FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Water Resource Management | Bureau of Watershed Management

Water Quality Assessment Report

NORTHWEST DISTRICT • GROUP 1 BASIN • SEPTEMBER 2003

Ochlockonee and St. Marks

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Water Resource Management

Water Quality Assessment Report

Ochlockonee and St. Marks

SEPTEMBER 2003

Acknowledgments

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Water Quality Assessment Report was 

prepared by the Watershed Assessment Section Northwest Sector 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:

Richard Wieckowicz, Water Quality Assessment Lead Author 

Mike Myrga

Justin Godin

Katrina Scheie

Erin Wilcox 

Editorial and writing assistance provided by

Linda Lord and Richard Hicks, Watershed Planning and Coordination

Production assistance provided by

Educational Services Program

Florida State University

210 Sliger Building

2035 E. Dirac Dr.

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800

Map production assistance provided by

Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center

Florida State University

University Center, C2200

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641

For additional information on the watershed management 

approach and impaired waters in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins, contact

Richard Hicks, P.G., Basin Coordinator

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

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

Phone: (850) 245-8558; Suncom: 205-8561

Fax: (850) 245-8434

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 5
Access to all data used in the development of this report can be 

obtained by contacting

Richard Wieckowicz, Ph.D., P.E.

Professional Engineer

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Assessment Section

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3555

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

richard.wieckowicz@dep.state.fl .us

Phone: (850) 245-8468; Suncom: 205-8468 

Fax: (850) 245-8434

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

2000 305(b) Report

http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/305b/index.htm

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifi cations

http://www/dep.state.fl .us/legal/legaldocuments/rules/ruleslistnum.htm

Status 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’s National STORET Program

http://www.epa.gov/storet

6 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Preface

Content Features

• Executive Summary: Appears at the beginning of every report 

and provides an overarching view of the watershed management 

approach, its implementation, and how this approach will be used 

to identify impaired waters. A summary of impaired waters in this 

basin is also included.

• Noteworthy: Appears on pages near text that needs additional 

 information but is too lengthy to fi t in a sidebar. 

• Defi nitions: Appear at the side of pages 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 at the end of Chapter 5 and provide a complete 

listing of all sources used within the text.

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

information on subjects, such as bioassessment methodology, rainfall 

and stream fl ow, types of natural communities, surface water monitoring stations, water quality statistics, land use, and permitted facilities. Also included is a master list that summarizes the water quality 

in all the basins addressed in this report.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 7

Executive Summary

Ochlockonee and St. Marks

The Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins Water Quality Assessment Report 

is part of the implementation of the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s (Department) watershed management approach for restoring 

and protecting water resource problems and addressing Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) Program requirements. A TMDL represents the 

maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate 

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

meet its designated benefi cial 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 federal 

Clean Water Act and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 

99-223, Laws of Florida).

A Water Quality 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 Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins. This Assessment Report presents the results of additional 

data gathered during Phase 2 of the cycle. The report contains a Verifi ed 

List of impaired waters (Table 4.2 in Chapter 4) that has been adopted 

by Secretarial Order and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). TMDLs must be developed and implemented for these 

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

condition that cannot be abated by a TMDL or unless a management 

plan already in place is expected to correct the problem. The Verifi ed List 

also constitutes the Group 1 basin-specifi c 303(d) list of impaired waters, 

so called because it is required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water 

Act. See Noteworthy in Chapter 1 for a description of the contents of this 

report, by chapter.

In the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, state, federal, regional, 

and local agencies and organizations and active citizens are making 

progress towards identifying problems and improving water quality. The 

Department’s TMDL Program objectives will be carried out in the basin 

through close coordination with key stakeholders and initiatives such as 

local municipal and county governments (notably the City of Tallahassee 

and Leon County); other state agencies such as the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the Florida Department of 

Transportation (DOT); the Northwest Florida Water Management District 

(NWFWMD); local and national environmental groups; neighborhood 

groups; landowners; and various other public and private entities. 

Not only do stakeholders in the basins share responsibilities in 

achieving water quality improvement objectives, they also play a crucial 

role in providing the Department with important monitoring data and 

information on management activities. Signifi cant data providers in the 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 9
basins include the Department, Leon County, NWFWMD, and the 

University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring program.

During the next few years, considerable data analysis will be done to 

establish TMDLs for impaired waters in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins, establish the initial allocations of pollutant load 

reductions needed to meet those TMDLs, and produce a Basin 

Management Action Plan, or B-MAP, to reduce the amount of pollutants 

that cause impairments. These activities depend heavily on the active 

participation of the water management district, local governments, 

businesses, and other stakeholders. The Department will work with these 

organizations and individuals to undertake or continue reductions in the 

discharge of pollutants and achieve the established TMDLs for impaired 

waterbodies.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review 

of Florida’s Amended Section 303(d) List

On June 11, 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

released a Decision Document based on its review of the Department’s 

amendments to Florida’s 1998 Section 303(d) list. The EPA found that 

the Department’s Group 1 update substantially met the intent of Section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act and partially approved the submission.

Applying its own evaluation methodology, the EPA proposed listing 

80 additional waterbody segments/pollutants for public comment by 

July 18, 2003. Under this methodology, approximately half of the added 

waters failed to meet water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO), 

but no causative pollutant could be identifi ed. Florida law precludes the 

Department from including such waters on its Verifi ed List of impaired 

waters until the causative pollutant is known. The majority of the 

remaining waters were added to the list based on a different interpretation 

of the methodology for assessing potential impairment for bacteria. The 

Department agreed to apply this alternative methodology when assessing 

the next group (Group 2) of waterbodies for bacteria.

The consequence of having the EPA add waters to Florida’s Section 

303(d) list is that the EPA would be obligated to propose TMDLs for these 

waters. However, the EPA has proposed assigning a “low” priority to these 

waterbodies, thus providing the Department an opportunity to investigate 

them further. Information on the status of Florida’s amended Section 

303(d) list can be found on the EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

region4/water/tmdl/fl orida/.

Summary of Findings

The Department’s assessment shows that 23 waterbodies or waterbody 

segments in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins are impaired and 

require the development of TMDLs. The following summarizes, 

10 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
by planning unit, impairments by waterbody types and the primary 

pollutants. Planning units are smaller areas within the basins that provide 

a more detailed geographic basis for identifying and assessing water quality 

improvement activities.

North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

The parameters verifi ed as impaired include total coliforms in the 

Ochlockonee River and Little River and nutrients (as measured by Trophic 

State Index [TSI]) in Lake Tallavana. Although DO was qualifi ed as 

impaired for Lake Talquin based on the number of exceedances, no 

relationship to a pollutant such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or 

nutrients was established. Some waters are on the Planning List because 

of fi sh consumption advisories issued by the Florida Department of Health 

(DOH) (based on mercury in fi sh), but no recent data were available to 

verify the impairment.

South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

No waters in the planning unit are on the Verifi ed List. However, the 

Ochlockonee River and several tributaries (Reedy Branch, Cow Creek, 

Crooked River, and Soapstone Branch) are on the Planning List because of 

mercury in fi sh. No recent data were available to verify these fi ndings.

Lake Iamonia Planning Unit

There are no waters in the planning unit on the Verifi ed List. The only 

waterbody potentially impaired and on the Planning List is Lake Iamonia 

(Lake Iamonia Outlet). It is on the Planning List based on DO and 

mercury in fi sh. Two waterbodies, Lake Monkey Business Pond and Lake 

Arrowhead, were found to exceed Planning List criteria for nutrients but 

(along with several other ponds in the area) are designated as stormwater 

treatment ponds (Florida Department of Environmental Regulations 

[FDER], 1994). Stormwater treatment ponds are not addressed under the 

TMDL Program.

Lake Jackson Planning Unit

Lake Jackson is on the Verifi ed List for nutrients (based on TSI) and 

DO. No other waterbodies in the planning unit are verifi ed impaired based 

on current data, although Harbinwood Estates Drain and Meginniss Arm 

Run are potentially impaired for several parameters.

Telogia Creek Planning Unit

Telogia Creek is on the Verifi ed List based on exceedances of total and 

fecal coliforms. No other waterbodies in the planning unit are verifi ed or 

potentially impaired, based on current data.

Sopchoppy River Planning Unit

There are no waters in the planning unit on the Verifi ed List. Three 

stream segments are potentially impaired based on fi sh consumption 

advisories, but no recent data were available to verify their impairment. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 11
St. Marks River Planning Unit

Within the planning unit, Black Creek is on the Verifi ed List based on 

DO exceedance (verifi ed by high total phosphorus values). Lake Weeks is 

also on the Verifi ed List for DO (based on elevated nutrient levels). Several 

waterbodies are on the Planning List, including the St. Marks River, 

Chicken Branch, Copeland Sink Drain (for DO), and several springs (for 

DO). Several waterbodies are also on the Planning List for dioxin, which 

was identifi ed as a potential pollutant in a Department Bureau of Waste 

Cleanup investigation.

Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit

Lake Miccosukee is on the Verifi ed List for total coliforms. Although 

several waterbodies or segments in the planning unit are on the Planning 

List for DO, no link to a pollutant such as BOD was found to verify their 

impairment.

Lake Lafayette Planning Unit

Several lake segments were placed on the Verifi ed List as verifi ed for 

DO and nutrients (based on TSI). These include Upper Lake Lafayette, 

Lake Piney Z, Lower Lake Lafayette, and Alford Arm. The tributary 

network draining to the lake system, identifi ed in aggregate as the Lake 

Lafayette Drain, is on the Verifi ed List for DO, total coliforms, and 

fecal coliforms. Draft TMDLs have been produced by the Department 

for Upper Lake Lafayette (nutrients) and Lake Lafayette Drain (fecal 

coliforms).

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit

Lake Munson is on the Verifi ed List because it is impaired for DO and 

nutrients (as measured by TSI). Munson Slough above the lake is also on 

the Verifi ed List based on DO. Several other urban tributaries to the lake 

(Central Drainage Ditch, East Drainage Ditch, St. Augustine Branch, and 

Godby Ditch) are potentially impaired and on the Planning List. Lake 

Bradford (DO) and Silver Lake (bacteria and turbidity) are also listed as 

potentially impaired.

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit

In this planning unit, Moore Lake is on the Verifi ed List based on a 

fi sh consumption advisory. No other waterbodies in the planning unit 

are verifi ed impaired, although Lost Creek is listed as potentially impaired 

based on DO.

Wakulla River Planning Unit

The Wakulla River is on the Verifi ed List because of biological 

impairment related to nutrients and on the Planning List for dioxin. Two 

springs/spring runs in the planning unit are listed as potentially impaired 

for DO, although low DO may be a naturally occurring condition.

12 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit

Shell Point and Mashes Island were verifi ed as impaired and are on 

the Verifi ed List based on beach closures issued by the DOH. The beach 

closures can be based upon fecal coliforms, e. coliforms, or enterococci 

exceedances. A segment of the coastal waters, the Coastal Apalachee West, 

is on the Verifi ed List based on downgrades in shellfi sh classifi cation due to 

fecal coliforms. The Florida Gulf Coast is on the Verifi ed List based on a 

fi sh consumption advisory.

TMDL Priority Areas

For waterbodies identifi ed as potentially impaired and previously 

submitted to EPA as part of Florida’s 1998 303(d) list, TMDL development 

priority for impaired waterbodies in this basin group conforms with the 

TMDL development dates set by EPA. TMDLs have been submitted 

for adoption by the Department Secretary and review by EPA for Upper 

Lake Lafayette and Lake Lafayette Drain, the highest priority waterbody 

segments. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 13

Table of Contents

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

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

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

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Northwest District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

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

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

Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Rivers and Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Ochlockonee River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

St. Marks River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Urban Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Lake Talquin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Lakes Iamonia and Miccosukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Lake Jackson and Associated Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Lake Lafayette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Lakes Bradford, Hiawatha, and Cascade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Lake Munson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Urban Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Other Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Wetlands and Estuaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Surface Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Outstanding Florida Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Minimum Flows and Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Ground Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Water Resource Caution Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Watershed Management Activities and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Major Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Creation of Conservation and Preservation Lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Elimination of Wastewater Discharges to Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Tallahassee Area Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

SWIM Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Lake Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Ground Water Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Springs Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Agricultural Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Scope of the Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Update on Strategic Monitoring and Data-Gathering Activities During Phase 2. 48

Sources of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Attainment of Designated Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Assessment by Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 15
Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Lake Iamonia Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Lake Jackson Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Telogia Creek Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Sopchoppy River Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

St. Marks River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Lake Lafayette Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

16 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Wakulla River Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Chapter 4: The Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Identification of Impaired Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review of Florida’s Amended Section 303(d) 

List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

The Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Pollutants Causing Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Lake Iamonia Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Lake Jackson Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Telogia Creek Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Sopchoppy River Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

St. Marks River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Lake Lafayette Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Wakulla River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Coastal Watershed and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Listing Based on Other Information Indicating Nutrient Imbalance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Chapter 5: TMDL Development, Allocation, Implementation, and 

Monitoring Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Prioritization of Listed Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

TMDL Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

TMDL Allocation and Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Implementation Programs and Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Development of Basin Management Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 17
Tables

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

Table 2.1: SWIM Priority Waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 3.4: Planning Units in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit . . . . . . . 59

Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit . . . . . . . 69

Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Iamonia Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Jackson Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 3.9: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Telogia Creek Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 3.10: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Sopchoppy River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table 3.11: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the St. Marks River Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 3.12: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table 3.13: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Lafayette Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Table 3.14: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit . 102

Table 3.15: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit . . . . . . . 107

Table 3.16: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Wakulla River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table 3.17: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay 

Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Table 4.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 1 Verifi ed Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Table 4.2: The Verifi ed List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Table 5.1: Priorities for TMDL Development in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Figures

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

Basin Groups 1 through 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning 

List, and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the South Ochlockonee River and Sopchoppy River Planning Units, Including the 

1998 303(d) List, Planning List, and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Lake Iamonia Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List, and 

Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Lake Jackson Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List, and 

Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 3.7: Composite Map of the Telogia Creek Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List, and 

Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 3.8: Composite Map of the St. Marks River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List, and 

Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 3.9: Composite Map of the Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List, and 

Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 3.10: Composite Map of the Lake Lafayette Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List, and 

Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 3.11: Composite Map of the Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List, and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 3.12: Composite Map of the Lost Creek/Fisher Creek and Wakulla River Planning Units, Including the 1998 

303(d) List, Planning List, and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 3.13: Composite Map of the Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) 

List, Planning List, and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 4.1: Waters on the Verifi ed List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

18 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Chapter 1: Introduction

Purposes and Content of the 

Assessment Report

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

has implemented 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 federal 

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

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

waters that do not meet their designated uses (such as drinking water, 

recreation, and shellfi sh harvesting) and are thus defi ned as impaired. 

TMDLs are being developed, and the corresponding reductions in 

pollutant loads allocated, as part of the watershed management approach, 

which rotates through the state’s 52 river basins over a 5-year cycle. 

Extensive public participation from diverse stakeholders in each of these 

basins is crucial in all phases of the cycle.

A Status Report published during Phase 1 of the watershed 

management cycle provided a Planning List, or preliminary identifi cation, 

of potentially impaired waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins. 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 data providers 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 federal Clean Water Act, 

for which TMDLs must be developed and implemented (see Noteworthy

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

on the assessment results, 23 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins are verifi ed impaired for one or more 

parameters, which include both biology and fi sh impairments. 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 as a reference for people in the community 

who are concerned about water quality in these basins, including decision 

makers in federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments; public and 

private interests; and citizens.

The Verifi ed List is required by Subsection 403.067(40], Florida 

Statutes (F.S.), 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 

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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 19
(IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also approved this list as the 

current 2002 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basins, 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 several waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. 

Tables 3.5 through 3.17 in Chapter 3 list these waters by planning unit.

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. This 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 basins.

A description of the legislative and regulatory background for TMDL 

development and implementation through the watershed management 

approach, and a brief explanation of the TMDL Program, are available 

in Appendix A. Background information on the Department’s TMDL 

Program, the process of TMDL development and implementation, lists 

of impaired and potentially impaired waters, and assessments for other 

parts of the state are available at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/

index.htm.

Stakeholder Involvement

The FWRA requires the Department to work closely with stakeholders 

to develop and implement TMDLs. In addition, the Department’s 

Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) report, submitted 

to the legislature, recommends relying on stakeholder involvement. 

Stakeholder involvement in the TMDL process will vary with each 

phase of implementation to achieve different purposes (Table 1.1). The 

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

Allocation.pdf.

The Department will work cooperatively with key stakeholders to 

develop, allocate, and implement TMDLs in the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins. These stakeholders include the following: 

• Local Governments—City and county agencies involved in stormwater management, land use planning, and permitting will be key 

participants in developing and implementing management activities 

to address impaired waters.

• Private Landowners—Participation by private landowners in areas 

affected by TMDLs will be necessary for the Basin Management 

Action Plan (B-MAP) to be practical and effective in meeting the 

TMDL.

• The Business Community—Commitment and involvement by the 

local business community, particularly those involved in manage20 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program

Watershed Management Cycle Nature of Stakeholder Involvement

Phase 1: 

Preliminary

Evaluation

Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin water 

quality assessment; inventory existing and proposed management activities; 

identify management objectives and issues of concern; develop a Strategic 

Monitoring Plan; and produce a preliminary Status Report that includes a Planning List of potentially impaired waters

Phase 2:

Strategic Monitoring

and Assessment

Cooperative efforts between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and local stakeholders to collect additional data; get data into 

STORET (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA]) national water quality database); complete water quality assessment; produce a final Assessment 

Report that includes a Verified List of impaired waters for Secretarial adoption; 

and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to document reasonable assurance 

(for Department review) that existing or proposed management plans and projects are adequate to restore water quality without the establishment of a TMDL

Phase 3:

Development and

Adoption of TMDLs

Coordination with stakeholders to discuss TMDL model framework, including 

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

scenarios and preliminary allocations; communication of science used in the 

process; public workshops for rule adoption of TMDLs

Phase 4:

Development of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Broad stakeholder participation in developing a Basin Management Action Plan 

(B-MAP) (including detailed allocations and implementation strategies), incorporating it into existing management plans where feasible; public meetings during 

the planning process

Phase 5:

Implementation of Basin 

Management Action Plan

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

local watershed management structures; Department will continue to provide 

technical assistance, fulfill oversight responsibilities, and administer National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point and nonpoint source 

permits

ment and development of lands within the watersheds of impaired 

waterbodies, will be crucial.

• The Agricultural Community—Agriculturists, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and other agencies 

and organizations that support the agricultural community are key 

participants in implementation of applicable best management practices (BMPs) in watersheds contributing to impaired waterbodies.

• Citizens Groups and Local Environmental Interests—Public 

involvement, input from the community, and the perspective of local 

environmentalists and citizens who are stakeholders in watersheds 

affected by TMDLs are critical to the development of B-MAPs.

• Federal, State, and Regional Partner Agencies—Aspects of 

several of the potentially impaired waterbodies in this basin group 

are managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Northwest Florida Water Management District 

(NWFWMD), Florida Department of Transportation, the Department’s State Parks program, and/or the U.S. Forest Service. Their 

participation and input into B-MAPs for impaired waterbodies will 

be necessary. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 21
The Watershed Management Cycle in the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Northwest District

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

District basins are being evaluated under the watershed management cycle. 

These groups are identifi ed according to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

classifi cation system using hydrologic unit codes.

The Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, which are in Group 1, 

were the fi rst basins in the Northwest District to undergo a preliminary 

assessment in 2000, have a Verifi ed List developed in 2002, and have 

TMDLs proposed in 2003. A preliminary assessment for the Group 2 

basins, which include the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Chipola, and New 

Rivers and Apalachicola Bay, was carried out in 2001 and the Verifi ed 

List update for Group 2 waters has been submitted. The Group 3 basins, 

the Choctawhatchee River and Bay and St. Andrew Bay, were assessed 

on a preliminary basis in 2002. Similarly, preliminary assessments for 

the Group 4 basins, the Escambia, Blackwater, and Yellow Rivers and 

Pensacola Bay, are being conducted in 2003. The assessment for the 

Group 5 basins, Perdido River and Bay, will begin in 2004. In 2005, 

the cycle will resume with a reassessment of water quality in the Group 1 

basins, Ochlockonee and St. Marks.

22 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s 

Northwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 23
Contents of This Report

• Chapter 1: Introduction 

briefly characterizes the purpose and content of the Water 

Quality Assessment Report, 

discusses stakeholder involvement, and describes how 

the watershed management 

cycle will be implemented in 

the Department’s Northwest 

District.

• Chapter 2: Basin Overview 

characterizes the basins’ general setting, water resources, 

major water quality trends, 

and watershed management 

issues and activities.

• Chapter 3: Surface Water 

Quality Assessment discusses 

basinwide water quality trends 

and provides, by basin planning unit, an evaluation of 

water quality, a discussion of 

permitted discharges and land 

uses, a summary of ecological 

priorities and problems, and 

an overview of water quality 

improvement plans and 

projects.

• Chapter 4: Verified List of 

Impaired Waters contains 

the Verified List of impaired 

waters, discusses public 

participation, describes 

documentation of reasonable 

assurance, lists the pollutants 

causing impairments, provides 

listings based on other information indicating a nutrient 

imbalance, and describes the 

adoption process for the Verified List.

• Chapter 5: TMDL Development, Allocation, Implementation, and Monitoring 

Priorities discusses the 

prioritization of listed waters, 

ambient monitoring priorities, 

TMDL development, TMDL 

allocation and implementation, and the development of 

a Basin Management Action 

Plan (B-MAP).

24 Noteworthy Water Quality Assessment Report: 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Chapter 2: Basin Overview

Basin Setting

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

River Basin, making up the Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basins area for this 

report, are located in the Big Bend region of northwestern Florida and 

southern Georgia (Figure 2.1). This is one of the more pristine areas of 

Florida, with a much lower population density and fewer stresses on the 

environment than in other parts of the state. Vast areas of land remain 

relatively undeveloped and many waterbodies have not been signifi cantly 

modifi ed. More than one-third of the basin group is protected as publicly 

owned conservation lands. Consequently, rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, 

and springs continue to provide great recreational opportunities to area 

residents and critical habitat for wildlife. In some areas, however, urban 

and residential development, agricultural practices, and other infl uences 

threaten the health of watersheds and have adversely affected waterbodies.

Extending from southern Georgia through Florida to the Gulf of 

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

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

Wakulla Counties, signifi cant parts of Gadsden and Jefferson Counties, 

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

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

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

ecology, and socioeconomic settings in both basins are similar.

Tallahassee, the region’s largest city in size and in population, is 

located between the two rivers and its urban and suburban areas lie in 

both basins. Other population centers in the area, much smaller in size, 

include Woodville and Bradfordville in Leon County; Quincy, Havana, 

Greensboro, and Gretna in Gadsden County; Monticello in Jefferson 

County; and Crawfordville, Sopchoppy, St. Marks, Medart, Panacea, and 

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

is the second largest incorporated population center. By county, Leon 

County is the largest in population, followed by Gadsden, Wakulla, and 

Jefferson.

In 1995, more than 57 percent of the land area in the two basins 

consisted of natural forest and managed pines and more than 22 percent 

was made up of wetlands. Agriculture (primarily pastureland) occupied 

approximately 8 percent of the basins. Row croplands made up less 

than 1 percent of the basin area south of the Florida–Georgia state line. 

However, there is a far larger agricultural area in the Georgia portion of 

the Ochlockonee River Basin. In 1995, approximately 7 percent of the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins was classifi ed as urban, although lowWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 25
Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

26 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
density urban sprawl probably now affects a greater proportion of the area 

than this fi gure suggests.

Two large lakes in the two basins are artifi cially impounded. Lake 

Talquin, the area’s largest lake, is an impoundment of the Ochlockonee 

River that was originally created to provide hydroelectric power. It detains 

water from the Ochlockonee River and smaller streams in the upper part 

of the basin. Lake Munson, south of Tallahassee, is maintained as an 

impoundment to provide fl oodwater equalization, protecting residential 

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

stormwater ditches. Water control structures on Lake Miccosukee, Lake 

Iamonia, and the Lake Lafayette chain artifi cially control water levels.

Surface Water Resources

The Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins contain numerous surface 

waterbodies, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and springs. This section 

delineates the basins’ hydrology, describes the movement and management 

of water in the basins, briefl y describes the major characteristics of surface 

waters that infl uence water quality in the basins, and describes surface 

water classifi cations and special designations.

Figure 2.2 shows the locations of the largest waterbodies. A more 

detailed discussion in Chapter 3 provides information on each planning 

unit.

Rivers and Streams

Ochlockonee River Basin

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

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

largest for Florida rivers (Fernald and Purdum, 1998). Approximately 

1,080 square miles (45 percent of the total basin) lie within Florida. The 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has divided the basin into two units: the 

Upper Ochlockonee Basin (in Georgia) and the Lower Ochlockonee Basin 

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

Lower Ochlockonee Basin (approximately 1,500 square miles) include 

the Ochlockonee River and literally hundreds of tributaries that feed it as 

it fl ows through Florida to Apalachee Bay. The Ochlockonee River and 

its largest tributaries are shown in Figure 2.2. The main tributaries of 

the Ochlockonee River in Florida are Telogia Creek, Little River, and the 

Sopchoppy River. Most of these rivers and streams are alluvial.

The Ochlockonee River originates in Worth County, far north of the 

Georgia–Florida state line, and receives fl ow from innumerable tributaries 

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

Florida–Georgia state line, the Ochlockonee River fl ows southward and 

southwestward across northwestern Leon County and eastern Gadsden 

County before it reaches the Lake Talquin reservoir. At the town of 

Havana, before it reaches the lake, the Ochlockonee River fl ows at an 

annualized average rate of 1,530 cubic feet per second (cfs), according 

Sources of 

Information

Much of the information 

about the Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks Basins in 

this chapter was obtained 

from the Water Resources 

Atlas of Florida (Fernald 

and Purdum, 1998). 

Information about the 

basins was also obtained 

from the EPA’s Surf Your 

Watershed Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/

surf2/states/fl/ and 

from the USGS Water 

Resources Data for the 

United States at http:

//water.usgs.gov.nwis.

Alluvial Rivers and 

Streams

These occur in valleys 

surrounded by their 

own sedimentary material and develop their 

characteristics based on 

the discharge and sediment load that is available. Alluvial rivers and 

streams form features 

such as meanders, channel bars, and islands. The 

stream bottom consists of 

shifting sand with varying amounts of detritus 

in quieter reaches and 

limestone outcroppings 

in some areas. Primarily 

surface tributaries feed the 

alluvial streams typical of 

much of the Ochlockonee 

Basin, particularly in the 

Tifton Uplands region. 

Their flow is variable 

because it depends largely 

on rainfall and surface 

runoff rather than ground 

water recharge.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 27
Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

28 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
to the USGS. Most of the streams that form in the northern part of the 

Lower Ochlockonee converge or discharge into the river north of the dam 

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

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

minor streams.

Between the USGS gaging station at Havana and one below the 

Jackson Bluff Dam on Lake Talquin, the Ochlockonee River grows larger 

with the additional fl ow from its tributaries above the dam (2,500 cfs) 

and meanders southward from the dam to its mouth at Ochlockonee 

Bay. Below Lake Talquin, the major tributaries to the Ochlockonee River 

are Telogia Creek and the Sopchoppy River. Telogia Creek, an alluvial 

stream, originates in the northwestern part of the basin. The Sopchoppy 

River is the largest blackwater stream in the basin, originating in a large 

swamp known as Bradwell Bay. Nearer the Ochlockonee River mouth 

at Ochlockonee Bay, Crooked River and several smaller tidal creeks 

also discharge to the river and bay. Flows are tidally infl uenced in the 

Ochlockonee River near the coast, the Sopchoppy River, and Crooked 

River.

River and stream fl ow is a combination of runoff from rainfall, ground 

water seepage, and springs. Ground water provides water continuously to 

the stream or river; this is called the stream’s basefl ow. Basefl ow in the 

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

from seeps and springs from shallow, relatively poorly yielding aquifers 

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

(the Sopchoppy River and the lower part of the Ochlockonee River), 

basefl ow comes from the upper part of the Floridan aquifer system. The 

basefl ow of most of the streams in the Ochlockonee Basin is low compared 

with streams in other areas of northwestern Florida. 

St. Marks River Basin

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

the Ochlockonee Basin. The Ochlockonee Basin is an integrated, alluvial 

drainage system almost entirely drained by the Ochlockonee River and 

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

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

coastal drainage system composed of local streams draining coastal regions, 

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

drainage system. The total area of the Apalachee–St. Marks Basin is 1,204 

square miles. There are more than 590 total river miles in the basin, of 

which more than 460 miles are perennial rivers and streams.

The St. Marks Basin contains two primary rivers, the St. Marks River 

and its major tributary, the Wakulla River. Other streams also exist in 

the basin but not all are direct tributaries to the St. Marks or the Wakulla. 

Figure 2.2 shows the main rivers and streams of the St. Marks Basin. The 

drainage basin of the St. Marks River itself is approximately 871 square 

miles (the twelfth largest for Florida rivers) and the river is about 40 miles 

in length.

The headwaters of the St. Marks River are in the Tallahassee Hills of 

northeastern Leon County. The St. Marks remains swampy and poorly 

Blackwater Rivers

Blackwater rivers are 

given their name because 

the water is stained dark 

brown due to tannic 

and humic acids. These 

streams, originating in 

acidic swamps and flatwoods, are dark brown 

and acidic from decaying 

plant materials. They are 

typically slow and meandering and exist as their 

own distinctive ecosystem 

characterized by highly 

acidic (low pH) water and 

low biological diversity.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 29
defi ned as it fl ows southward to the Cody Scarp. From just north of the 

Leon–Wakulla County line, the St. Marks River enters the Woodville Karst 

Plain and is fed by Floridan aquifer springs, and it becomes wider and 

clearer as more ground water enters from spring fl ows.

Near the Leon–Wakulla County line, the St. Marks River fl ows 

southward to Natural Bridge, where it disappears into a sinkhole. 

Approximately 1 mile to the south, the St. Marks emerges at St. Marks 

Spring as a spring-run river that is considerably larger and has different 

chemical characteristics than the stream that disappears at Natural 

Bridge. Several springs rise and disappear underground in this area. After 

emerging at St. Marks Spring, it fl ows southward as a well-defi ned springrun river, fl owing at an average rate of 747 cfs.

In east central Wakulla County, the St. Marks joins with the Wakulla 

River, its largest tributary. The Wakulla River, a classic spring-run river, 

originates at Wakulla Springs and fl ows south for approximately 10 miles to 

its confl uence with the St. Marks River. From the confl uence, the 

St. Marks River widens and fl ows in a dredged channel to Apalachee Bay, 

approximately 3 miles to the south. Tidal effects extend upstream in both 

the St. Marks and Wakulla Rivers for about 6 miles from the river mouth.

Other signifi cant streams in the St. Marks Basin include Munson 

Slough, Lost Creek, Fisher Creek, Lloyd Creek, and Black Creek/Still 

Creek. Some of these streams share a common characteristic in that they 

disappear underground into sinkholes. Munson Slough, which forms in 

the southern part of Leon County, conveys large quantities of stormwater 

from Tallahassee. South of Tallahassee, Lake Munson detains water 

fl owing in Munson Slough. South of Lake Munson, Munson Slough fl ows 

southeastward to Eight Mile Pond and Ames Sink, where it disappears. 

Fisher Creek, Lost Creek, and smaller streams in their vicinity are 

blackwater streams that originate in fl atwood swamps in the southwestern 

part of the St. Marks Basin. These streams fl ow south and southeastward 

before they disappear, recharging ground water.

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

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

impounded wetlands in the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge and fl ow into 

Apalachee Bay near the mouth of the St. Marks River. Farther to the west 

is Spring Creek, a notable local creek that is associated with the largest 

magnitude spring system in Florida. Tidal fl uctuations dominate fl ow in 

these creeks along the coastal area to varying extents.

Urban Streams

Networks of channelized urban streams and ditches provide stormwater 

drainage from the Tallahassee area and discharge to area lakes. The 

ditches receive heavy loads of stormwater runoff from roadways, parking 

lots, commercial and industrial sites, and other paved surfaces in the 

city. The four main drainage basins in the City of Tallahassee and Leon 

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

Munson, Lake Jackson, Lake Lafayette, and Fred George Sink Basins.

The Lake Munson Basin, the largest and most urbanized basin, drains 

approximately 57 percent of the urban Tallahassee area (Bartel and Ard, 

Spring-run Rivers

Spring-run rivers and 

streams, characteristic of the 

Woodville Karst Plain, are fed 

primarily by Floridan aquifer 

springs. Typically, their river 

channels follow fracture patterns in the limestone and 

their waters are clear and are 

similar to ground water in 

chemical composition. The 

water is highly buffered by 

the limestone and has a neutral pH. In areas near spring 

vents, dissolved oxygen (DO) 

levels may be low because of 

the ground water contribution. Spring-fed rivers and 

streams respond more slowly 

than alluvial streams to 

precipitation and some disappear back underground.

30 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
1992). It contains Munson Slough; the Central, East, and West drainage 

ditches; St. Augustine Branch; plus many smaller ditches and streams. 

The Lake Jackson Basin includes several short branches (most notable 

are Meginniss Arm Branch, Jackson Heights Branch, and Fords Arm 

Lexington Branch) that drain into Lake Jackson. The Lake Lafayette 

Basin includes a series of branches and ditches in eastern Tallahassee and 

unincorporated Leon County that drain into the Lake Lafayette Chain of 

Lakes (most notable are the Park Avenue Tributary, McCord Park Drainage 

Ditch, Northeast Drainage Ditch, Alford Arm Tributary, and Lafayette 

Creek). The Fred George Sink Drainage Basin is a closed basin, internally 

drained to a sinkhole, and there are no signifi cant tributaries (Bartel et al.,

1991). 

Lakes

Lakes provide recharge to ground water, important habitats, and a 

variety of recreational opportunities. Many lakes also receive stormwater 

from urban areas. Lakes in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

comprise more than 30,000 watershed acres. According to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are 324 lakes in the 

Ochlockonee Basin and 329 lakes in the St. Marks Basin, totaling 24,261 

and 11,892 acres, respectively. However, only 21 of these lakes exceed 100 

acres. Figure 2.2 shows the largest of the lakes in the two basins.

Lake Talquin

The western part of this region contains Lake Talquin, the eighteenth 

largest lake in Florida. The lake, created for power generation in 1929 by 

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

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

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

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

Talquin receives fl ow from the Ochlockonee River and most of its major 

tributaries in the northern part of the river basin.

Lakes Iamonia and Miccosukee

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

natural lakes in this area are formed in solution basins and swampy 

depressions. Two of the larger lakes in the region are Lake Iamonia and 

Lake Miccosukee. These lakes, formed in shallow solution basins, are 

swamp lakes (Wolfe et al., 1988); both are grass fi lled and contain only 

small, open water areas. Both lakes drain when their karst drainage 

systems become unplugged or during periods of drought (Lane, 1986). 

Lake Iamonia has an intermittent connection to the Ochlockonee River 

and receives infl ow from the river during high water. Lake Miccosukee, 

in the St. Marks Basin, receives infl ow from small tributary streams. 

Drainage from Lake Miccosukee is predominantly internal, but small 

streams provide a connection to a wetland area and sinkhole to the south. 

Currently an artifi cial control structure built around a sinkhole in Lake 

Miccosukee and an artifi cial control structure at the south end of the lake 

(near U.S. 90) are used to maintain water levels.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 31
Lake Jackson and Associated Lakes

Lake Jackson, also formed in interconnected solution basins, is a large, 

open waterbody that drains periodically through sinkholes. In 1999, Lake 

Jackson drained completely as a result of a prolonged drought and has 

not yet returned to its pre-1999 level, as drainage to the main sinkhole is 

balanced against recharge by rainfall. Located in northern Tallahassee, 

Lake Jackson has been the area’s most heavily used recreational lake. Lake 

Jackson receives stormwater runoff from roads, commercial areas, and 

residential subdivisions. Stormwater from the interstate highway corridor 

(Interstate 10) and the north and northwestern part of the city, roughly a 

third of the total area, discharges to Lake Jackson. Stormwater pollution 

from development also threatens several smaller lakes in the Lake Jackson 

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

Ochlockonee Basin, Lake Jackson has the potential for overfl ow to the 

Ochlockonee River during times of extreme rainfall.

Lake Lafayette

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

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

includes the eastern part of the city, as well as unincorporated residential 

and undeveloped areas of Leon County east and northeast of the city. Like 

other lakes in the region, it formed in a shallow series of interconnected 

solution depressions and under natural conditions would experience 

periodic drainage through sinkholes. However, for many years water levels 

have been maintained by a series of human-made dikes that divide the lake 

into three segments. A railroad line crossing a portion of the lake basin has 

also served to impound a portion of the lake. The Lake Lafayette Basin 

includes Upper and Lower Lake Lafayette, Piney Z Lake, Alford Arm, and 

their associated wetlands. 

The westernmost lake segment, Upper Lake Lafayette, drains naturally 

to a sinkhole in its bed and is only rarely connected to the other lake 

segments when extraordinary periods of rainfall occur. Lake Piney Z to 

the east is impounded on both its western and eastern ends by earthen 

dams and is presently being managed as a fi shery by the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Lower Lake Lafayette, the 

segment furthest to the east, is also somewhat impounded, being separated 

from Piney Z by the dam. A dredged canal allows overfl ow from the Lower 

Lake Lafayette to reach the St. Marks River during high water (Northwest 

Florida Water Management District [NWFWMD], 1997a). A railroad 

trestle that allows exchange of water through a single culvert cuts off 

Alford Arm, extending north of Lower Lake Lafayette. The Lake Lafayette 

lakes have been impacted by stormwater discharges, which is discussed in 

Chapter 3.

