra americana American avocet G5 S1S2

Sterna maxima Royal tern G5 S3

Mammals

Mustela frenata olivacea Southeastern weasel G5T4 S3?

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern bat G3G4 S3

Neofiber alleni Round-tailed muskrat G3 S3

Sorex longirostris longirostris Southeastern shrew G5T5 S4

Scientific Name Common Name FNAI

Global

Rank

FNAI State

Rank

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

communities.
112  	 

 

   

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

Marks Basins

Scientific Name* Common Name FNAI

Global

Rank

FNAI State

Rank

Invertebrates

Alasmidonta wrightiana Ochlockonee arc- GX SH

Crangonyx grandimanus Florida cave G2G3 S2

Crangonyx hobbsi Hobbs’ cave G2G3 S2S3

Crangonyx sp 1 Woodville karst cave

amphipod

G2 S?

Megalonaias nervosa Washboard G5 S3

Procambarus orcinus Woodville karst cave

crayfish

G1G2 S1

Utterbackia peggyae Florida floater G3 S3

Plants

Carex tenax Sandhill sedge G5? S3

Helianthus debilis spp. tardiflorus Late flowering beach

sunflower

G5T3 S3

Myriophyllum laxum Piedmont water- G3 S2S3

Rhynchospora decurrens Decurrent beakrush G3G4 S3S4

Stachys hyssopifolia var. lythroides Tallahassee hedgenettleG5T1 S1

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

wetland communities.

Note: The FNAI Global Rank characterizes relative rarity or endangerment

worldwide, with G1 being critically imperiled 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 estimated 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 (Tallahassee: Florida Natural Areas Inventory, June

1999); Ashton, Ray E. (Ed.); Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida (Gainesville:

University Press of Florida, 1992); Wunderlin, Richard P., Guide to the Vascular

Plants of Florida (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998).
 	 

 

    113

Appendix B: Land Use in the Ochlockonee and

St. Marks Basins

TABLE B-1: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Land Use Totals and Percentages

TABLE B-2: Georgia Land Use in the Upper Ochlockonee River Basin
 	 

 

    114

TABLE B-1 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Land Use Totals and Percentages

SUMMARY St. LAKE LAKE LAKE FISHER/LOST WAKULL

A

NORTH SOUTH LAKE LAKE TELOGIA SOPCHOPP

Y

COASTAL

OF ACRES (Totals) MARKS MICC. LAF. MUNSON CREEK RIVER OCHL. OCHL. IAMONIA JACKSON CREEK

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

0 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 25,117.13 854.94 4,214.24 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 34,427.83 9,955.08 105,067.86 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 4,181.07 1,370.65 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 - 27.00 51.85 31.40 - - 91.66 - 495.878000 (Transportation, 697.98 761.18 536.91 2,471.47 392.34 1,055.93 2,231.73 270.84 136.37 315.21 371.03 114.01 285.05Communications, Utilities)TOTAL ACRES: 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. LAKE LAKE LAKE FISHER/LOST WAKULL

A

NORTH SOUTH LAKE LAKE TELOGIA SOPCHOPP

Y

COASTAL

OF ACRES (%) MARKS MICC. LAF. MUNSON CREEK RIVER OCHL. OCHL. IAMONIA JACKSON CREEK

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

0 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

Clear Cut/Young Pine 4.6 44,978.2

Pasture 12.9 126,412.8

Cultivated/Exposed Earth 31.0 303,919.5

Low Density Urban 1.2 11,476.6

High Density Urban 0.4 4,116.6

Emergent Wetland 2.4 23,374.8

Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.2 2,157.0

Forested Wetland 5.2 50,441.0

Coniferous Forest 6.4 62,475.9

Mixed Forest 30.6 300,098.6

Hardwood Forest 3.7 36,026.8

Salt Marsh 0.0 0.0

Brackish Marsh 0.0 0.0

Tidal Flats/ Beaches 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 99.1 970,708.3

* Data bsed on Landsat TM imagery, 1988-1990, with pixel resolution of 200 ft.sq.

Wetlands less than 1 acre excluded, Percent error + 15.
116  	 

 

   

Appendix C: Permitted Wastewater and Solid Waste Facilities in

the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

TABLE C-1: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface Water

TABLE C-2: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities not Discharging to Surface Water

TABLE C-3: Ochlockonee/St. Marks Solid Waste Landfills
 	 

 

    117

TABLE C-1 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface Water

TREATMENT_PROCE

SS_SUMMARY

PERM DES.

FACIL WAFR CAP CAP LAT LONG 5TH YEAR

NAME ID FACIL DESCRIPTION (MGD) (MGD) DD MM SS DD MM SS INSPECTION

DATE(S)

St. Marks Planning UnitSAM O. PURDOM GEN STATION FL0025526 10230 Industrial Wastewater Chlorination, pH

neutralization andstabilization

30 9 46.7 84 11 57.19 July-95

MURPHY OIL CORPORATION FL0032433 16046 Industrial WastewaterST. MARKS WWTP FL0040835 July-98ST MARKS REFINERY (AMERICANINTL REFINERY)

FL0035220 10236 Industrial Wastewater Collection lagoon with

stabilization ponds

0.016 0.016 30 9 53 84 12 23.52 January-96

Lake Lafayette Planning UnitGREENWOOD MHP FL0022772 10147 Domestic WWTP Extended aeration sand

filter to creek and natural

depression

0.02 0.02 30 25 21.4 84 13 7.54

AMOCO STA NO. 60456 FLG040033 16288 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

Lake Munson Planning UnitFLORIDA MINING ANDMATERIALS

FL0034754 Ind. WW 0.006 March-93, April-93,

June-93

ARVAH B. HOPKINS GENERATINGSTATION

FL0025518 10142 Industrial Wastewater Oil/gas fueled steam

electric power plant

1.87 1.87 30 27 3.2 84 23 58.92 Dec.-85, May-95,

Feb.-96, June-96

HANDEX OF FLORIDA, INC. FLG830379 16460 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

Discharge treated groundwater

30 27 30 82 0 0

REFRESHMENT SERVICES PEPSI FLG910156 16739 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

permit cancelled 1/7/99

DEERTREE HILLS MOBILE HOMEPARK

FL0038199 10170 Domestic WWTP Extended aeration w/

teriary filter and reclaimedwater discharge

0.015 0.015 30 26 18.4 84 21 52.78 December-98

Wakulla Planning UnitPRIMEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FL0002518 10235 Industrial Wastewater spray irrig. w/ effluent

indirectly to Big BoggyBranch and Wakulla River

0.786 0.79 30 10 51.8 84 13 12.22 November-95,

December-97
 	 

 

    118

TABLE C-1 continued Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface WaterNorth Ocklockonee Planning UnitQUINCY, CITY OF (STP) FL0029033 10075 Domestic WWTP Contact stabilization; to

Quincy Creek, LittleRiver and then LakeTalquin

1.5 1.5 30 35 2.28 84 33 14.14 November-91, March97, November-95,

June-00

HAVANA, TOWN OF (STP) FL0030333 10076 Domestic WWTP High rate trickling filter.

Effluent to Womack MillCreek

0.4 0.4 30 36 52 84 24 49.99

ENGELHARD CORP. (QUINCY

PLANT)

FL0002577 10089 Industrial Wastewater Detention for

sedimentation of solids

12.8 12.8 30 36 2.48 84 34 22.63 November-96

ENGELHARD CORP. (COMPLEX-A) FL0038466 16016 Industrial Wastewater Detention for

sedimentation ofsuspended solids.

2.16 November-96

ENGELHARD CORP (COMPLEX C) FL0038474 10090 Industrial Wastewater Detention for

sedimentation of solids

2.16 30 35 57.7 84 34 24.52 November-96

ENGELHARD CORP. (COMPLEX F) FL0039101 16021 Industrial Wastewater Detention for

sedimentation of solids.

