# 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 

# 5 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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. 

# 7 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

# 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 EnvironmentalProtection’s (Department’s) watershed management approach for restoring and protecting water resources and addressing Total Maximum DailyLoad (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 Verified 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. Thisreport 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 localagencies 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, andDuval 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. 

# 9 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### Not only do stakeholders in the basin share responsibilities in achievingwater 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 heavilyon the active participation of the water management district, local governments, businesses, citizens, and other stakeholders. The Departmentwill 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 areimpaired 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 surficial 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 groundwater, 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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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) 

# 11 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 identification 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 againstconsumption 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 verified 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 andKing 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 wate rbody 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 CleanWater 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 

# 13 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

# 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4 

### 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 

# 15 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 Water body 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 

# 17 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

# 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 allwaters 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 identification, 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). Italso 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. 

# 19 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### The Verifi ed List is required by Subsection 403.067(40), FloridaStatutes, 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 (Rule62-303, 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 3provide an integrated assessment for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by planning unit. Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background forTMDL 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 tothe 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. MarysTable 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 STO rage and RET rieval database); complete water quality assessment; produce a final Assessment Report that includes a Verified List of impairedwaters 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 classification system using hydrologic unit codes. The Suwannee River Basin, a Group 1 basin, was the fi rst basin in thedistrict to undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000. A preliminary assessment for the Group 2 basin, the Lower St. Johns River, was completed in2001. 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. 

# 21 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 describeshow 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 qualitytrends, 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, bybasin 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 monitoringnetworks, the basin assessment methodology, the results of the preliminary assessment of ground water quality and ground water to surface waterinteractions, 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, provideslistings 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, TMDLallocation and implementation, and the development of a Basin Management Action
Plan. 

# 23 Noteworthy 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 populationcenters 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 

# 25 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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’sSt. 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. 

# 27 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

## Surface Water Resources

This section delineates the basin’s hydrology, describes the movement and management of water in the basin, briefly 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 othervegetation 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 Departmentof 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 theTrail 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 floodplain. 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 

# 29 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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

influence 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. MarysBasin 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 OFWdesignation 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 finding 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 defined 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 

# 31 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 thebasin. 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 confining 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 flow 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-WaSpring 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. MarysBasin are responsible for much of the progress that has been made in implementing watershed and water quality improvements in the area. Manyplans 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 leadershipin 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 manysmaller 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 significant positive effects on the basin’s water quality. The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was establishedin 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. TheNPS 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 andeconomic 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 ParkAquatic 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. TheFort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve was designated to establish a protective aesthetic buffer for the state park and historic Fort Clinch. 

# 33 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 unspoiledcoastal 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 fish 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 ProtectionProgram (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 agriculturalBMPs, 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’swater 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, TennesseeTech 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-specific 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 Chapters373 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. 

# 35 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### • Florida Green Industries BMPs for Protection of Water

Resources in Florida: This manual provides BMPs for professionalturfgrass and landscape managers. Published in 2002, it was developed through a cooperative effort by Florida Green Industries (anindustry 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 waterbod ies 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 theassessment 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 generaldescription 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 discretesources 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 

# 37 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 STO rage and RET rieval (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 STORETdatabases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Florida Department of Health (DOH). The STORET databases contain water qualitydata 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. MarysTable 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 

# 39 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 thestate’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 categoriesprovide 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, fish 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) thanCategory 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 attain ed. 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 ofpollution, 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 quantifieshow 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 listedunder 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 addressedthrough a watershed management program (for example, the Kissimmee River restoration). 

# 41 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysTable 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 ormore designated uses are not attained according to the Verified
List methodology A waterbody or segment exceeds Verified List evaluation criteria andmay be listed as impaired at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. However, the data have not yet been fully evaluated andthe 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 conditio ns 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, Categories4b 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, thebasin 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 helporganize information and management strategies around prominent watershed characteristics. Water quality assessments were conducted for waterbody segmentswithin 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 define 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. 

# 43 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 Islandhas 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 ninewaters 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. MarysRiver 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 

# 45 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 

# 47 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 (NortheastFlorida 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. MarysTable 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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, HistoricalChlorophyll, 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 

# 49 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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. MarysWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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) 

# 51 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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.

2 The 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)

3 The 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.

4 Parameters 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. Table 3.4 (continued) 

# 52 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys6 The 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
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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 

# 53 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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.

2 The 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)

3 The 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.

4 Parameters 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.

6 The 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. MarysTable 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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 

# 55 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Table 3.6 (continued) 

# 56 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysClass 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)

3 The 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.

4 Parameters 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.

6 The 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 ammoniaconcentration 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 tCorporation–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 

# 57 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 operationsare 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 UpperSt. 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 classifications (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. MarysPoint 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 twomajor 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. Theseinclude 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, runoffmay 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 programsites, 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 importantpart 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 threatto public health or the environment. Sites are listed on the NPLupon 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. TheEPA Superfund program administers the cleanup of NPL sites.

The Department’s state-funded cleanup program administers thecleanup 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. 

# 59 Noteworthy 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 NationalForest, 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 areboth 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 andall 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 Departmentreceives 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 Ccontain 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 thesouth. 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 thecoast, 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 SoundPlanning 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 

# 61 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 substantiallydifferent 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. MarysTable 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Nassau River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) tor Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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 

# 63 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) tor Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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. MarysWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) tor Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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) 

# 65 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) tor Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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.

2 The 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)

3 The 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.

4 Parameters 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.

6 The 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. MarysTable 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Nassau Sound Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)

List Parameters

of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3

Potentially Impaired (Cat.
3c) for Listed

Parameters 4 Verified Impaired
(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c,
or 5) for Listed

Parameters 5 Not Impaired
(Cat. 2) for Listed

Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)
Integrated Report

Assessment Category for WBID 6

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.

2 The 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)

3 The 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.

4 Parameters 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.

6 The 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 

# 67 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 wetlandssupport 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/orprograms 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 orprojects 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. 

# 69 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

# 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 influence 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 statusfor 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 thesurface 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 cialaquifer) 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 

# 71 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 thearea 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 significant 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 orderin 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 theenvironment, 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 shallowground 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 whereorganic 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 OxygenDO 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 mo re 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 

# 73 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 surficial 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. 

# 75 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

## 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 flow, 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 planningunit. 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# WellsMedian# WellsMedian# WellsMedian# WellsMedian

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 theClass 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-specific 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 identification number [WBID] 2211), is on the Verifi ed List for iron. This planningunit 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 ofiron 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. 

# 77 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 flow. 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 thepublic 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 madeavailable 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 Verified 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. 

# 79 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysTable 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 Pe nsacola 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 sufficiency 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 sufficient 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 futureand 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) 

# 81 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

## 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 listedwater 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. MarysTable 5.3: The Verified List of Impaired Waters for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Planning Unit

Name WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type Waterbody

Class 1 1998 303(d)

Parameters

of Concern Parameters

Identified
Using the
Impaired

Surface Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 Projected

Year for

TMDL Development 2 Comments 3

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. 

# 83 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning Unit

Name WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type Waterbody

Class 1 1998 303(d)

Parameters

of Concern Parameters

Identified
Using the
Impaired

Surface Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 Projected

Year for

TMDL Development 2 Comments 3

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, planningperiod 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. MarysPlanning Unit

Name WBID Waterbody
Segment Waterbody
Type Waterbody

Class 1 1998 303(d)

Parameters

of Concern Parameters

Identified
Using the
Impaired

Surface Waters Rule Priority

for TMDL
Development 2 Projected

Year for

TMDL Development 2 Comments 3

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)

2 Priority 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 th e 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 

# 85 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 theSt. Marys River segments and its major tributaries are due to natural conditions and are not being caused by a pollutant. The Department is in theprocess 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 notimpaired 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 

# 87 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 exceedancesof 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 edList, 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); 

# 89 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### • 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 ownevaluation 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 watersand 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. MarysTable 6.1: Priorities for TMDL Development in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin

Planning

Unit WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody
Type Waterbody

Class 1 1998 303(d)

Parameters

of Concern Parameters

Identified Under
the Impaired

Surface

Waters Rule Assessment

Status 2 Priority Year

for TMDL
Development Comments 3 (# 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.

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.



## 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 ofa 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 verification, 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 marginof 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 

# 91 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### dams and channelization, or changes in the fl ow of the water. In othercases, 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 watermanagement 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’sNPDES 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 byestablishing 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 andaddressed 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 ApproachesThe 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 

# 93 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 WaterManagement 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. 

# 95 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

### 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 TribeWater 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. 

# 97 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

## Water Quality Assessment Report 2007 

# Nassau–St. Marys Appendices

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Legislative and Regula tory Background on the Watershed Management Approach and the Implemen tation of Total Maximum Daily

Loads .......................................................................................................................... .... 101 Federal and State Legislation on Surface Wate r Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads ...... 101 Determining Impairment Based on the St ate’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 fo r 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.......................................................................................... 1 13



## Appendix C: Information on Reasonable Assurance ................................................ 115 Background ..................................................................................................................... ............ 115 Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluatio n of Pollution Control Mechanisms............................. 116 Responsible Parties for Reasonabl e 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 Wa ter 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 Reducti ons from Restoration Actions ..................................................... 120

New Sources/ Growth ............................................................................................................. ..... 120 Examples of Reasonable Progress............................................................................................... 1 20 Long-Term Requirements ......................................................................................................... .. 121



## Appendix D: Methodology for Determinin g Impairment Based on the Impaired
Surface Waters Rule..................................................................................................... 122 The Impaired Surface Waters Rule ............................................................................................. 12 2 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 Re port (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 Dischar ges 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 Na ssau–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 Sur face 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 biolog ical integrity of th e 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 wate rs” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]). Section 305(b) of the Clean Wate r Act requires states to report biennially to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on th eir water quality. The 305(b) assessment report provides information on the physical, chem ical, biological, and cultural features of

each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a co mmon factual basis for identifying information sources and major issu es, 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 wate r quality and an accurate picture of the waters that are most impaired or vulnerable to contamination. Section 303(d) of the Clean Wa ter 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 th ese 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 thes e 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 f oundation 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 main tenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV Agricultural water supplies Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial u se (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 th e environmental group Earthjustice over Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decr ee 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 deve lop the TMDLs, the EPA is required to do so. In response to concerns about the TMDL la wsuit and in recognition of the important role that TMDLs play in re storing state waters, the 1999 Fl orida legislature enacted the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act clarified the Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection’s (Department) statutory authority to establish TMDLs, required the Department to develop a methodology for identifying impaired waters, specified that the Depart ment could develop TMDLs only for waters on a future state list of impair ed waters developed using th is 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, allo wed the state to develop a TMDL for the lake (see Noteworthy for a description of the legi slation’s major provisions).

NOTEWORTHY: THE FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACT

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act cont ains the following major provisions:



# • Establishes that the 303(d) lis t submitted to the EPA in 1998 is for planning purposes only.



# • Requires the Department to adopt 303(d) listi ng criteria (that is, the methodology used to define impaired waters) by rule.



# • Requires the Department to verify impairm ent 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, lis t 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 “reasonabl e 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 Febr uary 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 Depa rtment of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), the Soil and Water Conservation Distri cts, regulated parties, and environmental groups in assessing waterbodies for impairm ent, 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 dev elop interim measures and BMPs to address nonpoint sources. While BMPs would be adopt ed by rule, they will be voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs. If they are ad opted by rule and the Department verifies their effectiveness, then implementation will provi de a presumption of compliance with water quality standards.



# • Directs the Department to document the effect iveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include participation rates and recommendat ions 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 Wa tershed Restoration Act describe impaired waters as those wa terbodies 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 Fl orida Environmental Regulation Commission on April 26, 2001. It provides a science-ba sed 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 ad visories, and ecological impairment. The complete text of the rule is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wat er/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 statisti cal 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 narr ative 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 (t hat 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 demons trate 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 disc harge, 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, econ omic, and environmental costs of such applicability outweigh the benefits.



## Determining impairment in individual water bodies takes place in two phases. First, in each river basin the Department evaluate s the existing water quality data, using the methodology prescribed in the IWR, to de termine 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 poten tially 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 pr oduced 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 Pla nning List. The Depart ment is required to develop TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A watershed management plan (called a Basi n 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 Secretar ial 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 fr amework for implementing TMDLs as required by the federal and state governments. The a pproach does not focus on individual causes of pollution. Instead, each ba sin 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 resour ces are managed on the basis of natural boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulator y boundaries. Federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water or other natural resource goals and work coope ratively to focus resources and implement effective strategies to rest ore 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 si ngle solutions to water resource issues, it is intended to improve the health of su rface water and ground water resources by strengthening coordination among such act ivities 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 wate rshed basis, this approach is intended to protect and enhance the ecol ogical structure, function, a nd integrity of Florida’s watersheds. It provides a framework for sett ing priorities and focu sing the Department’s resources on protecting and restoring water quality, and ai ms to increase cooperation among state, regional, local, a nd federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement, the approach encourages stewardship by all Fl oridians 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 multiage ncy projects. It avoids duplication by building on existing assessments and restorat ion 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 load ings allocated, as part of a watershed management cycle that rotates through the st ate’s 52 river basins ove r 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, ecologi cal, and socioeconomic setting as well as historical, current, and pr oposed 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 Mo nitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify whether potentially impaired wa ters in each basin are impa ired 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 provid es an updated and more thorough evaluation of water quality, associated bi ological 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 po llutant loadings from point and nonpoint

sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements. The plans will include regulator y and nonregulatory (i.e., volunt ary) and structural and nonstructural strategies, and existing manageme nt plans will be used where feasible. The involvement and support of affected stakeh olders 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, in forming 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 stat e’s river basins have been divided into five groups within each of the Department’s si x 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 rota tion 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 iterati ve, or repeated, proce ss. One of its key components is that the effec tiveness of management activ ities (TMDL implementation) will be monitored in successive cycles. M onitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent cycles will be targeted at evaluating whethe r water quality objectives are being met and whether individual waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the implementation of scheduled restoration activ ities, 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

1 st Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2 nd Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may chang e due to accelerated local activities, length of plan development, legal challenges, etc.108Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysFigure 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, organizati ons, and individuals w ho contribute to these discharges will be asked to share the res ponsibility 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, repl acement 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 P ERMITS 

## All point sources that discharge to surf ace 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 “reope ner clauses” that allow the Department to incorporate new discharge limits when a TM DL is established. These new limitations may be incorporated into a permit when a TM DL is implemented or at the next permit renewal, depending on the timing of the pe rmit 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 w ith the approved schedule set forth in the

BMAP.”

# 110 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys

D OMESTIC AND I NDUSTRIAL W ASTEWATER P ERMITS 

## In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, a ll of which discharge to surface waters, Florida also regulates domes tic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via land application. Since ground wa ter and surface water are so intimately linked in much of the state, reductions in loadings from th ese 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 modi fications of the existing state permits.

F LORIDA S TORMWATER /E NVIRONMENTAL R ESOURCE P ERMITS 

## With the implementation of the state’s st ormwater 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 No rthwest Florida Water Management District, new development projects receive an Envir onmental Resource Permit that combines stormwater flood protection, stormwater trea tment, and wetland protection/mitigation into a single permit. These permits are desi gned to obtain 80 percent average annual load reduction of total suspended solids. This le vel of treatment may n eed to be increased, depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basi n-specific criteria for the Lake Apopka Basin that require the phos phorus loading from new development not to exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading.

L OCAL L AND D EVELOPMENT C ODES 

## Since structural stormwater treatment prac tices can only achieve certain levels of load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development often cause ecological impacts to aquatic sy stems, local land development codes that promote “low-impact development” are an im portant 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 protecti on 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.

B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES 

## Typically, BMPs refer to a practice or co mbination of practices that, based on sound science and best professional judgment, are determined to be the most effective and practicable means of reduci ng nonpoint source pollutant di scharges and improving water quality. Both economic and technological cons iderations are included in the evaluation of what is practicable. BMPs may include stru ctural controls (such as retention areas or detention ponds) or nonstr uctural controls (such as street sweeping or public education). Many BMPs have been developed for urban st ormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type, slope, depth to ground water, and th e designation of receiving waters.

### Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 

# 111

The passage of the Florida Watershed Re storation 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 agricu ltural operations. In essence, IMs are a set of logical conservation practices designed to reduce ag ricultural nonpoint po llutant discharges based on current knowledge and best professiona l judgment. These practices will evolve

into more formal BMPs as better scientif ic data on their eff ectiveness is obtained. Once the Florida Department of Agricultur e 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 liabi lity and presumption of compliance similar to that granted a developer who obtains an Environmental Resource Permit.

N ONREGULATORY P ARTNERSHIPS 

## The St. Marys River Management Co mmittee is the key group enhancing environmental stewardship in the Nassau-St. Ma rys Basin. It is unique in its interstate focus, coordinating efforts between both Flor ida 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 el ected 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 advi sor 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 th e basin. Each of the county commissions appoints one commissioner and four private volunteer citizen s, two of which must own property fronting the river. Two nonvoting me mbers represent Georgi a’s Department of

Natural Resources and Florida’s St. Johns River Water Management District. The committee meets monthly to discuss, deve lop and implement plans and programs in regard to the St. Marys River.

The Committee’s goal is to promote and pr otect the long-term vi ability 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. Sp ecific 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 nonstruc tural, natural func tions of the St. Marys River; 3) Protect natural systems in th e St. Marys River corridor;

# 112 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys



## 4) Provide for the recreational and public us es of the St. Marys River that are compatible with the previous goals and consistent acros s 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.

O THER S TRATEGIES 

## 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, othe r possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, restoring water quality, and preventing the fu rther degradation of Florida’s watersheds include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollu tion prevention, new approaches to land use design and development, and pollutant tr ading. The Department will assemble a Technical Advisory Committee to help devel op a pollutant-trading ru le, which must be reviewed by the legislature prior to its adop tion. The Department will also continue to

work with local stakeholders on TMDL a llocation issues and implementation plans.

Sources of Information

For additional information on the Depart ment’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 Florid a, Mary Paulic, (850) 245-8560

• Northeast Florida, Ochlockonee–St. Mark s, and Suwannee, Jennifer Gihring (850) 245-8418

• West Central Florida and Tampa Ba y Region, Tom Singleton (850) 245-8561

For information on establishing and imp lementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional informa tion is available on the Department’s Web site at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/watersh eds/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 Ge orgia 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. Mary s River estuary. The area is federally protected as a calving ground for the critic ally endangered nort hern 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 fo r the threatened Atlant ic 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 th e area are protected as threatened or endangered under Georgia and Florida law, ther e are currently no fede rally threatened or endangered vascular plants recorded from the four-county St. Marys Basin (SMRMC, 2003).



## Natural Areas of th e St. Marys Basin

As reported in the St. Marys River Management Plan (SMRMC, 2003), existing natural areas in the St. Marys Basin incl ude 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 Na tional Forest at the headwaters of the river, and the Cumberland Isla nd National Seashore and Fort Clinch State Park at the river’s estuary. Florida’s Ralph E. Simmons Me morial State Forest and about half of its Cary State Forest are in the St. Marys Ba sin. Military holdings bordering the basin include King’s Bay Naval Station in Geor gia 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 silvicultu ral and conservation purposes. The Nature Conservancy’s Pinhook Swamp tract provide s 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 th e St. Marys Basin), and the Cary WMA (in the Cary State Forest; 3,413 acres; approximate ly 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 Developmen t of Documentation To Provide Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollu tion 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, wh en evaluating whether there is sufficient

reasonable assurance that:

1. Proposed pollution control mechanisms (typically described in watershed management or restoration plans) addre ssing impaired waters will result in the attainment of applicable water quality st andards (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 rela ted 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 establis h 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 “reasonabl e assurance” provided by proposed pollution control mechanisms. This guidance should not be us ed to evaluate the meaning of reasonable assurance in other contexts, par ticularly in permitting decisions.



## Background

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR), Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (Identification of Impaired Surface Waters), establishes a form al mechanism for identifying surface waters in Florida that are impaired (do not meet applicable water qua lity 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 purs uant to the Florida Watershe d 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 stat e’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 in clude waters with TMDLs and waters impaired by pollution).



## Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluati on of Pollution Co ntrol 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 im paired, the Department shall evaluate whether existing or proposed technol ogy-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to

result in the attainment of a pplicable water qua lity 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 futu re and is expected to make reasonable progress towards attainment of water qual ity 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 assuran ce that the waterbody segment will attain applicable water quality standards.



## Responsible Parties for Reason able Assurance Demonstration

It is ultimately the Department’s responsib ility to assure adequate documentation in

the administrative record whenever the De partment 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 wa ter and those to not list a wa ter for a given pollutant). However, the Department expects that local st akeholders will often offer to prepare the necessary documentation to demonstrate re asonable assurance th at 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-sp ecific Verified Lists as part of its watershed management cycle, which rotates th rough all of the state’ s basins over a fiveyear, five-phased cycle 1 

## . During the first phase of the cycle, the Department will assess water quality in the basin and prepare a dr aft Planning List of potentially impaired waters. The Department and interested part ies will then have approximately one year (Phase 2) to monitor waters on the pla nning list and prepare documentation, as appropriate, to provide reasonable assurance th at impaired waters will be restored. The Department will review submittals from interested parties during Phase 2, before adopting the Verified List for the basin c ontaining the waterbody segment in question.



## What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority

Both the FWRA and the IWR require th at the pollution control programs under consideration be “under local, state, or federal authority.” A pollution control program will be considered "under local, state, or federa l authority" if the program is subject to or required by a local ordinance, state statute or rule, or federal stat ute 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 th e 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 pr ograms of EPA, the Department, and the water management di stricts, and reducti ons at these nonpoint sources will be voluntary. In fact, pollu tion control mechanisms for these nonpoint sources would be voluntary even if a TMDL we re 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 pl an 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 tw o years, but Florida plan s 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 impaire d 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 reasona ble assurance addressing only selected pollutants, which could result in the Department not listi ng the waterbody segment for those pollutants, but still listing it for othe rs. In this event, TMDLs will only be developed for the remaining listed pollutants.



## Information To Consider and Docu ment 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 a nd watershed, the watershed/8-digit cataloging unit code, the NHD identifier (whe n 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 identifie d as causing or contributing to the impairment), and the suspected or docume nted source(s) of the pollutant(s) of

concern.

2. A Description of the Water Qua lity or Aquatic Ecological Goals —a description of the water qua lity–based targets or aqua tic ecological goals (both interim and final) that have been established for the pollutant(s) of concern, the averaging period for any numeric water qu ality goals, a discussion of how these goals will result in the rest oration 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 actio ns are needed.

3. A Description of the Proposed Man agement Actions To Be Undertaken

— names of the responsible participating en tities (government, private, others), a summary and list of existing or propos ed management activities designed to restore water quality, the geographic scope of any proposed management activities, documentation of the estimat ed pollutant load reduction and other benefits anticipated from implementa tion of individual management actions, copies of written agreements committing pa rticipants to the management actions, a discussion on how future growth and new sources will be addressed, confirmed sources of funding, an implementation sc hedule (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 qua lity monitoring program to be implemented (including station locations, parameters sampled, a nd 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 res ponsible monitoring a nd reporting entity; the frequency and format for reporting results; the freque ncy 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 impl ementation of the management actions or if management actions are not co mpleted on schedule, and a process for notifying the Department that these co rrective actions are being implemented.



## Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals

Some of the most important elements liste d 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 ta rgets because they e quate 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 hydrodyna mic/water quality model. In some cases, there may be sufficient hi storical data (pal eolimnological data, loadings from periods predating the impairmen t, or baseline data for Outstanding Florida

Waters 2 

## , for example) that could be used to dete rmine an appropriate water quality target. In other cases, simplified modeling (incl uding 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 qual ity target may have been developed that would be scientifically equiva lent to (or act as the basis for) a TMDL, but the target has not been administratively adopted as a TM DL. In each of these cases, a sound water quality target could be used to evalua te whether the proposed pollution control mechanisms will sufficiently reduce loadings to meet the assimilative capacity of the water in question and result in at tainment 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 docum ent, but site-specific measures are also encouraged.



## Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets

While the averaging period for water qualit y–based targets should be consistent with how the underlying standard is expressed, they can often be expre ssed in a variety of ways and need not be expressed as “daily lo ads.” Annual averages or medians are often appropriate for some parameters, but shorte r-term (seasonal, for example) averages maybe 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 wate r quality target.



## Estimates of Pollutant Reductio ns 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). Howeve r, to provide reasonable assurance that a

BMP or other restoration action will reduce loadings of the po llutant of concern to a level that will restore the water’s designated uses, documentation should address how the reductions were calculated, in cluding providing documented values from the scientific

literature for reductions attri buted 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 documenta tion 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 mu st 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 agricultura l development that results in increased nutrient loading from stor mwater, 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 progre ss towards restoration of the designated uses of the impaired water. Possible exampl es of reasonable progre ss 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 reducti on (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 decreas e (or alternatively, a percent decrease consistent with meeting the water quality ta rget 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 meas ured by bioassessment procedures similar to those used to determine impairment and conducted in si milar conditions; or

• Adoption of a local ordinance that specifica lly provides water quality goals, restricts growth or loads tied to the pollutant(s ) of concern, and provides an enforcement option if the proposed management measur e(s) are not implemented as required.

Reasonable progress must be made by the ti me 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 y ears, and the IWR was specifically worded to allow a longer time frame for requiring reas onable progress in the event that the listing cycle changes.



## Long-Term Requirements

If at any time the Department determines that reasonable assu rance and reasonable progress are not being met, the order adopti ng the Verified List will be amended to include the waterbody on the Ve rified 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 guida nce memo, contact Daryll Joyner of the Department’s Bureau of Watershed Ma nagement in Tallahassee at 850-245-8431.

# 122 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys



# Appendix D: Methodology fo r Determining Impairment Based on the Impaired Sur face 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 (Depar tment) evaluates water quality data using the science-based methodology in the Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Co de [F.A.C.]). The rule establishes specific criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data quality requirements. The methodology describe d in the rule is based on a statistical approach designed to provide greater confid ence 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/wat er/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf. As part of the watershed management appr oach, for each river ba sin 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 wate rs 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 Planni ng 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 me thodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C., the Department will determine if wa ters 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 year s should not be used to verify impairment. The Verified List will be adopted by Secr etarial 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 pr eviously, 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 attain ment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired wa ters, the Department uses EPA terminology when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision processes for listing impaired waters that ar e 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 as signed 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 qua lity for each basin statewide includes an analysis of quantitative data from a vari ety of sources, many of which are readily available to the public. These sources in clude the EPA’s Legacy and modernized
STO rage and RET rieval (STORET) databases, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department, the Florida Department of Hea lth (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 da ta 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 da ta 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 d ecreased 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 r easons, such as time constraints or resource limitations, were not able to en ter their data into the nationa l database. The organizations providing the largest datasets in clude the South Florida, Sout hwest Florida, and St. Johns River Water Management Distri cts; the USGS; and the University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring group. Severa l of these databases are read ily available to the public

# 124 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys



## via the Internet: the South Florid a 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 Verifi ed List assessment, the window is 7.5 years (for the IWR Database), and the Planni ng List assessment window is 10 years. Table

D.2 shows the periods of record for the Veri fied 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 Planni ng 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 qualit y in individual river basins in Florida, three categories of data—chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption advisories—were evaluated to determine pot ential impairments for the four designated use attainment categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, fish and shellfish consumption, drinking wa ter use, and protection of human health.

Aquatic Life Based Attainment

The IWR follows the principle of independe nt 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 indi cators (numeric water quality criteria, nutrient thresholds, biological thresholds, and toxicity data).

### Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 

# 125

E XCEEDANCES OF N UMERIC W ATER Q UALITY C RITERIA 

## 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. Wa ter quality information from point sources

or wells was excluded. Monito ring stations were classified as one of five waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or black water—based on criter ia described in the latest 305(b) report. The assessmen ts 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 include d a minimum of 10 temporally independent samples from th e 10-year period of record shown in Table D.2, unless there were 3 exceedances of water qua lity or 1 exceedance of an acute toxicity criterion in a 3-year period. The screeni ng methodology for the Verified List requires at least 20 samples from the last 5 years pr eceding 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 comput er program written to assess the data, based on criteria established in the IWR, with tw o exceptions. First, unionized ammonia data were not analyzed by the program, but rath er with an Excel spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criter ion 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 identific ation numbers (WBIDs ), waterbody types, and parameters obtained from the STORET Da tabase were conducted using Access, SAS statistical software, and Ar cView geographic information system (GIS) applications The data for metals and conventional para meters 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 exceedan ces. A waterbody was placed on the Planning List if there was at least 80 percent confiden ce 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

E XCEEDANCES OF N UTRIENT T HRESHOLDS 

## The state currently has a narra tive nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for

nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of wa ter be altered so as to cau se an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The IWR provides an interpretation of the

narrative nutrient crite rion. In general, the Trophic State Index (TSI) and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means fo r assessing whether a waterbody should be assessed further for nutrient impairment.

The rule also considers other information th at might indicate an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a decrease in the distribution (e ither in density or aerial c overage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in al gal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings. Potential nutrient impairment was evalua ted 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 nitr ogen 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 ( μ g/L) or if annual mean chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percen t over historical values for at least two consecutive years. For streams, a wate r was considered nutri ent enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μ g/L or if the annual mean increased by more than 50 percent over hist orical 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 cons idered 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.

E XCEEDANCES OF B IOLOGICAL T HRESHOLDS


## 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 th e generation and analysis of bioassessment

data. These are referenced in the individua l bioassessment data tabl es contained in the Water Quality Status Reports. The pur pose behind using a bioassessment methodology

in surface water characteriza tions 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 di screte chemical or physical measurements alone. Similar to water quality criteria, bioassessment met hods involve the identific ation of a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpai red or least impacted waters in a given region.

### Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 

# 127

For the Planning and Verified List assessm ents, the reference condition data were used to establish expected sc ores, ranging from best to wors t, for various measures of community structure and function, such as numbe rs or percentages of particular species or feeding groups. Data on community stru cture and function from waters of unknown quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of

metrics to evaluate th eir biological integrity. Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Dipt era, percent filter feeders) were used independently and as an aggr egated group called an index. Indices have advantages over individual metrics in that they can integrat e several related metrics into one score that reflects a wider range of biol ogical variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and indices exist for assessing populations of plan t and animal life, including fish, diatoms (e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankt on), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, crayfish, snails, and mussels). Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient si tes 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 Di scharge Elimination System (NPDES) fifth-year insp ections, but excluded data fr om effluent outfalls from discharging facilities or data from monitori ng sites not clearly established to collect ambient water quality data. Because s ite-specific habitat and physicochemical assessment information (e.g., percent suitable m acroinvertebrate habita t, 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 a nd will be included in future reporting. The data used to develop the Planning a nd Verified Lists were obtained from the Department’s Biological Database (SBI O) 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 proce dures referenced in the IWR (Section 62- 303.330, F.A.C.).

The data from these databases are used w ithout regard to the randomness of sample site selection. For the purposes of the Basi n Status Reports, the s easons are defined as follows: winter (1/1–3/31), spring (4/1–6/30) , summer (7/1–9/30), a nd 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.

L AKE C ONDITION I NDEX 

## The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except percent Diptera, was performed acco rding 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 percen tile of the reference population and B

= observed value

An average LCI score was cal culated by averaging the scor es 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 bioassess ments. A poor or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR.

S TREAM C ONDITION I NDEX


## 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; pe rcent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A poor or very poor rating based on the total sc ore constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR. The Basin Status Reports cont ain definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data.

B IO R ECON 

## 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 wate r was deemed “impaired” based on the IWR.

B IOLOGICAL I NTEGRITY S TANDARD 

## Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester-Dendy artificial substrate samplers, were used to calculate Shannon-Wi ener Diversity Index scores for paired background and test sites, as specified in th e Biological Integrity St andard of Subsection 62-302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the sta ndard meant that a waterbody segment was listed as potentially impaired.

E VALUATION OF T OXICITY D ATA 

## Although the IWR describes the use of toxicity data for the assessment of aquatic life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity da ta 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 ar ea for which a local health department or county government issued closures, advi sories, 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 dur ing a calendar year based on previous bacteriological data or on de rived relationships between bact eria levels and rainfall or

flow.

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody wa s 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 appr oved for shellfish harvesting but were downgraded to a more restrictive classificat ion were listed as potentially impaired.