Lakes Bradford, Hiawatha, and Cascade

These lakes, in southwestern Tallahassee, form the Bradford Brook 

Chain of Lakes, which drain into and at times receive water from Munson 

Slough. Lake Bradford, the largest of the three lakes, is a heavily used 

recreational lake with residences on its northern side. Lakes Hiawatha and 

32 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Cascade are much smaller and shallower and subject to draining during 

periods of drought. The two smaller lakes are classifi ed as blackwater 

lakes, having the same ecology and chemistry as blackwater streams.

Lake Munson

Lake Munson is located at the Cody Scarp transition between the 

Tallahassee Hills and the coastal lowlands known as the Lake Munson 

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

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

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

to control fl ooding in the area to the south. As mentioned previously, 

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

of Tallahassee and has suffered from decades of nutrient loading and 

sedimentation from municipal wastewater and stormwater (Bartel and Ard, 

1992).

Urban Lakes

According to the City of Tallahassee Lakes Program, there are more 

than 50 lakes and ponds within the city limits. Most receive urban 

stormwater runoff and many have become degraded by nutrients and/or 

sedimentation (Cassidy et al., 2002). Several lakes in the city, such as Lake 

Ella, Tom Brown Park Lake, and Lake A. J. Henry, are centerpieces for city 

and county parks.

Other Lakes

Below the Cody Scarp, within the sand ridges, karst plain, and coastal 

lowland region, there are other regionally important lakes.

The sandhill region southwest of Tallahassee includes small, upland, 

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

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

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

landlocked.

In the Woodville Karst Plain, hundreds of small lakes and ponds have 

formed in sinkholes. These lakes are deeper and steeper than those in the 

Tallahassee Hills and may have formed in collapsed sinkholes. There are 

also several larger, shallow lakes that formed in solution depressions in the 

southern part of the St. Marks Basin. The larger natural lakes in this area 

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

Wildlife Refuge, several large shallow impoundments are manipulated to 

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

Pool.

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

lakes, fl atwood lakes, and river fl oodplain or oxbow lakes along the 

Ochlockonee River. Coastal dune lakes form in relict sand dunes along 

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

part of the Ochlockonee Basin in Franklin County. The region’s fl atwood 

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

Oxbow lakes form where river channel meanders become isolated over 

time. There are several notable oxbow lakes along the Ochlockonee River, 

such as Bone Bluff Lake, Silver Lake, and Red Lake.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 33

Relict

Ancient shorelines.
Wetlands and Estuaries

Wetlands cover approximately 18 percent of the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins. Figure 2.2 shows major wetland areas. In the basins, 

wetlands exist as near-coastal marshes, in river fl oodplains, in areas of poor 

soil drainage adjacent to lakes, and in poorly drained swamps and “bays” 

of the Apalachicola Coastal Lowlands. Most of the wetland areas are 

expansive, internally drained “bays” within the fl at Apalachicola Coastal 

Lowlands. Some of these provide headwaters for small streams, such 

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

Sopchoppy River. Near-coastal marshes, river fl oodplains, and fl oodplains 

surrounding larger lakes constitute most of the remaining wetland areas. 

Closed sinkhole depressions that form swamps in the Woodville Karst Plain 

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

ground water, the network of springs, and eventually the rivers.

Figure 2.2 shows the region’s estuaries. The major estuary is 

Apalachee Bay, a large, open, shallow bay that receives water from the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Rivers, local tidal creeks and drains, and 

submarine springs. Smaller bays and inlets along the coastline feed into 

Apalachee Bay. Ochlockonee Bay lies at the mouth of the Ochlockonee 

River in Franklin and Wakulla Counties. The other, smaller bays include 

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

are located along the Wakulla County coast.

Apalachee Bay supports a variety of aquatic habitats, including salt 

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

contains part of the most extensive span of seagrass beds in the country: 

the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. This area is the largest aquatic 

preserve in Florida, encompassing about 450,000 acres of seagrass beds and 

salt marsh that extend southward and eastward from the St. Marks River to 

the Withlacoochee River. Apalachee Bay is an important recreational and 

commercial fi shery in the region.

Surface Water Quality Classifications 

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

program of water quality management, designates the “present and future 

most 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)

34 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Only two surface waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

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

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

its tributary, Holman Branch. Quincy Creek in Gadsden County is 

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

water supply intake in Figure 2.2). Areas of Apalachee Bay along the 

Wakulla County coastline and Ochlockonee Bay within both Wakulla 

and Franklin Counties are designated as Class II waters because they 

include commercially viable oyster beds (Figure 2.2). All other waters 

in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins are designated Class III. This 

classifi cation includes rivers, streams, canals, lakes, ponds, impoundments, 

wetlands, and estuaries. There are no Class IV or V waters in the basins.

Special Designations

Outstanding Florida Waters

Figure 2.2 shows Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) in the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. Two of these, Lake Jackson and 

Apalachee Bay, are also State Aquatic Preserves.

OFWs are designated for “special protection due to their natural 

attributes” (Section 403.061, F.S.). These waters are listed in Section 62-

302.700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The intent of an OFW 

designation is to maintain ambient water quality, even if these designations 

are more protective than those required under the waterbody’s surface 

water classifi cation. Most OFWs are associated with managed areas in the 

state or federal park system, such as aquatic preserves, national seashores, 

or wildlife refuges. Other OFWs may also be designated as “Special 

Waters” based on a fi nding that the waters are of exceptional recreational or 

ecological signifi cance, and are identifi ed as such in Rule 62-302, F.A.C.

Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waters

In 1987, the Florida legislature created the Surface Water Improvement 

and Management (SWIM) Program to restore waterbodies. The initial 

legislation identifi ed 6 priority waterbodies—Lake Apopka, Tampa Bay, 

Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, Lower St. Johns River, and Lake 

Okeechobee. Today, SWIM plans have been developed for 30 waterbodies 

statewide. The SWIM Program addresses a waterbody’s needs as a system 

of connected resources, rather than isolated wetlands or waterbodies. The 

state’s 5 water management districts work with federal, state, and local 

governments and the private sector to develop and implement SWIM plans 

to restore damaged ecosystems, prevent pollution from runoff and other 

sources, and educate the public.

The Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) 

designates SWIM priority waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins. In 1997, the district identifi ed a number of priority waterbodies for 

preservation and/or restoration (NWFWMD, 1997a). Table 2.1 lists the 

SWIM priority waterbodies for the St. Marks Basin.

Although a SWIM Plan has not been prepared for the entire 

Ochlockonee Basin, the NWFWMD prepared the Lake Jackson 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 35
Table 2.1: SWIM Priority Waterbodies in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Waterbody Basin

St. Marks River (including the Wakulla River and Apalachee Bay) St. Marks

Lake Munson St. Marks

Ochlockonee River and Bay Ochlockonee

Lake Iamonia Ochlockonee

Lake Miccosukee St. Marks

Lake Jackson Ochlockonee

Sources: NWFWMD, 1997 and 2000.

Management Plan to address this SWIM waterbody (NWFWMD, June 

1994 and 1997b).

The section on Watershed Management Activities and Processes in 

this chapter provides additional details on these SWIM plans.

Minimum Flows and Levels

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

has recommended that the NWFWMD establish minimum fl ows and 

levels (MFLs) for Telogia Creek (Struhs, 2000). Water levels in the creek, 

a source of irrigation water in the northwestern part of the Ochlockonee 

Basin, are signifi cantly lowered by irrigation water withdrawals during 

times of low water, which reduce the amount and timing of surface water 

being delivered. Projected increases in withdrawals could further reduce 

future fl ows and levels.

To help determine the amount of water that is available for human 

use from a particular source, the district must determine each waterbody’s 

MFL. Under the FWRA (Section 373, F.S.), an MFL is the limit at which 

further water withdrawals will cause signifi cant harm to the water resources 

of the area and the related natural systems. Lakes and aquifers have 

minimum levels. Minimum fl ows are set for rivers and streams.

Ground Water Resources

Aquifers

In the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, ground water for potable 

supply, irrigation, and industrial uses is obtained from the Floridan aquifer, 

a vast carbonate aquifer system that exists throughout most of Florida and 

extends into other southern states. The Tallahassee municipal wellfi eld 

is the primary user of ground water from this aquifer. Throughout most 

of the area, the Floridan aquifer is highly productive and provides ample 

quantities of water. However, west of the Ochlockonee River in Gadsden 

County, the limestone units of the Floridan aquifer are less porous and 

permeable, the aquifer does not produce very well, and the amount 

of ground water available for irrigation and municipal water supply is 

restricted. Water quality in the Floridan aquifer west of the Ochlockonee 

River is also of poorer quality, having a higher dissolved mineral content.

36 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions 

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

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

Scarp, the Floridan aquifer is under artesian pressure, confi ned by a 

thick overburden of sediment that affords a degree of protection against 

pollution. However, breaches in the confi ning layer, mainly sinkholes, 

provide pathways for recharge and the introduction of contaminants. 

In the karst plain, the Floridan aquifer is shallow and unconfi ned and 

interacts with surface water. It is the source of springs that provide 

basefl ow, sustaining the rivers and streams of the St. Marks Basin. In the 

Woodville Karst Plain, there is a direct route for precipitation to recharge 

the aquifer. In lowland areas where the aquifer is unconfi ned, ground 

water may occur at the land surface in numerous lowland ponds, sinkholes, 

and swamps. In areas where ground water discharges to the surface, it can 

infl uence the water chemistry in spring-fed streams and rivers.

Springs provide the most direct and obvious connection between 

ground water and surface water. Springs are abundant in the Woodville 

Karst Plain of the St. Marks Basin. Six of Florida’s 27 fi rst-magnitude 

springs, or springs with fl ows greater than 100 cfs, are located in the 

St. Marks Basin. Nine other named springs and countless unnamed, 

smaller springs and seeps also are found in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins. Most of the fl ow in the St. Marks River and virtually all of the 

fl ow in the Wakulla River comes from springs. Springs contributing to 

the St. Marks River include Horn Springs and St. Marks Spring. Several 

springs, including Natural Bridge Spring and the Rhodes Springs group, 

rise and disappear underground in the Natural Bridge area. Wakulla 

Springs, one of the largest freshwater springs in the world, is the site of a 

state park (Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park).

Also in Wakulla County is the River Sink group, which includes a 

network of springs that do not occur in association with any river. These 

include River Sink Spring and Kini Spring, both fi rst magnitude, plus 

several other named springs. Submarine springs contribute a signifi cant 

fl ow of fresh water to the estuary. The submarine Spring Creek Springs 

group is considered to have the highest discharge of all Florida springs 

groups. 

In recent years, nitrate has become a contaminant of concern in 

ground water in many parts of Florida. Nitrate does not naturally occur 

in Florida ground water at concentrations higher than 0.1 milligram 

per liter (mg/L) (Maddox et al., 1992). It has been documented that 

elevated concentrations of nitrate in ground water commonly result from 

agricultural and urban land use practices in ground water recharge areas. 

The proximity of these areas to points of discharge (springs) can result in 

elevated nutrient levels in the receiving surface waterbodies.

Overall, nitrate levels in wells of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins are considerably lower than the drinking water standard and 

currently cause no public health concerns, except in isolated instances. 

However, increasing nitrate concentrations in Floridan aquifer springs in 

the basins are a signifi cant ecological concern (see sidebar on nitrate in 

Florida springs). Current ground water quality standards were developed 

Nitrate in Florida 

Springs

Elevated nitrates are a 

common and growing problem in Florida springs, with 

steady rises in nitrate levels 

observed in many Florida 

springs over the past 30 

years (Florida Springs Task 

Force, 2000). Nitrate was 

once a very minor constituent of Florida spring water. 

Typical nitrate concentrations 

were less than 0.2 mg/L. 

Today, many Florida springs 

discharge water that has 

more than 1.0 mg/L of nitrate. 

It is believed that nitrate 

levels as low as 1 mg/L or 

less can cause a significant 

shift in the balance of spring 

ecological communities, 

leading to the degradation of 

biological systems.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 37
to protect drinking water. The standard for nitrate does not address the 

fact that, in Florida, ground water becomes surface water when it fl ows 

from springs. What is safe for human consumption is, in the case of 

nitrate, sometimes detrimental to the receiving surface waterbodies.

Monitoring by several organizations indicates that nitrate 

concentrations are increasing in some of the springs of the Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks Basins. The USGS has the most comprehensive historical 

data set for the springs in the area, although data are not available for 

all springs and are not very recent in some cases. As part of the Florida 

Springs Initiative begun in 2002, additional monitoring of Florida’s fi rstand second-magnitude springs is being conducted and will be used to 

supplement and update USGS data. 

Nitrate levels in Wakulla Springs have been most indicative of a 

problem. Water quality data indicate that the nitrate concentration in the 

springs has increased from between 0.10 mg/L and 0.33 mg/L in the 1970s 

to approximately 1 mg/L in recent years. Assuming a nitrate concentration 

on the order of 1 mg/L and an average fl ow of 350 cfs from Wakulla 

Springs, this amounts to 340 tons of nitrate per year being expelled from 

Wakulla Springs (Chelette, 2001). This nitrate load could be the cause of 

ecological imbalances noted in the Wakulla River. 

Ground Water Usage

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

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

averaged more than 75 million gallons per day (EPA, 2000). More than 

80 percent of the water consumed comes from ground water sources. 

The main uses of water in the two basins are public supply (39 percent) 

and irrigation (28 percent). Most ground water use is in the St. Marks 

Basin (61 percent), with the largest amount used for public supply. Most 

surface water use is in the Ochlockonee Basin (93 percent), with the largest 

amount used for irrigation. 

Water Resource Caution Areas

The NWFWMD has designated the northern part of Telogia Creek 

as a Water Resource Caution Area (WRCA) because of the lack of stream 

fl ow in the basin.

Under Section 373.036, F.S., and Subsection 62-40.520(1), F.A.C., 

each water management district in the state must identify WRCAs in 

which potential water shortages, considerable reductions in water levels, 

saltwater intrusion, or other degradations may occur within 20 years, and 

must develop management plans to address their water resource problems. 

In these areas, existing and anticipated sources of water and conservation 

efforts may not be adequate to supply water for all existing legal uses and 

reasonably anticipated future needs, and still sustain water resources and 

related natural systems. Five constraints are considered in establishing 

these WRCAs:

• Impacts to native vegetation, primarily wetlands;

• Impacts to minimum fl ows and levels, primarily spring fl ows;

38 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
• Impacts to ground water quality in terms of increased saltwater 

intrusion;

• Impacts to existing legal users; and

• Failure to identify a source of supply for future development.

Watershed Management Activities and 

Processes

Over the years, management plans and activities in the basins have 

been implemented to eliminate wastewater discharges; reduce discharges 

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

preserve, and restore special areas. The following section describes 

historical, current, and ongoing activities and processes to address water 

quality problems.

Much of the progress in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins for 

developing water quality restoration plans and implementing watershed 

and water quality improvements is attributable to coordinated local, 

state, and regional efforts. Many plans share common goals, and their 

implementation is based on various groups playing critical roles in 

planning, funding, managing, and executing projects. The Department 

continues to coordinate its efforts with these entities to obtain data, 

strengthen monitoring activities, and exchange information through 

periodic meetings. 

Major Programs and Projects

A number of major restoration initiatives, if continued, will have 

signifi cant positive effects on the water quality of the Ochlockonee and 

St. Marks Basins.

Creation of Conservation and Preservation Lands

Because of the relatively low density of development, particularly in 

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

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

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

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

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

and coastal areas of the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. As long as 

this land remains undeveloped and is responsibly managed, this signifi cant 

buffer will continue to provide protection to the rivers and coastal 

environment.

State-funded land acquisitions have also been important. Many of 

these help to protect water quality. The Nature Conservancy of Florida has 

been instrumental in brokering many critical land acquisitions with state 

funding provided through various programs such as Preservation 2000 and 

Florida Forever. The establishment of the Edward A. Ball Wakulla Springs 

State Park in the 1980s was especially signifi cant. This 2,800-acre area 

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

largest and deepest freshwater springs in the world.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 39
Land acquisition continues to be an important goal in the St. Marks 

Basin, with the goal being to create a buffer zone around Wakulla Springs 

and the St. Marks River corridor. In 1999, 2000, and 2002, additional 

acquisitions of land were made to expand the Wakulla Springs buffer and 

create an uninterrupted greenway between Wakulla Springs State Park 

and the Apalachicola National Forest. Under Florida Forever, acquisition 

work is also underway to protect the corridor of the upper St. Marks River. 

In the Ochlockonee Basin, state acquisitions include public lands around 

Lake Talquin (Joe Budd Wildlife Management Area, Lake Talquin State 

Recreation Area, and Bear Creek State Recreation Area).

Land conservation and acquisition efforts are under way on other 

fronts. Greenways acquisition projects in the Tallahassee area have 

included corridors adjacent to lakes that will provide signifi cant protection 

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

Under various state and regional funding plans, conservation lands are 

being sought and acquired along river corridors, in wetlands, and in 

recharge areas. Recent acquisitions (using state and local funds) include 

buffers adjacent to Lake Munson, Lake Jackson (Eleanor Clapps-Phipps 

Park/Overstreet acquisition, Okeeheepke acquisition), and Heritage 

Trail/Lake Piney Z and the Miccosukee Greenway and Alford Property 

(near Lake Lafayette). Using state funding and assisted by the Nature 

Conservancy, the NWFWMD also acquired a substantial buffer on the 

south side of Lake Jackson. Currently, conservation easements are also 

being sought in critical areas, most notably in the Upper St. Marks River 

Basin.

Elimination of Wastewater Discharges to Surface Water

The City of Tallahassee constructed a land application system for 

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

discharge of municipal sewage to Munson Slough in the early 1980s. This 

has been the most signifi cant step toward improving water quality in Lake 

Munson. During the same period, Wakulla County created a municipal 

wastewater treatment facility (spray irrigation) and required coastal 

residents and businesses in the communities of Panacea and Ochlockonee 

Bay to connect to the central system and discontinue the use of individual 

septic tanks. More recently, the city of Havana implemented a similar spray 

irrigation facility to eliminate wastewater discharge to surface water.

Tallahassee Area Stormwater Management 

The City of Tallahassee Stormwater Management Division and the 

Leon County Public Works Department have carried out most of the 

stormwater management activities for the basin to date. Activities have 

focused on implementing drainage improvements, carrying out stormwater 

retrofi ts, and restoring Tallahassee lakes. The City of Tallahassee and 

Leon County represent the only local governments in northwest Florida to 

receive delegation of the statewide stormwater rule (Rule 62-25, F.A.C.). 

The program, administered locally by the City of Tallahassee Growth 

Management Department and Leon County Growth and Environmental 

Management, addresses stormwater treatment for new construction. 

40 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
It has long been documented that municipal wastewater discharges 

have degraded urban stormwater channels and Lake Munson. The 

cessation of sewage discharges gave some relief to these waterbodies. 

However, not until the 1980s was urban stormwater pollution addressed 

as a signifi cant concern for water quality. Since then, state and local 

governments and the general public have become more aware of the need 

for stormwater treatment, and there are increasing numbers of stormwater 

projects as well as use of nonstructural management practices. The 

nonstructural stormwater practices include public information, staff 

training, incident reports, and other activities to address and prevent 

polluted stormwater.

Local Stormwater Activities and Projects

In accordance with the 1990 Tallahassee–Leon County 

Comprehensive Plan, a stormwater ordinance and a stormwater utilities 

department were created. From the resultant Stormwater Master Plan, 

local stormwater planners developed a list of approximately 20 capital 

improvement projects to address fl ooding and drainage improvements. 

Many of these projects being implemented by the City of Tallahassee will 

also include a stormwater treatment or restoration component. The city 

has constructed 11 regional facilities throughout the community that 

incorporate both water quality treatment as well as fl ood prevention into 

their design. Development guidelines and permitting requirements to 

prevent or minimize stormwater contamination also resulted from the 

Comprehensive Plan and the stormwater ordinance. New developments 

are now required to include adequate stormwater treatment measures. 

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

are made to preserve sensitive areas.

City of Tallahassee Stormwater Pollution Reduction Program

In 1999, the City of Tallahassee Stormwater Management Division 

began implementing a Stormwater Pollution Reduction Program (SPRP). 

The SPRP will incorporate strategic stormwater retrofi ts and a management 

program to reduce stormwater pollution from existing developed areas. 

Initial phases of the process have been completed (City of Tallahassee 

and Environmental Research and Design, October 2002), including a 

monitoring program and development of a computer model to simulate 

existing and future pollutant loadings. These led to the development of a 

problem prioritization system to identify areas with the optimum potential 

for stormwater treatment list of stormwater treatment scenarios. A list of 

stormwater treatment alternatives and a fi nancial plan have been developed 

and presented to the City Commission for review and approval. Milestones 

for implementation of the selected stormwater treatment alternatives will 

then be included in the Comprehensive Plan.

SWIM Plans

Lake Jackson Management Plan

Under the SWIM Program, the NWFWMD developed a plan to 

address degradation of Lake Jackson by urban stormwater. This plan, 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 41
submitted in 1990 and updated in 1994 and 1997, addresses priority 

issues in four program areas: water quality, preservation and restoration, 

watershed management, and public education and awareness. Essential 

activities outlined in the plan include removing contaminated sediments, 

retrofi tting existing development, and introducing strict stormwater 

requirements for new development. Various monitoring and restoration 

activities have been performed. Some of these projects are not currently 

funded, but may be at a later date.

St. Marks River Watershed Plan

In the 1997 SWIM Plan for the St. Marks Basin, which includes the 

St. Marks River, Wakulla River, and Apalachee Bay, the NWFWMD 

identifi ed several monitoring and inventory projects. Restoration needs 

have not been identifi ed for the main river systems. The plan did not 

address the restoration needs of lakes in the basin (Lakes Munson, 

Lafayette, and Miccosukee) because of cost and uncertainty about the 

relationship between the condition of the lakes and potential environmental 

impacts on the rivers and estuary. Some of the SWIM Plan projects that 

were proposed are complete, others are under way, and still others may be 

carried out at a later date if funds are available.

Lake Restoration and Habitat Enhancement Projects

Restoration and habitat enhancement projects have been conducted 

to address several lakes, partly through state funding, partly by federal 

grants, and partly by Leon County. Much of the state funding for habitat 

enhancement and restoration of lakes has been made available through the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The 1999 

Florida Forever legislation includes a fi sheries restoration program targeting 

Florida lakes deemed to be in priority need of attention. Starting in July 

2001, funding was made available to the FWC to perform lake drawdowns, 

remove muck and sediments, reestablish native submersed and emergent 

vegetation, implement tussock control measures, and carry out other 

enhancements to fi shery habitat through 2010. 

Lake Jackson Restoration

Historically, Lake Jackson has periodically drained when sinkholes 

form and has refi lled during wet-weather periods. Lake restoration 

efforts have coincided with the lake drawdown. Beginning in 1990, an 

interagency team—including the NWFWMD, the Department, the 

FWC, and Leon County—conducted several phases of a restoration 

after prolonged drought and sinkholes drained the lake and provided 

opportunity for access. The most comprehensive effort, during the 

1999–2000 Lake Jackson drawdown, was started quickly because it was 

not known how long the lake would remain dry. Nutrient-laden deposits 

of organic muck and sediment were removed from Meginniss Arm, Fords 

Arm, Church Cove, and the southern part of the main lake. These actions 

were part of the project scope described in the Lake Jackson Management 

Plan.

Tussock

An area of raised solid 

ground in a marsh that is 

bound together by roots of 

vegetation.

42 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Lake Munson Restoration

Lake Munson, a 225-acre impoundment, receives stormwater from 

Tallahassee and provides fl oodwater equalization for areas downstream. 

Deltas of transported sediment and accumulations of organic muck have 

choked the lake and blanketed the bottom. The Lake Munson Action 

Plan was implemented after record fl ooding in Leon County by a series of 

tropical storms and depressions in 1994. Leon County began the 

Lake Munson project in late 1999.

Current activities include removing a sediment delta at the entry 

point of Munson Slough, creating a wet detention area in Lake Henrietta 

upstream from Lake Munson to provide fl oodwater equalization and 

improve the quality of water fl owing to the lake, and regrading and 

stabilizing Munson Slough to reduce erosion. In a future project, the FWC 

intends to remove muck from the remainder of the lake bottom.

Other Lakes 

The FWC has been responsible for restoration and habitat 

enhancement projects for several other area lakes: Miccosukee, Iamonia, 

Piney Z, and Talquin.

The FWC’s Aquatic Resources Enhancement Section initiated an 

extreme drawdown of Lake Miccosukee in March 1999 and closed the 

lake to fi shing. Muck was then removed from 4 sites around the lake. In 

the process, approximately 25 acres of the lake bottom were scraped. To 

control woody tussocks and oxidize organic material, 1,300 acres on the 

bottom were burned.

Lake Iamonia was also a target for habitat enhancement during the 

drought. During 2000, the FWC removed muck from approximately 26 

acres of the bottom on the north shore along the Lake Iamonia Landing 

boat ramp. A controlled burn along the western shore was implemented in 

the winter of 2000 to remove tussocks.

A project to restore Lake Piney Z in the Lake Lafayette chain was 

conducted from 1996 to 1998. It included a drawdown, muck removal, 

creation of six earthen fi shing fi ngers and fi ve wildlife islands, and 

installation of a water control structure in the 197-acre lake. The City of 

Tallahassee also purchased 407 acres of surrounding land. The site is now 

called Lake Piney Z Fish Management Area. The lake is not being utilized 

for fi shing at this time (Hill, 2003).

An artifi cial drawdown of Lake Talquin has been used as a prescribed 

habitat management practice on several occasions. In 1998, under the 

supervision of the FWC, Lake Talquin was partially drawn down 10 feet 

for 6 months to allow for the oxidation and compaction of accumulated 

organic muck. Native aquatic plants (bulrush and American cupscales) 

were planted to reestablish emergent littoral vegetation. Winter ryegrass 

seed was planted to provide nursery areas for the newly spawned sport fi sh. 

While this practice created a temporary hardship on area marinas and fi sh 

camps, the drawdown stimulated the fi shery and improved the lake’s overall 

health.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 43
Ground Water Protection

As required by the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan, 

an Aquifer Protection Program was established to protect wellheads, 

delineate high-recharge areas and areas most susceptible to ground water 

contamination, and identify contaminated areas. The City of Tallahassee 

Aquifer Protection Program is responsible for implementing the 1992 

Aquifer Recharge/Wellhead Protection Ordinance. Projects in which the 

city has been involved include a karst inventory of Leon County and a 

wellhead protection assessment and modeling project funded by the EPA. 

The NWFWMD and USGS have provided support to the city.

Springs Protection

The Department is striving to protect Florida’s springs through 

the Florida Springs Initiative. This comprehensive protection effort is 

supported by Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature, which has 

appropriated $5 million to fund research, monitoring, education, and 

landowner assistance projects.

The Florida Springs Task Force is a component of the Springs 

Initiative. Department Secretary David Struhs formed the task force to 

determine the status of Florida’s springs and develop strategies for their 

protection. Several important projects have been initiated to monitor and 

protect the springs of the St. Marks Basin. More information is available 

at the Florida Springs Initiative Web site at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/

springs/index.htm.

Agricultural Best Management Practices

The FWRA authorizes the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (DACS) to develop interim measures and agricultural 

best management practices (BMPs). Additional authority for agricultural 

BMPs is provided in legislation on nitrates and ground water (Section 

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

373.4595, F.S.), Agricultural Water Conservation (Section 570.085, 

F.S.), and Florida Right to Farm Act Amendments (Section 823.14, F.S.). 

While BMPs are often adopted by rule, they are voluntary if not covered 

by regulatory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department 

verifi es their effectiveness, then implementation provides a presumption of 

compliance with water quality standards.

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

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

of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), and other major interests to 

improve product marketability and operational effi ciency by implementing 

agricultural BMPs, while at the same time promoting water quality and 

water conservation objectives. In addition, programs have been established 

and are being developed to create a network of state, local, federal, and 

private sources of funds for developing and implementing BMPs.

To encourage growers to use BMPs, BMP manuals have been 

published for several agricultural industries, including container-grown 

plants, blended fertilizer plants, agrichemical handling and farm equipment 

maintenance, cow/calf operations, aquaculture, and landscaping. Many 

44 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
of these manuals can be downloaded at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water. 

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 presume compliance with the Department’s water quality standards.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 45

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 Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins. The primary 

purpose of the assessment is to determine if waterbodies or waterbody 

segments are to be placed on the Verifi ed List of impaired waterbodies. 

The listing will be in accordance with evaluation thresholds and data 

suffi ciency and data quality requirements in the Identifi cation of Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code 

[F.A.C.]). The results of the assessment will be used to identify waters 

in the basins for which Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) will be 

developed.

The chapter describes the planning units in the basins used as a 

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

general description and summary of key water quality indicators (such 

as nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological 

parameters). Permitted discharges, land uses, ecological status, and water 

quality improvement plans and projects are summarized for each planning 

unit. The discussion notes where applicable surface water quality criteria 

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

potentially impaired waterbodies in each planning unit. The chapter also 

contains background information on sources of data and on designated 

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

process.

While verifi ed and potentially impaired waters and their causative 

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

discrete pollutant sources. 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 provides additional information on reasonable assurance. 

The methodology used to develop the Verifi ed List is provided in 

Appendix C. Appendix D contains the integrated water quality 

assessment summary master list for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, 

the water quality monitoring stations used in the assessment, and data on 

water quality trends. The complete text of the IWR is available at 

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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 47
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.

Known collectors of water quality data were requested (Utter, 2003) 

to provide either electronic data for upload to the STOrage and RETrieval 

(STORET) database or to upload the data themselves with appropriate 

training; however, data from some agencies have not yet been uploaded 

for 2001–2002. Additional data are being obtained from the City 

of Tallahassee (Watts, 2003), Florida Department of Transportation 

consultants, Leon County consultants, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD), 

and others. While not all data may be available for the current listing 

deadlines, such data should prove invaluable for future modeling and 

TMDL analysis of impaired waterbodies. 

Intensive survey data collected by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s (Department) Watershed Assessment Section 

are being used for a number of distinct purposes, as follows:

1. Populate the monitoring data for individual waterbody segments 

to move waters to the Planning or Verifi ed List.

2. Determine linear trends in water quality and fl ow along major 

stream basins within short time windows.

3. Determine variability in time (less than one-hour intervals) of 

fi eld parameters at selected sites over short durations of one to two 

weeks using HydrolabTM and YSITM dataloggers.

4. Perform stream and fl ow gaging at critical sites where no other 

gaging data were available.

5. Create a database of water elevations from reference marks established at bridge and culvert locations to aid in understanding 

the effects of karst topography on fl ow. This includes recruiting 

citizens to monitor staff gages on lakes.

6. Focus water quality monitoring of lab parameters at fl ow sites to 

determine loads, water, and mass balances.

7. Create a database of fi eld parameters that would cover as many 

waterbodies as possible.

8. Determine general water quality parameters that could be used for 

future water quality modeling. This includes long-term biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) data, LICORTM light meter measurements, sediment oxygen demand (SOD) measurements, sediment 

deposition rates, grain size analysis, and dye studies for time of 

travel.

48 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Some of the limitations of the data gathering included the following:

1. The drought during 1998–2002 limited sampling to the low fl ow 

portion hydrologic period. Laboratory capacity issues did not 

allow for much sampling during or after storm events. However, 

use of YSITM dataloggers did provide for monitoring of temperature, DO, conductivity, pH, stream depth, and on occasion chlorophyll a on a continuous basis during storms.

2. Water quality sampling was performed for Tier 1 parameters, 

which included fi eld parameters, major ions, nutrients, and 

bacteria. Heavy metals and organics were not sampled. Caffeine 

analysis was included in later sampling to help interpret bacterial 

loadings.

Approximately 48 waterbody segments on the Planning List and the 

1998 303(d) list needed further data to verify impairment. Parameters 

included silver, cadmium, iron, lead, and selenium. Also included were 

biology (based on bioassessments), BOD, DO, fecal and total coliforms, 

unionized ammonia, nutrients and their indicators (nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and chlorophyll a), turbidity, and total suspended solids (TSS).

A total of 23 waterbody segments were verifi ed impaired for at least 

one parameter in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins with the help of 

strategic monitoring and data-gathering activities in Phase 2.

Sources of Data

The assessment of water quality in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins 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 “new” STORET 

databases, the USGS, and the Florida Department of Health (DOH). The 

STORET databases contain water quality data from a number of sources, 

including the Department, water management districts, local governments, 

and volunteer monitoring groups. Appendix C contains a description 

of STORET and other data sources used in this assessment and the 

methodology used to develop the Planning and Verifi ed Lists, based on the 

IWR.

The Department created the IWR 2002 Database to evaluate data in 

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

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

record is the most recent 7.5 years, and for the Planning List, a period of 

10 years. Table C.1 in Appendix C shows the periods of record for the 

Verifi ed and Planning Lists in the fi rst basin rotation cycle. Data collected 

between January 1, 1995, and June 30, 2002, were evaluated to establish 

the Verifi ed List for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins (IWR 2002 

Run 6.01).

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 49
Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Data Source 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL

DOH 22 58 80

FDEP 3845 4967 11396 21202 18393 20891 22317 21637 18422 17481 18905 1778 181234

FWC 1172 1251 1184 1042 1185 1055 1355 528 584 160 9516

Florida 

LakeWatch

553 565 986 1610 1789 1469 1287 1471 1832 2570 1845 2385 18362

Leon 

County

1568 3808 1661 2219 1483 2020 2071 3057 5658 6813 49 30407

NWFWMD 1940 1933 1243 2657 2416 343 337 98 1076 1346 13389

SRWMD 230 226 24 480

USGS 503 512 673 4246 7529 1528 567 82 26 15666

Notes:

DOH—Florida Department of Health

FDEP—Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Leon County—Data provider is McGlynn Labs

NWFWMD—Northwest Florida Water Management District

SRWMD—Suwannee River Water Management District

USGS—United States Geological Survey

Period of record for data used in verified list evaluation: January 1, 1995, through June 30, 2002. Data record summary 

for partial year (January–June 2002) not available.

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

50 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.1 is a summary of the individual data providers who 

contributed to the IWR Database for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

Basins for the period of record used in this assessment. Figure 3.1 contains 

a stacked bar chart showing the amount of data provided by each source by 

year, since 1990.

Some of the more important data sources include DACS, Florida 

LakeWatch, Leon County, the Department, and DOH. The data from 

some of these sources are discussed below. Table 3.1 lists other data 

providers.

The source of the largest dataset is the Department, which also has 

incorporated data from the shellfi sh monitoring program, the Watershed 

Assessment Section, and the Department’s Ambient Monitoring Program. 

Data from the Watershed Assessment Section include many fi eld parameter 

measurements (e.g., DO, temperature, conductivity, pH, fl ow, and water 

levels) and a smaller amount of lab data (collected on intensive surveys, 

which are designed to measure an entire basin over a limited period of 

time). 

Leon County (McGlynn Labs), LakeWatch, USGS, and NWFWMD 

were the other organizations providing signifi cant numbers of data records. 

The Leon County data (collected and/or compiled by McGlynn Labs) 

are a summary of those data collected by universities and consultants for 

various projects related to lake monitoring studies in Leon County. They 

were useful in evaluating water quality in Lake Lafayette, Lake Munson, 

Lake Jackson, and the northern Ochlockonee River. The University of 

Florida’s LakeWatch volunteer monitoring program’s data are usually 

limited to total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and Secchi depth, 

which are collected monthly at lake and some stream stations by citizen 

volunteers. These data contain few, if any, fi eld parameters such as DO, 

but sometimes include data on aquatic vegetation. Data provided by USGS 

and NWFWMD include mainly stream data from various routine and 

contracted monitoring projects and special studies within the area. While 

small in total number of records, the data provided by the DOH include 

bacterial data used in their beach monitoring program and have resulted in 

identifi cation of several impaired segments based on beach closures. 

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

basins also includes qualitative information drawn from consultant reports 

(TCG, 1998, 1999; WRS, 2003; Whately, 2002), such as Department 

of Transportation-related road projects. These include the widening of 

Capital Circle Northeast (U.S. 319), Interstate 10, U.S. 90, Miccosukee 

Road, Park Avenue, and Blair Stone Parkway.

No City of Tallahassee data were in the Department database or 

STORET, but they have been used in preparing this report. An unedited 

fi le of ambient monitoring data has been provided (Watts, 2003) that 

parallels the City of Tallahassee Lake Monitoring Program water quality 

report (Cassidy, 2002); this information is discussed in the narrative of the 

report but could not be included in the IWR evaluation.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 51
Attainment of Designated Use

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using 

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

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

its description of designated uses. Because the Department is required 

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

the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA 

terminology when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality 

evaluations and decision processes that are defi ned in Florida’s IWR 

for listing impaired waters are based on the following designated use 

attainment categories:

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

Fish and Shellfi sh Consumption Attainment

Drinking Water Use Attainment

Protection of Human Health

Table 3.2 summarizes the designated uses assigned to classes of surface 

water in Florida.