2.16 November-96

OIL DRI CORPORATION FL0040827 10080 Industrial Wastewater Impoundment/silt

barrier/rip-rap

2.16 2.16 30 36 52 84 33 15

QUINCY CLUSTER - SYSTEM 3(LOLLEYS & SOUTH)

FLG910836 18333 Petro. Cleanup GP (long term) 30 35 16.7 84 34 56.94

QUINCY CLUSTER - SYSTEM 1(QUINCY CITGO)

FLG910837 18334 Petro. Cleanup GP (long term) 30 35 17.9 84 34 58.29

QUINCY CLUSTER - SYSTEM 2(BEAN & NEELY BP)

FLG910838 18335 Petro. Cleanup GP (long term) 30 35 16.2 84 34 58.91

Lake Iamonia Planning UnitFDOT KATE IRELAND/FOSHALEEFARM

FLG910616 17659 Petro. Cleanup GP (long term)

Lake Jackson Planning UnitLAKEWOOD AREA STP, TALQUINELECTRIC

N/A February-87

PRINTING HOUSE N/A October-84Telogia Planning UnitTIMBER ENERGY RESOURCES FL0039951 10174 Industrial Wastewater Intermittent discharge

from WWTF for an 14MW wastewood fueledpower plant.

30 20 8.52 84 49 5.88 November-91,

October-93, August93

JUNIOR FOOD STORE NO. 240 FLG830331 16438 Petro. Cleanup GP (long term) 30 23 15 84 48 0GRUBBS PETROLEUM SITES FLG830450 16497 Petro. Cleanup GP (long term) 30 32 43.5 83 51 54.77BP OIL COMPANY FLG910291 16918 Petro. Cleanup GP (long term)
 	 

 

    119

TABLE C-2 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Not Discharging to Surface Water

AVER.

PLANNING WAFR FACILITY DES. FLOW WAFR LAT LAT LAT LONG LONG LONG 5TH YEAR

NAME UNIT FAC. ID SITE ID TYPE/DESC. (MGD) Discharge Groups -

NS_DESCRIPTION

FAC. DD MM SS DD MM SS INSPECTION

TALLAHASSEE EAST KOA ST. MARKS FLA010133 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.0068 REUSE/SECONDARY

TREATMENT

10133 30 28 39.78 83 54 57.74

BIG BEND TRUCK 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-98TEXACO TRADING & 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 57.26HYCREST DAIRY, INC. ST. MARKS FLA181803 Ind. WW 18180IFAS RESEARCH 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 19T P SMITH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY MUNSON FLA010139 R-001 Dom. WWTP 19.84 Southeast Farm and

Southwest Sprayfield

10139 30 23 29.25 84 19 20.9

T P 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 20.9

LAKE BRADFORD ROAD WWTP MUNSON FLA010140 R-001 Dom. WWTP 4.5 SOUTHEAST FARM AND

SOUTHWEST SPRAYFIELD

10140 30 25 34.29 84 18 4.88

TALLAHASSEE MUNICIPAL 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: LAKE

BRADFORD MHP STP

10148 30 24 24.2 84 19 26.47

SOUTHERN 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 25.23WESTERN ESTATES MHP 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 43.44BORDEN INC. DISTRIBUTION CENTER MUNSON FLA010143 Ind. WW 10143 30 25 50 84 20 10BUDGET RENT 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 26RAINBOW CAR WASH MUNSON FLA010149 G-001 Ind. WW DRAIN FIELD - DISCHARGE

FROM SAND FILTER

10149 30 26 6.47 84 22 22.45

COURTESY CARS MUNSON FLA010154 G-001 Ind. WW drain field 10154 30 27 23.8 84 22 13.59
 	 

 

    120

TABLE 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 54.06ISLAND FOOD STORE, LTD. MUNSON FLA010161 Ind. WW 10161 30 26 25.02 84 18 50.93ISLAND FOOD STORE, LTD MUNSON FLA010162 Ind. WW 10162 30 26 15.54 84 16 12.24DOLLAR RENT 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 55.69DAVIS REFINING 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 lawn

irrigation

16533 30 25 28.54 84 19 35.35

SOUTHDOWN, 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 47.64DISC VILLAGE WWTP WAKULLA FLA010137 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 Land Application System 10137 30 18 16.61 84 13 42.72SHADEVILLE ELEMENTARY WWTF WAKULLA FLA010227 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.016 EFF TO ABSORP FIELD:

SHADEVILLE ELEM SCH

10227 30 12 54.06 84 19 13.07

WAKULLA 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 58.4RIVER PLANTATION ESTATES WWTP WAKULLA FLA010241 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.025 EF TO PERC POND: RIVER

PLANTATION CLOSED

10241 30 12 18.12 84 15 5.94

WINCO 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 sand

filter/septic tank

10155 30 19 35.79 84 14 59.16

MIKE'S LAUNDRY WAKULLA FLA010156 Ind. WW 0.0027 10156 30 19 5 84 14 55ACE COIN LAUNDRY 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 13LAND OF 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 STP

10079 30 33 0.05 84 31 21.83

NICHOLSON FARMHOUSE RESTAURANT N. OCHL FLA010084 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.006 REUSE SYSTEM 10084 30 36 37.22 84 28 1.28HAVANA MIDDLE SCHOOL WWTP N. OCHL FLA010085 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10085 30 37 15.71 84 24 5.71
 	 

 

    121

TABLE 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 57.85WESTVIEW MOBILE 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 to

absorption beds16632 30 29 34.71 84 25 43.94

WILLIAMS TRAVEL CENTERS WWTF N. OCHL FLA182923 Dom. WWTP 0.013 18292 30 29 42.84 84 26 2.51ROBERTS SAND COMPANY, 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 22.36COASTAL LUMBER CO. N. OCHL FLA010091 Ind. WW 0 10091 30 38 1.32 84 24 9.28IFAS RESEARCH 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, TOWN OF (STP) TELOGIA FLA100781 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.35 REUSE SYSTEM 10078 30 37 51.53 84 39 58.59QUINCY MUSHROOM FARM TELOGIA FLA010088 R-001 Ind. WW Spray Irrigation/Created

Wetland

10088 30 32 1.79 84 41 25.25

SHULER, DAVID TELOGIA FLA010177 Ind. WW 10177 30 21 6.35 84 49 38.16ENGELHARD CORPORATION TELOGIA FLA016194 Ind. WW 16194SHELL POINT STP COASTAL FLA010242 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.024 EF TO PERC POND: SHELL

POINT STP

10242 30 3 31.19 84 17 22.21

WAKULLA 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 12.87MURPHY OIL CORPORATION COASTAL FL0032433 R-001 Ind. WW SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM 16046HANNON LIMESTONE PIT COASTAL FLA010240 Ind. WW 10240 30 9 37.12 84 17 30.41
 	 

 

    122

TABLE C-3 Ochlockonee-St. Marks WACS Landfills

TOTAL Cell Water

Tot. Surf. Oper. Waste Meas. Refuse Table

WACS Pop. Mon. Mon. Beg. Expec Quan./ Des Unit Liner Loc NPDE

S

Leach. Depth Depth

FAC ID Name City Served Wells Points Year Life Day Cap. Type Type Type Permit Disch.. (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 LLOYD N6569 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
 	 

 

    123

TABLE 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 RETREADING

PLANT

TALLAHASSEE

8471 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 CRAWFORDVIL

LE

3500 1 2 4 TON C N N 2 6

14499 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
 	 

 

    124

TABLE C-3 continued Ochlockonee-St. Marks WACS Landfills14629 J STRICKLAND & C. THOMANN-TAYLOR ARRON 1992 114494 LOWER BRIDGE LANDFILL CRAWFORDVIL

LE

13700 5 1984 5 270 CYD P O Y 13

14494 LOWER BRIDGE LANDFILL CRAWFORDVIL

LE

13700 5 1984 5 270 CYD P O Y 13

14463 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

Estimates of land use areal based loading rates (expressed as pounds/acre/year/land

use) and instream loads (expressed as pounds/year) were predicted for areas located

within the 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

for 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 calibration. Therefore, at this time, no validation of runoff

coefficients has been attempted. Estimates of loading rates were based on values

reported by Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) as the Southeast Regional Event Mean

Concentration (EMC) factors as provided in the model documentation. No sensitivity

analysis of the EMCs 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 versus predicted

flows and loads are presented in Appendix D for each area where sufficient data were

located. 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 Ochlockonee 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 Planning Units discussed in other sections of the report.

