FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Water Resource Management

Water Quality Assessment Report

NORTHEAST DISTRICT • GROUP 4 BASIN • 2007

Nassau–St. Marys

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Water Resource Management

Water Quality Assessment Report

2007

Nassau–St. Marys

Acknowledgments

The Nassau–St. Marys Water Quality Assessment Report was prepared by 

the Nassau–St. Marys Basin Team, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, as part of a fi ve-year cycle to restore and protect Florida’s water 

quality. Team members include the following:

Jennifer Gihring, Basin Coordinator

David Wainwright, Water Quality Assessment Coordinator

Janis Paulsen

Julian Simonelli

Cindy Cosper

Patti Sanzone

Tom Kallemeyn

Lee Banks

John Davis

Editorial and writing assistance provided by

Linda Lord, Watershed Planning and Coordination

Production assistance provided by

Center for Information, Training, and Evaluation Services

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 and impaired waters in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, 

contact

Jennifer Gihring

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Planning and 

 Coordination Section

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

jennifer.gihring@dep.state.fl .us

Phone: (850) 245-8418; SunCom: 205-8418

Fax: (850) 245-8434

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 5
Access to all data used in the development of this report can be 

obtained by contacting

Wayne Magley

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Assessment Section

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3555

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

david.wainwright@dep.state.fl .us

Phone: (850) 245-8463; SunCom: 205-8463

Fax: (850) 245-8536

Web Sites

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Watershed Management

TMDL Program

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

Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule

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

STORET Program

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

2004 305(b) Report

http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/docs/2004_Integrated_Report.pdf

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifi cations

http://www.dep.state.fl .us/legal/rules/shared/62-302.pdf

Status and Assessment Reports

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

Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Report

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4: Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/fl orida/

National STORET Program

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

6 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Preface

Content Features

• Executive Summary: Appears at the beginning of every report and 

provides an overview of the watershed management, its implementation, and how this approach will be used to identify impaired waters.

• 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.

• Defi nitions: Appear where scientifi c terms occur that may not 

be familiar to all readers. The word being defi ned is bold-faced in 

the text.

• References: Appear immediately before the Appendices and provide 

a complete listing of all sources used in the text.

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

information on a range of subjects such as bioassessment methodology, rainfall and stream fl ow, types of natural communities, STORET 

stations, water quality statistics, land use, and permitted facilities.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 7

Executive Summary

Nassau–St. Marys 

The Water Quality Assessment Report for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin 

is part of the implementation of the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s (Department’s) watershed management approach for restoring and protecting water resources and addressing Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) Program requirements. A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still 

meet the waterbody’s designated uses. A waterbody that does not meet its 

designated uses is defi ned as impaired. The watershed approach, which is 

implemented using a cyclical management process, provides a framework 

for implementing the requirements of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act 

and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of 

Florida).

A Status Report, published during Phase 1 of the watershed management cycle, provided a Planning List, or preliminary identifi cation, of 

potentially impaired waterbodies in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin. This 

Assessment Report presents the results of additional data gathered during 

Phase 2 of the cycle. This report contains a Verifi ed List of impaired 

waters (Table 5.3 in Chapter 5) that will be adopted by Secretarial Order 

and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

approval. TMDLs must be developed and implemented for these waters, 

unless the impairment is documented to be a naturally occurring condition 

that cannot be abated by a TMDL, or unless a management plan already 

in place is expected to correct the problem. The Verifi ed List also constitutes the Group 4 basin-specifi c 303(d) list of impaired waters, so called 

because it is required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. This 

report also provides the results of a preliminary ground water quality assessment and discusses priorities for further evaluation, resource priorities, and 

proposed actions. (See Noteworthy in Chapter 1 for a description of the 

contents of this report, by chapter.)

In the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, state, federal, regional, and local 

 agencies and organizations are making progress towards identifying problems and improving water quality. Through its watershed management 

activities, the Department works with these entities to support programs 

that are improving water quality and restoring and protecting ecological 

resources. The Department’s TMDL Program objectives will be carried 

out in the basin through close coordination with key stakeholders such 

as the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD); Florida 

Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services; Nassau, Baker, and 

Duval Counties; area municipalities; St. Marys River Management Committee; the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental 

Protection Division (GEPD); and private landowners, including the 

 silviculture industry.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 9
Not only do stakeholders in the basin share responsibilities in achieving 

water quality improvement objectives, they also play a crucial role in providing the Department with important monitoring data and information 

on management activities. In addition to the Department, signifi cant data 

providers in the basin include the Florida Department of Health (DOH), 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, SJRWMD, Suwannee River Water Management District, Duval County, U.S. Geological 

Survey, National Park Service, and GEPD.

TMDL development and implementation activities depend heavily 

on the active participation of the water management district, local governments, businesses, citizens, and other stakeholders. The Department 

will work with these organizations and individuals to undertake or continue reductions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established 

TMDLs for impaired waterbodies.

Summary of Findings

The Department has assessed both surface and ground water in 

the Nassau–St. Marys Basin. The Department’s assessment shows that 

19 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin are 

impaired and require the development of TMDLs. The following summarizes results of the ground water assessment for the entire basin and surface 

water assessments, by planning unit. Planning units are smaller areas in 

the basin that provide a more detailed geographic basis for identifying and 

assessing water quality improvement activities.

Ground Water

As is the case elsewhere in the state, ground water seepage provides 

water to the surface waterbodies of the basin and can infl uence surface 

water quality. Some naturally occurring nutrients and heavy metals affect 

surface water quality to varying extents in the basin via ground water 

infl ows from the surfi cial aquifer.

Phosphorus in the surfi cial aquifer occurs at relatively low concentrations, except in the Nassau River Planning Unit, where median concentrations are higher. It is not clear whether elevated phosphorus in this 

planning unit is due to natural, anthropogenic, or a combination of natural 

and anthropogenic sources. Except for isolated instances, other nutrients 

in the surfi cial aquifer, nitrate and ammonia, are undetected or occur only 

at low concentrations in the basin.

Iron occurs at high concentrations in the surfi cial aquifer throughout 

the basin, and ground water seepage is likely a signifi cant source of iron 

found in surface waters. The abundance of iron in the shallow ground 

water, the presence of acidic, organic, and/or clayey soils—as well as subneutral pH, low dissolved oxygen (DO), and high color in waterbodies that 

are on the Verifi ed List for iron—indicate that the elevated iron is a natural 

condition. For these waters, the development of site-specifi c alternative 

criteria may be appropriate.

10 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Surface Water—Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit

Of the 72 waterbody segments in the Upper St. Marys River Planning 

Unit, 12 segments have suffi cient data for assessment. Of these, 5 are verifi ed impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed, 5 remain on the Planning 

List of potentially impaired waters, and 1 meets standards.

The fi ve verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

WBID

Water Segment 

Name

Waterbody 

Type Class

1998 303(d)

Parameters 

of Concern

Verified Impaired

Parameters

2097H St. Marys River Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish 

2097I St. Marys River Stream IIIF Mercury 

in Fish

Mercury in Fish 

2097J St. Marys River Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish 

2211 Middle Prong 

St. Marys

Stream IIIF — Iron

2339 Ocean Pond Lake IIIF — Mercury in Fish 

Surface Water—Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit

Of the 23 waterbody segments in the Middle St. Marys River Planning 

Unit, 5 segments have suffi cient data for assessment. Of these, 3 are verifi ed impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed, 1 remains on the Planning 

List, and 1 meets standards.

The three verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows:

WBID

Water Segment 

Name

Waterbody 

Type Class

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Verified Impaired

Parameters

2097E St. Marys River Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish 

2097F St. Marys River Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish 

2097G St. Marys River Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish 

Surface Water—Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit

Of the 32 waterbody segments in the Lower St. Marys River Planning 

Unit, 11 segments have suffi cient data for assessment. Of these, 1 is verifi ed 

impaired, 9 remain on the Planning List, and 1 meets standards.

The one verifi ed impaired segment in the planning unit, and the 

parameter of impairment, is as follows:

WBID

Water Segment 

Name

Waterbody 

Type Class

1998 303(d)

Parameters 

of Concern

Verified Impaired

Parameters

2097D St. Marys River Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish 

2140 Jackson Creek Estuary IIM — Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 11
Other potential impairments in the planning unit include mercury 

in fi sh. These include the coastal waters in this planning unit. There are 

eight waterbody identifi cation numbers (WBIDs) currently on the Planning List for mercury in fi sh, based on fi sh consumption advisories issued 

by DOH for all coastal waters in Florida. These are advisories against 

consumption of several species of shark and King Mackerel. If the Department can verify that the data used to determine the advisory is within the 

verifi ed period then these waters will be moved to the Verifi ed List. 

Surface Water—Nassau River Planning Unit

Of the 52 waterbody segments in the Nassau River Planning Unit, 

33 have suffi cient data for assessment. Of these, 10 are verifi ed impaired 

for at least 1 parameter assessed, 21 remain on the Planning List, and 

none meet standards. Of the 10 segments that were verifi ed as impaired, 

1 waterbody (Unnamed Branch, WBID 2156) was verifi ed for multiple 

parameters.

The verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the parameters of impairment, are as follows:

WBID

Water Segment 

Name

Waterbody 

Type Class

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Verified Impaired

Parameters

2156 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF — DO

2156 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal Coliforms

2156 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF Coliforms Total Coliforms

2174 Nassau Sound Estuary IIM — Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

2140A Jackson Creek Estuary IIM — Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

2148B Nassau River Stream IIIF — Iron

2149 South Amelia 

River

Estuary IIM — Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

2153 Alligator Creek Stream IIIF — Total Coliforms

2157 Little Mill Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Total Coliforms

2174A South End Estuary IIIM — Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

2198 Fort George River Estuary IIM — Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

2198A Marina Bay at 

Fort George

Estuary IIIM — Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Surface Water—Nassau Sound Planning Unit

Of the nine waterbody segments in the Nassau Sound Planning Unit, 

all have suffi cient data for assessment. Of these, one is verifi ed impaired 

for at least one parameter assessed, eight remain on the Planning List, and 

none meet standards.

12 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
The one verifi ed impaired segment in the planning unit is as follows:

WBID

Water Segment 

Name

Waterbody 

Type Class

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Verified Impaired 

Parameters

8127 Nassau Sound 

Ocean 1

Estuary IIIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Other potential impairments in the planning unit include mercury in 

fi sh. These include the coastal waters in this planning unit. There are nine 

WBIDs currently on the Planning List for mercury in fi sh, based on fi sh 

consumption advisories issued by DOH for all coastal waters in Florida. 

These are advisories against consumption of several species of shark and 

King Mackerel. If the Department can verify that the data used to determine the advisory is within the verifi ed period, then these waters will be 

moved to the Verifi ed List. 

Total Maximum Daily Load Priority Areas

One waterbody is a high priority for TMDL development in the 

Nassau–St. Marys Basin. Section 62-303.500, Florida Administrative 

Code, defi nes high-priority waters as waterbody segments where the impairment poses a threat to potable water supplies or human health; waterbody 

segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant regulated by the Clean 

Water Act and the pollutant has contributed to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endangered species, as indicated in 

the Federal Register listing the species; or waterbody segments verifi ed as 

im paired that are included on the EPA’s 1998 303(d) list as high priority.

The waterbody segment identifi ed as a high priority area for TMDL 

development (on the 1998 303[d] list and verifi ed impaired) is shown 

below.

All of the remaining parameters causing impairment for the WBIDs 

placed on the Verifi ed List have been assigned medium priority for TMDL 

development. 

Planning 

Unit Name WBID

Water 

 Segment 

Name

Waterbody 

Type Class

1998 303(d) 

Parameters of 

Concern Status

 Priority 

for TMDL 

 Development

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

 Development

Nassau 

River

2156 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF Coliforms Verified 

Impaired

High 2005

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 13

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Purposes and Content of the Assessment Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Northeast District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2: Basin Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Basin Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

St. Marys River Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Headwaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Middle St. Marys River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Lower St. Marys River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Nassau River Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Surface Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Outstanding Florida Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Watershed Management Activities and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Major Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Agricultural Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Scope of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Update on Strategic Monitoring and Data-Gathering Activities During 

Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Attainment of Designated Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Assessment by Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Upper St. Marys River, Middle St. Marys River, and Lower St. Marys River 

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Fish Consumption Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Fish Consumption Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 15
Chapter 4: Evaluation of Ground Water/ Geologic Influences on 

Impaired Waterbodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Geology, Soil, and Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Dissolved Oxygen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Evaluations by Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Overview of Ground Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Upper St. Marys Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Nassau River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Chapter 5: The Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Identification of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Documentation of Reasonable Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

The Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Pollutants Causing Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Listing Based on Other Information Indicating Nutrient Imbalance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, and Implementation . . . 89

Prioritization of Listed Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Total Maximum Daily Load Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Total Maximum Daily Load Allocation and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Implementation Programs and Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Development of Basin Management Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Tables

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 2.1: Population Summary Statistics for Counties in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin in Florida . . 27

Table 2.2: OFWs in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin during the Verifi ed Period 

(January 1, 1998–June 30, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report . . . . 42

Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Upper St. Marys River 

Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Middle St. Marys River 

Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lower St. Marys River 

Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Nassau River Planning Unit . . . . 63

Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Nassau Sound Planning Unit . . . 67

Table 4.1. Ground Water Statistics for Planning Units in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table 5.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 4 Verifi ed Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 5.2: Elements of Reasonable Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 5.3: The Verifi ed List of Impaired Waters for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

16 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Figures

Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s 

Northeast District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Nassau–St. Marys Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Nassau–St. Marys Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Florida Portion of the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential 

Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Florida Portion of the Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential 

Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Florida Portion of the Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit, 

 Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential 

Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning Units, Including the 

1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution 

Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 4.1: Phosphorus Concentrations in the Surfi cial Aquifer and DO-listed Surface Waters . . . . . 73

Figure 4.2: Nitrate and Ammonia Concentrations in the Surfi cial Aquifer and DO-listed Surface 

Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 4.3: Iron Concentrations in the Surfi cial Aquifer and Iron-listed Surface Waters . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure 5.1: Waters on the Verifi ed List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 6.1: Nassau–St. Marys Basin Priority TMDL Priority Watersheds for 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Table 5.4: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on STORET Data from 1970 to 1987 . . . . 86

Table 5.5: Nassau–St. Marys Basin Median Values for the Verifi ed Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Table 6.1: Priorities for TMDL Development in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 17

Chapter 1: Introduction

Total Maximum 

Daily Load

The maximum amount 

of a given pollutant that a 

waterbody can assimilate 

and remain healthy, such that 

all of its designated uses are 

met.

Purposes and Content of the Assessment 

Report

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

is implementing a statewide watershed management approach for restoring 

and protecting water quality and addressing Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) Program requirements. Under Section 303(d) of the 1972 federal 

Clean Water Act and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) 

(Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida), TMDLs must be developed for all 

waters that do not meet their designated uses (such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfi sh harvesting) and are thus defi ned as impaired. 

TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding reductions in pollutant loads allocated, as part of the watershed management approach, which 

rotates through the state’s 52 basins over a 5-year cycle. Extensive public 

participation from diverse stakeholders in each of these basins is crucial in 

all phases of the cycle.

A Status Report published during Phase 1 of the watershed management cycle provided a Planning List, or preliminary identifi cation, of potentially impaired waterbodies in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin. A copy of the 

report can be found at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm.

This Assessment Report, which updates the information in the Status 

Report, incorporates data collected from the Department’s strategic 

 monitoring and gathered from other agencies and groups during Phase 2 

of the watershed cycle. The report contains a Verifi ed List of impaired 

waters required by the FWRA and Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, 

for which TMDLs must be developed and implemented (see N oteworthy 

for a description of the Assessment Report’s contents, by chapter). It 

also describes the results of a preliminary ground water quality assessment and discusses priorities for further evaluation, as well as resource 

priorities and proposed actions. Based on the assessment results, in the 

Nassau–St. Marys Basin 19 waterbodies or waterbody segments are verifi ed 

impaired for 1 or more parameters. TMDLs must be developed for these 

waters, unless the impairment is documented to be a naturally occurring 

condition that a TMDL cannot abate, or unless a management plan is 

already in place to correct the problem.

This report is intended for distribution to a broad range of potential 

stakeholders, including decision makers in federal, state, regional, tribal, 

and local governments; public and private interests; and citizens.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 19
The Verifi ed List is required by Subsection 403.067(40), Florida 

Statutes, and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. The Department has adopted the Verifi ed List of impaired waters in accordance with 

the FWRA and the Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 

62-303, Florida Administrative Code). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also approved this list as the current 303(d) list of 

impaired waters for the basin, so called because it is required under Section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 

The fi rst 303(d) list, which was required by the EPA in 1998, is to 

be amended annually to include basin updates. Florida’s 1998 303(d) list 

included a number of waterbodies in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin. 

This Assessment Report follows the EPA’s guidance for meshing 

Clean Water Act requirements for Section 305(b) water quality reports 

and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. The integrated water quality 

assessment is used to identify the status of data suffi ciency, the potential 

for impairment, and the need for TMDL development for each waterbody 

or waterbody segment in the basin. Tables 3.4 through 3.8 in Chapter 3 

provide an integrated assessment for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by planning unit.

Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background for 

TMDL development and implementation through the watershed management approach, and briefl y explains the TMDL Program. Background 

information on the Department’s TMDL Program, the process of TMDL 

development and implementation, lists of impaired and potentially 

impaired waters, and assessments for other parts of the state are available at 

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

Stakeholder Involvement

The FWRA requires the Department to work closely with stakeholders to develop and implement TMDLs. In addition, the Department’s 

 Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) report, submitted to 

the legislature, recommends relying on stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder involvement in the TMDL process will vary with each phase of 

implementation to achieve different purposes (Table 1.1). A copy of the 

ATAC report is available at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/docs/

Allocation.pdf.

The Department will work cooperatively with a number of key 

stakeholders to develop, allocate, and implement TMDLs in the Nassau–

St. Marys Basin. These include the St. Johns River Water Management District; Nassau, Baker, and Duval Counties; area municipalities; 

St. Marys River Management Committee; and Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division.

20 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program

Watershed Management Cycle Nature of Stakeholder Involvement

Phase 1: 

Preliminary

Evaluation

Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin 

water quality assessment; inventory existing and proposed management 

activities; identify management objectives and issues of concern; develop 

a Strategic Monitoring Plan; and produce a preliminary Status Report that 

includes a Planning List of potentially impaired waters

Phase 2:

Strategic Monitoring

and Assessment

Cooperative efforts between the Department and local stakeholders to collect additional data; get data into STORET (the EPA’s national water quality STOrage and RETrieval database); complete water quality assessment; 

produce a final Assessment Report that includes a Verified List of impaired 

waters for Secretarial adoption; and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to document reasonable assurance (for Department review) that existing 

or proposed management plans and projects are adequate to restore water 

quality without the establishment of a TMDL

Phase 3:

Development and

Adoption of TMDLs

Coordination with stakeholders to discuss TMDL model framework, including 

model requirements, parameters to be modeled, model endpoints, design run 

scenarios, and preliminary allocations; communication of science used in the 

process; public workshops for rule adoption of TMDLs

Phase 4:

Development of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Broad stakeholder participation in developing a Basin Management Action 

Plan (B-MAP) (including detailed allocations and implementation strategies), 

incorporating it into existing management plans where feasible; public meetings during the planning process

Phase 5:

Implementation of Basin 

Management Action Plan

Emphasis on implementing the B-MAP, other voluntary stakeholder actions, 

and local watershed management structures; Department will continue to 

provide technical assistance, fulfill oversight responsibilities, and administer 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System point and nonpoint source 

permits

The Watershed Management Cycle in 

the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Northeast District

Figure 1.1 shows the order in which the Department’s Northeast 

District basins will be evaluated under the watershed management cycle. 

These groups are identifi ed according to a U.S. Geological Survey classifi cation system using hydrologic unit codes.

The Suwannee River Basin, a Group 1 basin, was the fi rst basin in the 

district to undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000. A preliminary assessment for the Group 2 basin, the Lower St. Johns River, was completed in 

2001. There is no Group 3 basin in the Northeast District. The preliminary assessment for the Group 4 basin, Nassau–St. Marys, was initiated in 

2003, and the Group 5 preliminary assessment for the Upper East Coast 

Basin was begun in 2004. In 2005, the cycle resumed with the Group 1 

basin, Suwannee.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 21
Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s Northeast 

District, Basin Groups 1 through 5

22 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
• Chapter 1: Introduction

briefly characterizes the 

purpose and content of the 

Water Quality Assessment 

Report, discusses stakeholder 

involvement, and describes 

how the watershed management cycle will be implemented in the Department’s 

Northeast District.

• Chapter 2: Basin Overview

characterizes the basin’s 

general setting, water 

resources, major water quality 

trends, and watershed management issues and activities.

• Chapter 3: Surface Water 

Quality Assessment discusses 

the scope of the assessment, 

summarizes data-gathering 

activities and sources of data, 

describes the EPA’s terminology for designated use attainment and its integrated report 

categories, and provides, by 

basin planning unit, an evaluation of water quality, a discussion of permitted discharges 

and land uses, a summary 

of ecological priorities and 

problems, and an overview 

of water quality improvement 

plans and projects.

Contents of This Report

• Chapter 4: Ground Water 

Quality Assessment describes 

the Department’s principal 

ground water monitoring 

networks, the basin assessment methodology, the results 

of the preliminary assessment 

of ground water quality and 

ground water to surface water 

interactions, and resource priorities and proposed actions.

• Chapter 5: The Verified List 

of Impaired Waters contains 

the Verified List of impaired 

waters, discusses public 

participation, describes 

documentation of reasonable 

assurance, lists the pollutants 

causing impairments, provides 

listings based on other information indicating a nutrient 

imbalance, and describes 

the adoption process for the 

Verified List.

• Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, and Implementation discusses the 

prioritization of listed waters, 

TMDL development, TMDL 

allocation and implementation, and the development of 

a Basin Management Action 

Plan.

Noteworthy 23 Water Quality Assessment Report: 

Nassau–St. Marys

Chapter 2: Basin Overview

Basin Setting

The St. Marys Basin occupies approximately 1,585 square miles in 

southeastern Georgia and northeastern Florida, with about 942 square 

miles of the basin in Florida (St. Johns River Water Management District 

[SJRWMD], 1993). Figure 2.1 shows the boundaries of the Nassau–

St. Marys Basin, including the portions of the St. Marys Basin in both 

Florida and Georgia. The St. Marys Basin includes all or part of 5 counties 

in Florida (Baker, Columbia, Duval, Nassau, and Union) and 3 counties in 

Georgia (Camden, Charlton, and Ware). Roughly 86 percent of the entire 

basin lies within 4 counties (Baker and Nassau in Florida, and Camden and 

Charlton in Georgia), and 89 percent of the Florida portion of the basin is 

found within these 2 counties (SJRWMD, 1993).

The basin lies within the Coastal Plain physiographic region, which 

extends throughout the southeastern United States. The dominant land 

use and land cover in the St. Marys Basin are silviculture and upland 

forest, primarily managed pine forests (SJRWMD, 1993). Agriculture in 

the St. Marys Basin is a mixture of livestock and poultry operations, and 

commodity production. The St. Marys River, a blackwater stream that 

originates in the Okefenokee Swamp, extends 125 to 130 miles before 

discharging to Cumberland Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. The St. Marys 

Inlet lies at the entrance to Cumberland Sound at the mouth of the river 

between Cumberland Island, Georgia, and Amelia Island, Florida. It is 

an important passageway for commercial, recreational, and naval vessels, 

providing access to St. Marys Harbor, Georgia; Fernandina Harbor (via the 

Amelia River); and the U.S. Navy Submarine Support Base at Kings Bay, 

Georgia.

The Nassau Basin occupies approximately 464 square miles. The 

Nassau River, a small river, forms the boundary between Nassau and Duval 

Counties just north of Jacksonville. The basin is comprised primarily of 

forest and wetlands. Silviculture is the main land use. Small population 

centers are found at Yulee and Callahan, with more intense urban development in the Amelia Island area.

The basin includes approximately 55 river miles and about 10 square 

miles of estuary, including the mouth of the Nassau River, South Amelia 

River, Sisters Creek, and Ft. George River. The Nassau River and estuary 

support a healthy recreational and commercial fi shing industry, especially 

commercial crabbing and shrimping (Florida Department of Natural 

Resources, 1989). Two unimproved inlets lie between the St. Marys 

and the St. Johns Rivers: the Nassau River Inlet, between the southern 

tip of Amelia Island and the northern tip of Little Talbot Island, and 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 25
Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

the Ft. George Inlet, between the southern end of Little Talbot Island 

and Wards Bank (an extensive sandbank separating the Ft. George and 

St. Johns Rivers).

Figure 2.1 shows the principal geopolitical features in the Nassau–

St. Marys Basin. Appendix B contains supplementary information on the 

basin’s ecology. (See the sidebar for the sources of information used in this 

chapter.)

The topography of the overall Nassau–St. Marys Basin is generally 

fl at and low near the Atlantic coast and rises inland to the Duval Uplands, 

Trail Ridge, and Northern Highlands. The coastal lowlands are poorly 

drained and very sandy. 

The Nassau–St. Marys River Basin Water Quality Management Plan

(Florida Department of Pollution Control [DPC], 1975) describes the 

hydrologic features of the Nassau–St. Marys Basin. Drainage has caused 

the development of a stream pattern characterized by many relatively short 

streams, with headwaters in swampy areas. Runoff in the basin is rapid 

26 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
despite the storage afforded by swamps, and many of the streams naturally 

go dry after fairly short periods of little or no rainfall. Ground water is 

the principal supply of fresh water, and some streams are sustained in dry 

weather by wastewater effl uent withdrawn originally from the Floridan 

aquifer through wells. The lower reaches of many of the small streams 

are tidal, and reverse fl ow may occur several miles upstream from their 

mouths. This usually occurs during periods when the ocean level is rising 

and runoff is slight or nonexistent.

The basin is located in the temperate climate zone, but the climate 

tends to be more tropical than temperate. The year is divided into two 

seasons: the rainy season, from June through October, and the dry season, 

from November through May (DPC, 1975). The average annual precipitation in the basin is approximately 53.4 inches, with the greatest rainfall 

occurring during the late summer months.

Poorly to very poorly drained soils dominate the middle portion of the 

basin. These areas comprise about 20 percent of the soil types in the basin. 

Approximately 20 percent of the basin is composed of marsh types. Somewhat poorly drained soils comprise about 45 to 50 percent of the basin’s soil 

types. Areas dominated by well-drained to moderately well-drained soils 

are scattered about the basin; these comprise 10 to 15 percent of the soil 

types in the basin (DPC, 1975).

Population

The population in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin is relatively low, 

although Amelia Island has developed as a popular coastal tourist destination. The highest population densities are found in Fernandina Beach 

and Macclenny. The cities of St. Marys and Kingsland (both in Camden 

County, Georgia, at the mouth of the river) are rapidly growing because of 

their association with Kings Bay Naval Base, the settlement of retirees, and 

ecotourism activity focused on the Cumberland Island National Seashore 

(St. Marys River Management Committee [SMRMC], 2003). Table 2.1 

summarizes population statistics for counties in the basin within Florida.

Sources of 

Information

Much of the information 

about the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin in this chapter was 

obtained from the SMRMC’s 

St. Marys River Management Plan (2003) and the 

SJRWMD’s District Water 

Management Plan (2000). 

The References section at the 

end of this report contains a 

complete listing of sources.

Table 2.1: Population Summary Statistics for Counties in the 

Nassau–St. Marys Basin in Florida

County

Population in 

1990 Census

Population in 

2000 Census Percent Change

Baker 18,486 22,259 20

Columbia 42,613 56,513 33

Duval 672,971 778,879 16

Nassau* 43,941 57,663 31

Union 10,252 13,442 31

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Web site.

*All of Nassau County lies within the basin; all other counties are partially 

within the basin.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 27
Surface Water Resources

This section delineates the basin’s hydrology, describes the movement 

and management of water in the basin, briefl y describes the major characteristics of surface waters that infl uence water quality in the basin, and 

describes surface water classifi cations and special designations.

The Nassau–St. Marys Basin contains numerous surface waterbodies. 

Surface waters, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and springs, occupy 

44.3 square miles, or about 3 percent of the total basin area. Figure 2.2 

shows the locations of the largest waterbodies. A more detailed discussion 

in Chapter 3 provides information on each planning unit.

St. Marys River Watershed

The Okefenokee and Pinhook Swamps are the two main sources of 

water feeding the St. Marys River. The main stem of the St. Marys River is 

a blackwater stream (see the sidebar on blackwater rivers); it is the principal 

surface water resource in the watershed, with an annual average fl ow of 

Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Blackwater Rivers

Decaying peat and other 

vegetation from the Okefenokee and Pinhook Swamps 

produce tannin, a naturally 

occurring, water-soluble 

organic compound. The 

tannin stains the waters to 

the color of coffee, making 

the St. Marys a blackwater 

river.

28 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
about 1,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) at its mouth (Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources, 2002). The river forms the border between southeast Georgia and northeast Florida. Hydrologically, the St. Marys Basin is 

divided into three areas based on hydrologic functions: (1) the headwaters 

contain large fl oodplain wetlands that provide substantial storage; (2) the 

middle St. Marys is characterized by narrow fl oodplains confi ned to the 

main stem of the river; and (3) the lower St. Marys is tidally infl uenced and 

poorly drained (SJRWMD, 1993). These areas correspond to the Upper, 

Middle, and Lower St. Marys River Planning Units, which are discussed in 

greater detail in Chapter 3. 

Headwaters 

The headwaters, which include the southern and western parts of the 

St. Marys Basin, extend to the point where the river turns northward, 

northeast of Macclenny. The eastern boundary runs along the top of the 

Trail Ridge. This stretch of the river includes portions of the Okefenokee Swamp and the Osceola National Forest. The largest municipality 

is Macclenny. The headwaters include the following tributaries of the 

St. Marys River: North Prong, Middle Prong, Cedar Creek, South Prong, 

Deep Creek, and Baldwin Bay–Brandy Branch. The area is characterized 

by large fl oodplains in tributary headwaters and serves an important storage 

function for wetlands. 

Middle St. Marys River 

The major tributary in this area is Spanish Creek in Georgia. Most 

tributaries in the Middle St. Marys are short and originate on the Trail 

Ridge. The Suwannee Canal is located in this stretch of the river, fl owing 

from the Okefenokee Swamp east through the Trail Ridge and joining the 

north portion of the middle river. This stretch of the river runs northward 

and is characterized by fl oodplains confi ned to river margins and bluff 

 erosion near small tributaries. Hampton Walker Lake lies in this area and 

is the only lake of 100 acres or larger in the basin.

Lower St. Marys River 

The major tributary in the lower portion of the river is the Little 

St. Marys River. Floodplains cover approximately 50 percent of the land 

area. Tidally infl uenced fl ows have been confi rmed as far as 21 miles 

upstream of the river mouth (SJRWMD, 1993), although others have 

measured tidal infl uences as far as 64 miles upstream (George Varn, Jr., 

St. Marys River Management Committee, personal communication). The 

low topography and slope, combined with tidal effects, make this the most 

poorly drained of the three areas. Poor drainage has limited development 

in much of the lower St. Marys River, primarily due to the lack of soil 

suitability for septic systems in the fl oodplain. Development is concentrated along the higher banks in this stretch of the river that are moderately 

 suitable for septic systems. 

Nassau River Watershed

The main drainage feature of the Nassau Basin is the Nassau River, 

with its numerous tributaries. The Nassau River forms the boundary 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 29
between Nassau and Duval Counties. Other major waterbodies include 

Alligator Creek, Ft. George River, Lofton Creek, Mills Creek, Plummer 

Creek, Pumpkin Hill Creek, Sisters Creek, South Amelia River, and 

Thomas Creek. 

Hydrologically, the Nassau Basin is divided into a riverine and an 

estuarine portion. The Nassau River estuary is part of the larger series of 

“Sea Islands” that run along the coast from the St. Johns River north to 

the Santee River in South Carolina. The name is derived from the chain 

of barrier islands, which is separated from the mainland by meandering 

tidal creeks resulting from fl uvial and tidal sedimentation in lagoons or 

coastal-parallel marshes between beach ridges. The area consists of a vast 

saltmarsh estuary with numerous interconnecting tidal creeks and channels 

as well as minor uplands (“tree islands”). Very little has been documented 

about the upper, riverine portion of the basin. The extent to which tidal 

infl uence is felt upstream varies with rainfall, tides, winds, and evapotranspiration. No lakes are present in the Nassau Basin.