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

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

report for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins.

Following the EPA’s guidance, the Department delineated waterbodies 

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

impairment based on individual parameters, and then placed them into 

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

provide information on a waterbody’s status based on water quality, 

suffi ciency of data, and the need for TMDL development (Table 3.3). 

52 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report

Category Description Comments

1 Attaining all designated uses If use attainment is verified for a waterbody or 

segment that was previously listed as impaired, the 

Department will propose that it be delisted.

2 Attaining some designated uses 

and insufficient or no information 

or data are present to determine if 

remaining uses are attained

If attainment is verified for some designated uses 

of a waterbody or segment, the Department will 

propose partial delisting for the uses attained. 

Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if remaining uses are attained.

3a No data and information are present to determine if any designated 

use is attained

Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if designated uses are attained.

3b Some data and information 

are present but not enough to 

determine if any designated use is 

attained

Future monitoring will be recommended to gather 

sufficient information and data to determine if designated uses are attained.

3c Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses may not be 

attained according to the Planning 

List methodology

This indicates 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.

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

TMDL development because a 

TMDL has already been completed

After the Department and EPA approve a TMDL 

for the impaired waterbody or segment, it will be 

included in a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) to reduce pollutant loading toward attainment of designated use(s).

4b Impaired for one or more criteria or designated uses but does 

not require TMDL development 

because impairment is not caused 

by a pollutant

This category includes waterbodies or segments 

that are impaired because of naturally occurring 

conditions or pollution. The impairment is not 

caused by specific pollutants. (See sidebar on 

previous page for a discussion of the difference 

between pollution and pollutant.)

4c 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.

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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 53
Because not enough recent data on chemistry, biology, and fi sh 

consumption advisories have been collected, currently no waterbodies or 

waterbody segments statewide fall into Category 1 (attaining all uses). 

In particular, fi sh tissues in many waterbodies statewide have not been 

tested for mercury. Out of all waterbodies or waterbody segments in the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, none is in Category 1.

More waterbodies and segments statewide fall into Category 2 

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

Category 1, because monitoring programs can sometimes provide suffi cient 

data for partially determining whether a designated use in a particular 

waterbody is attained. A total of 22 waterbody segments in the basins fall 

into Category 2.

However, most waterbodies in the state fall into Category 3 (having 

insuffi cient data). In the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, the 

breakdown of waterbodies or segments in Category 3 is as follows:

• Category 3a—approximately 220 segments for which no data are 

available to determine their water quality status;

• Category 3b—approximately 63 segments with some data, but not 

suffi cient data for making any determinations; and

• Category 3c—42 segments that are potentially impaired based on 

the Planning List criteria.

Several potentially impaired (Category 3c) 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.

Currently, one waterbody in these basins was designated as being in 

Category 4. This category 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 the impairment is not attributable to a pollutant or pollutants but is due to other alterations to the 

waterbody; and 

• Category 4c—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.

Finally, 23 waterbody segments in the basins 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 

Understanding the 

Terms “Pollutant” 

and “Pollution”

For purposes of the TMDL 

Program, pollutants are 

chemical and biological 

constituents introduced by 

humans into a waterbody 

that may result in pollution 

(water quality impairment). 

There are other causes of 

pollution, such as physical 

alteration of a waterbody 

(for example, canals, dams, 

and ditches). However, 

TMDLs are established only 

for impairments caused by 

pollutants (a TMDL quantifies 

how much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive 

and still meet its designated 

uses).

Waterbodies that are verified impaired due to specified pollutants and therefore 

require a TMDL are listed 

under Category 5 in the Integrated Assessment Report; 

waterbodies with water quality impairments due to other 

causes, or unknown causes, 

are listed under Category 

4b. Although TMDLs are 

not established for Category 4b waterbodies, these 

waterbodies still may be 

addressed through a watershed management program 

(for example, the Kissimmee 

River restoration).

54 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
report discusses in detail the waters in this category. Potentially impaired 

listings in several tables for fi sh consumption advisories are indicated as 

such because they are based on older data. There is only 1 recent verifi ed 

impaired listing for mercury in fi sh tissue in this area.

Planning Units

The Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins together encompass 

approximately 3,620 square miles and a complex hydrologic system. To 

provide a more detailed geographic basis for identifying and assessing 

water quality and identifying improvement activities, the basins were 

subdivided into smaller areas called planning units. A planning unit is 

either an individual large tributary basin or a group of smaller adjacent 

tributary basins with similar characteristics. Planning units help organize 

information and management strategies around prominent watershed 

characteristics.

Water quality assessments were conducted for waterbody segments 

within planning units. Each of these smaller, hydrologically based drainage 

areas within a planning unit is assigned a unique waterbody identifi cation 

number (WBID). Waterbody segments are assessment units (or geographic 

information system [GIS] polygons) that the Department used to defi ne 

waterbodies when it biennially inventoried and reported on water quality 

to the EPA under Section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act. These 

WBIDs are the assessment units identifi ed in the Department’s lists of 

impaired waters submitted to the EPA in reports under Section 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act.

The Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins contain 13 planning units: 

North Ochlockonee River, South Ochlockonee River, Lake Iamonia, 

Lake Jackson, Telogia Creek, Sopchoppy River, St. Marks River, Lake 

Miccosukee, Lake Lafayette, Lake Munson/Fred George Sink, Lost Creek/

Fisher Creek, Wakulla River, and Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee 

Bay. Table 3.4 describes these planning units, and Figure 3.2 shows 

their locations and boundaries. The remainder of this chapter provides 

a general description of each planning unit, information on land use and 

potential point sources of pollution, water quality assessments for individual 

waterbody segments, and summaries of ecological issues and watershed 

quality improvement plans and projects.

Appendix D of this report is the Master List that summarizes the 

status of all evaluated waterbodies and/or segments, the parameters that 

are related to impairments or potential impairments, and the parameters 

for which waterbodies are not impaired. Appendix E includes summary 

information, by planning unit, for permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities, Superfund sites, and permitted landfi ll facilities in the basins. 

Appendix F lists Level 1 land uses by planning unit. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 55
Assessment by Planning Unit

• North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

General Description

The North Ochlockonee River contains numerous tributaries in 

Georgia and Florida and is impounded in Florida as Lake Talquin to 

provide hydroelectric power and recreation. About 95 miles of the 

river’s 211 miles are in Georgia. Signifi cant tributary inputs in Georgia 

include the Ochlockonee River, Oquina Creek, Bridge Creek, and Tired 

Creek. Some of the signifi cant Florida tributaries, such as Swamp Creek, 

Attapulgus Creek, and Little River, originate in Georgia.

Figure 3.3, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on 

the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.5 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include Ochlockonee River, Lake Talquin, and their tributaries.

This planning unit has the most waterbody segments identifi ed by 

WBIDs (a total of 97). Of these, most (85) have no or an insuffi cient 

amount of water quality data by which they may be evaluated; 9 are 

potentially impaired by one or more parameter and 3 are verifi ed impaired 

and will need TMDLs. 

Potentially impaired waterbody segments include Lake Talquin for 

DO (WBID 1297D) and fi sh consumption advisory for mercury (WBIDs 

1297C and 1297D); Ochlockonee River (1297E), Rocky Comfort Creek 

Table 3.4: Planning Units in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Planning Unit Description

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

also includes Lake Talquin

South Ochlockonee River Ochlockonee River and all tributaries south of Lake Talquin except Telogia 

Creek and Sopchoppy River

Lake Iamonia Lake Iamonia Basin 

Lake Jackson Lake Jackson Basin

Telogia Creek Telogia Creek Basin and all tributaries

Sopchoppy River Sopchoppy River Basin and all tributaries

St. Marks River St. Marks River Basin, including all tributaries except Wakulla River

Lake Miccosukee Lake Miccosukee Basin

Lake Lafayette Lake Lafayette Basin

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Combined area of Lake Munson and Fred George Sink Basins

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Combined area, including Lost Creek and Fisher Creek watersheds

Wakulla River Wakulla River Basin, including all tributaries

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee 

Bay

Apalachee Bay and all watersheds that drain directly to the bay and not 

within St. Marks or Ochlockonee River drainage

56 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 57
Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List, and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

58 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

1297C Lake Talquin Lake IIIF N/A Fish N/A DO, Turbidity 3c Planning 

List 

1297D Lake Talquin Lake IIIF N/A DO, Fish N/A Turbidity 3c Planning 

List 

1297E Ochlockonee 

River

Stream IIIF Fish Fish N/A Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, DO

3c Planning 

List 

1297F Ochlockonee 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, Fish

Fish, 

Nutrients

Total 

Coliforms

Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia, DO

5 Verified List 

1298 Interlocking 

Lakes

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1301 Holman 

Branch

Stream I N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1303 Quincy Creek Stream I N/A Total 

Coliforms,

Fecal 

Coliforms

N/A DO 3c Planning 

List 

1304 Rocky Comfort CreekStream IIIF N/A Fish N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

397 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

410 Willacoochee 

Creek 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

422 Attapulgus 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

424 Little River Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

Total 

Suspended 

Solids

Fish, 

Nutrients 

Total 

Coliforms

Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Total 

Suspended 

Solids, Unionized 

Ammonia

5 Verified List 

427 Swamp Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

Total 

Suspended 

Solids

N/A N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

430 Shaw Creek 

 

 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 59
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

440 Unnamed 

Stream 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

460 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

473 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A DO N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List

474 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

480 Salem Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

499 Hubbert 

Branch 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

505 Winkley 

Branch 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

506 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

513 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

524 Lewis Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

540 Hurricane 

Creek 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

540A Tallavana Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A Nutrients N/A 5 Verified List 

566 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

576 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

595 Tanyard 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

598A Orchard Pond Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

601 Mill Dam 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

605 Cox Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

609 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

614 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

615 South Prong 

Tanyard 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

630 Double 

Branch 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

632 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

633 Unnamed RunStream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

Table 3.5 (continued)

60 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

653 Vote Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

657 Unnamed 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

659 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

661 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

680 Richlander 

Creek 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

698 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

702 Robinson 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

703 Hog Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

704 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

706 Camp Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

710 Sweetwater 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

711 Monroe Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

727 Turkey Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

733 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

734 Cane Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

745 Holley Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

752 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

757 Bear Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

767 Midway 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

777 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

787 Hunter Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

794 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

796 Juniper 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

798 Double 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A Fish N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

801 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

804 Mule Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Table 3.5 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 61
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

806 Gulley Branch Stream IIIF N/A Fish N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

810 Unnamed 

Stream

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

811 Ocklawaha 

Creek 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

812 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

814 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

816 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

817 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

818 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

823 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

828 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

831 Pole Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

832 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

835 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

842 Todd Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

845 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

849 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

852 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

853 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

854 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

855 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

856 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

858 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

860 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

879 Hammock 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

882 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

884 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

887 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

896 Polk Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

900 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

902 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Table 3.5 (continued)

62 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

921 Harvey Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

954 Freeman 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

960 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Table 3.5 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 63
(WBID 1304), Double Branch (WBID 798), and Gulley Branch (WBID 

806) for fi sh consumption (1297E); Swamp Creek (427) based on its 1998 

303(d) list status; an unnamed branch for DO (WBID 473); and Quincy 

Creek (WBID 1303) for total and fecal coliforms. Quincy Creek is a Class 

I waterbody, providing potable water to residents of Quincy.

The Ochlockonee River (WBID 1297F) and Little River (WBID 424) 

are verifi ed impaired for total coliforms. Lake Tallavana (WBID 540A) is 

verifi ed impaired for nutrients based on the Trophic State Index (TSI).

Data from north of the Georgia–Florida border are not included in 

the IWR evaluation but are considered in TMDL development activities. 

The northernmost segment in Florida of the Ochlockonee River (WBID 

1297F) has a slightly decreasing trend for total phosphorus (TP). 

Similarly, the next river segment of the Ochlockonee River (WBID 1297E) 

downstream also has a decreasing trend. The Lake Talquin segments of 

the river (WBID 1297D and 1297C) and Ochlockonee River segments 

(WBID 1297B and 1297A) farther downstream (in the Ochlockonee 

South Planning Unit) also show a decreasing trend for TP. However, the 

lower Ochlockonee River (WBID 1297A) (south of Lake Talquin) has 

a slightly increasing trend for fecal coliforms. The Little River system 

(WBID 424) shows a decreasing trend in TP over the past 30 years and 

shows an improvement in DO. One of the major tributaries to the Little 

River is Quincy Creek (WBID 1303). For it, trend data show a slight 

improvement (decrease) in fecal coliform levels over the past 10 years.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are several signifi cant permitted point 

source dischargers to surface water in the Ochlockonee River Basin 

of both Florida and Georgia (Wieckowicz et al., 2000; GDNR-EPD, 

2000a–i). Those in Florida are within this planning unit. They include 

the Engelhard Corporation mine, the City of Quincy domestic sewage 

treatment plant (1.5 million gallons per day [mgd]) to Quincy Creek, 

and the Quincy Cluster petroleum cleanup sites. The City of Havana 

domestic sewage treatment plant (0.4 mgd) discharged to Lewis Creek and 

the Ochlockonee River above U.S. 27 until 1999, but now land-applies its 

effl uent. The City of Tallahassee Arvah Hopkins Power Plant discharges 

cooling water (1.87 mgd) to Unnamed Branch (a.k.a. Beaver Creek) 

and Lake Talquin. The Attapulgus, Georgia, clay-mining operations 

of Englehard Corporation also have a signifi cant industrial wastewater 

discharge to the system just north of the Florida–Georgia line, potentially 

affecting Attapulgus Creek and Little River.

The lack of dilution fl ow in the Ochlockonee River was evident during 

the recent drought (1997–2001) when very low fl ows were measured 

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

downstream from the headwaters.

See Noteworthy for a defi nition of point sources and discussions of 

environmental remediation and delineated ground water contamination 

areas. Appendix E lists the basins’ 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.

64 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Information on Point Sources in Planning Units

Point sources discharging 

pollutants to surface water or 

ground water originate from 

discrete, well-defined areas such 

as a facility discharge from the 

end of a pipe, a disposal well, or 

a wastewater sprayfield. Point 

sources generally fall into two 

major types: domestic wastewater sources (which consist of 

sewage from homes, businesses, 

and institutions) and industrial 

wastewater sources (which 

include wastewater, runoff, 

and leachate from industrial or 

commercial storage, handling, 

or processing facilities). Landfills, hazardous waste sites, dry 

cleaning solvent cleanup program (DSCP) sites, and petroleum facility discharges are also 

considered point sources. These 

sites have the potential to leach 

contaminants into ground water 

and surface water.

Identifying the source of waterbody impairment is an important 

part of assessing water quality and developing TMDLs. As 

part of this report, information 

is presented on point sources, 

including permitted facilities 

that discharge wastewater and 

landfills.

Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses

Rainfall generates stormwater 

runoff. As it flows over the land 

and through the ground, runoff 

may carry nonpoint source pollutants from many different sources 

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, 

petroleum compounds, and 

metals.

Noteworthy 65 Water Quality Assessment Report: 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Nonpoint Sources. Agriculture is the dominant land use in the 

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

combination of cultivated/exposed earth and pasture categories covers 43.9 

percent of the basin in Georgia.

Based on Level I and II land use summary information, land cover/

land use in the Florida portion of the North Ochlockonee Planning Unit 

is mainly upland forest (67.8 percent) followed by wetlands (7.7 percent), 

and urban and built-up (7.7 percent). Developed land uses can be 

associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments (see 

Noteworthy for a defi nition of nonpoint sources). Appendix F provides 

summary information on general land uses in the basins, by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Lake Talquin has a documented problem with invasive aquatic 

vegetation (water lettuce and water hyacinth) and is on a list of waterbodies 

targeted by the Department (Department, Bureau of Invasive Plant 

Management, 2000). Although Lake Talquin does not currently exceed 

the IWR criteria for nutrients, the overgrowth of invasive plants may be 

related to the nutrient load carried to the lake by the Ochlockonee River 

and other tributaries (Pope and McGlynn, 2001). 

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

On several occasions, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWC) has conducted drawdowns in Lake Talquin in order to 

address muck accumulations and invasive aquatic weeds and to encourage 

regrowth of native vegetation.

To address nutrient and sediment problems with Lake Tallavana, the 

Lake Tallavana Homeowner’s Association has been conducting a study 

in the Hurricane Creek and Beaver Creek Basins. Water quality data are 

being collected to identify sources of nutrients, and an inventory made of 

management practices to minimize sedimentation and aquatic weeds in the 

lake (Swanson, 2003). Land uses in the area that may contribute to poor 

water quality include agriculture, runoff from dirt roads, septic tanks, and 

plant nurseries. Methods being considered to improve water quality have 

included lake drawdowns and muck removal.

• South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit includes the drainage area for the Ochlockonee 

River south of the Jackson Bluff Dam on Lake Talquin (at S.R. 20). 

Numerous small blackwater tributaries drain the Apalachicola Forest to the 

east and west of the Ochlockonee. Signifi cant tributaries include Crooked 

River, Syfrett Creek, Telogia Creek, and the Sopchoppy River. The latter 

two tributaries are included in their own planning units.

Figure 3.4, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on 

the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

66 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the South Ochlockonee River and Sopchoppy River Planning Units, Including 

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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 67
Water Quality Summary

Table 3.6 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. There is a total of 51 waterbody 

segments in this planning unit. Most (40) have no or insuffi cient data to 

be evaluated. Three waterbody segments meet some designated uses for 

certain parameters and 8 are potentially impaired. There are no verifi ed 

impaired waterbody segments in the South Ochlockonee planning unit.

All potentially impaired waterbody segments are on the planning list 

for fi sh consumption based on mercury. These include Reedy Branch 

(WBID 1035), Cow Creek (WBID 1208), Crooked River (WBID 

1241), a segment of Ochlockonee Bay (WBID 1248B), two segments of 

Ochlockonee River (WBID 1297A and 1297B), Soapstone Branch (WBID 

985), and Hubbard Branch (WBID 989). One of the Ochlockonee River 

segments (WBID 1297B) was also potentially impaired for nutrients. No 

clear trends could be determined for any WBIDs in the planning unit. 

Nutrient and 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD) monitoring in the 

coastal area have been nonexistent for the past 30 years.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are no known direct surface discharges to the 

Ochlockonee River in the planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, land use in the planning unit is primarily upland forest (51.3 

percent) and wetlands (43.0 percent), with only 0.9 percent urban and 

built-up. Developed land uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges 

of pollutants and eroded sediments.

Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in the 

basins, by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Our references included no studies to indicate any confi rmed ecological 

problems.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects have been 

identifi ed for addressing water quality concerns.

• Lake Iamonia Planning Unit

General Description

This shallow lake has few major tributaries. The tributary area with 

the greatest potential impact is the Killearn Lakes Basin, which contains 

Pine Hill Lake, Petty Gulf Lake, Lake Dianne, and Lake Monkey Business. 

All of these lakes drain into the Lester Cove tributary. Other tributaries 

include Lake Arrowhead (Cromartie Arm), Plantation H Tributary, 

Foshalee Slough, and Strickland Arm. Some of these are impounded lakes 

and have been designated by the Department as stormwater treatment 

ponds. Lake Iamonia drains to a major sink on its north shore and to the 

Ochlockonee River on the west. However, the Ochlockonee River can 

contribute signifi cant fl ows and loads to Lake Iamonia at the Meridian 

Road north and south bridges during certain high fl ow periods. 

68 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

1024 Black Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1025 Unnamed RunStream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1033 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1035 Reedy Branch Stream IIIF N/A Mercury 

- Fish 

N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

1059 Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1068 High Hill 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1072 Panther Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1077 Pine Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1085 Betsy Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1090 Fox Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1097 Mill Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1104 Tiger Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1115 Reedy Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1126 Cat Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1132 North Branch 

Smith Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1140 Coxes Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1147 Smith Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

1157 Flat Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1160 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1166 Gully Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1167 Vause Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1168 Arbor Bush 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1173 East Fork 

Syfrett Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1175 Syfrett Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 69
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

1187 Mill Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1193 Double 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1197 Schoolhouse 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1200 Joel Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1203 Titi Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1206 Baker Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1208 Cow Creek Stream IIIF N/A MercuryFishN/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

1210 Big Spring Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1213 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1214 Haw Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1216 Bumpy Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1234 Womack 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1241 Crooked River Stream IIIF N/A MercuryFishN/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

1245 Tom Hahn 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1246 Cow Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1247 Brandy Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1248A Ochlockonee 

Bay 

Estuary II N/A N/A N/A DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1248B Ochlockonee 

Bay 

Stream II N/A MercuryFishN/A DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity3c Planning 

List 

1255 Chaires Creek Estuary II N/A N/A N/A DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1297A Ochlockonee 

River

Stream IIIF Mercury-Fish, 

DO

MercuryFishN/A DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Total Coliforms, 

Unionized 

Ammonia

3c Planning 

List 

1297B Ochlockonee 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, DO

MercuryFish,

Nutrients

N/A DO 3c Planning 

List 

941 Pittman Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

Table 3.6 (continued)

70 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

947 Unnamed Run

952 Bluff Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

956 Unnamed Run

961 Blue Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

985 Soapstone 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A Mercury 

- Fish

N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

989 Hubbard 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A Mercury 

- Fish

N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List 

996 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

8025 Ochlockonee 

Bay Gulf 

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Table 3.6 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 71
Figure 3.5, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on 

the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.7 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include Lake Iamonia Outlet (WBID 442) and Killearn Lakes 

tributaries to the southern part of Lake Iamonia.

Out of the 12 waterbody segments identifi ed in this evaluation, 6 have 

insuffi cient or no data, 2 meet standards for some parameters, and 4 are 

potentially impaired. Monkey Business Pond (WBID 546B), Monkey 

Business Outlet (WBID 546), and Lake Arrowhead (WBID 564A) 

are potentially impaired for nutrients (TSI), but as mentioned earlier, 

some of the lakes are considered by the Department and Killearn Lakes 

Homeowners Association as part of the residential stormwater treatment 

system (FDEP, 1994). It is not clear, however, if Lake Arrowhead (WBID 

564A) was included in the 1994 agreement. Also note that part of WBID 

546 is outside the stormwater system. This includes part of the Lester 

Creek Basin, which drains Killearn Lakes and its sprayfi eld to Lake 

Iamonia. Lake Iamonia Outlet (WBID 442) is potentially impaired for 

DO. Data for Lake Iamonia Outlet (WBID 442) do not show any clear 

trends. Lake Dianne (WBID 546A) has an increase in TN, and Lake 

Arrowhead (WBID 564A) and Lake Baccus both have an increase in TN 

as well as a decrease in Secchi depth. However, Petty Gulf Lake (WBID 

564C) has decreases in TP and TN, with an increase in Secchi depth.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There is only one signifi cant surface/ground water 

discharge in the planning unit, the Talquin Electric domestic wastewater 

sprayfi eld (0.7 mgd), in the Lester Cove Tributary Basin (part of WBID 

546). Studies of the impact of the present sprayfi eld by a Leon County 

consultant (McGlynn, 1999) and the Department led to the construction 

of a berm around the sprayfi eld perimeter. The berm acts as a buffer to 

prevent runoff into the adjoining Lester Creek.

Appendix E lists the basins’ 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. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, land use in the planning unit is mainly upland forest 

(65.2 percent), followed by wetlands (16.8 percent), agriculture (8 

percent), and urban and built-up (6.8 percent). Urban land uses are 

concentrated in the Killearn Lakes Basin. Within the Killearn Lakes area 

is a chronic problem of septic tank failure as a result of poor drainage of 

the subdivision. Septic tanks for approximately 1,500 homes in the area 

tend to fail during periods of wet weather. Developed land uses can be 

associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments 

and residential development of this area is occuring at a relatively high rate.

72 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Lake Iamonia Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List, 

and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 73
Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Iamonia Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

442 Lake Iamonia 

Outlet

Lake IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients

DO, Mercury-Fish, N/A Nutrients (TSI), 

Turbidity

3c Planning List 

530 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

535 Pickle Pond 

Outlet

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

546 Monkey Business Outlet Stream IIIF N/A Nutrients 

(TSI) 

N/A DO 3c Planning List 

546A Lake Dianne 

 

 

Lake N/A N/A N/A N/A Nutrients (TSI) 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

546B Monkey Business PondLake N/A N/A Nutrients 

(TSI) 

N/A N/A 3c Planning List 

563 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A DO 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

564 Unnamed 

Drain 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

564A Lake ArrowheadLake N/A N/A Nutrients 

(TSI) 

N/A DO 3c Planning List 

564B Lake Baccus Lake IIIF N/A Nutrients 

(TSI) 

N/A N/A 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

564C Petty Gulf 

Lake 

Lake N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

611 Boat Pond 

Outlet

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water M = Marine N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

74 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in the 

basins, by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Aquatic plant growth is a concern in Lake Iamonia. Accumulations of 

organic muck from decomposing aquatic vegetation have choked the lake, 

prompting the FWC to initiate a project to enhance habitat and restore 

the lake by removing muck and tussocks, which form mounds that choke 

open water areas (Hill, personal communication, November 2000). The 

Department requests annual funding for hydrilla, water hyacinth, and 

water lettuce control in Lake Iamonia (Department, Bureau of Invasive 

Plant Management, 2000).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects have been 

implemented to specifi cally improve the condition of impaired waters. 

However, this is a priority waterbody for Leon County and the FWC, 

and in-lake restoration activities were conducted during the 1999–2000 

drought period to reduce muck accumulations and remove tussocks.

• Lake Jackson Planning Unit

General Description

Lake Jackson, an aquatic preserve, is a closed basin with internal 

drainage to at least two named sinks in the lake’s bed, Porter Sink and 

Lime Sink. Approximately every 25 years, Lake Jackson naturally drains 

into one or more sinkholes. The lake most recently drained in October 

1999, and it has not fully recovered from the extended drought. Signifi cant 

tributaries to the lake include Meginniss Arm Run, Fords Arm, Meridian 

Creek, Butlers Mill Creek (Indian Mounds State Park), and Jackson 

Heights Creek in Harbinwood Estates. The planning unit includes several 

other lakes. Lakes that are monitored include Lake Jackson, Lake Hall, and 

Lake Overstreet. 

Figure 3.6, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on 

the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.8 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include Lake Jackson (WBID 582B) and its tributaries (Lake 

Jackson Outlet, Unnamed Run, Harbinwood Estates, and Timberlane 

Run), as well as Lakes Overstreet and Hall. 

Of the 11 waterbody segments identifi ed in this planning unit, 6 have 

little or no data, 3 meet standards for some parameters, 1 is potentially 

impaired and 1 is verifi ed impaired and needs a TMDL. Lake Jackson 

(WBID 582B) is verifi ed impaired for nutrients (based on TSI) and for 

DO. The absence of water and low lake levels that have persisted since 

its natural drawdown in 1999 have limited sampling of the lake to those 

areas that contained water. Hence the sparse amount of recent lake data 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 75
Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Lake Jackson Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List, and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

76 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Jackson Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

582 Lake Jackson 

Outlet

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A Mercury-Fish, 

Turbidity

3b Not 

Enough Data 

582B Lake Jackson Lake IIIF N/A N/A Nutrients 

(TSI), DO

Turbidity 5 Verified List 

582A Spring Pond Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

678 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

689 Lake Overstreet DrainLake IIIF N/A N/A N/A Nutrients (TSI) 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

689A Lake 

Overstreet 

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A Nutrients (TSI) 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

689B Lake Hall Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A Nutrients (TSI) 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

721 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

746 Harbinwood 

Estates Drain

Stream IIIF Nutrients, 

BOD, Turbidity, Total 

Suspended 

Solids

N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

758 Timberlane 

Run

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

809 Megginnis 

Arm Run 

Stream IIIF Nutrients, 

BOD, Turbidity, Total 

Suspended 

Solids, DO

Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll a), 

DO 

N/A DO 3c Planning 

List 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 77
4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Table 3.8 (continued)

are not suffi cient to evaluate lake-wide water quality since the drawdown 

and in-lake restoration activities were carried out. Known septic tank 

problems in the Harbinwood Estates /Jackson Heights Creek Basin (WBID 

746) may be a contributor to the lake’s impairment. Trend data for Lake 

Jackson (WBID 582B) indicate an increase of Total Nitrogen (TN), 

TP, chlorophyll a, color, and alkalinity over the past 35 years, although 

the data record since the 1999 drawdown is incomplete. Tributaries to 

Lake Jackson, such as Lake Jackson Outlet (WBID 582), also show a 

slight increase in TP and nitrate-nitrogen over the past 10 years, but in 

Megginnis Arm Run (WBID 809), TP seems to have increased slightly 

and TN inputs seem to have stabilized. Megginiss Arm Run is potentially 

impaired for DO.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are no known surface discharges in the 

planning unit. However, numerous domestic waste lift stations, septic 

tanks, and stormwater facilities can and do affect water quality in the basin. 

One example is the pump station at the headwaters of Butler’s Mill Creek.

Appendix E lists the basins’ 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. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, land use in the planning unit is dominated by urban 

and built-up (37.1 percent), followed by upland forest (36.1 percent) 

and wetlands (9.3 percent). Transportation and utilities constitute 

approximately 1 percent of the land uses. Developed land uses can be 

associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. 

Construction of additional lanes (Whately, 2002) along Interstate 10 may 

result in impacts to the lake due to eroded sediment. These activities will 

require frequent monitoring of the Megginnis Arm Run and Ford’s Arm 

tributaries. During the original construction of the interstate highway 30 

years ago, runoff of sediments into the lake was a problem. Major widening 

of U.S. 319 on the eastern side of Lake Hall was monitored closely for 

erosion control. Fortunately, much of the construction activity occurred 

during a drought period.

Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in the 

basins by planning unit.

78 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Ecological Impacts

Before the natural drawdown of Lake Jackson in 1999, its ecological 

problems were being studied. As related by Livingston (1997), algal 

blooms were common in portions of the lake by the late 1980s. Meginniss 

Arm, the arm receiving the heaviest load of urban stormwater, contained 

sediments with detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy 

metals that were attributed to polluted stormwater. Hydrilla dominated the 

eastern portion of the lake. Blue-green algal blooms were also becoming 

a problem in Lake Hall (Livingston, 1997). Because of aquatic weed 

problems, Lake Jackson, Lake Hall, and Carr Lake have been included on 

a list of lakes that are funded for invasive aquatic plant control through the 

Department (Department, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2000).

According to Livingston (1997), fi sh in Lake Jackson showed a high 

incidence of disease, including tumors, sores, damaged gills and fi ns, 

bacterial and parasitic infections, and internal abnormalities. Benthic

macroinvertebrate populations, which provide an indicator of the lake’s 

biological health, were also reported to be low in both number and species 

richness.

Since the natural drawdown in 1999 and subsequent restoration 

activities, the lake has not returned to normal stage and the results of 

restoration activities have not been measured.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects complying 

with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been 

provided for the 2002 list of impaired waters. Restoration activities in Lake 

Jackson may signifi cantly improve water quality and ecological health of 

the lake, but these improvements cannot be documented at this time due to 

the low water levels.

• Telogia Creek Planning Unit

General Description

Telogia Creek is one of the major tributaries to the Ochlockonee River 

south of Lake Talquin. Major tributaries to Telogia Creek include Pitman 

Branch, Little Telogia Creek, Juniper Creek, Yon Creek, Mule Creek, 

Panther Creek, Big Creek, Stokes Branch Creek, and Yellow Creek. The 

NWFWMD has declared the northern part of Telogia Creek a Water 

Resource Caution Area because of the lack of stream fl ow in the basin 

(see the section on Water Usage in Chapter 2 for information on this 

designation).

Figure 3.7, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on 

the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.9 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include a total of 61 streams, stream segments, or springs. These 

include Telogia Creek (WBID 1300) and numerous tributaries, most of 

Benthic

Occurring at the bottom of a 

body of water.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 79
Figure 3.7: Composite Map of the Telogia Creek Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List, and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

80 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.9: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Telogia Creek Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

1002 Barbeque 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1005 Dykes Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1011 Rattlesnake 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1023 Cypress 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1023A Stokes Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1046 Western 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1047 Cooper 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1049 Big Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1052 Yellow Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1058 Western 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1299 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1300 Telogia Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A Fecal 

Coliforms,

Total 

Coliforms

Unionized 

Ammonia, 

Turbidity, DO

5 Verified List 

1300Z Indian Spring Spring IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1302 Mcdonald 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1305 Little Telogia 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1307 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1308 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

485 Pittman 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

497 Hurricane 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

558 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

579 Tallahassee 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

588 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

602 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 81
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

617 Juniper 

Branch 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

626 Yon Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

682 Juniper Creek Stream IIIF Total Coliforms, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Nutrients

N/A N/A N/A 3c Planning List

684 Mule Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b

687 Camp Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

691 Long Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

707 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

709 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

714 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

720 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

726 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

732 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

737 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

775 Carnigan 

Branch 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

788 East Minnow 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

790 Starvation 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

799 Murray Head Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

800 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

802 Turkey Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

805 Shanty Ford 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

813 Moore Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

821 West Minnow 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

830 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

840 Mill Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

847 White Panther 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

877 Bumpy Bay 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

880 Unnamed 

Run

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

888 Kent Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Table 3.9 (continued)

82 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

890 Long Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

895 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

898 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

903 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

904 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

908 Short Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

909 Deason 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

911 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

913 Big Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

920 Bull Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Table 3.9 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 83
which do not have enough data to evaluate their water quality. Telogia 

Creek (WBID 1300) is verifi ed impaired for total and fecal coliforms. 

Data for Telogia Creek do not show any trends; however, the 1985–1989 

sampling period had the poorest water quality in terms of both nutrients 

and coliforms. One other waterbody, Juniper Creek (WBID 682), is 

potentially impaired and on the Planning List because it was included on 

the 1889 303(d) list for coliforms and nutrients.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are three known surface discharges in the 

planning unit. Timber Energy Resources has an intermittent fl ow 

to a branch of Stokes Branch Creek (Barrett, 1999). The facility is a 

waste wood–fueled power plant that was formerly a naval stores facility 

(Reichhold Chemical). The basin also contains two petroleum cleanup 

sites, Junior Food Store No. 240 and Grubbs Petroleum, that have 

remediation systems with permitted discharges. The town of Gretna’s 

sewage treatment plant (0.35 mgd) is currently a domestic reuse wastewater 

facility. Gretna’s wastewater was formerly discharged to an overland fl ow/

spray facility near the headwaters of Telogia Creek.

Appendix E lists the basins’ 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. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, upland forest (64.5 percent) and wetlands (19.4 percent) are 

dominant land uses, with urban and built-up contributing a small fraction 

(2.8 percent). Developed land uses can be associated with nonpoint 

discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments.

Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in 

the basins by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Our references included no studies to indicate any other confi rmed 

ecological problems.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, there are presently no management plans or 

projects that address water quality problems.

• Sopchoppy River Planning Unit

General Description

The Sopchoppy River is another main tributary to the Ochlockonee 

River south of Lake Talquin. The river has its headwaters in the 

Apalachicola National Forest, where the West and East Branches join south 

of Otter Camp. Monkey Creek is the only tributary.

Figure 3.4, a composite map that contains the planning unit, shows 

waters on the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, and Verifi ed List, and 

potential pollution sources.

84 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Water Quality Summary

Water quality in the Sopchoppy River is generally very good. The 

USGS uses the Sopchoppy River as a national ambient water-quality 

monitoring site to represent pristine water quality. 

Table 3.10 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include the Sopchoppy River (WBID 998) and tributaries such 

as West Branch Sopchoppy River, East Branch Sopchoppy River, and Mill 

Creek. It also includes an upper segment of Ochlockonee Bay. The table 

and fi gure show that there are no waterbody segments in this planning 

unit that are verifi ed impaired. The Sopchoppy River (WBID 998), West 

Branch Sopchoppy River (WBID 1038), and Ochlockonee Bay (WBID 

1248C) are potentially impaired (Planning List only) because of fi sh 

consumption advisories. Trend data for the Sopchoppy River (WBID 998) 

do not indicate any long-term trends, but there has been an increase of 

total nitrogen during the past 5 years.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are no known surface discharges in the 

planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, land cover in the planning unit is predominately wetlands 

(51.7 percent) and upland forest (44.5 percent), with only a very small 

fraction in the urban and built-up (0.8 percent) category.

Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in 

the basins, by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

The Sopchoppy River, in the Apalachicola National Forest, is an 

Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Our references included no studies to 

indicate any confi rmed ecological problems.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

There are presently no water quality improvement plans or projects to 

address waterbodies in this planning unit.

• St. Marks River Planning Unit

General Description

The St. Marks River originates as an intermittent stream in eastern 

Leon County near U.S. 90. It fl ows southward through low-density 

residential areas, pine plantation land, and wetland areas and receives direct 

fl ow from few tributaries. In one northern area of the planning unit, the 

stream basin is adjacent to a karst system, which includes the Black Creek/

Still Creek/Bird Sink Basin, Long Pond Creek/Patty Sink Basin, Copeland 

Sink Basin, and Lloyd Creek Sink Basin. Direct surface connection 

between these sink basins has not been fi rmly established. However, 

water movement from Lloyd Creek toward the St. Marks River has been 

suggested during fl ood conditions.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 85
Table 3.10: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Sopchoppy River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment Category for 

WBID3

1038 West Branch 

Sopchoppy 

River 

Stream IIIF N/A MercuryFish N/A N/A 3c Planning List 

1038B East Branch 

Sopchoppy 

River

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough Data 

1125 Monkey Creek Stream N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1179 Deep Creek Stream N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1186 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1189 Mill Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough Data 

1199 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1248C Ochlockonee 

Bay

Stream II N/A MercuryFish N/A DO, 

Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

3c Planning List 

998 Sopchoppy 

River 

Stream IIIF N/A MercuryFish N/A DO, Fecal 

Coliforms,

Turbidity

3c Planning List 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

86 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Farther south, there are several potential or “pseudo” tributaries to 

the river, including Burnt Mill Creek, Sweetwater Creek, and Moore 

Creek. These tributaries may infl uence the river during very high fl ows. 