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potenti ally impaired if it did not meet the applicable Class I water quality criteria.

# 130 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys



# Appendix E: Integrated Asse ssment (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 fr om 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 tr end data by planning unit.Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys131Table E.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Nassau–St. Marys Basin, by Planning UnitPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097AST. MARYS RIVAB ICWW ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 LOW 2010PP TN/TP RATIO = 9.97; MEDIAN TN = 0.530 mg/L; MEDIAN TP= 0.050 mg/L; PP N = 5, ALL DATA FROM 1993.CHLOROPHYLL - PP MEDIAN = 1.832 μg/L, N = 1, DATA FROM1993. VP TN/TP = 7.40; MEDIANTN = 0.064 μg/L; MEDIAN TP= 0.085 μg/L; N = 18. CHLOROPHYLL VP MEDIAN = 1.47, ALLFROM 2004 - ANNUAL AVERAGE CHLOROPHYLL 1.47 μg/L.PROPOSE TO DELIST.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097AST. MARYS RIVAB ICWW ESTUARYMERCURY IN FISHND 3C LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097AST. MARYS RIVAB ICWW ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 0/7 VP - 0/25LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097AST. MARYS RIVAB ICWW ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/6 VP - 0/20LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097AST. MARYS RIVAB ICWW ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/4 VP - 0/202LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097AST. MARYS RIVAB ICWW ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/7 VP - 0/21LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097BST. MARYSRIVER ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 LOW 2010PP TN/TP RATIO = 11.11; MEDIANTN = 0.763 mg/L; MEDIANTP = 0.064 mg/L; PP N = 7 CHLOROPHYLL - NONE FROM PP.VP TN/TP = 9.64; MEDIAN TN = 0.772 μg/L(N = 24); MEDIAN TP= 0.078 μg/L (N = 25). CHLOROPHYLL VP MEDIAN = 1.23, ALLFROM 2004. 2004 ANNUAL AVERAGE = 1.23 μg/L.PROPOSETO DELIST.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097BST. MARYSRIVER ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 0/7 VP - 3/29LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2097BST. MARYSRIVERESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/4 VP - 0/20LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097BST. MARYSRIVER ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/4 VP - 0/202LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097BST. MARYSRIVER ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/1 VPV - 0/22132Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGENPL 3C LOW 2010VP - 30/129 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 5.05 mg/L, VPAVERAGE = 5.3 mg/L, VP MAX = 10.43 mg/L, VP MIN = 1.5mg/L. CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT - NEITHER NITROGEN (VPMEDIAN = 1.12 mg/L) OR PHOSPHOROUS (VP MEDIAN =0.046 mg/L) CONCENTRATIONS ARE ELEVATED ABOVETHRESHOLDS. BOD - VP BOD MEDIAN IS AT THRESHOLDLEVEL (2 mg/L) - BOD PP MEDIAN = 1.55 mg/L, PP MAX = 2.50mg/L, PP MIN = 0.90 mg/L, PP N = 8, DATA FROM 1994, 1995,2000, 2001.; VP MEDIAN = 2 mg/L, VP MAX = 2.70 mg/L, VPMIN = 0.90 mg/L, VP N = 19, DATA FROM 2000, 2001, 2004.MOVED TO PLANNING LIST - DEPARTMENT TOINVESTIGATE WHETHER THIS IS DUE TO A NATURALCONDITION OR A POLLUTANTLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TSS NI 2 LOW 2010PP MEDIAN = 8 mg/L, PP MIN = 1 mg/L, PP MAX = 67 mg/L, PPN = 83, DATA FROM 1993, 1994,1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,2001, 2002. VP MEDIAN = 11 mg/L, VP MIN = 4 mg/L, VP MAX= 67 mg/L, VP N = 123, DATAFROM 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002,2003, 2004.TURBIDITY IS NOT IMPAIRED - PROPOSE TODELIST.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 1/104 EXCEEDANCES, PP MEDIAN = 4.35 NTU, PP MIN =1.8 NTU, PP MAX = 50.0 NTU,DATA FROM 1993, 1994, 1995,1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002. VP - 2/138 EXCEED 29NTU, VP MEDIAN = 4 NTU, VP MIN = 1.6 NTU, VP MAX = 50.0NTU (ALL VALUES BELOW 17 NTU, EXCEPT FOR ONE VALUEOF 50 NTU), DATA FROM 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAMFECALCOLIFORMSNI 2 LOW 2010(#/100 ML) VP = 6/91 EXCEEDANCES, VP MIN = 2; MAX =1,300; MEDIAN = 76.MEETS STANDARDS, PROPOSE TODELISTLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAMTOTALCOLIFORMSNI 2 LOW 2010(#/100 ML)VP - 1/68 EXCEEDANCES, VP MIN = 4; MAX =4,000; MEDIAN = 290.MEETS STANDARDS, PROPOSE TODELISTLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAM COPPER PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS. PP - 6/22 VP - 1/6LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAM FLUORIDE NI 2PP - 0/87 VP - 0/110LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAM IRON PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 21/21 VP - 5/5LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAM LEAD NI 2MORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS. PP - 0/22 VP - 0/6Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys133Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 LOW 2010PP TN/TP RATIO = 26.96, PP MEDIAN TN = 1.10 mg/L, PPMEDIAN TP = 0.04 mg/L, PP N = 79, DATA FROM 1993,1994,1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001,2002. VP TN/TP RATIO =23.61; VP MEDIAN TN = 1.12 mg/L(N = 89); VP MEDIAN TP =0.046 mg/L (N = 104). DATAFROM 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002,2003, 2004. CHLOROPHYLL MEETS STANDARDS; NUTRIENTMEDIANS NOT ABOVE THRESHOLDS,PROPOSE TO DELIST.CHLOROPHYLL - PP AVERAGEANNUAL CONCENTRATION =3.17 μg/L, VP MEDIAN VALUE (ALL DATA) = 1.00 μg/L, VP N =89, ANNUAL AVERAGES FROM 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001,2002. VP AVERAGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATION = 1.35 μg/L,VP MEDIAN VALUE (ALL DATA) = 1.00 μg/L, VP N (ALL DATA)= 89. ANNUAL AVERAGES FROM 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002,2003, 2004. HIGHEST ANUAL AVERAGE CHLOROPHYLLFROM 1999 = 2.71μg/L.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAMCHLOROPHYLL(HISTORICAL) NI 2 LOW 2010HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE IS 2.71 μg/L (1999). BASED ONA BACKGROUND OF 2 μg/L. HAS NOT INCREASED >50PERCENT FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS. DATA FROM1998, 1999, 2001 - 2004.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097CST. MARYSRIVER STREAM ZINC NI 2PP - 1/23 VP - 0/7LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM ANTIMONY ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/8LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2097DST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM ARSENICID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/8LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM CADMIUM ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/7LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/8LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2097DST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM COPPER ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/8LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3C*VP - 12/32 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 5.35 mg/L; VP MAX= 8.20 mg/L; VP MIN = 3.08 mg/L. BOD MEDIAN IS NOTABOVE THRESHOLD LEVEL (2 mg/L) - PP MEDIAN = 1.1 mg/L,PP MAX = 2 mg/L, PP MIN = 0.50mg/L, PP N = 63, DATA FROM1993, 1994, 1998; VP MEDIAN = 1 mg/L, VP MAX = 2 mg/L, VPMIN = 1 mg/L, VP N = 26, DATA FROM 1998. VP MEDIAN = 1.4mg/L, VP MIN = 1 mg/L, VP MAX = 2.5 mg/L, VP AVERAGE =1.5 mg/L, VP N = 43. SEE NUTRIENT LISTING FOR TN AND TPEVALUATION.MOVED TO PLANNING LIST - DEPARTMENTTO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THIS IS DUE TO NATURALCONDITIONS OR A CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT(TN, TP, ANDBOD DO NOT EXCEED THRESHOLD LEVELS)134Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2097DST. MARYSRIVERSTREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)ID 3BPP TN/TP RATIO = 21.26; PP MEDIAN TN = 0.987 mg/L; PPMEDIAN TP = 0.049 mg/L, PP N = 7, DATA FROM 1993, 1994.ONLY TP DATA FROM VP - MEDIAN = 0.04 (N = 43).LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 3/43 VP - 3/35LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BASED ON LARGE MOUTH BASS, 19 SAMPLES WITHAVERAGE TOTAL Hg OF 0.91 μg. FROM 2004. ANY TMDL FORMERCURY IN FISH TISSUE WILL APPLY TO THE WHOLEWATERBODY, NOT JUST THIS WBID.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM LEAD ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/7LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM NICKEL ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/8LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/8LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM THALLIUM ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/8LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 6/6LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM SILVER ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/6LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2097DST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM IRON ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 6/6LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/62 VP - 0/43LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097DST. MARYSRIVER STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA NI 2PP - 0/26 VP - 0/12LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2097DST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/8LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2098UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2099UNNAMEDCREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2099UNNAMEDCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2099UNNAMEDCREEK STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2100UNNAMEDCREEK STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2101UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2102UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys135Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2103CABBAGECREEK STREAM ND 3ABLACKWATER STREAMLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2104UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2106LITTLE ST.MARYS RIVERSTREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGENPL 3C LOW 2010PP - 10/13 EXCEEDANCES, PP MEDIAN = 2.90 mg/L, PPAVERAGE = 3.16 mg/L, PP MAX = 5.60 mg/L, PP MIN = 0.60mg/L, DATA FROM 1993, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001. VP - 16/27EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 3.8 mg/L, VP AVERAGE = 4.37mg/L, VP MAX = 7.4 mg/L, VP MIN = 1.8 mg/L, DATA FROM2000, 2001, 2004.MOVED TO PLANNING LIST -DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THIS IS DUE TOA NATURAL CONDITION OR A CAUSATIVE POLLUTANTLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2106LITTLE ST.MARYS RIVERSTREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 LOW 2010PP TN/TP RATIO = 33.90, PP MEDIAN TN = 1.22 mg/L, PPMEDIAN TP = 0.06 mg/L, PP N = 10, DATA FROM 1993, 1994,1995, 2000, 2001. VP TN/TP RATIO = 15.53, VP MEDIAN TN =1.08 mg/L (N = 20), VP MEDIAN TP = 0.08 mg/L (N = 13), DATAFROM 2000, 2001, 2004. VP CHLOROPHYLL MEAN IS 1.0μg/L; VP MIN = 1.0 μg/L; VP MAX = 20 μg/L; VP N = 21. TN ANDTP BELOW THRESHOLDS,NO CHLOROPHYLL VALUESABOVE 20 μg/L. 2004 ANNUAL AVERAE CHLOROPHYLL =2.754 μg/L.PROPOSE TO DELIST.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2106LITTLE ST.MARYS RIVERSTREAMMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE)VL 5 LOW 2011VERIFY DATA ARE WITHIN 7.5 YEARS.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2106LITTLE ST.MARYS RIVER STREAMFECALCOLIFORMSNI 2 LOW 2010(#/100 ML)VP - 4/21 EXCEEDANCES, VP MIN = 10; MAX =1,350; MEDIAN = 140; FOUR EXCEEDANCES ABOVE 400.MEETS STANDARDS, PROPOSE TO DELISTLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2106LITTLE ST.MARYS RIVER STREAMTOTALCOLIFORMSNI 2 LOW 2010(#/100 ML) VP - 4/21 EXCEEDANCES, VP MIN = 200; MAX =10,000; MEDIAN = 1,756.MEETS STANDARDS, PROPOSE TODELISTLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2106LITTLE ST.MARYS RIVER STREAM BIOLOGY NI 21994 - "EXCELLENT" SCI; 1995 - "GOOD" SCILOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2106LITTLE ST.MARYS RIVER STREAMTURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/15 VP - 0/27LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2108COSSIERSCREEK STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2109UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2110UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3A136Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2111UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2113WHITE OAKSWAMP STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2116WILDERSWAMPSTREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2117LOWERSISTER CREEK STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2119HILLIARDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2121UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 HIGH 2005NO DATA FROM PP. VP TN/TP RATIO = 7.63; VP MEDIAN TN= 0.624 mg/L(N = 29); VP MEDIAN TP = 0.09 mg/L (N = 26), ,DATA FROM 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004. VP CHLOROPHYLLDATA MEDIAN = 1 μg/L, VP MIN = 1 μg/L; VP MAX = 4.3 μg/L, N= 27. ONE VALUE IN IWR IS 1,100 μg/L, WHICH IS BELIEVEDTO BE 1.1 μg/L - BASED ON THIS, 2004 ANNUAL AVERAGECHLOROPHYLL = 1.27 μg/L.PROPOSE TO DELIST.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 0/4 VP - 0/27LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/1 VP - 3/21LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/0 VP - 0/21LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVER ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2124 AMELIA RIVERESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/4 VP - 0/22LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2126UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2126UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2126UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 0/1LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2126UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2126UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)ID 3BLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2127 EGANS CREEK ESTUARY ND 3AWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys137Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2128UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2137UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2140JACKSONCREEKESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGENID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/4LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2140JACKSONCREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 1/2 VP - 1/2LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2140JACKSONCREEK ESTUARYSHELLFISH(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011VERIFIED DUE TO DOWNGRADE IN SHELLFISHHARVESTING CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WATER QUALITYLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 2140JACKSONCREEK ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BLOWER ST.MARYS RIVER2141UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAM ND 3ALOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129LOWER ST.MARYS OCEAN ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129A SADLER ROADESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129A SADLER ROAD ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129B MAIN BEACHESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 1/201LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129B MAIN BEACH ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129COCEANSTREET ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129COCEANSTREET ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129DFORT CLINCHBEACH ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201LOWER ST.MARYS RIVER 8129DFORT CLINCHBEACH ESTUARY MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.138Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097EST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BASED ON LARGE MOUTH BASS, 19 SAMPLES WITHAVERAGE TOTAL Hg OF 0.91 μg. FROM 2004. ANY TMDL FORMERCURY IN FISH TISSUE WILL APPLY TO THE WHOLEWATERBODY, NOT JUST THIS WBID.MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAMBODNI 2 LOW 2010BLACKWATER STREAM. VP MEDIAN = 2 mg/L; VPAVERAGE = 1.89 mg/L; VP N = 25; DATA FROM 2000, 2001,2003, 2004. MEDIAN IS AT THRESHOLD VALUE OF 2 mg/L,BUT NO VALUES ABOVE 2 mg/L, AND DO MEETSSTANDARDS.PROPOSE TO DELIST.MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. VP - 2/22 EXCEEDANCES, VPMEDIAN = 7.45 mg/L; VP AVERAGE = 7.52 mg/L; DATA FROM2000, 2001, 2004. MEETS STANDARDS.MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BASED ON LARGE MOUTH BASS, 19 SAMPLES WITHAVERAGE TOTAL Hg OF 0.91 μg. FROM 2004. ANY TMDL FORMERCURY IN FISH TISSUE WILL APPLY TO THE WHOLEWATERBODY, NOT JUST THIS WBID.MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM IRON ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 2/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2097FST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM THALLIUM ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM ANTIMONY ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2097FST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM LEAD ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM NICKEL ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 2/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM SILVER ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 2/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM ARSENIC ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM COPPER ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys139Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM CADMIUM ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 22004 ANNUAL AVERAGE CHLOROPHYLL = 1.0 μg/L.MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/1 VP - 2/25MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2097FST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/1 VP - 0/20MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097FST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/3 VP - 0/24MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM ANTIMONY ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM. PP - 0/5 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2097GST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM CADMIUM ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 2/5 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/2 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 2/18 VP - 7/8MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2097GST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM NICKEL ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM THALLIUM ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2097GST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM COPPER ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/0 VP - 0/8MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2097GST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/11 VP - 1/8MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BASED ON LARGE MOUTH BASS, 19 SAMPLES WITHAVERAGE TOTAL Hg OF 0.91 μg. FROM 2004. ANY TMDL FORMERCURY IN FISH TISSUE WILL APPLY TO THE WHOLEWATERBODY, NOT JUST THIS WBID.140Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM IRON ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 2/5 VP - 2/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM LEAD PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 3/5 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 2/2 VP - 2/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/16 