Surface Water Quality Classifications 

Florida’s water quality standards, the foundation of the state’s program 

of water quality management, designate the “present and future most 

benefi cial uses” of the waters of the state (Subsection 403.061[10], Florida 

Statutes [F.S.]). Water quality criteria for surface water and ground water, 

expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specifi c parameters, describe the 

water quality necessary to maintain these uses. Florida’s surface water is 

classifi ed using the following fi ve designated use categories:

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 class)

All waters in the St. Marys Basin are Class III. In the Nassau River 

Basin, all waters are Class III, except for the following Class II waters:

• Alligator Creek;

• Ft. George River and Simpson Creeks—Ft. George Inlet north to 

Nassau Sound;

• Intracoastal Waterway and Tributaries—Confl uence of Nassau and 

Amelia Rivers south to Flashing Marker 73, thence eastward along 

Ft. George River to Ft. George Inlet and including Garden Creek;

• Nassau River and Creek—From the mouth of Nassau Sound to a 

line connecting the northeasternmost point of Little Talbot Island to 

the southeasternmost tip of Amelia Island westerly to a north-south 

line through Seymore Point;

• Pumpkin Hill Creek; 

30 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
• South Amelia River—Nassau River north to a line from the northern 

shore of the mouth of Alligator Creek to the northernmost shore of 

Harrison Creek; and

• Waters between South Amelia River and Alligator Creek.

Shellfi shing is currently prohibited in all of the Class II waters in the 

basin. 

Special Designations

Outstanding Florida Waters

Waterbodies in a number of designated areas in the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin have been given additional protection through designation as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) (Table 2.2).

OFWs are designated for “special protection due to their natural 

 attributes” (Section 403.061, F.S.). These waters are listed in Section 

62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 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” 

based on a fi nding that the waters are of exceptional recreational or ecological signifi cance, and are identifi ed as such in Rule 62-302, F.A.C.

Table 2.2: OFWs in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Nassau River Watershed St. Marys River Watershed

Ft. Caroline National Monument Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Big Talbot Island State Park Amelia Island State Recreational Area

Little Talbot Island State Park Fort Clinch State Park and Aquatic 

Preserve

Nassau Valley State Reserve Waters in the Osceola National Forest, 

including Deep Creek, Middle Prong 

St. Marys River, and Ocean Pond

Ft. George Island

Nassau River–St. Johns River 

Marshes Aquatic Preserve

Timucuan Ecological and Historic 

Preserve

Ground Water Resources

Aquifers

The three principal Florida aquifer systems—surfi cial, intermediate, 

and Floridan—are all present beneath the entire Nassau–St. Marys Basin. 

These aquifer systems are defi ned and separated based primarily on variations in lithostratigraphy. The primary source of potable water in the basin 

is the Floridan aquifer, which is deep, confi ned, and under artesian pressure 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 31
throughout the area. The intermediate system is mainly a confi ning unit 

that occurs in the Hawthorn Group, which in this area includes extensive 

clay layers. The surfi cial aquifer system is the “water table” aquifer in the 

basin. It is used as a potable water supply to a limited extent, but the surfi cial aquifer is signifi cant to this evaluation because it is the ground water 

source that directly interacts with surface waterbodies, providing base fl ow 

to streams, estuaries, and lakes in the basin. 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions 

The basin is not known for signifi cant amounts of spring discharge 

because the limestone formations are so deeply buried by confi ning sediments. However, seepage from the surfi cial aquifer may constitute a 

signifi cant percentage of water to the overall stream fl ow in the basin. In 

an analysis of base fl ow conducted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department’s) Ground Water Protection Section for 

a study site on the St. Marys River, the ground water component of fl ow 

at 2 U.S. Geological Survey fl ow measurement stations on the St. Marys 

River was approximately 50 percent of the total fl ow (Hicks and Marks, 

2005). Similar amounts of ground water seepage are expected for other 

streams in the basin. The only identifi ed spring in the basin is Su-No-Wa 

Spring in Nassau County. The enclosed spring, which has an average discharge of 0.0145 cfs, is located near the head of Thomas Creek in the upper 

end of the coastal drainage area between the St. Marys and St. Johns Rivers 

(Osburn, Toth, and Boniol, 2002).

More information about ground water resources in the St. Marys and 

Nassau Basins can be found in Chapter 4.

Watershed Management Activities and 

Processes

Beginning in 1937, management plans and activities in the basin were 

implemented to eliminate wastewater discharges; reduce the discharges 

of polluted stormwater from urban and agricultural areas; and protect, 

preserve, and restore special areas. This section describes activities and 

processes that address water quality problems. 

Coordinated local, state, and regional efforts in the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin are responsible for much of the progress that has been made in implementing watershed and water quality improvements in the area. Many 

plans share common goals, and their implementation is based on a combination of groups playing critical roles in planning, funding, managing, and 

executing projects. Local organizations and initiatives provide leadership 

in waterbody restoration and preservation efforts. The Department continues to coordinate its efforts with local, regional, and other state agencies 

to obtain data, strengthen monitoring activities, and exchange information 

through periodic meetings. 

The management activities described in this section often have many 

smaller projects included within them. A more complete listing of management and restoration activities can be found in the Status Report for 

32 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, available at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/

tmdl/stat_rep.htm.

Major Programs and Projects

A number of major initiatives, if continued, will have signifi cant positive effects on the basin’s water quality.

The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established 

in 1937 in order to preserve the 438,000-acre Okefenokee Swamp. Currently, the refuge encompasses approximately 396,000 acres. In 1974, to 

further ensure the protection of this ecosystem, the interior 353,981 acres of 

the refuge were designated as a National Wilderness Area. The St. Marys 

River originates within the Okefenokee Swamp. In 1994, the DuPont 

Company proposed to mine titanium minerals on the Trail Ridge adjacent 

to the NWR. In August 2003, DuPont decided to retire its mineral rights 

and donate 16,000 acres adjacent to the swamp to the Conservation Fund. 

Approximately 5,000 acres were added to the NWR. The Conservation 

Fund will consult with the state of Georgia and the local community to 

determine the most appropriate actions to protect the remaining land. 

In 1990, Congress passed Public Law 101-364, which authorized the 

National Park Service (NPS) to study the St. Marys River to determine the 

river’s eligibility for a National Wild and Scenic River designation. The 

NPS began examining the St. Marys River in January 1991 and in September of that year published a preliminary report indicating that a total of 

71 river miles, from approximately 1 river mile upstream of Flea Hill/Kings 

Ferry to the confl uence of the Middle and North Prongs (upstream of the 

Macclenny Bridge), were eligible for the National Wild and Scenic River 

designation. A fi nal report was never submitted to Congress and the river 

was not designated with the Wild and Scenic River status.

The SMRMC was formed in 1991 as an intergovernmental entity of 

elected and appointed members from four counties along the St. Marys 

River (Charlton, Camden, Nassau, and Baker). The SMRMC, which was 

formed while the NPS was studying the river for inclusion in the federal 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, has evolved into a group whose primary 

focus is to maintain local management and control of the St. Marys River 

and develop and maintain a management plan to guide the river’s future. 

The management plan was completed in 2002. The committee’s goal is to 

promote and protect the long-term viability of both the environmental and 

economic resources of the St. Marys River in a way that retains local control, protects property rights, and fosters cooperation among individuals, 

governments, and agencies at all levels (SMRMC, 2003). The SMRMC 

has been actively working on a septic tank setback ordinance that would be 

a standard requirement for all counties located along the St. Marys River. 

The Nassau River–St. Johns River Marshes and Fort Clinch State Park 

Aquatic Preserves contain estuarine and marine waters of exceptional biological and aesthetic value to the state. The Nassau River–St. Johns River 

Marshes Aquatic Preserve was designated in 1969 to preserve the biological 

resources of the Nassau Sound area marshes and associated waters. The 

Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve was designated to establish a protective aesthetic buffer for the state park and historic Fort Clinch.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 33
The Pumpkin Hill Creek State Buffer Preserve, established in 1995, 

protects one of the largest contiguous areas of coastal uplands left in Duval 

County. The uplands are important to the water quality of the Nassau and 

St. Johns Rivers.

The 46,000-acre Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, managed 

by the NPS, was established in 1988 to protect one of the last unspoiled 

coastal wetlands on the Atlantic Coast and to preserve historic and prehistoric sites within the area. The estuarine ecosystem includes salt marsh, 

coastal dunes, and hardwood hammocks, all rich in native vegetation and 

animal life.

The city of Jacksonville has implemented the Special Management 

Areas (SMAs) Program through the adoption of the city’s Comprehensive 

Plan. The city has identifi ed fi ve areas as SMAs, including the Nassau 

River–St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve and the Timucuan 

 Ecological and Historic Preserve. Both of these preserves are in the 

Nassau–St. Marys Basin. The goals of the SMA Program are to protect 

habitat for fi sh and wildlife, particularly listed species; protect native vegetative communities; protect and/or enhance ecological values and productivity, and archeological and historical preservation; promote education and 

research; provide recreational opportunities; and promote alternative modes 

of transportation (Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council, 1997).

Agricultural Best Management Practices

The Florida Watershed Resources Act authorizes the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) to develop interim 

measures and agricultural best management practices (BMPs). Additional 

authority for agricultural BMPs is provided in legislation on nitrates and 

ground water (Section 576.045, F.S.), the Lake Okeechobee Protection 

Program (Section 373.4595, F.S.), Agricultural Water Conservation (Section 570.085, F.S.), and Florida Right to Farm Act Amendments (Section 

823.14, F.S.). While BMPs are often adopted by rule, they are voluntary 

if not covered by regulatory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the 

Department verifi es their effectiveness, then implementation provides a 

presumption of compliance with water quality standards.

Over the last several years, DACS has worked with agriculturists, soil 

and water conservation entities, the University of Florida’s Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences, and other major interests to improve product 

marketability and operational effi ciency by implementing agricultural 

BMPs, while at the same time promoting water quality and water conservation objectives. In addition, programs have been established and are being 

developed to create a network of state, local, federal, and private sources of 

funds for developing and implementing BMPs.

Manuals for Best Management Practices

To encourage growers to use BMPs, manuals have been published for 

a number of agricultural industries, including container-grown plants, 

blended fertilizer plants, agrichemical handling and farm equipment maintenance, cow/calf operations, aquaculture, citrus, and landscaping. 

34 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Manuals for row crops, equine or horse farms, and ornamental nurseries are currently being developed. The use of a BMP manual alone, however, does not afford a presumption of compliance with the Department’s 

water quality standards. In general, qualifying for a presumption of compliance requires that an approved BMP manual is being followed on-site 

and that the effectiveness of BMPs in the manual has been confi rmed by 

the Department. BMP manuals pertinent to the Nassau–St. Marys Basin 

include the following:

• Silviculture BMPs: BMPs for silviculture activities in Florida were 

fi rst established in the mid-1970s in response to the 1972 federal 

Clean Water Act. In 1992, DACS established a BMP Technical 

Advisory Committee to review the existing silviculture BMP manual 

and revise the practices where necessary to refl ect the scientifi c, 

social, and economic changes that had taken place since the original 

BMP development. The manual, which was updated in 2000, has 

been adopted by rule.

• Guide for Producing Container Grown Plants: This manual, 

published in 1995 by the Southern Nurserymen’s Association, 

includes irrigation and fertilization BMPs for the container cultivation of nursery plants. It was produced through a cooperative effort 

between the University of Florida, Auburn University, Tennessee 

Tech University, and Virginia Tech. Since the manual is not Floridaspecifi c, an effort is currently under way to use the document in 

developing a Florida-specifi c manual. Florida-specifi c interim measures have been developed.

• BMPs for Agrichemical Handling and Farm Equipment Maintenance: Recently revised and reprinted, this manual gives producers 

guidance on hazardous materials, proper pesticide handling, and the 

proper disposal of waste products. It was cooperatively produced in 

1998 by DACS, the Department, and several industry associations.

• BMPs for Cow/Calf Operations: Many cattle operators statewide 

have been trained in using this manual and are applying BMPs. The 

Florida Cattlemen’s Association and several state, federal, and local 

agencies developed the manual, which was published in 1999 and 

adopted by rule. Copies were printed and distributed in 2000. 

• Aquaculture BMPs: As directed by the 1998 Florida legislature, 

DACS worked cooperatively with industry, state agencies, and the 

environmental community to develop a comprehensive BMP manual 

for aquaculture. Florida law requires that the Department adopt the 

manual by rule and provides regulatory exemptions under Chapters 

373 and 403, F.S., for growers who implement BMPs and are certifi ed by DACS’ Division of Aquaculture. The manual, which was 

printed and distributed in 2000, has been adopted by rule.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 35
• Florida Green Industries BMPs for Protection of Water 

Resources in Florida: This manual provides BMPs for professional 

turfgrass and landscape managers. Published in 2002, it was developed through a cooperative effort by Florida Green Industries (an 

industry association); the Department; DACS; the Florida Department of Community Affairs; and the St. Johns, South Florida, and 

Southwest Florida Water Management Districts.

A variety of other BMP manuals are available from DACS. Information regarding BMP manual development can be found at http://www 

.fl oridaagwaterpolicy.com.

36 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality 

Assessment

Scope of the Assessment

This chapter presents the results of an updated assessment of surface 

water quality in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin. The primary purpose of the 

assessment is to determine if waterbodies or waterbody segments are to be 

placed on the Verifi ed List of impaired waterbodies. The listing will be in 

accordance with evaluation thresholds and data suffi ciency and data quality 

requirements in the Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) 

(Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The results of the 

assessment will be used to identify waters in the basin for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) will be developed.

The chapter describes the planning units in the basin used as a basis 

for the assessment. A section on each planning unit contains a general 

description and summary of key water quality indicators (such as nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological parameters). Permitted discharges, land uses, ecological status, and water quality 

improvement plans and projects are summarized for each planning unit. 

The discussion notes where applicable surface water quality criteria have 

been exceeded and summarizes the report’s fi ndings in maps, noting 

potentially impaired waterbodies in each planning unit. The chapter also 

contains background information on sources of data and on designated 

use attainment, and explains the state’s integrated water quality assessment 

process.

While potentially impaired waters and their causative pollutants are 

identifi ed, it is not within the scope of this report to identify discrete 

sources of potential impairments. Information on the sources of impairment will be developed in subsequent phases of the watershed management 

cycle, including TMDL development and implementation.

Appendix A contains a discussion of the legislative and regulatory 

background for TMDL development and implementation. Appendix B

contains supplementary information on the basin’s ecology. Appendix C

provides additional information on reasonable assurance. Appendix D

provides the methodology used to develop the Planning and Verifi ed Lists. 

Appendix E contains the integrated water quality assessment (Master List) 

summary (Table E.1), the water quality monitoring stations used in the 

assessment (Table E.2), and data on water quality trends (Table E.3). 

Appendix F lists, by planning unit, permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities in the basin that discharge to surface water and ground water; 

Appendix G lists Level I land use by planning unit; and Appendix H

includes comments received during the public workshop and comment 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 37
period. The complete text of the IWR is available at http://www.dep.state 

.fl .us/water/tmdl/docs/amendedIWR.pdf.

Update on Strategic Monitoring and DataGathering Activities During Phase 2

During Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, strategic monitoring and data-gathering activities focused fi rst on waters on the 1998 303(d) 

list, followed by waters that were placed on the Planning List through the 

IWR assessment alone. The majority of the strategic monitoring work 

was conducted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s 

(Department’s) Northeast District staff and included both chemical 

and biological monitoring and data upload to STOrage and RETrieval 

(STORET) databases. Other key data providers included the St. Johns 

River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and local governments. 

Thirty-four waterbody segments on the Planning List and the 1998 

303(d) list needed further data to verify impairment. Of those, 8 have a 

TMDL due date of 2005, 13 have a 2010 TMDL due date, and 5 have a 

2011 due date. Parameters for 2005 and 2010 include biological oxygen 

demand, DO, coliforms, nutrients (chlorophyll a), and turbidity. All 

 mercury TMDLs are due in 2011. 

Table E.1 in Appendix E provides the updated impairment status of 

the basin through November 11, 2005.

Sources of Data

The assessment of water quality in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin 

includes an analysis of quantitative data from various sources, some of 

which are readily available to the public. These sources include the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Legacy and modern STORET 

databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Florida Department of Health (DOH). The STORET databases contain water quality 

data from a number of sources, including the Department, water management districts, local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. 

Table 3.1 summarizes the individual data providers who contributed 

to the IWR Database for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin for the period of 

record used in this assessment, and the percentage of the total amount 

of data provided by each source. Figure 3.1 shows the amount of data 

provided by each source. Individual data providers who contributed to the 

IWR Database for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin during the period of record 

used in this assessment (January 1, 1998, through June 30, 2005) include 

the Department, SJRWMD, city of Jacksonville/Duval County, DOH, 

USGS, National Park Service, and Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division (GEPD). The only water quality data from the Georgia portion 

of the basin to be included in this assessment come from stations located in 

the main stem of the St. Marys River. Additional information about water 

quality in the Georgia portion of the basin will be examined in the future, 

during the development of TMDLs for the basin.

38 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin during the Verified Period (January 1, 1998–June 30, 

2005)

Agency

Number of 

Samples

Percent of 

Samples

National Park Service 1,576 3.99%

City of Jacksonville 8,256 20.91%

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(Department)—Water Quality Assessment Section

464 1.18%

Department—Northeast District 9,450 23.93%

Department—Other 4,142 10.49%

Florida LakeWatch 84 0.21%

Florida Marine Research Institute 116 0.29%

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 665 1.68%

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 606 1.53%

St. Johns River Water Management District 10,791 27.33%

Florida Department of Health 2,442 6.18%

Suwannee River Water Management District 188 0.48%

U.S. Geological Survey 706 1.79%

TOTAL: 39,486 100.00%

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Florida Department of 

Environmental

Protection—Other 

10.49%

Florida Department of 

Environmental

Protection—Northeast 

District

23.93%

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection—Water Quality 

Assessment Section

1.18%

City of Jacksonville 

20.91%

National Park Service 

3.99%

U.S. Geological Survey 

1.79%

Suwannee River Water 

Management District

0.48%

Florida Department of Health

6.18%

St. John’s River Water 

Management District

27.33%

Georgia

Environmental

Protection Division 

1.53%

Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources 

1.68% Florida Marine 

Research Institute 

0.29%

Florida LakeWatch 

0.21%

Data Providers in the Nassau–St. Marys River

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 39
In 2002, the Department created the IWR Database to evaluate data 

in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the IWR (Rule 62-303, 

F.A.C.). For the Planning List assessment, the data evaluation period of 

record is 10 years, and for the Verifi ed List, 7.5 years. Table D.2 in Appendix D shows the periods of record for the Verifi ed and Planning Lists in 

the fi rst basin rotation cycle. Data collected between January 1, 1998, and 

June 30, 2005, were evaluated to establish the Verifi ed List for the Nassau–

St. Marys Basin (IWR Run 22).

To support listing decisions, the evaluation of water quality in the 

basin also includes qualitative information drawn from data in technical 

reports and documents that are not yet included in the database. Some 

of these sources include historical water quality or ecological information 

that was not uploaded to the database because of its qualitative treatment 

of issues.

Attainment of Designated Use

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using 

the surface water quality classifi cation system described in Chapter 2, it 

is important to note that the EPA uses slightly different terminology in 

its description of designated uses. Because the Department is required to 

provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the 

state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision processes that are defi ned in Florida’s IWR for listing 

impaired waters are based on the following designated use attainment 

categories:

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

Fish and Shellfi sh Consumption Attainment

Drinking Water Use Attainment

Protection of Human Health

Table 3.2 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various 

surface water classes.

Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface 

Waters in Florida

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule Evaluation

Applicable Florida Surface 

Water Classification

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment Class I, II, and III

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment Class I, II, and III

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment Class II

Drinking Water Use Attainment Class I

Protection of Human Health Class I, II, and III

40 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Integrated Report Categories and Assessment 

Overview

The EPA has requested that the states merge their reporting requirements under the Clean Water Act for Section 305(b) surface water quality 

reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters into an Integrated Water 

Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Wayland, 2001). This Water 

Quality Assessment Report integrates the 303(d) list and the 305(b) report 

for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin.

Following the EPA’s guidance, the Department delineated water bodies 

or waterbody segments in each of the state’s river basins, assessed them for 

impairment based on individual parameters, and then placed them into 

one of fi ve major assessment categories and subcategories. These categories 

provide information on a waterbody’s status based on water quality, suffi ciency of data, and the need for TMDL development (Table 3.3). This 

Assessment Report contains a comprehensive evaluation of waterbodies that 

fall into Integrated Report Categories 1 through 5 in the table.

Not enough recent data on chemistry, biology, and fi sh consumption 

advisories have been collected. In particular, fi sh tissues in many waterbodies statewide have not been tested for mercury. Out of 188 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, none are in 

 Category 1 (attaining all designated uses).

More waterbodies and segments statewide fall into Category 2 

(attaining some uses but with insuffi cient data to assess completely) than 

 Category 1 (attaining all uses), because monitoring programs can sometimes provide suffi cient data for partially determining whether a designated 

use in a particular waterbody is attained. Three waterbody segments in the 

basin fall into Category 2.

Most waterbodies in the state, however, fall into Category 3 (having 

insuffi cient data to determine impairment). In the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin, the breakdown of waterbodies or segments in Category 3 is as 

follows:

• Category 3a—117 segments for which no data are available to 

 determine their water quality status;

• Category 3b—15 segments with some data but not suffi cient data for 

making any determinations; and

• Category 3c—34 segments that are potentially impaired based on the 

Planning List criteria.

A number of waters either fail to meet water quality standards for DO 

or show signs of biological stress or nutrient impairment. According to the 

IWR, specifi c pollutants causing DO exceedances or biological stress, or 

an underlying nutrient imbalance creating an imbalance in fl ora or fauna, 

must be documented for a waterbody or segment to be listed as impaired. 

Sometimes these conditions cannot be linked to a causative pollutant, and 

sometimes they may refl ect natural background conditions.

Understanding the 

terms “Pollutant” 

and “Pollution”

For purposes of the TMDL 

Program, pollutants are 

chemical and biological 

constituents, introduced by 

humans into a waterbody, 

that may result in pollution 

(water quality impairment). 

There are other causes of 

pollution, such as the physical alteration of a waterbody 

(for example, canals, dams, 

and ditches). However, 

TMDLs are established only 

for impairments caused by 

pollutants (a TMDL quantifies 

how much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive 

and still meet its designated 

uses).

Waterbodies that are verified impaired due to specified pollutants, and therefore 

require a TMDL, are listed 

under Category 5 in the Integrated Assessment Report; 

waterbodies with water quality impairments due to other 

causes, or unknown causes, 

are listed under Category 4c. 

Although TMDLs are not 

established for Category 4c 

waterbodies, these waterbodies still may be addressed 

through a watershed management program (for 

example, the Kissimmee 

River restoration).

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 41
Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report

Category Description Comments

1 Attaining all designated uses If use attainment is verified for a waterbody or segment that was previously listed as impaired, the Department will propose that it be delisted.

2 Attaining some designated uses 

and insufficient or no information 

or data are present to determine if 

remaining uses are attained

If attainment is verified for some designated uses of a waterbody or segment, the Department will propose partial delisting for the uses attained. 

Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if remaining uses 

are attained.

3a No data and information are 

present to determine if any 

designated use is attained

Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if designated uses 

are attained.

3b Some data and information are 

present but not enough to determine if any designated use is 

attained

Future monitoring will be recommended to gather sufficient information 

and data to determine if designated uses are attained.

3c Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses may not be 

attained according to the Planning 

List methodology

A waterbody or segment is potentially impaired for one or more 

 designated uses. These waters will be prioritized for future monitoring 

to verify use attainment or impaired status.

3d Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses are not attained according to the Verified 

List methodology

A waterbody or segment exceeds Verified List evaluation criteria and 

may be listed as impaired at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. However, the data have not yet been fully evaluated and 

the waters have not been formally verified as impaired. Further monitoring and analysis may be necessary.

NOTE: This category is applicable only to the Status Report. Waters 

that pass the Verified List criteria at this stage of the process are placed 

in Category 5.

4a Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL 

development because a TMDL has 

already been completed

After the EPA approves a TMDL for the impaired waterbody or segment, 

the TMDL will be included in a Basin Management Action Plan to reduce 

pollutant loading toward attainment of designated use(s).

4b Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL 

development because the water 

will attain water quality standards 

due to existing or proposed 

measures

Pollutant control mechanisms designed to attain applicable water 

 quality standards within a reasonable time frame are either proposed or 

in place.

4c Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL 

development because impairment 

is not caused by a pollutant

This category includes waterbodies or segments that are impaired 

because of naturally occurring conditions or other causes of pollution. 

The impairment is not caused by specific pollutants. (See sidebar on 

previous page for a discussion of the difference between the terms 

“pollutant” and “pollution.”)

5 One or more designated uses are 

not attained and a TMDL is 

required

Waterbodies or segments in this category are impaired for one or more 

designated uses by a pollutant or pollutants. Waters in this category are 

included on the basin-specific Verified List adopted by the Department’s 

Secretary as Florida’s impaired waters list and submitted to the EPA as 

Florida’s 303(d) list of impaired waters at the end of Phase 2.

Note: The descriptions in Table 3.3 are consistent with the EPA’s integrated assessment categories. In the Status Reports 

for Groups 1 through 3 and in the Assessment Reports for Groups 1 through 2 that were previously produced, Categories 

4b and 4c were reversed. That is, the description of Category 4b was previously listed as Category 4c, and the description of Category 4c was listed as Category 4b.

42 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Category 4 includes those waterbodies/segments that are impaired but 

do not require a TMDL for one of three reasons:

• Category 4a—Segments for which a TMDL has already been 

 developed;

• Category 4b—Segments for which there is reasonable assurance that 

the designated use of an impaired waterbody will be attained by an 

existing or proposed pollutant control measure; and

• Category 4c—Segments for which the impairment is not attributable to a pollutant or pollutants, but is due to natural conditions or 

 physical/hydrologic alterations to the waterbody.

Currently, no waterbodies in the basin are designated as being in 

 Category 4.

Finally, 23 waterbodies in the basin are in Category 5. These impaired 

waterbodies are on the Verifi ed List of impaired waters adopted by the 

Department’s Secretary and will require TMDLs. Chapter 5 of this report 

discusses in detail the waters in this category. Coastal waters (waterbody 

identifi cation number [WBID] 8998) are also impaired for mercury.

Planning Units

The Nassau–St. Marys Basin encompasses approximately 1,406 square 

miles within Florida (along with an additional 643 square miles in Georgia) 

and a complex hydrologic system. To provide a more detailed geographic 

basis for identifying and assessing water quality improvement activities, the 

basin was subdivided into smaller areas called planning units. A planning unit is either an individual large tributary basin or a group of smaller 

adjacent tributary basins with similar characteristics. Planning units help 

organize information and management strategies around prominent watershed characteristics.

Water quality assessments were conducted for waterbody segments 

within planning units. Each of these smaller, hydrologically based drainage areas within a planning unit is assigned a unique WBID. Waterbody 

segments are assessment units (or geographic information system polygons) 

that the Department used to defi ne waterbodies when it biennially inventoried and reported on water quality to the EPA under Section 305(b) of the 

federal Clean Water Act. These WBIDs are the assessment units identifi ed in the Department’s lists of impaired waters submitted to the EPA in 

reports under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

The Nassau–St. Marys Basin contains fi ve planning units, divided 

by hydrologic boundaries: the Upper St. Marys River, Middle St. Marys 

River, Lower St. Marys River, Nassau River, and Nassau Sound. 

Figure 3.2 shows the locations and boundaries of these planning units. 

The remainder of this chapter provides, by planning unit, a general description, information on land use and potential point sources of pollution, 

water quality assessments for individual waterbody segments, summaries of 

ecological issues, and a listing of watershed quality improvement plans and 

projects.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 43
Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Assessment by Planning Unit

• Upper St. Marys River, Middle St. Marys River, and Lower 

St. Marys River Planning Units

General Description

The St. Marys River is a remote blackwater stream with an extensive 

marsh system. Beginning in the peat bogs of the Okefenokee Swamp, 

it empties into Cumberland Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. The lower 

portion of the river is tidally infl uenced, and reverse fl ows occur daily 

(SJRWMD, 2000). Other major waterbodies in the basin include Amelia 

River, Cedar Creek, Deep Creek, Egans Creek, Little St. Marys River, 

Turkey Creek, and Ocean Pond.

The major environmental stressors in this group of planning units 

include traditional chemical stressors such as oxygen-demanding substances 

and bacterial contamination, as well as less traditional stressors such as 

stream channel modifi cations and alterations of physical habitat (Georgia 

44 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Department of Natural Resources [GDNR], 2002). Signifi cant potential 

sources of these stressors include point source discharges such as municipal 

and industrial wastewater and storm sewers, and nonpoint sources such as 

diffuse runoff from urban and rural land uses.

The predominant land use in the basin is silviculture. Amelia Island 

has developed as a popular coastal tourist destination. Local municipalities in Florida include Baldwin, Glen St. Mary, Macclenny, Fernandina 

Beach, and Hilliard. Those in Georgia include Folkston, St. Marys, and 

 Kingsland.

In the Georgia portion of the basin, a 1988–90 land cover interpretation showed that approximately 82 percent comprises forest cover and 

wetlands (GDNR, 2002). Within the SJRWMD portion of the basin, 

85.8 percent consists of forests and wetlands (SJRWMD, 2000). The 

District Water Management Plan (SJRWMD, 2000) identifi es the following 

future land use considerations: continued urban development is expected 

in the Amelia Island and Macclenny/Glen St. Mary areas; and large areas, 

particularly along the Middle Prong of the St. Marys River, are slated for 

suburban development.

Water Quality Summary

The Georgia 2000 305(b)/303(d) list indicates that fi ve out of nine 

waters in the St. Marys Basin in Georgia partially supported their designated uses, while four out of nine did not (GDNR, 2002). The Georgia 

list does not differentiate waters in the basin into separate planning units. 

Nonpoint sources are the primary source of pollution affecting waters 

in the St. Marys Basin. TMDLs were established for nine 303(d) listed 

waters in the Georgia portion of the basin in 2001, and implementation 

plans are being developed. The primary state criteria violated in these 

waters are fi sh consumption guidelines and DO (GDNR, 2002).

The Florida 1998 305(b) report notes that all the watersheds with 

available data in the Upper and Middle St. Marys Planning Units have 

good water quality, except for the Cedar Creek watershed, which has fair 

water quality. In the Lower St. Marys Planning Unit, several watersheds 

have fair water quality, including the Little St. Marys River, two segments 

of the St. Marys River in eastern Nassau County, and the Amelia River.

The headwaters and headwater streams that fl ow into the St. Marys 

River are naturally characterized by high acidity and color, and occasionally by low DO. This is especially noticeable during the summer months 

due to accelerated decomposition in adjacent swamps, particularly the 

Okefenokee (St. Marys River Management Committee [SMRMC], 2003).

Figures 3.3 through 3.5 contain composite maps of the Upper 

St. Marys, Middle St. Marys, and Lower St. Marys River Planning Units, 

respectively. They show waters on the 1998 303(d) list and on the Planning and Verifi ed Lists, as well as potential pollution sources. Tables 3.4 

through 3.6, respectively, summarize the water quality assessment status 

of all waterbody segments in the three planning units that make up the 

St. Marys Basin.

The tables and fi gures show that 12 waterbody segments in these 

planning units are impaired: 6 in the Upper St. Marys River Planning 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 45
Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Florida Portion of the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

46 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Florida Portion of the Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution 

Sources

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 47
Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Florida Portion of the Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit, Including the 

1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

Unit, 3 in the Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit, and 3 in the Lower 

St. Marys River Planning Unit.

In the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit, the impairments are 

 primarily for mercury in fi sh. There is also one listing for iron. In the 

Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit, all of the potential impairments 

are for mercury in fi sh. In the Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit, the 

potential impairments are for mercury and coliforms in shellfi sh.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. In Georgia, there is currently one permitted major 

municipal wastewater discharge with a fl ow greater than one million 

gallons per day (mgd), and six minor discharges (fl ows less than 1 mgd). 

There are relatively few industrial wastewater discharges, including a major 

facility (GDNR, 2002).

In Florida, a number of domestic and industrial wastewater facilities in 

the St. Marys Basin have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits to discharge to surface waters. Table F.1 in Appendix F 

identifi es these facilities. There are seven active and one closed (Northeast 

Florida State Hospital Wastewater Treatment Plant [WWTP]) NPDESpermitted facilities in the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit. The most 

signifi cant of the active facilities is the Macclenny Waste Water Treatment 

Facility (WWTF). There are fi ve active NPDES-permitted facilities in the 

48 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2097H St. Marys 

River 

Stream IIIF Mercury in

Fish 

5

2097I St. Marys 

River 

Stream IIIF Nutrients, 

Mercury in 

Fish

Mercury in 

Fish, Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a) 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5

2097J St. Marys 

River 

Stream IIIF BOD BOD Mercury in 

Fish, BOD 

5

2097K St. Marys R. 