Downstream, the Limestone Creek system, Gum Creek, and Willow Creek 

feed the river. Below this area, the Horn Spring group and Chicken Branch 

contribute appreciably to the river’s fl ow. Farther south, at Natural Bridge, 

the St. Marks River disappears underground. It reemerges at St. Marks 

Spring (also known as St. Marks Rise) farther to the south and proceeds 

southward to its confl uence with the Wakulla River. Along its course south 

of the St. Marks Rise, many small springs contribute to the river’s fl ow.

The planning unit also includes many small lakes and ponds that 

formed in sinkhole depressions. Only a few of them have suffi cient water 

quality data to be evaluated.

Figure 3.8, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on the 

1998 303(d) list, Planning List, and Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.11 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 21 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include two segments of the St. Marks River (WBID 793A, the 

estuarine segment south of the river’s confl uence with Wakulla River) and 

St. Marks River (WBID 793B) north of the Wakulla River confl uence. 

The planning unit also includes numerous named springs, including Horn 

Springs, Rhodes Springs, Newport Spring, and St. Marks Spring. There 

are also several tributaries of the St. Marks River that have been evaluated 

for some parameters. Lake Erie, Lake Wooten, and Lake Weeks are the 

only lakes with monitoring data. 

The table and fi gure show that two waterbody segments in the 

planning unit are verifi ed impaired. Black Creek (WBID 628) and Lake 

Weeks (WBID 971B) are both verifi ed impaired for DO related to high 

nutrients. The northern segment of the St. Marks River (WBID 793B) 

is potentially impaired for DO, as are its tributaries Copeland Sink Drain 

(WBID 808), and Chicken Branch (WBID 971). Two springs have been 

listed for DO. St. Marks Spring (793X) is listed as potentially impaired, 

although the low DO may be naturally occurring. Horn Spring (WBID 

793Z) is verifi ed as impaired under integrated category 4b, which means 

the spring is impaired but not by a pollutant.

A recent investigation by the Department at the St. Marks Refi nery 

site on the bank of the St. Marks River indicated that there was dioxin 

contamination in the soil, groundwater, and sediment on and off the 

facility property, including Rattlesnake Branch, a small tributary of the 

St. Marks River (Ecology and Environment, 2002). Due to their proximity 

to this contaminated site, Moriah Creek (1121), the northern St. Marks 

River segment (793B), and the lower segment of the St. Marks River 

(793A) were included on the planning list for dioxin. 

Water-quality trend data for the St. Marks River (WBID 793B) 

indicate no increases or decreases over the past 30 years. However, water 

quality data for Horn Spring (WBID 793Z), a main source of fl ow to the 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 87
Figure 3.8: Composite Map of the St. Marks River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List, and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

88 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.11: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the St. Marks River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

533 Patty Sink 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

628 Black Creek Stream IIIF DO N/A DO N/A 5 Verified List 

761 Morris Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

791A Lloyd Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A DO 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

793A St. Marks 

River (South)

Stream IIIF N/A Dioxin N/A N/A 3c Potentially 

Impaired 

793B St. Marks 

River 

Stream IIIF Coliforms, DO DO, Dioxin N/A Total Coliforms, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Fluoride, 

Turbidity

3c Potentially 

Impaired 

793X Newport 

Spring

Spring IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

793Y St. Marks 

Spring 

Spring IIIF N/A DO N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

793Z Horn Spring Spring IIIF N/A DO N/A N/A 4b Nonpollutant 

Impairment 

808 Copeland Sink 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A DO N/A N/A 3c Potentially 

Impaired 

862 Polar Mill 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

873 Hall Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

899 Lang Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

910 Cuba Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

912 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

918 Burnt Mill 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A DO 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

918A Lake Wooten Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

2 Meets Some 

Uses 

922 Unnamed 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

932 Unnamed 

Branch 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

939 Lutterloh 

Slough

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 89
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

942 Crow Pond 

Outlet

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

965 Sweetwater 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

971 Chicken 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A DO N/A Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity

3c Potentially 

Impaired 

971A Lake Erie Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

2 Meets Some 

Uses 

971B Lake Weeks Lake IIIF N/A DO N/A 5 Verified List 

977 Moore Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1000 Limestone 

Creek 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1121 Moriah Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Table 3.11 (continued)

90 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
St. Marks River above Natural Bridge, exhibit degrading trends for DO, 

TN, TP and turbidity for the past 20 years.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are several point sources in the lower St. Marks 

River (below St. Marks Spring rise). These include the city of Tallahassee 

Purdom Power Plant (Curtis, 1997), the Murphy Oil Corporation tank 

farm, the St. Marks Refi nery site, and the St. Marks domestic sewage 

treatment plant. The St. Marks sewage plant started piping its treated 

domestic wastewater to the power plant for industrial reuse in 1999. 

The Tallahassee Southeast Farm, in the west central part of the 

planning unit, is a large, 2,163-acre wastewater reuse facility that uses 

sprayfi elds to treat most of the city’s municipal wastewater. The potential 

impact of this facility on nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in ground water 

and springs has been discussed by the NWFWMD (Chelette et al., 2002).

Appendix E lists the basins’ 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. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, the dominant land uses in the planning unit are upland forest 

(57.3 percent) and wetlands (19.1 percent), while the urban and builtup category accounts for only 6.7 percent. Developed land uses can be 

associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments.

Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in the 

basins by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Invasive aquatic vegetation is a problem in the St. Marks River. 

Dominant invasive plants include hydrilla, water hyacinth, and water 

lettuce (Department, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2000).

At the town of St. Marks, four docking terminals carry, offl oad, 

process, and distribute petroleum products and bulk chemicals. Numerous 

documented oil spills through the years, including a spill of about 10,000 

gallons in 1978, have contaminated bottom sediments in the area. The 

most heavily contaminated site is directly upstream of the confl uence of the 

Wakulla River and the St. Marks River, at the barge-turning basin west of 

the town of St. Marks (Olsen et al., 1981; Bell, 1980). After years of data 

collection and study, a plan was devised in 1984 for dredging and removing 

the worst of the contaminated sediments. No action has been taken to 

remove or disturb the sediments, and no recent information is available 

on the biological effects of these historical spills. The Department’s 

Site Investigation Section recently completed an investigation of the St. 

Marks Refi nery area to look at contaminated water, ground water, and 

sediment (Ecology and Environment, 2002). Some of the contaminants 

found in on-site water or sediment samples from Rattlesnake Branch 

and/or the St. Marks River include dioxin, oils and grease, organics, and 

pentachlorophenol (PCP). These data have not been entered into the 

database that is used to evaluate impaired waters.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 91
Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, there are no management plans or projects 

that explicitly address water quality concerns for the verifi ed impaired 

waterbodies.

• Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit includes Lake Miccosukee and tributaries within 

its drainage basin. The fl ow into Lake Miccosukee includes Ward Creek 

(with headwaters in Thomas County, Georgia), Panther Creek, Dry Creek, 

Caney Branch, and No Name Creek. Water within Lake Miccosukee 

drains to sinkholes within the lake bed on both its northern and southern 

ends, and it was dry or partially ponded during the drought period 

of recent years. Caney Branch and No Name Creek have maintained 

basefl ow even during the recent drought (1998–2001). However, fl ow in 

the other streams has been intermittent.

Figure 3.9, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on the 

1998 303(d) list, Planning List, and Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.12 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit that have been delineated. 

Waterbodies represented by these data include Lake Miccosukee (WBID 

791N), Lake Miccosukee Outlet (791L, tributary area immediately 

surrounding the lake), Lake Miccosukee Drain (WBID 791M, drainage 

from the lake to the south), Ward Creek, and Caney Branch. The table and 

fi gure show that the only waterbody segment in the planning unit that is 

verifi ed impaired is Lake Miccosukee (WBID 791N), which is impaired 

based on total coliform exceedences. Several waterbodies, including Lake 

Miccosukee and Ward Creek, are potentially impaired for DO, but no 

connection to BOD or nutrients was demonstrated.

Limited data for Lake Miccosukee (WBID 791N) show degrading 

trends for DO, TP, and TN for the past 10 years. Ward Creek (WBID 

459) and Caney Branch (WBID 716) both have degrading trends for TP, 

DO, and fecal coliforms for the same period.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are no existing signifi cant point sources in the 

planning unit. However, a Georgia State hospital that had a permit to 

discharge to the headwaters of Ward Creek no longer discharges.

Nonpoint Sources. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, the major land use in the planning unit is upland forest (65.4 

percent), followed by agriculture, including plant nurseries (13.2 percent). 

The urban and built-up category comprises 2.2 percent of the planning 

unit. Developed land uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of 

pollutants and eroded sediments.

Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in 

the basins by planning unit.

92 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 3.9: Composite Map of the Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List, and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 93
Table 3.12: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

459 Ward Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, DO N/A N/A Conductivity 3c Planning List 

716 Caney Branch Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A DO, 

Conductivity

2 Meets Some 

Uses 

791L Lake 

Miccosukee 

Outlet

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

791M Lake 

Miccosukee 

Drain 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

791N Lake 

Miccosukee 

Lake IIIF Fish DO, 

MercuryFish

Total 

Coliforms

Conductivity, 

Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity, Nutrients 

(TSI)

5 Verified List 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

94 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Ecological Impacts

The water level in Lake Miccosukee is manipulated and artifi cially 

maintained. The overgrowth of native and nonnative vegetation in the 

lake is a problem. Like other lakes in the area, invasive aquatic vegetation 

requires control measures (Department, Bureau of Invasive Plant 

Management, 2000).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects complying 

with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been 

provided for the 2002 list of impaired waters. In-lake restoration activities 

conducted by the FWC during the drought period may improve water 

quality as a secondary benefi t to enhancing the fi shery. Future monitoring 

may measure this benefi cial response.

• Lake Lafayette Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit includes the interconnected chain of lakes known 

as Lake Lafayette and its tributaries. The lake consists of four separate 

parts: Upper Lake Lafayette, Lake Piney Z, Alford Arm, and Lower 

Lake Lafayette. Flows into Upper Lake Lafayette include the Northeast 

Drainage Ditch, Park Avenue Drainage Ditch, Lafayette Creek, and 

occasionally Lake Piney Z, while outfl ows drain to the Upper Lake 

Lafayette Sink. Lake Piney Z can fl ow to Upper Lake Lafayette or Lower 

Lake Lafayette. Alford Arm and several small tributaries fl ow to Lower 

Lake Lafayette, which drains to the St. Marks River.

Figure 3.10, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters 

on the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, and Verifi ed List, and potential 

pollution sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.13 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include Lake Lafayette Drain (WBID 756), which includes 

most of the urban tributary input to Upper Lake Lafayette, Lake Piney Z, 

and Lower Lake Lafayette. The Alford Arm Basin (WBID 647) includes 

several tributaries (Roberts Pond Outlet) and lakes (Gilbert Pond and Lake 

Killarney) that also drain to Lower Lake Lafayette. In total, the planning 

unit includes 12 lakes and 6 streams or stream aggregates that were 

evaluated.

The table and fi gure show that fi ve waterbody segments in the planning 

unit have been verifi ed as impaired. A network of tributaries to the lake 

system in aggregate is called Lake Lafayette Drain (WBID 756). This 

WBID is impaired for DO, total coliforms, and fecal coliforms. Upper 

Lake Lafayette (WBID 756A), Lake Piney Z (WBID 756B), and Lower 

Lake Lafayette (WBID 756C) are all verifi ed impaired for DO and 

nutrients (TSI). Alford Arm (WBID 647) is impaired for DO linked 

to BOD. In addition, Mall Drainage Ditch (WBID 863), a tributary to 

the lakes, is potentially impaired for turbidity, total coliforms, and fecal 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 95
Figure 3.10: Composite Map of the Lake Lafayette Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, 

Planning List, and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources

96 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.13: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Lafayette Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

636 Roberts Pond 

Outlet

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

647 Alford Arm Lake IIIF N/A DO N/A Nutrients 

(TSI), 

Turbidity

5 Verified List 

647B Lake 

Sheelin

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

647C Lake 

Killarney 

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

647D Moore Pond Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

672 Gilbert’s Pond 

Outlet

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

672A Gilbert’s Pond Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

756 Lake Lafayette 

Drain

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity

Nutrients 

(Chlorophyl a), 

Turbidity

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms 

N/A 5 Verified List 

756A Upper Lake 

Lafayette 

Lake IIIF Nutrients N/A DO, Nutrients 

(TSI) 

Turbidity 5 Verified List 

756B Lake Piney Z Lake IIIF N/A N/A DO, Nutrients 

(TSI)

Turbidity 5 Verified List 

756C Lower Lake 

Lafayette 

Lake IIIF N/A Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms

DO, Nutrients 

(TSI)

Turbidity 5 Verified List 

756D Lake 

Heritage

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

756E Lake 

Windemere

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

836 Buck Lake 

Outlet

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 97
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

844 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

863 Mall 

Drainage 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF N/A Turbidity, Fecal 

Coliforms,

Total 

Coliforms

N/A DO 3c Planning 

List 

883 Unnamed Run Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

919 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Table 3.13 (continued)

98 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
coliforms. Twelve waterbody segments in the planning unit did not have 

suffi cient data to be assessed.

Trend data for Lake Lafayette Drain (WBID 756) show decreases for 

TP, turbidity, and BOD, but increases for TN during the past 15 years. 

However, it should be noted that sampling data collected in earlier years 

may have included storm event monitoring data, which is not representative 

of ambient conditions. Florida Department of Transportation data (WRS, 

2003) upstream and downstream of Weems Pond are not included in 

the trend analysis. Upper Lake Lafayette (WBID 756A) has slightly 

degrading trends in TN and DO, but has a trend showing lowering levels 

of nitrate-nitrogen over the past 30 years. Lake Piney Z has no signifi cant 

trends because of its limited data set. Trend data for Lower Lake Lafayette 

(WBID 756C) show an increase in TP concentrations, along with a pH 

decrease. Data for Alford Arm (WBID 647) show an increase of total 

Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) during the past 15 years.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. Wastewater treatment facilities include the Talquin 

Electric sewage treatment plant (Meadows at Woodrun Subdivision) that 

discharges to a percolation pond adjacent to the Lake Heritage Tributary, 

which in turn drains to Lower Lake Lafayette. This facility also borders 

the Leon County Landfi ll along U.S. 27 south of Lower Lake Lafayette. 

Ground water seepage downstream of the percolation pond into Lower 

Lake Lafayette was measured during a Department survey in January 2003.

Appendix E lists the basins’ 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. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, the major land use in the planning unit consists of urban and 

built-up (43 percent), followed by upland forest (30.1 percent). Developed 

land uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants (such 

as septic tanks) and eroded sediments. Appendix F provides summary 

information on general land uses in the basins by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Lake Lafayette has been impounded at several places and is divided 

into a series of four distinct wetlands and waterbodies—Upper and Lower 

Lake Lafayette, Lake Piney Z, and Alford Arm. Upper Lafayette, which 

receives residential, commercial, and industrial urban runoff through 

the Northeast Drainage Ditch and Lafayette Creek, drains through a 

sinkhole. Fish kills and blooms of toxic blue-green algae have periodically 

been observed in the upper lake (Livingston, 1997). Lake Piney Z, an 

impoundment, had reached an advanced state of eutrophication from 

stormwater runoff and lack of an outlet and was the subject of a recent 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) restoration 

effort.

Lake McBride, Millstone Creek, and No Name Pond are in the 

northern part of the Lake Lafayette watershed. Because these waterbodies 

are close to a rapidly developing area northeast of Tallahassee, they (as 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 99
well as other waterbodies in this area) are vulnerable to degradation by 

stormwater runoff. No Name Pond has shown evidence of degradation 

by nutrients, with increasing turbidity, phytoplankton blooms, infestation 

by pond weed and other noxious aquatic plants, and fi sh kills during low 

water months (Livingston, 1997).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this basin, no management plans or projects complying with the 

Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been provided for 

the 2002 list of impaired waters. However, unrelated activities by the City 

of Tallahassee Stormwater Program and the Leon County Department 

of Growth Management are addressing water quality in the planning 

unit. See the section on Management Activities in Chapter 2 for more 

information.

• Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit

General Description

The northernmost part of this system is Fred George Sink, a closed 

basin. Drainage to Fred George Sink is from Huntington Tributary and 

Fred George Creek to a sink near Fred George Road. The remaining 

portion of the basin includes Lake Munson and a tributary system, 

which contains natural streams and human-made stormwater conveyance 

ditches that drain to the lake. The Lake Munson Basin includes West 

Drainage Ditch (which collects water from the San Luis Tributary, 

RR Tributary, North and West Branches of Gum Creek, Bradford Brook, 

Cascade Lake, Lake Hiawatha, and Lake Bradford), Central Drainage 

Ditch, St. Augustine Branch, and East Drainage Ditch. It also includes 

Munson Slough and Lake Munson. Munson Slough terminates at Eight 

Mile Pond and Ames Sink (also known as Munson Sink), which are 

located in the Woodville Karst Plain. The Lake Munson Basin includes 

more than half of the city of Tallahassee.

Figure 3.11, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on 

the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.14 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include Lake Munson (WBID 807C); Munson Slough above 

the lake (WBID 807D); Munson Slough below the lake (WBID 807); 

Godby Ditch (WBID 820), which includes the West Drainage Ditch 

system; the Lake Bradford/Lake Hiawatha chain; Central Drainage Ditch; 

St. Augustine Branch; and East Drainage Ditch. Silver Lake is isolated 

from the Lake Munson system, but is also located in this planning unit.

The table and fi gure show that two waterbody segments in the 

planning unit have been verifi ed as impaired. Lake Munson (WBID 

807C) is verifi ed impaired for DO and nutrients (based on TSI) and 

Munson Slough above the lake (WBID 807D) is impaired for DO. A total 

of fi ve waterbody segments are on the planning list. These include Ames 

100 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 3.11: Composite Map of the Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit, Including the 

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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 101
Table 3.14: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning 

Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID3

807 Munson 

Slough 

(Below Lake) 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

807A Ames Sink Stream Nutrients DO N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List

807C Lake Munson Lake IIIF Nutrients N/A DO, Nutrients 

(TSI) 

N/A 5 Verified List 

807D Munson 

Slough 

(Above Lake)

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, DO

Total 

Coliforms

DO Turbidity 5 Verified List 

820 Godby Ditch Stream IIIF Nutrients, BOD, 

Turbidity, Total 

Suspended Solids

N/A N/A N/A 3b Not 

Enough Data 

857 Central 

Drainage 

Ditch 

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, BOD, 

Turbidity, Total 

Suspended 

Solids, COD

N/A N/A DO 3c Planning 

List 

865 St 

Augustine 

Branch

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, BOD, 

Turbidity, Total 

Suspended Solids

N/A N/A BOD 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

878A Lake 

Bradford

Lake IIIF DO N/A N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

3c Planning 

List 

878B Silver Lake 

Drain

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

3b Not 

Enough Data 

878C Lake Hiawatha Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

2 Meets Some 

Uses 

878D Cascade Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

878E Grassy Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

878F Silver Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A Fecal Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

N/A 3c Planning 

List

916 East 

Drainage 

Ditch

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, BOD, 

Turbidity, Total 

Suspended Solids

N/A N/A N/A 3c Planning 

List

102 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Sink (807A) for DO and several parameters from the 1998 list; as well as 

Central Drainage Ditch (WBID 857), Godby Ditch (820), East Drainage 

Ditch (WBID 916), St. Augustine Branch (WBID 865), Lake Bradford 

(WBID 878A), and Silver Lake (WBID 878B), based on their 1998 list 

status. Fish kills in the upper portions of the Central Drainage Ditch have 

been documented, along with extremely high conductivity.

Trend data for Munson Slough (WBID 807D) above the lake 

show a signifi cant decline in nutrients, TP, TN, NO3-N, TKN, and BOD 

over historical levels in 1970–1980. This probably refl ects the reduction 

and eventual removal of municipal sewage loading to the slough and the 

Central Drainage Ditch. The reduction in nutrients is also seen in Lake 

Munson (WBID 807C) and Munson Slough (WBID 807) below the lake. 

Other signifi cant urban tributaries to Munson Slough include the Central 

Drainage Ditch (WBID 857), Godby Ditch (WBID 820), and 

St. Augustine Branch (WBID 865), which show similar declines in 

nutrients and low organic matter (BOD). 

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. Since 1984, all of the signifi cant point sources have 

been removed from direct discharge to the drainage basin, including the 

City of Tallahassee’s Lake Bradford, Dale Mabry, and T.P. Smith municipal 

wastewater treatment plants. Most of the treated effl uent, with a permitted 

fl ow of 19.84 million gallons per day (mgd), is land-applied at the City of 

Tallahassee Southeast Farm wastewater sprayfi elds on Tram Road in the 

St. Marks Planning Unit. However, some wastewater effl uent and 

municipal sludge are or have been land-applied at the T.P. Smith facility 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

attained;

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

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

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

a pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Table 3.14 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 103
and on land at the Tallahassee airport, which are located in this planning 

unit. Other sources include nonsurface discharges by sprayfi elds or 

percolation ponds.

Appendix E lists the basins’ 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. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, land use in the planning unit is dominated by upland forest 

(47.4 percent), followed by urban and built-up (38.5 percent). This 

planning unit has a larger area in the urban and built-up category than the 

other planning units in the basin. Developed land uses can be associated 

with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. 

Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in the 

basins by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

For more than 60 years, Lake Munson received a heavy load of 

nutrients, toxics, and sediments from stormwater runoff and treated sewage 

effl uent. In 1982, it was classifi ed as hypereutrophic and the seventh 

most degraded lake in the state. The discharges of treated sewage were 

eliminated in 1984, improving water quality to the point that the lake 

was reclassifi ed as eutrophic. However, runoff from more than 23,000 

acres, including more than half of Tallahassee, continues to fl ow into Lake 

Munson from Munson Slough.

Problems observed in recent years include fi sh kills, algal blooms, 

invasive exotic species (primarily water hyacinth and hydrilla), high 

nutrient and bacteria levels, low DO levels, reduced numbers and low 

productivity of game fi sh, and reports of fi sh with sores. Studies during 

the 1980s also found pesticides and metals concentrations in amounts that 

were 10 to 100 times greater than other area lakes such as Miccosukee, 

Iamonia, and Jackson. The contaminants include polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs); chlordane; DDT and its breakdown products; dieldrin; 

lead; chromium; copper; and zinc, all of which concentrate in lake 

sediments. The accumulation of organic muck, degraded water quality, 

and reduced water depth lowered fi sh biomass by at least 75 percent 

between 1976 and 1987. As a result, sport fi shing was all but eliminated 

(Bartel and Ard, 1992; Bocz and Hand, 1985; Livingston, 1997; and Lake 

Munson Action Plan, 1994).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects complying 

with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been 

provided for the impaired waters. Future activities should, however, 

produce water quality improvements. In-lake restoration activities are 

planned for Lake Munson as a follow-up to the delta removal and creation 

of additional stormwater retention at Lake Henrietta. The City of 

Tallahassee also has long-range plans to improve stormwater treatment for 

the urban ditches.

104 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
• Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit

General Description

Both Fisher Creek and Lost Creek originate in the Apalachicola 

National Forest south of Tallahassee and remain for the most part in the 

national forest. Both streams disappear into sinkholes as they enter the 

Woodville Karst Plain. This planning unit also includes an area of small, 

upland, clear lakes on sand ridges. The most notable lake is Moore Lake.

Figure 3.12, a composite map that includes the planning unit, shows 

waters on the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential 

pollution sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.15 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies with data include 

Lost Creek (WBID 995), its tributary Mill Creek (WBID 1143), Black 

Creek (WBID 1054), Clear Lake (WBID 1003), and Moore Lake (WBID 

889A). Fisher Creek data are included in the Moore Lake Drain (WBID 

889) data set. The table and fi gure show that one waterbody segment in 

the planning unit is verifi ed impaired. Moore Lake is verifi ed impaired 

for a fi sh consumption advisory, based on new data (0.5975 milligrams 

per kilogram [mg/kg] of Hg in fi sh tissue vs. criteria of 0.5 mg/kg). Lost 

Creek (WBID 995) is potentially impaired for DO. 

Trend data for Lost Creek (WBID 995) suggest an increase of TP over 

the last 10 years. Data for Moore Lake (WBID 889A) indicate a slight 

increase in TN and a decrease in TP over the past 10 years. 

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are no known point sources in the planning 

unit. However, the City of Tallahassee Municipal Airport (in the 

transportation land use category) is at the headwaters of the basin.

Nonpoint Sources. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, land use in the planning unit is dominated by upland forest 

(59.9 percent) and wetlands (35.7 percent), with a small amount of urban 

and built-up (1.8 percent). Developed land uses can be associated with 

nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments.

Appendix F provides summary information on general land uses in 

the basins by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Our references included no studies to indicate any confi rmed 

ecological problems.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, there are currently no specifi c management 

plans or projects to address water quality.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 105
Figure 3.12: Composite Map of the Lost Creek/Fisher Creek and Wakulla River Planning Units, Including the 

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

106 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.15: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

1003 Clear Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1044 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1054 Black Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A Turbidity 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1073 Cow Swamp 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1102 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1143 Mill Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

889 Moore Lake 

Drain

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

889A Moore Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A MercuryFish N/A 5 Verified List 

995 Lost Creek Stream IIIF N/A DO N/A N/A 3c Planning List 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 107
• Wakulla River Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit includes the Wakulla River and its tributaries. The 

headwaters of this relatively short river are in Wakulla Springs State Park 

south of Tallahassee. Most of the river fl ow originates at Wakulla Springs, 

which has a large, as-yet-undetermined recharge area. The planning unit 

includes several springs in addition to Wakulla Springs. These include 

Sally Ward Spring, McBride Slough, and Indian Springs. Sally Ward 

Spring, McBride Slough, and Big Boggy Branch are the main surface water 

tributaries to the Wakulla River. Trout Pond, Lofton Pond, and Little 

Lofton Pond, lakes in the National Forest that are not connected with the 

Wakulla River system, are also located in the planning unit.

Figure 3.12, a composite map that contains the planning unit, shows 

waters on the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential 

pollution sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.16 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include Wakulla River (WBID 1006), its springs and tributaries, 

and the lakes. The table and fi gure show that one waterbody segment in 

the planning unit has been verifi ed as impaired.

The Wakulla River (WBID 1006) is verifi ed impaired because of a 

biological imbalance attributable to nutrients being discharged by the 

springs. Some waters, including Sally Ward Spring and McBride Slough, 

are potentially impaired for DO; however, low DO in these cases appears 

to be naturally occurring. Most of the other waterbody segments do not 

have suffi cient data to be evaluated.

The trend data for Wakulla Springs (WBID 1006X) and Wakulla 

River (WBID 1006) show a decrease in TP since 1970, but an increase in 

TN and alkalinity. Big Boggy Branch (WBID 1124) has shown increasing 

trends for TN and fecal coliforms.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There is only one signifi cant industrial source in the 

planning unit. St. Marks Powder, which manufactures smokeless gun 

propellants, historically discharged treated industrial effl uent to Big Boggy 

Branch, which is tidally affected. The City of Tallahassee Purdom Power 

Plant now receives the wastewater from St. Marks Powder for industrial 

reuse.

Appendix E lists the basins’ 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. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, the predominant land use in the planning unit consists of 

upland forest (62 percent) followed by a signifi cant urban and built-up 

fraction (20.2 percent), which is mostly low-density residential. Residential 

development in the Wakulla River basin is increasing. Developed land 

uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded 

108 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Table 3.16: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Wakulla River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

1006 Wakulla River Stream IIIF N/A Dioxin Biology DO, Total Coliforms, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5 Verified List 

1006A Trout Pond Spring IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1006B Lofton Pond Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data

1006C Little Lofton 

Pond

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1006X Wakulla 

Springs 

Spring IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1006Y Sally Ward 

Spring 

Spring IIIF N/A DO N/A N/A 3c Planning List 

1006Z Indian Springs Spring IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data

1028 McBride 

Slough

Stream IIIF N/A DO N/A N/A 3c Planning List 

1124 Big Boggy 

Branch

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 109
sediments. Appendix F provides summary information on general land 

uses in the basins by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Invasive aquatic vegetation is a problem in the Wakulla River. 

Dominant invasive plants include hydrilla, water hyacinth, and water 

lettuce (Department, Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, 2000). 

Although hydrilla has been present in the lower Wakulla River for years, it 

was just discovered in the Wakulla Springs pool relatively recently, where it 

has quickly formed dense beds and replaced native eelgrass. There appears 

to be a correlation between hydrilla growth and the increase in nutrient 

concentrations in the spring water.

According to Wakulla Springs State Park bird count records, there 

has been a conspicuous decline in the limpkin population along the river 

(Savery, Department). The decline of the limpkin, a state-listed species, 

is related to the disappearance of apple snails, a primary food source. 

Their decline is postulated as being related to the hydrilla infestation. 

Accelerated growth of dense algal mats has also been observed in the 

Wakulla River; this may be caused by the increased nutrient concentrations 

discharged by springs.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, there are presently no management plans 

or projects complying with the Department’s guidance for reasonable 

assurance to address the impaired waters. A protection zone has been 

delineated around Wakulla Springs and is used by Wakulla County 

planners. Wakulla Springs State Park manages aquatic vegetation 

infestation in the river through physical removal and occasional herbicide 

applications.

• Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit includes bays and estuaries, tidal creeks, and 

nearshore coastal waters and beaches that are located in the Ochlockonee 

or St. Marks Basins. Specifi c waterbodies include the Gulf of Mexico, 

Apalachee Bay, Ochlockonee Bay, Dickerson Bay, Oyster Bay and the 

Spring Creek system, Goose Creek Bay, the mouth of the St. Marks River, 

East River, and Pinhook River. It also includes beaches at Shell Point and 

Mashes Island. Spring Creek, and the large contribution from its marine 

spring discharge, is the largest stream. Spring Creek Springs is the largest 

magnitude spring system in Florida, with an average fl ow (in 1970) of 

approximately 2,000 cfs (Rosenau et al., 1977).

Figure 3.13, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on 

the 1998 303(d) list, Planning List, Verifi ed List, and potential pollution 

sources.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.17 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented 

110 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Figure 3.13: Composite Map of the Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit, Including the 

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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 111
Table 3.17: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay 

Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

1032 Hosford 

Branch Reach

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1071 Direct Runoff 

To Bay 

Estuary II N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1089 East River Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1139 Unnamed 

Slough

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1146 Spring Creek Estuary IIIM N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1146Z Spring Creek 

Spring

Spring IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1152 Pinhook River Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1158 West Goose 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1165 Otter Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1169 Buckhorn 

Creek

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1176 Direct Runoff 

To Bay

Estuary II N/A N/A N/A DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1176A Lake Ellen Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1188 Walker Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1198 Alligator Lake 

Outlet 

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1222 Unnamed 

Drain

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

1223 Dickerson Bay Estuary IIIF N/A N/A N/A DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1239 Direct Runoff 

To Bay

Stream II N/A N/A N/A DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses 

5001 Oyster Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data

8025 Ochlockonee 

Bay Gulf

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFishDO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5 Verified List

8025B Mashes Island Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFish, 

Beach 

Advisory

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5 Verified List

112 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters of 

Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

Potentially 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Verified 

Impaired 

for These 

Parameters 

Not Impaired 

for These 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID3

8026 Coastal 

Apalachee 

Gulf West 

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFish, 

BacteriaShellfish 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity

5 Verified List

8026B Shell Point 

 

 

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFish, 

Beach 

Advisory

Fecal 

Coliforms

5 Verified List

8027 Coast 

Apalachee 

Gulf Mid

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFishN/A 5 Verified List

8028 Coast 

Apalachee 

Gulf East

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFishN/A 5 Verified List

8999 Florida Gulf 

Coast

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFishN/A 5 Verified List

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

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

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

pollutant;

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

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

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

N/A = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.

Table 3.17 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 113
by these data include coastal waters and beaches, estuaries, estuarine 

tributaries, blackwater streams, lakes and the Spring Creek Spring. This is 

not a well-monitored area. Of the 25 waterbodies or segments, 14 do not 

have suffi cient data to be evaluated. In general, coastal segments have only 

been evaluated for bacteria at beaches, bacteria associated with shellfi shing 

waters, and for mercury in fi sh. All of the coastal segments are verifi ed 

impaired based on mercury in fi sh. One coastal segment (WBID 8026) 

was determined to be impaired based on downgrade of shellfi shing status 

due to bacteria. 

The two beaches monitored, Shell Point (8026A) and Mashes Island 

(8025B), were verifi ed impaired because of the number of beach closures 

issued based on bacteria counts in the water. Trend data for Shell Point 

(WBID 8026A) show upward trends for TN, DO, pH, and fecal coliforms, but declines in TP and chlorophyll a (representing nutrients).

Most of the remaining waterbodies or segments had little or no data 

by which they could be evaluated. None of the remaining waterbodies or 

segments were identifi ed as impaired or potentially impaired. DOH data 

show that these beaches were closed for at least 21 days in 2001. Coastal 

Apalachee West (WBID 8026) is verifi ed impaired because of shellfi sh area 

downgrades since 1979. 

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. There are no known surface discharges in the 

planning unit. Several wastewater facilities discharge to percolation ponds 

or sprayfi elds. These include the Shell Point sewage treatment plant (0.024 

mgd) and Wakulla County sewage treatment plant (0.2 mgd).

Appendix E lists the basins’ 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. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, most of the land area in this planning unit (46 percent) is 

covered by upland forest, much of which is in either the Apalachicola 

National Forest or the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. Wetlands 

cover approximately 43 percent of the area and these are also largely 

in the government managed lands. Urban/built-up land uses occupy 

approximately 5 percent of the land area. Appendix F provides summary 

information on general land uses in the basins by planning unit.

Ecological Impacts

Few data were found to document the condition of the estuary and its 

associated watersheds. Few studies have been conducted in Apalachee Bay. 

This assessment identifi ed no ecological problems.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

For this planning unit, no management plans or projects complying 

with the Department’s guidance for reasonable assurance have been 

provided for the 2002 list of impaired waters.

114 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Chapter 4: 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 1 basins across the state. Table 4.1 lists the schedule that was 

followed for the development and adoption of the Group 1 Verifi ed List 

for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, including the public meetings. 

Appendix G contains documentation provided during the public comment 

period.

Basin-specifi c draft Verifi ed Lists of waters that met the requirements 

of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) were made available to the 

public on July 12, 2002. The lists were placed on the Department’s Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (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 eight public meetings were held across 

the state to encourage public participation in the Group 1 basins. The 

Department also accepted written comments for 45 days beginning 

July 12, 2002, and ending August 26, 2002.

Following the public meetings for the Group 1 basins, which took 

place between July 19 and July 25, 2002, revised draft lists were made 

available to the public on August 7, 2002. 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 received by August 2, 2002, were 

considered in preparing the revised draft lists. 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 were adopted by Secretarial Order during the week 

of August 26–30, 2002, and were submitted to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) on October 1, 2002, as the state’s current 303(d) 

list of impaired waters.

Identification of Impaired Waters

As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on either the Planning or Verifi ed 

Lists must meet specifi c thresholds and data suffi ciency and data quality 

requirements in the IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code 

[F.A.C.]). Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 115
for the development of the Planning and Verifi ed Lists, and Appendix C

includes the evaluation methodologies, listing criteria, and data thresholds 

that apply under the IWR.

Any waters that do not have suffi cient data to be analyzed in 

accordance with the requirements of the IWR will remain on the 1998 

303(d) list of impaired waters maintained by the EPA. These waters 

are not delisted, and they will be sampled during the next phases of the 

watershed management cycle so that their impairment status can be 

verifi ed.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review of Florida’s 

Amended Section 303(d) List

On June 11, 2003, the EPA released a Decision Document based on its 

review of the Department’s amendments to Florida’s 1998 Section 303(d) 

list. The EPA found that the Department’s Group 1 update substantially 

met the intent of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and partially 

approved the submission.

Applying its own evaluation methodology, the EPA proposed listing 

80 additional waterbody segments/pollutants for public comment by 

July 18, 2003. Under this methodology, approximately half of the added 

waters failed to meet water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO), 

but no causative pollutant could be identifi ed. Florida law precludes the 

Department from including such waters on its Verifi ed List of impaired 

waters until the causative pollutant is known. The majority of the 

remaining waters were added to the list based on a different interpretation 

of the methodology for assessing potential impairment for bacteria. The 

Department agreed to apply this alternative methodology when assessing 

the next group (Group 2) of waterbodies for bacteria.