VP - 0/4MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2097GST. MARYSRIVER STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/8 VP - 0/8MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2105PIGEONCREEK STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2NINE SCI SCORES FROM 1993 - 2000 WERE ALL"EXCELLENT;" ONE BIORECONFROM 2000 WAS "SUSPECT"MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2105PIGEONCREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BPP - 1/8 VP - 0/3MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2105PIGEONCREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2105PIGEONCREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/7 VP - 0/1MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2105PIGEONCREEKSTREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2105AHAMPTONLAKE LAKE ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2105BHAMPTONLAKE OUTLET LAKE ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2107UNNAMEDSTREAMSTREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2112 BRUSH CREEK STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2115LITTLE DUNNCREEK STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2115LITTLE DUNNCREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2115LITTLE DUNNCREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2115LITTLE DUNNCREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2115LITTLE DUNNCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2123 DUNN CREEK STREAM ND 3ABLACKWATER STREAMWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys141Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2134CROSSBRANCH STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2144UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2146STAVEBRANCHSTREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2150UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2152 DEEP CREEK STREAM ND 3ABLACKWATER STREAMMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER2154UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2160UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2167UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2178UNNAMEDSTREAM STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2180UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2185UNNAMEDCREEK STREAM ND 3AMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEKSTREAM BIOLOGY PL 3C*BLACKWATER STREAM. FIVESCI SCORES FROM 1994 -1998 WERE "EXCELLENT;"2000 SCI SCORE WAS "POOR"AND 2000 BIORECON WAS "IMPAIRED".NEED TO IDENTIFYCAUSATIVE POLLUTANT. THIS PARAMETER MEETS THECRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE IWR FOR VERIFICATION ASIMPARIED, HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO THEPLANNING LIST PENDING IDENTIFICATION OF CAUSATIVEPOLLUTANTMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS. POSSIBLE CAUSATIVEPOLLUTANT TO BIOLOGY.PP - 4/5 VP - 0/2MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEKSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/4 VP - 0/1MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEKSTREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/4 VP - 0/1MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEKSTREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/5 VP - 0/2142Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsMIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2196 DEEP CREEK STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/1 VP - 0/1MIDDLE ST.MARYS RIVER 2219UNNAMEDCREEK STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2313UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097HST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BASED ON LARGE MOUTH BASS, 19 SAMPLES WITHAVERAGE TOTAL Hg OF 0.91 μg. FROM 2004. ANY TMDL FORMERCURY IN FISH TISSUE WILL APPLY TO THE WHOLEWATERBODY, NOT JUST THIS WBID.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097HST. MARYSRIVER STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BPP - 0/3 VP - 0/12UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2097HST. MARYSRIVERSTREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/12UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097HST. MARYSRIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097HST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 2/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2097HST. MARYSRIVERSTREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097HST. MARYSRIVER STREAM IRON ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 4/10UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097HST. MARYSRIVER STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097IST. MARYSRIVER STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 LOW 2010BLACKWATER STREAM. PHOSPHOROUS LIMITED. PP TN/TPRATIO = 33.24; PP NITROGEN MEDIAN = 0.98 mg/L, PPPHOSPHOROUS MEDIAN = 0.03 mg/L, PP N = 7; DATA FROM1993, 1994. VP - TN/TP RATIO= 31; VP NITROGEN MEDIAN =1.2 mg/L; VP PHOSPHOROUS MEDIAN = 0.035 mg/L. ALLCHLOROPHYLL VALUES FROM 2004 (N=20) ARE 1 μg/L; 2004ANNUAL AVERAGE IS 1.0 μg/L.PROPOSE TO DELIST.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097IST. MARYSRIVER STREAMMERCURY IN FISHVL 5 LOW 2011BASED ON LARGE MOUTH BASS, 19 SAMPLES WITHAVERAGE TOTAL Hg OF 0.91 μg. FROM 2004. ANY TMDL FORMERCURY IN FISH TISSUE WILL APPLY TO THE WHOLEWATERBODY, NOT JUST THIS WBID.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097IST. MARYSRIVER STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP - 0/11 VP - 2/27UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097IST. MARYSRIVER STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/11 VP - 0/24Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys143Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097IST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP - 1/8 VP - 0/22UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097IST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/11 VP - 0/25UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097IST. MARYSRIVER STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/3 VP - 0/3UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097JST. MARYSRIVER STREAMBODPL 3B LOW 2010NO DATA FROM PP. 10 VALUES FROM 2004, ALL VALUESARE 2 mg/L. NO VALUES EXCEED THE THRESHOLD.ALTHOGH NOT ENOUGH DATATO ANALYZE DO, NO DOVALUE THUS FAR IS BELOW 5.0 mg/L (N = 11). WILL LEAVEON PLANNING LIST UNTI L FURTHER BOD AND DO DATACAN BE OBTAINED.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097JST. MARYSRIVER STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097JST. MARYSRIVER STREAM MERCURY IN FISH VL 5 LOW 2011BASED ON LARGE MOUTH BASS, 19 SAMPLES WITHAVERAGE TOTAL Hg OF 0.91 μg. FROM 2004. ANY TMDL FORMERCURY IN FISH TISSUE WILL APPLY TO THE WHOLEWATERBODY, NOT JUST THIS WBID.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097JST. MARYSRIVER STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BNO DATA FROM PP. VP MEAN = 8.0 mg/L, VP MIN = 5.5 mg/L,VP MAX = 11.3 mg/L, VP N = 11. NO EXCEEDANCESUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAMMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE)VL 5 LOW 2011BLACKWATER STREAM. BASEDON L.ARGE MOUTH BASS,19 SAMPLES WITH AVERAGE TOTAL Hg OF 0.91 mg/kg FROM2004. ANY TMDL FOR MERCURY IN FISH WILL APPLY TOTHE WHOLE WATERBODY, NOT JUST THIS WBID.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. EIGHT SCI SCORES FROM 1993 -1996 ARE "EXCELLENT;" ONESCI SCORE FROM 1999 IS"GOOD;" ONE BIORECONFROM 1995 IS "HEALTHY"UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM CADMIUM ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 1/3 VP - 1/5UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PPAVERAGE CORRECTEDCONCENTRATION = 0.91 μg/L, PP N = 19, AVERAGES FROM1996, 1997, 1998, 2004. HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE FROM1999 = 15.97 - ALL OTHER ANNUAL AVERAGES BELOW 3.0μg/L.144Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/4 VP - 0/6UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM COPPER PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 6/27 VP - 4/13UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3CVP - 6/25 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 6.09 mg/L, VP MEAN= 6.59 mg/L, VP MIN = 2.9 mg/L, VP MAX = 9.9 mg/L.NEED TOIDENTIFY CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT. IF NO CAUSATIVEPOLLUTANT CAN BE IDENTIFIED, MAY BE MOVED TOPLANNING LIST.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP - 5/45 VP - 1/15UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP - 4/40 VP - 2/8UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAMCHLOROPHYLL(HISTORICAL) NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE IS15.96 μg/L (1999); ALL OTHER ANNUAL AVERAGES BEOW2.61 μg/L. BASED ON A BACKGROUND OF 2.06 μg/L. HASNOT INCREASED >50 PERCENTFOR TWO CONSECUTIVEYEARS. DATA FROM 1998 - 2004.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM ANTIMONY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/3UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/4UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM MERCURY ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 2/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONGSTREAM THALLIUM ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM SILVER ID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 2/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM ARSENIC ID 3BPP - 0/4 V - 0/7UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONGSTREAM IRONPL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS.PP - 21/48 VP - 24/49UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONGSTREAM LEAD PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS. PP - 9/9 VP - 9/11UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONGSTREAM NICKEL ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/5 VP - 0/8Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys145Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM TURBIDITY NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/72 0/61UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 1/26 VP - 1/10UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2097KST. MARYS R.N. PRONG STREAM ZINC NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP - 0/28 VP - 1/25UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2163MOCCASINCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2163MOCCASINCREEK STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2163MOCCASINCREEKSTREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2163MOCCASINCREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2163MOCCASINCREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2165CROSSBRANCHSTREAMND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2192 LITTLE RIVER STREAMND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2194SPARKMANBAY DRAIN STREAMND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2195GUM SWAMPCREEK STREAMND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2199 ELLIS BAY STREAMND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2208 OTTER DRAIN STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAMMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE)PL 3C LOW 2011BLACKWATER STREAM. VERIFY DATA ARE WITHIN 7.5YEARS.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAMFECALCOLIFORMSNI 2 LOW 2011BLACKWATER STREAM. (#/100ML) PP - 2/14 EXCEEDANCES,PP AVERAGE = 246, PP MEDIAN = 111, PP MAX = 1,780, PPMIN = 17, DATA FROM 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000. VP - 1/26EXCEEDANCES, VP AVERAGE = 67.5, VP MEDIAN = 20, VPMAX = 410, VP MIN = 3, VP N = 26, DATA FROM 1998, 2000,2004.146Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAMTOTALCOLIFORMSNI 2 LOW 2010BLACKWATER STREAM.(#/100 ML) PP - 1/7 EXCEEDANCES,PP AVERAGE = 610, PP MEDIAN = 250, PP MAX = 2,500, PPMIN = 150, PP DATA FROM 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000. VP -1/25 EXCEEDANCES, VP AVERAGE = 280, VP MEDIAN = 150,VP MAX = 25,000, VP MIN = 61, DATA FROM 1998, 2000, 2004.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAM ARSENIC NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/32 VP - 0/9UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. FIVESCI SCORES FROM 1994 -2000 WERE "EXCELLENT;" THREE BIORECONS FROM 1995 -2000 WERE "HEALTHY"UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAM CADMIUM PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS. PP - 7/31 VP - 3/8UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE FROM2001 = 2.237 μg/L.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAMCHLOROPHYLL(HISTORICAL) NI 2HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE IS 2.23 μg/L (2001). BASED ONA BACKGROUND OF 2 μg/L. HAS NOT INCREASED >50PERCENT FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS. DATA FROM1998 - 2004.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAM CHROMIUM 3 NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP - 0/12 VP - 0/9UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAM COPPER PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS. PP - 7/35 VP - 4/13UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3C*BLACKWATER STREAM. PP - 25/106, PP MEDIAN = 6.4 mg/L,PP MAX = 12.1 mg/L, PP MIN = 1.90 mg/L, DATA FROM 1993-200. VP - 17/60 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 6.31 mg/L, VPMAX = 10.1 mg/L, VP MIN = 1.70 mg/L, DATA FROM 1998-2004.MOVED TO PLANNING LIST WHILE DEPARTMENTATTEMPTS TO DETERMINE IF LOW DO IS DUE TO ANATURAL CONDITION OR A POLLUTANT.BOD - PP MEDIAN= 1.00 mg/L, PP MAX = 1.80 mg/L, PP MIN = 0.50 mg/L, PP N =9, DATA FROM 1994, 1995, 1996,1998, 2000; VP MEDIAN =1.05 mg/L, VP MAX = 2 mg/L, VP MIN = 0.70 mg/L, VP N = 6,DATA FROM 1998, 2000, 2004. VP TN MEDIAN = 1.073 mg/L,VP TP MEDIAN = 0.027mg/L (TN, TP, AND BOD BELOWTHRESHOLD LEVELS)Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys147Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAM IRON VL 5 LOW 2010BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 19/56 EXCEEDANCES, PPMEDIAN = 766 μg/L, PP MAX = 2,600 μg/L, PP MIN = 36 μg/L,DATA FROM 1994-2002. VP- 17/47 EXCEEDANCES, VPMEDIAN = 637 μg/L, VP MAX = 2,600 μg/L, VP MIN = 236 μg/L,DATA FROM 1998-2005.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAM LEAD PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS.PP - 11/14 VP - 8/9UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAM LINDANE ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAM NICKEL NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/37 VP - 0/16UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAM SELENIUM NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 3/22 VP - 1/7UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYS STREAM SILVER PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS.PP - 3/3 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAM TURBIDITY NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/62 VP - 0/64UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIANI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 0/30 VP - 0/7UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2211MIDDLEPRONG ST.MARYSSTREAM ZINC NI 2BLACKWATER STREAM. PP- 1/33 VP - 0/19UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2214UNNAMEDDITCHESSTREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2215OCEAN BAYDRAIN STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2217 UNNAMED RUN STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2222 BLUFF CREEK STREAM ND 3ABLACKWATER STREAM.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2225UNNAMEDDRAIN STREAM ND 3A148Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2226BRANDYBRANCH STREAM BIOLOGY PL 3C*TWO BIORECON RESULTS FROM1999 ARE "IMPAIRED."NEED TO DETERMINE CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT. THISPARAMETER MEETS THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE IWRFOR VERIFICATION AS IMPARIED, HOWEVER ITHAS BEENMOVED TO THE PLANNING LIST PENDING IDENTIFICATIONOF CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT(TN, TP AND BOD DO NOTEXCEED THRESHOLD LEVELS - POSSIBLY DO, BUTINSUFFICIENT DATA TO MAKE FULL DETERMINATION)UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2226BRANDYBRANCH STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS/POTENTIAL BIOLOGYCAUSATIVE POLLUTANT.PP - 9/9 VP - 9/9UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2226BRANDYBRANCH STREAM BOD ID 3BONE VALUE FROM 1999 - 1.7 mg/L.MORE DATA NEEDEDTO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS/POTENTIAL DO ANDBIOLOGY CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2226BRANDYBRANCH STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ND 3AMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL DO, BOD,AND BIOLOGY IMPAIRMENTSUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2226BRANDYBRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 2/8 VP - 2/8UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2226BRANDYBRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/3 VP - 0/3UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2229 BILL BRANCH STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2229 BILL BRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2229 BILL BRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2230BEAR BAYBRANCHSTREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2236DAUGHERTYBRANCH STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2236DAUGHERTYBRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2236DAUGHERTYBRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2236DAUGHERTYBRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2241UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2242 CEDAR CREEK STREAM ND 3ABLACKWATER STREAM.Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys149Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2242ACEDAR CREEKOUTLET STREAM ND 3ABLACKWATER STREAM.