N. Prong 

Stream IIIF Mercury in 

Fish

Copper, DO, 

Iron, Lead

Mercury in 

Fish

Biology, Nutrients (Chlorophyll 

a), Fecal Coliforms, Total Coliforms, Historical 

Chlorophyll, Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia, Zinc

5

2163 Moccasin 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3b

2165 Cross Branch Stream IIIF 3a

2192 Little River Stream IIIF 3a

2194 Sparkman Bay 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

2195 Gum Swamp 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2199 Ellis Bay Stream IIIF 3a

2208 Otter Drain Stream IIIF 3a

2211 Middle Prong 

St. Marys 

 

Stream IIIF Mercury 

in Fish, 

Coliforms

Mercury 

in Fish, 

Cadmium, 

Copper, DO, 

Lead, Silver

Mercury in 

Fish, Iron

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Arsenic, Biology, 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Historical Chlorophyll, 

Chromium 3, 

Nickel, Selenium, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia, 

Zinc

5

2214 Unnamed 

Ditches 

Stream IIIF 3a

2215 Ocean Bay 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

2217 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF 3a

2222 Bluff Creek Stream IIIF 3a

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 49
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2225 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

2226 Brandy 

Branch 

Stream IIIF Biology, DO 3c

2229 Bill 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3b

2230 Bear Bay 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2236 Daugherty 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3b

2241 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2242 Cedar Creek 

 

Stream IIIF 3a

2242A Cedar Creek 

Outlet 

Stream IIIF 3a

2245 Deep Creek Stream IIIF DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Lead

Total Coliforms, 

Unionized 

Ammonia

3c

2245A Deep Creek Stream IIIF 3b

2247 South Prong 

St. Marys 

Stream IIIF Biology 2

2250 Unnamed 

Ditches 

Stream IIIF 3a

2255 Baldwin Bay 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2258 Bay Branch Stream IIIF 3a

2261 Unnamed 

Ditches 

Stream IIIF 3a

2263 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2264 Calkins 

Creek 

Stream IIIF Biology, DO 3c

2267 Unnamed 

Stream 

Stream IIIF 3b

2268 Scout Pond 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

2269 Unnamed 

Ditches 

Stream IIIF 3a

2274 Dinkins 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2275 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

Table 3.4 (continued)

50 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2276 Brushy 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2279 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3b

2281 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2285 Unnamed 

Ditches 

Stream IIIF 3a

2288 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3b

2289 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2291 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2292 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3b

2296 Unnamed 

Ditches 

Stream IIIF 3a

2298 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2300 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2301 Yellow Water 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3b

2303 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2307 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2311 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2313 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2314 Unnamed 

Run 

Stream IIIF 3a

2318 Turkey 

Creek 

Stream IIIF DO, Iron Biology 3c

2325 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2329 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2331 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

Table 3.4 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 51
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2337 John Row 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2339 Ocean 

Pond 

Stream IIIF Mercury in 

Fish 

DO, Turbidity 5

2339A Ocean Pond 

Outlet 

Stream IIIF 3a

2348 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

2354 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2360 Oak Branch Stream IIIF 3a

2371 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2373 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2383 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2392 Palestine 

Lake 

Stream IIIF 3b

2392A Palestine 

Lake Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

2393 Wampee Bay 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2The state’s surface water classifications are as follows:

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control 

mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters are verified impaired, but do not require TMDL development. There are no Category 4 waters in 

this basin.

Table 3.4 (continued)

52 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
6The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as 

Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms–shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

Category 5.

BOD = Biological oxygen demand 

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water 

Table 3.4 (continued)

Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2097E St. Marys 

River

Stream IIIF Mercury in 

Fish 

5

2097F St. Marys 

River

Stream IIIF BOD Mercury in 

Fish 

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, DO, BOD

5

2097G St. Marys 

River

Stream IIIF Lead Mercury in 

Fish 

DO, Turbidity 5

2105 Pigeon Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2

2105A Hampton 

Lake

Lake IIIF 3a

2105B Hampton 

Lake Outlet

Lake IIIF 3a

2107 Unnamed 

Stream

Stream IIIF 3a

2112 Brush Creek Stream IIIF 3a

2115 Little Dunn 

Creek

Stream IIIF 3b

2123 Dunn Creek Stream IIIF 3a

2134 Cross Branch Stream IIIF 3a

2144 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2146 Stave Branch Stream IIIF 3a

2150 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2152 Deep Creek Stream IIIF 3a

2154 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2160 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 53
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2167 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2178 Unnamed 

Stream

Stream IIIF 3a

2180 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2185 Unnamed 

Creek

Stream IIIF 3a

2196 Deep Creek Stream IIIF Biology, DO 3c

2219 Unnamed 

Creek

Stream IIIF 3a

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2The state’s surface water classifications are as follows:

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control 

mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5

 Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters are verified impaired, but do not require TMDL development. There are no Category 4 waters in 

this basin.

6The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3C, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as 

Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms–shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

Category 5.

BOD = Biological oxygen demand 

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

Table 3.5 (continued)

54 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2097A St. Marys 

River Ab 

ICWW 

 

Estuary IIIM Nutrients, 

Mercury in 

Fish

Mercury in 

Fish

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5

2097B St. Marys 

River 

 

Estuary IIIM Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2

2097C St. Marys 

River 

 

Stream IIIF DO, TSS, 

Coliforms, 

Nutrients

DO, Copper, 

Iron

TSS, Turbidity, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Fluoride, Lead, 

Nutrients (Historical Chlorophyll 

and Chlorophyll 

a), Zinc

3c

2097D St. Marys 

River 

Stream IIIF DO Mercury in 

Fish 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

5

2098 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2099 Unnamed 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3b

2100 Unnamed 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2101 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2102 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2103 Cabbage 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2104 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2106 Little St. 

Marys River 

Stream IIIF DO, 

Nutrients, 

Mercury 

in Fish, 

Coliforms

DO Mercury in 

Fish

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Biology, Turbidity

5

2108 Cossiers 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2109 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 55
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2110 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

2111 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2113 White Oak 

Swamp 

Stream IIIF 3a

2116 Wilder 

Swamp 

Stream IIIF 3a

2117 Lower Sister 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2119 Hilliard 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2121 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2124 Amelia 

River 

Estuary IIM Nutrients Mercury in 

Fish

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5

2126 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3b

2127 Egans Creek Estuary IIM 3a

2128 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2137 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2140 Jackson 

Creek 

Estuary IIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

5

2141 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF 3a

8129 Lower St. 

Marys Ocean 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish 

5

8129A Sadler Road Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish 

Fecal Coliforms 5

8129B Main Beach Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish 

Fecal Coliforms 5

8129C Ocean Street Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish 

Fecal Coliforms 5

8129D Fort Clinch 

Beach 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish 

Fecal Coliforms 5

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2The state’s surface water classifications are as follows:

Table 3.6 (continued)

56 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control 

mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters are verified impaired, but do not require TMDL development. There are no Category 4 waters in 

this basin.

6The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as 

Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms–shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

Category 5.

DO = Dissolved oxygen F = Fresh water M = Marine TSS = Total suspended solids

Table 3.6 (continued)

Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit. The most signifi cant of these are 

the Rayonier, Inc. and Jefferson Smurfi t Corporation pulp mills, and the 

Fernandina Beach WWTF. In addition, the planning unit contains eight 

non-NPDES-permitted domestic and industrial waste facilities. There 

are no permitted domestic or industrial waste facilities with discharges to 

surface water in the Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit. There is one 

delisted Superfund site (Yellow Water Road) in the Upper St. Marys River 

Planning Unit that is located in Baldwin, in Duval County. 

The Georgia portion of the St. Marys Basin contains two active 

landfi lls, but there are no active landfi lls in the Florida portion of the 

basin. There are seven closed landfi lls (one Class I, fi ve Class II, and one 

construction/demolition site) in the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit, 

and one closed landfi ll (Class II) and one inactive landfi ll (Class III) in the 

Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit. 

Citing the Department’s 1996 305(b) report, the SJRWMD (2000) 

states that discharges from the Fernandina Beach domestic WWTP and 

three pulp mills (two in Florida and one in Georgia), as well as urban 

runoff from Fernandina Beach and Amelia Island, are affecting water 

 quality in the Amelia River Estuary. 

Rayonier, Inc. operates a chemical cellulose pulp mill that discharges 

wastewater to the Amelia River. Rayonier has reduced the ammonia 

concentration in its discharge by 85 percent since the 1990s (Department, February 2003). Bioassays conducted in 2002 indicated no acute 

toxicity to test species (Department, January 2003). Jefferson Smurfi t 

 Corporation–Fernandina Beach Mill operates a kraft linerboard facility that discharges treated wastewater to the Amelia River. A fi fth-year 

biological assessment conducted in 1998 indicated that the discharge did 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 57
not appear to be adversely affecting macroinvertebrate communities in the 

receiving water. Bioassays conducted in 2002 indicated no acute toxicity 

to test species (Department, March 2003). Changes in plant operations 

are the most likely explanation for the differences between the water quality conditions refl ected in the 1996 305(b) report and the results of recent 

biological assessments.

A site-specifi c alternative criterion (SSAC) has been issued for the 

portion of the Amelia River in the vicinity of the Rayonier Inc. paper mill 

discharge point during certain tidal fl ows. The SSAC specifi es that the 

concentration of DO shall not be less than 1.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

at any time within the mixing zone, and that the concentration of DO 

outside the mixing zone shall not average less than 5.0 mg/L in a 24-hour 

period. Also, the concentration of DO shall not be less than 4.0 mg/L 

from October through June and not less than 3.2 mg/L from July through 

September.

Figures 3.3 through 3.5 show the permitted domestic and industrial wastewater treatment facilities and landfi lls in the planning unit 

(see Noteworthy for a defi nition of point sources and a discussion of 

environmental remediation). Appendix F lists the basin’s domestic and 

industrial surface discharge facilities, along with their permitted fl ows, by 

planning unit. 

Nonpoint Sources. Nonpoint sources of pollution in the three planning units include stormwater runoff or the leaching of pollutants into 

ground water from agriculture, silviculture, urban/suburban land uses, 

atmospheric deposition, and septic tanks. Septic tanks can be a source of 

nutrients, pathogens, and other pollutants. As of 2002, the total number 

of permitted septic tanks installed in Nassau County was 18,450. In Baker 

County, they totaled 6,793 and in Duval County, they totaled 88,016 

(DOH, 2003).

In the Georgia portion of the St. Marys Basin, a 1988–90 land cover 

interpretation showed 41 percent of the basin in forests, 41 percent in 

wetlands, 2 percent in urban land, and 2 percent in agriculture (GDNR, 

2002). Similarly, based on Level I land use summary information, the 

 predominant land use in the Florida portion of the St. Marys Basin is 

upland forest and wetlands, which constitute approximately 85 percent of 

the total basin area.

Broken down by planning unit, about 90 percent of the Upper 

St. Marys River Planning Unit, 83 percent of the Middle St. Marys Planning Unit, and 70 percent of the Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit, 

respectively, are upland forest and wetlands. Other land uses in the 

St. Marys Basin include urban and built-up (4.4 percent); agriculture 

(4 percent); rangeland (2.1 percent); water (2.1 percent); special classifi cations (2 percent); transportation, communication, and utilities (0.6 percent); and barren land (0.1 percent). These land uses can be associated 

with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments (see 

Noteworthy for a defi nition of nonpoint sources). Appendix G provides 

summary information on Level I land uses in the basin, by planning unit.

58 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Point sources discharging 

pollutants 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. Point 

sources generally fall into two 

major types: domestic wastewater sources (which consist of 

sewage from homes, businesses, 

and institutions) and industrial 

Environmental remediation 

activities cover a broad spectrum 

of cleanup programs. These 

include state-managed hazardous waste, dry cleaning, and 

petroleum cleanup programs; 

as well as the federal Superfund 

and Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act programs. 

These programs are designed 

to remediate ground water and 

soil contamination that pose a 

Rainfall generates stormwater 

runoff. As it flows over the land 

and through the ground, runoff 

may carry nonpoint source pollutants from many different sources 

Information on Point Sources in Planning Units

wastewater sources (which 

include wastewater, runoff, 

and leachate from industrial or 

commercial storage, handling, 

or processing facilities). Landfills, hazardous waste sites, dry 

cleaning solvent cleanup program 

sites, and petroleum facility discharges are also considered point 

sources. These sites have the 

potential to leach contaminants 

into ground water and surface 

water.

Identifying the source of waterbody impairment is an important 

part of assessing water quality and developing TMDLs. As 

part of this report, information 

is presented on point sources, 

including permitted facilities 

that discharge wastewater and 

landfills.

Environmental Remediation

threat to public health and the 

environment.

The National Priorities List 

(NPL) is a consolidated list of the 

uncontrolled hazardous waste 

sites that pose the greatest threat 

to public health or the environment. Sites are listed on the NPL 

upon the completion of a preliminary assessment, site inspection, 

and hazardous ranking system 

evaluation to determine their 

potential for adverse impacts and 

priority for corrective action. The 

EPA Superfund program administers the cleanup of NPL sites.

The Department’s state-funded 

cleanup program administers the 

cleanup of contaminated hazardous waste sites when enforcement action taken against a 

responsible party is unsuccessful 

or when no responsible party is 

identified.

Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses

to lakes, rivers, and estuaries in a 

watershed, and into ground water 

supplies. Nonpoint sources also 

include atmospheric deposition 

and leaching from agricultural 

lands, urban areas, and unvegetated lands. The pollutants in 

runoff often include fertilizers, 

bacteria, metals, sediments, and 

petroleum compounds.

Noteworthy 59 Water Quality Assessment Report: 

Nassau–St. Marys
Ecological Summary

The St. Marys River supports extensive freshwater wetlands and tidal 

marsh systems, and feeds and connects the Cumberland Sound and Amelia 

River estuarine systems. The river provides a continuous water and land 

corridor from the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Osceola 

National Forest, and Pinhook Swamp area, through the Ralph E. Simmons 

Memorial State Forest and large private tracts and private preserves (e.g., 

White Oak Plantation), to the Cumberland Island National Seashore, Fort 

Clinch State Aquatic Preserve, and the Atlantic Ocean (SMRMC, 2003).

The large, forested areas north of the Osceola National Forest in Baker 

County provide strategic habitat for the Florida black bear (particularly 

Moccasin Swamp, Cross Branch, and the North Prong of the St. Marys 

River) and rare wading birds (the wood stork, white ibis, great egret, and 

little blue heron). Other species recorded in the area include the Florida 

sandhill crane and American swallowtail kite. The Osceola National 

Forest, Pinhook Swamp, and Okefenokee NWR contain 110 active redcockaded woodpecker colonies (Northeast Florida Regional Planning 

Council, 1997). Areas around the St. Marys River in Nassau County, 

particularly the wetlands, represent habitat and foraging areas for the wood 

stork and Smyrna seaside sparrow. The Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon are 

both known anecdotally in the St. Marys River, including recorded landings of Atlantic sturgeon as recently as 1992 (GDNR, 2002).

Between 1984 and 1995, approximately 363 acres of wetlands were lost 

due to conversion to urban or agricultural uses in the St. Marys Basin, a 

loss of less than 3 percent (SJRWMD, 2000).

Fish Consumption Advisories

A freshwater fi sh consumption advisory for mercury has been issued for 

the Upper, Middle, and Lower St. Marys River Planning Units. This is a 

no consumption advisory for largemouth bass. Most estuarine waters and 

all coastal waters are currently on the Planning List due to “no consumption” advisories that were issued for shark and king mackerel.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

Waters will not be placed on the Verifi ed List if the Department 

receives reasonable assurance that existing or proposed projects and/or programs are expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards or 

consistently improve water quality over time. Chapter 4 and Appendix C

contain additional information on the requirements for reasonable assurance. For this planning unit, no management plans or projects complying with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been 

 provided for the list of impaired waters. 

Although the reasonable assurance requirements were not met, signifi -

cant efforts are in place to improve water quality in the St. Marys River 

and its tributaries. These efforts will form the foundation for TMDL 

 implementation in the basin.

60 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
• Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning Units

General Description

The Nassau Basin, which drains approximately 464 square miles, 

covers much of Nassau County and a portion of Duval County to the 

south. It is largely undeveloped, with upland forests (including silviculture) and wetlands constituting over 75 percent of the land cover. Residential development is increasing as the Jacksonville urban area expands. 

Amelia Island has long been a popular tourist destination. Silviculture is 

the predominant land use. There are small population centers at Yulee and 

Callahan, with more intense development in the Amelia Island area.

The District Water Management Plan (SJRWMD, 2000) identifi es the 

following future land use considerations: additional urban development 

is expected in the Amelia Island area; conservation land use protects the 

coastline south of Amelia Island; and while large areas of agriculture and 

silviculture remain, large areas also are designated for urban and suburban 

use, including expansions around Yulee and Callahan.

The main drainage feature in the Nassau River and Nassau Sound 

Planning Units is the Nassau River, with its numerous tributaries. At the 

coast, the river joins other surface waters to form a highly productive estuarine system. Other major waterbodies include Alligator Creek, Ft. George 

River, Lofton Creek, Mills Creek, Plummer Creek, Pumpkin Hill Creek, 

Sisters Creek, South Amelia River, and Thomas Creek.

Water Quality Summary

Figure 3.6, a composite map of the Nassau River and Nassau Sound 

Planning Units, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list and on the Planning and Verifi ed Lists, as well as potential pollution sources. Tables 3.7 

and 3.8 summarize the water quality assessment status of all waterbody 

 segments in the Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning Units.

The tables and fi gures show that eight waterbody segments in the 

Nassau River Planning Unit and one waterbody segment in the Nassau 

Sound Planning Unit are impaired.

In the Nassau River Planning Unit, the impairments are for downgrades in shellfi sh harvesting areas, DO, iron, total coliforms, and fecal 

coliforms. In the Nassau Sound Planning Unit, the impairment is for 

coliforms in shellfi sh.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are 6 domestic and industrial wastewater facilities in the Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning Units with NPDES 

permits to discharge to surface waters. The most signifi cant discharger is 

the Anheuser-Busch sod farm. In addition, there are 14 active and 4 closed 

non-NPDES permitted domestic and industrial wastewater facilities in the 

Nassau Basin.

The Callahan WWTP, a municipal domestic plant located in Nassau 

County, discharges effl uent to Alligator Creek, a tributary to the Nassau 

River. A fi fth-year bioassessment was conducted in September 2001 

(Department, 2002). Periphyton results suggest some nutrient enrichment: 

algal density was 30 percent higher, diversity was 8 percent lower, and there 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 61
Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning Units, Including the 1998 

303(d) List, Planning List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

was a doubling of blue-green algae in the test site sample compared with 

the control site sample. Although the sites did not appear substantially 

different from one another in this study, nearly all measures of macroinvertebrate community health were signifi cantly lower compared with the 

previous bioassessment conducted by the Department in 1996, suggesting 

worsening trends in the watershed.

There are four active (one Class I and three construction/demolition 

debris), two closed (Class I), and one inactive (construction/demolition 

debris) landfi lls in the Nassau River Planning Unit.

Figure 3.6 shows permitted domestic and industrial wastewater treatment facilities and landfi lls in the Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning Units. Appendix F lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface 

discharge facilities, along with their permitted fl ows, by planning unit. It 

also lists landfi lls or solid waste facilities, by planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. Nonpoint sources of pollution in the planning units include stormwater runoff or the leaching of pollutants into 

ground water from agriculture, silviculture, urban/suburban land uses, 

62 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Nassau River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) tor Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2155 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2156 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF Nutrients, 

Coliforms

DO Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms

Nutrients 

( Chlorophyll a)

5

2118 McQueen 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2120A Mills 

Creek 

 

Stream IIIF Nutrients, 

Coliforms

DO Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms

3c

2120B Mills Creek Stream IIIF Biology 3c

2122 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2125 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2129 Lofton

Creek 

 

Estuary IIIM Iron DO, Turbidity 3c

2130 Plummer 

Creek 

Stream IIIF Nutrients, 

Coliforms, DO, 

Turbidity

DO, Biology Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

Turbidity, BOD, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms

3c

2131 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2132 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2133 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2135 Spell 

Swamp 

Stream IIIF 3a

2136 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2139 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2140A Jackson

Creek 

Estuary IIIM Nutrients Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll 

a)

Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5

2142 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2143 Tom Mann 

Swamp 

Stream IIIF 3a

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 63
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) tor Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2145 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2147 Gardner 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2148A Nassau 

River 

Estuary IIIM 3b

2148B Nassau 

River 

 

 

Stream IIIF DO, Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

TSS, Coliforms

Copper, 

Nickel

Iron DO, BOD, Nutrients (Chlorophyll 

a and Historical 

Chlorophyll), 

Turbidity, TSS, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Arsenic, Cadmium, Fluoride, 

Lead, Selenium, 

Zinc

5

2149 South 

Amelia 

River 

 

Estuary IIM Nutrients Iron, Lead Mercury in 

Fish, Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Nutrients (Chlorophyll a), DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5

2151 Lumber 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2153 Alligator 

Creek 

Stream IIIF Nutrients, DO DO Total 

Coliforms

Biology, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5

2157 Little Mill 

Creek 

 

Stream IIIF Turbidity, 

Coliforms, 

Nutrients

DO Total 

Coliforms

Turbidity, Fecal 

Coliforms, Nutrients (Chlorophyll 

a)

5

2158 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3b

2161 Thomas 

Creek 

Stream IIIF Cadmium, 

DO, Iron, 

Mercury, 

Lead

Antimony, 

Biology, Copper, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

3c

2162 Cushing 

Creek 

Stream IIIF Fecal 

Coliforms

3c

2164 Unnamed 

Slough 

Stream IIIF 3a

2166 Unnamed 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF 3a

Table 3.7 (continued)

64 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) tor Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2168 Seaton Creek Stream IIIF 3a

2169 Funks Creek 

Reach 

Stream IIIF 3a

2170 Pumpkin Hill 

Creek 

Estuary IIIM Iron, 

Lead

DO, Turbidity 3c

2171 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2172 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2173 Deese Creek Estuary IIIM 3a

2174 Nassau 

Sound 

 

 

Estuary IIM Copper, 

Iron, 

Lead

Mercury in 

Fish,

Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Aluminum, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Selenium, Turbidity, 

Arsenic, DO, 

Cadmium, Zinc

5

2174A South End 

 

 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Fecal Coliforms 5

2175 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2176 Mill Branch 

Creek 

Estuary IIIM 3a

2177 Braddock 

Creek 

Stream IIIF 3a

2179 Edwards 

Creek 

Estuary IIM Iron, 

Lead

DO, Turbidity 3c

2182 Ben Branch Stream IIIF 3a

2184 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2193 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

2197 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream IIIF 3a

2198 Fort George 

River 

 

Estuary IIM Copper, 

Iron, 

Lead

Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Aluminum, Cadmium, Arsenic, 

DO, Fecal Coliforms, Selenium, 

Turbidity

5

2198A Marina Bay

at Fort

George 

Estuary IIIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

5

Table 3.7 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 65
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) tor Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

2202 Verdie 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a

2212 Su-No-Wa 

Springs 

Stream IIIF 3a

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2The state’s surface water classifications are as follows:

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control 

mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5

 Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters are verified impaired, but do not require TMDL development. There are no Category 4 waters in 

this basin.

6The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as 

Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms–shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

Category 5.

BOD = Biological oxygen demand 

DO = Dissolved oxygen

F = Fresh water

M = Marine 

TSS = Total suspended solids

Table 3.7 (continued)

66 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Nassau Sound Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for WBID6

8127 Nassau 

Sound 

Ocean 1 

Estuary IIIM Total 

Coliforms, 

DO

Mercury in 

Fish, Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

5

8127A Huguenot 

Park 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms 5

8127B South Little 

Talbot Island 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms 5

8127C North Little 

Talbot Island 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms 5

8128 Nassau Sound 

Ocean 2 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

5

8128A Piper Dunes Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms 5

8128B AIP Beach

Club 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms 5

8128C American 

Beach 

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms 5

8128D Peter’s Point Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms 5

Notes:

1

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.

2The state’s surface water classifications are as follows:

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control 

mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5

 Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters are verified impaired, but do not require TMDL development. There are no Category 4 waters in 

this basin.

6The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as 

Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms–shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

Category 5.

M = Marine 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 67
atmospheric deposition, and septic tanks. Septic tanks can be a source of 

nutrients, pathogens, and other pollutants. They are a pollution source in 

the Mills and Alligator Creek watersheds (SJRWMD, 2000). As of 2002, 

the total number of septic tanks in Nassau County, where most of the 

basin is located, was 18,450. In Duval County, septic tanks totaled 88,016 

(DOH, 2003).

Based on Level I land use summary information, the predominant land 

use in the Nassau River Planning Unit is upland forest and wetlands; these 

comprise approximately 71 percent of the total watershed area. Other land 

uses in the planning unit include urban and built-up (8 percent); special 

classifi cations (6.6 percent); water (5 percent); agriculture (4.4 percent); 

rangeland (3.5 percent); transportation, communication, and utilities 

(0.8 percent); and barren land (0.5 percent). Several of these land uses can 

be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. 

Appendix G provides summary information on general land uses in the 

basin, by planning unit.

Ecological Summary

Extensive wetlands with some pine fl atwoods and hardwood forest 

border the Nassau, Amelia, and Ft. George Rivers. Between 1984 and 

1995, approximately 1,278 acres of wetlands were lost due to conversion to 

urban or agricultural uses, a loss of less than 3 percent of the wetlands in 

the Nassau Basin (SJRWMD, 2000).

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has 

classifi ed the estuary (a Class II water) as prohibited for shellfi sh harvesting 

due to high coliforms levels.

The open water and contiguous saltwater and freshwater wetlands 

support large and diverse bird populations. The Nassau River is a concentration area for the American oystercatcher, Florida sandhill crane, redcockaded woodpecker, and various wading birds. Along the estuary there 

is an egret and ibis rookery. Two concentration areas for wading birds are 

designated by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as 

Critical Wildlife Areas (CWAs). The Amelia Island CWA and the Bird 

Island CWA protect wading birds by prohibiting human trespass during 

critical seasons (Florida Department of Natural Resources [DNR], 1989). 

The river is a breeding and nursery area for various fi shes, crab, and shrimp. 

The Nassau Wildlife Management Area occupies 40,168 acres along 

the upper river and tributaries. This is a cooperative public hunting area 

(DNR, 1989).

Fish Consumption Advisories

Fish consumption advisories for mercury are listed for the all nine 

waterbodies (Nassau Sound Ocean 1, Nassau Sound Ocean 2, Huguenot 

Park, South Little Talbot Island, North Little Talbot Island, Piper Dunes, 

AIP Beach Club, American Beach, and Peter’s Point) in the Nassau Sound 

Planning Unit and for South Amelia River, Nassau Sound, and South End 

in the Nassau River Planning Unit. All are currently on the Planning List 

based on the “no consumption” advisories that were issued for shark and 

king mackerel.

68 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

Waters will not be placed on the Verifi ed List if the Department 

receives reasonable assurance that existing or proposed projects and/or 

 programs are expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards or consistently improve water quality over time. Chapter 4 and 

Appendix C contain additional information on the requirements for 

 reasonable assurance. For this planning unit, no management plans or 

 projects complying with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been provided for the list of impaired waters.

Although the reasonable assurance requirements were not met, 

 signifi cant efforts are in place to improve water quality in the Nassau River 

and its tributaries. These efforts will form the foundation for TMDL 

 implementation in the basin.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 69

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Ground Water/ 

Geologic Influences on Impaired Waterbodies

This chapter evaluates the potential infl uences of ground water and 

the natural geologic, soil, and ground water chemistry on surface water 

quality in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin. A particular focus is the infl uence of ground water quality on surface waters that are on the Verifi ed List 

of impaired waters. The chapter contains a general and by-planning-unit 

discussion. It also includes recommendations for alternative listing status 

for waterbodies that exceed Impaired Surface Waters Rule listing thresholds due to natural conditions. The surface water parameters receiving 

scrutiny include nutrients (identifi ed as chlorophyll a in streams/canals and 

the Trophic State Index [TSI] in lakes), dissolved oxygen (DO), and iron. 

The chapter discusses the soils, geology, and ground water setting in the 

basin. It then discusses the potential for natural conditions to affect surface 

water quality and, for each planning unit, ground water quality data as they 

 pertain to the basin’s impaired and potentially impaired waterbodies.

Geology, Soil, and Ground Water

Setting 

Characteristics of the shallow geology and soils in the vicinity of the 

surface water sampling locations depend to some extent on the physiographic setting. In this region of northeastern Florida, there are two main 

physiographic provinces, the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Northern 

Highlands. Elevations range from sea level to more than 100 feet above 

mean sea level. In the vicinity of the Baker–Nassau–Duval County lines, 

two signifi cant features occur along the physiographic province boundary, 

Trail Ridge and the Duval Upland, and lie adjacent to or include some of 

the St. Marys River monitoring sites. Because of the difference in elevation 

and depositional surfaces, the underlying layers of geologic material and 

soils vary between locations, possibly resulting in some variability in the 

chemistry of ground and surface waters. 

Geologic material infl uences natural ground water quality and the 

occurrence of ground water. Shallow ground water in northeast Florida 

occurs in undifferentiated layers of sand and clay (forming the surfi cial 

aquifer) that are on top of thick beds of marine clay and carbonate material of the Hawthorn Group (confi ning layer). These in turn lie on top 

of a thick sequence of limestone and dolomite known as the Ocala Group 

(Levy, 1966; Bond, 1990). In the basin, iron occurs in the shallow sands 

and tends to infl uence ground water quality. Phosphate deposits occur 

primarily in the region’s deeper Hawthorn Group, which may infl uence 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 71
shallow ground water quality in the eastern part of the basin where this formation is shallower. Organic material occurs in the shallow material that 

makes up the surfi cial aquifer in much of the area. The shallow geologic 

formations are the parent material from which soils form. 

According to the generalized soil map of northeast Florida, soils in the 

area fall into four orders, which are described by Collins (1985). Spodisols are a predominant soil order in the Middle St. Marys River Planning 

Unit and the eastern part of the Nassau River Planning Unit; these acidic, 

poorly drained soils have a sandy, leached upper horizon and a shallow 

hardpan or spodic horizon that is an accumulation of organic matter, 

aluminum, and iron. Soils in lowland portions of the Upper St. Marys 

River Planning Unit and in a signifi cant portion of the Nassau River Planning Unit are histosols, a locally prominent soil order with a thick surface 

layer that is very high in organic carbon content. Histosols are hydric and 

are commonly known as peats or mucks. In the more upland regions, the 

predominant soils are ultisols, which are mineral soils with a sandy surface 

horizon and a clayey subsurface. Afl isols, a really less signifi cant soil order 

in the eastern part of the Nassau River Planning Unit, have a clayey horizon. The St. Marys River area includes a mixture of soil types. Entisols, 

predominant soils in the St. Marys River fl oodplain, are of mineral origin 

and primarily formed from quartz sand; they are low in organic content in 

the shallow horizons.

Nutrients

The pollutants responsible for excessive chlorophyll growth, measured 

as high chlorophyll a levels in streams and high TSI values in lakes, are 

phosphorus and nitrogen. Both of these nutrients exist naturally in the 

environment, but both can be pollutants released by anthropogenic activities. No surface waters in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin are currently verifi ed impaired for excessive nutrients (as measured by TSI or chlorophyll a).

Phosphorus may occur naturally in clayey geologic material and in 

ground water that is in contact with phosphatic material. In the Nassau–

St. Marys Basin, phosphorus levels in the surfi cial aquifer are generally 

low. Phosphate deposits occur primarily in the Hawthorn Group, which is 

relatively deeply buried throughout much of this region; thus the shallow 

ground water should not be naturally high in phosphorus. However, Hawthorn Group material is closer to the land surface at lower elevations and 

may infl uence phosphorus concentrations in the eastern part of the basin. 

Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of phosphorus in the surfi cial aquifer.

Nitrogen also occurs naturally in both organic and inorganic forms, 

but elevated detections of inorganic nitrogen in ground water (nitrate, 

nitrite, ammonia) are typically associated with pollutant sources. Levels 

of nitrate and nitrate+nitrite (both reported as “nitrate”) do not appear to 

be particularly elevated in the basin. Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of 

nitrate in ground water samples from ambient monitoring network wells. 

Ammonia–nitrogen occurs under natural conditions, particularly where 

organic materials are present, but elevated concentrations are related to pollutant sources. Figure 4.2 also shows the distribution of ammonia in the 

basin. When found at elevated concentrations in ground water, nitrate and 

72 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Figure 4.1: Phosphorus Concentrations in the Surficial Aquifer and DO-listed Surface Waters 

Note: Phosphorus data on map are for dissolved phosphorus. Ground water data shown on map are from Department’s ambient 

monitoring networks.

ammonia usually come from pollutant sources such as fertilizers, livestock 

waste, domestic wastewater, or a combination. Chapter 3 discusses these 

conditions, by planning unit.

Dissolved Oxygen 

DO levels can be depressed in surface water systems because of nutrient enrichment and/or biological oxygen demand. Low DO can also be 

attributed to poor water circulation that may occur in backwater areas or 

low-gradient streams, and may be a natural condition. In some instances, 

ground water infl ows, which have naturally low DO, can lower DO levels 

in surface water systems. This is more likely to occur where ground water 

seeps or springs are present. DO levels in ground water are always much 

lower than the state’s surface water standard. Based on this evaluation, 

it does not appear that depressed surface water DO levels in any of the 

DO-listed waterbodies in the basin are clearly related to signifi cant ground 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 73
Figure 4.2: Nitrate and Ammonia Concentrations in the Surficial Aquifer and DO-listed Surface Waters

Note: Nitrate data on map represent nitrate+nitrite–dissolved. All ammonia data are for ammonia–dissolved. Ground water data 

shown on map are from the Department’s ambient monitoring networks.

water infl ows. There are 14 waterbodies on the Planning List because of 

low DO; these have no clear causative pollutants and are likely related to 

one or more natural causes. One verifi ed listed surface waterbody is clearly 

nutrient impacted.