Five subbasins were identified 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

the area tributary to USGS gage 02329000 located near Havana, Fl., Subbasin II is the

area between this gage and gage 02330000 located near Bloxham, and 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 composed 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

for this report as a rough approximation of the flow exiting Subbasin IV through the sinks

just above the springs. The subbasins were further subdivided into areas suspected as

directly 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  	 

 

   

but may still contribute sub-surface runoff (gray on Figure 1). The five subbasins 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. Marks or

Subbasin V. The 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

internally 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 calculated from land use data in EPA's BASINS modeling software.

Tables F-1 and F-2 of Appendix D provide estimates of the area considered

contributing 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 modeled area. As can be seen on Figure 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 interflow to the river by way of distributed 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 large fractions of the river’s flow are from springs will require special

consideration and attention.

Appendix D contains a complete description of the model, EMC factors, rainfall

volume estimation techniques, internally drained areas, model calibration, measured and

predicted water volumes and loadings for each of the subbasins. As documented in

Table D-13, the Watershed Management Model, using default EMC values, predicted

total nitrogen (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 delivery ratio is the fraction of suspended material (TSS or particulate forms of

nutrients) that reaches the mouth of the basin. A delivery ratio of zero means no

suspended or particulate matter leaves the basin and 1 indicates that 100 percent of this

material leaves the 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 results 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 not account for acreage or loads

from areas 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

importance 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

the loads generated in the internally drained areas do not necessarily stay in place, but

may runoff as sub-surface runoff (ground water) and eventually contribute loadings to a

surface waterbody.

Ochlockonee River Basin

Figure 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.

The loadings estimated for each land use are the stormwater induced loadings and

not from point sources. This is important to remember when looking at the loadings for

categories like industrial and commercial. Figure 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 determine which subbasin contributes

the largest 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 Upper subbasin. Wetlands make up 14 percent of the total acreage with almost 75

percent of them in the Lower subbasin. Figure 4 is a graphic showing the general

distribution of each land use within the entire basin (including non-contributing area).

Figure 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 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 each land use within each subbasin

will not vary between parameters. For these reasons, (the same EMC used in each

subbasin) Figure 6 only needs to be presented once. For TSS, it can be seen that while

forests make up 52 percent of the total acreage they are only 28 percent of the TSS load.

Conversely, general agriculture/pasture and 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 the relative

contribution of each land use to the total basin TN and TP loading respectively. Refer to

Figure 6 for the relative subbasin contribution. These figures depict the relative

importance of forest, cropland, agriculture/pasture, and wetlands land uses to the nutrient

loadings. These land uses make up 92 percent of the TN load and 89 percent of the TP

load. Recall that Appendix D contains all of the results and additional discussion.

St. Marks Basin

Figure 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/rural open (59%), wetlands and open water (20%), and

agriculture/pasture (5.8%) make up about 85 percent of the total land use. Recall that

there was almost no cropland within areas that directly contribute to surface runoff.

The loadings estimated for each land use are the stormwater induced loadings and

not from point sources. This is important to remember when looking at the loadings for

categories like industrial and commercial. Figure 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 determine which subbasin contributes

the largest 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.

Figure 11 is a graphic 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

relative 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 each land use within each subbasin will not vary between parameters. For

these reasons, (the same EMC used in each subbasin) Figure 13 only needs 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. These 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

subbasin and they contribute 23 percent of the TSS load. Figures 14 and 15 contain the

relative contribution of each land use to the total basin TN and TP loading respectively.

Refer to Figure 13 for the relative subbasin contribution. These figures depict the

relative importance of forest, agriculture/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 the contributing areas within this basin. Recall that Appendix D contains all

of the results and additional discussion.
 	 

 

    129
 	 

 

    130

Figure 2 

Ochlockonee River Total Basin Land Use As Percent

(6) commercial

0.2%

(2) agriculture/pasture 

3.0%

(8) major roads

0.1%

(3) low density

residential

1.6%

(4) medium density

residential

0.5%

(1) forest/rural open

52.0%

(12)

open/herbaceous

1.2%

(11) cropland

24.7%

(10) wetlands

14.0%

(9) water

1.7%

(7) light industrial

0.5%

(5) high density

residential

0.3%

0%

80%60%40%20%

100%

(1) forest/rural open (2) agriculture/pasture (3) low density residential (4) medium density residential (5) high density residential (6) commercial (7) light industrial (8) major roads (9) w ater (10) w etlands (11) cropland (12) open/herbaceous

Figure 3

Ochlockonee River Subbasin Relative Land Use As Percent

UpperMiddleLower 

Figure 4

Ochlockonee River Land use
 	 

 

    131

Figure 5 

Ochlockonee River Total Basin Total Suspended Solids As Percent

(5) high density 

residential

0.8%

(7) light industrial

2.1%

(9) water

0.8%

(10) wetlands

6.6%

(11) cropland

49.1%

(12) open/herbaceous

0.7%

(1) forest/rural open

28.5%

(4) medium density 

residential

1.5%

(3) low density 

residential

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) agriculture/pasture 

(3) low density residential

(4) medium density residential

(5) high density residential

(6) commercial

(7) light industrial

(8) major roads

(9) w ater

(10) w etlands

(11) cropland

(12) open/herbaceous

Figure 6

Ochlockonee River Subbasin Total Suspended Solids As Percent

Upper

Middle

Lower
132  	 

 

   

Figure 7

Ochlockonee River Total Nitrogen As Percent

(6) commercial

0.3%

(2) agriculture/pasture 

4.0%

(8) major roads

0.2%

(3) low density 

residential

2.0%

(4) medium density 

residential

0.8%

(1) forest/rural open

37.6% (12) open/herbaceous

0.9%

(11) cropland

31.3%

(10) wetlands

19.5%

(9) water

2.1% (7) light industrial

0.8%

(5) high density 

residential

0.5%

Figure 8

Ochlockonee River Total Basin Total Phosphorus As Percent

(5) high density 

residential

0.5%

(7) light industrial

1.1%

(9) water

2.6%

(10) wetlands

23.0%

(11) cropland

41.6%

(12) open/herbaceous

0.5%

(1) forest/rural open

19.1%

(4) medium density 

residential

1.6%

(3) low density 

residential

4.0%

(8) major roads

0.4%

(2) agriculture/pasture 

5.4%

(6) commercial

0.4%
 	 

 

    133

Figure 9

St. Marks River Total Basin Land Use As Percent

(5) high density

residential

0.0%

(7) light industrial

1.1%

(9) water

1.9%

(10) wetlands

18.0%

(11) cropland

0.0%

(12) open/herbaceous

2.3%

(1) forest/rural open

59.2%

(4) medium density

residential

3.5%

(3) low density

residential

7.7%

(8) major roads

0.1%

(2) agriculture/pasture 

5.8%

(6) commercial

0.4%

0 %

80%60%40%20%

100%

(1 ) f ore s t/r ur al o pe n (2 ) a gr ic u ltu re /p a s tur e (3 ) lo w de ns ity 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/herbaceous

Figure 10

S t. Marks R iver S ubbasin R elative Land U se As P ercent

UpperLower

Figure 11

St. Marks River Land Use
134  	 

 

   

Figure 12

St. Marks River Total Basin Total Suspended Solids As Percent

(6) commercial

1.2%

(2) agriculture/pasture 

14.6%

(8) major roads

0.5%

(3) low density 

residential

11.3%

(4) medium density 

residential

12.0%

(1) forest/rural open

41.5%

(12) open/herbaceous

1.6%

(11) cropland

(10) wetlands 0.1%

(9) water 10.4%

1.1%

(7) light industrial

5.8%

(5) high density 

residential

0.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

(1) forest/rural open

(2) agriculture/pasture 

(3) low density residential

(4) medium density residential

(5) high density residential

(6) commercial

(7) light industrial

(8) major roads

(9) water

(10) wetlands

(11) cropland

(12) open/herbaceous

Figure 13

St. Marks River Subbasin Relative Total Suspended Solids As Percent

Upper

Lower
 	 

 