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEKSTREAM CADMIUM ID 3BPP - 1/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2245 DEEP CREEK STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3C*PP - 32/70 EXCEEDANCES, PP MEDIAN = 5.01 mg/L, PP MIN= 2.75 mg/L, PP MAX = 9.56 mg/L, PP AVERAGE = 5.42 mg/L,DATA FROM 1993 - 2002. VP- 18/29 EXCEEDANCES, VPMEDIAN = 4.61 mg/L, VP MIN = 2.75 mg/L, VP MAX = 9.56 mg/L,VP AVERAGE = 5.14 mg/L, DATA FROM 1998 - 2002.NEED TOIDENTIFY CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT. THIS PARAMETERMEETS THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE IWR FORVERIFICATION AS IMPARIED, HOWEVER IT HAS BEENMOVED TO THE PLANNING LIST PENDING IDENTIFICATIONOF CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT(TN, TP, AND BOD DO NOTEXCEED THRESHOLDS) PP TN =1.46 mg/L, NO TP DATAFROM PP, PP BOD MEDIAN = 1,NO DATA FOR TN, TP, ORBOD FROM VPUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2245 DEEP CREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)ID 3BNO PHOSPHOROUS DATA REPORTED. PP TN MEDIAN =1.46 mg/L, PP TN MIN = 0.50 mg/L, PP TN MAX = 2.28, PP TN N= 15, DATA FROM 1993, 1994. NO DATA FROM VP.MOREDATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IF POTENTIAL DO CAUSALPOLLUTANT.UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEKSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 5/31 VP - 4/19UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEKSTREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 2/10 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEKSTREAM IRON ID 3BPP - 2/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEKSTREAM LEAD PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.4/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEKSTREAM NICKEL ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEK STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA NI 2PP - 0/41 VP - 0/9UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245 DEEP CREEKSTREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEKSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1150Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEKSTREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2245A DEEP CREEKSTREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2245A DEEP CREEK STREAMTURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2247SOUTH PRONGST. MARYS STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2SCORE FROM 2001 SCI IS "EXCELLENT," SCORE FROM 2001BIORECON IS "HEALTHY"UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2247SOUTH PRONGST. MARYS STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2247SOUTH PRONGST. MARYSSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/4UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2247SOUTH PRONGST. MARYS STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/4UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2247SOUTH PRONGST. MARYS STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2247SOUTH PRONGST. MARYSSTREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/3 VP - 0/3UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2247SOUTH PRONGST. MARYS STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/5UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2250UNNAMEDDITCHES STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2255BALDWIN BAYDITCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2258 BAY BRANCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2261UNNAMEDDITCHES STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2263UNNAMEDDITCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2264CALKINSCREEK STREAM BIOLOGY PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM. FOURSCI SCORES FROM 1994 -1997 WERE "EXCELLENT," BIORECON FROM 2000 WAS"SUSPECT," SCI FROM 2000 WAS"POOR," SCI SCORE FROM2001 WAS "EXCELLENT." NEEDTO INVESTIGATE FURTHER,POSSIBLYNEED TO COLLECT MORE DATA TO DETERMINEIMPAIRMENT STATUSWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys151Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2264CALKINSCREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3CBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS/POTENTIAL CAUSATIVEPOLLUTANT TO BIOLOGY.PP - 3/5 VP - 2/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2264CALKINSCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE POTENTIAL DO AND BIOLOGY IMPAIRMENTSUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2264CALKINSCREEK STREAM BOD ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM. PP MEDIAN = 0.6 mg/L, PP MIN = 0.5mg/L, PP MAX = 2.0 mg/L, PP N = 5; VP MEDIAN = 1.55 mg/L,VP MIN = 1.1, VP MAX = 2.0 mg/L, VP N = 2.MORE DATANEEDED TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL BIOLOGY AND DOIMPAIRMENTSUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2264CALKINSCREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 1/5 VP - 1/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2264CALKINSCREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 1/5 VP - 1/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2264CALKINSCREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BBLACKWATER STREAM.PP - 0/5 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2267UNNAMEDSTREAM STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2267UNNAMEDSTREAM STREAMFECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2267UNNAMEDSTREAMSTREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2267UNNAMEDSTREAM STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2268SCOUT PONDDRAIN LAKE ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2269UNNAMEDDITCHESSTREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2274DINKINSBRANCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2275UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2276BRUSHYBRANCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2279UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2279UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1152Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2279UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2279UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2281UNNAMEDDITCHSTREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2285UNNAMEDDITCHES STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2288UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2288UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/2 VP - 1/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2288UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2288UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2289UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2291UNNAMEDDITCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2292UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2292UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2292UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2292UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2296UNNAMEDDITCHES STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2298UNNAMEDDITCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2300UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2301YELLOWWATER CREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2301YELLOWWATER CREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2301YELLOWWATER CREEKSTREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2303UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2307UNNAMEDDITCH STREAM ND 3AWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys153Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2311UNNAMEDDITCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2314 UNNAMED RUN STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2318TURKEYCREEKSTREAM BIOLOGY NI 2TWO SCI SCORES IN 1999 WERE "EXCELLENT"UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2318TURKEYCREEK STREAM COPPER ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2318TURKEYCREEKSTREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGENPL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 4/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2318TURKEYCREEK STREAM BOD ND 3APOTENTIAL CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT FOR DO - MOREDATA NEEDEDUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2318TURKEYCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BONE TP VALUE FROM 1993.MORE DATA NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS - POTENTIALCAUSATIVE POLLUTANT TO DOUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2318TURKEYCREEKSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 2/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2318TURKEYCREEKSTREAM IRONPL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 3/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2318TURKEYCREEK STREAM LEAD ID 3BPP - 2/3 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2318TURKEYCREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2318TURKEYCREEK STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA ID 3BPP - 1/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2318TURKEYCREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 1/4 VP - 0/0UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2325UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2329UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2331UNNAMEDDRAIN STREAM ND 3A154Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2337JOHN ROWBRANCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKEDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 0/11 VP - 0/4UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2339 OCEAN POND LAKE FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/20 (DATA FROM ONLY TWO SEASONS) VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/14 (DATA FROM ONLY TWO SEASONS) VP - 0/3UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKEMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011FISH TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDED 0.5μg/L FOR 2002UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE TSI ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN PONDLAKE TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/10 VP - 0/4UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2339 OCEAN POND LAKE FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/6 VP - 0/3UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2339AOCEAN PONDOUTLET LAKE ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2348UNNAMEDDRAIN STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2354UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2360 OAK BRANCH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2371UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2373UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2383UNNAMEDSLOUGHSTREAM ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2392PALESTINELAKE STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2392PALESTINELAKE STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/2UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2392PALESTINELAKESTREAM TSI ID 3BUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2392PALESTINELAKE STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/3UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2392PALESTINELAKESTREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/7 VP - 0/4UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2392PALESTINELAKE STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA ID 3BPP - 0/3 VP - 0/0Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys155Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2392PALESTINELAKE STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/3UPPER ST.MARYS RIVER 2392APALESTINELAKE DRAIN LAKE ND 3AUPPER ST.MARYS RIVER2393WAMPEE BAYDRAINSTREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2155UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2156UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 5 MEDIUM 2011VP - 15/22 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 4.25 mg/L, VPAVERAGE = 4.31 mg/L, VP MIN = 1.1 mg/L, VP MAX = 10.DATA FROM 2003, 2004.LINKED TO NUTRIENTS - VP TN =2.016 mg/L, VP TP = 1.2 mg/L. BOTH TN AND TP EXCEEDTHRESHOLDS. NO BOD DATA.NASSAU RIVER 2156UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 HIGH 2005ONLY ENOUGH DATA FROM2004 TO CALCULATE ANNUALAVERAGE = 1.219 μg/L.NASSAU RIVER 2156UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAMTURBIDITYID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2156UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAMFECALCOLIFORMSVL 5 HIGH 2005(#/100 ML) VP - 7/22 EXCEEDANCES, (#/100 ML) VP MEDIAN =292, VP AVERAGE = 399, VP MIN = 13, VP MAX = 1,470. DATAFROM 2003, 2004.NASSAU RIVER 2156UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAMTOTALCOLIFORMSVL 5 HIGH 2005(#/100 ML) VP - 7/22 EXCEEDANCES, (#/100 ML) VP MEDIAN =1,627, VP AVERAGE = 2,296, VP MIN = 400, VP MAX = 6,400.DATA FROM 2003, 2004.NASSAU RIVER 2118MCQUEENCREEK STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 HIGH 2005NO DATA FROM PP. VP MED TN = 1.46 mg/L, VP TP = 0.097mg/L, VP TN/TP RATIO MEDIAN = 14.52 (N = 13), DATA FROM2003, 2004. ALL CHLOROPHYLL VALUES ARE 1 μg/L,EXCEPT FOR ONE (66 μg/L). ANNUAL AVERAGE FROM 2004= 4.25 μg/L (ONLY YEAR WITH ENOUGH DATA TOCALCULATE.PROPOSE TO DELIST.NASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAMFECALCOLIFORMSNI 2 HIGH 2005(#/100 ML) ONE VALUE FROMPP - 159. VP - 2/22EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 99, VP MIN = 20, VP MAX =950, VP N = 22, VP EXCEEDANCES = 2, DATA FROM 2003,2004.MEETS STANDARDS - PROPOSE TO DELIST156Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAMTOTALCOLIFORMSNI 2 HIGH 2005(#/100 ML) NO DATA FROM PP. VP - 3/22 EXCEEDANCES, VPMEDIAN = 659, VP MIN = 210, VP MAX = 5,100, VP N = 22, VPEXCEEDANCES = 3, DATA FROM 2003, 2004. METSSTANDARDS -PROPOSE TO DELIST.NASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3C*ONE VALUE FROM PP - 8.5 mg/L. VP - 16/23 EXCEEDANCES,VP MEDIAN = 3.7 mg/L, VP MIN = 0.4 mg/L, VP MAX = 7.1 mg/L,VP AVERAGE = 3.68 mg/L, DATA FROM 2003 - 2004.NEEDTO IDENTIFY CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT. NUTRIENTS BELOWTHRESHOLD LEVELS (SEE NUTRIENTS LISTING), NO BODDATA.THIS PARAMETER MEETS THE CRITERIA SET FORTHIN THE IWR FOR VERIFICATIONAS IMPARIED, HOWEVER ITHAS BEEN MOVED TO THEPLANNING LIST PENDINGIDENTIFICATION OF CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT(NEITHER TNNOR TP EXCEED THRESHOLD LEVELS; NO BOD DATA)NASSAU RIVER 2120A MILLS CREEKSTREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM BIOLOGY PL 3CONE BIORECON SCORE FROM 1998 WAS "IMPAIRED."MORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUSNASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM CADMIUM ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM COPPER ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BPOTENTIAL CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT TO BIOLOGY - MOREDATA NEEDEDPP - 1/1 VP - 1/2NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM BOD ID 3BPOTENTIAL CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT TO BIOLOGY - MOREDATA NEEDEDNASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/3NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/3NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM IRON ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM NICKEL ID 3BVP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/3NASSAU RIVER 2120B MILLS CREEKSTREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2122UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2125UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys157Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEK ESTUARY ALUMINUM ID 3BPP - 1/9 VP - 1/4NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEK ESTUARY ARSENIC ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEKESTUARY CADMIUM ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEK ESTUARY COPPER ID 3BPP - 1/14 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEK ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 1/36 VP - 1/26NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEKESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/9NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEK ESTUARY IRON PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 9/9 VP - 4/4NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEK ESTUARY SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 2/34 VP - 2/26NASSAU RIVER 2129LOFTONCREEK ESTUARY ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEKSTREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 HIGH 2005MOSTLY CO-LIMITED WITH SOME PHOSPHOROUSLIMITATION. PP TN/TP RATIO = 24.72; PP MEDIAN TN = 1.49mg/L; MEDIAN TP = 0.085 mg/L, PP N = 5, DATA FROM 1999;VP TN/TP RATIO = 25.77, VP MEDIAN TN = 1.71 mg/L (N = 39),VP MEDIAN TP = 0.072 mg/L (N = 35), DATA FROM 1999, 2003,2004. DATA FROM 1999, 2003, 2004 - ANNUAL AVERAGEFROM 2004 (ONLY YEAR WITH ENOUGH DATA TOCALCULATE) = 4.56 μg/L.ALTHOUGH TN EXCEEDSTHRESHOLD LEVEL (1.6 mg/L), CHLOROPHYLL VALUES NOTELEVATED.PROPOSE TO DELIST.NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEKSTREAMTURBIDITYNI 2 HIGH 2005PP - 2/24, PP MEDIAN = 3.65 NTU, PP MIN = 1.4 NTU, PP MAX= 275 NTU, PP AVERAGE = 17.36 NTU, DATA FROM 1998-1999. VP - 3/45 VP MEDIAN = 5.8 NTU, VP MIN = 1.2 NTU, VPMAX = 275 NTU, VP AVERAGE= 15.47 NTU, DATA FROM1998, 1999, 2004.MEETS STANDARDS - PROPOSE TODELIST158Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGENPL 3C HIGH 2005PP - 22/24 EXCEEDANCES, PP MEDIAN = 2.7 mg/L, PP MIN =0.5 mg/L, PP MAX = 6.8 mg/L, PP AVERAGE = 2.76 mg/L, DATAFROM 1998-1999. VP - 39/55 EXCEEDANCES. VP MEDIAN =2.9 mg/L, VP MIN = 0.5 mg/L, VP MAX = 10.1 mg/L, VPAVERAGE = 3.61 mg/L, DATA FROM 1998, 1999, 2003, 2004.BOD - PP MEDIAN = 1.00 mg/L, PP MIN = 1.00 mg/L, PP MAX =4.00 mg/L, PP AVERAGE = 1.53 mg/L, PP N = 15, DATA FROM1993, 1994. NO DATA FROM VP.MOVED TO PLANNINGLIST WHILE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATES IF DUE TONUTRIENTS OR TN.NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEK STREAM BOD NI 2PP/VP MEDIAN = 1.9 mg/L, MAX = 11 mg/L, MIN = 0.8 mg/L, N= 24, DATA FROM 1998 AND 1999, 10 VALUES EXCEED 2.0mg/L. MEDIAN DOES NOT EXCEED THRESHOLD.NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEK STREAMFECALCOLIFORMSNI 2 HIGH 2005(#/100ML) VP - 4/44 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 200, VPMIN = 3, VP MAX = 600, VP AVERAGE = 211, DATA FROM1998, 1999, 2003, 2004.PROPOSE TO DELIST.NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEK STREAMTOTALCOLIFORMSNI 2 HIGH 2005(#/100 ML) VP - 3/21 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 667, VPMIN = 100, VP MAX = 6,050, VP AVERAGE = 667, DATA FROM1998, 1999, 2003, 2004.PROPOSE TO DELISTNASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEKSTREAM ARSENICID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEKSTREAM CADMIUM ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEKSTREAM IRON ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEK STREAM NICKEL ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEKSTREAM SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEKSTREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2130PLUMMERCREEK STREAM BIOLOGY PL 3C*ONE BIORECON SCORE FROM 1998 WAS "IMPAIRED;" TWOSCIs FROM 1999 WERE "POOR."NEED TO IDENTIFYCAUSATIVE POLLUTANT. THIS PARAMETER MEETS THECRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE IWR FOR VERIFICATION ASIMPARIED, HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO THEPLANNING LIST PENDING IDENTIFICATION OF CAUSATIVEPOLLUTANT(TN, TP, OR BOD DO NOT EXCEED THREHOLDLEVELS)NASSAU RIVER 2131UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3AWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys159Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2132UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2133UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2135 SPELL SWAMP STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2136UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2139UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2140AJACKSONCREEK ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)PL 3C LOW 2010PP TN/TP RATIO = 9.155; PP MEDIAN TN = 0.71 mg/L;MEDIAN TP = 0.073 mg/L, PP N = 29, DATA FROM 1993 - 1998;VP TN/TP RATIO = 8.157, PP MEDIAN TN = 0.60 mg/L, VPMEDIAN TP = 0.071 mg/L, VP N = 2, DATA FROM 1998.MOREDATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS.MOVED TO PL PER 62-303.300(2). NO CHLOROPHYLL DATA,NEEDS TO BE COLLECTED.NASSAU RIVER 2140AJACKSONCREEK ESTUARYSHELLFISH(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011VERIFIED DUE TO DOWNGRADE IN SHELLFISHHARVESTING CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WATER QUALITYNASSAU RIVER 2140AJACKSONCREEK ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 1/31 VP - 2/24NASSAU RIVER 2140AJACKSONCREEK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 19/31 VP - 2/25NASSAU RIVER 2140AJACKSONCREEKESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 17/30 VP - 2/25NASSAU RIVER 2140AJACKSONCREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/32 VP - 0/24NASSAU RIVER 2142UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2143TOM MANNSWAMP STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2145UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2147GARDNERCREEK STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2148A NASSAU RIVER ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/5NASSAU RIVER 2148A NASSAU RIVERESTUARY TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP -0/1NASSAU RIVER 2148A NASSAU RIVER ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3B160Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAURIVER STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGENNI 2 HIGH 2005PP 23/182 EXCEEDANCES, PP MEDIAN = 5.9, PP MIN = 1.08mg/L, PP MAX = 11.04 mg/L, PP AVERAGE = 5.98 mg/L VP16/155 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 5.9 mg/L, VP MIN = 1.08mg/L, VP MAX = 11.04 mg/L, VP AVERAGE = 6.02 mg/L.MEETS STANDARDS - PROPOSE TO DELISTNASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM BOD NI 2PP MEDIAN = 1.00 mg/L, PP MAX = 1.30 mg/L, PP MIN = 0.7mg/L, PP AVERAGE = 0.99 mg/L, PP N = 29, DATA FROM 1997,1998, 2000, 2001, 2003. VP MEDIAN = 2 mg/L, VP MAX = 2mg/L, VP MIN = 0.7 mg/L, VP AVERAGE = 1.74 mg/L, VP N = 58,DATA FROM 1998 - 2003. ALTHOUGH THE MEDIAN VALUE ISAT THE THRESHOLD, NO VALUES EXCEED THE 2 mg/LTHRESHOLD, AND DO MEETS STANDARDS.NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAURIVER STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 HIGH 2005PP TN/TP RATIO = 8.14; PP MEDIAN TN = 1.13 mg/L; MEDIANTP = 0.014 mg/L, PP N = 130, DATA FROM 1994, 1995, 1996,1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002;VP TN/TP RATIO = 8.53(N = 136) , PP MEDIAN TN = 1.08 mg/L (N = 176), VP MEDIANTP = 0.13 mg/L (N = 136), DATA FROM 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001,2002, 2003, 2004. TN AND TP BELOW THRESHOLD LEVELS -PROPOSE TO DELIST. CHLOROPHYLL (CORRECTEDCHLOROPHYLL) - PP ANNUALAVERAGE = 2.68 μg/L,AVERAGES FROM 1994 - 1998. FOR VP ANNUAL AVERAGES,SEE HISTORICAL CHLOROPHYLL LISTING - HIGHESTANNUAL AVERAGE FROM 1999 = 7.67 μg/L.NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAURIVER STREAMCHLOROPHYLL(HISTORICAL)NI 2 HIGH 2005HIGHEST ANNUAL AVERAGE IS 7.67 μg/L (1999). BASED ONA BACKGROUND OF 2.87 μg/L. HAS NOT INCREASED >50PERCENT FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS. DATA FROM1998 - 2004.NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAURIVER STREAMTURBIDITYNI 2 HIGH 2005PP - 0/177 EXCEEDANCES, PP MEDIAN = 8.20 NTU VPMEDIAN = 10.00 NTU; PP AVERAGE = 9.16 NTU. VP - 1/215EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 9.1 NTU, VP AVERAGE = 10.01NTU, VP MAX = 31, DATA FROM 1998 - 2005.MEETSSTANDARDS - PROPOSE TO DELIST.NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAURIVER STREAMTSSNI 2 HIGH 2005PP MEDIAN = 17.00 mg/L, PP AVERAGE = 20.23, PP N = 249.VP MEDIAN = 19 mg/L; VP AVERAGE = 24.4 mg/L, VP MIN = 0,VP MAX = 300, DATA FROM 1998 - 2005.TURBIDITY MEETSSTANDARDS - PROPOSE TO DELISTWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys161Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAURIVER STREAMFECALCOLIFORMSNI 2 HIGH 2005(#/100/ml) - PP - 10/105 EXCEEDANCES, PP AVERAGE = 150,PP MEDIAN = 48, PP MAX = 1700, PP MIN = 1, PP N = 101;DATA FROM 1993, 1994, 1995,1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001,2002. 