Metals 

Iron is the metal most typically identifi ed with a natural source, and 

elevated iron concentrations are common in the surfi cial aquifer throughout the state. Figure 4.3 shows iron concentrations in ambient monitoring 

wells in the surfi cial aquifer of the Nassau–St. Marys Basin. Iron oxides, 

leached from clay by slightly acidic rainwater, occur naturally in shallow 

ground water. Iron solubility and mobility are enhanced where ground 

water pH is low. In soil, elevated iron concentrations can be associated 

with iron-rich, clayey subsoil or with organic material. In both cases, 

 conditions are acidic.

74 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Like phosphorus, iron accumulates in peat and organic material under 

certain conditions and, statewide, organic soils (histosols) have the highest 

iron concentrations—3.19 grams per kilogram (Chen and Ma, 2001). Iron 

is bound to organic material through chelation and can concentrate within 

organic material as it migrates from iron-rich sources, primarily mineral 

soils containing iron oxide. In both ground water and surface water, 

elevated iron may coincide with low pH, high organic content, and high 

color. The coincidence of iron in surface water with potentially iron-rich 

soil/organic material also often correlates with elevated concentrations in 

ground water. Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of iron concentrations 

in the surfi cial aquifer. There are quality assurance concerns for iron data 

from wells, because iron concentrations in ground water samples can be 

enhanced by well casing materials and improper sampling technique. This 

evaluation did not include outlying iron concentrations.

Figure 4.3: Iron Concentrations in the Surficial Aquifer and Iron-listed Surface Waters 

Note: Ground water data shown on map are from the Department’s ambient monitoring networks.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 75
Evaluations by Planning Unit

This section summarizes, for each planning unit, ground water chemical characteristics that may be related to waterbodies on the draft Verifi ed 

List, evaluates ground water fl ow, reviews pertinent geologic and soil information, and evaluates land use and anthropogenic sources.

Overview of Ground Water Quality 

Table 4.1 presents ground water quality statistics for each planning 

unit. The data were obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department’s) Oracle Generalized Water Information System (OGWIS) ambient monitoring database for wells monitoring 

the surfi cial aquifer system. Maps for dissolved phosphorus, dissolved 

nitrate+nitrite, dissolved ammonia, and total iron were developed for this 

report (Figures 4.1 through 4.3).

Median values for all planning units with data indicate that phosphorus in ground water could pose a concern to surface water quality in areas 

of one planning unit, Nassau River, where ground water and surface water 

interact. Both dissolved phosphorus and dissolved orthophosphate medians 

are high in this planning unit relative to statewide medians and compared 

with the other planning units in the basin. To varying degrees, elevated 

phosphorus in ground water may be attributable to its natural occurrence in 

the aquifer media. The Hawthorn Group sediments may infl uence shallow 

ground water quality farther to the east. However, urban and agricultural 

sources may also contribute.

Based on their distribution, median ammonia concentrations in the 

surfi cial aquifer, shown in Table 4.1, appear to be representative of regional 

Table 4.1. Ground Water Statistics for Planning Units in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Parameter

Information by Planning Unit

Lower St. Marys Middle St. Marys Nassau River Upper St. Marys # Wells Median # Wells Median # Wells Median # Wells Median

Phosphorus–dissolved 

(milligrams per liter [mg/L])

6 0.022 2 0.004 14 0.12 10 0.0155

Orthophosphorus–

dissolved (mg/L)

6 0.0233 2 0.0025 14 0.0965 8 0.0175

Nitrite+nitrate–dissolved 

(mg/L)

6 0.0105 2 0.0085 15 0.005 10 0.01

Nitrite+nitrate–total (mg/L) 1 0.008 — — 2 0.0193 — —

Nitrate–total (mg/L) — — — — — — 2 0.025

Ammonia–dissolved (mg/L) 5 0.11 2 0.27 13 0.14 9 0.08

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 5 0.8 2 0.7275 14 0.29 9 0.64

Iron–total (micrograms per 

liter [μg/L])

6 835 4 780 1 1210 3 1900

Notes: Department data were obtained from the OGWIS database using the Hydroport retrieval system; 

medians are based on maximum value per well.

76 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
background conditions, although spikes may be due to pollutant sources. 

Median nitrate concentrations throughout the basin are low, except in two 

wells located in the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit, both of which 

are in urban/commercial areas.

For iron, median values in the surfi cial aquifer wells are high in all 

of the basin’s planning units; all signifi cantly exceed the ground water 

secondary drinking water maximum contaminant level (300 micrograms 

per liter [μg/L]), and some planning unit medians are higher than the 

Class III surface water standard (1,000 μg/L). High iron medians suggest that where ground water to surface water pathways exist, elevated 

iron in ground water is also a signifi cant source of elevated iron in surface 

 waterbodies.

Inspecting ground water data in each planning unit, comparing this 

information with data on surface waters on the draft Verifi ed List, and 

 analyzing other planning unit-specifi c characteristics may help to determine more instances where naturally occurring conditions infl uence surface 

water quality.

Upper St. Marys Planning Unit

According to the Verifi ed List, no waterbodies in the planning unit 

are impaired for nutrients (TSI or chlorophyll a) or low DO. One stream 

 segment, the Middle Prong of the St. Marys River (waterbody identifi cation number [WBID] 2211), is on the Verifi ed List for iron. This planning 

unit is predominantly rural, with much of the land covered by pine plantation and scattered agricultural areas; it also includes the small cities of 

Macclenny and Glen St. Mary. 

Nutrient levels in the surfi cial aquifer are low or within background 

ranges except for nitrate, which occurs in two wells at concentrations above 

1 milligram per liter (mg/L). There is no indication that nutrients are a 

particular issue related to surface water.

Iron in the Middle Prong of the St. Marys River exceeds the Class 

III surface water standard of 1,000 μg/L and the Verifi ed List screening 

criteria. The median ground water concentration for the planning unit 

is 1,900 μg/L, and base fl ow estimated for this segment is approximately 

50 percent of the total fl ow. There are no known anthropogenic sources of 

iron in the vicinity of the stream. Therefore, the exceedances of iron criteria in this waterbody are caused by naturally elevated iron in ground water 

and other natural conditions (high color and organic content and low pH).

Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit

This land area is covered mostly by river fl oodplain, pine plantation, 

and wetlands. No waterbodies in the planning unit are on the Verifi ed 

List for nutrients, DO, or iron. Deep Creek, a blackwater stream, is on the 

Planning List for low DO and biology, but no causative pollutants (e.g., 

nutrients or BOD) were identifi ed. Phosphorus, ammonia, and nitrate 

levels are all low in the surfi cial aquifer, indicating that ground water is not 

likely a concern for potential surface water impairment issues, except for 

iron. Iron is elevated in the planning unit, as it is elsewhere in the basin.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 77
Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit

The planning unit includes mainly river fl oodplain, wetlands, and 

pine plantation, with urban/residential development at Fernandina along 

the estuarine/coastal area. There are no verifi ed listed waters for nutrients, 

DO, or iron, although a segment of the St. Marys River is on the Planning 

List for DO and iron, and the Little St. Marys River is on the Planning List 

for DO. Ground water contributions may be infl uencing iron and possibly 

DO levels in the planning listed waters. Median iron (835 μg/L) and DO 

(<1 mg/L) concentrations in the surfi cial aquifer, coupled with a potentially 

signifi cant base fl ow component in the river, suggest this conclusion.

Nassau River Planning Unit 

The planning unit is most heavily covered by urban/residential and 

agricultural land uses, including portions of the city of Jacksonville. The 

Nassau River (WBID 2148B) is on the Verifi ed List for iron, and several 

other streams/stream segments are on the Planning List for iron. 

The high median iron concentration in the surfi cial aquifer 

(1,210 μg/L) suggests that ground water would cause elevated iron in 

streams on the Verifi ed or Planning List that have signifi cant amounts of 

base fl ow. Elevated iron in the Nassau River is likely due to natural conditions, but because of the urban setting, anthropogenic sources of iron will 

also need to be evaluated. 

78 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Chapter 5: The Verified List of Impaired 

Waters

Public Participation

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

has worked with a variety of stakeholders and held public meetings on 

developing and adopting the Verifi ed Lists of impaired waters for the six 

Group 4 basins across the state. Table 5.1 lists the statewide schedule for 

the development and adoption of the Group 4 Verifi ed Lists, including the 

public meetings. The schedule for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin is highlighted in boldface type. Appendix H contains documentation provided 

during the public comment period.

Basin-specifi c draft Verifi ed Lists of waters for the Withlacoochee, 

Kissimmee, Fisheating Creek, and Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins 

that met the requirements of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) were 

made available to the public on July 7, 2005. Basin-specifi c draft Verifi ed 

Lists of waters for the Pensacola Bay and Nassau–St. Marys Basins that met 

the IWR requirements were made available to the public on July 19, 2005. 

The lists were placed on the Department’s Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) Web site at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl, and were also 

sent on request to interested parties by mail or via e-mail.

Citizens were given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists in 

person and/or in writing. A total of 7 public meetings were held across 

the state to encourage public participation on a basin-by-basin basis. The 

Department also accepted written comments for 45 days beginning July 19 

and ending September 2, 2005.

Following the public meetings for the Group 4 basins, which took 

place between July 12 and July 27, 2005, revised draft lists were made 

available to the public by September 22, 2005. The public had the opportunity to comment on these revised lists either in writing and/or at a fi nal 

public meeting in Tallahassee. Comments were considered in preparing the 

revised draft lists. There was an additional 30-day comment period on the 

revised Verifi ed Lists, beginning on September 22, 2005, and ending October 22, 2005. Comments on any of the lists were accepted and considered 

throughout the full comment period.

The fi nal basin-specifi c Verifi ed Lists developed through the public 

participation process will be adopted by Secretarial Order and submitted 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the state’s current 

303(d) list of impaired waters. Notifi cation of list approval and submittal 

to EPA will be posted on the Department’s TMDL Web site at http://www 

.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 79
Table 5.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 4 Verified Lists

Date Scheduled Activity

July 7, 2005 Publication of Draft Verified Lists and Beginning of Public Comment Period for the Withlacoochee, Kissimmee, Fisheating Creek, and Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basins 

July 12, 2005 Public Meeting at Homosassa on the Withlacoochee River Basin

July 13, 2005 Public Meeting at Kissimmee on the Kissimmee River and Fisheating Creek Basins (Upper Half)

July 14, 2005 Public Meeting at Sebring on the Kissimmee River and Fisheating Creek Basins (Lower Half)

July 15, 2005 Public Meeting at Davie on the Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay Basin

July 19, 2006 Publication of Draft Verified Lists and Beginning of Public Comment Period for the Pensacola 

Bay and Nassau–St. Marys Basins 

July 26, 2005 Public Meeting at Pensacola on the Pensacola Bay Basin

July 27, 2005 Public Meeting at Yulee on the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

October 6, 2005 Public Meeting in Tallahassee on Revised Draft Verified Lists for All Basins, and Public Comments and Input from Prior Public Meetings

October 22, 2005 Final Deadline for Receiving Public Comments

May 3, 2006 Adoption of Verified List by Secretarial Order

Pending Submittal to EPA as State’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters

Identification of Impaired Waters

As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on the Verifi ed and Planning Lists 

must meet specifi c thresholds and data suffi ciency and data quality requirements in the IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). 

Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background for the 

development of the Planning and Verifi ed Lists. Appendix D contains a 

methodology that describes the criteria and thresholds required for both 

lists under the IWR.

Any waters that do not have suffi cient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR will remain on the 1998 303(d) 

list of impaired waters maintained by the EPA. These waters are not 

delisted, and they will be sampled during the next phases of the watershed 

management cycle so that their impairment status can be verifi ed.

The Verifi ed Lists for this and other Group 4 basins were adopted on 

May 3, 2006. This report refl ects the status of waterbodies as of that date. 

Progress of list adoption can be tracked at the following Web site: http://

www.dep .state.fl .us/water/tmdl/. 

Documentation of Reasonable Assurance

Under the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, the Department will 

not place impaired waters on the Verifi ed List if reasonable assurance is 

provided that these waters will attain water quality standards in the future 

and will make reasonable progress towards attaining water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is scheduled to be 

submitted to the EPA. Reasonable assurance can be provided if existing or 

proposed technology-based effl uent limitations and other pollution control 

80 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
programs under local, state, or federal authority are expected to result in 

the attainment of water quality standards. Examples include Surface Water 

Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program restoration projects 

that provide ongoing monitoring, and permitted facilities that upgrade 

to advanced treatment or remove discharges to surface waters. Table 5.2

lists the major elements of reasonable assurance, and Appendix C provides 

additional information.

Table 5.2: Elements of Reasonable Assurance

Descriptive

• 303(d) listed waterbody

• Water quality standards being violated or other criteria not met

• Pollutant(s) of concern

• Designated use classification

• Length (mi) or area (acres) of impairment or potential impairment

• Watershed/eight-digit cataloging unit code

• EPA Reach File Number

• Description of waterbody and watershed location

• Suspected or documented source(s) of impairment

Management Strategy

• Responsible entity

• Participating entities (government, agency, private, others)

• Summary of management strategy

• Supporting document(s)

• Pollutant(s) reduction goals/targets

• Assurance of participation (such as written agreements)

• Strategy for future growth and new sources

• Funding sources

• Implementation schedule

• Enforcement program if management strategy is not voluntary

Monitoring and Reporting Results

• Water quality monitoring program design and brief description

• Quality assurance/quality control elements

• Supporting document(s)

• Monitoring of implementation

• Reporting of monitoring and implementation results

• Expected response (time frame and degree of improvement)

• Responsible entity for reporting

• Frequency of reporting results

• Evaluating progress towards goals (water quality and 

implementation)

Corrective Actions/Strategy 

(if water quality does not improve after implementation)

• Description of strategy

• Supporting document(s)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 81
The Verified List of Impaired Waters

Table 5.3 contains the Verifi ed List of impaired waters for the Nassau–

St. Marys Basin, based on the water quality assessment performed using 

IWR Run 22, created on October 6, 2005. Figure 5.1 shows waters on 

the Verifi ed List for the entire basin and the projected year for TMDL 

development. For presentation purposes, the entire watershed for the listed 

water is highlighted. However, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has been assessed, and other waters in the watershed may not be 

impaired.

Table E.1 in Appendix E contains the Master List of all assessed 

waters in the basin as of November 3, 2005. The Verifi ed List was adopted 

on May 3, 2006. Submittal to EPA is pending. The order containing 

the Verifi ed List of Impaired Group 4 Waters was noticed in the Florida 

Administrative Weekly. Upon this notifi cation, 21 days were available for 

interested parties to fi le a petition challenging the order and 30 days were 

available to appeal the order. Notifi cation of these actions was posted on 

the Department’s TMDL Web site at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/

tmdl. The Verifi ed List is also available from the Department’s Web site.

Pollutants Causing Impairments

Of the 188 waterbody segments in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, 

23 waters are impaired for at least 1 parameter, and a TMDL is required 

for these waters. There are a total of 25 parameter listings for impairment 

 following the methodology in Appendix D. The Nassau River Planning Unit has the largest number of impaired parameter listings with 12, 

 followed by the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit with 6 listings.

The most common parameters exhibiting impairment throughout 

the Nassau–St. Marys Basin include excessive mercury concentrations in 

fi sh and downgrades in shellfi sh harvesting areas. Segments listed due to 

fi sh consumption advisories for mercury include freshwater segments of 

the St. Marys River (waterbody identifi cation numbers [WBIDs] 2097D, 

2097E, 2097F, 2097G, 2097H, 2097I, 2097J, and 2097K) and Ocean 

Pond (WBID 2339). These waters are on the Verifi ed List of impaired 

waters. 

As required by the IWR, the Department must identify the pollutants 

causing or contributing to dissolved oxygen (DO) exceedances in order to 

place DO on the Verifi ed List. If a water segment is on the Verifi ed List for 

both DO and nutrients, nutrients are identifi ed as a pollutant contributing 

to DO exceedances. The Department also applies the following analysis to 

identify the pollutant(s) contributing to DO exceedances:

• The waterbody segment median values for biological oxygen 

demand (BOD), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) 

are determined for the verifi ed period (i.e., January 1, 1998, to 

June 30, 2005).

82 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Table 5.3: The Verified List of Impaired Waters for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Planning Unit 

Name WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

Impaired 

 Surface Waters Rule

 Priority 

for TMDL 

 Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL Development2 Comments3

Lower 

St. Marys 

River

2106 Little St. 

Marys 

River

Stream IIIF Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Based on largemouth bass, 19 

samples with average total Hg of 

0.91 μg/L from 2004. Any TMDL 

for mercury in fish will apply to 

the whole waterbody.

Lower 

St. Marys 

River 

2140 Jackson 

Creek

Estuary IIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Medium 2011 Verified due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification 

based on water quality.

Upper, 

Middle, 

and Lower 

St. Marys 

River 

2097D-K St. Marys 

River 

 

 

Stream IIIF Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Based on largemouth bass, 19 

samples with average total Hg 

of 0.91 mg/kg from 2004. Any 

TMDL for mercury in fish will 

apply to the whole waterbody, 

not just this WBID.

Upper 

St. Marys 

River 

2211 Middle 

Prong 

St. Marys 

 

 

Stream IIIF Iron Medium 2011 Blackwater stream. Planning 

period: 19/56 exceedances, 

planning period median = 766 

μg/L, planning period max = 

2,600 μg/L, planning period min 

= 36 μg/L, data from 1994–2002. 

Verified period: 17/47 exceedances, verified period median = 

637 μg/L, verified period max = 

2,600 μg/L, verified period min = 

236 μg/L, data from 1998–2005. 

Upper 

St. Marys 

River 

2339 Ocean 

Pond 

Lake IIIF Mercury in 

Fish

Low 2011 Mercury in fish concentrations 

exceeded 0.5 mg/kg for 2002.

Nassau 

River 

 

2156 Unnamed 

Branch 

 

 

Stream IIIF DO Medium 2011 Verified period: 15/22 exceedances, verified period median 

= 4.25 mg/L, verified period 

average = 4.31 mg/L, verified 

period min = 1.1 mg/L, verified 

period max = 10. Data from 

2003, 2004. Linked to nutrients: 

verified period TN = 2.016 mg/L, 

verified period TP = 1.2 mg/L. 

Both TN and TP exceed thresholds. No BOD data.

Nassau 

River 

 

2156 Unnamed 

Branch 

 

 

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal 

Coliforms

High 2005 (#/100 ml) Verified period: 7/22 

exceedances, (#/100 ml) verified 

period median = 292, verified 

period average = 399, verified 

period min = 13, verified period 

max = 1,470. Data from 2003, 

2004. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 83
Planning Unit 

Name WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

Impaired 

 Surface Waters Rule

 Priority 

for TMDL 

 Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL Development2 Comments3

Nassau 

River 

 

2156 Unnamed 

Branch 

 

 

Stream IIIF Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

High 2005 (#/100 ml) Verified period: 7/22 

exceedances, (#/100 ml) verified 

period median = 1,627, verified 

period average = 2,296, verified 

period min = 400, verified period 

max = 6,400. Data from 2003, 

2004. 

Nassau 

River 

 

2174 Nassau 

Sound 

Estuary IIIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Medium 2011 Verified due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification 

based on water quality.

Nassau 

River 

 

2140A Jackson 

Creek 

Estuary IIIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Medium 2011 Verified due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification 

based on water quality.

Nassau 

River 

 

2148B Nassau 

River 

 

 

Stream IIIF Iron Medium 2011 Planning period: 87/96 exceedances, planning period average 

= 809 μg/L, planning period 

median = 722 μg/L, planning 

period max = 1960 μg/L, planning period min = 102 μg/L. 

Data from 1994–1999. Verified 

period: 2/56 exceedances, verified period average = 681 μg/L, 

verified period median = 557 

μg/L, verified period max = 1750 

μg/L, verified period min = 1.2 

μg/L. Data from 1998–2005.

Nassau 

River 

 

2149 South 

Amelia 

River 

Estuary IIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Medium 2011 Verified due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification 

based on water quality.

Nassau 

River 

 

2153 Alligator 

Creek 

 

 

Stream IIIF Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2011 (#/100 ml) Verified period: 7/23 

exceedances, verified period 

median = 720, verified period 

average = 1,870, verified period 

min = 280, verified period max 

= 7,400. Data from 2001, 2004.

Nassau 

River 

 

2157 Little Mill 

Creek 

 

 

Stream IIIF Coliforms Total 

Coliforms

Low 2010 (#/100 ml) Verified period: 5/21 

exceedances, verified period 

median = 1,190, verified period 

average = 1,825, verified period 

min = 600, verified period max 

= 4,800. All data from 2004.

Coastal 

and Estuary 

areas

8000 

Series 

and 

Estuaries

Estuary IIIM Mercury in 

Fish 

Low 2011 Applies to 2124, 2149, 2174, 

2174A, 2097A, 8127, 8127A, 

8127B, 8127C, 8128, 8128A, 

8128B, 8128C, 8128D, 8129, 

8129A, 8129B, 8129C, AND 

8129D. Bull shark tissue mercury concentrations exceeded 

0.43 mg/kg. Data collected in 

2003–2004.

Table 5.3 (continued)

84 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Planning Unit 

Name WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

Impaired 

 Surface Waters Rule

 Priority 

for TMDL 

 Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL Development2 Comments3

Nassau 

River 

 

2174A South 

End 

Estuary IIIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Medium 2011 Verified due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification 

based on water quality.

Nassau 

River 

 

2198 Fort 

George 

River 

 

 

Estuary IIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Medium 2011 Verified due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification 

based on water quality.

Nassau 

River 

 

2198A Marina 

Bay at 

Fort 

George 

Estuary IIIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Medium 2011 Verified due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification 

based on water quality.

Nassau 

Sound 

 

8127 Nassau 

Sound 

Ocean 1 

Estuary IIIM Shellfish 

(Coliforms)

Medium 2011 Verified due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification 

based on water quality.

Notes:

1

Florida’s waterbody classifications are defined as follows: 

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 2Priority and schedule reflect the priority established for the WBID in the 1998 303(d) list. Where a parameter was 1998 303(d) listed, the priority shown in the 1998 303(d) list was retained if it was originally high, or changed to medium if it was originally low. In the case of mercury, the 

priority remains low. Where a parameter was only identified as impaired under the IWR, priorities of high, medium, or low were used. 3 For a more comprehensive look at the comments, see Appendix E. Planning period = January 1, 1993, through December 31, 2002; Verified 

period = January 1, 1998, through June 30, 2005.

BOD = Biological oxygen demand

DO = Dissolved oxygen

Hg = Mercury

mg/kg = Milligrams/kilograms

mg/L = Milligrams per liter

TMDL = Total maximum daily load

TN = Total nitrogen

TP = Total phosphorus

μg/L = Micrograms per liter

WBID = Waterbody identification number

Table 5.3 (continued)

• The median values are then compared with the screening levels 

for the appropriate waterbody type. The screening levels represent 

the 70th percentile value of data collected from streams, lakes, or 

 estuaries (Table 5.4). 

• If a waterbody segment’s median value exceeds the screening level, 

the parameter may be identifi ed as a pollutant contributing to the 

exceedances.

Occasionally, low DO concentrations observed in surface waters are 

the result of natural conditions, and cannot or should not be associated 

with a pollutant. This is typically found in systems that exhibit black water 

characteristics. When the Department believes this to be the case, the 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 85
Figure 5.1: Waters on the Verified List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development

Table 5.4: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on 

STORET Data from 1970 to 1987

BOD (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L)

Streams 2.0 1.6 0.22

Lakes 2.9 1.7 0.11

Estuaries 2.1 1.0 0.19

Source: Friedemann and Hand, 1989.

 Department prepares a document supporting the case that the low DO is 

a natural condition, is not due to a pollutant, and no TMDL is required. 

This document statistically analyzes available data, which is compared 

to reference streams in the surrounding area(s), and also considers other 

factors such as land uses, previous studies, point sources, and any other 

impacts to the waterbody. This document is then submitted to the EPA 

for approval. If the EPA agrees with the fi ndings, then no TMDL will 

86 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
be developed for the waterbody, and the parameter(s) will be placed in 

 Category 4c.

The Department believes that the low DO observed in several of the 

St. Marys River segments and its major tributaries are due to natural conditions and are not being caused by a pollutant. The Department is in the 

process of preparing a document, as described above, which will be submitted to the EPA. These waterbodies exhibit blackwater characteristics (dark 

color, low DO, high organic content, low conductivity, etc.). In most of 

these segments, the BOD and nutrient levels were at or below acceptable 

threshold levels shown in Table 5.4. There are four segments of concern, 

which are shown in Table 5.5 along with associated BOD and nutrient 

data for the verifi ed period. Several segments in the St. Marys River meet 

standards and include WBIDs 2097A, 2097B, 2097F, 2097G, and 2097I.

Listing Based on Other Information Indicating Nutrient 

Imbalance

There are currently no waterbodies in the Nassau–St. Marys Rivers 

Basin that are verifi ed impaired for nutrients or historical chlorophyll. 

There are several segments that are not impaired for nutrients. In the 

Lower St. Marys River, the St. Marys above ICWW (2097A), two segments 

of the St. Marys River (2097B and 2097C), Little St. Marys River (2106), 

and the Amelia River (2124) are not impaired for nutrients. One segment 

of the St. Marys River (2097F) is not impaired in the Middle St. Marys 

Planning Unit. In the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit, two segments 

of the St. Marys River (2097I and 2097K), and the Middle Prong of the 

St. Marys River (2211) are not impaired for nutrients. 

In the Nassau River Planning Unit, Unnamed Branch (2156), Mills 

Creek (2120A), Plummer Creek (2130), one segment of the Nassau River 

(2148B), South Amelia River (2149), and Little Mill Creek (2157) are not 

impaired for nutrients. One waterbody, Jackson Creek (2140A), is presently on the Planning List. There are no waterbodies in the Nassau Sound 

Planning Unit with enough data to assess for nutrients.

Table 5.5: Nassau–St. Marys Basin Median Values for the Verified Period

Planning Unit WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type

BOD 5 Day 

(mg/L)

Total Nitrogen 

(mg/L)

Total Phosphorus 

(mg/L)

Lower St. Marys River 2097C St. Marys River Stream 2.00 1.07 0.045

Lower St. Marys River 2106 Little St. Marys 

River 

Stream 2.00 1.07 0.068

Upper St. Marys River 2097D St. Marys River Stream 1.40 ND 0.040

Upper St. Marys River 2211 Middle Prong 

St. Marys 

Stream 1.05 1.07 0.027

ND = No data

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 87
Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters

The Verifi ed List must be submitted in a specifi c format (Section 

62-303.710, F.A.C.) before being approved by order of the Department’s 

Secretary. The list must specify the pollutant and concentration causing 

the impairment. If a waterbody segment is listed based on exceedances 

of water quality criteria, then the list must provide the applicable criteria. However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or 

impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met, 

the Verifi ed List is required to specify the concentration of the pollutant 

relative to the water quality criteria and explain why the numeric criterion 

is not adequate.

For waters with exceedances of the DO criteria, the Department must 

identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list 

both the pollutant and DO in the Verifi ed List.

For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department is required to identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting nutrients, 

and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the Verifi ed List.

The Verifi ed List must also include the priority and schedule for 

TMDL development established for a waterbody segment and note any 

waters that are being removed from the current Planning List. In future 

watershed management cycles, the list must also note waters that are being 

removed from any previous Verifi ed List for the basin. 

88 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, 

and Implementation

Prioritization of Listed Waters

Following the identifi cation of impaired waters on the 303(d) list, the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) determines 

priorities for developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) in Phase 3 of 

the watershed management cycle. When TMDLs are established, general 

allocations of pollutant load reductions are identifi ed, at least to the level of 

point and nonpoint source categories.

Because TMDLs cannot be developed for all listed waters during a 

single watershed management cycle, waterbodies will be prioritized using 

the criteria in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Section 62-

303.500, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The rule states that when 

establishing the TMDL development schedule for waters on the Verifi ed 

List, the Department will prioritize impaired waterbody segments according to the severity of the impairment and each waterbody’s designated 

uses, taking into account the most serious water quality problems, the 

most valuable and threatened resources, and the risk to human health and 

aquatic life.

Under the IWR, the determination of high-, low-, and medium-

 priority waters is based on the following criteria.

High-priority waters:

• Waterbody segments where the impairment poses a threat to potable 

water supplies or human health;

• Waterbody segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant 

regulated by the Clean Water Act and the pollutant has contributed to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or 

 endangered species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the 

species; or 

• Waterbody segments verifi ed as impaired that are included on the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 1998 303(d) list as 

high priority.

Low-priority waters:

• Waterbody segments that are listed before 2010 because of fi sh 

consumption advisories for mercury (due to the current insuffi cient 

understanding of how mercury cycles in the environment);

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 89
• Canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artifi cial waterbody 

 segments that are listed only due to exceedances of dissolved oxygen 

criteria; or 

• Waterbody segments that were not on the Planning List but were 

identifi ed as impaired during Phase 2 of the watershed management 

cycle and were included on the Verifi ed List, unless the segment 

meets the second high-priority criterion.

• The EPA has also proposed assigning to this category the list of additional waterbody segments that the agency developed using its own 

evaluation methodology, until the Department has had the opportunity to investigate these waterbodies further.

All segments not designated high or low priority are medium priority, 

and are prioritized based on the following factors:

• The presence of Outstanding Florida Waters;

• The presence of waterbody segments that fail to meet more than one 

designated use, i.e., aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, fi sh 

and shellfi sh consumption, drinking water, and the protection of 

human health;

• The presence of waterbody segments that exceed an applicable water 

quality criterion or alternative threshold with a frequency of greater 

than 25 percent at a minimum confi dence level of 90 percent;

• The presence of waterbody segments that exceed more than one 

applicable water quality criterion; or

• Administrative needs of the TMDL Program, including meeting a 

TMDL development schedule agreed to with the EPA, basin priorities related to the Department’s watershed management approach, 

and the number of administratively continued permits in the basin.

The Department is adhering to the TMDL schedule established in the 

Consent Decree between the EPA and Earthjustice for waters on the 1998 

303(d) list that are also identifi ed as impaired under the IWR.

Table 6.1 lists the high-priority waters for TMDL development in the 

Nassau–St. Marys Basin. Figure 6.1 shows the locations of these waters 

and their watersheds. The waters listed in the table were also high priorities on the 1998 303(d) list. Of these, one segment had suffi cient water 

quality information to verify a parameter as the cause of impairment. 

Unnamed Branch (2156) is verifi ed impaired for both fecal and total 

coliforms. The EPA will consider those waters on the Planning List, and 

decide if they want to pursue developing a TMDL for those parameters.

90 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Table 6.1: Priorities for TMDL Development in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Planning 

Unit WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified Under 

the Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule

Assessment 

Status2

Priority Year 

for TMDL 

Development

Comments3

(# Exceedances/# Samples) 

Nassau 

River 

2156 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal Coliforms Verified 

Impaired

2005 Planning period: no data; 

verified period: 7/22. 

Nassau 

River 

2156 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF Coliforms Total Coliforms Verified 

Impaired

2005 Planning period: no data; 

verified period: 7/23.

Notes:

1

Florida’s waterbody classifications are defined as follows: 

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 2

The EPA will establish TMDLs for parameters that could not be verified impaired in their respective rotation cycle.

3For a more comprehensive look at the comments, see Appendix E. Planning period = January 1, 1993, through December 31, 2002; Verified 

period = January 1, 1998, through June 30, 2005.

Total Maximum Daily Load Development

During Phase 3 of the watershed management cycle, TMDLs will be 

developed for both point and nonpoint sources of pollutants in impaired 

waterbodies and will be adopted by rule at the end of this phase.

TMDL development involves determining the maximum amount of 

a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the applicable numeric or narrative water quality criterion for the pollutant. In 

most cases, this “assimilative” capacity will be determined using computer 

modeling (both hydrodynamic and water quality models) that predicts the 

fate and transport of pollutants in the receiving waters. Modeling for the 

typical TMDL will include model setup, calibration, and verifi cation, followed by a variety of model runs that determine the assimilative capacity of 

the water under worst-case conditions.

State law and federal regulations require that TMDLs include a margin 

of safety (MOS) that takes into account “any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effl uent limitations and water quality.” The 

EPA has allowed states to establish either a specifi c MOS (typically some 

 percentage of the assimilative capacity) or an implicit MOS based on 

conservative assumptions in the modeling. To date, the Department has 

elected to establish an implicit MOS based on predictive model runs that 

incorporate a variety of conservative assumptions (they examine worst-case 

ambient fl ow conditions and worst-case temperature, and assume that all 

permitted point sources discharge at their maximum permitted amount).