The consequence of having the EPA add waters to Florida’s Section 

303(d) list is that the EPA would be obligated to propose TMDLs for 

these waters. However, the EPA has proposed assigning a “low” priority 

to these waterbodies, thus providing the Department an opportunity to 

investigate them further. The section on “Prioritization of Listed Waters” 

in Chapter 5 provides additional details on the criteria for high-, low-,

and medium-priority waters. Information on the status of Florida’s 

amended Section 303(d) list can be found on the EPA’s Web site at http:

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

Table 4.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 1 Verified Lists

Date Scheduled Activity

July 12, 2002 Publication of Draft Verified List and Beginning of Public Comment Period

July 19, 2002 Public Meeting at Marco Island on the Statewide Verified List for All Group 1 Basins

July 22, 2002 Public Meeting in Tallahassee on the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

August 7, 2002 Publication of Revised Draft List

August 14, 2002 Public Meeting in Tallahassee on Revised Draft List for All Basins, and Public Comments and 

Input from Prior Public Meetings

August 26, 2002 Final Deadline for Receiving Public Comments

August 26–30, 2002 Adoption of Verified List by Secretarial Order

October 1, 2002 Submittal to EPA as State’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters for 2002

116 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
The Verified List of Impaired Waters

Table 4.2 contains the Verifi ed List of impaired waters for the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, based on the water quality assessment 

performed by the Department for the October 2002 update to the 

303(d) list. Figure 4.1 shows waters on the Verifi ed List for the basins 

as of January 2003 and the projected year for TMDL development. 

For presentation purposes, the entire watershed for the listed water is 

highlighted. However, only the main waterbody in the WBID has been 

assessed, and other waters in the watershed may not be impaired.

Since the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list, further data became 

available for assessment of the basins, and these data were used to update 

the listing status of waters. Table D.1 in Appendix D contains the listing 

status of all assessed waters in the basins as of January 2003. An order 

containing the initial Verifi ed List of Impaired Group 1 Waters (Verifi ed 

List) was signed by the Department’s Secretary on August 26, 2002. 

Errors and omissions to the list were corrected in October 2002. On 

March 11, 2003, the Department’s Secretary signed an order amending 

the October 2002 Verifi ed List for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

with the January 2003 listing status. The order was offi cially noticed in the 

March 28, 2003, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly, which began 

a 21-day period to fi le a petition challenging the order and a 30-day period 

to appeal the order.

Pollutants Causing Impairments

North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

Most of the potentially impaired water body identifi cation numbers 

(WBIDs) in the planning unit are on the Planning List for fi sh 

consumption advisories. The Ochlockonee River (WBID 1297F, the 

segment immediately south of the Georgia–Florida state line) and Little 

River (WBID 424) are on the Verifi ed List for total coliforms. The sources 

of total coliforms in both of these segments were discussed in a previous 

Department report (Wieckowicz, 2000). The total coliform exceedances 

in the northern segment of the Ochlockonee River, measured at the state 

line, are attributable to sources in Georgia. Little River, with headwaters 

(Little Attapulgus Creek, Attapulgus Creek, and Swamp Creek) in Georgia, 

has similar problems with total coliform impairment. The state of Georgia 

has water quality criteria regulating fecal coliforms, but does not have a 

water quality standard for total coliforms. Georgia has developed TMDLs 

for fecal coliforms for basin tributaries to the Ochlockonee River above the 

state line (GDNR-EPD, 2000a–h), as well as tributaries to the Little River. 

However, the standards adopted by Georgia differ from those in the state of 

Florida and are less restrictive on a year-round basis. 

The sources permitted by Georgia in the Little River Basin include 

permits for mining operations by the Floridin Company–Decatur Mine 

(NPDES GA0036978) and Englehard Corporation (NPDES GA0001678). 

These operations are not expected to be sources of fecal coliforms. 

Coliforms in surface water may be originating from nonpoint sources 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 117
Table 4.2: The Verified List of Impaired Waters

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface Waters 

Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development1

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development Comments

North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

424 Little River Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

Total Suspended 

Solids

Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2007 Listed based upon 

new data.

1297F Ochlockonee 

River

Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

Fish

Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2007 Listed based upon 

new data.

540A Tallavana Lake Lake N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

Medium 2007 Nutrients co-limiting. Possible 

sources include 

residential area and 

nursery runoff.

Lake Jackson Planning Unit

582B Lake Jackson Lake N/A DO Medium 2007 Nitrogen limited. 

Previously listed 

as WBID 582. Lake 

Jackson Drainage 

Area. 

582 Lake Jackson Lake N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

Medium 2007 Linked to DO. Nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and co-limitation. 

Telogia Creek Planning Unit

1300 Telogia Creek Stream N/A Fecal 

Coliforms

Medium 2007

1300 Telogia Creek Stream N/A Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2007

St Marks River Planning Unit

628 Black Creek Stream DO DO Low 2007 High phosphorus 

value (0.29 mg/L); 

nitrogen and colimited. 

971B Lake Weeks Lake N/A DO Medium 2007 DO related to 

nutrients.

Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit

791L Lake 

Miccosukee

Lake Fish Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2007 Agriculture and 

residential runoff. 

Co-limitation. 

118 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface Waters 

Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development1

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development Comments

Lake Lafayette Planning Unit

647 Alford Arm Lake N/A DO Medium 2007 Residential runoff 

and minimal flow. 

Linked to BOD. 

756A Lake LafayetteUpperLake N/A DO High 2002 Urban runoff. 

Original WBID 756 

included 756A, 

756B, and 756C. 

Linked to nutrients, 

high phosphorus. 

756A Lake LafayetteUpperLake N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

High 2002 Urban runoff. 

Linked to phosphorus. High priority 

because previously 

listed under WBID 

756 with high priority.

756C Lake LafayetteLowerLake N/A DO Medium 2007 Linked to nutrients. 

Original WBID 756 

included 756A, 

756B, and 756C. 

Possible sources 

include urban runoff 

and landfill.

756C Lake LafayetteLowerLake N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

Medium 2007 Linked to phosphorus. Original WBID 

756 included 756A, 

756B, and 756C. 

Possible source 

includes urban 

runoff.

756 Lake Lafayette 

Drain

Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity

DO Medium 2007 Urban runoff. 

Original WBID 756 

included 756A, 

756B, and 756C. 

Linked to high BOD. 

756 Lake Lafayette 

Drain

Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity

Fecal 

Coliforms

High 2002 Urban runoff. 

Original WBID 756 

included 756A, 

756B, and 756C. 

756 Lake Lafayette 

Drain

Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity

Total 

Coliforms

High 2002 Urban runoff. 

Original WBID 756 

included 756A, 

756B, and 756C. 

Table 4.2 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 119
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface Waters 

Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development1

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development Comments

Lake Lafayette Planning Unit, continued

756B Lake Piney Z Lake N/A DO Medium 2007 Linked to nutrients, 

co-limiting. City 

of Tallahassee data 

indicate overabundance of vegetation. Original WBID 

756 included 756A, 

756B, and 756C. 

756B Lake Piney Z Lake N/A Nutrients 

(TSI)

Medium 2007 Urban runoff. 

Original WBID 756 

included 756A, 

756B, and 756C. 

Co-limitation of 

nitrogen and 

phosphorus. 

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit

807C Lake Munson Lake Nutrients DO Medium 2007 Linked to nutrients; 

high BOD.

807C Lake Munson Lake Nutrients Nutrients 

(TSI)

Medium 2007 Linked to phosphorus limitation.

807D Munson Slough 

(Above Lake)

Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

DO

DO Medium 2007 Linked to nutrients. 

Nitrogen limited. 

Urban runoff.

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit

889 Moore Lake Lake N/A Mercury-Fish Low 2011 2001 Data indicates 

impairment; Hg 

average = 0.5975 

mg/kg in tissue.

Wakulla River Planning Unit

1006 Wakulla River Stream N/A Biology Medium 2007 Failed 5 Stream 

Condition Index 

(SCI) studies; linked 

to nutrients. Colimitation.

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit

8026 Apalachee BayWestCoastal N/A Bacteria 

(shellfish)

Medium 2007 Listed based on 

downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting 

classification.

8025B Mashes Island Coastal Beach 

Advisory

High 2007 Mashes Sands 

beach had advisories for at least 21 

days in 2001. 

Table 4.2 (continued)

120 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface Waters 

Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development1

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development Comments

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit, continued

8026B Shell Point Coastal Beach 

Advisory

High 2007 Shell Point beach 

had advisories for 

at least 21 days in 

2001. 

8999 Florida Gulf 

Coast

Coastal Mercury-Fish Low 2011 Confirmed recent 

data for coastal 

fish advisory for 

mackerel. Includes 

nearshore coastal 

segments in WBID 

8025 and 8026 

series. 

1 Where a parameter was 1998 303(d) listed, the priority shown for that parameter in the 1998 303(d) list was retained (high or 

low). Where a parameter was only identified as impaired under the IWR, priorities of high, medium, or low were used. Dates 

and priorities in parentheses indicate a TMDL is scheduled under the terms of the consent decree between EPA and Earthjustice, but there are insufficient data available to assess the water according to the specifications of the IWR.

including wildlife, land application of agricultural manure, grazing 

animals, and urban development (GDNR-EPD, 2000d). The Little 

River Basin in Florida includes additional permitted mining facilities 

(Appendix E) and the discharge from the city of Quincy sewage treatment 

plant and its urban area to Tanyard Branch and Quincy Creek. These 

are also potential sources of the total coliforms found in the Little River 

segment.

Several Georgia permitted wastewater facilities discharge to either 

the main stem of the Ochlockonee River or one of its tributaries. The 

nearest facilities to the state line include the City of Cairo Water Pollution 

Control Plant (WPCP), with a fl ow of 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) 

to Parkers Mill Creek, and an industrial discharger to Little Tired Creek 

(W. B. Roddenberry Co.). Additional dischargers to Oquina Creek in 

Thomasville, Georgia, include the City of Thomasville WPCP.

Lake Tallavana (WBID 540A) is on the Verifi ed List for nutrients 

(Trophic State Index [TSI]). The impairment was documented by 

volunteer monitoring data collected by lake-area residents who participate 

in the LakeWatch volunteer monitoring program. The two main streams 

feeding the lake are Hurricane Creek and Beaver Creek. These streams 

receive runoff from ornamental plant nurseries and cattle pastures that may 

contribute signifi cant nutrient loads to the lake. Residential runoff and 

septic tank inputs from the area around the lake may also contribute to the 

nutrient load the lake is receiving. In an attempt to restore Lake Tallavana, 

the homeowners’ group has lowered the lake level to remove aquatic 

vegetation (Swanson, 2003; Songer, 2002).

Table 4.2 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 121
Figure 4.1: Waters on the Verified List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development

122 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Potential impairment for DO has been documented for Lake Talquin 

(WBID 1297D). In addition to the point and nonpoint sources listed 

above, the Lake Talquin dam creates a nutrient trap in the Ochlockonee 

River below U.S. 90. In determining pollutants that cause DO 

impairments, the database is limited by the sparse data for BOD. However, 

sediment oxygen demand (SOD) can have an equivalent effect, although 

these data are usually not available. 

South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

There are no verifi ed impairments for waterbodies in the planning unit, 

although 7 WBIDs are potentially impaired based on fi sh consumption 

advisories (mercury in fi sh tissue).

Lake Iamonia Planning Unit

There are no verifi ed impairments, but several lakes in the planning 

unit are potentially impaired by nutrients (TSI). As mentioned previously, 

several (but not all) lakes in the Killearn Lakes development were 

designated by the Department as stormwater treatment ponds and are 

considered exempt from normal Class III criteria. This may not apply 

to Lake Arrowhead (WBID 564A), which drains to the Strickland Arm 

of Lake Iamonia, because it is not specifi cally listed as a treatment pond 

and must meet Class III criteria. The Lake Monkey Business Tributary 

downstream of the dam and Lester Cove Tributary (McGlynn, 1999) and 

its tributaries (included in parts of WBIDs 563 and 546) also must meet 

Class III criteria. Sources of nutrients include residential development, a 

golf course, and rapidly expanding commercial development along the 

U.S. 319/Bradfordville Road corridor.

The fl ows into Lake Iamonia, which include Lester Cove Tributary, 

Strickland Arm (Plantation H Tributary), Foshalee Slough, and tributaries 

crossing State Road (S.R.) 12 on the north, have been small on average 

during the past fi ve years (Wieckowicz, 2003). Large fl ows (>100 cfs) 

periodically enter Lake Iamonia from Ochlockonee River fl ooding from 

two bridge sites on Meridian Road. Flooding lasts for several days until 

water levels reach equilibrium. The sinkhole in the lake bed near the north 

shore of Lake Iamonia and the slough connection to the Ochlockonee River 

are the two known outlets for the lake. 

Lake Jackson Planning Unit

Lake Jackson (WBID 582B) is on the Verifi ed List for nutrients (TSI) 

and DO related to nutrients. Lake Jackson and Lake Jackson Outlet 

(WBID 582) are also potentially impaired for total and fecal coliforms. 

Possible sources of nutrients and bacteria include septic tanks (Thorpe and 

Krottje, 2000) draining into streams on the west side of the lake, including 

Harbinwood Estates Drain/Jackson Heights Creek (WBID 746), Butlers 

Mill Creek, and Unnamed Run (WBID 721). 

Megginnis Arm Run (WBID 809) is potentially impaired for nutrients 

(chlorophyll a) and DO. This highly urban stream has been studied 

for over 20 years (Livingston, 1997; NWFWMD, 1994, 1997b). A 

tremendous amount of resources has been devoted to capturing stormwater 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 123
from Megginnis Arm and dredging muck from the lake bottom. However, 

limited data are available to determine how successful the dredging has 

been, as the lake is slowly refi lling after draining in the fall of 1999.

Telogia Creek Planning Unit

Telogia Creek (WBID 1300) is on the Verifi ed List for total and fecal 

coliforms. The earliest comprehensive look at this basin was done as part 

of water quality-based effl uent limit (WQBEL) studies of the Gretna 

sewage treatment plant discharge to the headwaters of Telogia Creek 

(Wieckowicz, 1981b) and the Reichhold Chemical discharge to Stokes 

Branch (Wieckowicz, 1981a). Since the area is so sparsely populated and 

the Gretna discharge has been moved downstream, agricultural runoff and 

wildlife are suspected contributors to the exceedances.

Sopchoppy River Planning Unit

There are no verifi ed impairments for waterbodies in the planning 

unit, only potential impairments for mercury in fi sh tissue in West Branch 

Sopchoppy River (WBID 1038), Sopchoppy River (WBID 998), and 

Ochlockonee Bay (WBID 1248C). At this time, the only suspected source 

for the mercury is atmospheric contributions.

St. Marks River Planning Unit

Two waterbodies in the planning unit, Black Creek (WBID 628) 

and Lake Weeks (WBID 971B), are on the Verifi ed List. These are both 

verifi ed impaired for DO related to nutrients. In addition, the following 

WBIDs are potentially impaired for DO: a segment of the St. Marks 

River (WBID 793B), Chicken Branch (WBID 971), Horn Springs 

(WBID 793Z), and Copeland Sink Drain (WBID 808). Some of the DO 

exceedances for the potentially impaired waterbodies can be explained 

as natural, as spring DO emerging from a boil is usually around 1 mg/l 

(FGS, 2002). The low organic matter (BOD) and low nutrients in springs 

will enable the DO to quickly approach saturation down a spring run. 

However, some of the streams, such as Copeland Sink Drain, are fl ow 

(velocity) limited, but contain higher amounts of organic matter from 

adjoining wetlands. Consequently, these streams may be naturally low 

in DO without urban runoff. The Department’s Watershed Assessment 

Section recently installed stream gages on Chicken Branch and Lake Weeks 

to determine their hydrology.

Lastly, while not documented in the current database, the 

Department’s Site Investigation Section investigated the St. Marks Refi nery 

site near the St. Marks River (Ecology and Environment, 2002). This 

was the former site of a fuel tank farm and a wood treating operation. 

Surface water, ground water, and sediment samples were analyzed for 

hundreds of compounds. These include base-neutral and acid-extractable 

organics (BNAs), dioxins, target analyte list metals, volatile organic 

compounds, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). The migration 

of some of these compounds (dioxins, pentachlorophenol, and petroleum 

hydrocarbons) into the ground water, Rattlesnake Branch, or the St. Marks 

River is still being studied.

124 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit

Lake Miccosukee (WBID 791N) is on the Verifi ed List for total 

coliforms. A main tributary to Lake Miccosukee is Ward Creek (WBID 

459), the upper portions of which have been impacted by urban runoff 

(from southern Thomasville, Georgia) and by discharge from Georgia 

Southwest Hospital. Ward Creek fl ows through mainly agricultural lands, 

consisting of hunting plantations and some ornamental plant nurseries near 

Monticello, before it reaches the lake. It is potentially impaired for DO, 

based on moderate BOD and nutrient loading. Portions of Ward Creek 

have been impounded in Georgia, which sometimes exaggerates the creek’s 

low fl ow and velocity. The backwater effects and thick aquatic vegetation 

in Lake Miccosukee also contribute to lower velocities and low DO. Lake 

Miccosukee’s water levels are controlled at both the north end, which fl ows 

into a sink, and the south end (U.S. 90), which fl ows into another sink. 

Lake Lafayette Planning Unit

Lake Lafayette Drain (WBID 756) is verifi ed impaired for total and 

fecal coliforms. This complex set of waterbodies, along with Upper Lake 

Lafayette (WBID 756A), Lake Piney Z (WBID 756B), Lower Lake 

Lafayette (WBID 756C), and Alford Arm (WBID 647) are also verifi ed 

impaired for DO. In addition, Upper Lake Lafayette and Lower Lake 

Lafayette are verifi ed impaired for nutrients (based on TSI). 

The hydrology of this planning unit is complicated by its combination 

of highly urbanized and undeveloped areas and the karst topography. Lake 

Lafayette Drain (WBID 756) contains high levels of BOD, nutrients, and 

total and fecal coliform bacteria. Periods of high fl ow, followed by periods 

of no fl ow, contribute to low DO in the Northeast Drainage Ditch and 

Lafayette Creek, which feed Upper Lake Lafayette. Additional tributaries 

to this WBID include Mall Drainage Ditch (Park Avenue Tributary, 

WBID 863) and McCord Park Ditch, which drains the area from Lake Ella 

eastward. Lake Ella provides treatment of urban stormwater within Lake 

Lafayette Drain as well as serving as a recreational purpose. The City of 

Tallahassee has been involved with an urban retrofi t project on Lake Ella to 

reduce the nutrients in this hypereutrophic lake by sediment muck removal 

and alum injection (Livingston, 1999).

Upper Lake Lafayette is also impacted by large amounts of water 

hyacinth that are fl ushed from Weems Pond, a pond constructed by the 

Florida Department of Transportation to treat stormwater infl ows to the 

Lake Lafayette system. The only fl ushing of nutrients from Upper Lake 

Lafayette is to a sinkhole. 

Lake Piney Z has only small tributary inputs plus intermittent fl ows 

from stormwater ponds, but the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 

(FWC) artifi cially controls its fl ushing at both east and west ends with 

small culvert pipes. The thick aquatic vegetation also contributes to its low 

levels of DO.

Alford Arm headwaters consist of Lake McBride, which drains to 

Millstone Creek. The lack of fl ow throughout this basin, combined with 

the impoundments of Lakes Killarney, Kinsail, and Kanturk, Cross Creek 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 125
Lake, and several dams south of Buck Lake Road, all contribute to the DO 

impairment. 

Lower Lake Lafayette is cumulatively impacted by low fl ow and 

DO input from Alford Arm, small fl ows from tributaries along U.S. 27, 

and proximity to the Leon County Landfi ll and Talquin Electric sewage 

treatment plant percolation ponds. The resultant thick mats (tussocks) of 

vegetation in Lower Lake Lafayette have been harvested during the past 

two years from an area in the Windwood Hills subdivision and along the 

boundary with Lake Piney Z. 

Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit

Lake Munson (WBID 807C) and Munson Slough north of the 

lake (WBID 807D) are verifi ed impaired for DO. Lake Munson is also 

impaired for nutrients (based on TSI). Verifi cation of the DO exceedance 

is based on high loadings of BOD in stormwater. Lake Munson receives 

urban stormwater from more than half of the city of Tallahassee via several 

large drainage ditches. No recent data have been collected in the Fred 

George Sink Basin portion of this planning unit to determine impairment. 

However, rapid urbanization along U.S. 27, Old Bainbridge Road, Fred 

George Road, and Mission Road corridors will require collection of some 

baseline data in the near future.

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek Planning Unit

Moore Lake (WBID 889A) is verifi ed impaired based on a fi sh 

consumption advisory (mercury in recent fi sh tissue data). Lost Creek 

(WBID 995) is potentially impaired for DO. Land cover in this planning 

unit is almost completely forested, so that only isolated septic tank 

impacts might be expected. Lost Creek is expected to be naturally low 

in DO, given the small stream slopes and exposure to naturally decaying 

vegetation.

Wakulla River Planning Unit

The Wakulla River (WBID 1006) is verifi ed impaired for biology 

based on “poor” bioassessment scores that are attributable to excessive 

growth of aquatic vegetation (hydrilla). Overgrowth of the aquatic 

vegetation is related to elevated nitrate concentrations in water from 

Wakulla Springs (WBID 1006X). Manual and mechanical harvesting 

were tried to reduce the infestation of hydrilla in 2001. Herbicides were 

used in 2002, which greatly reduced the distribution of hydrilla and 

signifi cantly increased the velocity through the river channel. Ongoing 

studies will help to better characterize the sources of nitrate in the ground 

water and area springs. The Wakulla River is also listed as potentially 

impaired for dioxin, a potential pollutant associated with the St. Marks 

Refi nery and surrounding industrial area.

Several springs in this planning unit are listed as potentially impaired 

for DO. However, this may be a natural condition.

Coastal Watershed and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit

Mashes Island (WBID 8025B) and Shell Point (WBID 8026B) are 

verifi ed impaired because of beach closure advisories (greater than 21 days) 

126 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
based on Florida Department of Health (DOH) monitoring of bacteria. 

Apalachee Gulf West (WBID 8026) is impaired because of downgrades in 

shellfi sh classifi cation that are due to bacteria concentrations in the water. 

Florida Gulf Coast (WBID 8999) is verifi ed impaired because of fi sh 

consumption advisories (mercury in recent fi sh tissue data). 

Listing Based on Other Information Indicating Nutrient 

Imbalance

There were no waterbodies or segments included on the verifi ed list 

based solely on other data documenting a nutrient imbalance as defi ned in 

the IWR.

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 water quality 

criteria exceedances, 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 basins. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 127

Chapter 5: TMDL Development, Allocation, 

Implementation, and Monitoring Priorities

Prioritization of Listed Waters

Following the identifi cation of impaired waters on the 303(d) list, the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) determines 

priorities for developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in Phase 

3 of the watershed management cycle. When TMDLs are established, 

general allocations of pollutant load reductions are identifi ed, at least to the 

level of point and nonpoint source categories.

Because TMDLs cannot be developed for all listed waters during a 

single watershed management cycle, waterbodies will be prioritized 

using the criteria in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) 

(Section 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The rule 

states that when establishing the TMDL development schedule for waters 

on the Verifi ed List, the Department will prioritize impaired waterbody 

segments according to the severity of the impairment and each waterbody’s 

designated uses, taking into account the most serious water quality 

problems, most valuable and threatened resources, and risk to human 

health and aquatic life.

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.

TMDL development priorities for impaired waters are either high, 

medium, or low. Discussions with the EPA have resulted in a proposed 

division of work for waters due for TMDLs during 2003. EPA 

requirements for data suffi ciency to develop TMDLs are not as stringent 

as those in the IWR. Nevertheless, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has requested additional historical data on some waters to 

complete its analysis. Table 5.1 lists TMDL development priorities for 

waterbody segments in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins for both the 

Department and the EPA.

Under the IWR, the determination of high-, low-, and mediumpriority waters is based on the following criteria:

High-priority waters are

• 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 endanWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 129
Table 5.1: Priorities for TMDL Development in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

Planning Unit WBID Waterbody Segment Parameter

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development

North Ochlockonee River 424 Little River Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2007

North Ochlockonee River 1297F Ochlockonee River Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2007

North Ochlockonee River 540A Tallavana Lake Nutrients Medium 2007

Lake Jackson 582B Lake Jackson DO Medium 2007

Lake Jackson 582B Lake Jackson Nutrients Medium 2007

Telogia Creek 1300 Telogia Creek Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2007

Telogia Creek 1300 Telogia Creek Fecal 

Coliforms

Medium 2007

St. Marks River 628 Black Creek DO Low 2007

St. Marks River 971B Lake Weeks DO Medium 2007

Lake Miccosukee 791N Lake Miccosukee Total 

Coliforms

Medium 2007

Lake Lafayette 647 Alford Arm DO Medium 2007

Lake Lafayette 756A Lake Lafayette-Upper DO High 2002

Lake Lafayette 756A Lake Lafayette-Upper Nutrients High 2002

Lake Lafayette 756C Lake Lafayette-Lower DO Medium 2007

Lake Lafayette 756C Lake Lafayette-Lower Nutrients Medium 2007

Lake Lafayette 756 Lake Lafayette Drain Total 

Coliforms

High 2002

Lake Lafayette 756 Lake Lafayette Drain Fecal 

Coliforms

High 2002

Lake Lafayette 756 Lake Lafayette Drain DO Medium 2007

Lake Lafayette 756B Lake Piney Z DO Medium 2007

Lake Lafayette 756B Lake Piney Z Nutrients Medium 2007

Lake Munson/Fred George 

Sink

807C Lake Munson DO Medium 2007

Lake Munson/Fred George 

Sink

807C Lake Munson Nutrients Medium 2007

Lake Munson/Fred George 

Sink

807D Munson Slough 

(Above Lake)

DO Medium 2007

Lost Creek/Fisher Creek 889A Moore Lake MercuryFishLow 2011

Wakulla River 1006 Wakulla River Biology Medium 2007

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

8026 Apalachee Bay-West Bacteria 

(Shellfish), 

MercuryFish

Medium 2007

130 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Planning Unit WBID Waterbody Segment Parameter

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

8025 Ochlockonee Bay Gulf MercuryFishMedium 2007

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

8027 Coast Apalachee Gulf 

Mid

MercuryFishMedium 2007

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

8028 Coast Apalachee Gulf 

East

MercuryFishMedium 2007

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

8025B Mashes Island Beach 

Advisory, 

MercuryFish

Medium 2007

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

8026B Shell Point Beach 

Advisory, 

MercuryFish

Medium 2007

Coastal Watersheds and 

Apalachee Bay

8999 Florida Gulf Coast MercuryFishLow 2011

gered species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the species; 

or

• Waterbody segments verifi ed as impaired that are included on the 

EPA’s 1998 303(d) list as high priority.

Low-priority waters are

• 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);

• Human-made canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artifi cial 

waterbody segments that are listed only due to exceedances of the 

DO criteria; or

• Waterbody segments that were not on the Planning List but were 

identifi ed as impaired during Phase 2 of the watershed management 

approach and were included on the Verifi ed List, unless the segment 

meets the second high-priority criterion.

• The EPA has also proposed assigning to this category the list of additional waterbody segments that the agency developed using its own 

evaluation methodology until the Department has had the opportunity to investigate these waterbodies further.

All segments not designated high or low priority are medium priority, 

and are prioritized based on the following factors:

• The presence of Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs);

Table 5.1 (continued)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 131
• 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, and drinking water and 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 basins.

TMDL Development

During Phase 3 of the watershed management cycle, TMDLs will 

be developed for waterbodies that are impaired by point and/or nonpoint 

sources of pollutants and will be adopted by rule at the end of this phase.

TMDL development involves determining the maximum amount 

of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the 

applicable numeric or narrative water quality criterion for the pollutant. In 

most cases, this “assimilative” capacity will be determined using computer 

modeling (both hydrodynamic and water quality models) to predict the 

fate and transport of pollutants in the receiving waters. Modeling for the 

typical TMDL will include model setup, calibration, and verifi cation, 

followed by a variety of model runs that determine the assimilative capacity 

of the water under worst-case conditions.

State law and federal regulations require that TMDLs include a 

margin of safety (MOS) that takes into account “any lack of knowledge 

concerning the relationship between effl uent limitations and water quality.” 

The EPA has allowed states to establish either a specifi c MOS (typically 

some percentage of the assimilative capacity) or an implicit MOS based on 

conservative assumptions in the modeling. To date, the Department has 

elected to establish an implicit MOS based on predictive model runs that 

incorporate a variety of conservative assumptions (they examine worst-case 

ambient fl ow conditions and worst-case temperature, and assume that all 

permitted point sources discharge at their maximum permitted amount).

It is important to note that TMDLs will be developed only for the 

actual pollutants causing the impairment in the listed waterbody. These 

are called the “pollutants of concern.” In Florida, the most commonly 

listed pollutants of concern are nutrients, sediments, and coliforms. 

TMDLs will not be developed for impairments not due to pollutant 

discharges—for example, natural conditions, physical alterations such 

as dams and channelization, or changes in the fl ow of the water. In 

other cases, a waterbody may be deemed potentially impaired based on 

132 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
bioassessment data or toxicity data. In these cases, the Department must 

determine the actual pollutant causing the impairment before a TMDL can 

be developed.

TMDL 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.

Recent EPA guidance requires states to also 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, rainfalldriven, diffuse sources of pollution associated with everyday human 

activities, including runoff from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, 

and mining; discharges from failing septic systems; and atmospheric 

deposition.

These point and nonpoint defi nitions do not directly relate to whether 

a source is regulated. Some nonpoint sources such as stormwater systems 

are permitted under the regulatory programs of the Department or water 

management districts, while others, such as agricultural stormwater 

discharges, are not. This distinction is important because 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 reductions between point and nonpoint sources. For point 

sources, allocations will be implemented through the Department’s NPDES 

wastewater and stormwater permitting programs. The implementation 

of nonpoint source 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 from outside of Florida, and these sources will 

receive reduced allocations similar to in-state sources.

The FWRA provided direction for the allocation of TMDLs and 

directed the Department to provide guidance on the allocation process 

by establishing an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC), 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 133
consisting of representatives of key stakeholder groups. The committee’s 

report recommended a three-step process for developing initial allocations 

and addressed detailed allocations for nonpoint sources, stakeholder 

involvement, the use of BMPs, and other TMDL implementation issues 

(Department, 2001). A copy of the ATAC report can be found at http:

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

Implementation Programs and Approaches 

The FWRA designates the Department as the lead agency in 

coordinating the implementation of TMDLs. Existing programs and 

approaches through which TMDLs may be carried out include the 

following:

1. Permitting and other existing regulatory programs, such as 

NPDES permits, domestic and industrial wastewater permits, and 

stormwater/environmental resource permits;

2. The municipal NPDES stormwater permittees in the Ochlockonee 

and St. Marks Basins are Leon County, the City of 

Tallahassee, and the Florida Department of Transportation;

3. Local land development codes;

4. Nonregulatory and incentive-based programs, including BMPs, 

cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new 

approaches to land use design and development, and public 

education; 

5. B-MAPs developed under the FWRA;

6. Other water quality management and restoration activities—for 

example, Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) 

plans approved under Section 373.456, Florida Statutes (F.S.);

7. Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based 

agreements;

8. Public works including capital facilities; or

9. Land acquisition.

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. The following are programs that will be 

important to TMDL implementation. 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.

134 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
The B-MAPs would contain fi nal allocations, strategies for meeting 

the allocations, schedules for implementation, funding mechanisms, 

applicable local ordinances, and other elements. In cases where stakeholder 

consensus could not be reached on detailed allocations and/or a B-MAP 

within a reasonable time, the Department would develop the allocations.

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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 135
References

Ballentine, T. 2003. Lake Lafayette Watershed Study Phase II—A Scope of 

Work (Lake and Tributary Monitoring Program) and Phase II-B (Modeling, Analysis, and Management Recommendations).

Barrett, P. L. 1999. Proposed Plan of Study to Establish a Thermal Mixing 

Zone for Timber Energy Resources, Inc., Telogia Plant Telogia, Florida. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Permit FL0039951-

001-IW7c, August 26, 1999.

Bartel, R. L., R. Areanga, N. Wooten, F. B. Ard, and T. Benoit. August 

1991 (revised October 1992). City of Tallahassee and Leon County 

Stormwater Management Plan. Northwest Florida Water Management 

District, Water Resources Assessment 91-1.

Bartel, R. L., and F. B. Ard. 1992. USEPA Clean Lakes Program, Phase I 

Diagnostic Feasibility Report for Lake Munson. Northwest Florida Water 

Management District, Water Resources Special Report 92-4, August 

1992.

Bell, F. W. December 17, 1980. An Economic Analysis of the Proposed Restoration of the St. Marks River, Florida.

Bocz, C., and J. Hand. 1985. Lake Munson: A Case Study for the Water 

Quality Effects of Sewage Diversion and Stormwater Cleanup Practices. 

Water Quality Monitoring Report. NWFWMD WRP 88-1.

Cassidy, R. O., G. B. Watts, and L. B. Eblen. 2002. A Water Quality and 

Biological Assessment of Selected Lakes, July, 2001.

Chelette, A. R. 2001. Examination and Prediction of Nitrate Loading and 

Response in the Surface Water/Ground Water System in the Lower 

St. Marks/Wakulla Rivers. Florida Lake Management Society 12th

Annual Conference Proceedings.

Chelette, A. R., T. R. Pratt, and B. G. Katz. 2002. Nitrate Loading as an 

Indicator of Nonpoint Source Pollution in the Lower St. Marks-Wakulla 

Rivers Watershed. NWFWMD Water Resources Special Report 02-1.

City of Tallahassee and Environmental Research and Design. 2002. 

City of Tallahassee Nonpoint Source Loading and Management Model 

(CoTNSLMM), Model Documentation, Calibration, and Verifi cation 

Report. October 2002.

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

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

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

Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Offi ce of Environmental 

Services.

Curtis, J. March 7, 1997. City of Tallahassee Purdom Unit 8 Site Certifi cation Application. Vols. 1–4, Raytheon Engineers and Constructors, 

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.

Daigle, J., 2000. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Watershed Assessment Section. Personal communication regarding 

threatened and endangered species in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks 

River Basins.

136 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Davis, H. 1996. Hydrogeologic Investigation and Simulation of GroundWater Flow in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of North-Central Florida and 

Southwestern Georgia and Delineation of Contributing Areas for Selected 

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

Resources Investigations Report 95-4295.

Ecology & Environment, Inc. September 2002. Report of Investigation 

Activities at the St. Marks Refi nery Site, St. Marks, Wakulla County, 

Florida. Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Site Investigation Section. Tallahassee, 

Florida.

Federal Clean Water Act. Section 303(d).

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

Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Institute of Science and Public Affairs, 

Florida State University.

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-302. Surface Water Quality 

Standards.

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-303. Identifi cation of Impaired 

Waters Rule.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Permit fi les. Killearn Lakes Homeowners Association Agreement, January 18, 1994.

—. 2000. Bureau of Invasive Plant Management. 2000. Status of the 

Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program of Florida Public Waters—Annual 

Report for Fiscal Year 1999–2000. http://www.dep.state.fl .us/stland/

bapm/contract.htm

—. February 1, 2001. A Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the 

Allocation of Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Watershed Management, Division of Water Resource 

Management.

Florida Department of Health. 2002. Health Consultation (Exposure 

Investigation) Fish and Crabs in St. Marks River at the St. Marks Refi nery 

St. Marks, Wakulla County, Florida, December 12, 2002. Prepared by 

Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental 

Epidemiology.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Web site. http:

//wld.fwc.state.fl .us

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. August 1, 1997. 

Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special 

Concern, Offi cial Lists. http://www.state.fl .us/fwc/pubs

Florida Natural Areas Inventory Web site. http://www.fnai.org

Florida Springs Task Force. November 2000. Florida’s Springs—Strategies 

for Protection and Restoration.

Florida Watershed Restoration Act. 1999. Chapter 99-223, Laws of 

Florida.

GDNR-EPD (Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental 

Protection Department). 1996. Water Quality in Georgia, 1994–1995.

—. 2000a. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Department.

—. 2000b. Draft Ochlockonee River Basin Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs, June 

2000.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 137
—. 2000c. Draft TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliforms for Oquina Creek

Ochlockonee River Basin, June 2000.

—. 2000d. Draft TMDL Evaluation for 3 Segments: Little Attapulgus 

Creek, Attapulgus Creek, and Swamp Creek in the Ochlockonee River 

Basin, June 2000. 

—. 2000e. Draft TMDL Evaluation for Bridge Creek Ochlockonee River 

Basin, June 2000.

—. 2000f. Draft TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliforms for Big Creek 

Ochlockonee River Basin, June 2000.

—. 2000g. Draft TMDL Evaluation for Little Ochlockonee River Watershed- Lower Little Ochlockonee River Segment, Big Creek Segment, Lost 

Creek Segment, Upper Little Ochlockonee River Segment, Ochlockonee 

River Basin (Fecal Coliforms), June 2000.

—. 2000h. Draft TMDL Evaluation for Tired Creek Watershed-Tired 

Creek Segment, Little Tired Creek Segment, Parkers Mill Segment, 

Ochlockonee River Basin (Fecal Coliforms), June 2000.

—. 2000i. Draft TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliforms for Olive Creek, 

Ochlockonee River Basin, June 2000. 

Griffi th, G. E. August 15, 1997. Lake Regions of Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/R-97/127.