    135

Figure 14

St. Marks River Total Basin Total Nitrogen As Percent

(5) high density residential

0.0%

(7) light industrial

1.9%

(9) water

2.4%

(10) wetlands

25.4%

(11) cropland

0.0%

(12) open/herbaceous

1.7%

(1) forest/rural open

44.7%

(4) medium density

residential

5.5%

(3) low density residential

9.8%

(8) major roads

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) major roads

0.2%

(3) low density residential

(4) medium density 19.1% residential

10.5%

(1) forest/rural open

23.6%

(12) open/herbaceous

0.9%

(11) cropland

0.0%

(10) wetlands

29.3%

(9) water

2.8%

(7) light industrial

2.5%

(5) high density residential

0.0%
136  	 

 

   

Documentation

Estimates of land use areal based loading rates (expressed as

pounds/acre/year/land use) and instream loads (expressed as pounds/year) were predicted

for areas located within the Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins (Figure 1). Longterm (1989 - 1998) annual average load estimates based on rainfall and acreages of 12

land uses were made for 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 calibration. Therefore, at this time, no

validation of runoff coefficients has been attempted. Estimates of loading rates were

based on values reported by Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) as the Southeast Regional

Event Mean 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

versus predicted flows and loads are compared for each area where sufficient data were

located. 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 Ochlockonee 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 Management Model (WMM) was originally developed by CDM in

the 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 WMM establishes a framework for assessing 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

rainfall is linearly 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 model provides nationwide or regional values for EMCs, and they serve as the

default values if local data are not available.
 	 

 

    137

The model can be used to locate and prioritize nonpoint source (NPS) and point

source problem areas using existing data. These methods can differentiate the

significance of different sources of pollutants 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

should be utilized.

Model Required Data

A list of both the data required to run the WMM model and data or information

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

The WMM can be used to estimate annual or seasonal nonpoint source loads for up

to twelve pollutants:

∗ biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

∗ chemical oxygen demand (COD)

∗ total suspended solids (TSS)

∗ total dissolved solids (TDS)

∗ total phosphorus (TP)

∗ dissolved phosphorus (DP)

∗ total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)

∗ nitrate + nitrite (NO23)

∗ lead

∗ copper

∗ zinc, and

∗ cadmium.

There are options to substitute several parameters of choice.

The modeled Watershed can be divided into several subbasins. Each subbasin can

be composed of up to twelve land uses:

∗ forest/open

∗ agriculture/pasture

∗ cropland

∗ low density single family residential

∗ medium density sf/institutional

∗ high density residential

∗ commercial

∗ office/light industrial

∗ water

∗ wetlands, and

∗ major roads.
138  	 

 

   

Substitutions can be made for different land use categories, but the modeler must

keep track of the changes independently from the model.

List of required 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 surface of the basin regardless of any other

factors such as rain intensity, climate, or position of the land use area with respect to

the stream.

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 taken from meteorological 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 WMM or set to zero. Again, daily or

more frequent 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 order 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 are used as initial values. These values

can be adjusted during model calibration to match available runoff data. Typical

ranges of the runoff coefficients are (0.85 - 1.0) for impervious area and (0.05 - 0.30)

for pervious area.

5. A detailed 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 model will ask for best management practices (BMPs) used in the watershed.

These specific BMPs would be those that address surface water runoff quality and
 	 

 

    139

loadings. It should be noted that land based activities can also alter ground water

quality 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 typical 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. Validation or correction of default EMCs based on available water quality data, and

c. Simulation for an analysis of the system or prediction of future scenarios.

The Modeled Basins:

Ochlockonee 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 Planning Units discussed in other sections of the report.

Five subbasins were identified 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

the area tributary to USGS gage 02329000 located near Havana, Fl., Subbasin II is the

area between this gage and gage 02330000 located near Bloxham, and 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 composed 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

for this report as a rough approximation of the flow exiting Subbasin IV through the sinks

just above 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

tributaries (white 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

subbasins 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. Marks or Subbasin V. The lower portions of both river systems are influenced

by tides.
140  	 

 

   

Land Use/Acreages:

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

internally 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 calculated 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 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 interflow to the

river by way of distributed 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 large fractions of the river’s flow

are from springs will require special consideration and attention.

 

Contributing and Non-Contributing Area to

Surface Runoff in Ochlockonee Watershed

LAND USE Subbasin Acres Modeled NonContributing

(I) UPPER (II) MIDDLE (III) LOWER TOTALS (I) UPPER

Forest/Rural Open 327,199 220,609 264,041 811,849 9,955

Agriculture/Pasture 10,253 20,444 16,847 47,544 1,302

Low Density Resid. 12,418 8,062 5,105 25,585 1,493

Medium Density Resid. 2,684 3,712 1,893 8,289 2,507

High Density 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

Wetlands 27,046 16,848 175,287 219,181 2,565

Cropland 340,864 44,797 227 385,888 27

Open/Herbaceous 640 6,516 10,850 18,006 884

TOTALS 733,869 339,073 488,251 1,561,193 27,595
 	 

 

    141

 

Contributing and Non-Contributing Areas to

Surface Runoff in St. Marks River Watershed

LAND USE Contrib Non-Contrib Contrib Non-Contrib

UPPER UPPER LOWER LOWER TOTALS

Forest/Rural Open 29,899 150,272 78,290 141,130 399,591

Agriculture/Pasture 4,123 37,466 6,536 5,290 53,415

Low Density Resid. 2,935 11,815 11,135 7,781 33,666

Medium Density Resid. 878 7,278 5,603 5,611 19,370

High Density 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

Wetlands 17,008 21,771 15,976 95,907 150,662

Cropland 48 14,594 0 31 14,673

Open/Herbaceous 481 2,034 3,706 2,496 8,717

TOTALS 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 Moultrie, Thomasville, and Morgan in Georgia. The Ochlockonee-St.

Marks River watershed area 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 Subbasin I:

Moultrie 0.2921, Morgan 0.0202, Quitman 0.1856, Monticello 0.1856, Tallahassee

0.0646, Quincy 0.2518,

for Subbasin II:

Tallahassee 0.2518, Quincy 0.7482,

for Subbasin III:

Tallahassee 0.7677, Quincy 0.2323,

for Subbasin IV:

Quitman 0.3620, Monticello 0.3620, Tallahassee 0.2760,

for Subbasin V:

Quitman 0.0312, Monticello 0.0312, Tallahassee 0.9376.
142  	 

 

   

Figure 16 Thiessen Polygons

Table D-3 shows the original rainfall data in inches recorded at the six stations for years 1989 – 1998:

Table D-3

Measured Rainfall

(inches/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

The 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

Table D-4

Thessian Derived Rainfall Estimates

(inches/year)

Year Subbasin 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 daily 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 assessed. However, as described previously, the flows recorded at USGS gage

02326900 were used as an approximation of the flow exiting Subbasin IV. The row

labeled sum depicts the accumulated flow volume from upstream to downstream.

Table D-5

Total Accumulated Measured Volumes (acre-feet/year)

Year Flow from 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

Sum 8,732,426 13,923,160 1,089,598

Average 873,243 1,392,316 544,799
144  	 

 

   

From Table D-5 the outflow volumes from individual subbasins were calculated.

Each 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

runoff volumes for each subbasin.

Table D-6

Measured volumes (acre feet/year)

Year Flow from 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

Average 873,243 519,073 544,799

Model:

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

model.