4/93 EXCEEDANCES, VP AVERAGE = 126, VP MEDIAN= 38, VP MAX = 5,100, VP MIN = 1, DATA FROM 1998, 1999,2001, 2002, 2003, 2004.MEETS STANDARDS - PROPOSETO DELISTNASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAURIVER STREAMTOTALCOLIFORMSNI 2 HIGH 2005(#/100/ml) - PP - 5/92, PPAVERAGE = 976, PP MEAN = 453,PP MAX = 9000, PP MIN = 1 , PP N = 59, DATA FROM 1995,1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002. VP - 1/66EXCEEDANCES, VP AVERAGE = 414, VP MEDIAN = 180, VPMAX = 4800, VP MIN = 1, DATAFROM 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003.MEETS STANDARDS - PROPOSE TO DELISTNASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM ARSENIC NI 2PP - 1/48 VP - 1/23NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM CADMIUM NI 2PP - 0/34 VP - 0/12NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM COPPER PL 3CPP - 14/56 VP - 5/17NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM FLUORIDE NI 2PP - 0/85 VP - 0/109NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM IRON VL 5 MEDIUM 2011PP - 87/96 EXCEEDANCES, PP AVERAGE = 809 μg/L, PPMEDIAN = 722 μg/L, PP MAX = 1960 μg/L, PP MIN = 102 μg/L,DATA FROM 1994 - 1999. VP - 52/56 EXCEEDANCES, VPAVERAGE = 681 μg/L, VP MEDIAN = 557 μg/L, VP MAX = 1750μg/L, VP MIN = 1.2 μg/L, DATA FROM 1998-2005.NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM LEAD NI 2PP - 6/56 VP - 1/18NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVER STREAM MERCURY ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM NICKEL PL 3CPP - 4/16 VP - 4/9NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM SELENIUM NI 2PP - 0/24 VP - 0/9NASSAU RIVER 2148B NASSAU RIVERSTREAM ZINC NI 2PP - 3/75 VP - 0/22NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 LOW 2010PP TN/TP RATIO = 9.253; PP MEDIAN TN = 0.70 mg/L; MEDIANTP = 0.084 mg/L, PP N = 43, DATA FROM 1993, 1994, 1995,1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002;VP TN/TP RATIO = 7.9(N = 31), PP MEDIAN TN = 0.72 mg/L (N = 54), VP MEDIAN TP =0.082 mg/L (N = 33), DATA FROM 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004.ANNUAL AVERAGE FROM 2004 (ONLY YEAR WITH ENOUGHDATA TO CALCULATE)= 1.178 μg/L.PROPOSE TO DELISTNASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY ALUMINUM ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4162Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY ARSENIC ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY COPPER ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVERESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGENNI 2PP - 1/71 VP - 4/61NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARYSHELLFISH(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011VERIFIED DUE TO DOWNGRADE IN SHELLFISHHARVESTING CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WATER QUALITYNASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 19/40 VP - 3/32NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 18/29 VP - 2/24NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY CADMIUM ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY IRON PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 7/9 VP - 3/4NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY LEAD PL 3CMORE DATA NEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS. PP - 4/4 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY MANGANESE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVERESTUARY NICKEL ID 3BPP - 2/2 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVER ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 1/71 VP - 0/52NASSAU RIVER 2149SOUTH AMELIARIVERESTUARY ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2151LUMBERCREEK STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2153ALLIGATORCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)PL 3B HIGH 2O05NITROGEN LIMITED. VP TN/TP RATIO = 5.55; VP NITROGEN= 1.22 mg/L (N = 19), VP TP = 0.22 mg/L (N = 24), DATA FROM2001, 2004.MOVED TO PL PER 62-303.300(2).INSUFFICIENT CHLOROPHYLL DATA, HOWEVER, OF THE 24CHLOROPHYLL VALUES, NONE EXCEED 1.0 μg/L.MOREDATA ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL NUTRIENTIMPAIRMENT - MISSING SPRING 2004 CHLOROPHYLL DATA,SO NO DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE FOR 2004.Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys163Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2153ALLIGATORCREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGENPL 3C* HIGH 2005VP - 12/36 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 6.15 mg/L, VPAVERAGE = 5.89 mg/L, VP MIN = 0.3 mg/L, VP MAX = 10.7mg/L, DATA FROM 2001, 2003, 2004.NUTRIENTS - VP TNMEDIAN = 1.22 mg/L; TP MEDIAN = 0.22 mg/L; TN/TP RATIO =5.6 - NITROGEN LIMITED. WHILE TP IS AT THE THRESHOLD,NO CHLOROPHYLL VALUE IS ABOVE 1 μg/L (SEE THENUTRIENT LISTING ABOVE), INDICATING THAT NUTRIENTSARE NOT A PROBLEM. BOD - VP BOD MEDIAN IS 2 mg/L,WITH ONLY ONE VALUE ABOVE 2 mg/L. MAJORITY OFVALUES HAVE A REMARK CODEOF "K", INDICATING THATTHE VALUE IS OFF SCALE LOW - NO INDICATION THAT BODIS CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT.NEED TO IDENTIFY CAUSATIVEPOLLUTANT - MAY BE A NATURAL CONDITION. MOVED TOPLANNING LIST DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORTINGINFORMATION OF CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT(TN, TP, ANDBOD DO NOT EXCEED THRESHOLD LEVELS)NASSAU RIVER 2153ALLIGATORCREEK STREAM BIOLOGY NI 2TWO SCI SCORES FROM 1996 WERE "EXCELLENT;" TWOSCI SCORES FROM 2001 WERE"GOOD;" ANOTHER SCISCORE FROM 2001 WAS "EXCELLENT;" A BIORECON FROM2001 WAS "SUSPECT"NASSAU RIVER 2153ALLIGATORCREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/3 VP - 3/24NASSAU RIVER 2153ALLIGATORCREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS VL 5 MEDIUM 2011(#/100 ML) VP - 7/23 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 720, VPAVERAGE = 1,870, VP MIN = 280, VP MAX = 7,400, DATAFROM 2001, 2004NASSAU RIVER 2153ALLIGATORCREEKSTREAM TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/3 VP - 0/25NASSAU RIVER 2157LITTLE MILLCREEK STREAMTURBIDITYNI 2 LOW 2010VP - 0/21 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 4 NTU, VP AVERAGE= 5.15 NTU, VP MAIN = 1.7 NTU,VP MAX = 17 NTU, ALL DATAFROM 2004.PROPOSE TO DELIST.NASSAU RIVER 2157LITTLE MILLCREEK STREAMFECALCOLIFORMSNI 2 LOW 2010(#/100 ML) VP - 4/21 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 312, VPAVERAGE = 400, VP MIN = 60, VP MAX = 2,600. ALL DATAFROM 2004. MEETS STANDARDS,PROPOSE TO DELIST.NASSAU RIVER 2157LITTLE MILLCREEK STREAMTOTALCOLIFORMSVL 5 LOW 2010(#/100 ML) VP - 5/21 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 1,190, VPAVERAGE = 1,825, VP MIN = 600, VP MAX = 4,800. ALL DATAFROM 2004.164Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2157LITTLE MILLCREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3C*VP - 8/20 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 5.75 mg/L, VPAVERAGE = 5.64 mg/L, VP MIN = 0.8 mg/L, VP MAX = 9.8 mg/L.DATA FROM 1994. NEED TOIDENTIFY CAUSATIVEPOLLUTANT. THIS PARAMETER MEETS THE CRITERIA SETFORTH IN THE IWR FOR VERIFICATION AS IMPARIED,HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE PLANNING LISTPENDING IDENTIFICATIONOF CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT(TN, AND TP DO NOT EXCEEDTHRESHOLD LEVELS; NO BODDATA)NASSAU RIVER 2157LITTLE MILLCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)NI 2 LOW 2010NO DATA FROM PP. VP MED TN = 1.3 mg/L (N = 17), VP TP =0.18 mg/L (N = 21), VP TN/TP RATIO MEDIAN = 8 (N = 17),DATA FROM 2004. ALL CHLOROPHYLL VALUES ARE 1 μg/L,EXCEPT FOR THREE, BUT NO VALUES ABOVE 20 μg/L. 2004ANNUAL AVERAGE = 2.15 μg/L.PROPOSE TO DELIST.NASSAU RIVER 2158UNNAMEDDRAIN STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BNASSAU RIVER 2158UNNAMEDDRAIN STREAM FLUORIDE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2158UNNAMEDDRAINSTREAM FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM ANTIMONY NI 2PP - 0/10 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEKSTREAM ARSENICID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/2NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEKSTREAM BIOLOGY NI 2TWO SCI SCORES FROM 1992WERE "GOOD;" SIX SCISCORES FROM 1996 - 2000 WERE "EXCELLENT"NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM BOD ND 3AVP - 0/32 VALUES EXCEED THRESHOLD VALUE, VP MEDIAN= 2 mg/L, VP AVERAGE = 1.89 mg/L, VP MIN = 0.7 mg/L, VPMAX = 2 mg/L. PROBABLY NOT CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT.NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEKSTREAM CADMIUM PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 5/11 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM CHROMIUM 3 ID 3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/2NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM COPPER NI 2PP - 0/13 VP - 0/2Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys165Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN PL 3C*VP - 29/47 EXCEEDANCES, VP MEDIAN = 4.87 mg/L, VPAVERAGE = 4.86 mg/L, VP MIN = 0.3 mg/L, VP MAX = 11.53mg/L. DATA FROM 1998-2002.NEED TO IDENTIFYCAUSATIVE POLLUTANT. THIS PARAMETER MEETS THECRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE IWR FOR VERIFICATION ASIMPARIED, HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO THEPLANNING LIST PENDING IDENTIFICATION OF CAUSATIVEPOLLUTANT. SEE NUTRIENT LISTING FOR TN AND TPVALUES. VP MEDIAN BOD IS 2.0 mg/L.(TN, TP, AND BODDO NOT EXCEED THRESHOLD LEVELS)NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 5/46 VP - 3/31NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEKSTREAM IRONPL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 3/14 VP - 0/2NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM LEAD PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 7/11 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM MERCURY PL 3CNEED TO VERIFY THATCLEAN COLLECTION ANDANALYTICAL METHODS WERE USED. MORE DATA ARENEEDED TO DETERMINE IMPAIRMENT STATUS. PP - 4/4VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM NICKEL ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/2NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BPP TN/TP RATIO = 44.72, PP TN MEDIAN = 0.996 mg/L, PP TPMEDIAN = 0.065 mg/L; NOT ENOUGH DATA FROM VP TOASSESS.POTENTIAL CAUSATIVE POLLUTANT TO DO -NEED TO COLLECT MORE DATANASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEKSTREAM SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/2NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 2/19 VP - 0/5NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEKSTREAM TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/35 VP - 0/26NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEKSTREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIANI 2PP - 0/42 VP - 0/9NASSAU RIVER 2161THOMASCREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/2NASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEK STREAMNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BNASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEK STREAM COPPER ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/0166Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEK STREAMDISSOLVEDOXYGEN ID 3BPP - 2/4 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEK STREAM FECAL COLIFORMS PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 3/4 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEKSTREAM IRONID 3BPP - 0/0 VP - 1/4NASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEK STREAM LEAD ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEK STREAM TURBIDITY ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEK STREAMUN-IONIZEDAMMONIA ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2162CUSHINGCREEK STREAM ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/4 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2164UNNAMEDSLOUGH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2166UNNAMEDDITCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2168SEATONCREEK STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2169FUNKS CREEKREACHSTREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEK ESTUARY ALUMINUM ID 3BPP - 2/8 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEK ESTUARY ARSENIC ID 3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/3NASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEKESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGENNI 2PP - 1/33 VP - 1/23NASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/8NASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEK ESTUARY IRON PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.8/8 VP - 3/3NASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEK ESTUARY LEAD PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 3/3 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEK ESTUARY SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/3NASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 2/29 VP - 2/21NASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEKESTUARYUN-IONIZEDAMMONIAID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/0Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys167Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2170PUMPKIN HILLCREEK ESTUARY ZINC ID 3BPP - 1/8 VP - 0/3NASSAU RIVER 2171UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2172UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2173 DEESE CREEK ESTUARY ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARYSHELLFISH(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011VERIFIED DUE TO DOWNGRADE IN SHELLFISHHARVESTING CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WATER QUALITYNASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY CADMIUM NI 2PP - 0/16 VP - 0/6NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY ALUMINUM NI 2PP - 1/16 VP - 1/6NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY ARSENIC NI 2PP - 0/16 VP - 0/6NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY COPPER PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 3/3 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 8/167 VP - 0/32NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 10/168 VP - 0/7NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 1/16 VP - 0/0NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUNDESTUARY SELENIUM NI 2PP - 0/16 VP - 0/6NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BNASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY IRON PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS. PP - 10/16 VP - 5/6NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY LEAD PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.9/9 VP - 3/3NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY MANGANESE ID 3BPP - 0/1 VP - 0/1NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY NICKEL ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/202 VP - 0/28168Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2174NASSAUSOUND ESTUARY ZINC NI 2PP - 0/6 VP - 0/6NASSAU RIVER 2174A SOUTH ENDESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/75 VP - 1/202NASSAU RIVER 2174A SOUTH END ESTUARYSHELLFISH(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011VERIFIED DUE TO DOWNGRADE IN SHELLFISHHARVESTING CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WATER QUALITYNASSAU RIVER 2174A SOUTH END ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU RIVER 2175UNNAMEDBRANCHSTREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2176MILL BRANCHCREEK ESTUARY ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2177BRADDOCKCREEK STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEKESTUARY ALUMINUM ID 3BPP - 1/9 VP - 1/4NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEK ESTUARY ARSENIC ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEK ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 0/8 VP - 2/25NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 0/8 VP - 0/8NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEK ESTUARY IRON PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 8/9 VP - 4/4NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEKESTUARY LEAD PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 4/4 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEKESTUARY SELENIUM ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEK ESTUARY CADMIUM ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEK ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/32 VP - 0/24NASSAU RIVER 2179EDWARDSCREEKESTUARY ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/9 VP - 0/4NASSAU RIVER 2182 BEN BRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2184UNNAMEDBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2193UNNAMEDDRAIN STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2197UNNAMEDDRAIN STREAM ND 3AWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys169Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARYSHELLFISH(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011VERIFIED DUE TO DOWNGRADE IN SHELLFISHHARVESTING CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WATER QUALITYNASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY ALUMINUM NI 2PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY ARSENIC NI 2PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVERESTUARY CADMIUM NI 2PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY COPPER PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS. PP - 3/3 VP - 