Hendry, C. W., and C. R. Sproul. 1966. Geology and Ground-Water 

Resources of Leon County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Bulletin 

No. 47.

Hill, M. 2003. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Personal communication regarding restoration actions in lakes of the 

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins.

Lake Munson Action Plan. January 1994. A Report with Recommendations, produced by the Lake Munson Action Team for the Leon County 

Board of County Commissioners and the Citizens of Leon County.

Lane, E. 1986. Karst in Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology, Special Publication No. 29.

Livingston, E. 1999. “A Review of Urban Stormwater Retrofi tting in 

Florida.” In Comprehensive Stormwater & Aquatic Ecosystem Management, Proceedings of a Conference held in Auckland, New Zealand, 

February 22-26, 1999.

Livingston, R. J. 1997. Effects of Urban Development on the Lakes of Leon 

County (1988–1997). Center for Aquatic Research and Resource Management (CARRMA) Report to Leon County, January 12, 1998.

Maddox, G. L., J. M. Lloyd, T. M. Scott, S. B. Upchurch, and R. E. 

Copeland, Eds. 1992. Florida Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program—Volume 2, Background Hydrogeochemistry. Florida Geological 

Survey, Special Publication No. 34.

McGlynn, S. E. 1999. Lester Cove Study, Base Flow Report and Storm 

Report. McGlynn Laboratories.

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

Florida: University of Central Florida Press.

NWFWMD (Northwest Florida Water Management District). June 1994. 

Lake Jackson Management Plan. Program Development Series 94-2.

138 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
—. May 1997a. St. Marks Watershed Surface Water Improvement and 

Management Plan. Program Development Series 97-1.

—. November 1997b. Lake Jackson Management Plan Addendum. Program Development Series 97-4.

Olsen, L. A., W. J. Ihle, L. T. Ross, J. D. Ryan, S. Sheinbaum, and M. S. 

Zimmerman. 1981. Environmental Studies of an Oil Polluted Area of 

the St. Marks River, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection Biological Section.

Pascale, C. A., and J. R. Wagner. 1982. Water Resources of the Ochlockonee River Area, Northwest Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Water 

Resources Investigations Open File Report 81-1121.

Pope, K. R., and S. E. McGlynn. 2001. Interstate Issues Regarding Water 

Quality in the Ochlockonee River. Florida Lake Management Society 

12th Annual Conference Proceedings.

Rosenau, J. C., Faulkner, G. L., Hendry, C. W., and Hull, R. W. 1977. 

Springs of Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletin No. 31 (revised).

Savery, S. Florida Department of Environmental Protection data records.

Scott, T. M., G. H. Means, R. C. Means, and R. P. Morgan. 2002. First 

Magnitude Springs of Florida. Florida Geological Survey Open File 

Report No. 85.

Songer, K. 2002. NRCS Erosion Control Recommendations presented at 

Lake Tallavana Homeowners Association Meeting at Havana Public 

Library. Environmental Management Systems, Inc.

Struhs, D. 2000. Florida Department of Environmental Protection letter 

to the NWFWMD regarding minimum fl ows and levels for Telogia 

Creek.

Swanson, H., and S. McGlynn. 2003. Lake Tallavana Management Plan. 

Transportation Consulting Group, Inc. 1998. Blairstone Parkway 

Supplemental Stormwater Design and Environmental Analysis. Prepared 

for City of Tallahassee and Leon County by P. Hirsch, E. I., and L. 

Bramblett, P. E., of Transportation Consulting Group, Inc., Winter 

Park, Florida.

—. 1999. Blairstone Parkway Pond Modifi cations, April 1999. Prepared by 

Transportation Consulting Group, Inc., Winter Park, Florida.

Thorpe, P., and P. Krottje. November 2000. Effects of Septic Systems in the 

Lake Jackson Watershed. NWFWMD Special Report 00-2.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Surf Your Watershed Web 

site: Apalachee Bay–St. Marks Basin, http://www.epa.gov/surf/

HUCS/hucinfo/03120001.

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

hucinfo/03120003 

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

hucinfo/03120002. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Data for the United States. Available: http://water.usgs.gov.nwis.

Utter, J. 2003. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Personal communication.

Watts, G. B., 2003. City of Tallahassee Lakes Monitoring Program. Personal communication to R. Wieckowicz about lake monitoring data.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 139
Wayland, R. H., III. November 19, 2001. 2002 Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance. Memorandum to EPA 

Regional Water Management Directors; EPA Regional Science and 

Technology Directors; and State, Territory, and Authorized Tribe 

Water Quality Program Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Wieckowicz, R., D. Wainwright, and E. Glombowski. 2000. Ochlockonee 

River Basin–Data Summary. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection fi les, unpublished.

Wieckowicz, R., 1981a. Stokes Branch Intensive Survey and Wasteload 

Allocation Documentation, Water Quality Technical Series Vol. 1, No. 

47, March 1981.

Wieckowicz, R., 1981b. Telogia Creek Basin Intensive Survey Documentation and Wasteload Allocation Documentation, Water Quality Technical Series, Vol. 2, No. 28, April 1981.

Wieckowicz, R., 2003. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Watershed Assessment Section database.

Wolfe, S. H., J. A. Reidenauer, and D. B. Means. 1988. An Ecological 

Characterization of the Florida Panhandle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

WRS. January 2003. Weems Pond Sixth Annual Monitoring and Project 

Completion Report, Oct. 2001 to Sept. 2002, Vol. I and II. Prepared for 

the Florida Department of Transportation, Chipley, Florida, by WRS 

Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida.

Whately, L. M. May 6, 2002. Personal communication. I-10 (S.R. 8) 

Project Development and Environment Study from U.S. 90 in Gadsden County to U.S. 90 in Leon County, Florida. Prepared for the 

Florida Department of Transportation, Chipley, Florida, by Carter & 

Burgess, Inc., Orlando, Florida.

140 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks
Water Quality Assessment Report September 2003

Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Appendices

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed

Management Approach and the Implementation of TMDLs.................................. 143

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and TMDLs ............................................ 143

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule............................... 145

Implementing TMDLs ....................................................................................................................... 147

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by

Department District Office....................................................................................... 149

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation................ 150

Figure A.1:Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts........................ 151

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs....................... 152

Appendix B: Information on Reasonable Assurance............................................... 155

Background ........................................................................................................................................ 155

Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms................................. 156

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration....................................................... 156

Time Frame for Development of Documentation............................................................................. 157

What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority ..................................................... 157

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards ........................................................................ 157

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration................................................................................... 158

Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable ........................................... 158

Assurance in the IWR........................................................................................................................ 158

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals..........................................................159

Interim Targets................................................................................................................................... 160

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets.................................................................................. 160

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions..........................................................160

New Sources/Growth......................................................................................................................... 160

Examples of Reasonable Progress..................................................................................................... 161

Long-Term Requirements.................................................................................................................. 161

Appendix C: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based on the

Impaired Surface Waters Rule................................................................................. 162

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule ................................................................................................... 162

Attainment of Designated Use(s) ...................................................................................................... 162

Table C.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida.................163

Sources of Data .................................................................................................................................. 163

Table C.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin

Rotation Cycle .......................................................................................................... 164

Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 164
142 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Appendix D: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Ochlockonee

and St. Marks Basins ................................................................................................ 170

Table D.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Ochlockonee

and St. Marks Basins, by Planning Unit..................................................................170

Appendix E: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground

Water in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by Planning Unit....................... 221

Table E.1: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface

Water......................................................................................................................... 221

Table E.2: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Not Discharging to

Surface Water ........................................................................................................... 224

Table E.3: Ochlockonee and St. Marks WACS Landfills.......................................................... 228

Appendix F: Level 1 Land Use in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by

Planning Unit ............................................................................................................ 231

Table F.1: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Land Use Totals and Percentages............................. 231

Table F.2: Georgia Land Use in the Upper Ochlockonee River Basin.................................... 232

Appendix G: Documentation Provided during Public Comment Period.............. 233
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 143

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the

Watershed Management Approach and the

Implementation of TMDLs

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and TMDLs

Clean Water Act

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 with the goal of restoring and

maintaining the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” (33

U.S.C. § 1251[a]). The ultimate goal of the act is to eliminate the “discharge of [all]

pollutants into navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]).

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on their water quality. The 305(b) assessment

report provides information on the physical, chemical, biological, and cultural features of

each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a common factual basis for

identifying information sources and major issues, and for determining the future changes,

strategies, and actions needed to preserve, protect, and/or restore water quality.

Understanding the physical framework of each basin allows the development of a

science-based methodology for assessing water quality and an accurate picture of the

waters that are most impaired or vulnerable to contamination.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to submit to the EPA lists of

surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and establish total

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each of these waters on a schedule. A pollution limit

is then allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin.

A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can

assimilate and meet all of its designated uses (see Noteworthy on Florida’s surface water

quality classifications for a listing of these classifications). A waterbody that does not

meet its designated use is defined as impaired.

NOTEWORTHY: FLORIDA’S SURFACE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS

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

management, designates the “present and future most beneficial uses” of the waters of the state

(Subsection 403.061[10], F.S.). Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for

specific parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain these uses for surface

water and ground water. Florida’s surface water is protected for five designated use

classifications, as follows:

Class I Potable water supplies

Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced

population of fish and wildlife

Class IV Agricultural water supplies

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in

this class)
144 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Florida Watershed Restoration Act

In 1998, the EPA settled a lawsuit with the environmental group Earthjustice over

Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decree resulting from the lawsuit requires all

TMDLs on the state’s 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed in

thirteen years. If the state fails to develop the TMDLs, the EPA is required to do so.

In response to concerns about the TMDL lawsuit and in recognition of the important

role that TMDLs play in restoring state waters, the 1999 Florida legislature enacted the

Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act clarified

the Department’s statutory authority to establish TMDLs, required the Department to

develop a methodology for identifying impaired waters, specified that the Department

could develop TMDLs only for waters on a future state list of impaired waters developed

using this new methodology, and directed the Department to establish an Allocation

Technical Advisory Committee to address the allocation process for TMDLs. The act

also declared Lake Okeechobee impaired and, as required under the TMDL Consent

Decree, allowed the state to develop a TMDL for the lake (see Noteworthy for a

description of the legislation’s major provisions).

NOTEWORTHY: THE FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACT

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act contains the following major provisions:

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

• Requires the Department to adopt 303(d) listing criteria (that is, the methodology used to

define impaired waters) by rule.

• Requires the Department to verify impairment and then establish a Verified List for each

basin. The Department must also evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs are

sufficient to meet water quality standards, list the specific pollutant(s) and concentration(s)

causing impairment, and adopt the basin-specific 303(d) list by Secretarial Order.

• Requires the Department’s Secretary to adopt TMDL allocations by rule. The legislation

requires the Department to establish “reasonable and equitable” allocations of TMDLs, but

does not mandate how allocations will be made among individual sources.

• Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing treatment levels and management

practices; the differing impacts that pollutant sources may have; the availability of treatment

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

feasibility, costs, and benefits of achieving the allocation; reasonable time frames for

implementation; the potential applicability of moderating provisions; and the extent that

nonattainment is caused by pollutants from outside Florida, discharges that have ceased, or

alteration to a waterbody.

• Required a report to the legislature by February 2001 addressing the allocation process.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 145

• Authorizes the Department to develop basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the

water management districts, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

(FDACS), the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, regulated parties, and environmental

groups in assessing waterbodies for impairment, collecting data for TMDLs, developing

TMDLs, and conducting at least one public meeting in the watershed. Implementation is

voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs.

• Authorizes the Department and FDACS to develop interim measures and BMPs to address

nonpoint sources. While BMPs would be adopted by rule, they will be voluntary if not

covered by regulatory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department verifies their

effectiveness, then implementation will provide a presumption of compliance with water

quality standards.

• Directs the Department to document the effectiveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary

approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include

participation rates and recommendations for statutory changes.

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the Florida Watershed Restoration

Act describe impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not

meet applicable water quality standards. “Impairment” is a broad term that includes

designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating

provisions (see Noteworthy for explanations of these terms).

The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.)

was developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory Committee and adopted by the

Florida Environmental Regulation Commission on April 26, 2001. It provides a sciencebased methodology for evaluating water quality data in order to identify impaired waters,

and it establishes specific criteria for impairment based on chemical parameters, the

interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption

advisories, and ecological impairment. The rule is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf.

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule also establishes thresholds for data sufficiency

and data quality, including the minimum sample size required and the number of

exceedances of the applicable water quality standard for a given sample size that identify

a waterbody as impaired. The number of exceedances is based on a statistical approach

designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment

is correct. Waters that are identified as impaired through the Impaired Surface

Waters Rule are prioritized for TMDL development and implementation.
146 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

NOTEWORTHY: EXPLANATION OF TERMS

• Designated uses, discussed in an earlier sidebar, comprise the five classifications applied to

each of the state’s surface waterbodies.

• Water quality criteria comprise numeric or narrative limits of pollutants.

• The Florida Antidegradation Policy (Sections 62-302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C.) recognizes

that pollution that causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to the

continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of the state. Under this policy, the

permitting of new or previously unpermitted existing discharges is prohibited where the

discharge is expected to reduce the quality of a receiving water below the classification

established for it. Any lowering of water quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to

surface waters must be in the public interest (that is, the benefits of the discharge to public

health, safety, and welfare must outweigh any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or

recreation). Further, the permittee must demonstrate that other disposal alternatives (for

example, reuse) or pollution prevention are not economically and technologically reasonable

alternatives to the surface water discharge.

• Moderating provisions (provided in Subsections 62-302.300[10], Rules 62-4 and 62-6,

F.A.C., and described in Sections 62-302.300, 62-4.244, 62-302.800, 62-4.243, F.A.C., and

Sections 403.201 and 373.414, F.S.) include mixing zones, zones of discharge, site-specific

alternative criteria, exemptions, and variances. These provisions are intended to moderate

the applicability of water quality standards where it has been determined that, under certain

special circumstances, the social, economic, and environmental costs of such applicability

outweigh the benefits.

Determining impairment in individual waterbodies takes place in two phases. First,

in each river basin the Department evaluates the existing water quality data, using the

methodology prescribed in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule, to determine whether

waters are potentially impaired. Waters found to be potentially impaired are included on

a Planning List for further assessment under Subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. As

required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List is not used to administer or

implement any regulatory program. It is submitted to the EPA for informational

purposes only.

The second step is to assess waters on the Planning List under Subsection

403.067(3), F.S., as part of the Department’s watershed management approach (described

in the following section). The Department carries out additional data gathering and

strategic monitoring, focusing on these potentially impaired waters, and

determines—using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.—if a

waterbody is, in fact, impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges.

An Assessment Report is produced containing the results of this updated evaluation

and a Verified List of impaired waters. The criteria for the Verified List are more

stringent than those for the Planning List. The Department is required to develop

TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A watershed
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 147

management plan (called a Basin Management Action Plan) to reduce the amount of

pollutants that cause impairments must also be produced and implemented.

The Verified List is adopted by Secretarial Order in accordance with the Florida

Watershed Restoration Act. Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA for approval

as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin.

Implementing TMDLs

The Watershed Management Approach

The Department's statewide approach to water resource management, called the

watershed management approach, is the framework for implementing TMDLs as required

by the federal and state governments. The approach does not focus on individual causes

of pollution. Instead, each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic

resources are evaluated from a basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative

effects of human activities. Water resources are managed on the basis of natural

boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. Federal,

state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water

or other natural resource goals and work cooperatively to focus resources and implement

effective strategies to restore water quality. Extensive public participation in the

decision-making process is crucial.

The watershed management approach is not new, nor does it compete with or replace

existing programs. Rather than relying on single solutions to water resource issues, it is

intended to improve the health of surface water and ground water resources by

strengthening coordination among such activities as monitoring, stormwater

management, wastewater treatment, wetland restoration, land acquisition, and public

involvement.

By promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the

cumulative effects of human activities on a watershed basis, this approach is intended to

protect and enhance the ecological structure, function, and integrity of Florida’s

watersheds. It provides a framework for setting priorities and focusing the Department’s

resources on protecting and restoring water quality, and aims to increase cooperation

among state, regional, local, and federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement,

the approach encourages stewardship by all Floridians to preserve water resources for

future generations.

The watershed approach is intended to speed up projects by focusing funding and

other resources on priority water quality problems, strengthening public support,

establishing agreements, and funding multiagency projects. It avoids duplication by

building on existing assessments and restoration activities and promotes cooperative

monitoring programs. It encourages accountability for achieving water quality

improvements through improved monitoring and the establishment of TMDLs.
148 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

The Watershed Management Cycle

As part of the Department’s watershed management approach, TMDLs will be

developed, and the corresponding pollutant loadings allocated, as part of a watershed

management cycle that rotates through the state’s fifty-two river basins over a nine-year

period. The cycle’s five phases are as follows:

• Phase 1: Preliminary Watershed Evaluation. For each river basin, a Status Report

is developed, containing a Planning List of potentially impaired waters that may

require the establishment of TMDLs. The report characterizes each basin’s

hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting as well as historical, current, and

proposed watershed management issues and activities. It also contains a preliminary

evaluation of major water quality parameters, water quality issues by planning unit,

an evaluation of ecological resources, and basinwide pollutant loading trends related

to land uses. At the end of Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is developed.

• Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected

through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify

whether potentially impaired waters in each basin are impaired and to calibrate and

verify models for TMDL development. At the end of Phase 2, an Assessment

Report is produced for each basin that contains a Verified List of impaired waters.

The report also provides an updated and more thorough evaluation of water quality,

associated biological resources, and current management plans. The Department will

adopt the Verified List through a Secretarial Order and submit it to the EPA as the

state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.

• Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs. TMDLs for priority impaired

waters in the basin will be developed and adopted by rule. Because TMDLs cannot

be developed for all listed waters during a single watershed management cycle due to

fiscal and technical limitations, waterbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in the

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.).

• Phase 4: Development of a Basin Management Action Plan (B-MAP). A B-MAP

will be developed for each basin to specify how pollutant loadings from point and

nonpoint sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements.

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

and nonstructural strategies, and existing management plans will be used where

feasible. The involvement and support of affected stakeholders in this phase will be

especially critical.

• Phase 5: Implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan. Implementation of

the activities specified in the B-MAP will begin. This includes carrying out rule

development as needed, securing funding, informing stakeholders and the public, and

monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 149

To implement the watershed cycle, the state’s river basins have been divided into

five groups within each of the Department’s six districts statewide, and each district will

assess one basin each year. Table A.1 shows the basin groups for implementing the

cycle in the Department’s districts, and Figure A.1 shows these groups and the rotating

cycle in the districts. Table A.2, which lists the basin rotation schedule for TMDL

development and implementation, shows that it will take nine years to complete one full

cycle of the state.

The watershed management cycle is an iterative, or repeated, process. One of its key

components is that the effectiveness of management activities (TMDL implementation)

will be monitored in successive cycles. Monitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent

cycles will be targeted at evaluating whether water quality objectives are being met and

whether individual waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the

implementation of scheduled restoration activities, whether required or voluntary, to

ensure continued progress towards meeting the TMDLs.

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by Department District Office

District Group 1

Basins

Group 2

Basins

Group 3

Basins

Group 4

Basins

Group 5

Basins

Northwest Ochlockonee–

St. Marks Rivers

Apalachicola–

Chipola Rivers

Choctawhatchee

River and Bay and

St. Andrews Bay

Pensacola Bay Perdido River and

Bay

Northeast Suwannee River Lower St. Johns

River

Upper St. Johns

River

St. Marys–Nassau

Rivers

Northeast Coast

Lagoons

Central Ocklawaha River Middle St. Johns

River Kissimmee River Indian RiverLagoon

Southwest Tampa Bay Tampa Bay

Tributaries

Sarasota Bay and

Peace–Myakka

Rivers

Withlacoochee

River Springs Coast

South Everglades West

Coast Charlotte Harbor CaloosahatcheeRiver Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

Southeast Lake Okeechobee

St.Lucie–

Loxahatchee

Rivers

Lake Worth

Lagoon/Palm

Beach Coast

Biscayne

Bay–Southeast

Coast

Everglades
150 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 151

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts
152 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Pollutants can enter a waterbody through point source discharges (generally from a

specific facility) or nonpoint discharges (e.g., stormwater runoff, septic tanks).

Government agencies, businesses, organizations, and individuals who contribute to these

discharges will be asked to share the responsibility of attaining TMDLs through load

allocations (the amount of a specified pollutant allotted for discharge) that are based on

an established TMDL. Table A.3 summarizes these potentially affected stakeholders,

and the actions they may be asked to take to help achieve a TMDL.

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs

Potentially Affected Stakeholders Actions To Achieve TMDL

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through

stormwater retrofits, replacement of septic tanks

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual

homeowners

Improve development design and construction,

enhance best management practices, 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 best management

practices

Federal, regional, state agencies; regional and

local water quality coalitions Carry out waterbody restoration projects

Permitting and Other Approaches

NPDES PERMITS

All point sources that discharge to surface water bodies require a NPDES permit.

These permits can be classified into two types: domestic or industrial wastewater

discharge permits, and stormwater permits. NPDES-permitted point sources may be

affected by the development and implementation of a TMDL. All NPDES permits

include “reopener clauses” that allow the Department to incorporate new discharge limits

when a TMDL is established. These new limitations may be incorporated into a permit

when a TMDL is implemented or at the next permit renewal, depending on the timing of

permit renewal and workload. For NPDES municipal stormwater permits, the

department intends to insert the following statement once a B-MAP is completed:

“The permittee shall undertake those activities specified in the (Name of

Waterbody) Basin Management Action Plan in accordance with the

approved schedule set forth in the B-MAP.”
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 153

DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMITS

In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters,

Florida also regulates domestic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via

land application. Since ground and surface water are so intimately linked in much of the

state, reductions in loadings from these facilities may be needed to meet TMDL

limitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the BMAP, they would be implemented through modifications of the existing state permits.

FLORIDA STORMWATER/ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS

Florida was the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new

development with the implementation of the state’s stormwater treatment rule in 1982.

Today, except in the area served by the Northwest Florida Water Management District,

new development projects receive an environmental resource permit that combines

stormwater flood protection, stormwater treatment, and wetland protection/mitigation

into a single permit. These permits are designed to obtain 80 percent average annual load

reduction of total suspended solids. This level of treatment may need to be increased,

depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the

St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basin-specific criteria for

the Lake Apopka Basin that require the phosphorus loading from new development not to

exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading.

LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES

Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of

load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development

often cause ecological impacts to aquatic systems, local land development codes that

promote “low-impact development” are an important component of restoring impaired

waters. Local codes may need to be reviewed to determine how to promote

developments that minimize impervious surfaces (such as reduced street widths or the use

of pervious pavements), promote the protection of vegetation, promote the protection and

restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the

Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)

Typically, BMPs refer to a practice or combination of practices that, based on sound

science and best professional judgment, are determined to be the most effective and

practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollutant discharges and improving water

quality. Both economic and technological considerations are included in the evaluation

of what is practicable. BMPs may include structural controls (such as retention areas or

detention ponds) or nonstructural controls (such as street sweeping or public education).

Many BMPs have been developed for urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and

peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type,

slope, depth to groundwater, and the designation of receiving waters.
154 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

The passage of the Florida Watershed Restoration Act increased the emphasis on

implementing BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollutant discharges from agricultural

operations. Recognizing that the development and adoption of BMPs might take several

years, the legislature authorized the use of Interim Measures (IMs) during the BMP

development process for agricultural operations. In essence, IMs are a set of logical

conservation practices designed to reduce agricultural nonpoint pollutant discharges

based on current knowledge and best professional judgment. These practices will evolve

into more formal BMPs as better scientific data on their effectiveness is obtained.

Once the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services adopts BMPs,

the Department is charged with verifying their effectiveness in reducing agricultural

nonpoint sources. Once verified, agricultural operations that have implemented BMPs

will receive a waiver of liability and presumption of compliance similar to that granted a

developer who obtains an environmental resource permit.

OTHER STRATEGIES

The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require

variety, creativity, and stakeholder commitment to watershed management and personal

stewardship. In addition to BMPs, other possible strategies for meeting TMDLs,

restoring water quality, and preventing the further degradation of Florida’s watersheds

include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land

use design and development, and pollutant trading. The Department will assemble a

Technical Advisory Committee to help develop a pollutant-trading rule, which must be

reviewed by the legislature prior to its adoption. The Department will also continue to

work with local stakeholders on TMDL allocation issues and implementation plans.

Sources of Information

For additional information on the Department’s Watershed Management Program

and TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators:

• Southwest Florida and Lake Okeechobee, Pat Fricano (850) 245-8559

• Southeast Florida and Ochlockonee-St. Marks Basins, Rick Hicks (850) 245-8558

• Northwest and Central Florida, Mary Paulic, (850) 245-8560

• Northeast Florida and Suwannee Basin, John Abendroth (850) 245-8557

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

For information on establishing and implementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional information is available on the Department’s Web

site at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 155

Appendix B: Information on Reasonable Assurance

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Mimi Drew, Director

Division of Water Facilities

DATE: September 2002

SUBJECT: Guidance for Development of Documentation To Provide

Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollution Control Mechanisms Will Result in

the Restoration of Designated Uses in Impaired Waters

The purpose of this memo is to describe the types of information that should be

considered, and subsequently documented, when evaluating whether there is sufficient

reasonable assurance that:

1 Proposed pollution control mechanisms (typically described in watershed

management or restoration plans) addressing impaired waters will result in the

attainment of applicable water quality standards (designated uses) at a clearly

defined point in the future, and

2. Reasonable progress towards restoration of designated uses will be made by the

time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is due to be submitted to the EPA.

There are many site-specific issues related to determining whether reasonable

assurance has been provided. Accordingly, this document describes the elements or

issues that should be considered when evaluating a submittal or when documenting the

basis for the Department’s decision, rather than attempting to establish specific criteria on

what constitutes reasonable assurance.

It should be noted that the term “reasonable assurance” is used throughout many

Department programs and rules, and this guidance specifically addresses the issues

related to the “reasonable assurance” provided by proposed pollution control

mechanisms. This guidance should not be used to evaluate the meaning of reasonable

assurance in other contexts, particularly in permitting decisions.

Background

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR), Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (Identification of

Impaired Surface Waters), establishes a formal mechanism for identifying surface waters

in Florida that are impaired (do not meet applicable water quality standards) by

pollutants. Most waters that are verified as being impaired by a pollutant will be listed on
156 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

the state’s 303(d) list pursuant to the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) and

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Once listed, Total Maximum Daily Loads

(TMDLs) will be developed for the pollutants causing the impairment of the listed

waters. However, as required by the FWRA, the Department will evaluate whether

existing or proposed pollution control mechanisms will effectively address the

impairment before placing a water on the state’s Verified List. If the Department can

document there is reasonable assurance that the impairment will be effectively addressed

by the control measure, then the water will not be listed on the final Verified List (other

impaired waters that will not be listed include waters with TMDLs and waters impaired

by pollution).

Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms

The rule text addressing the evaluation of proposed pollution control mechanisms is

as follows:

Section 62-303.600, Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms

Upon determining that a waterbody is impaired, the Department shall evaluate

whether existing or proposed technology-based effluent limitations and other

pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to

result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards.

2 If, as a result of the factors set forth in (1), the waterbody segment is expected to

attain water quality standards in the future and is expected to make reasonable

progress towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d)

list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA, the segment shall not be listed on the

Verified List. The Department shall document the basis for its decision, noting any

proposed pollution control mechanisms and expected improvements in water quality

that provide reasonable assurance that the waterbody segment will attain applicable

water quality standards.

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration

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

the administrative record whenever the Department decides to not list an impaired

waterbody segment for a given pollutant. This documentation will be very important

because the Verified Lists will be adopted by Order of the Secretary and third parties will

be provided an opportunity to challenge, via an administrative hearing, all listing

decisions (both those listing a water and those to not list a water for a given pollutant).

However, the Department expects that local stakeholders will often offer to prepare the

necessary documentation to demonstrate reasonable assurance that proposed control

mechanisms will restore a given waterbody. The Department will provide guidance to

stakeholders on what information is needed and how it should be submitted.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 157

Time Frame for Development of Documentation

The Department plans to prepare basin-specific Verified Lists as part of its

watershed management cycle, which rotates through all of the state’s basins over a fiveyear, five-phased cycle1

. During the first phase of the cycle, the Department will assess

water quality in the basin and prepare a draft Planning List of potentially impaired

waters. The Department and interested parties will then have approximately one year

(Phase 2) to monitor waters on the Planning List and prepare documentation, as

appropriate, to provide reasonable assurance that impaired waters will be restored. The

Department will review submittals from interested parties during Phase 2, before

adopting the Verified List for the basin containing the waterbody segment in question.

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

Both the FWRA and the IWR require that the pollution control programs

under consideration be “under local, state, or federal authority.” A pollution

control program will be considered "under local, state, or federal authority" if the

program is subject to or required by a local ordinance, state statute or rule, or

federal statute or regulation.

Programs will also be considered under local, state, or federal authority if they

are subject to a written agreement, signed by both local stakeholders and at least

one governmental entity, that includes measurable goals, performance criteria,

benchmarks, and back-up corrective actions to assure the further progress of the

program. It is important to note that these written agreements do not need to be

enforceable for nonregulated nonpoint sources.

Many nonpoint sources are currently outside of the regulatory programs of EPA, the

Department, and the water management districts, and reductions at these nonpoint

sources will be voluntary. In fact, pollution control mechanisms for these nonpoint

sources would be voluntary even if a TMDL were developed. As such, these agreements

may provide the same level of reasonable assurance that can be provided for a TMDL

implementation plan as long as they maintain the Department’s enforcement capability

over all point sources involved.

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards

The FWRA and the IWR do not establish a specific time limit by which waters must

attain applicable water quality standards or designated uses. However, the pollution

control mechanisms or watershed restoration plan must provide reasonable assurance that

designated uses will be met at some time in the future. As such, the documentation

submitted to the Department must provide a specific date by which time designated uses

are expected to be restored. In cases where designated uses will not be met for many

years, the documentation should also provide justification as to why the specified time is

needed to restore designated uses.

 

1

 Federal regulations currently call for state 303(d) lists every two years, but Florida plans to submit annual updates

based on the basin-specific Verified Lists.
158 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration

For the Department not to place an impaired waterbody segment on the Verified List,

reasonable assurance must be provided for each pollutant that has been documented to be

causing impairment of the waterbody segment. However, some entities, including the

Department, may want to provide reasonable assurance addressing only selected

pollutants, which could result in the Department not listing the waterbody segment for

those pollutants, but still listing it for others. In this event, TMDLs will only be

developed for the remaining listed pollutants.

Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable

Assurance in the IWR

To provide reasonable assurance that existing or proposed pollution control

mechanisms will restore designated uses, the following information should be evaluated

and documented for the Administrative Record:

• A Description of the Impaired Water—name of the water listed on the Verified

List, the location of the waterbody and watershed, the watershed/8-digit cataloging

unit code, the NHD identifier (when they become available), the type (lake, stream, or

estuary) of water, the water use classification, the designated use not being attained,

the length (miles) or area (acres) of impaired area, the pollutant(s) of concern (those

identified as causing or contributing to the impairment), and the suspected or

documented source(s) of the pollutant(s) of concern.

3 A Description of the Water Quality or Aquatic Ecological Goals—a description

of the water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals (both interim and final)

that have been established for the pollutant(s) of concern, the averaging period for

any numeric water quality goals, a discussion of how these goals will result in the

restoration of the waterbody’s impaired designated uses, a schedule indicating when

interim and final targets are expected to be met, and a description of procedures (with

thresholds) to determine whether additional (backup) corrective actions are needed.

4 A Description of the Proposed Management Actions To Be Undertaken—names

of the responsible participating entities (government, private, others), a summary and

list of existing or proposed management activities designed to restore water quality,

the geographic scope of any proposed management activities, documentation of the

estimated pollutant load reduction and other benefits anticipated from

implementation of individual management actions, copies of written agreements

committing participants to the management actions, a discussion on how future

growth and new sources will be addressed, confirmed sources of funding, an

implementation schedule (including interim milestones and the date by which

designated uses will be restored), and any enforcement programs or local ordinances,

if the management strategy is not voluntary.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 159

5 A Description of Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Results—a

description of the water quality monitoring program to be implemented (including

station locations, parameters sampled, and sampling frequencies) to demonstrate

reasonable progress; quality assurance/quality control elements that demonstrate the

monitoring will comply with Rule 62-160, F.A.C.; procedures for entering all

appropriate data into STORET; the responsible monitoring and reporting entity; the

frequency and format for reporting results; the frequency and format for reporting on

the implementation of all proposed management activities; and methods for

evaluating progress towards goals.

6 A Description of Proposed Corrective Actions—a description of proposed

corrective actions (and any supporting document[s]) that will be undertaken if water

quality does not improve after implementation of the management actions or if

management actions are not completed on schedule, and a process for notifying the

Department that these corrective actions are being implemented.

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals

Some of the most important elements listed above are the requirements to provide

water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals and a discussion on how resultant

pollutant(s) reduction targets/goals will result in restoration of designated uses. Some

people have expressed concern about these targets because they equate a water

quality–based restoration target with a TMDL (thus assuming a “Catch 22” that a TMDL

is needed to make a demonstration that a TMDL is not needed). However, as is also the

case for TMDLs, water quality–based targets can take many forms, and need not be a

result of a complex hydrodynamic/water quality model.

In some cases, there may be sufficient historical data (paleolimnological data,

loadings from periods predating the impairment, or baseline data for Outstanding Florida

Waters2, for example) that could be used to determine an appropriate water quality target.

In other cases, simplified modeling (including regression analysis) may allow for

conservative estimates of the assimilative capacity that could then be used as the basis for

restoration goals. And, finally, a water quality target may have been developed that

would be scientifically equivalent to (or act as the basis for) a TMDL, but the target has

not been administratively adopted as a TMDL. In each of these cases, a sound water

quality target could be used to evaluate whether the proposed pollution control

mechanisms will sufficiently reduce loadings to meet the assimilative capacity of the

water in question and result in attainment of designated uses.

 

2

 Baseline data would be data for the year prior to designation of the OFW.
160 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Interim Targets

Because it will usually take many years to restore fully the designated uses of an

impaired water, interim water quality targets will often be needed to measure whether

reasonable progress is being made towards the restoration of designated uses. Examples

of such interim targets are provided in the last section of this document, but site-specific

measures are also encouraged.

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets

While the averaging period for water quality–based targets should be consistent with

how the underlying standard is expressed, they can often be expressed in a variety of

ways and need not be expressed as “daily loads.” Annual averages or medians are often

appropriate for some parameters, but shorter-term (seasonal, for example) averages may

be necessary if the impairment is limited to specific seasons or parts of the year. Multiyear averages may be appropriate in limited circumstances where there is naturally high

variation of the water quality target.

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions

It will often be difficult to estimate precisely the pollutant reductions that will result

from specific restoration activities. This is particularly true for the implementation of

best management practices (BMPs). However, to provide reasonable assurance that a

BMP or other restoration action will reduce loadings of the pollutant of concern to a level

that will restore the water’s designated uses, documentation should address how the

reductions were calculated, including providing documented values from the scientific

literature for reductions attributed to similar management actions. If the expected

reductions are expressed as a range, the midpoint of the range should be used as the basis

for estimating reductions, unless documentation is provided supporting the use of

different removal efficiencies in this specific application.

New Sources/Growth

Another key element is the discussion on how future growth and new sources will be

addressed. Restoration goals must address possible increased loadings of the pollutant of

concern that are anticipated due to population growth or land use changes in contributing

watersheds, both from point and nonpoint sources. This will be particularly important for

waters impaired by nutrients, given that so many Florida watersheds are faced with

continuing urban, residential, and agricultural development that results in increased

nutrient loading from stormwater, septic tanks, and wastewater discharges.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 161

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

should be provided supporting specific progress towards restoration of the designated

uses of the impaired water. Possible examples of reasonable progress include, but are not

limited to the following:

• A written commitment to implement controls reducing loadings within a specified

time frame from watershed stakeholders representing at least 50 percent of the

anthropogenic load of the pollutant(s) of concern;

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent reduction (or alternatively, a percent reduction

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in annual

anthropogenic loading of the pollutant(s) of concern;

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent decrease (or alternatively, a percent decrease

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in the

annual average concentration of the pollutant(s) of concern in the water;

• Bioassessment results showing there has been an improvement in the health of the

biological community of the water, as measured by bioassessment procedures

similar to those used to determine impairment and conducted in similar

conditions; or

• Adoption of a local ordinance that specifically provides water quality goals,

restricts growth or loads tied to the pollutant(s) of concern, and provides an

enforcement option if the proposed management measure(s) are not implemented

as required.

Reasonable progress must be made by the time the next 303(d) list is due to be

submitted to EPA, which is currently every two years. EPA has contemplated changing

the listing cycle to every four or five years, and the IWR was specifically worded to

allow a longer time frame for requiring reasonable progress in the event that the listing

cycle changes.

Long-Term Requirements

If at any time the Department determines that reasonable assurance and reasonable

progress are not being met, the order adopting the Verified List will be amended to

include the waterbody on the Verified List for the pollutant(s) in question. Additional

reasonable progress must be made each time a waterbody is considered for listing under

Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (every five years).