It is important to note that TMDLs will be developed only for the 

actual pollutants causing the impairment in the listed waterbody. These 

are called the “pollutants of concern.” In Florida, the most commonly 

listed pollutants of concern are nutrients, sediments, and coliforms bacteria. 

TMDLs will not be developed for impairments not due to pollutant 

 discharges—for example, natural conditions, physical alterations such as 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 91
dams and channelization, or changes in the fl ow of the water. In other 

cases, a waterbody may be deemed potentially impaired based on bioassessment data or toxicity data. In these cases, the Department must determine the actual pollutant causing the impairment before a TMDL can be 

 developed.

Total Maximum Daily Load Allocation and 

Implementation

Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) requires that a 

TMDL include the “establishment of reasonable and equitable allocations 

. . . among point and nonpoint sources . . . .” The Department refers to 

this as the “initial allocation,” which is adopted by rule. For the purposes 

of allocating the required pollutant loadings, the term “point sources” 

 primarily includes traditional sources such as domestic and industrial 

wastewater discharges.

Figure 6.1: Nassau–St. Marys Basin Priority TMDL Priority Watersheds for 2005

92 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
Recent EPA guidance requires states to include as point sources those 

stormwater systems that are covered by a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit. However, NPDES-

 permitted stormwater discharges are not subject to the same types of 

effl uent limitations, cannot be centrally collected and treated, and typically 

have not invested in treatment controls to the same degree as traditional 

point sources. Nonpoint sources include intermittent, rainfall-driven, 

diffuse sources of pollutants associated with everyday human activities, including runoff from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, and 

mining; discharges from failing septic systems; and atmospheric deposition.

These point and nonpoint defi nitions do not directly relate to whether 

a source is regulated. Some nonpoint sources such as stormwater systems 

are permitted under the regulatory programs of the Department or water 

management districts, while others, such as agricultural stormwater discharges, are not. This distinction is important because the implementation 

of the allocations to nonpoint sources outside the authority of regulatory 

programs will require cooperation from dischargers to implement best 

management practices (BMPs) voluntarily.

While a “detailed allocation” will ultimately be necessary to implement 

a TMDL fully, a key goal of the initial allocation is to assign responsibility 

for pollutant load reductions between point and nonpoint sources. For 

point sources, allocations will be implemented through the Department’s 

NPDES wastewater and stormwater permitting programs. The implementation of nonpoint source load reductions will be done through a combination of regulatory and nonregulatory processes. 

Initial allocations of pollutant loadings will also be made to historical 

sources (e.g., the phosphorus-laden sediments at the bottom of a lake) and 

upstream sources (those entering into an impaired waterbody). Upstream 

sources include sources outside Florida, and these sources will receive 

reduced allocations similar to in-state sources.

The FWRA provided direction for the allocation of TMDLs and 

directed the Department to provide guidance on the allocation process by 

establishing an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC), consisting of representatives of key stakeholder groups. The committee’s report 

recommended a three-step process for developing initial allocations and 

addressed detailed allocations for nonpoint sources, stakeholder involvement, the use of BMPs, and other TMDL implementation issues (Department, 2001). A copy of the ATAC report can be found at http://www.dep 

.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/docs/Allocation.pdf.

Implementation Programs and Approaches 

The FWRA designates the Department as the lead agency in coordinating the implementation of TMDLs. Existing programs and approaches 

through which TMDLs may be carried out include the following:

• Permitting and other existing regulatory programs, such as NPDES 

permits, domestic and industrial wastewater permits, and stormwater/Environmental Resource Permits. Municipal separate 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 93
 stormwater system Phase I permit number FLS000012 covers Duval 

County, including a small portion of the Nassau–St. Marys Basin.

• Local land development codes;

• Nonregulatory and incentive-based programs, including BMPs, cost 

sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches 

to land use design and development, and public education; 

• Basin Management Action Plans (B-MAPs) developed under the 

FWRA;

• Other water quality management and restoration activities, for 

 example, Surface Water Improvement and Management plans 

approved under Section 373.456, Florida Statutes;

• Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based agreements;

• Public works, including capital facilities; or

• Land acquisition. Recent land acquisitions in the basin include the 

Four Creeks Forest. This tract, acquired by St. Johns River Water 

Management District (SJRWMD) in April of 2005, covers approximately 10,000 acres between Yulee and Callahan. More details 

about Department and SJRWMD land acquisition programs can be 

found at the following Web sites: http://www.dep.state.fl .us/lands/

acquisition/FloridaForever/ and http://sjr.state.fl .us/programs/. 

These programs and approaches will be carried out at local, regional, 

state, and possibly federal levels. TMDL implementation will require 

extensive stakeholder involvement throughout the state and, in some cases, 

between Florida and other states. Appendix A provides additional details 

on the implementation programs and approaches listed here.

Development of Basin Management Action 

Plans

The FWRA authorizes the Department to develop B-MAPs for implementing TMDLs. These plans will be developed with extensive stakeholder input to build consensus on detailed allocations based on the initial 

general allocations to categories of discharges.

The B-MAPs will contain fi nal allocations, strategies for meeting the 

allocations, schedules for implementation, funding mechanisms, applicable 

local ordinances, and other elements. 

Once a B-MAP is developed, the Department will make it available for 

public review and comment. Guidance for the content and format of the 

B-MAPs is being developed; the plans are likely to include a description of 

both regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to meeting specifi c TMDLs. 

A B-MAP is not required for every TMDL. The Department will work 

with stakeholders to determine if a B-MAP is needed for TMDLs in this 

basin.

94 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
References

Bond, P. 1990. Geology of Baker County, Florida. Florida Geological 

Survey, Open File Report 33.

Campbell, K. M. 1986. Geology of Polk County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Open File Report 13.

Chen, M., and L. Q. Ma. 2001. “Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution 

of Total Phosphorus in Florida Surface Soils.” Soil Science Society of 

America Journal 65:1539–1547.

Collins, M. E. 1985 (reviewed 2003). Key to Soil Orders in Florida. 

 University of Florida. IFAS SL-43.

Copeland, R., S. Upchurch, K. Summers, A. Janicki, P. Hansard, M. 

Paulic, G. Maddox, J. Silvanima, and P. Craig. 1999. Overview of 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Integrated Water 

Resource Monitoring Efforts and the Design Plan of the Status Network. 

Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Ambient Monitoring Section.

Federal Clean Water Act. Section 303(d).

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

Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Institute of Science 

and Public Affairs.

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-302. Surface Water Quality 

 Standards.

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-303. Identifi cation of Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. February 1999. 

Biological Assessment of Jefferson Smurfi t Corporation, Nassau County, 

NPDES #FL0001104, Sampled April 1998. Biology Section, Bureau of 

 Laboratories, Division of Administrative and Technical Services.

—. February 1, 2001. A Report to the Governor and the Legislature on 

the Allocation of Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida. Tallahassee, 

FL: Bureau of Watershed Management, Division of Water Resource 

Management.

—. July 2002. Biological Assessment of Callahan WWTP, Nassau County, 

Northeast District, NPDES #FL0038407, Sampled September 2001. 

Biology Section, Bureau of Laboratories, Division of Resource Assessment and Management.

—. January 2003. Bioassays of Rayonier Incorporated, Fernandina Beach, 

Nassau County, Florida, NPDES #FL0000701, Sampled June 3, 

2002. Biology Section, Bureau of Laboratories, Division of Resource 

 Assessment and Management.

—. February 2003. Rayonier: An Environmental Success Story. Available: 

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

—. March 2003. Bioassays of Jefferson Smurfi t Corporation– Fernandina 

Beach Mill, Fernandina Beach, Nassau County, Florida, NPDES 

#FL0001104, Sampled November 4, 2002. Biology Section, Bureau of 

Laboratories, Division of Resource Assessment and Management.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 95
Florida Department of Health. 2003. Onsite Sewage Statistics. Available: 

http:// www.doh.state.fl .us/environment/OSTDS/statistics/ 

ostdsstatistics.htm.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. April 1986. Nassau River, 

St. Johns River Marshes and Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserves 

Management Plan.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Florida Rivers Assessment. 

Division of Recreation and Parks.

Florida Department of Pollution Control. 1975. Nassau–St. Marys River 

Basin Water Quality Management Plan. 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act. 1999. Chapter 99-223, Laws of 

Florida.

Friedemann, F., and J. Hand. July 1989. Typical Water Quality Values 

For Florida’s Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries. Tallahassee, FL: Florida 

Department of Environmental Regulation.

GEOMET Technology Inc. December 1987. Florida Statewide Radon 

Survey. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2002. St. Marys River Basin 

Management Plan 2002. Atlanta, GA: Environmental Protection 

Division.

Hicks, R., and C. Marks. March 2005. Geologic, Soil, and Ground Water 

Conditions in the Bacterial Source Tracking Study Area of Baker, Nassau 

and Duval Counties. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Ground Water Protection Section.

Levy, G. W. 1966. Ground Water in Duval and Nassau Counties, Florida. 

Report of Investigations No. 43. Florida Geological Survey.

Maddox, G. L., J. M. Lloyd, T. M. Scott, S. B. Upchurch, and R. Copeland (Eds.). 1992. Florida Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program—Volume 2, Background Hydrogeochemistry. Florida Geological 

Survey, Special Publication No. 34.

Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council. 1997. Strategic Regional 

Policy Plan (SRPP).

Osburn, W., D. Toth, and D. Boniol. 2002. Springs of the St. Johns River 

Water Management District. SJRWMD Technical Publication 2002-5.

Sacks, L. A., A. Swancar, and T. M. Lee. 1998. Estimated Ground-Water 

Exchange in Lakes Using Water-Budget and Chemical Mass-Balance 

Approaches for Ten Lakes in the Ridge Area of Polk and Highlands 

 Counties, Florida. USGS WRI 98-4133.

Sacks, L. A. 2002. Estimating Ground-Water Infl ow to Lakes in Central 

Florida Using an Isotope Mass-Balance Approach. USGS WRI 02-4192.

St. Johns River Water Management District. June 1993. A Wetland 

Management Strategy for the St. Marys River Basin. Special Publication 

SJ93-SP7.

St. Johns River Water Management District. April 2000. District Water 

Management Plan.

St. Johns River Water Management District. St. Marys River Guide. 

 Available: http://www.sjrwmd.com/programs/outreach/pubs/

smr_guide/.

96 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys
St. Marys River Management Committee. May 2003. St. Marys River 

Management Plan.

U.S. Census Bureau Web site. Available: http://www.census.gov.

Varn, G. St. Marys River Management Committee, personal 

 communication. 

Wayland, R. H., III. November 19, 2001. 2002 Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance. Memorandum to EPA 

Regional Water Management Directors; EPA Regional Science and 

Technology Directors; and State, Territory, and Authorized Tribe 

Water Quality Program Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

White, W. 1970. The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida 

Geological Survey, Bulletin No. 61.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 97

Water Quality Assessment Report 2007

Nassau–St. Marys Appendices 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed 

Management Approach and the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily 

Loads .............................................................................................................................. 101

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads ...... 101

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule .......................... 103

Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads............................................................................... 105

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by 

Department District Office ................................................................................. 107

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation ............ 107

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts ............... 108

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs................... 109

Appendix B: Supplementary Ecological Information in the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin............................................................................................................................... 113

Endangered and Threatened Species in the St. Marys Basin ...................................................... 113

Natural Areas of the St. Marys Basin.......................................................................................... 113

Appendix C: Information on Reasonable Assurance ................................................ 115

Background ................................................................................................................................. 115

Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms............................. 116

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration .................................................. 116

Time Frame for Development of Documentation ....................................................................... 117

What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority................................................. 117

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards ................................................................... 117

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration.............................................................................. 118

Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable Assurance in the IWR... 118

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals..................................................... 119

Interim Targets ............................................................................................................................ 120

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets............................................................................. 120

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions ..................................................... 120

New Sources/Growth .................................................................................................................. 120

Examples of Reasonable Progress............................................................................................... 120

Long-Term Requirements ........................................................................................................... 121

Appendix D: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based on the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule..................................................................................................... 122

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule ............................................................................................. 122

Attainment of Designated Use(s) ................................................................................................ 122

Table D.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida............. 123

Sources of Data ........................................................................................................................... 123
100 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Table D.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation 

Cycle ................................................................................................................... 124

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 124

Appendix E: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin............................................................................................................................... 130

Table E.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin, by Planning Unit...................................................................................... 131

Table E.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations, by Planning Unit....................................... 172

Table E.3: Water Quality Trend Data for Select WBIDs in the Nassau–St. Marys 

Basin, by Planning Unit...................................................................................... 179

Appendix F: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground 

Water in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by Planning Unit ......................................... 190

Table F.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, 

by Planning Unit................................................................................................. 190

Table F.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning Unit ..................................................................... 192

Table F.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning Unit................................................. 193

Appendix G: Level I Land Use in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by Planning 

Unit................................................................................................................................. 195

Appendix H: Documentation Provided during Public Comment Period............... 197
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 101

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the 

Watershed Management Approach and the Implementation of 

Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and Total Maximum 

Daily Loads 

Clean Water Act 

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]). 

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on their water quality. The 305(b) assessment 

report provides information on the physical, chemical, biological, and cultural features of 

each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a common factual basis for 

identifying information sources and major issues, and for determining the future changes, 

strategies, and actions needed to preserve, protect, and/or restore water quality. 

Understanding the physical framework of each basin allows the development of a 

science-based methodology for assessing water quality 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 to the EPA 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 schedule. A pollution limit 

is then allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin. 

A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can 

assimilate and meet all of its designated uses (see Noteworthy on Florida’s surface water 

quality classifications for a listing of these classifications). A waterbody that does not 

meet its designated use is defined as impaired. 

NOTEWORTHY: FLORIDA’S SURFACE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS 

Florida’s water quality standards program, the foundation of the state’s program of water quality 

management, designates the “present and future most beneficial uses” of the waters of the state 

(Subsection 403.061[10], Florida Statutes [F.S.]). Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or 

narrative limits for specific parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain these 

uses for surface water and ground water. Florida’s surface water is protected for five designated 

use classifications, as follows: 

Class I Potable water supplies 

Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced 

population of fish and wildlife 

Class IV Agricultural water supplies 

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in 

this class) 
102 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

In 1998, the EPA settled a lawsuit with the environmental group Earthjustice over 

Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decree resulting from the lawsuit requires all 

TMDLs on the state’s 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed in 

thirteen years. If the state fails to develop the TMDLs, the EPA is required to do so. 

In response to concerns about the TMDL lawsuit and in recognition of the important 

role that TMDLs play in restoring state waters, the 1999 Florida legislature enacted the 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act clarified 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) statutory authority to 

establish TMDLs, required the Department to develop a methodology for identifying 

impaired waters, specified that the Department could develop TMDLs only for waters on 

a future state list of impaired waters developed using this new methodology, and directed 

the Department to establish an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee to address the 

allocation process for TMDLs. The act also declared Lake Okeechobee impaired and, as 

required under the TMDL Consent Decree, allowed the state to develop a TMDL for the 

lake (see Noteworthy for a description of the legislation’s major provisions). 

NOTEWORTHY: THE FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACT 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act contains the following major 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 a Verified List for each 

basin. 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 pollutants 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. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 103

• Authorizes the Department to develop basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the 

water management districts, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(DACS), 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 DACS 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. 

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the Florida Watershed Restoration 

Act describe impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not 

meet applicable water quality standards. “Impairment” is a broad term that includes 

designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating 

provisions (see Noteworthy for explanations of these terms). 

The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, 

Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]) was developed in cooperation with a Technical 

Advisory Committee and adopted by the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission 

on April 26, 2001. It provides a science-based methodology for evaluating water quality 

data in order to identify impaired waters, and it establishes specific criteria for 

impairment based on chemical parameters, the interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, 

biological impairment, fish consumption advisories, and ecological impairment. The 

complete text of the rule is available at 

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

The IWR also establishes thresholds for data sufficiency and data quality, including 

the minimum sample size required and the number of exceedances of the applicable 

water quality standard for a given sample size that identify a waterbody as impaired. The 

number of exceedances is based on a statistical approach designed to provide greater 

confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. Waters that are 

identified as impaired through the IWR are prioritized for TMDL development and 

implementation. 
104 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

NOTEWORTHY: EXPLANATION OF TERMS 

• Designated uses, discussed in an earlier sidebar, comprise the five classifications applied to 

each of the state’s surface waterbodies.

• Water quality criteria comprise numeric or narrative limits of pollutants. 

• The Florida Antidegradation Policy (Sections 62-302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C.) recognizes 

that pollution that causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to the 

continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of the state. Under this policy, the 

permitting of new or previously unpermitted existing discharges is prohibited where the 

discharge is expected to reduce the quality of a receiving water below the classification

established for it. Any lowering of water quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to 

surface waters must be in the public interest (that is, the benefits of the discharge to public 

health, safety, and welfare must outweigh any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or 

recreation). Further, the permittee must demonstrate that other disposal alternatives (for 

example, reuse) or pollution prevention are not economically and technologically reasonable 

alternatives to the surface water discharge. 

• Moderating provisions (provided in Subsection 62-302.300[10] and Rules 62-4 and 62-6, 

F.A.C., and described in Sections 62-302.300, 62-4.244, 62-302.800, 62-4.243, F.A.C., and 

Sections 403.201 and 373.414, F.S.) include mixing zones, zones of discharge, site-specific 

alternative criteria, exemptions, and variances. These provisions are intended to moderate 

the applicability of water quality standards where it has been determined that, under certain 

special circumstances, the social, economic, and environmental costs of such applicability 

outweigh the benefits. 

Determining impairment in individual waterbodies takes place in two phases. First, 

in each river basin the Department evaluates the existing water quality data, using the 

methodology prescribed in the IWR, to determine whether waters are potentially 

impaired. Waters found to be potentially impaired are included on a Planning List for 

further assessment under Subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. As required by Subsection 

403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List is not used to administer or implement any regulatory 

program. It is submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only. 

The second step is to assess waters on the Planning List under Subsection 

403.067(3), F.S., as part of the Department’s watershed management approach (described 

in the following section). The Department carries out additional data gathering and 

strategic monitoring, focusing on these potentially impaired waters, and determines—

using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.—if a waterbody is, in fact, 

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. 

A Water Quality Assessment Report is produced containing the results of this 

updated evaluation and a Verified List of impaired waters. The criteria for the Verified 

List are more stringent than those for the Planning List. The Department is required to 

develop TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A 

watershed management plan (called a Basin Management Action Plan, or BMAP) to 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 105

reduce the amount of pollutants that cause impairments must also be produced and 

implemented. 

The Verified List is adopted by Secretarial Order in accordance with the Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act. Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA for approval 

as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin. 

Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads 

The Watershed Management Approach 

The Department's statewide approach to water resource management, called the 

watershed management approach, is the framework for implementing TMDLs as required 

by the federal and state governments. The approach does not focus on individual causes 

of pollution. Instead, each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic 

resources are evaluated from a basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative 

effects of human activities. Water resources are managed on the basis of natural 

boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. 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 strategies to restore water quality. Extensive public participation in the 

decision-making process is crucial. 

The watershed management approach is not new, nor does it compete with or replace 

existing programs. Rather than relying on single solutions to water 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. 

By promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the 

cumulative effects of human activities on a watershed basis, this approach is intended to 

protect and enhance the ecological structure, function, and integrity of Florida’s 

watersheds. It 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 the establishment of TMDLs. 
106 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

The Watershed Management Cycle 

As part of the Department’s watershed management approach, TMDLs will be 

developed, and the corresponding pollutant loadings allocated, as part of a watershed 

management cycle that rotates through the state’s 52 river basins over a 9-year period. 

The cycle’s 5 phases are as follows: 

• Phase 1: Preliminary Watershed Evaluation. For each river basin, a Water 

Quality Status Report is developed, containing a Planning List of potentially 

impaired waters that may require the establishment of TMDLs. The report 

characterizes each basin’s hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting as well 

as historical, current, and proposed watershed management issues and activities. It 

also contains a preliminary evaluation of major water quality parameters, water 

quality issues by planning unit, ecological resources, and basinwide pollutant loading 

trends related to land uses. At the end of Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is 

developed. 

• Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected 

through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify 

whether potentially impaired waters in each basin are impaired and to calibrate and 

verify models for TMDL development. At the end of Phase 2, a Water Quality

Assessment Report is produced for each basin that contains a Verified List of 

impaired waters. The report also provides an updated and more thorough evaluation 

of water quality, associated biological resources, and current management plans. The 

Department will adopt the Verified List through a Secretarial Order and submit it to 

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

• Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs. TMDLs for priority impaired 

waters in the basin 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 IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). 

• Phase 4: Development of a Basin Management Action Plan. A BMAP will be 

developed for each basin to specify how pollutant loadings from point and nonpoint 

sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements. The 

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

nonstructural strategies, and existing management plans will be used where feasible. 

The involvement and support of affected stakeholders in this phase will be especially 

critical. 

• Phase 5: Implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan. Implementation of 

the activities specified in the BMAP will begin. This includes carrying out rule 

development as needed, securing funding, informing stakeholders and the public, and 

monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 107

To implement the watershed cycle, the state’s river basins have been divided into 

five groups within each of the Department’s six districts statewide, and each district will 

assess one basin each year. Table A.1 shows the basin groups for implementing the 

cycle in the Department’s districts, and Figure A.1 shows these groups and the rotating 

cycle in the districts. Table A.2, which lists the basin rotation schedule for TMDL 

development and implementation, shows that it will take nine years to complete one full 

cycle of the state. 

The watershed management cycle is an iterative, or repeated, 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. 

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by Department 

District Office 

District Group 1 

Basins 

Group 2 

Basins 

Group 3 

Basins 

Group 4 

Basins 

Group 5 

Basins 

Northwest Ochlockonee– 

St. Marks Rivers 

Apalachicola–

Chipola Rivers 

Choctawhatchee 

River and Bay and 

St. Andrew Bay 

Pensacola Bay Perdido River and 

Bay 

Northeast Suwannee River Lower St. Johns 

River – Nassau–St. Marys 

Rivers 

Northeast Coast 

Lagoons 

Central Ocklawaha River Middle St. Johns 

River 

Upper St. Johns 

River Kissimmee River Indian River Lagoon 

Southwest Tampa Bay Tampa Bay 

Tributaries 

Sarasota Bay and 

Peace–Myakka 

Rivers 

Withlacoochee 

River Springs Coast 

South Everglades West 

Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee River Fisheating Creek Florida Keys 

Southeast Lake Okeechobee 

St.Lucie–

Loxahatchee 

Rivers 

Lake Worth 

Lagoon/Palm 

Beach Coast 

Southeast Coast–

Biscayne Bay Everglades 

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation

Year 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 09 09 10 

Group 1 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

Group 2 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

Group 3 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

Group 4 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

Group 5 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

 1st Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2nd Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters 

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may change due to accelerated local activities, length of plan 

development, legal challenges, etc. 
108 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 109

Pollutants can enter a waterbody through point source discharges (generally from a 

specific facility) or nonpoint discharges (e.g., stormwater runoff, septic tanks). 

Government agencies, businesses, organizations, and individuals who contribute to these 

discharges will be asked to share the responsibility of attaining TMDLs through load 

allocations (the amount of a specified pollutant allotted for discharge) that are based on 

an established TMDL. Table A.3 summarizes these potentially affected stakeholders, 

and the actions they may be asked to take to help achieve a TMDL. 

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs 

Potentially Affected Stakeholders Actions To Achieve TMDL 

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through 

stormwater retrofits, replacement of septic tanks 

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual 

homeowners 

Improve development design and construction, 

enhance best management practices (BMPs), 

replace septic tanks 

Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment 

facilities, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitted facilities 

Reduce pollutant loadings from permitted 

discharges 

Farming and silviculture operations Reduce and treat runoff through BMPs 

Federal, regional, state agencies; regional and 

local water quality coalitions Carry out waterbody restoration projects 

Permitting and Other Approaches 

NPDES PERMITS

All point sources that discharge to surface waterbodies require a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. These permits can be classified into two 

types: domestic or industrial wastewater discharge permits, and stormwater permits. 

NPDES-permitted point sources may be affected by the development and implementation 

of a TMDL. All NPDES permits include “reopener clauses” that allow the Department to 

incorporate new discharge limits when a TMDL is established. These new limitations 

may be incorporated into a permit when a TMDL is implemented or at the next permit 

renewal, depending on the timing of the permit renewal and workload. For NPDES 

municipal stormwater permits, the Department intends to insert the following statement 

once a BMAP is completed: 

“The permittee shall undertake those activities specified in the (Name of Waterbody) 

Basin Management Action Plan in accordance with the approved schedule set forth in the 

BMAP.” 
110 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMITS

In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters, 

Florida also regulates domestic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via 

land application. Since ground water and surface water are so intimately linked in much 

of the state, reductions in loadings from these facilities may be needed to meet TMDL 

limitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the 

BMAP, they would be implemented through modifications of the existing state permits. 

FLORIDA STORMWATER/ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS

With the implementation of the state’s stormwater treatment rule in 1982, Florida 

became the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new development. 

Today, except in the area served by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, 

new development projects receive an Environmental Resource Permit that combines 

stormwater flood protection, stormwater treatment, and wetland protection/mitigation 

into a single permit. These permits are designed to obtain 80 percent average annual load 

reduction of total suspended solids. This level of treatment may need to be increased, 

depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the 

St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basin-specific criteria for 

the Lake Apopka Basin that require the phosphorus loading from new development not to 

exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading. 

LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES 

Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of 

load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development 

often cause ecological impacts to aquatic systems, local land development codes that 

promote “low-impact development” are an important component of restoring impaired 

waters. Local codes may need to be reviewed to determine how to promote 

developments that minimize impervious surfaces (such as reduced street widths or the use 

of pervious pavements), promote the protection of vegetation, promote the protection and 

restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the 

Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Typically, BMPs refer to a practice or combination of practices that, based on sound 

science and best professional judgment, are determined to be the most effective and 

practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollutant discharges and improving water 

quality. Both economic and technological considerations are included in the evaluation 

of what is practicable. BMPs may include structural controls (such as retention areas or 

detention ponds) or nonstructural controls (such as street sweeping or public education). 

Many BMPs have been developed for urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and 

peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type, 

slope, depth to ground water, and the designation of receiving waters. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 111

The passage of the Florida Watershed Restoration Act increased the emphasis on 

implementing BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollutant discharges from agricultural 

operations. Recognizing that the development and adoption of BMPs might take several 

years, the legislature authorized the use of Interim Measures (IMs) during the BMP 

development process for agricultural operations. In essence, IMs are a set of logical 

conservation practices designed to reduce agricultural nonpoint pollutant discharges 

based on current knowledge and best professional judgment. These practices will evolve 

into more formal BMPs as better scientific data on their effectiveness is obtained. 

Once the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services adopts BMPs, 

the Department is charged with verifying their effectiveness in reducing agricultural 

nonpoint sources. Once verified, agricultural operations that have implemented BMPs 

will receive a waiver of liability and presumption of compliance similar to that granted a 

developer who obtains an Environmental Resource Permit. 

NONREGULATORY PARTNERSHIPS

The St. Marys River Management Committee is the key group enhancing 

environmental stewardship in the Nassau-St. Marys Basin. It is unique in its interstate 

focus, coordinating efforts between both Florida and Georgia for the benefit of the St. 

Marys River. The following description of the Committee and its activities was taken 

directly from the Committee’s 2003 St. Marys River Management Plan. 

Formed in 1991, the St. Marys River Management Committee (SMRMC) is an 

intergovernmental entity of elected and appointed members from four counties along the 

St. Marys River: Charlton, Camden, Nassau and Baker counties. In 1993, the four 

counties established the Committee as its advisor on matters concerning the river. The 

Committee seeks to maintain local management and control of the river toe the maximum 

extent possible. The Committee consists of 20 representatives from the four counties that 

border the river and comprose most of the basin. Each of the county commissions 

appoints one commissioner and four private volunteer citizens, two of which must own 

property fronting the river. Two nonvoting members represent Georgia’s Department of 

Natural Resources and Florida’s St. Johns River Water Management District. The 

committee meets monthly to discuss, develop and implement plans and programs in 

regard to the St. Marys River. 

The Committee’s goal is to promote and protect the long-term viability of both the 

environmental and economic resources of the St. Marys River in a way that retains local 

control, protects property rights, and fosters cooperation among individuals, 

governments, and agencies at all levels. Specific goals of the Committee’s Management 

Plan are to: 

1) Protect the water quality of the St. Marys River and improve degraded segments 

as defined by state law; 

2) Provide for flood protection through nonstructural, natural functions of the St. 

Marys River; 

3) Protect natural systems in the St. Marys River corridor; 
112 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

4) Provide for the recreational and public uses of the St. Marys River that are 

compatible with the previous goals and consistent across county and state 

boundaries; 

5) Provide for local-local, local-state, and local-state-federal intergovernmental 

coordination and relations in the management of the St. Marys River. 

OTHER STRATEGIES

The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require 

variety, creativity, stakeholder commitment to watershed management, and personal 

stewardship. In addition to BMPs, other possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, 

restoring water quality, and preventing the further degradation of Florida’s watersheds 

include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land 

use design and development, and pollutant trading. The Department will assemble a 

Technical Advisory Committee to help develop a pollutant-trading rule, which must be 

reviewed by the legislature prior to its adoption. The Department will also continue to 

work with local stakeholders on TMDL allocation issues and implementation plans. 

Sources of Information 

For additional information on the Department’s Watershed Management Program 

and TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators: 

• Southwest Florida and Lake Okeechobee, Pat Fricano (850) 245-8559 

• Southeast Florida, Kevin O’Donnell (850) 245-7607 

• Northwest and Central Florida, Mary Paulic, (850) 245-8560 

• Northeast Florida, Ochlockonee–St. Marks, and Suwannee, Jennifer Gihring 

(850) 245-8418 

• West Central Florida and Tampa Bay Region, Tom Singleton (850) 245-8561 

For information on establishing and implementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional information is available on the Department’s Web 

site at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 113

Appendix B: Supplementary Ecological Information in the 

Nassau–St. Marys Basin 

Endangered and Threatened Species in the St. Marys Basin 

As reported in the St. Marys River Management Plan (SMRMC, 2003), the Florida 

Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, 2000) and Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GNHP, 

2000) have recorded the following endangered and threatened species in the St. Marys 

Basin: 

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtnadii) 

Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) 

Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) 

Piping plover (Charadrius melodis) 

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) 

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) 

Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) 

Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) 

Several endangered marine mammals have been recorded in the waters of the 

Atlantic Ocean, Cumberland Sound, and St. Marys River estuary. The area is federally 

protected as a calving ground for the critically endangered northern right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis). The St. Marys River estuary serves as a wintering ground for 

endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Additionally, the estuary and 

beaches serve as foraging and nesting areas for the threatened Atlantic loggerhead turtle 

(Caretta caretta), the endangered Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the endangered 

Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and the endangered leatherback turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea). 

While a number of plant species in the area are protected as threatened or 

endangered under Georgia and Florida law, there are currently no federally threatened or 

endangered vascular plants recorded from the four-county St. Marys Basin (SMRMC, 

2003). 

Natural Areas of the St. Marys Basin 

As reported in the St. Marys River Management Plan (SMRMC, 2003), existing 

natural areas in the St. Marys Basin include public and private holdings and wildlife 

management areas on private forest lands. Public holdings include the Okefenokee 
114 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and Osceola National Forest at the headwaters of the 

river, and the Cumberland Island National Seashore and Fort Clinch State Park at the 

river’s estuary. Florida’s Ralph E. Simmons Memorial State Forest and about half of its 

Cary State Forest are in the St. Marys Basin. Military holdings bordering the basin 

include King’s Bay Naval Station in Georgia and Whitehouse Naval Outlying Field in 

Florida. 

A high proportion of the land in the St. Marys Basin (approximately 70 percent) is in 

large-tract private ownership for silvicultural and conservation purposes. The Nature 

Conservancy’s Pinhook Swamp tract provides a connection between the Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge and Osceola National Forest, and also protects the headwaters 

of the Middle Prong of the St. Marys River. 

Four Florida wildlife management areas (WMAs) in the basin are on public and 

private forested areas under state management for wildlife resources and recreation. The 

Nassau WMA (northeast of Callahan and bounded by I-95/A1A/108; 26,455 acres; 

approximately 20 percent in the St. Marys Basin, with the remainder in the Nassau 

Basin), the Lake Butler WMA (southeast of Olustee and bounded by 90/231/238; 31,102 

acres; all in the basin), the Osceola WMA (in the Osceola National Forest; 194,503 acres; 

approximately 75 percent of which are in the St. Marys Basin), and the Cary WMA (in 

the Cary State Forest; 3,413 acres; approximately 95 percent of which are in St. Marys 

Basin). 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 115

Appendix C: Information on Reasonable Assurance 

TO: Interested Parties 

FROM: Mimi Drew, Director 

 Division of Water Facilities 

DATE: September 2002 

SUBJECT: Guidance for Development of Documentation To Provide 

Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollution Control Mechanisms Will Result in 

the Restoration of Designated Uses in Impaired Waters 

The purpose of this memo is to describe the types of information that should be 

considered, and subsequently documented, when evaluating whether there is sufficient 

reasonable assurance that: 

1. Proposed pollution control mechanisms (typically described in watershed 

management or restoration plans) addressing impaired waters will result in the 

attainment of applicable water quality standards (designated uses) at a clearly 

defined point in the future, and 

2. Reasonable progress towards restoration of designated uses will be made by the 

time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is due to be submitted to the EPA. 