2/2NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGEN NI 2PP - 10/164 VP - 1/55NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 9/132 VP - 1/16NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVERESTUARY IRON PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS. PP - 10/20 VP - 6/8NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY LEAD PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 8/8 VP - 2/2NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY MANGANESE ID 3BPP - 0/2 VP - 0/2NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY NICKEL ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY SELENIUM NI 2PP - 0/20 VP - 0/8NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVER ESTUARY TURBIDITY NI 2PP - 0/186 VP - 0/50NASSAU RIVER 2198FORT GEORGERIVERESTUARY ZINC ID 3BPP - 0/20 VP - 0/8NASSAU RIVER 2198AMARINA BAYAT FORT GEO ESTUARYSHELLFISH(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011VERIFIED DUE TO DOWNGRADE IN SHELLFISHHARVESTING CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WATER QUALITYNASSAU RIVER 2202VERDIEBRANCH STREAM ND 3ANASSAU RIVER 2212SU-NO-WASPRINGS STREAM ND 3ANASSAU SOUND 8127NASSAUSOUND OCEAN1ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL)ID 3BNASSAU SOUND 8127NASSAUSOUND OCEAN1 ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.170Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysPlanning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU SOUND 8127NASSAUSOUND OCEAN1 ESTUARYSHELLFISH(COLIFORMS) VL 5 MEDIUM 2011VERIFIED DUE TO DOWNGRADE IN SHELLFISHHARVESTING CLASSIFICATION BASED ON WATER QUALITYNASSAU SOUND 8127NASSAUSOUND OCEAN1ESTUARY TOTAL COLIFORMS PL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 6/12 VP - 6/12NASSAU SOUND 8127NASSAUSOUND OCEAN1ESTUARYDISSOLVEDOXYGENPL 3CMORE DATA ARE NEEDED TODETERMINE IMPAIRMENTSTATUS.PP - 3/9 VP - 3/9NASSAU SOUND 8127NASSAUSOUND OCEAN1 ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS ID 3BPP - 1/1 VP - 1/1NASSAU SOUND 8127AHUGUENOTPARK ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU SOUND 8127AHUGUENOTPARK ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 0/202NASSAU SOUND 8127BSOUTH LITTLETALBOTISLANDESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU SOUND 8127BSOUTH LITTLETALBOTISLANDESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/75 VP - 0/203NASSAU SOUND 8127CNORTH LITTLETALBOTISLANDESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU SOUND 8127CNORTH LITTLETALBOTISLANDESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/75 VP - 0/203NASSAU SOUND 8128NASSAUSOUND OCEAN2 ESTUARYNUTRIENTS(CHLOROPHYLL) ID 3BNASSAU SOUND 8128NASSAUSOUND OCEAN2ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU SOUND 8128A PIPER DUNES ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU SOUND 8128A PIPER DUNES ESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 0/200Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys171Planning UnitWBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed21998 303(d)ListProposedStatus3EPA’sIntegratedReportCategory4PriorityforTMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopmentCommentsNASSAU SOUND 8128BAIP BEACHCLUB ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU SOUND 8128BAIP BEACHCLUBESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 0/200NASSAU SOUND 8128CAMERICANBEACH ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU SOUND 8128CAMERICANBEACHESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 0/201NASSAU SOUND 8128DPETER'SPOINT ESTUARYMERCURY (IN FISHTISSUE) VL 5 LOW 2011BULL SHARK TISSUE MERCURY CONCENTRATIONSEXCEEDED 0.43 mg/kg. DATA COLLECTED IN 2003 -2004.NASSAU SOUND 8128DPETER'SPOINTESTUARY FECAL COLIFORMS NI 2PP - 0/74 VP - 0/2011The designation "stream" includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.2Parameters inboldindicate the parameter is on the 1998 303(d) list.3NI = Not ImpairedVL = Verified ListPL = Planning ListID = Insufficient DataND = No Data4The 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 mechanismprovides reasonableassurance 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 isnot caused by a pollutant; and5–Water quality standards are notattained and a TMDL is required.172Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysTable E.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations, by Planning UnitWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeSTORET Station ID Station Description BD ED# ofObs.Upper St. Marys River Planning Unit2097I St. Marys River Blackwater 21FLA 19010002 St. Marys River at GA Line 1993 1994 1542097I St. Marys River Blackwater 21GAEPD 08004001N Prong St. Marys R at St Rd 121 NrMacclenny, Fl1998 1998 472097K St. Marys R. N. Prong Blackwater 21FLA 19010006 St. Marys River at SR #2 1993 1999 5522097K St. Marys R. N. Prong Blackwater 21FLSJWM19010006 St. Marys River at SR 2 1995 1998 8562097K St. Marys R. N. Prong Blackwater 21GAEPD 08002001North Prong St. Marys R at St Rd 94 at Moniac,Ga1998 1998 462211 Middle Prong St. Marys Blackwater 112WRD 02229000 Middle Prong St. Marys Ri at Taylor Fl 1993 1996 9362211 Middle Prong St. Marys Blackwater 21FLA 19010026 St. Marys R Middle Prong 1998 1998 962211 Middle Prong St. Marys Blackwater 21FLA 19010041 St. Marys R. Mid Prong @ CR 125 1994 2000 1222211 Middle Prong St. Marys Blackwater 21FLSJWMMPS Middle Prong St. Marys River at Hwy 127 1994 1998 14282226 Brandy Branch Stream 21FLA 19010047 Brandy Branch at US 301 1999 1999 12226 Brandy Branch Stream 21FLA 19010074 Brandy Branch Just South of I-10 1999 1999 12226 Brandy Branch Stream 21FLA 19010075 Brandy Branch at Rails to Trails North of I-10 1999 1999 112226 Brandy Branch Stream 21FLJXWQBB1Brandy Branch at U.S. 301 2001 2002 842245 Deep Creek Blackwater 21FLJXWQDEC1 Deep Creek at U.S. 90 1993 2002 5702245 Deep Creek Blackwater 21FLJXWQTREE1Deep Creek at BeaverStreet 1993 1994 1212247 South Prong St. Marys Stream 21FLA 19010021 US 90 Baker Co 2001 2001 202264 Calkins Creek Blackwater 21FLA 19010042 Calkins Ck. off Hamp Register Rd. 1994 2001 812264 Calkins Creek Blackwater 21FLA 19010076 Calkins Cr at Turner Cemetery Rd. 2000 2000 202318 Turkey Creek Stream 21FLSJWMTC228 Turkey Creek @ SR 121 Near Mcclenny 1993 1993 1652339 Ocean Pond Lake 1118ATL8050401 Ocean Pond Rec Area Swimming Beach 1993 1997 212339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 19010034 Ocean Pond SW Sector 1995 1995 242339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 21010011 Ocean Pond Center 2000 2000 282339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 21010013 Ocean Pond 50 Yds SE End 1995 1995 252339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 21010014 Ocean Pond 50 Yds NE End 1995 1995 14Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys173WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeSTORET Station ID Station Description BD ED# ofObs.2339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLA 21010015 Ocean Pond 50 Yds NW End 1995 1995 242339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLSUW OCP001C1 Ocean Pond 1998 2001 692339 Ocean Pond Lake 21FLSUW OCP010C1 Ocean Pond at Olustee Fl 1996 1997 1012392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLA 19010043 Palestine Lake Near S Shore 1994 1994 322392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLA 19010044 Palestine Lake Center 1994 2000 732392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLA 19010045 Palestine Lake NW Sector 1994 1994 322392 Palestine Lake Lake21FLKWATUNI-PALESTINE-1Union-Palestine-1 2002 2002 42392 Palestine Lake Lake21FLKWATUNI-PALESTINE-2Union-Palestine-2 2002 2002 42392 Palestine Lake Lake21FLKWATUNI-PALESTINE-3Union-Palestine-3 2002 2002 42392 Palestine Lake Lake 21FLSUW PAL001C1 Lake Palestine 1998 2001 64Middle St. Marys River Planning Unit2097F St. Marys River Blackwater 21FLA 19010077 St. Marys River at Tomkins Landing 2000 2001 612097G St. Marys River Blackwater 21FLA 19010027 St. Marys R SR 2 1993 1994 1522097G St. Marys River Blackwater 21FLJXWQTREE10 Trout River at Old Kings Road 1993 1994 1382097G St. Marys River Blackwater 21GAEPD 08008001 St. Marys River at Highway 94, St. George, Ga 1998 1998 1232105 Pigeon Creek Stream 21FLA 19010099 Pigeon Creek at US 1 1993 2000 1562196 Deep Creek Blackwater 21FLA 19010048 Deep Creek at CR 121 1994 2000 116Lower St. Marys River Planning Unit2097A St. Marys Riv Ab ICWW Estuary 21FLA 19010013 St. Marys Riv #10 1993 1993 772097A St. Marys RIV Ab ICWW Estuary 21FLSJWMSM001 St. Marys River 1 Mi Past Jolly River 1993 1993 152097A St. Marys Ab ICWW Estuary 21GAEPD 08020001St. Marys River–Point Peter Pier 1993 1993 142097B St. Marys River Estuary 21FLA 19010011 St. Marys Riv #8 N of Roses Bluff 2000 2001 592097B St. Marys River Estuary 21FLA 19010012 St. Marys Riv #9 at Marker #13 1993 1993 782097C St. Marys River Stream 21FLA 19010001 St. Marys R at Ga Line US 17 1993 1998 4892097C St. Marys River Stream 21FLGW 3544 19010001 1998 2002 12352097C St. Marys River Stream 21FLSJWM19010001 St. Marys River @ US 17 Georgia Line 1995 1998 973174Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeSTORET Station ID Station Description BD ED# ofObs.2097C St. Marys River Stream21GAEPD 08011001 St. Marys River–U.S. Highway 17 1998 1998 992097D St. Marys River Stream 112WRD 02231220 St. Marys River at Boulogne, Fla. 1993 1999 4662097D St. Marys River Stream 21FLA 19010028 St. Marys R SR 115A & 121A 1993 1994 1632097D St. Marys River Stream 21GAEPD 08010001 St. Marys River - U.S. Highway 301 1993 1998 3592097D St. Marys RiverStream 21GAEPD 08010101St. Marys R Tributary at St Rd 40 at Folkston,Ga1998 1998 612106 Little St. Marys River Stream 21FLA 19010032 Little St. Marys River SR #115 2000 2001 412106 Little St. Marys River Stream 21FLA 19010046 Little ST. Marys @ CR 121A 1994 2001 1232106 Little St. Marys River Stream 21FLSJWMSM026Little St. Marys River at Lessie Rd. 1993 1993 1932124 Amelia River Estuary 21FLA 19020010 Amelia River at CM 26 2000 2001 582124 Amelia River Estuary 21FLSJWMSM031Amelia River at Red CM28—Ft Clinch StatePark1993 1993 158129A Sadler Road Coastal 21FLDOHNASSAU321 SadlerRoad 2000 2002 748129B Main Beach Coastal 21FLDOHNASSAU187 MainBeach 2000 2002 748129C Ocean Street Coastal 21FLDOHNASSAU186 Ocean Street 2000 2002 748129D Fort Clinch Beach Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU185 Fort Clinch Beach 2000 2002 74Nassau River Planning Unit2120A Mills Creek Stream 21FLSJWMNR903 Mills Creek at Hwy 200 1993 1993 152120B Mills Creek Stream 21FLA 19020062 Mills Cr. @ Mussel White Rd 1998 1998 332129 Lofton Creek Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM04Lofton Ck 50 M Upstream of Confluence 1997 1998 4012129 Lofton Creek Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM4Lofton Creek 50 M. Upstream from Confluencewith Nassau R.1999 2002 6182130 Plummer Creek Stream 21FLA 19020064 Plummer Cr at SR A1A 1999 1999 2042130 Plummer Creek Stream 21FLA 19020065 Plummer Cr at I-95 1999 1999 902140A Jackson Creek Estuary 21FLA 19020005 Amelia R. @ CM 7(Formerly CM 28) 1993 1998 4192140A Jackson Creek Estuary 21FLA 19020015 Amelia R Marker #14 1993 1994 1602148B Nassau River Stream 112WRD 02231289Nassau River Nr Hedges, Fl 1993 1994 512148B Nassau River Stream11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM01Thomas Ck Near Confluence with the NassauRiver1997 1998 4742148B Nassau River Stream11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM02Nassau River50 M Dwnstrm of I-95 Bridge 1997 1998 474Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys175WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeSTORET Station ID Station Description BD ED# ofObs.2148B Nassau River Stream11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM03Nassau River at Confluence with Deese Creek 1997 1998 4182148B Nassau River Stream 21FLA 19020002 Nassau Riv US 17 2000 2000 412148B Nassau River Stream 21FLA19020047 Nassau River at I-95 2001 2001 202148B Nassau River Stream 21FLGW 3537 19020002 1998 2002 12562148B Nassau River Stream 21FLJXWQTIM2Nassau R. 50 Meters Downstream of I-95Bridge1999 2002 6402148B Nassau River Stream 21FLJXWQTIM3 Nassau R.at Confluence with Deese Creek 1999 2002 6042148B Nassau River Stream 21FLSJWM19020002 Nassau River at US 17 1995 1998 9452148B Nassau River Stream 21FLSJWMNR005 NassauRiver at "Nassau Landing" Ramp 1993 1993 152148B Nassau River Stream 21FLSJWMNRINassau River Near Italia 1995 1998 12562148B Nassau River Stream 21FLSJWMNRTNassau River at US 17 1994 1995 3462149 South Amelia River Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM07Alligator Ck 50 M Upstream of Confluence 1997 1998 4442149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLA19020013 Amelia River at CM 1 1993 2001 4632149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLA19020018 Marker #20 2000 2001 512149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLA 19020021 Marker #28 N Amelia City 1993 1994 1432149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLA 19020023 Marker #37 N Harrison Cr Conf 2000 2000 122149 South Amelia RiverEstuary 21FLJXWQTIM7Alligator Cr. 50 M. Upstream from Confluencewith Nassau R.1999 2002 5822149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLSJWMNR002Nassau River 100 M Past Seymour Pt 1993 1993 152149 South Amelia River Estuary 21FLSJWMNR009 Amelia River at Red CM 28—Amelia City 1993 1993 152153 Alligator Creek Stream 21FLA 19020027 Alligator Cr US 1 and 23 2001 2001 352157 Little Mills Creek Stream 21FLSJWMLMCC Little Mills Ck @ SR 115 Near Callahan 1993 1993 42161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLA19020020 Thomas Ck. @ US 301 1994 2000 1222161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLA 19020035Thomas Creek at Clay Landing 1996 1996 92161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLA 19020057 Thomas Cr at Thomas Rd 1996 1996 92161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLA 19020058Thomas Cr at Lem Turner Rd 1996 1996 92161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLJXWQTC1Thomas Creek at U.S. 1 1993 2002 5672161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLJXWQTIM1Thomas Cr. Between Confluence with NassauR. and Joels Lndg.1999 2002 648176Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeSTORET Station ID Station Description BD ED# ofObs.2161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLJXWQTREE7Thomas Creek at Acree Road 1993 1994 1372161 Thomas Creek Stream 21FLJXWQTREE8 ThomasCreek at Lem Turner Boulevard 1993 1994 1372170 Pumpkin Hill Creek Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM06Pumpkin Hill Ck West of Broward Islands 1997 1998 4512170 Pumpkin Hill Creek Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM6Pumpkin Hill Cr. W of N End of BlackHammock Is.1999 2002 5122174 Nassau Sound Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM08Nassau R at Confluence with ICWW/Sisters Ck 1997 1998 4932174 Nassau Sound Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM09ICWW/Sisters Creek at Marker 61 1997 1998 3052174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 19020026 Marker #46 Junc S Amelia R Nassa 1993 1998 1532174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 19020045 Sisters Creek at CM 47 1993 1994 1442174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96010SEAS Sawpit Creek at ICWW Marker 48 1993 1995 4342174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96020SEAS 200Yards West of ICW Marker 53 1993 1995 2182174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96030SEAS First Canal on North Side of Horseshoe 1993 1995 2182174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96080SEASNassau Sound Between Bird Island and Mouthof Simp1993 1995 2162174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLA 96090SEASSimpson Creek, 300 Yards South of NassauSound, at1993 1995 2162174 Nassau Sound Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM8Nassau River at Confluence with ICWW/SistersCreek1999 2002 6242174A South End Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU191South End2000 2002 762179 Edwards Creek Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM05Edwards Creek at Confluence with SamplesCreek1997 1998 4012179 Edwards Creek Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM5Edwards Creek at Confluence with SamplesCreek1999 2002 5592198 Fort George River Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM10Mouth of Garden Creek 1997 1998 3962198 Fort George River Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM11Ft. George R at NE Corner of Ft. George Island 1997 1998 3742198 Fort George River Estuary11NPSWRDTIMU_RESD_TIM9AICWW/Sisters Ck at Marker 67 1998 1998 652198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLA 96040SEAS Gunnison Cut at ICWW Marker 67 1993 1995 2182198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLA 96050SEASFort George River Between ICWW Marker 53and theK1993 1995 217Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys177WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeSTORET Station ID Station Description BD ED# ofObs.2198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLA 96060SEASMouth of Unnamed Creek on Little TalbotIsland Eas1993 1995 2172198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLA 96070SEASFort George River on Northern Side of US A1ABridge1993 1995 2172198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM10Old FG6. Inside Mouth of Garden Creek ` 50Meters1999 2002 6092198 Fort George River Estuary 21FLJXWQTIM11 Ft. George River at NE Corner of Ft. George Is. 1999 2002 593Nassau Sound Planning Unit8127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal 21FLA 20030748 West Br at Capper 2002 2002 878127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV4-014Duval-DUV4-014 2000 2000 48127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV4-024Duval-DUV4-024 2001 2001 48127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV4-031Duval-DUV4-031 2001 2001 48127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV5-302Duval-DUV5-302 2001 2001 48127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV5-318Duval-DUV5-318 2001 2001 48127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV5-325Duval-DUV5-325 2000 2000 48127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV6-667Duval-DUV6-667 2001 2001 48127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV6-673Duval-DUV6-673 2001 2001 48127 Nassau Sound Ocean 1 Coastal21FLKWATDUV-DUV6-674Duval-DUV6-674 2000 2000 48127A Huguenot Park Coastal 21FLDOH DUVAL79 Huguenot Park 2000 2002 748127B South Little Talbot Island Coastal 21FLDOHDUVAL78 South Little Talbot Island 2000 2002 758127C South Little Talbot Island Coastal 21FLDOHDUVAL77 South Little Talbot Island 2000 2002 758128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS10-193Nassau -NAS10-193 2000 2000 48128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS10-199Nassau -NAS10-199 2001 2001 4178Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyTypeSTORET Station ID Station Description BD ED# ofObs.8128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS10-202Nassau -NAS10-202 2001 2001 48128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS11-729Nassau -NAS11-729 2001 2001 48128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS11-739Nassau -NAS11-739 2001 2001 48128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS11-746Nassau -NAS11-746 2000 2000 48128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS12-294Nassau -NAS12-294 2001 2001 48128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS12-308Nassau -NAS12-308 2000 2000 48128 Nassau Sound Ocean 2 Coastal21FLKWATNAS-NAS12-318Nassau -NAS12-318 2001 2001 48128A Piper Dunes Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU190 Piper Dunes 2000 2002 748128B AIP Beach Club Coastal 21FLDOH NASSAU189 AIP Beach Club 2000 2002 748128C American Beach Coastal 21FLDOHNASSAU322 AmericanBeach 2000 2002 748128D Peter’s Point Coastal 21FLDOHNASSAU188 Peter’s Point 2000 2002 74

### Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 

# 179

Dissolved Oxygen

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1962 1971 1977 19

7 9

198 1

198 4

1986 1988 1990 1993 19

9

8



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 1 2 3 4

196 5

197 3

1978 1980 1981 198 4

198 5

198 7

198 9

199 2

1993



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3197319781980198119831985198619881989199219932004



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosphorous

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

1971 1974 197 9

198 0

198 2

198 4

1986 1988 1990 199 3

199 8



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5198019811983198519851986198719881989198920042004



### Yearμg/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 12196719711974197519771978197919801982198319852003



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 1 2 3 4 5

1 9

7 0

1 9

7 1 1972 1974

1 9

7 4

1 9

7 5

1975

1 9

7 6

1 9

7 6

1977

1 9

7 7



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2

1 9 7

1

1 9 7 4

1 9 7 5

1 9 7 7

1 9 7 8

1 9 8 0

1 9 8

1

1 9 8 3

1 9 8 5

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.05

0.1 0.1519661969197219741976197819801981198319862004



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 1 2 3 4

2001 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005

Yearμg/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 12197519801985198619861987199119921993199419941998



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6197519841985198619871990199219921993199419981998



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

1 9 7 5

1 9 8 0 19 8 5 19 8 6 19 8 6 19 8 7 19 9 2 19 9 2 1993 1994



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5197519801985198619861987199219921993199419982003



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3

19

8 4

19

8 5

19

8 5

19

8 5

19

8 6

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 7



### Yearμg/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

1992 1992 1992 2 00

0 200 0 2001 2004 2004 2004 20 0 4



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2

2000 2001 2004 2004 2004

Yearmg/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 12196519731976197819801982198419861988199019921994



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

196 5

197 4

197 6

197 9

1981 1983 1985 198 8

199 0

199 2

199 4



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2

1 9 6 5

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 6

1987 1988 1989 1990 1992 1993 1994



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2

196 5

197 5

197 7

1 979 1981 1984 198 6

198 8

199 0

199 3

1 998



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 5 10 15 20 25

1 9 8 4 19 8 5 19 8 6 19 8 7 1988 19 8 8 19 8 9 19 9 0 1991



### Yearμg/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 12196119721974197719791986198819911994199619992002



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3

1 9 6 5

1 9 7 2

1 9 7 4

1 9 7 9

1 9 8 5

1987 1989 1992 1994 1996 1998



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5196519751978198019861988199119931996199820012003



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

196 5

197 3

197 6

1 979 1986 1988 1992 199 5

199 8

200 0

200 3



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 2 4 6 8

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 7

1989 1990 1996 1997 1999 2000 2002 20

0 3



### Yearμg/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

19

7 1 19 7 6

1 980

1 985 19 8 8

1 992

1 99

3 1993 2001 2 00

4



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5197119781980198119861988199219921993199320002001



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2

1 9 7 8 19 8 0 19 8 6

1 9 8 8 19 9 2 19 9 3 2 0 0 0 20 0 4



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 9 7

1 19 7 8 19 8 0 19 8 6 19 8 8 1992

1 9 9 3 20 0 0 20 0 4



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 0.5

1 1.5

1986 1987 1988 2004 2004 2004 2004

Yearμg/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 1019711974197619781980198119851987198919901993



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3197119751976197819791981198219861987198919901993



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 1 2 3 4 5

1 9 7 5

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 7

19

8 8

19

8 9

19

9 0

19

9 2 19 9 3

20

0 4



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2

1 9 7

1

1 9 7 4

1 9 7 6

1 9 7 8

1 9 8 0

1981 1985 1987 1989 19

9 0

19

9 3



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 2 4 6 8 1019851985198619861987198719881992199320042004



### Yearμg/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

1961 1979 1984

1 9 86

1 9 88

1 9 91

1 9 94

1 99

6

1 99

8

2 00

1

2 00

3



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 2 4 6 8

1 9 6 5

1 9 7 9

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 8

1 9 9 0

1 9 9

7

1 9 9 9

2 0 0

1 2 0 0 2



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 1 2 3 41976198319851987198919901994199619981999200120032005



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

1 9 7 6

1 9 8 3

1985 1987 19

8 9

19

9

1

19

9 5

19

9

7

19

9 9

20

0

1

20

0 3

20

0 5



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 5 10 15 20

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 8

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 6

1998 2000 2002 2004



### Yearμg/L 

## Nassau River Planning Unit – Nassau River (2148B)

# 188 Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys



## Dissolved Oxygen

0 2 4 6 8 10197819811985198519861987198819891990199019922004



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 1 2 3 4 5

1978 1979 1981 1983

Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2

19

7 8

1 9 8 3 1989 19 9 0 19 9 0

1 9 9 2



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

19

7 8 19 8

1 1987

1 9 8 7 19 8 8 19 8 9 19 9 0 1991 2 0 0 4



### Yearmg/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 1219771981198519871989199119931995199820002001



### Yearmg/L 

## BOD (5 Day)

0 1 2 3 4

1 9 7 7

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 3

1 9 9

1 19 9 3

19

9 4

19

9

7

19

9 8

20

0 0

20

0

1 20 0 2



### Yearmg/L



## Total Nitrogen

0 0.5

1 1.5

2

1 9 7 7

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 4

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9

7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0

1 2 0 0 2



### Yearmg/L 

## Total Phosporous

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.819771979198119841987198919911992199319971998



### Yearmg/L



## Corrected Chlorophyll

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1980 1981 1983 2000 2004

Yearμg/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 th e 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. Indus trial 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 I ndustrial Wastewater A N 0.0000 FLA011686 Tropic Motel Laundry & Stor e 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).192Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysTable F.2: Superfund Sites, by Planning UnitPlanning Unit Name Address City County Program Status OperationProgramLeaderUpper St.Marys RiverYellow WaterRoad1190 YellowWater Rd.Baldwin Duval Superfund Delisted Other EPA PRPWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys193Table F.3: Permitted Landfill Facilities, by Planning UnitFacility ID Facility Name Address City*Status Facility Type Facility ClassUpper St. Marys River Planning Unit34364 West Beaver SL C/D 13581 W Beaver St. Jacksonville J Solid WasteConstruction/Demolition (C/D)Debris30247 Taylor Refuse Site II Mi S Taylor Taylor J Solid Waste Class II Landfill30246 Baker County Central Landfill LFC15Mi N Macclenny , 1Mi ESR121Macclenny K Solid Waste Class I Landfill30249 South Glen Refuse Site SR125, 3 Mi S I10 Glen St. Mary J Solid Waste Class II Landfill30251 North Glen Refuse Site 1Mi NW Glen St. Mary Glen St. Mary J Solid Waste Class II Landfill30248 Sanderson Dump US 90, S of Sanderson Sanderson J Solid Waste Class II Landfill30260 Macclenny Refuse Dump 1.4 Mi N Macclenny , SR121 Macclenny J Solid Waste Class II LandfillMiddle St. Marys River Planning Unit37134 Bryceville Landfill (Class III)County Rd 121 5 Miles N ofState Rd. 119Bryceville I SolidWaste Class III Landfill37368 Jefferson Smurfit Class I L/F S of Crawford KentRd. Crawfordsville O Solid Waste Class I Landfill37139 Bryceville SLFState Rd. 121 8 Miles NWBrycevilleBryceville K Solid Waste Class II LandfillNassau River Planning Unit37343 Nassau Sanitation C/D IIHwy. A1A 3 Miles E ofCallahanCallahan A Solid Waste C/D Debris37138 Lofton Creek Landfill LFC1S State Rd. A1A 2.8 Miles EYuleeFernandinaBeachK Solid Waste Class I Landfill37141 C-108 Demolition Debris LF P. O. Box 386 Hilliard I Solid Waste C/D Debris84054 Nassau Sanitation C/D IIHwy. A1A 3 Miles E ofCallahanCallahan A Solid Waste C/D Debris37136Nassau Sanitation C/D FacilityCDS3 Miles E of Callahan Hwy.A1ACallahan J Solid Waste C/D Debris37140 West Nassau Landfill LF1 2.5 Miles N Callahanoff US 1 Callahan A Solid Waste Class I Landfill86315 West Nassau Landfill LFC1 440 S Kings Rd. Callahan K Solid Waste Class I Landfill84055 Nassau Sanitation C/D IIHwy.A1A 3 Miles E ofCallahanCallahan A Solid Waste C/D Debris194Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys*Status:A = ActiveI = InactiveJ = Closed, no monitoringK = Closed, monitoringO = Never operated; permit never usedWater Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys195Appendix G: Level I Land Use in the Nassau–St. Marys Basin,by Planning UnitUpper St. Marys River Planning UnitLEVEL1 COUNT FIRST_ATTR SUM_AREA ACRES SQ_MILES PERCENTAGE1000 769 Urban and Built-up 56974149.4406 14078.5613 21.9978 3.43402000 528 Agriculture 64579944.1106 15957.9864 24.9345 3.89243000 290 Rangeland 21287877.1930 5260.3275 8.2193 1.28314000 2308 Upland Forests 952398176.6006 235341.7507 367.7230 57.40345000 479 Water 14745675.7233 3643.7209 5.6933 0.88886000 8712 Wetlands 538960713.9179 133179.5472 208.0939 32.48457000 18 Barren Land 714728.0394 176.6124 0.2760 0.04318000 53Transportation,Communication, and Utilities9469845.6046 2340.0402 3.6563 0.5708TOTAL 1659131110.6300 409978.5466 640.5941 100.0001Middle St. Marys River Planning UnitLEVEL1 COUNT FIRST_ATTR SUM_AREA ACRES SQ_MILES PERCENTAGE1000 239 Urban and Built-up 13109451.3771 3239.4027 5.0616 3.93862000 225 Agriculture 22315938.9892 5514.3660 8.6162 6.70463000 206 Rangeland 14649465.5423 3619.9469 5.6562 4.40134000 811 Upland Forests 196283166.9801 48502.4282 75.7854 58.97095000 280 Water 2032438.5740 502.2245 0.7847 0.61066000 1608 Wetlands 80841327.6067 19976.2453 31.2130 24.28787000 11 Barren Land 500417.7973 123.6554 0.1932 0.15038000 34Transportation,Communication, and Utilities3115216.4868 769.7836 1.2028 0.9359TOTAL 332847423.3535 82248.0526 128.5131 100.0000196Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. MarysLower St. Marys River Planning UnitLEVEL1 COUNT FIRST_ATTR SUM_AREA ACRES SQ_MILES PERCENTAGE1000 433 Urban and Built-up 39309130.3166 9713.4579 15.1773 7.70992000 156 Agriculture 11971723.9054 2958.2653 4.6223 2.34813000 253 Rangeland 17624876.9007 4355.1841 6.8050 3.45684000 953 Upland Forests 200987754.3730 49664.9523 77.6018 39.42065000 236 Water 36192098.1936 8943.2256 13.9738 7.09856000 1898 Wetlands 147690372.9969 36494.9365 57.0236 28.96727000 21 Barren Land 1482633.1990 366.3651 0.5724 0.29088000 26Transportation,Communication, and Utilities3180703.3900 785.9657 1.2281 0.62389000 1 Special Classifications 51415302.8909 12704.9460 19.8516 10.0843TOTAL 509854596.1661 125987.2985 196.8559 100.0000Combined Nassau River and Nassau Sound Planning UnitsLEVEL1 COUNT FIRST_ATTR SUM_AREA ACRES SQ_MILES PERCENTAGE1000 796 Urban and Built-up 95775128.6674 23666.4528 36.9790 7.97062000 399 Agriculture 52706435.7108 13023.9906 20.3501 4.38633000 501 Rangeland 42151442.4400 10415.8056 16.2748 3.50794000 2151 Upland Forests 482692163.4406 119275.3426 186.3685 40.17055000 766 Water 60055238.6764 14839.9119 23.1875 4.99796000 5398 Wetlands 373561156.6198 92308.5940 144.2328 31.08847000 74 Barren Land 5828853.7071 1440.3352 2.2505 0.48518000 79Transportation,Communication, and Utilities10122565.3390 2501.3301 3.9083 0.84249000 1 Special Classifications 78714938.0827 19450.8051 30.3920 6.5508TOTAL 1201607922.6838 296922.5679 463.9435 99.9999

### Water Quality Assessment Report: Nassau–St. Marys 

# 197

Appendix H: Documentation Pr ovided 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 distincti on 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 wa terbody 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 prim arily 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 recei ved 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