If you have any questions about this guidance memo, contact Daryll Joyner of the

Department’s Bureau of Watershed Management in Tallahassee at 850-245-8431.
162 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Appendix C: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule

To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river basins, the Department

evaluates water quality data using the science-based methodology in the Identification of

Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). The rule establishes specific

criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data quality

requirements. The methodology described in the rule is based on a statistical approach

designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment

is correct. The complete text of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule is available at

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

As part of the watershed management approach, for each river basin in the state the

Department will follow the methodology in Section 62-303.300, F.A.C., to develop a

Planning List of potentially impaired waters to be assessed under Subsections 403.067(2)

and (3), F.S. The methodology for developing the Planning List includes an evaluation

of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use support, fish shellfish

consumption use support, drinking water use support, and protection of human health.

Data older than ten years cannot be used to evaluate water quality criteria exceedances

for the Planning List. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List will

not be used to administer or implement any regulatory program, and is submitted to the

EPA for informational purposes only.

After further assessment, using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400,

F.A.C., the Department will determine if waters on the Planning List are, in fact,

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. These waters are

placed on a Verified List. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those

for the Planning List. Data older than five years should not be used to verify impairment.

The Verified List will be adopted by Secretarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for

approval as Florida’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Department will

develop TMDLs for these waters under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S.

Attainment of Designated Use(s)

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the surface

water quality classification system described previously, it is important to note that the

EPA uses slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because the

Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report

and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology

when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision

processes for listing impaired waters that are defined in Florida’s Impaired Surface

Waters Rule are based on the following designated use attainment categories:
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 163

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

Drinking Water Use Attainment and Protection of Human Health

Table C.1 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various surface

water classifications.

Table C.1: 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

Sources of Data

The Department’s assessment of water quality for each basin statewide includes an

analysis of quantitative data from a variety of sources, many of which are readily

available to the public. These sources include the EPA’s Legacy and modernized

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the

Department, the Florida Department of Health (DOH), 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 2002 Impaired Surface Waters

Rule assessment. The Legacy STORET dataset is a repository of data collected and

uploaded by numerous organizations through 1999. The Legacy STORET Database can

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

In 2000, the EPA created a modernized version of STORET that included new

features designed to address data quality assurance/quality control concerns (see the new

STORET Web site at www.epa.gov/storet/). However, because of software difficulties

associated with batch uploading of data to the modernized STORET, the data being

uploaded to the national repository decreased dramatically, and lingering problems have

temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses only

about 5 percent of the statewide Impaired Surface Waters Rule 2002 Database.

Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule

assessment was provided by individual organizations that for various reasons, such as

time constraints or resource limitations, were not able to enter their data into the national

database. The organizations providing the largest datasets include the South Florida,

Southwest Florida, and St. Johns River water management districts; the USGS; and the

University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring group. Several of these databases

are readily available to the public via the Internet: the South Florida Water Management
164 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

District at http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/, the USGS at http://water.usgs.gov/, and

LakeWatch at http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/.

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule 2002 Database was created to evaluate data

simultaneously in accordance with the Impaired Surface Waters Rule methodology for

every basin in the state, based on the appropriate data “window.” For the Verified List

assessment, the window is 7.5 years (for the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 2002

Database), and the Planning List assessment window is 10 years. Table C.2 shows the

periods of record for the Verified and Planning Lists for the five basin groups.

The evaluation of water quality in the state’s basins also includes some qualitative

information. These sources are described in the Status Reports and Assessment Reports

for each basin.

Table C.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle

Basin Group Reporting Period of Data Record Used in Impaired

Surface Waters Rule 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 – December 31 2002

Group 3 Planning List January 1, 1992 – December 31, 2001

Verified List January 1, 1997 – December 31, 2003

Group 4 Planning List January 1, 1993 – December 31, 2002

Verified List January 1, 1998 – December 31 2004

Group 5 Planning List January 1, 1994 – December 31, 2003

Verified List January 1, 1999 – December 31, 2005

Notes: Typically, a 10-year data record is used for the development of the Planning Lists, and a 7-year record is used for

the Verified Lists. If necessary, however, the data record for the Verified listing can be extended by up to 6 months to

complete a monitoring period that will provide sufficient information to make a listing determination. This 6-month

extension applies to the development of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 2002 Database.

Methodology

To determine the status of surface water quality in individual river basins in Florida,

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

advisories—were evaluated to determine potential impairments for the four attainment of

designated use categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation,

fish and shellfish consumption, and drinking water use and protection of human health.

Aquatic Life Based Attainment

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule follows the principle of independent applicability.

A waterbody is listed for potential impairment of aquatic life use support based on

exceedances of any one of four types of water quality indicators (numeric water quality

criteria, nutrient thresholds, biological thresholds, and toxicity data).
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 165

EXCEEDANCES OF NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for

preparing the state’s 2000 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations

were included in the assessment of impairment. Water quality information from point

sources or wells was excluded. Monitoring stations were classified as one of five

waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria

described in the latest 305(b) report. The assessments included the following parameters:

Metals Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III,

copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,

thallium, and zinc

Nutrients Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State

Index (TSI) (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total

phosphorus) for lakes

Conventionals Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms, total coliforms,

pH, unionized ammonia

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List included a minimum of 10

temporally independent samples from the ten-year period of record shown in

Appendix D, unless there were 3 exceedances of water quality or 1 exceedance of an

acute toxicity criterion in a three-year period. The screening methodology for the

Verified List requires at least 20 samples from the last five years preceding the Planning

List assessment. An exceedance, meaning that water quality criteria or standards are not

met, is recorded any time the criterion is exceeded by any amount. An exceedance for

DO, however, means that a waterbody does not meet the dissolved oxygen criterion,

rather than an actual exceedance of the criterion.

To determine if a water should be placed on the Planning List for each parameter, the

chemical data were analyzed using a computer program written to assess the data, based

on criteria established in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule, with two exceptions. First,

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

spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criterion could not be

programmed, the incomplete listings for pH are not included. They will be further

examined while additional data are collected during Phase 2 of the watershed

management cycle. Data analysis and statistical summaries of WBIDs, waterbody types,

and parameters obtained from the STORET Database were conducted using Access, SAS

statistical software, and ArcView GIS applications

The data for metals and conventional parameters were compared with the state

surface water quality criteria in Section 62-302.530, F.A.C. (Identification of Impaired

Surface Waters Rule). The rule contains a table of sample numbers versus exceedances.

A waterbody was placed on the Planning List if there was at least 80 percent confidence

that the actual criteria exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10 percent. To be

placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 percent confidence rate was required.
166 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

EXCEEDANCES OF NUTRIENT THRESHOLDS

The state currently has a narrative nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for

nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient

concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural

populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The Impaired Surface Waters Rule provides an

interpretation of the narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the Trophic State Index (TSI)

and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whether a

waterbody should be assessed further for nutrient impairment.

The rule also considers other information that might indicate an imbalance in flora or

fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a

decrease in the distribution (either in density or aerial coverage) of seagrasses or other

submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel

oxygen swings.

Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual mean chlorophyll

a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, the TSI was

calculated using chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen measurements. Direct

evidence of imbalances of flora and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the

evaluation of nutrient impairments.

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

chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 micrograms per liter (μg/L) or if annual mean

chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least

two consecutive years. For streams, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the

annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μg/L or if the annual mean

increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive

years.

A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units (PCUs) was

considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean

color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean

TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a lake was considered nutrient enriched if there was an

increase in TSI over the 1989 to 2000 period or if TSI measurements were 10 units higher

than historical values.

EXCEEDANCE SOF BIOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS

Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and rivers using the

Impaired Surface Waters Rule as guidance and following the Department’s standard

operating procedures, which provide definitions and specific methods for the generation

and analysis of bioassessment data. These are referenced in the individual bioassessment

data tables contained in the Status Reports. The purpose behind using a bioassessment

methodology in surface water characterizations is that biological components of the

environment manifest long-term water quality conditions and thus provide a better

indication of a waterbody’s true health than discrete chemical or physical measurements

alone. Similar to water quality criteria, bioassessment methods involve the identification

of a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpaired or least impacted

waters in a given region.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 167

For the Planning and Verified List assessments, the reference condition data were

used to establish expected scores, ranging from best to worst, for various measures of

community structure and function, such as numbers or percentages of particular species

or feeding groups. Data on community structure and function from waters of unknown

quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of

metrics to evaluate their biological integrity.

Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Diptera, percent filter feeders) were used

independently and as an aggregated group called an index. Indices have advantages over

individual metrics in that they can integrate several related metrics into one score that

reflects a wider range of biological variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and

indices exist for assessing populations of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms

(e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankton), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects,

crayfish, snails, and mussels).

Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in

the bioassessments analyzed for the Planning and Verified Lists. The data included sites

designated as test and background sites for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) fifth-year inspections, but excluded data from effluent outfalls from

discharging facilities or data from monitoring sites not clearly established to collect

ambient water quality data. Because site-specific habitat and physicochemical

assessment information (e.g., percent suitable macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities,

extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian (see the definition below) buffer zone

widths) was not available at the time of reporting, it was not included. However, this

information is instrumental in pinpointing the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and

will be included in future reporting.

DEFINITION: RIPARIAN

Of, on, or relating to the banks of a natural course of water.

The data used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists were obtained from the

Department’s Biological Database (SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality

Database, where it could be substantiated that the data were generated in compliance with

the bioassessment standard operating procedures referenced in the Impaired Surface

Waters Rule (Section 62-303.330, F.A.C.).

The data from these databases are used without regard to the randomness of sample

site selection. The general period of record for data used in the analysis of lotic (moving)

waters was January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1998. The period of record for data

used in the analysis of lentic (still) waters was June 21, 1995, through December 31,

1998. The June 21st date corresponds to the inception of the Department’s current

standard operating procedures for sampling lakes (FS-7640). For the purposes of the

Status Reports, the seasons are defined as follows: winter (1/1–3/31), spring (4/1–6/30),

summer (7/1–9/30), and fall (10/1–12/31). Wet seasons are generally spring and

summer, and dry seasons are fall and winter, although conditions can vary in the state as

a whole.
168 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

LAKE CONDITION INDEX

The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except

percent Diptera, was performed according to the following formula:

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

value

For percent Diptera, the following formula was used:

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

= observed value

An average LCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the six metrics in

the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders

Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; ShannonWiener Diversity Index score; Hulbert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals.

LCI calculations were only provided for clear lakes (< 20 platinum cobalt units [PCUs]).

As macroinvertebrate-based indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in

Florida accurately (> 20 PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A poor

or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule.

STREAM CONDITION INDEX

A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of

the seven metrics in the method, i.e., total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging

to the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent

Chironomid taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and

Florida Index. A poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed

bioassessment, based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. The Status Reports contain

definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data.

BIORECON

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used:

the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three

metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the

Impaired Surface Waters Rule.

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY STANDARD

Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester-Dendy artificial substrate

samplers, were used to calculate Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index scores for paired

background and test sites, as specified in the Biological Integrity Standard of Subsection

62-302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the standard meant that a waterbody segment was

listed as potentially impaired.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 169

EVALUATION OF TOXICITY DATA

Although the Impaired Surface Waters Rule describes the use of toxicity data for the

assessment of aquatic life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity data are available for

assessment and this metric was not used.

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if the following

criteria were met:

• 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 one week or more than once

during a calendar year based on bacteriological data,

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area for which a local health

department or county government issued closures, advisories, or warnings totaling

twenty-one days or more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data,

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed or had advisories

or warnings for more than twelve weeks during a calendar year based on previous

bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria levels and

rainfall or flow.

Bathing area closures were also considered in determining attainment of use.

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet

the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, or if a fish

consumption advisory had been issued. Fish consumption advisories were based on the

Florida Department of Health’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories

for surface waters because of high levels of mercury in fish tissue. In addition, for Class

II waters, waterbody segments that had been approved for shellfish harvesting but were

downgraded to a more restrictive classification were listed as potentially impaired.

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the

applicable Class I water quality criteria.
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

 Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins

ce the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list were used to update the listing status of waters. Table D.1

tus of all assessed waters in the basins as of January 2003. All of the waters in the table are Class III fresh

ted that subsequent to the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list, some waterbody segments were further

 separate segments for lakes versus their surrounding watersheds. Therefore, Table D.1 shows the WBIDs

ments were designated in the 1998 303(d) list, as well as the new or currently recognized WBIDs for them.

s appendix was obtained from an inventory of the Legacy and modernized STORET databases, as well as data

 the Department by individual data providers.

ter Quality Report (Master List) for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by Planning Unit

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

OSFORD

RANCH REACH

Stream No Data 3a

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Estuary Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Estuary Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Estuary Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Estuary Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

AST RIVER Estuary No Data 3a

NNAMED

LOUGH

Stream No Data 3a

PRING CREEK

RAIN

Estuary No Data 3a

PRING CREEK

PRING

Spring Cu Insufficient Data 3b Spring

PRING CREEK

PRING

Spring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Spring

PRING CREEK

PRING

Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Spring
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 171

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

PRING CREEK

PRING

Spring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Spring

PRING CREEK

PRING

Spring Fe Insufficient Data 3b Spring

PRING CREEK

PRING

Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Spring

NHOOK RIVER Stream No Data 3a

EST GOOSE

REEK

Stream No Data 3a

TTER CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamTTER CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamTTER CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamTTER CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater stream

UCKHORN

REEK

Stream No Data 3a Blackwater stream

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Estuary DO Meets Standards 2

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Estuary Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Estuary Turbidity Meets Standards 2

AKE ELLEN Lake No Data 3a

ALKER CREEK Estuary No Data 3a

LLIGATOR LAKE

UTLET

Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

LLIGATOR LAKE

UTLET

Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

LLIGATOR LAKE

UTLET

Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3a
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

CKERSON BAY Estuary DO Meets Standards 2

CKERSON BAY Estuary Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

CKERSON BAY Estuary Turbidity Meets Standards 2

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

YSTER CREEK Stream No Data 3aCHLOCKONEE

AY GULF

Coastal DO Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY GULF

Coastal Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY GULF

Coastal Turbidity Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY GULF

Coastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent data

for coastal fishadvisories.

ASH'S ISLAND Coastal DO Meets Standards 2 High 2007 Mash's Island closed

for at least 21 days in2001. Verificationpending review ofFlorida Department ofHealth (DOH) data.

ASH'S ISLAND Coastal Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2 High 2007 Mash's Island closed

for at least 21 days in2001. Verificationpending review of DOHdata.

ASH'S ISLAND Coastal Turbidity Meets Standards 2 High 2007 Mash's Island closed

for at least 21 days in2001. Verificationpending review of DOHdata.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 173

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ASH'S ISLAND Coastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent data

for coastal fishadvisories.

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Coastal Beach Advisory Verified List 5 High 2007 Mashes Sands beach

had advisories for atleast 21 days in 2001.Verification pendingreview of DOH data.

OAST

PALACHEE

ULF WEST

Coastal DO Meets Standards 2

OAST

PALACHEE

ULF WEST

Coastal Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

OAST

PALACHEE

ULF WEST

Coastal Turbidity Meets Standards 2

OAST

PALACHEE

ULF WEST

Coastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent data

for coastal fishadvisories.

HELL POINT Coastal Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2 High 2007 Shell Point beach

closed for at least 21days in 2001.Verification pendingreview of DOH data.

HELL POINT Coastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent data

for coastal fishadvisories.

RECT RUNOFF

O BAY

Coastal Beach Advisory Verified List 5 High 2007 Shell Point beach had

advisories for at least21 days in 2001.Verification pendingreview of DOH data.New addition.

OAST

PALACHEE

ULF MID

Coastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent data

for coastal fishadvisories.
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

OAST

PALACHEE

ULF EAST

Coastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent data

for coastal fishadvisories.

AKE IAMONIA

UTLET

Lake Nutrients Meets Standards 2 Delist. MS for Trophic

State Index

AKE IAMONIA

UTLET

Lake Total

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) No Flow Unless

Affected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Added toPlanning List (PL) byImpaired SurfaceWaters Rule (IWR).

AKE IAMONIA

UTLET

Lake Fecal

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) No Flow Unless

Affected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Added to PLby IWR.

AKE IAMONIA

UTLET

Lake Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish; NoFlow Unless Affectedby Ochlockonee Riverflooding

AKE IAMONIA

UTLET

Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 No Flow Unless

Affected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Verificationstill pendingdetermination ofcausative pollutant. Colimited, Nitrogen, andPhosphorus limited.

AKE IAMONIA

UTLET

Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 No Flow Unless

Affected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Verificationpending determinationof causative pollutant.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 175

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

AKE IAMONIA

UTLET

Lake TSI Meets Standards 2 No Flow Unless

Affected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Verificationpending determinationof causative pollutant.

AKE IAMONIA

UTLET

Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 No Flow Unless

Affected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Verificationpending determinationof causative pollutant.

NNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3a

CKLE POND

UTLET

Lake No Data 3a

ONKEY

USINESS

UTLET

Lake TSI NA Need to identify limiting

nutrient-Residentialand golf courserunoff.Will not list, not awater of state.

ONKEY

USINESS

UTLET

Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Need to identify limiting

nutrient-Residentialand golf course runoff.

ONKEY

USINESS

UTLET

Lake DO Meets Standards 2 Need to identify limiting

nutrient-Residentialand golf course runoff.

AKE DIANNA Lake TSI Meets Standards 2 Not a water of the stateAKE DIANNA Lake DO Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateAKE DIANNA Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the state

AKE DIANNA Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateAKE DIANNA Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateAKE DIANNA Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the state

ONKEY

USINESS POND

Lake TSI NA Need to identify limiting

nutrient-Residentialand golf course runoff.Will not list, not a waterof state.

ONKEY

USINESS POND

Lake DO Insufficient Data 3b Residential and golf

course runoff
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ONKEY

USINESS POND

Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Residential and golf

course runoff

NNAMED DRAIN Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2NNAMED DRAIN Stream DO Meets Standards 2NNAMED DRAIN Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED DRAIN Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b

AKE

RROWHEAD

Lake TSI NA Not a water of state.

AKE

RROWHEAD

Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Not a water of the state

AKE

RROWHEAD

Lake DO Meets Standards 2 Not a water of the state

AKE BACCUS Lake TSI Meets Standards 2

ETTY GULF

AKE

Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the state

ETTY GULF

AKE

Lake DO Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the state

OAT POND

UTLET

Stream No Data 3a

AKE JACKSON Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Residential and septic

tanks. Linked toNitrogen, phosphorus,and co-limitation. NewAddition

AKE JACKSON Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Residential and septic

tanks

AKE JACKSON Lake Mercury-Fish Meets Standards 2 Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

AKE JACKSON Lake TSI Meets Standards 2 New data show

TSI>40, Nitrogen,phosphorus, and colimitation.

AKE JACKSON Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Residential and septic

tanks

AKE JACKSON Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Residential and septic

tanks

AKE JACKSON Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Residential and septic

tanks
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 177

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

AKE JACKSON Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Residential and septic

tanks

PRING POND Lake No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

AKE

VERSTREET

RAIN

Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3a

AKE

VERSTREET

RAIN

Lake DO Insufficient Data 3a

AKE

VERSTREET

RAIN

Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3a

AKE

VERSTREET

RAIN

Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3a

AKE

VERSTREET

RAIN

Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3a

AKE

VERSTREET

RAIN

Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3a

AKE

VERSTREET

RAIN

Lake TSI Meets Standards 2

AKE

VERSTREET

Lake TSI Meets Standards 2

AKE HALL Lake TSI Meets Standards 2AKE HALL Lake DO Insufficient Data 3bAKE HALL Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ARBINWOOD

STATES

Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Identify limiting

nutrient-Residentialand septic tanks

ARBINWOOD

STATES

Stream Turbidity Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by using

language in IWR -Residential and septictanks

ARBINWOOD

STATES

Stream Total

SuspendedSolids

Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Residential and septic

tanks

ARBINWOOD

STATES

Stream BOD Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Residential and septic

tanks

ARBINWOOD

STATES

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Residential and septic

tanks

MBERLANE

UN

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

MBERLANE

UN

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

MBERLANE

UN

Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Urban runoff

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Urban runoff, added to

PL by using languagein IWR

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream Total

SuspendedSolids

No Data 3a Delist, will monitor for

turbidity

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream BOD Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Will monitor for DOUrban runoff. Added to

PL by using IWRlanguage.

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream DO DO Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Will monitor for DOUrban runoff. Added to

PL by using IWRlangauge.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 179

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

EGGINNIS ARM

UN

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

OBERTS POND

UTLET

Lake DO Insufficient Data 3b

OBERTS POND

UTLET

Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

OBERTS POND

UTLET

Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

OBERTS POND

UTLET

Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

AKE JACKSON Lake Nutrients (TSI) Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Linked to DO. Nitrogen,

phosphorus and colimitation.

LFORD ARM Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Residential runoff and

minimal flow.Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Linked to BOD. Waterbody type may beconsidered a stream.Co-limitation,phosphorus andnitrogen limitation.

LFORD ARM Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Residential runoff and

minimal flow

LFORD ARM Lake TSI Meets Standards 2 Residential runoff and

minimal flow

LFORD ARM Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Residential runoff and

minimal flow

LFORD ARM Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Residential runoff and

minimal flow
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

LFORD ARM Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Residential runoff and

minimal flow

AKE TOM JOHN Lake No Data 3aAKE SHEELIN Lake No Data 3a

AKE KILLARNEY Lake DO Insufficient Data 3bAKE KILLARNEY Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b

OORE POND Lake No Data 3a

ILBERTS POND

UTLET

Lake No Data 3a

ILBERTS POND Lake No Data 3a

AKE LAFAYETTE

RAIN

Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Urban runoff

AKE LAFAYETTE

RAIN

Stream Total

Coliforms

Total Coliforms Verified List 5 (High) (2002) Urban runoff, new data

will be checked toverify sufficientexceedances.Waterbody type maybe considered astream. New founddata. Nitrogenlimitation

AKE LAFAYETTE

RAIN

Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Fecal Coliforms Verified List 5 (High) (2002) Urban runoff, new data

will be checked toverify sufficientexceedances.Waterbody type maybe considered astream. New founddata. Nitrogenlimitation

AKE LAFAYETTE

RAIN

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoff

AKE LAFAYETTE

RAIN

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 181

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

AKE LAFAYETTE

RAIN

Stream DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff.

Verification stillpending determintaionof causative pollutant.Water body type maybe considered astream. Linked toBOD. New Data.Nitrogen limitation

AKE LAFAYETTE

RAIN

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoff

PPER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake TSI Verified List 2 Medium 2007 Urban runoff. Still

need to identify limitingnutrients. Linked tophosphorus.

PPER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

PPER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Linked to

nutrients. Linked tophosphorus.

PPER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoff

AKE PINEY Z Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Linked to

nutrients

AKE PINEY Z Lake TSI Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Still need

to identify limitingnutrients; Co-limitation

AKE PINEY Z Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoffAKE PINEY Z Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffOWER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoff

OWER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Landfill;

Linked to nutrients

OWER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake TSI Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Still need

to identify limitingnutrients

OWER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoff
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

OWER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoff

OWER LAKE

AFAYETTE

Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoff

AKE HERITAGE Lake No Data 3aAKE

INDERMERE

Lake No Data 3a

UCK LAKE

UTLET

Lake No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

ALL DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

ALL DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoff

ALL DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream DO Meets Standards 2 Urban runoff

ALL DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoff

ALL DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoff

NNAMED RUN Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED

LOUGH

Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

LOUGH

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

LOUGH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

LOUGH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

LOUGH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 183

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ARD CREEK Stream DO Verified List 5 (High) (2002) Lack of Flow Limited

Ability to SampleAgricultural Area;Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Nitrogen and colimitation.

ARD CREEK Stream Total

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Lack of Flow Limited

Ability to SampleAgricultural Area.Added to PL by IWR

ARD CREEK Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Lack of Flow Limited

Ability to SampleAgricultural Area.Added to PL by IWR

ARD CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Lack of Flow Limited

Ability to SampleAgricultural Area

ARD CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Lack of Flow Limited

Ability to SampleAgricultural Area

ARD CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Lack of Flow Limited

Ability to SampleAgricultural Area

ANEY BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bANEY BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bANEY BRANCH Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bANEY BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bANEY BRANCH Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2ANEY BRANCH Stream DO Meets Standards 2

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

UTLET

Stream No Data 3a

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

RAIN

Lake No Data 3a

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

Lake Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2011 Agriculture and

residential runoff
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Agriculture and

residential runoff.Need to identifycausative pollutant.Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Co-limitation.

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Agriculture and

residential runoff

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

Lake Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2 Agriculture and

residential runoff

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Agriculture and

residential runoff

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

Lake Total Coliforms Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Agriculture and

residential runoff. Colimitation.

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Agriculture and

residential runoff

AKE

ICCOSUKEE

Lake TSI Meets Standards 2 Agriculture and

residential runoff

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

UNSON

LOUGH (BELOW

AKE)

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

UNSON

LOUGH (BELOW

AKE)

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

UNSON

LOUGH (BELOW

AKE)

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

UNSON

LOUGH (BELOW

AKE)

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

UNSON

LOUGH (BELOW

AKE)

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 185

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

UNSON (AMES

NK)

Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Urban runoff

UNSON (AMES

NK)

Stream DO Planning List 3c Urbam runoff

AKE MUNSON Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffAKE MUNSON Lake Nutrients Nutrients(TSI) Verified List 5 Low 2007 Still need to Identify

limiting nutrient; Linkedto phosphorus;Nitrogen limitation

AKE MUNSON Lake DO Verified List 5 Low 2007 Linked to nutrients;

High BOD

AKE MUNSON Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffAKE MUNSON Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffAKE MUNSON Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream DO Verified List 5 Low 2007 Linked to nutrientsUrban runoff; Nitrogen

limited

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Urban runoff

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream Total

Coliforms

Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Urban runoff

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3b Low 2007 Urban runoff

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream Turbidity Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Delist

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoff

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

UNSON

LOUGH (ABOVE

AKE)

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

ODBY DITCH Stream Nutrients Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urbanrunoff; Minimal flowexcept for storm events

ODBY DITCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urbanrunoff; Minimal flowexcept for storm events

ODBY DITCH Stream Total

SuspendedSolids

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urbanrunoff; Minimal flowexcept for storm events

ODBY DITCH Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except for

storm events

ODBY DITCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except for

storm events

ODBY DITCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except for

storm events

ODBY DITCH Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except for

storm events

ODBY DITCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except for

storm events

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream Nutrients No Data 3a (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand high conductivity

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand high conductivity

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream Total

SuspendedSolids

No Data 3a (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand high conductivity

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream BOD No Data 3a Delist, Meets

Standards for DO
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 187

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff and high

conductivity

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream COD No Data 3a Delist, Meets

Standards for DO

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream Total

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand high conductivity

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand high conductivity

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

ENTRAL

RAINAGE DITCH

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream Nutrients Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoff

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoff

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream Total

SuspendedSolids

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoff

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream BOD Meets Standards 2 Delist, MS for DO

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream Total

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3b (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoff

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3b (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoff

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoff

T AUGUSTINE

RANCH

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff

AKE BRADFORD Lake DO Planning List 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by IWR

Language-Residentialrunoff

AKE BRADFORD Lake TSI Meets Standards 2
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

LVER LAKE Lake Nutrients(TSI) Meets Standards 2LVER LAKE Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c

LVER LAKE Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c

LVER LAKE Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c

AKE HIAWASSA Lake Nutrients(TSI) Meets Standards 2

ASCADE LAKE Lake No Data 3a

RASSY LAKE Lake No Data 3a

AST DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Nutrients Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand golf courses

AST DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand golf courses

AST DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Total

SuspendedSolids

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand golf courses

AST DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream BOD Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand golf courses

AST DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff and golf

courses

AST DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff and golf

courses

AST DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Total

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWR

Language-Urban runoffand golf courses

AST DRAINAGE

TCH

Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c

LEAR LAKE Lake DO Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 189

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

LEAR LAKE Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLEAR LAKE Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

LEAR LAKE Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bLEAR LAKE Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3a

LACK CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLACK CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

LACK CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2LACK CREEK Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

OW SWAMP

RAIN

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3a Blackwater stream

ILL CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

OORE LAKE

RAIN

Lake No Data 3a

OORE LAKE Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bOORE LAKE Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bOORE LAKE Lake TSI Meets Standards 2OORE LAKE Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

OORE LAKE Lake Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Low 2011 2001 Data indicates

impairment; Hgaverage = 0.5975
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

OST CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

OST CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

OST CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bOST CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

OST CREEK Stream DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Verification still

pending determinationof causative pollutant.Phosphorus limited.

AKE TALQUIN Lake Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

AKE TALQUIN Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

AKE TALQUIN Lake DO Meets Standards 2 Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

AKE TALQUIN Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2AKE TALQUIN Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bAKE TALQUIN Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bAKE TALQUIN Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

AKE TALQUIN Lake Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

AKE TALQUIN Lake DO Insufficient Data 3bAKE TALQUIN Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bAKE TALQUIN Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bAKE TALQUIN Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bAKE TALQUIN Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 191

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2011 Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Total Coliforms Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Total

Coliforms

Verified List 5 Low 2007 Listed based upon new

data

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by using

langauge in IWR

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Delist

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2011 Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream No Data 3a
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

TERLOCKING

AKES

Lake No Data 3a

OLMAN

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

UINCY CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Planning List 3c Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

UINCY CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Planning List 3c Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

UINCY CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

UINCY CREEK Stream DO Meets Standards 2 Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

UINCY CREEK Stream Chloride Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

UINCY CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

UINCY CREEK Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

UINCY CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

UINCY CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, Urban

Runoff

OCKY

OMFORT

REEK

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

OCKY

OMFORT

REEK

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

OCKY

OMFORT

REEK

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

OCKY

OMFORT

REEK

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

OCKY

OMFORT

REEK

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 193

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

OCKY

OMFORT

REEK

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aAMEL CREEK Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

ILLACOOCHEE

REEK

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Mining Operations

ILLACOOCHEE

REEK

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Mining Operations

ILLACOOCHEE

REEK

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Mining Operations

ILLACOOCHEE

REEK

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Mining Operations

ILLACOOCHEE

REEK

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Mining Operations

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

TTAPULGUS

REEK

Stream No Data 3a Mining Operations

Upstream

TTLE RIVER Stream Total

Coliforms

Verified List 5 Low 2007 Mining Operations

Upstream

TTLE RIVER Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Meets Standards 2 Mining Operations

Upstream

TTLE RIVER Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Mining Operations

Upstream

TTLE RIVER Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Delist.
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

TTLE RIVER Stream Total

SuspendedSolids

Meets Standards 2 Delist. MS for Turbidity

TTLE RIVER Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish;Mining OperationsUpstream

TTLE RIVER Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Mining Operations

Upstream

TTLE RIVER Stream DO Meets Standards 2 Mining Operations

Upstream

TTLE RIVER Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Meets Standards 2 Mining Operations

Upstream

WAMP CREEK Stream Total

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by using

language in IWRMining Upstream

WAMP CREEK Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by using

language in IWRMining Upstream

WAMP CREEK Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Mining Operations

Upstream

WAMP CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL By

Language in IWRMining Upstream

WAMP CREEK Stream Total

SuspendedSolids

Planning List 3c Low 2007 Mining Operations

Upstream

WAMP CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Mining Operations

Upstream

WAMP CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Mining Operations

Upstream

ILL CREEK Stream No Data 3a

HAW CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bHAW CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bHAW CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 195

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

HAW CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bHAW CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

TREAM

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

TREAM

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

TREAM

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

TREAM

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED

RANCH

Stream DO Planning List 3c

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

ALEM BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

ALEM BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bALEM BRANCH Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bALEM BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

ALEM BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

UBBERT

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

UBBERT

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

UBBERT

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

INKLEY

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

INKLEY

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

INKLEY

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

EWIS CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;

Urban runoff

EWIS CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;

Urban runoff

EWIS CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;

Urban runoff

EWIS CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;

Urban runoff

EWIS CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;

Urban runoff

CH BAY RUN Stream No Data 3a

URRICANE

REEK

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

URRICANE

REEK

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

URRICANE

REEK

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

URRICANE

REEK

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

URRICANE

REEK

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

ALLAVANNA

AKE

Lake TSI Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Still need to Identify

nutrient of concernResidential andnursery runoff;Lakewatch data notincluded
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 197

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ALLAVANNA

AKE

Lake DO Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

ALLAVANNA

AKE

Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

ALLAVANNA

AKE

Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

ALLAVANNA

AKE

Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

ALLAVANNA

AKE

Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

ALLAVANNA

AKE

Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries and

residential runoff

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

ANYARD

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a Quincy urban runoff;

Underground tanks

RCHARD POND

UTLET

Lake No Data 3a Quincy urban runoff;

Underground tanks

ILL DAM CREEK Stream No Data 3a

OX CREEK Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

O PRONG

ANYARD BR

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

OUBLE BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

OTE CREEK Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

REEK

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

CHLANDER

REEK

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

CHLANDER

REEK

Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b

CHLANDER

REEK

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

CHLANDER

REEK

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

CHLANDER

REEK

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

OBINSON

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

OG CREEK Stream No Data 3aNNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3aAMP CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bAMP CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 199

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

AMP CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

WEETWATER

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

ONROE CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

URKEY CREEK Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

ANE CREEK Stream No Data 3a

OLLEY BRANCH Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

EAR CREEK Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bEAR CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bEAR CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bEAR CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bEAR CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bEAR CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

IDWAY BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aUNTER CREEK Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

UNIPER

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

OUBLE BRANCH Stream Fish-Mercury Planning List 3cNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

ULE CREEK Stream No Data 3a

ULLEY BRANCH Stream Fish-Mercury Planning List 3c

NNAMED

TREAM

Stream No Data 3a

CKLAWAHA

REEK

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

CKLAWAHA

REEK

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

CKLAWAHA

REEK

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3b

OLE BRANCH Stream No Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3b

ODD BRANCH Stream No Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 201

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3b

CINTOSH

RANCH

Stream No Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aAMMOCK

REEK

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

AMMOCK

REEK

Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b

AMMOCK

REEK

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

AMMOCK

REEK

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

AMMOCK

REEK

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

AMMOCK

REEK

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

OLK CREEK Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

OLK CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bOLK CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bOLK CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bOLK CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

ARVEY CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bARVEY CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bARVEY CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bARVEY CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

REEMAN CREEK Stream Nutrients Insufficient Data 3bREEMAN CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bREEMAN CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bREEMAN CREEK Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3bREEMAN CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

REEMAN CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

REEMAN CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bREEMAN CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 203

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

EST BR

OPCHOPPY RI

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish andBlackwater

AST BR

OPCHOPPY

VE

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

AST BR

OPCHOPPY

VE

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

AST BR

OPCHOPPY

VE

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

ONKEY CREEK Stream Cu Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamONKEY CREEK Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamONKEY CREEK Stream Pb Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamONKEY CREEK Stream Ni Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater stream

ONKEY CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater stream

ONKEY CREEK Stream Zn Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater stream

EEP CREEK Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

LOUGH

Stream No Data 3a

ILL CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bILL CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bILL CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bILL CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

LOUGH

Stream No Data 3a

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Ni Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Se Insufficient Data 3b

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Meets Standards 2

OPCHOPPY

VER

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

LACK CREEK Stream Total

Coliforms

Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by using

language in IWR

LACK CREEK Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by using

language in IWR

LACK CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bLACK CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bLACK CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 205

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

NNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

EEDY BRANCH Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

WEETWATER

REEK

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

GH HILL CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

ANTHER CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

NE CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

DIAN CREEK Stream No Data 3a

ETSY BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

OX BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

ILL CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

GER CREEK Stream No Data 3a

EEDY BRANCH Stream No Data 3aAT BRANCH Stream No Data 3aORTH BRANCH

MITH CR

Stream No Data 3a

OXES BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

MITH CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bMITH CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bMITH CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

MITH CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bMITH CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

LAT BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3a

ULLY BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

AUSE BRANCH Stream No Data 3aRBOR BUSH

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

AST FORK

YFRETT CR

Stream No Data 3a

YFRETT CREEK Stream No Data 3a Blackwater stream

ILL BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

OUBLE BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

HOOLHOUSE

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

OEL BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

TI BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

AKER BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

OW CREEK Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

G SPRING Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3aAW CREEK Stream No Data 3a
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 207

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

UMPY CREEK Stream No Data 3a

OMACK CREEK Stream No Data 3a

ROOKED RIVER Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

OM HAHN

REEK

Stream No Data 3a

OW CREEK Stream No Data 3a

RANDY CREEK Stream No Data 3a

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

AY

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

HAIRES CREEK Estuary Turbidity Meets Standards 2HAIRES CREEK Estuary DO Meets Standards 2HAIRES CREEK Estuary Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2HAIRES CREEK Estuary Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bHAIRES CREEK Estuary Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2011
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream DO DO Meets Standards 2 Delist

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Total Coliforms Meets Standards 2

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream DO DO Meets Standards 2 Delist

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Total

Coliforms

Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by using

language in IWR

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by using

language in IWR

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL By using

language in IWR

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2007 Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

CHLOCKONEE

VER

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

TTMAN CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bTTMAN CREEK Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 209

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

TTMAN CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTTMAN CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTTMAN CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

LUFF CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

LUE CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

LUE CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLUE CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

LUE CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

OAPSTONE

RANCH

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

OAPSTONE

RANCH

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3b

UBBARD

RANCH

Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3b Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

UBBARD

RANCH

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

UTTERLOH

LOUGH

Stream No Data 3a

ROW POND

UTLET

Lake No Data 3a

WEETWATER

RANCH

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cut

forests

WEETWATER

RANCH

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cut

forests

WEETWATER

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cut

forests

WEETWATER

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cut

forests

WEETWATER

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cut

forests

HICKEN

RANCH

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Intermittent flow; East

of spray field

HICKEN

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2 Intermittent flow; East

of spray field

HICKEN

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

HICKEN

RANCH

Stream DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Verification still

pending because Needto identify causitivepollutant-Intermittentflow; East of sprayfield; Nitrogen limitation

HICKEN

RANCH

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Intermittent flow; East

of spray field

HICKEN

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Intermittent flow; East

of spray field

AKE ERIE Lake TSI Meets Standards 2

OORE BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Dirt Roads

OORE BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bOORE BRANCH Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bOORE BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bOORE BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 211

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

MESTONE

REEK

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

ORIAH CREEK Stream Dioxin Planning List 3c DEP evaluating new

dioxin data in sedimentsamples

ORIAH CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bORIAH CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bORIAH CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bORIAH CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

ATTY SINK

RAIN

Stream No Data 3a

LACK CREEK Stream DO DO Verified List 5 Low 2007 Need to identify

pollutant of concern;High phosphorusvalue; Nitrogen and colimited.