Table D-7

10-year average measured rainfall and runoff

Flow from Subbasin I Flow from Subbasin II Flow from Subbasin IV

Rain Fall (inch) 58.24 62.16 62.87

Runoff (ac-ft) 873,243 519,073 544,799

Essentially, two parameters of WMM need to be adjusted (calibrated) to obtain a

balance between measured rainfall and streamflow and predictions of surface and

subsurface runoff: pervious area and impervious area runoff coefficients. For the Deep

Creek 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. Once the best fit was obtained for runoff

coefficients, estimates of baseflow were made in an attempt to understand the relative
 	 

 

    145

importance 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 modeling the Ochlockonee Basin the small amount of internally drained area

(the Lake Jackson 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 difference 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

used for Subbasins II and III. These values represent on an average annual basis a

measure 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 effective 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 several scenarios were examined. 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 balance. 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

internally drained acreage 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). These results are available upon request. For this report the

predicted loadings are based only on the contributing acreage. However, in order to

obtain realistic 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 make up the missing water volume from spring flow.

Following this procedure resulted in realistic predictions of instream water quality and

flows using 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 non-contributing area. The results 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). Additional scenarios could be modeled, as

additional information becomes available. However, in order to accurately characterize

the 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  	 

 

   

Table D-8

Percentages for Directly Connected Impervious Area

(DCIA)

Land use Default value(%) Calibrated DCIAs

Used in all subbasins

Forest/Rural 0.50 0.5

Open/Herbaceous 0.50 0.5

Urban Open 0.50 0.5

Agricultural/Pasture 0.50 0.5

Cropland 0.50 0.5

Low Density Residential 10.00 2.0

Medium Density Residential 30.00 5.0

High Density Residential 50.00 10.0

Commercial 90.00 10.0

Industrial 75.00 10.0

Highways 36.00 8.0

Wetlands 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

with the 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

Table D-9

Measured and Predicted Runoff Volumes

(acre feet/year)

Subbasin I Subbasin II Subbasin IV

Predicted runoff 873,343 529,311 543,727

Measured runoff 873,243 519,073 544,799

Relative Percent Error 0.01 1.97 0.20

Water Quality/Loads:

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

simulated by WMM for each subbasin. Table D-10 includes the default EMC values

representative for Southeastern United States used for this calculation. Default EMC’s

for croplands were not included 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 Mean Concentration Values

BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 1 0.004 0.31 0.94 0.05 11

Agriculture/Pasture 4 0.23 0.58 1.74 0.34 55

Low Density Residential 15 0.33 0.63 1.34 0.44 27

Medium Density Residential 9 0.27 0.27 1.77 0.45 59

High Density 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/Wetlands 3 0.09 0.20 1.10 0.17 5

Wetlands 5 0.10 0.40 1.10 0.19 5

Cropland 4 0.23 0.58 1.74 0.34 55

Open Herbaceous 1 0.004 0.31 0.94 0.05 11

Measured 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

loads 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 average flows to generate estimates of the “measured” monthly

loads. These 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 the 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 modeled 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 Calculated from instream measured data (flows and concentrations)

(lbs./year)

DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Subbasin I 163,991 1,647,883 1,414,193 422,688 233,124,280
148  	 

 

   

Predicted Loads:

There 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

three 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 + NO23. The

values used to represent baseflow concentrations are listed in Table D-12.

 

Measured Concentrations for Baseflow Calibration

BASEFLOW BOD TKN NO23 TN TP DP TSS

Zero 0000000

Median mg/l 1.0 0.03 0.029 0.059 0.022 0.013 4.0

Upper Quartile 1.0 0.107 0.460 0.567 0.055 0.056 29.0

The result of calibration (adjusting DCIAs) in Subbasin I is shown in Table D-13.

 

Results for Baseflow Calibration, Total Measured and Predicted Loads for the Upper Ochlockonee

(Subbasin I) including Relative Percent Error (lbs./year).

Baseflow Concentrations Equal Zero

BOD TKN NO23 TN TP Ortho-P TSS

measured 1,414,193 1,647,883 3,062,076 422,688 163,991 233,124,280

predicted 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 Concentrations Equal Median

BOD TKN NO23 TN TP Ortho-P TSS

measured 1,414,193 1,647,883 3,062,076 422,688 163,991 233,124,280

predicted 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 Concentrations Equal Upper Quartile

BOD TKN NO23 TN TP Ortho-P TSS

measured 1,414,193 1,647,883 3,062,076 422,688 163,991 233,124,280

predicted 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 these results for all parameters and all combinations of baseflow

concentration that the RPE was within the range of values reported in the literature for

screening level models. From this effort, it can be seen that the model under predicts
 	 

 

    149

NO23 and over predicts TKN such that prediction of TN is fairly good. The NO23

concentration of baseflow would have to be significantly greater than the 75 percentile of

the GWIS data to match the measured NO23 load. Conversely, using 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 RPE could be achieved in the model by other means, such as

increasing the EMC values or by changing the relationship between other model

coefficients and parameters. However, before any conclusion is drawn as to how

different the EMCs in these watersheds are from the regional values, basin specific

investigations should be undertaken. The model (without water quality calibration) had

its greatest error predicting NO23 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 NO23 sources and sinks.

In order to provide information on the relationship between land use, loadings and

the individual subbasins; Tables D (A-C) 14 through 18 were prepared depicting the

predictions of loadings for each parameter/subbasin combination and expressed as

lbs./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)

Ochlockonee Subbasin I

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 327,199 1.636 0.007 0.507 1.538 0.082 18.001

Agriculture/Pasture 10,253 6.546 0.376 0.949 2.847 0.556 90.005

Low Density Resid. 12,418 26.922 0.592 1.131 2.405 0.790 48.460

Medium Density Resid. 2,684 19.004 0.570 0.570 3.737 0.950 124.581

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 640 1.636 0.007 0.507 1.538 0.082 18.001

Sum 733,869

Average 5.236 0.210 0.759 2.266 0.348 54.743

Table D-15A (baseflow concentrations equal zero)

Ochlockonee Subbasin II

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 220609 1.747 0.007 0.541 1.642 0.087 19.213

Agriculture/Pasture 20444 6.986 0.402 1.013 3.039 0.594 96.063

Low Density Resid. 8062 28.734 0.632 1.207 2.567 0.843 51.722

Medium Density Resid. 3712 20.283 0.608 0.608 3.989 1.014 132.967

High 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

Highway 1415 28.509 0.389 0.881 3.914 1.037 313.599

Water 10272 8.451 0.254 0.563 3.099 0.479 14.085

Wetlands 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

Open/Herbaceous 6516 1.747 0.007 0.541 1.642 0.087 19.213

Sum 339072

Average 5.065 0.134 0.699 2.119 0.262 39.553
 	 

 

    151

Table D-16A (baseflow concentrations equal zero)

Ochlockonee Subbasin III

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 264,041 1.740 0.007 0.540 1.636 0.087 19.145

Agriculture/Pasture 16,847 6.962 0.400 1.009 3.028 0.592 95.723

Low Density Resid. 5,105 28.633 0.630 1.203 2.558 0.840 51.539

Medium Density Resid. 1,893 20.211 0.606 0.606 3.975 1.011 132.496

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 10,850 1.740 0.007 0.540 1.636 0.087 19.145

Sum 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./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 29,899 1.694 0.007 0.525 1.592 0.085 18.631

Agriculture/Pasture 4,123 6.775 0.390 0.982 2.947 0.576 93.157

Low Density Resid. 2,935 27.865 0.613 1.170 2.489 0.817 50.157

Medium Density Resid. 878 19.670 0.590 0.590 3.868 0.983 128.945

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 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./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 78,290 1.734 0.007 0.538 1.630 0.087 19.073

Agriculture/Pasture 6,536 6.936 0.399 1.006 3.017 0.590 95.367

Low Density Resid. 11,135 28.526 0.628 1.198 2.548 0.837 51.347

Medium Density Resid. 5,603 20.136 0.604 0.604 3.960 1.007 132.004

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 3,706 1.734 0.007 0.538 1.630 0.087 19.073

Sum 126,830

Average 7.558 0.158 0.713 2.146 0.298 33.727

Table D-14B (baseflow concentrations equal medians)

Ochlockonee Subbasin I

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 327,199 3.177 0.027 0.552 1.584 0.116 24.165