There are many site-specific issues related to determining whether reasonable 

assurance has been provided. Accordingly, this document describes the elements or 

issues that should be considered when evaluating a submittal or when documenting the 

basis for the Department’s decision, rather than attempting to establish specific criteria on 

what constitutes reasonable assurance. 

It should be noted that the term “reasonable assurance” is used throughout many 

Department programs and rules, and this guidance specifically addresses the issues 

related to the “reasonable assurance” provided by proposed pollution control 

mechanisms. This guidance should not be used to evaluate the meaning of reasonable 

assurance in other contexts, particularly in permitting decisions. 

Background 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR), Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (Identification of 

Impaired Surface Waters), establishes a formal mechanism for identifying surface waters 

in Florida that are impaired (do not meet applicable water quality standards) by 

pollutants. Most waters that are verified as being impaired by a pollutant will be listed on 
116 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

the state’s 303(d) list pursuant to the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) and 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Once listed, Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) will be developed for the pollutants causing the impairment of the listed 

waters. However, as required by the FWRA, the Department will evaluate whether 

existing or proposed pollution control mechanisms will effectively address the 

impairment before placing a water on the state’s Verified List. If the Department can 

document there is reasonable assurance that the impairment will be effectively addressed 

by the control measure, then the water will not be listed on the final Verified List (other 

impaired waters that will not be listed include waters with TMDLs and waters impaired 

by pollution). 

Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms 

The rule text addressing the evaluation of proposed pollution control mechanisms is 

as follows: 

Section 62-303.600, Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms 

1. Upon determining that a waterbody is impaired, the Department shall evaluate 

whether existing or proposed technology-based effluent limitations and other 

pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to 

result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards. 

2. If, as a result of the factors set forth in (1), the waterbody segment is expected to 

attain water quality standards in the future and is expected to make reasonable 

progress towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) 

list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA, the segment shall not be listed on the 

Verified List. The Department shall document the basis for its decision, noting 

any proposed pollution control mechanisms and expected improvements in water 

quality that provide reasonable assurance that the waterbody segment will attain 

applicable water quality standards. 

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration 

It is ultimately the Department’s responsibility to assure adequate documentation in 

the administrative record whenever the Department decides to not list an impaired 

waterbody segment for a given pollutant. This documentation will be very important 

because the Verified Lists will be adopted by Order of the Secretary and third parties will 

be provided an opportunity to challenge, via an administrative hearing, all listing 

decisions (both those listing a water and those to not list a water for a given pollutant). 

However, the Department expects that local stakeholders will often offer to prepare the 

necessary documentation to demonstrate reasonable assurance that proposed control 

mechanisms will restore a given waterbody. The Department will provide guidance to 

stakeholders on what information is needed and how it should be submitted. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 117

Time Frame for Development of Documentation 

The Department plans to prepare basin-specific Verified Lists as part of its 

watershed management cycle, which rotates through all of the state’s basins over a fiveyear, five-phased cycle1

. During the first phase of the cycle, the Department will assess 

water quality in the basin and prepare a draft Planning List of potentially impaired 

waters. The Department and interested parties will then have approximately one year 

(Phase 2) to monitor waters on the planning list and prepare documentation, as 

appropriate, to provide reasonable assurance that impaired waters will be restored. The 

Department will review submittals from interested parties during Phase 2, before 

adopting the Verified List for the basin containing the waterbody segment in question. 

What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority 

Both the FWRA and the IWR require that the pollution control programs under 

consideration be “under local, state, or federal authority.” A pollution control program 

will be considered "under local, state, or federal authority" if the program is subject to or 

required by a local ordinance, state statute or rule, or federal statute or regulation. 

Programs will also be considered under local, state, or federal authority if they are 

subject to a written agreement, signed by both local stakeholders and at least one 

governmental entity, that includes measurable goals, performance criteria, benchmarks, 

and back-up corrective actions to assure the further progress of the program. It is 

important to note that these written agreements do not need to be enforceable for 

nonregulated nonpoint sources. 

Many nonpoint sources are currently outside of the regulatory programs of EPA, the 

Department, and the water management districts, and reductions at these nonpoint 

sources will be voluntary. In fact, pollution control mechanisms for these nonpoint 

sources would be voluntary even if a TMDL were developed. As such, these agreements 

may provide the same level of reasonable assurance that can be provided for a TMDL 

implementation plan as long as they maintain the Department’s enforcement capability 

over all point sources involved. 

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards 

The FWRA and the IWR do not establish a specific time limit by which waters must 

attain applicable water quality standards or designated uses. However, the pollution 

control mechanisms or watershed restoration plan must provide reasonable assurance that 

designated uses will be met at some time in the future. As such, the documentation 

submitted to the Department must provide a specific date by which time designated uses 

are expected to be restored. In cases where designated uses will not be met for many 

years, the documentation should also provide justification as to why the specified time is 

needed to restore designated uses. 

 

1

 Federal regulations currently call for state 303(d) lists every two years, but Florida plans to submit annual updates 

based on the basin-specific Verified Lists. 
118 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration 

For the Department not to place an impaired waterbody segment on the Verified List, 

reasonable assurance must be provided for each pollutant that has been documented to be 

causing impairment of the waterbody segment. However, some entities, including the 

Department, may want to provide reasonable assurance addressing only selected 

pollutants, which could result in the Department not listing the waterbody segment for 

those pollutants, but still listing it for others. In this event, TMDLs will only be 

developed for the remaining listed pollutants. 

Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable 

Assurance in the IWR 

To provide reasonable assurance that existing or proposed pollution control 

mechanisms will restore designated uses, the following information should be evaluated 

and documented for the Administrative Record: 

1. A Description of the Impaired Water—name of the water listed on the Verified 

List, the location of the waterbody and watershed, the watershed/8-digit 

cataloging unit code, the NHD identifier (when they become available), the type 

(lake, stream, or estuary) of water, the water use classification, the designated use 

not being attained, the length (miles) or area (acres) of impaired area, the 

pollutant(s) of concern (those identified as causing or contributing to the 

impairment), and the suspected or documented source(s) of the pollutant(s) of 

concern. 

2. A Description of the Water Quality or Aquatic Ecological Goals—a 

description of the water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals (both 

interim and final) that have been established for the pollutant(s) of concern, the 

averaging period for any numeric water quality goals, a discussion of how these 

goals will result in the restoration of the waterbody’s impaired designated uses, a 

schedule indicating when interim and final targets are expected to be met, and a 

description of procedures (with thresholds) to determine whether additional 

(backup) corrective actions are needed. 

3. A Description of the Proposed Management Actions To Be Undertaken—

names of the responsible participating entities (government, private, others), a 

summary and list of existing or proposed management activities designed to 

restore water quality, the geographic scope of any proposed management 

activities, documentation of the estimated pollutant load reduction and other 

benefits anticipated from implementation of individual management actions, 

copies of written agreements committing participants to the management actions, 

a discussion on how future growth and new sources will be addressed, confirmed 

sources of funding, an implementation schedule (including interim milestones and 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 119

the date by which designated uses will be restored), and any enforcement 

programs or local ordinances, if the management strategy is not voluntary. 

4. A Description of Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Results—a 

description of the water quality monitoring program to be implemented (including 

station locations, parameters sampled, and sampling frequencies) to demonstrate 

reasonable progress; quality assurance/quality control elements that demonstrate 

the monitoring will comply with Rule 62-160, F.A.C.; procedures for entering all 

appropriate data into STORET; the responsible monitoring and reporting entity; 

the frequency and format for reporting results; the frequency and format for 

reporting on the implementation of all proposed management activities; and 

methods for evaluating progress towards goals. 

5. A Description of Proposed Corrective Actions—a description of proposed 

corrective actions (and any supporting document[s]) that will be undertaken if 

water quality does not improve after implementation of the management actions 

or if management actions are not completed on schedule, and a process for 

notifying the Department that these corrective actions are being implemented. 

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals 

Some of the most important elements listed above are the requirements to provide 

water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals and a discussion on how resultant 

pollutant(s) reduction targets/goals will result in restoration of designated uses. Some 

people have expressed concern about these targets because they equate a water quality–

based restoration target with a TMDL (thus assuming a “Catch 22” that a TMDL is 

needed to make a demonstration that a TMDL is not needed). However, as is also the 

case for TMDLs, water quality–based targets can take many forms, and need not be a 

result of a complex hydrodynamic/water quality model. 

In some cases, there may be sufficient historical data (paleolimnological data, 

loadings from periods predating the impairment, or baseline data for Outstanding Florida 

Waters2

, for example) that could be used to determine an appropriate water quality target. 

In other cases, simplified modeling (including regression analysis) may allow for 

conservative estimates of the assimilative capacity that could then be used as the basis for 

restoration goals. And, finally, a water quality target may have been developed that 

would be scientifically equivalent to (or act as the basis for) a TMDL, but the target has 

not been administratively adopted as a TMDL. In each of these cases, a sound water 

quality target could be used to evaluate whether the proposed pollution control 

mechanisms will sufficiently reduce loadings to meet the assimilative capacity of the 

water in question and result in attainment of designated uses. 

 

2

 Baseline data would be data for the year prior to designation of the OFW. 
120 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Interim Targets 

Because it will usually take many years to restore fully the designated uses of an 

impaired water, interim water quality targets will often be needed to measure whether 

reasonable progress is being made towards the restoration of designated uses. Examples 

of such interim targets are provided in the last section of this document, but site-specific 

measures are also encouraged. 

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets 

While the averaging period for water quality–based targets should be consistent with 

how the underlying standard is expressed, they can often be expressed in a variety of 

ways and need not be expressed as “daily loads.” Annual averages or medians are often 

appropriate for some parameters, but shorter-term (seasonal, for example) averages may 

be necessary if the impairment is limited to specific seasons or parts of the year. Multiyear averages may be appropriate in limited circumstances where there is naturally high 

variation of the water quality target. 

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions 

It will often be difficult to estimate precisely the pollutant reductions that will result 

from specific restoration activities. This is particularly true for the implementation of 

best management practices (BMPs). However, to provide reasonable assurance that a 

BMP or other restoration action will reduce loadings of the pollutant of concern to a level 

that will restore the water’s designated uses, documentation should address how the 

reductions were calculated, including providing documented values from the scientific 

literature for reductions attributed to similar management actions. If the expected 

reductions are expressed as a range, the midpoint of the range should be used as the basis 

for estimating reductions, unless documentation is provided supporting the use of 

different removal efficiencies in this specific application. 

New Sources/Growth 

Another key element is the discussion on how future growth and new sources will be 

addressed. Restoration goals must address possible increased loadings of the pollutant of 

concern that are anticipated due to population growth or land use changes in contributing 

watersheds, both from point and nonpoint sources. This will be particularly important for 

waters impaired by nutrients, given that so many Florida watersheds are faced with 

continuing urban, residential, and agricultural development that results in increased 

nutrient loading from stormwater, septic tanks, and wastewater discharges. 

Examples of Reasonable Progress 

The determination of whether there will be reasonable progress towards attainment 

of water quality standards will be very site- and pollutant-specific. Documentation 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 121

should be provided supporting specific progress towards restoration of the designated 

uses of the impaired water. Possible examples of reasonable progress include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

• A written commitment to implement controls reducing loadings within a specified 

time frame from watershed stakeholders representing at least 50 percent of the 

anthropogenic load of the pollutant(s) of concern; 

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent reduction (or alternatively, a percent reduction 

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in annual 

anthropogenic loading of the pollutant(s) of concern; 

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent decrease (or alternatively, a percent decrease 

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in the annual 

average concentration of the pollutant(s) of concern in the water; 

• Bioassessment results showing there has been an improvement in the health of the 

biological community of the water, as measured by bioassessment procedures similar 

to those used to determine impairment and conducted in similar conditions; or 

• Adoption of a local ordinance that specifically provides water quality goals, restricts 

growth or loads tied to the pollutant(s) of concern, and provides an enforcement 

option if the proposed management measure(s) are not implemented as required. 

Reasonable progress must be made by the time the next 303(d) list is due to be 

submitted to EPA, which is currently every two years. EPA has contemplated changing 

the listing cycle to every four or five years, and the IWR was specifically worded to 

allow a longer time frame for requiring reasonable progress in the event that the listing 

cycle changes. 

Long-Term Requirements

If at any time the Department determines that reasonable assurance and reasonable 

progress are not being met, the order adopting the Verified List will be amended to 

include the waterbody on the Verified List for the pollutant(s) in question. Additional 

reasonable progress must be made each time a waterbody is considered for listing under 

Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (every five years). 

If you have any questions about this guidance memo, contact Daryll Joyner of the 

Department’s Bureau of Watershed Management in Tallahassee at 850-245-8431. 
122 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Appendix D: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river basins, the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (Department) evaluates water quality data using 

the science-based methodology in the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

(IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The rule establishes 

specific criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data 

quality requirements. The methodology described in the rule is based on a statistical 

approach designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality 

assessment is correct. The complete text of the IWR is available at 

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

As part of the watershed management approach, for each river basin in the state the 

Department will follow the methodology in Section 62-303.300, F.A.C., to develop a 

Planning List of potentially impaired waters to be assessed under Subsections 403.067(2) 

and (3), Florida Statutes (F.S.). 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. Data older than 10 years cannot be used to evaluate water 

quality criteria exceedances for the Planning List. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), 

F.S., the Planning List will not be used to administer or implement any regulatory 

program, and is submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

informational purposes only. 

After further assessment, using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, 

F.A.C., the Department will determine if waters on the Planning List are, in fact, 

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. These waters are 

placed on a Verified List. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those 

for the Planning List. Data older than 7.5 years should not be used to verify impairment. 

The Verified List will be adopted by Secretarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for 

approval as Florida’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Department will 

develop TMDLs for these waters under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. 

Attainment of Designated Use(s) 

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the surface 

water quality classification system described previously, it is important to note that the 

EPA uses slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because the 

Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report 

and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology 

when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision 

processes for listing impaired waters that are defined in Florida’s IWR are based on the 

following designated use attainment categories: 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 123

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment 

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment 

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment 

Drinking Water Use Attainment 

Protection of Human Health 

Table D.1 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various surface 

water classifications. 

Table D.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida 

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in 

IWR Evaluation Applicable Florida Surface Water Classification 

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment Class I, II, and III 

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment Class I, II, and III 

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment Class II 

Drinking Water Use Attainment Class I 

Protection of Human Health Class I, II, and III 

Sources of Data 

The Department’s assessment of water quality for each basin statewide includes an 

analysis of quantitative data from a variety of sources, many of which are readily 

available to the public. These sources include the EPA’s Legacy and modernized 

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 

Department, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), the water management districts, 

local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. 

Historically, the Department carried out statewide water quality assessments using 

data available in the EPA’s Legacy STORET Database; STORET makes up 

approximately 60 percent of the statewide data used in the IWR assessment. The Legacy 

STORET dataset is a repository of data collected and uploaded by numerous 

organizations through 1999. The Legacy STORET Database can be accessed at 

http://www.epa.gov/storpubl/legacy/gateway.htm. 

In 2000, the EPA created a modernized version of STORET that included new 

features designed to address data quality assurance/quality control concerns (see the new 

STORET Web site at http://www.epa.gov/storet/. However, because of software 

difficulties associated with batch uploading of data to the modernized STORET, the data 

being uploaded to the national repository decreased dramatically, and lingering problems 

have temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses 

only about 5 percent of the statewide IWR Database. 

Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the IWR assessment was provided by 

individual organizations that for various reasons, such as time constraints or resource 

limitations, were not able to enter their data into the national database. The organizations 

providing the largest datasets include the South Florida, Southwest Florida, and St. Johns 

River Water Management Districts; the USGS; and the University of Florida LakeWatch 

volunteer monitoring group. Several of these databases are readily available to the public 
124 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

via the Internet: the South Florida Water Management District at 

http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/, the USGS at http://water.usgs.gov/, and LakeWatch at 

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/. 

The Department created the IWR Database in 2002 to evaluate data simultaneously 

in accordance with the IWR methodology for every basin in the state, based on the 

appropriate data “window.” For the Verified List assessment, the window is 7.5 years 

(for the IWR Database), and the Planning List assessment window is 10 years. Table 

D.2 shows the periods of record for the Verified and Planning Lists for the 5 basin 

groups. 

The evaluation of water quality in the state’s basins also includes some qualitative 

information. These sources are described in the Basin Status Reports and Water Quality 

Assessment Reports for each basin. 

Table D.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle 

Basin Group Reporting Period of Data Record Used in IWR 

Evaluation 

Group 1 Planning List January 1, 1989 – December 31, 1998 

 Verified List January 1, 1995 – June 30, 2002 

Group 2 Planning List January 1, 1991 – December 31, 2000 

 Verified List January 1, 1996 – June 30, 2003 

Group 3 Planning List January 1, 1992 – December 31, 2001 

 Verified List January 1, 1997 – June 30, 2004 

Group 4 Planning List January 1, 1993 – December 31, 2002 

 Verified List January 1, 1998 – June 30, 2005 

Group 5 Planning List January 1, 1994 – December 31, 2003 

 Verified List January 1, 1999 – June 30, 2006 

Note: Typically, a 10-year data record is used for the development of the Planning Lists, and a 7.5-

year record is used for the Verified Lists. 

Methodology 

To determine the status of surface water quality in individual river basins in Florida, 

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

advisories—were evaluated to determine potential impairments for the four designated 

use attainment categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, 

fish and shellfish consumption, drinking water use, and protection of human health. 

Aquatic Life Based Attainment 

The IWR follows the principle of independent applicability. A waterbody is listed 

for potential impairment of aquatic life use support based on exceedances of any one of 

four types of water quality indicators (numeric water quality criteria, nutrient thresholds, 

biological thresholds, and toxicity data). 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 125

EXCEEDANCES OF NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for 

preparing the state’s 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations were 

included in the assessment of impairment. Water quality information from point sources 

or wells was excluded. Monitoring stations were classified as one of five waterbody 

types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria described in the 

latest 305(b) report. The assessments 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, unionized ammonia 

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List included a minimum of 10 

temporally independent samples from the 10-year period of record shown in Table D.2,

unless there were 3 exceedances of water quality or 1 exceedance of an acute toxicity 

criterion in a 3-year period. The screening methodology for the Verified List requires at 

least 20 samples from the last 5 years preceding the Planning List assessment. An 

exceedance, meaning that water quality criteria or standards are not met, is recorded any 

time the criterion is exceeded by any amount. An exceedance for DO, however, means 

that a waterbody does not meet the DO criterion, rather than an actual exceedance of the 

criterion. 

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 assess the data, based 

on criteria established 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 are not included. They will be further examined while additional data are 

collected during Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. Data analysis and 

statistical summaries of waterbody identification numbers (WBIDs), waterbody types, 

and parameters obtained from the STORET Database were conducted using Access, SAS 

statistical software, and ArcView geographic information system (GIS) applications 

The data for metals and conventional parameters were compared with the state 

surface water quality criteria in Section 62-302.530, F.A.C. (IWR). The rule contains a 

table of sample numbers versus exceedances. A waterbody 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. To be placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 

percent confidence rate was required. 
126 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

EXCEEDANCES OF NUTRIENT THRESHOLDS

The state currently has a narrative nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for 

nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient 

concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural 

populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The IWR provides an interpretation of the 

narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the Trophic State Index (TSI) and the annual 

mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whether a waterbody 

should be assessed further for nutrient impairment. 

The rule also considers other information that might indicate an imbalance in flora or 

fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a 

decrease in the distribution (either in density or aerial coverage) of seagrasses or other 

submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel 

oxygen swings. 

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 micrograms per liter (μg/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 μg/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 (PCUs) was 

considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean 

color less than or equal to 40 PCUs 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 2000 period, or if TSI measurements were 10 units 

higher than historical values. 

EXCEEDANCES OF BIOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS

Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and rivers using the IWR 

as guidance and following the Department’s standard operating procedures, which 

provide definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment 

data. These are referenced in the individual bioassessment data tables contained in the 

Water Quality Status Reports. The purpose behind using a 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. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 127

For the Planning and Verified List assessments, 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. Data on community structure and function from waters of unknown 

quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of 

metrics to evaluate their biological integrity. 

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 and 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 Planning and Verified Lists. The data included sites 

designated as test and background sites for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (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 [Definition: Of, on, or relating to the 

banks of a natural course of water.] buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of 

reporting, it was not included. However, this information is instrumental in pinpointing 

the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and will be included in future reporting. 

The data used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists were obtained from the 

Department’s Biological Database (SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality 

Database, where it could be substantiated that the data were generated in compliance with 

the bioassessment standard operating procedures referenced in the IWR (Section 62-

303.330, F.A.C.). 

The data from these databases are used without regard to the randomness of sample 

site selection. For the purposes of the Basin Status Reports, 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 in the state as a whole. 

LAKE CONDITION INDEX

The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except 

percent Diptera, was 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: 
128 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

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 in 

the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders 

Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; ShannonWiener Diversity Index score; Hulbert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals. 

LCI calculations were only provided for clear lakes (< 20 PCUs). As macroinvertebratebased indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in Florida accurately (> 20 

PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A poor or very poor rating based 

on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR. 

STREAM CONDITION INDEX

A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of 

the seven metrics in the method: 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. A 

poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed bioassessment, based 

on the IWR. The Basin Status Reports contain definitions and specific methods for the 

generation and analysis of bioassessment data. 

BIORECON

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used: 

the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three 

metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the IWR. 

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY STANDARD 

Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester-Dendy artificial substrate 

samplers, were used to calculate Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index scores for paired 

background and test sites, as specified in the Biological Integrity Standard of Subsection 

62-302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the standard meant that a waterbody segment was 

listed as potentially impaired. 

EVALUATION OF TOXICITY DATA

Although the IWR describes the use of toxicity data for the assessment of aquatic 

life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity data are available for assessment and this 

metric was not used. 

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment 

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if the following 

criteria were met: 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 129

• The waterbody segment did not meet the applicable water quality criteria for 

bacteriological quality, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed by a local health 

department or county government for more than 1 week or more than once during a 

calendar year based on bacteriological data, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area for which a local health department 

or county government issued closures, advisories, or warnings totaling 21 days or 

more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed or had advisories or 

warnings for more than 12 weeks during a calendar year based on previous 

bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or 

flow. 

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment 

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet 

the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, or if a fish 

consumption advisory had been issued. Fish consumption advisories were based on the 

FDOH’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories for surface waters 

because of high levels of mercury in fish tissue. In addition, for Class II waters, 

waterbody segments that had been approved for shellfish harvesting but were 

downgraded to a more restrictive classification were listed as potentially impaired. 

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health 

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the 

applicable Class I water quality criteria. 
130 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Appendix E: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the 

Nassau–St. Marys Basin 

Data collected since the 1998 update of the 303(d) list were used to update the listing 

status of waters. Table E.1 contains the listing status of all assessed waters in the basin 

as of November 3, 2005. Information in this appendix was obtained from an inventory of 

the Legacy and modernized STORET databases, as well as data contributed directly to 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) by individual data 

providers. Table E.2 includes only stations with data from the Planning and Verified 

assessment periods. Table E.3 contains water quality trend data by planning unit. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Table E.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by Planning Unit 

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097A 

ST. MARYS RIV AB ICWW ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 LOW 2010 

PP TN/TP RATIO = 9= 0.050 mg/L; PP N = CHLOROPHYLL - PP 1993. VP TN/TP = 7.= 0.085 μg/L; N = 18. FROM 2004 - ANNUAPROPOSE TO DELIS

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097A 

ST. MARYS RIV AB ICWW ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH ND 3C LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097A 

ST. MARYS RIV AB ICWW ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 

PP - 0/7 VP - 0/25 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097A 

ST. MARYS RIV AB ICWW ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

PP - 0/6 VP - 0/20 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097A 

ST. MARYS RIV AB ICWW ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

PP - 0/4 VP - 0/202 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097A 

ST. MARYS RIV AB ICWW ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 

PP - 0/7 VP - 0/21 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097B 

ST. MARYS RIVER ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 LOW 2010 

PP TN/TP RATIO = 1TP = 0.064 mg/L; PP VP TN/TP = 9.64; ME= 0.078 μg/L (N = 25)FROM 2004. 2004 ATO DELIST.

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097B 

ST. MARYS RIVER ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 0/7 VP - 3/29 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097B 

ST. MARYS RIVER ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/4 VP - 0/20 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097B 

ST. MARYS RIVER ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/4 VP - 0/202 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097B 

ST. MARYS RIVER ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/1 VPV - 0/22 
132 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C LOW 2010 

VP - 30/129 EXCEEDAVERAGE = 5.3 mg/Lmg/L. CAUSATIVE PMEDIAN = 1.12 mg/L0.046 mg/L) CONCENTHRESHOLDS. BOD LEVEL (2 mg/L) - BOmg/L, PP MIN = 0.90 2000, 2001.; VP MEMIN = 0.90 mg/L, VP MOVED TO PLANNININVESTIGATE WHETCONDITION OR A P

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TSS NI 2 LOW 2010 

PP MEDIAN = 8 mg/LN = 83, DATA FROM 2001, 2002. VP MED= 67 mg/L, VP N = 122003, 2004. TURBIDDELIST.

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 

PP - 1/104 EXCEEDA1.8 NTU, PP MAX = 51996, 1997, 1998, 199NTU, VP MEDIAN = 4 NTU (ALL VALUES BOF 50 NTU), DATA F

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

FECAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 LOW 2010 

(#/100 ML) VP = 6/91 1,300; MEDIAN = 76. DELIST

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

TOTAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 LOW 2010 

(#/100 ML)VP - 1/68 E4,000; MEDIAN = 290DELIST

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM COPPER PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 6/22 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM FLUORIDE NI 2 PP - 0/87 VP - 0/110 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 21/21 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM LEAD NI 2 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 0/22 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 LOW 2010 

PP TN/TP RATIO = 2MEDIAN TP = 0.04 m1995, 1996, 1997, 19923.61; VP MEDIAN T0.046 mg/L (N = 104)2003, 2004. CHLOROMEDIANS NOT ABOV

CHLOROPHYLL - PP 3.17 μg/L, VP MEDIA89, ANNUAL AVERAG2002. VP AVERAGE VP MEDIAN VALUE (= 89. ANNUAL AVER2003, 2004. HIGHESFROM 1999 = 2.71μg

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

CHLOROPHYLL 

(HISTORICAL) NI 2 LOW 2010 

HIGHEST ANNUAL AA BACKGROUND OF PERCENT FOR TWO 1998, 1999, 2001 - 20

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097C 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ZINC NI 2 PP - 1/23 VP - 0/7 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ANTIMONY ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/8 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/8 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM CADMIUM ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/7 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/8 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM COPPER ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/8 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C* 

VP - 12/32 EXCEEDA= 8.20 mg/L; VP MIN ABOVE THRESHOLD PP MAX = 2 mg/L, PP 1993, 1994, 1998; VMIN = 1 mg/L, VP N = mg/L, VP MIN = 1 mg1.5 mg/L, VP N = 43. EVALUATION. MOVTO INVESTIGATE WCONDITIONS OR A CBOD DO NOT EXCEE
134 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

PP TN/TP RATIO = 2MEDIAN TP = 0.049 mONLY TP DATA FRO

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 3/43 VP - 3/35 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BASED ON LARGE MAVERAGE TOTAL Hg MERCURY IN FISH TWATERBODY, NOT J

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM LEAD ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/7 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM NICKEL ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/8 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/8 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM THALLIUM ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/8 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 6/6 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM SILVER ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/6 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM IRON ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 6/6 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/62 VP - 0/43 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA NI 2 PP - 0/26 VP - 0/12 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097D 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/8 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2098 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2099 

UNNAMED CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2099 

UNNAMED CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2099 

UNNAMED CREEK STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2100 

UNNAMED CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2101 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2102 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2103 

CABBAGE CREEK STREAM ND 3A BLACKWATER STRE

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2104 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2106 

LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C LOW 2010 

PP - 10/13 EXCEEDAAVERAGE = 3.16 mgmg/L, DATA FROM 1EXCEEDANCES, VP mg/L, VP MAX = 7.4 m2000, 2001, 2004. MODEPARTMENT TO INA NATURAL CONDIT

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2106 

LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 LOW 2010 

PP TN/TP RATIO = 3MEDIAN TP = 0.06 m1995, 2000, 2001. V1.08 mg/L (N = 20), VFROM 2000, 2001, 20μg/L; VP MIN = 1.0 μgTP BELOW THRESH

ABOVE 20 μg/L. 2002.754 μg/L. PROPOS

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2106 

LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

VERIFY DATA ARE W

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2106 

LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

FECAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 LOW 2010 

(#/100 ML)VP - 4/21 E1,350; MEDIAN = 140MEETS STANDARDS

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2106 

LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

TOTAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 LOW 2010 

(#/100 ML) VP - 4/21 10,000; MEDIAN = 1,DELIST

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2106 

LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2 

1994 - "EXCELLENT" 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2106 

LITTLE ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/15 VP - 0/27 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2108 

COSSIERS CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2109 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2110 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 
136 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2111 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2113 

WHITE OAK SWAMP STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2116 

WILDER SWAMP STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2117 

LOWER SISTER CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2119 

HILLIARD BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2121 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 HIGH 2005 

NO DATA FROM PP. = 0.624 mg/L(N = 29)DATA FROM 2000, 2DATA MEDIAN = 1 μg= 27. ONE VALUE IN TO BE 1.1 μg/L - BASCHLOROPHYLL = 1.2

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 0/4 VP - 0/27 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/1 VP - 3/21 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/0 VP - 0/21 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/4 VP - 0/22 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2126 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2126 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2126 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 0/1 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2126 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2126 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2127 EGANS CREEK ESTUARY ND 3A 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2128 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2137 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2140 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/4 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2140 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 1/2 VP - 1/2 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2140 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY 

SHELLFISH 

(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VERIFIED DUE TO DHARVESTING CLASS

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2140 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2141 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129 

LOWER ST. MARYS OCEAN ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129A SADLER ROAD ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129A SADLER ROAD ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129B MAIN BEACH ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 1/201 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129B MAIN BEACH ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129C 

OCEAN STREET ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129C 

OCEAN STREET ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129D 

FORT CLINCH BEACH ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201 

LOWER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 8129D 

FORT CLINCH BEACH ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.
138 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097E 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BASED ON LARGE MAVERAGE TOTAL Hg MERCURY IN FISH TWATERBODY, NOT J

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM BOD NI 2 LOW 2010 

BLACKWATER STREAVERAGE = 1.89 mg2003, 2004. MEDIAN BUT NO VALUES ABSTANDARDS. PROP

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

MEDIAN = 7.45 mg/L2000, 2001, 2004. M

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BASED ON LARGE MAVERAGE TOTAL Hg MERCURY IN FISH TWATERBODY, NOT J

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM IRON ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 2/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM THALLIUM ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ANTIMONY ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM LEAD ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM NICKEL ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 2/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM SILVER ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 2/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM COPPER ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM CADMIUM ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 

2004 ANNUAL AVER

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097F 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ANTIMONY ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM CADMIUM ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM NICKEL ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM THALLIUM ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM COPPER ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BASED ON LARGE MAVERAGE TOTAL Hg MERCURY IN FISH TWATERBODY, NOT J
140 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM IRON ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM LEAD PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 3/5 V

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097G 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2105 

PIGEON CREEK STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2 

NINE SCI SCORES F"EXCELLENT;" ONE 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2105 

PIGEON CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B PP - 1/8 VP - 0/3 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2105 

PIGEON CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/8 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2105 

PIGEON CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/7 VP - 0/1 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2105 

PIGEON CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/8 VP - 0/2 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2105A 

HAMPTON LAKE LAKE ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2105B 

HAMPTON LAKE OUTLET LAKE ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2107 

UNNAMED STREAM STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2112 BRUSH CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2115 

LITTLE DUNN CREEK STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2115 

LITTLE DUNN CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2115 

LITTLE DUNN CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2115 

LITTLE DUNN CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2115 

LITTLE DUNN CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2123 DUNN CREEK STREAM ND 3A BLACKWATER STRE
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2134 

CROSS BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2144 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2146 

STAVE BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2150 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2152 DEEP CREEK STREAM ND 3A BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2154 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2160 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2167 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2178 

UNNAMED STREAM STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2180 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2185 

UNNAMED CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEK STREAM BIOLOGY PL 3C* 

BLACKWATER STRE1998 WERE "EXCELLAND 2000 BIORECOCAUSATIVE POLLUTCRITERIA SET FORTIMPARIED, HOWEVEPLANNING LIST PENPOLLUTANT 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE IMPAIRPOLLUTANT TO BIO

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE
142 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEK STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

MIDDLE ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2219 

UNNAMED CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2313 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097H 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BASED ON LARGE MAVERAGE TOTAL Hg MERCURY IN FISH TWATERBODY, NOT J

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097H 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B PP - 0/3 VP - 0/12 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097H 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/12 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097H 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097H 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 2/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097H 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097H 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM IRON ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 4/10 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097H 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097I 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 LOW 2010 

BLACKWATER STRERATIO = 33.24; PP NPHOSPHOROUS ME1993, 1994. VP - TN/1.2 mg/L; VP PHOSPCHLOROPHYLL VALANNUAL AVERAGE 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097I 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BASED ON LARGE MAVERAGE TOTAL Hg MERCURY IN FISH TWATERBODY, NOT J

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097I 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097I 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097I 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097I 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097I 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097J 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM BOD PL 3B LOW 2010 

NO DATA FROM PP. ARE 2 mg/L. NO VALALTHOGH NOT ENO

VALUE THUS FAR IS ON PLANNING LIST CAN BE OBTAINED. 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097J 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097J 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011 

BASED ON LARGE MAVERAGE TOTAL Hg MERCURY IN FISH TWATERBODY, NOT J

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097J 

ST. MARYS RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B 

NO DATA FROM PP. VP MAX = 11.3 mg/L, 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BLACKWATER STRE19 SAMPLES WITH A2004. ANY TMDL FOTHE WHOLE WATER

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

1996 ARE "EXCELLE"GOOD;" ONE BIOR

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM CADMIUM ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRECONCENTRATION = 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001999 = 15.97 - ALL Oμg/L. 
144 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM COPPER PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C 

VP - 6/25 EXCEEDAN= 6.59 mg/L, VP MIN IDENTIFY CAUSATIVPOLLUTANT CAN BPLANNING LIST.