Agriculture/Pasture 10,253 8.087 0.396 0.994 2.894 0.590 96.169

Low Density Resid. 12,418 28.463 0.612 1.175 2.451 0.824 54.624

Medium Density Resid. 2,684 20.545 0.590 0.615 3.784 0.984 130.745

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 640 3.177 0.027 0.552 1.584 0.116 24.165

Sum 733,869

Average 6.777 0.230 0.804 2.312 0.382 60.907
 	 

 

    153

Table D-15B (baseflow concentrations equal medians)

Ochlockonee Subbasin II

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 220,609 4.126 0.038 0.610 1.713 0.140 28.730

Agriculture/Pasture 20,444 9.366 0.433 1.082 3.110 0.646 105.580

Low Density Resid. 8,062 31.114 0.663 1.276 2.638 0.895 61.239

Medium Density Resid. 3,712 22.662 0.639 0.677 4.060 1.066 142.484

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 6,516 4.126 0.038 0.610 1.713 0.140 28.730

Sum 339,073

Average 7.444 0.165 0.768 2.190 0.314 49.070

Table D-16B (baseflow concentrations equal medians)

Ochlockonee Subbasin III

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 264,041 4.120 0.038 0.609 1.707 0.139 28.662

Agriculture/Pasture 16,847 9.341 0.431 1.078 3.100 0.644 105.240

Low Density Resid. 5,105 31.012 0.661 1.272 2.629 0.892 61.056

Medium Density Resid. 1,893 22.591 0.637 0.675 4.046 1.063 142.014

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 10,850 4.120 0.038 0.609 1.707 0.139 28.662

Sum 488,251

Average 9.357 0.167 0.845 2.340 0.341 30.889
154  	 

 

   

Table D-17B (baseflow concentrations equal medians)

St. Marks Subbasin IV

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 29,899 4.300 0.041 0.601 1.670 0.142 29.056

Agriculture/Pasture 4,123 9.381 0.423 1.058 3.025 0.633 103.581

Low Density Resid. 2,935 30.471 0.647 1.246 2.567 0.875 60.582

Medium Density Resid. 878 22.276 0.624 0.666 3.947 1.041 139.369

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 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. Marks Subbasin V

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 78,290 4.340 0.041 0.613 1.708 0.144 29.498

Agriculture/Pasture 6,536 9.542 0.433 1.081 3.095 0.647 105.791

Low Density Resid. 11,135 31.132 0.661 1.274 2.627 0.894 61.771

Medium Density Resid. 5,603 22.742 0.638 0.680 4.038 1.064 142.428

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 3,706 4.340 0.041 0.613 1.708 0.144 29.498

Sum 126,830

Average 10.164 0.192 0.788 2.224 0.355 44.151
 	 

 

    155

Table D-14C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile)

Ochlockonee Subbasin I

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 327,199 3.177 0.093 1.216 1.703 0.167 62.688

Agriculture/Pasture 10,253 8.087 0.463 1.658 3.012 0.641 134.692

Low Density Resid. 12,418 28.463 0.679 1.840 2.570 0.874 93.147

Medium Density Resid. 2,684 20.545 0.656 1.279 3.902 1.035 169.269

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 640 3.177 0.093 1.216 1.703 0.167 62.688

Sum 733,869

Average 6.777 0.297 1.468 2.431 0.433 99.430

Table D-15C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile)

Ochlockonee Subbasin II

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 220,609 4.126 0.140 1.636 1.896 0.218 88.215

Agriculture/Pasture 20,444 9.366 0.535 2.108 3.294 0.725 165.065

Low Density Resid. 8,062 31.114 0.765 2.301 2.822 0.974 120.724

Medium Density Resid. 3,712 22.662 0.742 1.703 4.244 1.145 201.969

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 6,516 4.126 0.140 1.636 1.896 0.218 88.215

Sum 339,073

Average 7.444 0.268 1.793 2.373 0.393 108.555
156  	 

 

   

Table D-16C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile)

Ochlockonee Subbasin III

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 264,041 4.120 0.140 1.634 1.891 0.218 88.147

Agriculture/Pasture 16,847 9.341 0.534 2.104 3.283 0.723 164.725

Low Density Resid. 5,105 31.012 0.763 2.297 2.812 0.971 120.541

Medium Density Resid. 1,893 22.591 0.740 1.701 4.229 1.141 201.499

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 10,850 4.120 0.140 1.634 1.891 0.218 88.147

Sum 488,251

Average 9.357 0.269 1.871 2.523 0.420 90.374

Table D-17C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile)

St. Marks Subbasin IV

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 29,899 4.300 0.153 1.724 1.871 0.228 94.206

Agriculture/Pasture 4,123 9.381 0.536 2.181 3.226 0.719 168.732

Low Density Resid. 2,935 30.471 0.759 2.369 2.768 0.961 125.732

Medium Density Resid. 878 22.276 0.736 1.789 4.147 1.127 204.520

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 481 4.300 0.153 1.724 1.871 0.228 94.206

Sum 56,059

Average 10.078 0.306 1.966 2.501 0.454 102.031
 	 

 

    157

Table D-18C (baseflow concentrations equal upper quartile)

St. Marks Subbasin V

(lbs./acre/year)

Area (Acres) BOD DP NO23 TKN TP TSS

Forest/Rural Open 78,290 4.340 0.153 1.736 1.909 0.230 94.648

Agriculture/Pasture 6,536 9.542 0.545 2.204 3.296 0.733 170.942

Low Density Resid. 11,135 31.132 0.774 2.397 2.827 0.980 126.922

Medium Density Resid. 5,603 22.742 0.750 1.803 4.239 1.150 207.578

High 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

Highway 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

Wetlands 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/Herbaceous 3,706 4.340 0.153 1.736 1.909 0.230 94.648

Sum 126,830

Average 10.164 0.304 1.911 2.425 0.441 109.301
158  	 

 

   

Appendix E: Basin Status Report Assessment Methodology

The Department relies on environmental data from a variety of sources to carry out

its mission in protecting human health and the environment. Effective 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

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

report. 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)

report 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 sources and major issues, and determining future changes,

strategies, and actions necessary to preserve, protect, and/or restore water quality in

individual 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 vulnerable to contamination.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to submit lists of surface

waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and establish total maximum

daily loads (TMDLs) for each of these waters on a prioritized schedule. In 1999, the

Florida legislature enacted the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, which clarifies the

Department’s statutory authority to establish TMDLs, and establishes a process for

identifying and listing impaired waters and for developing TMDLs and the associated

watershed management plans needed to allocate and achieve the needed pollutant load

reductions.

Section 303(d) of the CWA and Chapter 403.067, Florida Statutes (F.S.), describe

impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not meet 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 Administrative 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 management approach, is the framework for implementing total maximum

daily loads (TMDLs) as required by the federal and state governments. Rather than

focusing on individual sources of pollution, each entire basin is assessed as a functioning

system. The watershed management approach will be implemented through the

watershed management cycle, a five-phase process through which federal, state, regional,

tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water or other natural

resource 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

for each basin.

Each Basin Status Report evaluates surface water quality and provides a broad

overview and analysis of the basin, characterizing its hydrologic, ecological, and

socioeconomic setting, and historical, current, 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 establishes the methodology to identify surface waters of the state that will

be included 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

includes an evaluation of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use

support, fish and shellfish consumption use support, drinking water use support, and

protection of human health. The rule also establishes a methodology to identify impaired

waters that will be included on the state’s verified list of impaired waters, for which the

Department will calculate total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), under Subsection

403.067(4), Florida Statutes.

The basin status reports follow the methodology in Section 62-303.300, Florida

Administrative 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

list will not be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory program.

It will be submitted to the EPA for informational 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 waterbody is impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant

discharges using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, the verified list, of the

IWR. The resultant verified list of impaired waters will then consist of the list of waters

for which TMDLs will be developed by the Department.