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM 

CHLOROPHYLL 

(HISTORICAL) NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE15.96 μg/L (1999); AL2.61 μg/L. BASED ONOT INCREASED >5YEARS. DATA FROM 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM ANTIMONY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/3 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/4 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM MERCURY ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 2/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM THALLIUM ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM SILVER ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 2/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/4 V - 0/7 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM IRON PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE IMPAIR

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM LEAD PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE IMPAIR

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM NICKEL ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2097K 

ST. MARYS R. N. PRONG STREAM ZINC NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2163 

MOCCASIN CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2163 

MOCCASIN CREEK STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2163 

MOCCASIN CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2163 

MOCCASIN CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2163 

MOCCASIN CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2165 

CROSS BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2192 LITTLE RIVER STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2194 

SPARKMAN BAY DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2195 

GUM SWAMP CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2199 ELLIS BAY STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2208 OTTER DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) PL 3C LOW 2011 

BLACKWATER STREYEARS. 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

FECAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 LOW 2011 

BLACKWATER STREPP AVERAGE = 246, MIN = 17, DATA FROEXCEEDANCES, VP MAX = 410, VP MIN = 2004. 
146 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

TOTAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 LOW 2010 

BLACKWATER STREPP AVERAGE = 610, MIN = 150, PP DATA 1/25 EXCEEDANCESVP MAX = 25,000, VP 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM ARSENIC NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE2000 WERE "EXCELL

2000 WERE "HEALTH

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM CADMIUM PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE IMPAIR

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE2001 = 2.237 μg/L. 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

CHLOROPHYLL 

(HISTORICAL) NI 2 

HIGHEST ANNUAL AA BACKGROUND OF PERCENT FOR TWO 1998 - 2004. 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM CHROMIUM 3 NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM COPPER PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE IMPAIR

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C* 

BLACKWATER STREPP MAX = 12.1 mg/L, 200. VP - 17/60 EXCMAX = 10.1 mg/L, VP MOVED TO PLANNINATTEMPTS TO DETENATURAL CONDITIO= 1.00 mg/L, PP MAX 9, DATA FROM 19941.05 mg/L, VP MAX = DATA FROM 1998, 2VP TP MEDIAN = 0.0THRESHOLD LEVEL
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM IRON VL 5 LOW 2010 

BLACKWATER STREMEDIAN = 766 μg/L, DATA FROM 1994-20MEDIAN = 637 μg/L, DATA FROM 1998-20

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM LEAD PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE IMPAIR

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM LINDANE ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM NICKEL NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM SELENIUM NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM SILVER PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE IMPAIR

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2211 

MIDDLE PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM ZINC NI 2 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2214 

UNNAMED DITCHES STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2215 

OCEAN BAY DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2217 UNNAMED RUN STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2222 BLUFF CREEK STREAM ND 3A BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2225 

UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 
148 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2226 

BRANDY BRANCH STREAM BIOLOGY PL 3C* 

TWO BIORECON RENEED TO DETERMINPARAMETER MEETS FOR VERIFICATION 

MOVED TO THE PLAOF CAUSATIVE POLEXCEED THRESHOLINSUFFICIENT DATA 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2226 

BRANDY BRANCH STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS/POTENTIAL PP - 9/9 VP - 9/9

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2226 

BRANDY BRANCH STREAM BOD ID 3B 

ONE VALUE FROM 1TO DETERMINE IMPBIOLOGY CAUSATIV

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2226 

BRANDY BRANCH STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ND 3A 

MORE DATA NEEDEAND BIOLOGY IMPA

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2226 

BRANDY BRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 2/8 VP - 2/8 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2226 

BRANDY BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/3 VP - 0/3 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2229 BILL BRANCH STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2229 BILL BRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2229 BILL BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2230 

BEAR BAY BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2236 

DAUGHERTY BRANCH STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2236 

DAUGHERTY BRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2236 

DAUGHERTY BRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2236 

DAUGHERTY BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2241 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2242 CEDAR CREEK STREAM ND 3A BLACKWATER STRE
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2242A 

CEDAR CREEK OUTLET STREAM ND 3A BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM CADMIUM ID 3B PP - 1/4 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C* 

PP - 32/70 EXCEEDA= 2.75 mg/L, PP MAX DATA FROM 1993 - 2MEDIAN = 4.61 mg/LVP AVERAGE = 5.14 IDENTIFY CAUSATIVMEETS THE CRITERVERIFICATION AS IMMOVED TO THE PLAOF CAUSATIVE POLEXCEED THRESHOLFROM PP, PP BOD MBOD FROM VP 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

NO PHOSPHOROUS 1.46 mg/L, PP TN MIN = 15, DATA FROM 19DATA NEEDED TO DPOLLUTANT.

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 5/31 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 2/10 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM IRON ID 3B PP - 2/4 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM LEAD PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. 4/4 VP - 0

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM NICKEL ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA NI 2 PP - 0/41 VP - 0/9 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 
150 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEK STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2247 

SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2 

SCORE FROM 2001 

BIORECON IS "HEAL

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2247 

SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B 

PP - 0/1 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2247 

SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

PP - 0/4 VP - 0/4 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2247 

SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

PP - 0/4 VP - 0/4 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2247 

SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2247 

SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B 

PP - 0/3 VP - 0/3 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2247 

SOUTH PRONG ST. MARYS STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B 

PP - 0/4 VP - 0/5 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2250 

UNNAMED DITCHES STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2255 

BALDWIN BAY DITCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2258 BAY BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2261 

UNNAMED DITCHES STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2263 

UNNAMED DITCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2264 

CALKINS CREEK STREAM BIOLOGY PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STRE

1997 WERE "EXCELL"SUSPECT," SCI FRO2001 WAS "EXCELLEPOSSIBLY NEED TO IMPAIRMENT STATU
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2264 

CALKINS CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE IMPAIRPOLLUTANT TO BIO

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2264 

CALKINS CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STREDETERMINE POTEN

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2264 

CALKINS CREEK STREAM BOD ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STREmg/L, PP MAX = 2.0 mVP MIN = 1.1, VP MA

NEEDED TO DETERIMPAIRMENTS

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2264 

CALKINS CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2264 

CALKINS CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2264 

CALKINS CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B 

BLACKWATER STRE

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2267 

UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2267 

UNNAMED STREAM STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2267 

UNNAMED STREAM STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2267 

UNNAMED STREAM STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2268 

SCOUT POND DRAIN LAKE ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2269 

UNNAMED DITCHES STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2274 

DINKINS BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2275 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2276 

BRUSHY BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2279 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2279 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 
152 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2279 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2279 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2281 

UNNAMED DITCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2285 

UNNAMED DITCHES STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2288 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2288 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 1/2 VP - 1/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2288 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2288 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2289 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2291 

UNNAMED DITCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2292 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2292 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2292 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2292 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2296 

UNNAMED DITCHES STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2298 

UNNAMED DITCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2300 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2301 

YELLOW WATER CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2301 

YELLOW WATER CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2301 

YELLOW WATER CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2303 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2307 

UNNAMED DITCH STREAM ND 3A 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2311 

UNNAMED DITCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2314 UNNAMED RUN STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2 

TWO SCI SCORES IN 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM COPPER ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 4/4 V

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM BOD ND 3A 

POTENTIAL CAUSATDATA NEEDED 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

ONE TP VALUE FRODETERMINE IMPAIRCAUSATIVE POLLUT

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 2/4 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 3/4 V

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM LEAD ID 3B PP - 2/3 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA ID 3B PP - 1/4 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2318 

TURKEY CREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 1/4 VP - 0/0 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2325 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2329 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2331 

UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 
154 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2337 

JOHN ROW BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 0/11 VP - 0/4 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

PP - 1/20 (DATA FRO

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

PP - 0/14 (DATA FRO

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

FISH TISSUE MERCUμg/L FOR 2002 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE TSI ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/10 VP - 0/4 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/6 VP - 0/3 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2339A 

OCEAN POND OUTLET LAKE ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2348 

UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2354 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2360 OAK BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2371 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2373 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2383 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2392 

PALESTINE LAKE STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2392 

PALESTINE LAKE STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/8 VP - 0/2 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2392 

PALESTINE LAKE STREAM TSI ID 3B 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2392 

PALESTINE LAKE STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/3 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2392 

PALESTINE LAKE STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/7 VP - 0/4 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2392 

PALESTINE LAKE STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA ID 3B PP - 0/3 VP - 0/0 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2392 

PALESTINE LAKE STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/3 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2392A 

PALESTINE LAKE DRAIN LAKE ND 3A 

UPPER ST. 

MARYS RIVER 2393 

WAMPEE BAY DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2155 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2156 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VP - 15/22 EXCEEDAAVERAGE = 4.31 mgDATA FROM 2003, 22.016 mg/L, VP TP = THRESHOLDS. NO 

NASSAU RIVER 2156 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 HIGH 2005 

ONLY ENOUGH DATAVERAGE = 1.219 μg

NASSAU RIVER 2156 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 0/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2156 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 

FECAL 

COLIFORMS VL 5 HIGH 2005 

(#/100 ML) VP - 7/22 292, VP AVERAGE = FROM 2003, 2004. 

NASSAU RIVER 2156 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 

TOTAL 

COLIFORMS VL 5 HIGH 2005 

(#/100 ML) VP - 7/22 1,627, VP AVERAGE DATA FROM 2003, 2

NASSAU RIVER 2118 

MCQUEEN CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 HIGH 2005 

NO DATA FROM PP. mg/L, VP TN/TP RAT2003, 2004. ALL CHLEXCEPT FOR ONE (6= 4.25 μg/L (ONLY YECALCULATE. PROP

NASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAM 

FECAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 HIGH 2005 

(#/100 ML) ONE VALEXCEEDANCES, VP 950, VP N = 22, VP E2004. MEETS STAN
156 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAM 

TOTAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 HIGH 2005 

(#/100 ML) NO DATA MEDIAN = 659, VP MEXCEEDANCES = 3, STANDARDS - PROP

NASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C* 

ONE VALUE FROM PVP MEDIAN = 3.7 mgVP AVERAGE = 3.68 TO IDENTIFY CAUSATHRESHOLD LEVELDATA. THIS PARAMIN THE IWR FOR VEHAS BEEN MOVED TIDENTIFICATION OF NOR TP EXCEED TH

NASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/0 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM BIOLOGY PL 3C 

ONE BIORECON SCOMORE DATA NEEDE

NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM CADMIUM ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM COPPER ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B 

POTENTIAL CAUSATDATA NEEDED PP 

NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM BOD ID 3B 

POTENTIAL CAUSATDATA NEEDED 

NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/3 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/3 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM IRON ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM NICKEL ID 3B VP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/3 NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 NASSAU RIVER 2122 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2125 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY ALUMINUM ID 3B PP - 1/9 VP - 1/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY CADMIUM ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY COPPER ID 3B PP - 1/14 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 1/36 VP - 1/26 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/9 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 9/9 V

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 2/34 VP - 2/26 

NASSAU RIVER 2129 

LOFTON CREEK ESTUARY ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 HIGH 2005 

MOSTLY CO-LIMITELIMITATION. PP TN/Tmg/L; MEDIAN TP = 0VP TN/TP RATIO = 2VP MEDIAN TP = 0.02004. DATA FROM FROM 2004 (ONLY YCALCULATE) = 4.56 THRESHOLD LEVEL ELEVATED. PROPO

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 HIGH 2005 

PP - 2/24, PP MEDIA= 275 NTU, PP AVER1999. VP - 3/45 VP MMAX = 275 NTU, VP A1998, 1999, 2004. MDELIST
158 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C HIGH 2005 

PP - 22/24 EXCEEDA0.5 mg/L, PP MAX = 6FROM 1998-1999. V2.9 mg/L, VP MIN = 0AVERAGE = 3.61 mgBOD - PP MEDIAN = 4.00 mg/L, PP AVERA1993, 1994. NO DATLIST WHILE DEPARTNUTRIENTS OR TN.

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM BOD NI 2 

PP/VP MEDIAN = 1.9 = 24, DATA FROM 1mg/L. MEDIAN DOES 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM 

FECAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 HIGH 2005 

(#/100ML) VP - 4/44 EMIN = 3, VP MAX = 61998, 1999, 2003, 200

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM 

TOTAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 HIGH 2005 

(#/100 ML) VP - 3/21 MIN = 100, VP MAX = 1998, 1999, 2003, 200

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM CADMIUM ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM IRON ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM NICKEL ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2130 

PLUMMER CREEK STREAM BIOLOGY PL 3C* 

ONE BIORECON SCOSCIs FROM 1999 WECAUSATIVE POLLUTCRITERIA SET FORTIMPARIED, HOWEVEPLANNING LIST PENPOLLUTANT (TN, TPLEVELS) 

NASSAU RIVER 2131 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2132 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2133 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2135 SPELL SWAMP STREAM ND 3A NASSAU RIVER 2136 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2139 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2140A 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) PL 3C LOW 2010 

 PP TN/TP RATIO = 9MEDIAN TP = 0.073 mVP TN/TP RATIO = 8MEDIAN TP = 0.071 m

DATA NEEDED TO DMOVED TO PL PER 6NEEDS TO BE COLL

NASSAU RIVER 2140A 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY 

SHELLFISH 

(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VERIFIED DUE TO DHARVESTING CLASS

NASSAU RIVER 2140A 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 1/31 VP - 2/24 

NASSAU RIVER 2140A 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 19/31 VP - 2/25 

NASSAU RIVER 2140A 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 17/30 VP - 2/25 

NASSAU RIVER 2140A 

JACKSON CREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/32 VP - 0/24 

NASSAU RIVER 2142 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2143 

TOM MANN SWAMP STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2145 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2147 

GARDNER CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2148A NASSAU RIVER ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/5 

NASSAU RIVER 2148A NASSAU RIVER ESTUARY TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP -0/1 NASSAU RIVER 2148A NASSAU RIVER ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 
160 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 HIGH 2005 

PP 23/182 EXCEEDAmg/L, PP MAX = 11.016/155 EXCEEDANCmg/L, VP MAX = 11.0MEETS STANDARDS 

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM BOD NI 2 

PP MEDIAN = 1.00 mmg/L, PP AVERAGE 1998, 2000, 2001, 200mg/L, VP MIN = 0.7 mDATA FROM 1998 - 2AT THE THRESHOLDTHRESHOLD, AND D

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 HIGH 2005 

PP TN/TP RATIO = 8TP = 0.014 mg/L, PP 1997, 1998, 1999, 200(N = 136) , PP MEDIATP = 0.13 mg/L (N = 12002, 2003, 2004. TN PROPOSE TO DELISCHLOROPHYLL) - PP AVERAGES FROM 1SEE HISTORICAL CHANNUAL AVERAGE 

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM 

CHLOROPHYLL 

(HISTORICAL) NI 2 HIGH 2005 

HIGHEST ANNUAL AA BACKGROUND OF PERCENT FOR TWO 1998 - 2004. 

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 HIGH 2005 

PP - 0/177 EXCEEDAMEDIAN = 10.00 NTUEXCEEDANCES, VP NTU, VP MAX = 31, STANDARDS - PROP

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM TSS NI 2 HIGH 2005 

PP MEDIAN = 17.00 mVP MEDIAN = 19 mg/VP MAX = 300, DATA STANDARDS - PROP
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM 

FECAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 HIGH 2005 

(#/100/ml) - PP - 10/1PP MEDIAN = 48, PP DATA FROM 1993, 12002. 4/93 EXCEED= 38, VP MAX = 5,1002001, 2002, 2003, 200

TO DELIST

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM 

TOTAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 HIGH 2005 

 (#/100/ml) - PP - 5/92PP MAX = 9000, PP M1996, 1997, 1998, 199EXCEEDANCES, VP MAX = 4800, VP MIN 

MEETS STANDARDS 

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM ARSENIC NI 2 PP - 1/48 VP - 1/23 NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM CADMIUM NI 2 PP - 0/34 VP - 0/12 NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM COPPER PL 3C PP - 14/56 VP - 5/17 NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM FLUORIDE NI 2 PP - 0/85 VP - 0/109 NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM IRON VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

PP - 87/96 EXCEEDAMEDIAN = 722 μg/L, DATA FROM 1994 - 1AVERAGE = 681 μg/Lμg/L, VP MIN = 1.2 μg

NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM LEAD NI 2 PP - 6/56 VP - 1/18 NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM MERCURY ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM NICKEL PL 3C PP - 4/16 VP - 4/9 NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM SELENIUM NI 2 PP - 0/24 VP - 0/9 NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM ZINC NI 2 PP - 3/75 VP - 0/22 NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 LOW 2010 

PP TN/TP RATIO = 9TP = 0.084 mg/L, PP 1996, 1997, 1998, 200(N = 31), PP MEDIAN 0.082 mg/L (N = 33), ANNUAL AVERAGE DATA TO CALCULAT

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY ALUMINUM ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 
162 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY COPPER ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 1/71 VP - 4/61 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY 

SHELLFISH 

(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VERIFIED DUE TO DHARVESTING CLASS

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 19/40 VP - 3/32 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 18/29 VP - 2/24 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY CADMIUM ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 7/9 V

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY LEAD PL 3C 

MORE DATA NEEDESTATUS. PP - 4/4 V

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY MANGANESE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY NICKEL ID 3B PP - 2/2 VP - 1/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 1/71 VP - 0/52 

NASSAU RIVER 2149 

SOUTH AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2151 

LUMBER CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2153 

ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) PL 3B HIGH 2O05 

NITROGEN LIMITED= 1.22 mg/L (N = 19), 2001, 2004. MOVED INSUFFICIENT CHLOCHLOROPHYLL VAL

DATA ARE NEEDED IMPAIRMENT - MISSSO NO DETERMINAT
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2153 

ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C* HIGH 2005 

VP - 12/36 EXCEEDAAVERAGE = 5.89 mgmg/L, DATA FROM 2MEDIAN = 1.22 mg/L5.6 - NITROGEN LIMNO CHLOROPHYLL NUTRIENT LISTING ARE NOT A PROBLEWITH ONLY ONE VAVALUES HAVE A RETHE VALUE IS OFF SIS CAUSATIVE POLLPOLLUTANT - MAY PLANNING LIST DUE INFORMATION OF CBOD DO NOT EXCEE

NASSAU RIVER 2153 

ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2 

TWO SCI SCORES FSCI SCORES FROM SCORE FROM 2001 2001 WAS "SUSPEC

NASSAU RIVER 2153 

ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/3 VP - 3/24 

NASSAU RIVER 2153 

ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

(#/100 ML) VP - 7/23 AVERAGE = 1,870, VFROM 2001, 2004 

NASSAU RIVER 2153 

ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/3 VP - 0/25 

NASSAU RIVER 2157 

LITTLE MILL CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 LOW 2010 

VP - 0/21 EXCEEDAN= 5.15 NTU, VP MAIN FROM 2004. PROPO

NASSAU RIVER 2157 

LITTLE MILL CREEK STREAM 

FECAL 

COLIFORMS NI 2 LOW 2010 

(#/100 ML) VP - 4/21 AVERAGE = 400, VP FROM 2004. MEETS 

NASSAU RIVER 2157 

LITTLE MILL CREEK STREAM 

TOTAL 

COLIFORMS VL 5 LOW 2010 

(#/100 ML) VP - 5/21 AVERAGE = 1,825, VFROM 2004. 
164 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2157 

LITTLE MILL CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C* 

VP - 8/20 EXCEEDANAVERAGE = 5.64 mgDATA FROM 1994. NPOLLUTANT. THIS PFORTH IN THE IWR HOWEVER IT HAS BPENDING IDENTIFIC

TN, AND TP DO NOT DATA) 

NASSAU RIVER 2157 

LITTLE MILL CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2 LOW 2010 

NO DATA FROM PP. 0.18 mg/L (N = 21), VDATA FROM 2004. AEXCEPT FOR THREEANNUAL AVERAGE = 

NASSAU RIVER 2158 

UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

NASSAU RIVER 2158 

UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2158 

UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM ANTIMONY NI 2 PP - 0/10 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/2 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2 

TWO SCI SCORES FSCORES FROM 1996 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM BOD ND 3A 

VP - 0/32 VALUES EX= 2 mg/L, VP AVERAMAX = 2 mg/L. PROB

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM CADMIUM PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 5/11 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3B PP - 0/8 VP - 0/2 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM COPPER NI 2 PP - 0/13 VP - 0/2 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C* 

VP - 29/47 EXCEEDAAVERAGE = 4.86 mgmg/L. DATA FROM 1CAUSATIVE POLLUTCRITERIA SET FORTIMPARIED, HOWEVEPLANNING LIST PENPOLLUTANT. SEE NVALUES. VP MEDIADO NOT EXCEED TH

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 5/46 VP - 3/31 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 3/14 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM LEAD PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 7/11 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM MERCURY PL 3C 

NEED TO VERIFY THANALYTICAL METHONEEDED TO DETERVP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM NICKEL ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/2 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

PP TN/TP RATIO = 4MEDIAN = 0.065 mg/ASSESS. POTENTIANEED TO COLLECT 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/2 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 2/19 VP - 0/5 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/35 VP - 0/26 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA NI 2 PP - 0/42 VP - 0/9 

NASSAU RIVER 2161 

THOMAS CREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/2 

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM COPPER ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/0 
166 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN ID 3B PP - 2/4 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 3/4 V

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM IRON ID 3B PP - 0/0 VP - 1/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM LEAD ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2162 

CUSHING CREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/4 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2164 

UNNAMED SLOUGH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2166 

UNNAMED DITCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2168 

SEATON CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2169 

FUNKS CREEK REACH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY ALUMINUM ID 3B PP - 2/8 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/8 VP - 0/3 

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 1/33 VP - 1/23 

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/8 VP - 0/8 

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. 8/8 VP - 3

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY LEAD PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 3/3 V

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/8 VP - 0/3 

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 2/29 VP - 2/21 

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY 

UN-IONIZED 

AMMONIA ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/0 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2170 

PUMPKIN HILL CREEK ESTUARY ZINC ID 3B PP - 1/8 VP - 0/3 

NASSAU RIVER 2171 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2172 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2173 DEESE CREEK ESTUARY ND 3A NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY 

SHELLFISH 

(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VERIFIED DUE TO DHARVESTING CLASS

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY CADMIUM NI 2 PP - 0/16 VP - 0/6 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY ALUMINUM NI 2 PP - 1/16 VP - 1/6 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY ARSENIC NI 2 PP - 0/16 VP - 0/6 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY COPPER PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 3/3 V

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 8/167 VP - 0/32 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 10/168 VP - 0/7 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 1/16 VP - 0/0 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY SELENIUM NI 2 PP - 0/16 VP - 0/6 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 10/16 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY LEAD PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. 9/9 VP - 3

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY MANGANESE ID 3B PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY NICKEL ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/202 VP - 0/28 
168 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2174 

NASSAU SOUND ESTUARY ZINC NI 2 PP - 0/6 VP - 0/6 

NASSAU RIVER 2174A SOUTH END ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/75 VP - 1/202 NASSAU RIVER 2174A SOUTH END ESTUARY 

SHELLFISH 

(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VERIFIED DUE TO DHARVESTING CLASS

NASSAU RIVER 2174A SOUTH END ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU RIVER 2175 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2176 

MILL BRANCH CREEK ESTUARY ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2177 

BRADDOCK CREEK STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY ALUMINUM ID 3B PP - 1/9 VP - 1/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY ARSENIC ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 0/8 VP - 2/25 

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B PP - 0/8 VP - 0/8 

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 8/9 V

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY LEAD PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 4/4 V

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY SELENIUM ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY CADMIUM ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/32 VP - 0/24 

NASSAU RIVER 2179 

EDWARDS CREEK ESTUARY ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/9 VP - 0/4 

NASSAU RIVER 2182 BEN BRANCH STREAM ND 3A NASSAU RIVER 2184 

UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2193 

UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2197 

UNNAMED DRAIN STREAM ND 3A 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY 

SHELLFISH 

(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VERIFIED DUE TO DHARVESTING CLASS

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY ALUMINUM NI 2 PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY ARSENIC NI 2 PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY CADMIUM NI 2 PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY COPPER PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 3/3 V

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN NI 2 PP - 10/164 VP - 1/5

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 9/132 VP - 1/16 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY IRON PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 10/20 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY LEAD PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 8/8 V

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY MANGANESE ID 3B PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY NICKEL ID 3B PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY SELENIUM NI 2 PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2 PP - 0/186 VP - 0/50 

NASSAU RIVER 2198 

FORT GEORGE RIVER ESTUARY ZINC ID 3B PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8 

NASSAU RIVER 2198A 

MARINA BAY AT FORT GEO ESTUARY 

SHELLFISH 

(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VERIFIED DUE TO DHARVESTING CLASS

NASSAU RIVER 2202 

VERDIE BRANCH STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU RIVER 2212 

SU-NO-WA SPRINGS STREAM ND 3A 

NASSAU SOUND 8127 

NASSAU SOUND OCEAN 1 ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

NASSAU SOUND 8127 

NASSAU SOUND OCEAN 1 ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.
170 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU SOUND 8127 

NASSAU SOUND OCEAN 1 ESTUARY 

SHELLFISH 

(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011 

VERIFIED DUE TO DHARVESTING CLASS

NASSAU SOUND 8127 

NASSAU SOUND OCEAN 1 ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 6/12 

NASSAU SOUND 8127 

NASSAU SOUND OCEAN 1 ESTUARY 

DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN PL 3C 

MORE DATA ARE NSTATUS. PP - 3/9 V

NASSAU SOUND 8127 

NASSAU SOUND OCEAN 1 ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3B 

PP - 1/1 VP - 1/1 

NASSAU SOUND 8127A 

HUGUENOT PARK ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU SOUND 8127A 

HUGUENOT PARK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 0/202 

NASSAU SOUND 8127B 

SOUTH LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU SOUND 8127B 

SOUTH LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

PP - 0/75 VP - 0/203 

NASSAU SOUND 8127C 

NORTH LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU SOUND 8127C 

NORTH LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 

PP - 0/75 VP - 0/203 

NASSAU SOUND 8128 

NASSAU SOUND OCEAN 2 ESTUARY 

NUTRIENTS 

(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B 

NASSAU SOUND 8128 

NASSAU SOUND OCEAN 2 ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU SOUND 8128A PIPER DUNES ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU SOUND 8128A PIPER DUNES ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 0/200 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Planning Unit WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type1

Parameters 

Assessed2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Proposed 

Status3 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category4

Priority 

for 

TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development 

NASSAU SOUND 8128B 

AIP BEACH CLUB ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU SOUND 8128B 

AIP BEACH CLUB ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 0/200 

NASSAU SOUND 8128C 

AMERICAN BEACH ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU SOUND 8128C 

AMERICAN BEACH ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201 

NASSAU SOUND 8128D 

PETER'S POINT ESTUARY 

MERCURY (IN FISH 

TISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011 

BULL SHARK TISSEXCEEDED 0.43 m2004.

NASSAU SOUND 8128D 

PETER'S POINT ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2 PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201 

1The designation "stream" includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes. 2Parameters in bold indicate the parameter is on the 1998 303(d) list. 3

 NI = Not Impaired  VL = Verified List  PL = Planning List  ID = Insufficient Data  ND = No Data

4The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1–Attains all designated uses; 2–Attains some designated uses; 3a–No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b–Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 

3c–Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 

4a–Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b–Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control mechan

assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c–Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant; and 5–Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.
172 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Table E.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations, by Planning Unit 

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type STORET Station ID Station Description 

Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit 

2097I St. Marys River Blackwater 21FLA 19010002 St. Marys River at GA Line 2097I St. Marys River Blackwater 21GAEPD 08004001 N Prong St. Marys R at St Rd 121 Nr Macclenny, Fl 

2097K St. Marys R. N. Prong Blackwater 21FLA 19010006 St. Marys River at SR #2 2097K St. Marys R. N. Prong Blackwater 21FLSJWM19010006 St. Marys River at SR 2 2097K St. Marys R. N. Prong Blackwater 21GAEPD 08002001 North Prong St. Marys R at St Rd 94 at Moniac, Ga 

2211 Middle Prong St. Marys Blackwater 112WRD 02229000 Middle Prong St. Marys Ri at Taylor Fl 2211 Middle Prong St. Marys Blackwater 21FLA 19010026 St. Marys R Middle Prong 2211 Middle Prong St. Marys Blackwater 21FLA 19010041 St. Marys R. Mid Prong @ CR 125 2211 Middle Prong St. Marys Blackwater 21FLSJWMMPS Middle Prong St. Marys River at Hwy 127 2226 Brandy Branch Stream 21FLA 19010047 Brandy Branch at US 301 2226 Brandy Branch Stream 21FLA 19010074 Brandy Branch Just South of I-10 2226 Brandy Branch Stream 21FLA 19010075 Brandy Branch at Rails to Trails North of I-10 2226 Brandy Branch Stream 21FLJXWQBB1 Brandy Branch at U.S. 301 2245 Deep Creek Blackwater 21FLJXWQDEC1 Deep Creek at U.S. 90 2245 Deep Creek Blackwater 21FLJXWQTREE1 Deep Creek at Beaver Street 2247 South Prong St. Marys Stream 21FLA 19010021 US 90 Baker Co 2264 Calkins Creek Blackwater 21FLA 19010042 Calkins Ck. off Hamp Register Rd. 2264 Calkins Creek Blackwater 21FLA 19010076 Calkins Cr at Turner Cemetery Rd. 2318 Turkey Creek Stream 21FLSJWMTC228 Turkey Creek @ SR 121 Near Mcclenny 2339 Ocean Pond Lake 1118ATL8050401 Ocean Pond Rec Area Swimming Beach 2339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 19010034 Ocean Pond SW Sector 2339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 21010011 Ocean Pond Center 2339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 21010013 Ocean Pond 50 Yds SE End 2339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 21010014 Ocean Pond 50 Yds NE End 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type STORET Station ID Station Description 

2339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 21010015 Ocean Pond 50 Yds NW End 2339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLSUW OCP001C1 Ocean Pond 2339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLSUW OCP010C1 Ocean Pond at Olustee Fl 2392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLA 19010043 Palestine Lake Near S Shore 2392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLA 19010044 Palestine Lake Center 2392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLA 19010045 Palestine Lake NW Sector 2392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLKWATUNI- PALESTINE-1 Union-Palestine-1 2392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLKWATUNI- PALESTINE-2 Union-Palestine-2 2392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLKWATUNI- PALESTINE-3 Union-Palestine-3 2392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLSUW PAL001C1 Lake Palestine 

Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit 

2097F St. Marys River Blackwater 21FLA 19010077 St. Marys River at Tomkins Landing 

2097G St. Marys River Blackwater 21FLA 19010027 St. Marys R SR 2 2097G St. Marys River Blackwater 21FLJXWQTREE10 Trout River at Old Kings Road 2097G St. Marys River Blackwater 21GAEPD 08008001 St. Marys River at Highway 94, St. George, Ga 

2105 Pigeon Creek Stream 21FLA 19010099 Pigeon Creek at US 1 2196 Deep Creek Blackwater 21FLA 19010048 Deep Creek at CR 121 

Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit 

2097A St. Marys Riv Ab ICWW Estuary 21FLA 19010013 St. Marys Riv #10 2097A St. Marys RIV Ab ICWW Estuary 21FLSJWMSM001 St. Marys River 1 Mi Past Jolly River 2097A St. Marys Ab ICWW Estuary 21GAEPD 08020001 St. Marys River–Point Peter Pier 2097B St. Marys River Estuary 21FLA 19010011 St. Marys Riv #8 N of Roses Bluff 2097B St. Marys River Estuary 21FLA 19010012 St. Marys Riv #9 at Marker #13 

2097C St. Marys River Stream 21FLA 19010001 St. Marys R at Ga Line US 17 2097C St. Marys River Stream 21FLGW 3544 19010001 2097C St. Marys River Stream 21FLSJWM19010001 St. Marys River @ US 17 Georgia Line 
174 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type STORET Station ID Station Description 

2097C St. Marys River Stream 21GAEPD 08011001 St. Marys River– U.S. Highway 17 2097D St. Marys River Stream 112WRD 02231220 St. Marys River at Boulogne, Fla. 2097D St. Marys River Stream 21FLA 19010028 St. Marys R SR 115A & 121A 2097D St. Marys River Stream 21GAEPD 08010001 St. Marys River - U.S. Highway 301 2097D St. Marys River Stream 21GAEPD 08010101 St. Marys R Tributary at St Rd 40 at Folkston, Ga 

2106 Little St. Marys River Stream 21FLA 19010032 Little St. Marys River SR #115 2106 Little St. Marys River Stream 21FLA 19010046 Little ST. Marys @ CR 121A 2106 Little St. Marys River Stream 21FLSJWMSM026 Little St. Marys River at Lessie Rd. 2124 Amelia River Estuary 21FLA 19020010 Amelia River at CM 26 2124 Amelia River Estuary 21FLSJWMSM031 Amelia River at Red CM28—Ft Clinch State Park 

8129A Sadler Road Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU321 Sadler Road 8129B Main Beach Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU187 Main Beach 

8129C Ocean Street Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU186 Ocean Street 8129D Fort Clinch Beach Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU185 Fort Clinch Beach 

Nassau River Planning Unit 

2120A Mills Creek Stream 21FLSJWMNR903 Mills Creek at Hwy 200 2120B Mills Creek Stream 21FLA 19020062 Mills Cr. @ Mussel White Rd 

2129 Lofton Creek Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM04 Lofton Ck 50 M Upstream of Confluence 2129 Lofton Creek Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM4 Lofton Creek 50 M. Upstream from Confluence with Nassau R. 2130 Plummer Creek Stream 21FLA 19020064 Plummer Cr at SR A1A 2130 Plummer Creek Stream 21FLA 19020065 Plummer Cr at I-95 

2140A Jackson Creek Estuary 21FLA 19020005 Amelia R. @ CM 7(Formerly CM 28) 2140A Jackson Creek Estuary 21FLA 19020015 Amelia R Marker #14 2148B Nassau River Stream 112WRD 02231289 Nassau River Nr Hedges, Fl 2148B Nassau River Stream 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM01 Thomas Ck Near Confluence with the Nassau River 2148B Nassau River Stream 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM02 Nassau River50 M Dwnstrm of I-95 Bridge 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type STORET Station ID Station Description 

2148B Nassau River Stream 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM03 Nassau River at Confluence with Deese Creek 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLA 19020002 Nassau Riv US 17 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLA 19020047 Nassau River at I-95 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLGW 3537 19020002 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLJXWQTIM2 Nassau R. 50 Meters Downstream of I-95 Bridge 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLJXWQTIM3 Nassau R. at Confluence with Deese Creek 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLSJWM19020002 Nassau River at US 17 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLSJWMNR005 Nassau River at "Nassau Landing" Ramp 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLSJWMNRI Nassau River Near Italia 2148B Nassau River Stream 21FLSJWMNRT Nassau River at US 17 

2149 South Amelia River Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM07 Alligator Ck 50 M Upstream of Confluence 2149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLA 19020013 Amelia River at CM 1 2149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLA 19020018 Marker #20 2149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLA 19020021 Marker #28 N Amelia City 2149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLA 19020023 Marker #37 N Harrison Cr Conf 2149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM7 Alligator Cr. 50 M. Upstream from Confluence with Nassau R. 2149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLSJWMNR002 Nassau River 100 M Past Seymour Pt 2149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLSJWMNR009 Amelia River at Red CM 28—Amelia City 2153 Alligator Creek Stream 21FLA 19020027 Alligator Cr US 1 and 23 2157 Little Mills Creek Stream 21FLSJWMLMCC Little Mills Ck @ SR 115 Near Callahan 2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLA 19020020 Thomas Ck. @ US 301 2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLA 19020035 Thomas Creek at Clay Landing 2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLA 19020057 Thomas Cr at Thomas Rd 2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLA 19020058 Thomas Cr at Lem Turner Rd 2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLJXWQTC1 Thomas Creek at U.S. 1 2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLJXWQTIM1 Thomas Cr. Between Confluence with Nassau R. and Joels Lndg. 
176 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type STORET Station ID Station Description 

2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLJXWQTREE7 Thomas Creek at Acree Road 2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLJXWQTREE8 Thomas Creek at Lem Turner Boulevard 2170 Pumpkin Hill Creek Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM06 Pumpkin Hill Ck West of Broward Islands 2170 Pumpkin Hill Creek Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM6 Pumpkin Hill Cr. W of N End of Black Hammock Is. 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM08 Nassau R at Confluence with ICWW/Sisters Ck 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM09 ICWW/Sisters Creek at Marker 61 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 19020026 Marker #46 Junc S Amelia R Nassa 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 19020045 Sisters Creek at CM 47 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96010SEAS Sawpit Creek at ICWW Marker 48 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96020SEAS 200 Yards West of ICW Marker 53 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96030SEAS First Canal on North Side of Horseshoe 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96080SEAS Nassau Sound Between Bird Island and Mouth of Simp 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96090SEAS Simpson Creek, 300 Yards South of Nassau Sound, at 2174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM8 Nassau River at Confluence with ICWW/Sisters Creek 

2174A South End Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU191 South End 

2179 Edwards Creek Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM05 Edwards Creek at Confluence with Samples Creek 2179 Edwards Creek Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM5 Edwards Creek at Confluence with Samples Creek 2198 Fort George River Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM10 Mouth of Garden Creek 2198 Fort George River Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM11 Ft. George R at NE Corner of Ft. George Island 2198 Fort George River Estuary 11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_ TIM9A ICWW/Sisters Ck at Marker 67 2198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLA 96040SEAS Gunnison Cut at ICWW Marker 67 2198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLA 96050SEAS Fort George River Between ICWW Marker 53 and theK 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type STORET Station ID Station Description 

2198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLA 96060SEAS Mouth of Unnamed Creek on Little Talbot Island Eas 2198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLA 96070SEAS Fort George River on Northern Side of US A1A Bridge 2198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM10 Old FG6. Inside Mouth of Garden Creek ` 50 Meters 2198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM11 Ft. George River at NE Corner of Ft. George Is. 

Nassau Sound Planning Unit 

8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLA 20030748 West Br at Capper 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV4- 014 Duval-DUV4-014 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV4- 024 Duval-DUV4-024 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV4- 031 Duval-DUV4-031 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV5- 302 Duval-DUV5-302 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV5- 318 Duval-DUV5-318 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV5- 325 Duval-DUV5-325 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV6- 667 Duval-DUV6-667 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV6- 673 Duval-DUV6-673 8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLKWATDUV-DUV6- 674 Duval-DUV6-674 

8127A Huguenot Park Coastal 21FLDOH DUVAL79 Huguenot Park 8127B South Little Talbot Island Coastal 21FLDOH DUVAL78 South Little Talbot Island 

8127C South Little Talbot Island Coastal 21FLDOH DUVAL77 South Little Talbot Island 

8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS10- 193 Nassau -NAS10-193 8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS10- 199 Nassau -NAS10-199 
178 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type STORET Station ID Station Description 

8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS10- 202 Nassau -NAS10-202 8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS11- 729 Nassau -NAS11-729 8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS11- 739 Nassau -NAS11-739 8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS11- 746 Nassau -NAS11-746 8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS12- 294 Nassau -NAS12-294 8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS12- 308 Nassau -NAS12-308 8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal 21FLKWATNAS-NAS12- 318 Nassau -NAS12-318 

8128A Piper Dunes Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU190 Piper Dunes 8128B AIP Beach Club Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU189 AIP Beach Club 

8128C American Beach Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU322 American Beach 8128D Peter’s Point Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU188 Peter’s Point 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 179

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

19621971197719791981

1984

1986198819901993

1998

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

1

2

3

4

19651973

19781980198119841985

1987

19891992

1993

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

197319781980198119831985198619881989199219932004

Year

mg/L

Total Phosphorous

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

19711974197919801982198419861988199019931998

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

198019811983198519851986198719881989198920042004

Year

μg/L

Table E.3: Water Quality Trend Data for Select WBIDs in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by Planning 

Unit 

Upper St. Marys Planning Unit – St. Marys River (2097I) 
180 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

196719711974197519771978197919801982198319852003

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

1

2

3

4

5

19701971197219741974197519751976197619771977

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

1971

1974

1975

1977

1978

1980

19811983

1985

2003

2004

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

19661969197219741976197819801981198319862004

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

1

2

3

4

2001 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005

Year

μg/L

Upper St. Marys Planning Unit – St. Marys River (2097H) 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 181

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

197519801985198619861987199119921993199419941998

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

197519841985198619871990199219921993199419981998

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1975

19801985

19861986

1987

1992

1992

19931994

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

197519801985198619861987199219921993199419982003

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1984

19851985

1985

1986

1986

19861986

1987

1987

1987

Year

μg/L

Middle St. Marys Planning Unit – St. Marys River (2097G) 
182 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1992199219922000200020012004200420042004

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2000 2001 2004 2004 2004

Year

mg/L

Middle St. Marys Planning Unit – St. Marys River (2097F) 

. 

 There insufficient data in this Planning 

 Unit to determine a trend for 

 BOD.

 There insufficient data in this Planning 

 Unit to determine a 

 trend for total phosphorous

There is insufficient data in this Planning Unit to determine a chlorophyll trend
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 183

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

196519731976197819801982198419861988199019921994

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1965

1974

19761979

1981198319851988

19901992

1994

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

1965

19841985198619871988

1989

1990

19921993

1994

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

1965

19751977

19791981198419861988

1990

1993

1998

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

5

10

15

20

25

19841985

19861987

1988

1988

1989

1990

1991

Year

μg/L

Middle St. Marys Planning Unit – St. Marys River (2097D) 
184 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

196119721974197719791986198819911994199619992002

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1965

19721974

1979

19851987

198919921994

1996

1998

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

196519751978198019861988199119931996199820012003

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

1965

19731976

197919861988

19921995

19982000

2003

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

2

4

6

8

19801986

1987198919901996

19971999

2000

20022003

Year

μg/L

Lower St. Marys Planning Unit – St. Marys River (2097C) 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 185

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

1971

1976

198019851988

19921993

199320012004

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

197119781980198119861988199219921993199320002001

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

197819801986198819921993

2000

2004

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

19711978

1980

1986

1988

1992

1993

2000

2004

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

0.5

1

1.5

1986 1987 1988 2004 2004 2004 2004

Year

μg/L

Lower St. Marys Planning Unit – St. Marys River (2097B) 
186 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

19711974197619781980198119851987198919901993

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

197119751976197819791981198219861987198919901993

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

1

2

3

4

5

19751980

19851986

19871988

19891990

19921993

2004

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

1971

19741976

1978198019811985198719891990

1993

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

2

4

6

8

10

19851985198619861987198719881992199320042004

Year

μg/L

Lower St. Marys Planning Unit – St. Marys River above ICWW (2097A) 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 187

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1961197919841986

1988

1991

1994

1996

1998

2001

2003

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

2

4

6

8

1965

1979

1984

1985

1987

1988

1990

1997

1999

2001

2002

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

1

2

3

4

1976198319851987198919901994199619981999200120032005

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1976

1983

19851987198919911995

1997

19992001

2003

2005

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

5

10

15

20

1980

1984

1986

1988

1990

1994

1996

19982000

20022004

Year

μg/L

Nassau River Planning Unit – Nassau River (2148B) 
188 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

197819811985198519861987198819891990199019922004

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

1

2

3

4

5

1978 1979 1981 1983

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

19781983

1989199019901992

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

19781981

19871987

198819891990

19912004

Year

mg/L

Nassau River Planning Unit – Nassau River (2148A) 

There is insufficient data in this Planning Unit to determine a chlorophyll trend.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 189

Dissolved Oxygen

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

19771981198519871989199119931995199820002001

Year

mg/L

BOD (5 Day)

0

1

2

3

4

1977

1980

1983

1991

1993

1994

1997

1998

2000

20012002

Year

mg/L

Total Nitrogen

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

1977

1980

1984

1990

1992

1993

1997

1998

1999

2001

2002

Year

mg/L

Total Phosporous

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

19771979198119841987198919911992199319971998

Year

mg/L

Corrected Chlorophyll

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1980 1981 1983 2000 2004

Year

μg/L

Nassau River Planning Unit – Nassau Sound (2174) 
190 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Appendix F: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface 

Water and Ground Water in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by 

Planning Unit 

Table F.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, by Planning 

Unit 

Facility ID Name Facility Type Status* NPDES 

Permitted 

Design 

Capacity 

(mgd) 

Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit 

FLG110502 S & W Baldwin Concrete Batch 

Plant Concrete Batch GP A Y 0.0000 

FLG110363 Anderson Materials–Macclenny Concrete Batch GP A Y 0.0000 

FL0040495 Macclenny WWTF Domestic WWTP A Y 1.3000 

FL0033758 Northeast Florida State 

Hospital WWTF Domestic WWTP C Y 0.3000 

FL0027812 Baldwin WWTF Domestic WWTP A Y 0.4000 

FL0022578 Jacksonville I-10 Travel Center 

(fka Baldwin Travel Center) Industrial Wastewater A Y 0.0000 

FL0000221 Southern Wood Piedmont 

Company–Baldwin Industrial Wastewater A Y 0.0220 

FLRNEE128 Baldwin Distribution Center NEX A Y 0.0000 

FLA011332 Baker Correctional WWTF 

(FDOC) Domestic WWTP A N 0.2900 

FLA011333 I-10 Baker Eastbound Rest 

Area WWTF (FDOT) Domestic WWTP A N 0.0200 

FLA011330 Oak Bluff Mobile Home Park 

WWTF Domestic WWTP A N 0.0060 

FLA011533 Ameristeel Corp-Jacksonville 

Mill Division Industrial Wastewater A N 11.5000 

FLA011328 

Insteel Wire Products 

Company2Florida (fka Fl Wire 

& Cable) 

Industrial Wastewater A N 0.0300 

FLA190012 Global Shredding 

Technologies, LLC Industrial Wastewater A N 0.0150 

FLA182532 East Star Residuals 

Management Facility 

Residuals/Septage 

Mgmt. Facility A N 6.7562 

FLA290084 Mecklenburg Farm Dairy Animal Feeding 

Operation N N N/A 

Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit 

FLG110345 Fernandina Beach Ready Mix 

Plant Concrete Batch GP A Y 0.0000 

FL0043079 Hilliard WWTF Domestic WWTP A Y 0.3200 

FL0027260 Fernandina Beach WWTF Domestic WWTP A Y 3.5000 

FL0000701 Rayonier, Inc. Industrial Wastewater A Y 26.3100 

FL0001104 Jefferson Smurfit Corp–

Fernandina Beach Mill Industrial Wastewater A Y 37.5000 

FLA011689 Amerada Hess Corp (fka 

Amelia Island Shell) Industrial Wastewater A N 0.0240 

Nassau River Planning Unit 

FLG110163 Florida Rock–Yulee Concrete Batch GP A Y 0.0000 

FL0032654 Marsh Cove WWTF Domestic WWTP A Y 0.1200 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 191

Facility ID Name Facility Type Status* NPDES 

Permitted 

Design 

Capacity 

(mgd) 

FL0038407 Callahan WWTF Domestic WWTP A Y 0.3000 

FL0032662 Goodbread Mobile Home Park 

WWTF Domestic WWTP A Y 0.0050 

FL0116921 Nassau Host Motel WWTF Domestic WWTP A Y 0.0230 

FL0041556 Anheuser Busch–New Sod 

Farm Industrial Wastewater A Y 1.7000 

FLA011688 Amelia Island WWTF (Nassau 

County) Domestic WWTP A N 0.9500 

FLA011679 Nassau Regional WWTF (JEA) Domestic WWTP A N 0.1875 

FLA011666 Callahan Intermediate School 

WWTF (NCSB) Domestic WWTP A N 0.0099 

FLA011586 Dinsmore Correctional WWTF 

(FDOC) Domestic WWTP A N 0.0200 

FLA011684 Hance’s Recreational Vehicle 

Park WWTF Domestic WWTP A N 0.0145 

FLA011451 Dixie Oil Service Station 

WWTF Domestic WWTP A N 0.0024 

FLA011668 Police Admin–Detention Facility Domestic WWTP C N 0.0100 

FLA011675 Amoco Service Station WWTF Domestic WWTP C N 0.0034 

FLA011676 Sunshine Truck Plaza WWTF Domestic WWTP C N 0.0200 

FLA011678 Yulee Villas Apartments WWTF 

(Flynn) Domestic WWTP A N 0.0150 

FLA116807 Nassau Acres Mobile Home 

Park WWTF Domestic WWTP A N 0.0024 

FLA011682 Lofton Oaks WWTF (JEA) Domestic WWTP A N 0.0500 

FLA011683 Green Acres Apartments 

WWTF (LDHP) Domestic WWTP A N 0.0120 

FLA011687 Whispering Pines Mobile Home 

Park WWTF Domestic WWTP C N 0.0040 

FLA011690 Teakwood Mobile Home Park 

WWTF Domestic WWTP A N 0.0078 

FLA011695 Wayfara Welcome Center 

WWTF Domestic WWTP A N 0.0060 

FLA301647 White Oak Plantation Industrial Wastewater A N 0.0000 

FLA011686 Tropic Motel Laundry & Store Industrial Wastewater A N 0.0075 

* Status: A=Active 

 C=Closed, with monitoring 

N=Active but not permitted (i.e. exempt, regulated by another agency).
192 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Table F.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning Unit 

Planning Unit Name Address City County Program Status Ope

Upper St. 

Marys River 

Yellow Water 

Road 

1190 Yellow 

Water Rd. Baldwin Duval Superfund Delisted Ot
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Table F.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning Unit 

Facility ID Facility Name Address City *Status Facility Type 

Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit 

34364 West Beaver SL C/D 13581 W Beaver St. Jacksonville J Solid Waste 30247 Taylor Refuse Site II Mi S Taylor Taylor J Solid Waste 30246 Baker County Central Landfill LFC1 5Mi N Macclenny , 1Mi E SR121 Macclenny K Solid Waste 30249 South Glen Refuse Site SR125, 3 Mi S I10 Glen St. Mary J Solid Waste 30251 North Glen Refuse Site 1Mi NW Glen St. Mary Glen St. Mary J Solid Waste 30248 Sanderson Dump US 90, S of Sanderson Sanderson J Solid Waste 30260 Macclenny Refuse Dump 1.4 Mi N Macclenny , SR121 Macclenny J Solid Waste 

Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit 

37134 Bryceville Landfill (Class III) County Rd 121 5 Miles N of State Rd. 119 Bryceville I Solid Waste 37368 Jefferson Smurfit Class I L/F S of Crawford Kent Rd. Crawfordsville O Solid Waste 37139 Bryceville SLF State Rd. 121 8 Miles NW Bryceville Bryceville K Solid Waste 

Nassau River Planning Unit 

37343 Nassau Sanitation C/D II Hwy. A1A 3 Miles E of Callahan Callahan A Solid Waste 37138 Lofton Creek Landfill LFC1 S State Rd. A1A 2.8 Miles E Yulee Fernandina Beach K Solid Waste 37141 C-108 Demolition Debris LF P. O. Box 386 Hilliard I Solid Waste 84054 Nassau Sanitation C/D II Hwy. A1A 3 Miles E of Callahan Callahan A Solid Waste 37136 Nassau Sanitation C/D Facility CDS 3 Miles E of Callahan Hwy. A1A Callahan J Solid Waste 37140 West Nassau Landfill LF1 2.5 Miles N Callahan off US 1 Callahan A Solid Waste 86315 West Nassau Landfill LFC1 440 S Kings Rd. Callahan K Solid Waste 84055 Nassau Sanitation C/D II Hwy.A1A 3 Miles E of Callahan Callahan A Solid Waste 
194 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

*Status: 

A = Active I = Inactive J = Closed, no monitoring K = Closed, monitoring O = Never operated; permit never used 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–S

Appendix G: Level I Land Use in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by Planni

Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit 

LEVEL1 COUNT FIRST_ATTR SUM_AREA ACRES SQ_MILES 

1000 769 Urban and Built-up 56974149.4406 14078.5613 21.9978 2000 528 Agriculture 64579944.1106 15957.9864 24.9345 3000 290 Rangeland 21287877.1930 5260.3275 8.2193 4000 2308 Upland Forests 952398176.6006 235341.7507 367.7230 5000 479 Water 14745675.7233 3643.7209 5.6933 6000 8712 Wetlands 538960713.9179 133179.5472 208.0939 7000 18 Barren Land 714728.0394 176.6124 0.2760 8000 53 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 9469845.6046 2340.0402 3.6563 

TOTAL 1659131110.6300 409978.5466 640.5941 

Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit 

LEVEL1 COUNT FIRST_ATTR SUM_AREA ACRES SQ_MILES 

1000 239 Urban and Built-up 13109451.3771 3239.4027 5.0616 2000 225 Agriculture 22315938.9892 5514.3660 8.6162 3000 206 Rangeland 14649465.5423 3619.9469 5.6562 4000 811 Upland Forests 196283166.9801 48502.4282 75.7854 5000 280 Water 2032438.5740 502.2245 0.7847 6000 1608 Wetlands 80841327.6067 19976.2453 31.2130 7000 11 Barren Land 500417.7973 123.6554 0.1932 8000 34 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 3115216.4868 769.7836 1.2028 

TOTAL 332847423.3535 82248.0526 128.5131 
196 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit 

LEVEL1 COUNT FIRST_ATTR SUM_AREA ACRES SQ_MILES 

1000 433 Urban and Built-up 39309130.3166 9713.4579 15.1773 2000 156 Agriculture 11971723.9054 2958.2653 4.6223 3000 253 Rangeland 17624876.9007 4355.1841 6.8050 4000 953 Upland Forests 200987754.3730 49664.9523 77.6018 5000 236 Water 36192098.1936 8943.2256 13.9738 6000 1898 Wetlands 147690372.9969 36494.9365 57.0236 7000 21 Barren Land 1482633.1990 366.3651 0.5724 8000 26 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 3180703.3900 785.9657 1.2281 9000 1 Special Classifications 51415302.8909 12704.9460 19.8516 

TOTAL 509854596.1661 125987.2985 196.8559 

Combined Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning Units 

LEVEL1 COUNT FIRST_ATTR SUM_AREA ACRES SQ_MILES 

1000 796 Urban and Built-up 95775128.6674 23666.4528 36.9790 2000 399 Agriculture 52706435.7108 13023.9906 20.3501 3000 501 Rangeland 42151442.4400 10415.8056 16.2748 4000 2151 Upland Forests 482692163.4406 119275.3426 186.3685 5000 766 Water 60055238.6764 14839.9119 23.1875 6000 5398 Wetlands 373561156.6198 92308.5940 144.2328 7000 74 Barren Land 5828853.7071 1440.3352 2.2505 8000 79 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 10122565.3390 2501.3301 3.9083 9000 1 Special Classifications 78714938.0827 19450.8051 30.3920 

TOTAL 1201607922.6838 296922.5679 463.9435 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 197

Appendix H: Documentation Provided during Public Comment 

Period 

Draft Verified List of Impaired Waters Public Meeting 

Nassau-St. Marys River Basin 

July 27, 2005 

Nassau County Commission Chambers – Yulee, FL 

Attendees: 

Name Affiliation Name Affiliation 

Janie Thomas Shrimp Producers 

Association 

Dean Woehrle St. Marys River Management 

Committee 

Phil Scanlan Amelia Island 

Association 

Rick Walsh St. Marys River Management 

Committee 

Carla Yetta Rayonier Pamela Chang DEP - NE FL Aquatic 

Preserve 

Tim McKelvey SSCC Amy 

Kalmbacher 

DEP - NE FL Aquatic 

Preserve 

Bill Crews Smurfit-Stone Michael Floyd Fernandina Beach 

Trish Gramajo Nature 

Conservancy 

Walter Gray Fernandina Beach 

Rich Bowman ATM Dick Hopper Rayonier 

Jessica Weatherby PBS&J Dan Roach Rayonier 

Steve Nanc Charlton County, 

GA 

David Tudor Rayonier 

John Mandrick Fernandina Beach Clif Maxwell DEP - Fort Clinch State Park 

Daryll Joyner DEP Wayne Magley DEP 

David Wainwright DEP Jennifer 

Gihring 

DEP 

Public Comments and Response

Note – All responses were provided by Daryll Joyner, Wayne Magley, or David 

Wainwright of DEP. 

Dean Woehrle: Low dissolved oxygen is a natural condition in the St. Marys Basin. 

There are no sources that would decrease dissolved oxygen. 

Response: The dissolved oxygen standard was based on impacts from point sources. 

Not all waters that have low dissolved oxygen are polluted. Potential revisions to the 

Class III dissolved oxygen standards may be considered when the current DEP 

dissolved oxygen study is completed. In the comment field of the draft verified list there 

is a statement indicating that if a causative pollutant associated with the depressed DO 

can be identified, the segment will be placed on the planning list. 
198 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

Dean Woehrle: The lack of a different dissolved oxygen standard for the marine 

environment is important. 5.0 mg/L will not work in a marine setting. 

Response: The Class III marine criterion for DO is a minium of 4 mg/l and a 24 hour 

average of 5 mg/l. 

Steve Nanc: Information is limited because DEP will not use data unless it is in the 

appropriate electronic format. 

Response: The Department has staff that provide assistance, training, and support to 

groups with respect to getting their information into the system. At every public meeting 

Department staff encourage groups with data to contact the Department so that their 

information can be incorporated into the analysis. 

Dan Roach: WBID 2097B shows mercury listings based on large-mouth bass samples. 

However, this is a marine/brackish area. 

Response: Department staff will verify where the samples were collected. 

David Tudor: Rayonier has commented on the binomial approach used for identification 

of impaired waters. It is a good approach in general, but is not applicable to 

comparisons to background levels because variability in background levels is not 

incorporated. 

Response: Believe that your concern was with respect to a limited set of parameters 

such as turbidity and transparency where the criterion is based upon a change relative to 

a natural background. 

Janie Thomas: Nassau Sound was completely closed in 1977 for the first time, and has 

been closed off-and-on since then. This should be reflected in the listings. 

Dean Woehrle: The Army Corps of Engineers has data that should be used. 

Dan Roach: Overlaying the DO map with aerial photos showing land use (primarily forest 

land) may help identify low DO as a natural condition. 

Clif Maxwell: More data should be included in the listing calculations (e.g. Egan’s Creek). 

Response: If additional data is available for this area we would appreciate receiving that 

information and evaluating it as part of the assessment. 

Janie Thomas: How much is DEP doing that the WMD, DACS, and others have already 

done? 

Response: Whatever data is available is used, provided that it is in a usable format. The 

WMD is developing the PLRG. Where the PLRG exists, DEP is not doing TMDLs. 

Janie Thomas: Has DEP used the findings of Dr. Livingston’s study 

Response: DEP has Dr. Livingston’s data. 

Dean Woehrle: How much interaction has DEP had with Georgia? 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 199

Response: DEP has contacted entities in Georgia, but little coordination has occurred 

thus far. Efforts to coordinate with appropriate groups will occur during development of 

the Basin Management Action Plan. Water quality data collected by Georgia within the 

Nassau/St. Marys River Basin is included in the Department assessment. 

Phil Scanlan: Is the Callahan Wastewater Treatment Plan considered a source? Is it 

being fixed? 

Response: The Callahan Wastewater Treatment Plant will be up for permit renewal 

soon. DEP staff are concerned about the plant’s impact. 

Steve Nanc: In Georgia, TMDL water quality thresholds are the same for all rivers. Do 

all state waters in Florida have the same threshold? 

Response: In Florida, Class II waters have different thresholds than Class III. However, 

the number of exceedances required for identifying impairment is the same. 

Steve Nanc: Are Florida and Georgia applying the same water quality criteria to the St. 

Marys River? 

Response: Dissolved oxygen standards are the same in Florida and Georgia. However, 

this remains an issue that compounds the TMDL. 

Steve Nanc: Is there any distinction between natural and man-made causes? 

Response: Goal is to identify man-made. Tough for DO & coliforms. Example some 

coliforms are wildlife, but bacterial source tracing can help. 

Tim McKelvey: Was any of the Water Management District’s SWIM data included? They 

have been successful in identifying point sources. 

Response: DEP has this information in a GIS database. SWIM data from the STORET 

database was also used. 

Dan Roach: What does it mean for a waterbody to have impaired “biology”? 

Response: DEP completes a Stream Condition Index to compare the benthic 

macroinvertebrate community that would be expected versus what is present. 

Janie Thomas: Does the DEP Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas program sample 

Alligator Creek? 

Response: No 

Janie Thomas: What species were tested for the mercury listings? 

Response: King mackerel and shark in marine waters. Small mouth bass in freshwater. 

These listings were based on DOH fish consumption advisories. Mercury is unique in 

that the entire Florida Atlantic coast is listed for mercury TMDLs to be developed by 

2011. However, the science is not ready to support TMDL development for mercury. 

Necessary linkages between the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are also not yet in 
200 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

place. The plan of study for mercury is on the DEP website. Tom Atkeson is the 

primary contact for the DEP mercury program. 

Dean Woehrle: When will the dissolved oxygen study be available? 

Response: This list is based on the current criteria. When the TMDL is developed, an 

alternative dissolved oxygen standard can be proposed. For dissolved oxygen to be 

listed, we need to find a causative pollutant (e.g. elevated nutrients). Sampling started 

this past spring and is supposed to extend through 1 year. 

Dean Woehrle: How long have waterbodies been impaired by mercury? 

Response: Consumption advisories were primarily from 1999. The main sources of 

mercury pollution are coal-fired power plants. There are some changes being made to 

address this through regulation of air pollution. 

Dean Woehrle: Are you sure mercury pollution is not natural? 

Response: Some mercury is natural in the environment, but not at these levels. 

Dan Roach: Why would we list waterbodies as impaired for mercury, when it is 

something we cannot fix? 

Response: By 2011, coordination between the clean air and clean water programs 

should be improved enough to allow us to implement management strategies to limit 

atmospheric mercury deposition. 

Janie Thomas: If mercury listings are looking at species, why not oysters and other 

bottom-dwelling species? 

Response: Oysters are a good resource for wastewater impacts. However, 

accumulation of mercury up the food chain is the primary issue driving the focus on highlevel predators. 

David Tudor: How many of the downgrades were due to the present of a treatment 

plant? 

Response: DEP does not include these type of administrative closures when considering 

listing for coliform. 

Dean Woehrle: When the state mandates a DO level of 5 [mg/L] but the river is around 

2, what is DEP going to do to resolve that? What is the plan for moving from 2.7 to 5? 

Response: DEP can list a waterbody as a Category 4, meaning that the impairment is 

due to natural conditions. However, they then need to convince EPA. DEP is trying to 

identify if the low DO in the basin is natural. If naturally low, then DEP will not list the 

waterbody and it will remain on the planning list. A waterbody will stay on the planning 

list if no causative pollutant can be found for the low DO concentrations. There are still 

time to make changes to the list if additional land use and source identification 

information is available. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 201

Janie Thomas: How are all of the agencies working together? 

Response: Dave Hiley (FMRI) has helped develop the analysis methods. A significant 

amount of data from SJRWMD was used. However, coordination can always be 

improved. 

Trish Gramajo: What does it mean to coordinate with Georgia on development of the 

BMAP? 

Response: EPA is responsible for ensuring that differences between the states are 

resolved so the waterbody meets its designated uses on both sides of the state line. 

Janie Thomas: What does rotting marsh grass do to the river? 

Response: It could raise BOD and drop DO as it decays. This is generally only a 

problem when herbicides are applied. 

Clif Maxwell: What is going on upstream that has caused upland regions of Egan’s 

Creek hardwood forests to be flooded with saltwater? 

Response: Unknown. 

David Tudor: Does the DO study include wetlands and marine waters? 

Response: Marine waters are not included in the study. It is unclear if particular wetland 

types are part of the study. 

Additional written comments were received after the meeting. Contact Jennifer Gihring, DEP, at (850) 

245-8418 for a copy of all public comments.


Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Water Resource Management 

Bureau of Watershed Management 

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 

(850) 245-8561 

www.dep.state.fl.us/water