STORET

STORET is the EPA’s Oracle-based STOrage and RETrieval database. It is used to

store the nation’s biological, chemical, and physical water 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 management developments. As a result, STORET now consists of two

interrelated databases. The Legacy Data Center (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 Status Reports

The primary objective of the Basin Status Reports is to evaluate surface water quality

data to determine if individual waterbodies and/or segments are potentially impaired

based 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 segment 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 specific 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

included 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

planning list, the data for each waterbody and/or segment will be examined based on

IWR criteria to determine if the water should be included 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 chemistry data 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

placed on the planning list for each of the above parameters. The analysis consisted of

running the data through a SAS computer program that was written according to the

language 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, waterbody types, and parameters

obtained through STORET data were conducted using Excel applications, SYSTAT

statistical software, and ArcView GIS applications.

The metal and conventional parameter data were compared with the state ‘s numeric

criteria in Section 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code. A water was placed on the

planning list if there was at least 80 percent confidence that the actual criteria exceedance

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

may be found 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 calculating annual mean chlorophyll a values for estuaries and
 	 

 

    161

streams. 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

the 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 than historical values. In estuarine areas, if the annual mean chlorophyll

a values were greater than 11 μg/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 μg/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.

Segments were placed on the planning list based on fish consumption advisories

issued by the Florida Department of Health, urging limited consumption or no

consumption of fish in select Florida waters because of high levels of mercury or other

contaminants in fish tissue.

The biology data were assessed using 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 chemical or physical

measurements alone. Similar to water quality criteria, bioassessment methods involve

the identification of a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpaired or

least-impacted waters in a given region. For the Basin Status Reports, the reference

condition data were used to establish expected scores, ranging from best to worst, for

various measures of community structure and function, such as numbers or percentages

of particular species or feeding groups. Community structure and function data from

waters of unknown quality within the same region as reference waters were compared

with the expected scores of metrics to evaluate their biological integrities.

Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Diptera, percent filter feeders) were used

independently and as an aggregated group called an index. Indices have advantages over

individual metrics in that they can integrate several related metrics into one score that

reflects a wider range of biological variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and

indices exist for assessing populations of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms

(e.g., microscopic algae, unicellular plankton), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects,

crayfish, snails, and mussels).

Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in

the bioassessments 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

clearly 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) were not available at the time of reporting, they were not included here.

However, habitat and physicochemical assessment information is instrumental in

pinpointing the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and will be included in future
162  	 

 

   

reporting. Data used in the basin status reports were obtained from the Department’s

Biological Database (SBIO) 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

Administrative Code.

Bioassessments were provided for streams, lakes, canals and rivers. Scoring of the

individual metrics of the LCI, except percent Diptera, were performed according to the

following formula:

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

value

For percent Diptera the following formula was used:

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

= observed 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 Ephemeroptera, Odonata and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa;

Shannon-Wiener Index score; Hulbert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals.

LCI calculations are only provided for clear lakes (< 20 platinum cobalt units). Since

macroinvertebrate-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

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent Chironomid taxa; percent

dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and Florida Index. Definitions and

specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data are referenced in

the Basin Status Reports.

Data were used from the databases 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

seasons 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, although 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 included 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 assessments conducted in Black Creek were highly variable during the

period of record with no discernable pattern of improvement or decline. Inconsistencies

also existed between the 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 failure 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 Unnamed 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

sites on May 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 Three 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. Further study 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 planning unit was represented in the bioassessment record by one site within

Smith Creek. 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 planning unit is required to assess the

overall condition of the planning unit as a whole, however available bioassessment data

indicates no potential impairments.
164  	 

 

   

Lake Iamonia

There were no bioassessment data available for this planning unit.

Lake Jackson

There were no bioassessment data available for this planning unit.

Telogia Creek

Data from two waters within this planning unit, Mule Creek and Tallahassee Creek,

indicated good to excellent conditions. No potential impairments were observed in

bioassessment results.

Sopchoppy River

Data from the Sopchoppy River itself was analyzed from the period July, 1992 to

February, 1997. SCI assessments indicated good to excellent conditions over the period

of record. The results of Hester-Dendy analyses showed a moderate level of stress. In

general however, this planning unit is in good shape, with no indicated potential

impairments.

St. Marks River

Bioassessment data 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

July, 1992 to March, 1997. All bioassessment were either SCI or individual tests of

species dominance and diversity via Hester-Dendy artificial substrate sampling.

Black Creek had two failing SCI assessments, as well as Hester-Dendy data

indicating severe stress, during the period July, 1992 to February, 1997. These results

place Black Creek in the potentially impaired category. Hester-Dendy data for Black

Creek 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 indicate temporary habitat impacts or inconsistency in the application of the

analysis methods. Further study is required.

From 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 from Lloyd Creek contradicted Hester-Dendy

results on two sample dates. Seasonal effects might have contributed to the differences

observed between SCI and Hester-Dendy results in Lloyd Creek. Hester-Dendy

samplers test the instream fauna while the SCI method tests instream fauna plus benthic

fauna. 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.

Since 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 River varied among the 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

bioassessment sites.

Lake Miccosukee

Bioassessment data 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, however an SCI assessment conducted in 1997 passed with

excellent results. This might indicate a water quality improvement, but further study is

required to confirm it.

Lake Lafayette

Data analyzed for this planning unit consisted of only one Hester-Dendy analysis

performed in Lake Lafayette Drain in February, 1990. The results indicated a severely

stressed habitat, with very high densities of very few macroinvertebrate species, and

diversity index scores ranging from 0 - 0.29. Further study is recommended within this

unit, however based upon the bioassessment data available, Lake Lafayette Drain is

considered potentially impaired.

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink

The only bioassessment data available for this planning unit were the results of two

SCI assessments conducted in Munson Slough on March 8, 1993, at different sites within

the slough. Results of both assessments were very poor, which categorizes Munson

Slough as potentially impaired. Analysis of the results 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) and the absence of any EPT taxa (0 in both

cases). These results indicate water quality conditions within the Slough which do not

support sensitive species. This is not always the result of anthropogenic impact, as

sloughs typically drain other surface waters and are often characterized by slow-moving

water with low dissolved oxygen levels. Munson Slough 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 Creek/Fisher Creek

There were no bioassessment data available for this planning unit.
166  	 

 

   

Wakulla River

Data from two waters within this planning unit, Big Boggy Branch and McBride

Slough, indicated good quality and no impairments for the most part, except for one site

within Big Boggy Branch, STORET station number 22030025. This site failed both the

SCI and Hester-Dendy assessments, therefore Big Boggy Branch is indicated as

potentially impaired. Results for McBride Slough were excellent, indicating no

potential impairments.

Coastal Watershed/Apalachee Bay

There were no bioassessment data available for this planning unit.

Conclusions

In evaluating the overall biological integrity of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Basins based 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 spatial 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 basin to shed light upon the probable causes for such

wide variability in bioassessment results.

References

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, and J.S. White. 1996. Development of the Stream Condition

Index

 (SCI) for Florida. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection. Tetra Tech, Inc. Owings Mills, Maryland.

Friedemann, M. and J. Hand. 1989. Typical Water Quality Values for Florida's Lakes,

Streams and Estuaries. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,

Tallahassee, Florida.

Pielou, E. 1997. Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New

York.

Ross, L. T. 1990. Methods for Aquatic Biology. Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation. Technical Series 10(1):1-47. Tallahassee, Florida.
 	 

 

    167

Table F- 2. Stream Condition Index (SCI) scoring and evaluation worksheet. 

5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score

Total Number of Taxa = 31 30-16 < 16 = 26 25-14 < 14 = 22 21-12 < 12

EPT Index = 7 6-4 < 4 = 4 3-2 < 2 --- = 2 < 2

# Chironomid Taxa = 9 8-5 < 5 = 7 6-4 < 4 = 7 6-4 < 4

ntribution of Dominant Taxon = 22 23-61 > 61 = 29 30-64 > 64 = 31 32-66 > 66

% Diptera --- = 50 > 50 --- = 37 > 37 --- = 47 > 47

Florida Index = 16 15-8 < 8 = 7 6-4 < 4 = 8 7-5 < 5

spension Feeders/Filterers = 12 11-6 < 6 --- = 7 < 7 --- = 7 < 7

27-33 26-31 25-2921-26 20-25 19-2414-20 13-19 13-18

7-13 7-12 7-12

5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score

Total Number of Taxa = 27 26-14 < 14 = 27 26-14 < 14 = 18 17-9 < 9

EPT Index = 6 5-3 < 3 = 4 3-2 < 2 --- = 3 < 3

# Chironomid Taxa = 9 8-5 < 5 = 9 8-5 < 5 = 4 3-2 < 2

ntribution of Dominant Taxon = 25 26-62 > 62 = 30 31-65 > 65 = 37 38-69 > 69

% Diptera --- = 60 > 60 --- = 52 > 52 --- = 67 > 67

Florida Index = 13 12-7 < 7 = 10 9-5 < 5 = 6 5-3 < 3

spension Feeders/Filterers = 13 12-7 < 7 = 15 14-8 < 8 = 25 25-13 < 13

27-33 27-33 26-3121-26 21-26 20-2514-20 14-20 14-19

7-13 7-13 7-13

Summer Index Period (May-October): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI)

Macroinvertebrate 

Dipnet (20 sweeps of 

most productive 

substrates)

Value

Panhandle Peninsula Northeast

Total Score Panhandle

Evaluation

Excellent

Poor

Peninsula Northeast

Excellent Excellent

Good Good Good

Poor Poor

Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor

Winter Index Period (November-April): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI)

Macroinvertebrate 

Dipnet (20 sweeps of 

most productive 

substrates)

Value

Panhandle Peninsula Northeast

Total Score Panhandle

Evaluation 

Excellent

Poor

Peninsula Northeast

Excellent Excellent

Good Good Good

Poor Poor

Very Poor Very Poor Very Poor
 	 

 

    168

Table F-5. Bioassessment summary for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basin for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998.

Biorecon HD

Waterbody WBID Planning Unit STORET

Station #

Sample

Date

SCI # of Taxa FI Index # of EPT

Taxa

Overall Meets WQ

Stds.

Overall Potentially

Impaired

Lake Lafayette Drain 756 Lake Lafayette 22030067 2/13/90 Severely

Stressed

YES

Caney 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 excellent NOMunson Slough 857 Lake Munson 22030064 3/8/93 very poor YESMunson Slough 857 Lake Munson 22030065 3/8/93 very poor YESBlack Creek 1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 7/31/94 good NOBlack Creek 1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 2/15/95 poor YESBlack 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 Creek 1024 South Ochlockonee 22020063 2/13/96 excellent NOBlack 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 good NODouble Branch 798 North Ochlockonee 22020012 11/12/96 excellent NODouble 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 excellent NOLittle River 424 North Ochlockonee 22020016 11/12/96 good NOMonroe Creek 711 North Ochlockonee 22020124 8/19/97 excellent NOOcklawaha Creek 811 North Ochlockonee 22020062 8/1/94 good NOOcklawaha Creek 811 North Ochlockonee 22020062 2/13/95 good NOOcklawaha 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 excellent NOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020010 12/2/91 Clean NO
 	 

 

    169

Table F-5. Bioassessment summary for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basin for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998.

Biorecon HD

Waterbody WBID Planning Unit STORET

Station #

Sample

Date

SCI # of Taxa FI Index # of EPT

Taxa

Overall Meets WQ

Stds.

Overall Potentially

Impaired

Quincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020010 11/6/95 Clean NOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020046 11/12/96 excellent NOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020046 11/12/96 Clean NOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020093 11/12/96 excellent NOQuincy Creek 1303 North Ochlockonee 22020093 11/12/96 Moderately

Stressed

NO

Swamp Creek 427 North Ochlockonee 22020001 11/12/96 excellent NOThree Pole Creek 1297E North Ochlockonee 22020077 5/1/95 excellent NOUnnamed Branch 855 North Ochlockonee 22020078 5/1/95 poor YESThree Pole Creek 1297E North Ochlockonee 22020077 5/1/95 Clean NOUnnamed Branch 855 North Ochlockonee 22020078 5/1/95 NO Moderately

Stressed

YES

Three 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 6/4/96 Clean NOUnnamed Branch 855 North Ochlockonee 22020078 6/4/96 NO Severely

Stressed

YES

Willacoochee Creek 410 North Ochlockonee 22020092 11/12/96 excellent NOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 7/8/92 excellent NOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 8/5/92 Clean NOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 3/30/93 Moderately

Stressed

NO

Sopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 7/22/93 good NOSopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 7/22/93 Moderately

Stressed

NO

Sopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 4/18/94 Moderately

Stressed

NO

Sopchoppy River 998 Sopchoppy 22020050 2/13/97 good NOSmith Creek 1147 South Ochlockonee 22020064 5/11/94 excellent NOSmith Creek 1147 South Ochlockonee 22020064 2/15/95 good NO
 	 

 

    170

Table F-5. Bioassessment summary for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basin for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998.

Biorecon HD

Waterbody WBID Planning Unit STORET

Station #

Sample

Date

SCI # of Taxa FI Index # of EPT

Taxa

Overall Meets WQ

Stds.

Overall Potentially

Impaired

Smith Creek 1147 South Ochlockonee 22020064 7/10/96 excellent NOBlack Creek 628 St. Marks 22030066 7/8/92 poor YESBlack Creek 628 St. Marks 22030066 8/5/92 Clean NOBlack Creek 628 St. Marks 22030066 3/30/93 Severely

Stressed

YES

Black Creek 628 St. Marks 22030066 7/22/93 Moderately

Stressed

NO

Black Creek 628 St. Marks 22030066 3/22/94 Clean NOBlack Creek 628 St. Marks 22030066 2/6/97 poor YESLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 8/13/92 poor YESLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 8/13/92 Clean NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 3/30/93 excellent NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 3/30/93 Clean NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 7/22/93 excellent NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 7/22/93 Clean NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 3/22/94 poor YESLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 3/22/94 Clean NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 8/3/94 good NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 2/15/95 excellent NOLloyd Creek 808 St. Marks 22030061 2/6/97 excellent NOSt. Marks River 793B St. Marks 22030010 3/18/97 excellent NOSt. Marks River 793B St. Marks 22030124 1/22/96 Severely

Stressed

YES

St. Marks River 793B St. Marks 22030125 1/22/96 Severely

Stressed

YES

St. Marks River 793B St. Marks 220300B2 3/4/97 Moderately

Stressed

NO

Mule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 9/8/92 Clean NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 3/25/93 Clean NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 7/20/93 excellent NO
 	 

 

    171

Table F-5. Bioassessment summary for the Ochlockonee/St. Marks Basin for the period January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1998.

Biorecon HD

Waterbody WBID Planning Unit STORET

Station #

Sample

Date

SCI # of Taxa FI Index # of EPT

Taxa

Overall Meets WQ

Stds.

Overall Potentially

Impaired

Mule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 7/20/93 Clean NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 3/21/94 Clean NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 8/1/94 excellent NOMule Creek 684 Telogia 22020049 7/9/96 excellent NOTallahassee Creek 579 Telogia 22020018 8/22/97 good NOBig Boggy Branch 1124 Wakulla 22030024 3/4/97 Clean NOBig Boggy Branch 1124 Wakulla 22030025 12/15/97 poor YESBig Boggy Branch 1124 Wakulla 22030025 12/15/97 Severely

Stressed

YES

McBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 7/8/92 excellent NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 8/5/92 Clean NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 3/30/93 excellent NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 3/30/93 Clean NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 7/22/93 excellent NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 7/22/93 Clean NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 3/21/94 Clean NOMcBride Slough 1028 Wakulla 22030062 2/11/97 excellent NOa Only test sites with associated background sites were evaluated.
172  	 

 

   

Appendix G: Water Quality Data for the Ochlockonee and St.

Marks 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

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 Wakulla River Planning Unit Stats 1989-99

TABLE G-3.13 Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit Stats 1989-99

TABLE G-4 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Summary of Conventional Exceedances

TABLE G-5 Ochlockonee/St. Marks Summary of Metal Exceedances

TABLE G-6 List of Flow and Water Level Gage Sites

Please note:

These tables are presented as a separate Microsoft EXCEL workbook file 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