LACK CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2LACK CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLACK CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLACK CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

ORRIS BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

ORRIS BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

ORRIS BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

LOYD CREEK Stream DO Meets Standards 2LOYD CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2LOYD CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLOYD CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLOYD CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

T. MARKS

VER (SOUTH

Estuary Dioxin Planning List 3c DEP evaluating new

dioxin data in sedimentsamples

T. MARKS

VER (SOUTH

Estuary Total

Coliforms

Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b (High) (2002) Added to PL by using

language in IWR

T. MARKS

VER (SOUTH

Estuary Fecal

Coliforms

Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b (High) (2002) Added to PL by using

language in IWR

T. MARKS

VER (SOUTH

Estuary DO DO Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

T. MARKS

VER (SOUTH

Estuary Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

T. MARKS

VER

Stream Dioxin Planning List 3c DEP evaluating new

dioxin data in sedimentsamples

T. MARKS

VER

Stream DO DO Verified List 5 High 2002 Urban runoff; Minimal

flow. Will not listunless causativepollutant identified.Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Nitrogen limitation.

T. MARKS

VER

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

T. MARKS

VER

Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2

T. MARKS

VER

Stream Flouride Meets Standards 2

T. MARKS

VER

Stream Total Coliforms Meets Standards 2

T. MARKS

VER

Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

T. MARKS

VER

Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

T. MARKS

VER

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

EWPORT

PRING

Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Spring

EWPORT

PRING

Spring DO Insufficient Data 3b

EWPORT

PRING

Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

EWPORT

PRING

Spring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

EWPORT

PRING

Spring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

T.MARKS

PRING

Spring DO Planning List 3c Spring-Naturally low

DO
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 213

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

T.MARKS

PRING

Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Spring

T.MARKS

PRING

Spring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Spring

T.MARKS

PRING

Spring Fe Insufficient Data 3b Spring

T.MARKS

PRING

Spring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Spring

T.MARKS

PRING

Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Spring

ORN SPRING Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b SpringORN SPRING Spring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b SpringORN SPRING Spring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b SpringORN SPRING Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Spring

ORN SPRING Spring DO Verified List 4 Medium 2007 Spring-Naturally low

DO; Nitrogen limited

OPELAND SINK

RAIN

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

OPELAND SINK

RAIN

Stream DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Need to identify

causative pollutant.Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Nitrogen limited.

OPELAND SINK

RAIN

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

OPELAND SINK

RAIN

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

OPELAND SINK

RAIN

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

OPELAND SINK

RAIN

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

OLAR MILL

RANCH

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

ALL BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

ANG BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ANG BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

ANG BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

UBA BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bUBA BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bUBA BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

URNT MILL

REEK

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

URNT MILL

REEK

Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

URNT MILL

REEK

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

URNT MILL

REEK

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

URNT MILL

REEK

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

URNT MILL

REEK

Stream DO Meets Standards 2

AKE WOOTEN Lake TSI Meets Standards 2

ARBECUE

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

YKES BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

ATTLESNAKE

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

YPRESS

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

TOKES BRANCH Stream No Data 3a Timber Energy; Mixing

Zone: Cu,Temperature,Conductivity

ESTERN

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

OOPER

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

G BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

ELLOW CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamELLOW CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater stream
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 215

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ELLOW CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamELLOW CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamELLOW CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater stream

ESTERN

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

ELOGIA CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Verified List 5 Medium 2007ELOGIA CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Verified List 5 Medium 2007ELOGIA CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Meets Standards 2

ELOGIA CREEK Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2ELOGIA CREEK Stream DO Meets Standards 2

ELOGIA CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

ELOGIA CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

ELOGIA CREEK Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

DIAN SPRING Spring DO Insufficient Data 3bDIAN SPRING Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

DIAN SPRING Spring Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

CDONALD

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

TTLE TELOGIA

REEK

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

TTMAN

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

URRICANE

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

ALLAHASSEE

REEK

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

ALLAHASSEE

REEK

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

UNIPER

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

UNIPER

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

UNIPER

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

ON CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bON CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bON CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED

LOUGH

Stream No Data 3a

UNIPER CREEK Stream Total

Coliforms

Planning List 3c Low 2007

UNIPER CREEK Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007UNIPER CREEK Stream Fecal

Coliforms

Fecal Coliforms Planning List 3c Low 2007

UNIPER CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bUNIPER CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

UNIPER CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

ULE CREEK Stream Turbidity Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bULE CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 217

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

ULE CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bULE CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

ULE CREEK Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

AMP CREEK Stream No Data 3a

ONG BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

ARNIGAN

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

ARNIGAN

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

ARNIGAN

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

AST MINNOW

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

TARVATION

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

URRAY HEAD Stream No Data 3a Verify dates are within

7.5 years for fish

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

URKEY CREEK Stream No Data 3a

HANTY FORD

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

OORE BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

EST MINNOW

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

ILL BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

HITE PANTHER

REEK

Stream No Data 3a
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

UMPY BAY

RAIN

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

ENT RUN Stream No Data 3a

ONG BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

HORT BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

EASON

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3a

G CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

ULL CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bULL CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bULL CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

AMP BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

HITE BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

ANTHER CREEK Stream No Data 3a

ATTLESNAKE

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

AST FORK

ANTHER CR

Stream No Data 3a

EVELS BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

OUBLE BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

IN BRANCH Stream No Data 3aOFF BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

EEDY BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

EAR BRANCH Stream No Data 3a
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 219

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

NNAMED

RANCH

Stream No Data 3a

PRING BRANCH Stream No Data 3a

AKULLA RIVER Stream Dioxin Planning List 3c DEP evaluating new

dioxin data in sedimentsamples

AKULLA RIVER Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2

AKULLA RIVER Stream DO Meets Standards 2AKULLA RIVER Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2AKULLA RIVER Stream Total Coliforms Meets Standards 2AKULLA RIVER Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2

AKULLA RIVER Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bAKULLA RIVER Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

AKULLA RIVER Stream Biology Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Failed 5 SCIAKULLA RIVER Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

ROUT POND Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bROUT POND Spring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bROUT POND Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

OFTON POND Lake Cu Insufficient Data 3bOFTON POND Lake Fe Insufficient Data 3bOFTON POND Lake Pb Insufficient Data 3bOFTON POND Lake Ni Insufficient Data 3b

OFTON POND Lake Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

OFTON POND Lake Zn Insufficient Data 3b

TTLE LOFTON

OND

Lake No Data 3a

AKULLA

PRINGS

Spring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Hydrilla Herbicided in

2002

AKULLA

PRINGS

Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Hydrilla Herbicided in

2002

AKULLA

PRINGS

Spring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Hydrilla Herbicided in

2002

ALLY WARD

PRING

Spring DO Planning List 3c Spring; Natural low DO

in boil

DIAN SPRINGS Spring DO Insufficient Data 3bDIAN SPRINGS Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Waterbody

Segment

Waterbody

Type

1998 303(d)Parameters

of Concern

Parameters

Assessed by

Using the

Impaired

Waters Rule

Proposed Status

(Meets Standards,

No Data,

Insufficient Data,

Planning List,

Verified List)

EPA's

Integrated

Report

Category*

Priority for

TMDL

Development**

Projected

Year for

TMDL

Development Comments***

DIAN SPRINGS Spring Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

CBRIDE

LOUGH

Stream DO Planning List 3c Naturally low DO

CBRIDE

LOUGH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

CBRIDE

LOUGH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b

CBRIDE

LOUGH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

G BOGGY

RANCH

Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b St Marks Powder

Discharge

G BOGGY

RANCH

Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b St Marks Powder

Discharge

G BOGGY

RANCH

Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b

G BOGGY

RANCH

Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b

G BOGGY

RANCH

Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b

G BOGGY

RANCH

Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b

G BOGGY

RANCH

Stream Un-ionized

Ammonia

Insufficient Data 3b

grated Report categories are as follows:

 uses,

ted uses,

tion are available to determine if any designated use is attained,

mation are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained,

criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses,

r more designated uses and the TMDL is complete,r more designated uses but no TMDL will be developed because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant,

r more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain

re, and

ds are not attained and a TMDL is required.

 the 1998 303(d) list (i.e., High or Low), but High, Medium and Low are used for newly listed waters identified under the IWR.

es as of 8/19/02.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 221

Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water in the

Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by Planning Unit

and St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface Water

Perm. Des.

WAFR Cap. Cap. Latitude Longitude

Facility

ID Facility Description

Treatment Process

Summary (MGD) (MGD) DD MM SS DD MM SS

5th Year

Inspection

Dates(s)

ng Unit

FL0029033 10075 Domestic WWTP Contact stabilization;

to Quincy Creek, Little

River and then Lake

Talquin

1.5 1.5 30 35 2.28 84 33 14.14 November-91,

March-97,

November-95, June00

FL0030333 10076 Domestic WWTP High rate trickling filter.

Effluent to Womack

Mill Creek

0.4 0.4 30 36 52 84 24 49.99

FL0002577 10089 Industrial Wastewater Detention for

sedimentation of solids

12.8 12.8 30 36 2.48 84 34 22.63 November-96

FL0038466 16016 Industrial Wastewater Detention for sedimentation of

suspended solids.

2.16 November-96

FL0038474 10090 Industrial Wastewater Detention for

sedimentation of solids

2.16 30 35 57.7 84 34 24.52 November-96

FL0039101 16021 Industrial Wastewater Detention for

sedimentation of

solids.

2.16 November-96

FL0040827 10080 Industrial Wastewater Impoundment/silt

barrier/rip-rap

2.16 2.16 30 36 52 84 33 15

FLG910836 18333 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

30 35 16.7 84 34 56.94

FLG910837 18334 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

30 35 17.9 84 34 58.29

FLG910838 18335 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

30 35 16.2 84 34 58.91

t

FLG910616 17659 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

t

N/A February-87

N/A October-84
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Perm. Des.

WAFR Cap. Cap. Latitude Longitude

Facility

ID Facility Description

Treatment Process

Summary (MGD) (MGD) DD MM SS DD MM SS

5th Year

Inspection

Dates(s)

FL0039951 10174 Industrial Wastewater Intermittent discharge

from WWTF for an 14

MW wastewood fueled

power plant.

30 20 8.52 84 49 5.88 November-91,

October-93, August93

FLG830331 16438 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

30 23 15 84 48 0

FLG830450 16497 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

30 32 43.5 83 51 54.77

FLG910291 16918 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

FL0025526 10230 Industrial Wastewater Chlorination, pH

neutralization and

stabilization

30 9 46.7 84 11 57.19 July-95

FL0032433 16046 Industrial Wastewater

FL0040835 July-98

FL0035220 10236 Industrial Wastewater Collection lagoon with

stabilization ponds

0.016 0.016 30 9 53 84 12 23.52 January-96

nit

FL0022772 10147 Domestic WWTP Extended aeration

sand filter to creek and

natural depression

0.02 0.02 30 25 21.4 84 13 7.54

FLG040033 16288 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

t

FL0034754 Ind. WW 0.006 March-93, April-93,

June-93

FL0025518 10142 Industrial Wastewater Oil/gas fueled steam

electric power plant

1.87 1.87 30 27 3.2 84 23 58.92 Dec.-85, May-95,

Feb.-96, June-96

FLG830379 16460 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

Discharge treated

ground water

30 27 30 82 0 0

FLG910156 16739 Petro. Cleanup GP (long

term)

permit cancelled

1/7/99

FL0038199 10170 Domestic WWTP Extended aeration w/

teriary filter and

reclaimed water

discharge

0.015 0.015 30 26 18.4 84 21 52.78 December-98
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 223

Perm. Des.

WAFR Cap. Cap. Latitude Longitude

Facility

ID Facility Description

Treatment Process

Summary (MGD) (MGD) DD MM SS DD MM SS

5th Year

Inspection

Dates(s)

FL0002518 10235 Industrial Wastewater spray irrig. w/ effluent

indirectly to Big Boggy

Branch and Wakulla

River

0.786 0.79 30 10 51.8 84 13 12.22 November-95,

December-97
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

and St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Not Discharging to Surface Water

Planning

Unit Facility ID

WAFR

Site ID

Facility

Type/

Description.

Average

Design

Flow

(mgd)

Discharge Groups –

NS_Description

WAFR

FAC.

Lat.

DD

Lat.

MM

Lat.

SS

Long.

DD

Long.

MM

Long.

SS

5th Year

Inspection

ST. MARKS FLA010133 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.0068 Reuse/secondary treatment 10133 30 28 39.78 83 54 57.74

Y PLAZA

ST. MARKS FLA010134 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.042 Reuse system 10134 30 29 0.71 84 1 34.48

ST. MARKS FLA102318 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.05 Industrial reuse system 10231 30 9 11.39 84 12 27.42 Jul-98

ST. MARKS FLA010131 Ind. WW 10131 30 29 2.01 84 1 42.01

ST. MARKS FLA010132 Ind. WW 10132 30 29 3.84 84 1 30.32

ST. MARKS FL0042161 Ind. WW 10234 30 9 35.82 84 11 57.26

ST. MARKS FLA181803 Ind. WW 18180

MICCOSKEE FLA010135 Dom. WWTP 10135 30 40 0.01 83 55 0

LAFAYETTE FLA010159 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.07 Reuse system 10159 30 25 17.79 84 8 10.2

LAFAYETTE FLA010172 Dom. WWTP 0.175 10172 30 27 47.41 84 12 46.29

LAFAYETTE FLA010153 Ind. WW 10153 30 25 53 84 11 19

LITY MUNSON FLA010139 R-001 Dom. WWTP 19.84 Southeast Farm and Southwest Sprayfield 10139 30 23 29.25 84 19 20.9

LITY MUNSON FLA010139 R-002 Dom. WWTP 19.84 Southeast Farm Pump Station. (SECOND R-001) 10139 30 23 29.25 84 19 20.9

MUNSON FLA010140 R-001 Dom. WWTP 4.5 SOUTHEAST FARM AND SOUTHWEST SPRAYFIELD 10140 30 25 34.29 84 18 4.88

P MUNSON FLA010141 Dom. WWTP 0.06 10141 30 24 27.34 84 21 20.61

MUNSON FLA010148 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.036 EFF: DRAINFIELD: LAKE BRADFORD MHP STP 10148 30 24 24.2 84 19 26.47

MUNSON FLA010151 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.015 reuse system 10151 30 27 28.46 84 22 25.23MUNSON FLA010151 R-002 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10151 30 27 28.46 84 22 25.23

MUNSON FLA010152 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 EF TO REUSE SYSTEM R001 10152 30 26 6.3 84 22 22.28

MUNSON FLA010167 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.0707 Effluent 10167 30 26 4.76 84 23 43.44

MUNSON FLA010143 Ind. WW 10143 30 25 50 84 20 10

MUNSON FLA010144 Ind. WW 10144 30 25 49 84 21 10

MUNSON FLA010145 Ind. WW 10145 30 27 25 84 21 26

MUNSON FLA010149 G-001 Ind. WW DRAIN FIELD - DISCHARGE FROM SAND FILTER 10149 30 26 6.47 84 22 22.45

MUNSON FLA010154 G-001 Ind. WW drain field 10154 30 27 23.8 84 22 13.59
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 225

Planning

Unit Facility ID

WAFR

Site ID

Facility

Type/

Description.

Average

Design

Flow

(mgd)

Discharge Groups –

NS_Description

WAFR

FAC.

Lat.

DD

Lat.

MM

Lat.

SS

Long.

DD

Long.

MM

Long.

SS

5th Year

Inspection

MUNSON FLA010158 Ind. WW 10158 30 29 38.4 84 19 31.83

MUNSON FLA010160 Ind. WW 10160 30 27 29.55 84 22 54.06

MUNSON FLA010161 Ind. WW 10161 30 26 25.02 84 18 50.93

MUNSON FLA010162 Ind. WW 10162 30 26 15.54 84 16 12.24

MUNSON FLA010163 Ind. WW 10163 30 24 8.99 84 21 6.6

MUNSON FLA010164 Ind. WW 10164 30 26 20 84 20 5

MUNSON FLA010166 Ind. WW 10166 30 24 0.01 84 16 0.01

MUNSON FLA010168 Ind. WW 10168 30 26 3.71 84 17 55.69

MUNSON FLA010169 Ind. WW 10169 30 24 42 84 18 13

- FSU MUNSON FLA016533 G-001 Ind. WW 0.075 discharge system to lawn irrigation 16533 30 25 28.54 84 19 35.35

MUNSON FLA016653 Ind. WW 16653 30 26 6 84 17 48.92

LOST FLA010150 R-002 Ind. WW 10150 30 21 16 84 27 30

WAKULLA FLA010136 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.01 reuse system 10136 30 18 50.03 84 14 47.64

WAKULLA FLA010137 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 Land Application System 10137 30 18 16.61 84 13 42.72

WAKULLA FLA010227 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.016 EFF TO ABSORP FIELD: SHADEVILLE ELEM SCH 10227 30 12 54.06 84 19 13.07

T CTR WAKULLA FLA010228 Dom. WWTP 0.02 10228 30 11 34.36 84 22 20.04

WAKULLA FLA010237 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.06 REUSE SYSTEM 10237 30 15 33.97 84 18 58.4

WAKULLA FLA010241 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.025 EF TO PERC POND: RIVER PLANTATION CLOSED 10241 30 12 18.12 84 15 5.94

WAKULLA FLA016544 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.495 Sprayfield Irrigation System 16544 30 15 23.66 84 13 6.06

AGE WAKULLA FLA010155 G-001 Ind. WW 0.0013 Drainfield after sand filter/septic tank 10155 30 19 35.79 84 14 59.16

WAKULLA FLA010156 Ind. WW 0.0027 10156 30 19 5 84 14 55

WAKULLA FLA010232 Ind. WW 0.0068 10232 30 11 4.73 84 22 28.15

WAKULLA FLA010233 Ind. WW 10233 30 12 41 84 22 13

WAKULLA FLA010239 Ind. WW 10239 30 12 23.93 84 21 57.43

NDROMAT WAKULLA FLA185965 Ind. WW 18596

N. OCHL FL0030333 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.4 REUSE SYSTEM 10076 30 36 52.03 84 24 49.99
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Planning

Unit Facility ID

WAFR

Site ID

Facility

Type/

Description.

Average

Design

Flow

(mgd)

Discharge Groups –

NS_Description

WAFR

FAC.

Lat.

DD

Lat.

MM

Lat.

SS

Long.

DD

Long.

MM

Long.

SS

5th Year

Inspection

N. OCHL FLA010079 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012 EF TO DRAINFIELD: MCLENDON PARK STP 10079 30 33 0.05 84 31 21.83

N. OCHL FLA010084 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.006 REUSE SYSTEM 10084 30 36 37.22 84 28 1.28

N. OCHL FLA010085 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10085 30 37 15.71 84 24 5.71

N. OCHL FLA010138 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.011 Absorption Field 10138 30 26 25.26 84 30 57.85

N. OCHL FLA010146 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10146 30 26 34 84 24 12

OD) N. OCHL FLA010171 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.3 REUSE SYSTEM 10171 30 32 8.57 84 22 0.35

N. OCHL FLA016632 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 Effluent discharge to absorption beds- 16632 30 29 34.71 84 25 43.94

N. OCHL FLA182923 Dom. WWTP 0.013 18292 30 29 42.84 84 26 2.51

N. OCHL FLA010082 Ind. WW 10082 30 28 22.46 84 39 25.9

N. OCHL FLA010083 R-001 Ind. WW 0.005 reuse system 10083 30 30 19.64 84 42 35.6

WSH N. OCHL FLA010087 Ind. WW 10087 30 29 29.69 84 25 22.36

N. OCHL FLA010091 Ind. WW 0 10091 30 38 1.32 84 24 9.28

N. OCHL FLA010092 Ind. WW 10092 30 32 25 84 35 50

N. OCHL FLA017081 Ind. WW 17081 30 28 19.48 84 39 23.45

E N. OCHL FLA017296 Ind. WW 17296

S. OCHL FLA010178 Ind. WW 10178 30 1 5.91 84 36 40.16

IAMONIA FLA010173 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.7 sprayfield irrigation system 10173 30 35 35.01 84 13 12.57IAMONIA FLA010173 R-002 Dom. WWTP 0.7 rapid infiltration basins 10173 30 35 35.01 84 13 12.57

IAMONIA FLA010165 Ind. WW 10165 30 33 53.11 84 12 52.04

TELOGIA FLA010074 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012 EFFLUENT 10074 30 34 17.07 84 44 5.69

ARE TELOGIA FLA010176 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012 STP Effluent 10176 30 25 23.94 84 54 59.73

TELOGIA FLA010179 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.2 STP Effluent 10179 30 28 5.98 84 51 47.86

TELOGIA FLA100781 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.35 REUSE SYSTEM 10078 30 37 51.53 84 39 58.59

TELOGIA FLA010088 R-001 Ind. WW Spray Irrigation/Created Wetland 10088 30 32 1.79 84 41 25.25

TELOGIA FLA010177 Ind. WW 10177 30 21 6.35 84 49 38.16

TELOGIA FLA016194 Ind. WW 16194

COASTAL FLA010242 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.024 EF TO PERC POND: SHELL POINT STP 10242 30 3 31.19 84 17 22.21
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 227

Planning

Unit Facility ID

WAFR

Site ID

Facility

Type/

Description.

Average

Design

Flow

(mgd)

Discharge Groups –

NS_Description

WAFR

FAC.

Lat.

DD

Lat.

MM

Lat.

SS

Long.

DD

Long.

MM

Long.

SS

5th Year

Inspection

COASTAL FLA010225 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.2 reuse system 10225 30 4 55.41 84 25 0.51

COASTAL FLA010226 Dom. WWTP 0.018 10226 30 6 22.63 84 22 29.58

COASTAL FLA010229 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.018 REUSE SYSTEM 10229 30 7 36.43 84 22 19.74

COASTAL FLA010238 R-OO1 Dom. WWTP 0.024 reuse system 10238 30 5 5.64 84 23 12.87

COASTAL FL0032433 R-001 Ind. WW SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM 16046

COASTAL FLA010240 Ind. WW 10240 30 9 37.12 84 17 30.41
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

and St. Marks WACS Landfills

TOTAL Cell Water

Tot. Surf. Oper. Waste Meas. Refuse Table

Pop. Mon. Mon. Beg. Expec Quan./ Des Unit Liner Loc NPDES Leach. Depth Depth

City Served Wells Points Year Life Day Cap. Type Type Type Permit Disch. (ft.) (ft.)

TION QUINCY

QUINCY 9000 8 2 1975 7 75 CYD E N 6 40

HAVANA 200 0 1970 N 6 20

DOGTOWN 2 1983 50 25 65

LIA SLF DOGTOWN 2 0 1981 50 CYD N O Y 25 65

R SLF DOGTOWN 2 0 1981 50 CYD N F N 25 65

RANSFER

QUINCY

FILL HAVANA 6000 10 2 1979 0 15 TON N N 25 40

R DUMP GREENSBOR

O

300 0 0 82 CYD N N 3 50

DUCTION PLANT GRETNA 400000

HARDAWAY 300 0 0 55 CYD N N 6 30

HAVANA 2000 0 1962 197 CYD N N 8 20

JAMIESON 200 0 1970 0 41 CYD N 6 30

MP LAKE

TALQUIN

150 0 1968 38 CYD N N 6 120

MP QUINCY 150 0 0 37 CYD N N 70

MIDWAY 300 0 1970 0 41 CYD N N 6 10

Y QUINCY 1991

RAL C & D L/F MONTICELLOSLF (CAPPS) CAPPS 10000 16 1 1980 20 50 CYD C N 4 35

LLOYD

N

WAUKEENAH 10000 4 1 1973 0 200 200 CYD N O N N 15 21

 INC.- TRAM RD. TALLAHASSEE

C&D FACIL. TALLAHASSEE 1991 10

Y TALLAHASSEE 1991 2

RIS DISPOSAL TALLAHASSEE

TALLAHASSEE 3000 N O 4 5

TALLAHASSEE 600 0 1972 4 TON C O N N 7 18

OPERTY,INC.

TALLAHASSEE 20

L FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1993 10
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 229

TOTAL Cell Water

Tot. Surf. Oper. Waste Meas. Refuse Table

Pop. Mon. Mon. Beg. Expec Quan./ Des Unit Liner Loc NPDES Leach. Depth Depth

City Served Wells Points Year Life Day Cap. Type Type Type Permit Disch. (ft.) (ft.)

TALLAHASSEE 0 0 1984 20 50 TON C O N N 15

RUTLAND

TALLAHASSEE

TALLAHASSEE

ACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1992 2

ILL TALLAHASSEE 1992 15

S, INC TALLAHASSE 1992 10

MAS RD) DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3000 0 1974 5 TON N O N N 6 7

D SITE) TALLAHASSEE 500 0 C N N 12 14

T RD DUMP BLOXHAM 2000 0 2 TON N O N N 4 7

TALLAHASSEE 3000 1972 C N N 15 14

D OF CNTY

TALLAHASSEE

NC. TALLAHASSEE

MICCOSUKEE 2500 N O 10 14

, INC. TALLAHASSEE 1993 20

TRAM RD PIT TALLAHASSEE

& D DEBRIS DISP. TALLAHASSEE

TARY LANDFILL TALLAHASSEE 0 0 1983 5 30 CYD C O N Y

ER RETREADING

TALLAHASSEE

 C&D TALLAHASSEE

TALLAHASSEE

TALLAHASSEE

TALLAHASSEE 1992 25

CTION CO OF

TALLAHASSEE 1993 14

FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE

OLD AIRPORT

TALLAHASSEE 100000 7 1961 333 CYD N O N N 30 40

 DUMP TALLAHASSEE 120000 7 1968 250 TON N O N N 30 20

TALLAHASSEE 3500 TON N O 15 14

ACILITY TALLAHASSEE

TALLAHASSEE 141000 6 C O 8 7
lity Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

TOTAL Cell Water

Tot. Surf. Oper. Waste Meas. Refuse Table

Pop. Mon. Mon. Beg. Expec Quan./ Des Unit Liner Loc NPDES Leach. Depth Depth

City Served Wells Points Year Life Day Cap. Type Type Type Permit Disch. (ft.) (ft.)

TALLAHASSEE 1993 20

L TALLAHASSEE 175700 19 2 1976 7 445 TON P O N 10 32

 & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1991 3

CONST CO #2

TALLAHASSEE 1992 10

CONST.CO. (C &

TALLAHASSEE 8

WOODVILLE 3000 0 1958 10 6 TON C O N N 8 14

HOSFORD 3700 0 0 1955 700 CYD N F N 6 6

ST R,D&D

CRAWFORDVILLE 10

MP CRAWFORDVI

LLE

3500 1 2 4 TON C N N 2 6

DUMP IVAN

EARCH INC. ST. MARKS 60

SOPCHOPPY 1992 30

P HYDE PARK 1400 0 C N N 3 10P HYDE PARK 1400 0 7 2 TON C N N 10 10

OMANN-TAYLOR ARRON 1992 1

FILL CRAWFORDVI

LLE

13700 5 1984 5 270 CYD P O Y 13

FILL CRAWFORDVI

LLE

13700 5 1984 5 270 CYD P O Y 13

F MEDART 9300 5 1977 25 TON N N N 4 15

MEDART 0 N N 6 4

UMP NEWPORT 0 N N N 0 2

PANACEA 2500 0 4 TON N N N 2 10

(RURAL) 0 N N N 10 3

SOPCHOPPY 1100 0 5 1 TON N N N 1 2

SPRING

CREEK

1000 0 1973 2 2 TON C N N 2 4

C&D CRAWFORDVILLE

R BRIDGE TS CRAWFORDVILLE

CRAWFORDVILLE

SOPCHOPPY
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 231

 Level 1 Land Use in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by Planning Unit

t. Marks Land Use Totals and Percentages

T.

RKS

LAKE

MICC.

LAKE

LAF.

LAKE

MUNSON

FISHER/LOST

CREEK

WAKULL

A

RIVER

NORTH

OCHL.

SOUTH

OCHL.

LAKE

IAMONIA

LAKE

JACKSON

TELOGIA

CREEK

SOPCHOP

PY COASTAL

tal Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

14,248.31 - - - - - - - - - - -

4.87 3,516.78 23,180.32 22,624.35 1,587.30 16,038.83 20,840.17 1,865.86 3,585.88 10,224.79 4,553.90 715.32 7,916.99

3.85 21,527.20 7,949.99 690.15 531.68 2,262.29 25,117.13 854.94 4,214.24 1,189.01 15,294.17 770.63 3,543.99

9.94 257.55 358.22 119.47 992.82 3,448.19 6,626.74 4,727.47 190.01 18.78 5,320.36 521.10 848.80

08.28 107,027.19 16,228.46 27,820.58 51,935.31 49,258.86 182,529.44 106,643.98 34,427.83 9,955.08 105,067.86 38,847.29 74,855.57

8.82 6,271.32 2,226.43 1,024.28 324.35 535.99 11,149.38 4,181.07 1,370.65 3,327.09 502.62 1,223.68 3,773.93

7.07 9,969.78 3,422.50 3,937.15 30,921.10 6,779.66 20,853.46 89,437.09 8,862.98 2,565.31 31,599.47 45,157.88 69,966.99

34 - - 14.80 - 27.00 51.85 31.40 - - 91.66 - 495.87

.98 761.18 536.91 2,471.47 392.34 1,055.93 2,231.73 270.84 136.37 315.21 371.03 114.01 285.05

3.16 163,579.31 53,902.82 58,702.25 86,684.89 79,406.75 269,399.90 208,012.64 52,787.97 27,595.28 162,801.08 87,349.91 161,687.19

T.

RKS

LAKE

MICC.

LAKE

LAF.

LAKE

MUNSON

FISHER/LOST

CREEK

WAKULL

A

RIVER

NORTH

OCHL.

SOUTH

OCHL.

LAKE

IAMONIA

LAKE

JACKSON

TELOGIA

CREEK

SOPCHOP

PY COASTAL

tal Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

0% 8.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

8% 2.15% 43.00% 38.54% 1.83% 20.20% 7.74% 0.90% 6.79% 37.05% 2.80% 0.82% 4.90%

2% 13.16% 14.75% 1.18% 0.61% 2.85% 9.32% 0.41% 7.98% 4.31% 9.39% 0.88% 2.19%

1% 0.16% 0.66% 0.20% 1.15% 4.34% 2.46% 2.27% 0.36% 0.07% 3.27% 0.60% 0.52%

6% 65.43% 30.11% 47.39% 59.91% 62.03% 67.75% 51.27% 65.22% 36.08% 64.54% 44.47% 46.30%

1% 3.83% 4.13% 1.74% 0.37% 0.67% 4.14% 2.01% 2.60% 12.06% 0.31% 1.40% 2.33%

2% 6.09% 6.35% 6.71% 35.67% 8.54% 7.74% 43.00% 16.79% 9.30% 19.41% 51.70% 43.27%

1% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.31%

0% 0.47% 1.00% 4.21% 0.45% 1.33% 0.83% 0.13% 0.26% 1.14% 0.23% 0.13% 0.18%

00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
232 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Table F.2: Georgia Land Use in the Upper Ochlockonee River Basin

Class Name % Acres

Open Water 0.5 5,230.5

Clearcut/Young pine 4.6 44,978.2

Pasture 12.9 126,412.8

Cultivated/Exposed Earth 31.0 303,919.5

Low-Density Urban 1.2 11,476.6

High-Density Urban 0.4 4,116.6

Emergent Wetland 2.4 23,374.8

Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.2 2,157.0

Forested Wetland 5.2 50,441.0

Coniferous Forest 6.4 62,475.9

Mixed Forest 30.6 300,098.6

Hardwood Forest 3.7 36,026.8

Salt Marsh 0.0 0.0

Brackish Marsh 0.0 0.0

Tidal Flats/ Beaches 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 99.1 970,708.3

* Data bsed on Landsat TM imagery, 1988-1990, with pixel reolution of 200 ft. sq.

Wetlands less than 1 acre excluded; percent error + 15.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 233

Appendix G: Documentation Provided during

Public Comment Period

Comments on Impaired Waters Rule (IWR)

GROUP 1

1. Comment

Letter from Mr. Cliff Thaell Leon County Commissioner, regarding Lake Weeks

and 19 other lakes new City of Tallahassee Spray field. Mr. Thaell is concerned

that Lake Weeks may not have sufficient data to be included on the IWR list even

though the county has collected many values for low dissolved oxygen (DO) and

high chl-a.

Response

Lake Weeks has been included on the verified list for (DO) based on low DO readings

(x violations out of y samples). At this time Lake Weeks has not been separated out

into its own drainage basin (WBID) and may be lumped into the Chicken Branch basin

WBID. The DEP Watershed Assessment Section (WAS) has collected some data on

Chicken Branch for the past 5 years. The low DO in Lake Weeks has been related to

nutrients (high trophic state index or TSI). However, the TSI values have not been

collected for 4 quarters of one calendar year to verify TSI. We recommend continued

monthly or quarterly sampling for an entire calendar year for the parameters: Total

nitrogen (TN), Total phosphorus (TP), chl-a, color, Secchi depth, and field parameters.

The DEP WAS has also begun collecting field data on Lake Weeks and Erie. The data

consist of continuous YSI logger data and sediment oxygen demand (SOD)

measurements. Some of the recent DO data confirm that DO is less than 5mg/l for

part of the day. Bottle sampling is scheduled for September 24, 2002. No well-defined

streams drain into Lake Weeks, so that its water quality may be a function of localized

drainage and groundwater.

2. Comment

Letter from Mr. Dan Winchester, Leon County Commissioner regarding the listing

of various Leon County Lakes on the verified list as soon as possible. The water

bodies include Upper Ochlockonee River, Lake Iamonia, Lake Jackson, Lake

Munson, Lake Miccosukee, the St. Marks River, Lake Weeks, and any other

impaired water on the 2002 list. The highest priority should be for Upper

Ochlockonee, Lake Talquin, and Lake Iamonia, followed by Lake Jackson, Lake

Lafayette, and Lake Munson.
234 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Response

Lake Weeks was addressed above. Lake Lafayette Drain (WBID=756) has been

included as a high priority TMDL water (due in 2002) for DO and bacteria. Upper

Lake Lafayette has also been listed as high priority for DO and nutrients. Lower

Lake Lafayette, Lake Piney Z, and Alford Arm are verified for medium priority

(due in 2007), but may be completed as part of a package for the entire Lafayette

basin. The Upper Ochlockonee and the Little River are both verified for coliform

bacteria, but not for nutrients. Lake Jackson (WBID-582 and 582B) and Lake

Munson (WBID=807C) are both listed as medium priority for DO and nutrients. It

should be mentioned that developing TMDLs for karst lakes, which are not in a

steady state condition will be much more difficult than for lakes which remain full

(Lake Talquin, Lake Munson).

3. Comment

Letter from Mrs. Kitte Carter Southeast Leon County Neighborhood Assoc.

regarding Lake Weeks.

Response

See above on Lake Weeks.

4. Comment

Letter from Mr. Phil Gornicki, Forester Florida Forestry Assoc. regarding BMPs

for Silviculture and low DO listings for Group 1 basins.

Response

The BMP report (revised edition 2000), produced by Florida DACS, does not

address any water quality parameter or DO Specifically. The DEP report (Dec

1977) on BMP effectiveness looked at 4 streams in North Florida, including Jack

Branch, SanJulia Branch, Econfina River, and Thomas Creek. All of these

streams had high DO (6.2 to 9.0 mg/l) during the time of the study. In addition,

the color values ranged from 20 to 70 units except for the Econfina River. The

usual definition of Blackwater streams (pH<6 and color>275) only applied in one

of these streams. DEP has summarized the statewide DO distributions for all

streams and blackwater streams. The results show that both DO distributions

are very similar with identical medians. About 20% of the data had DO values

below 4.0 mg/l. Consequently, we can not conclude that all blackwater streams

have low DO. We also can not conclude that forestry BMPs have had any

positive or negative effect on DO.
Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks 235

5. Comment

Letter from Ms. Nancy McGrath, VP friends of Lake Jackson regarding Lake

Jackson. Concern was expressed about Meginnis Arm and tributaries to that

arm of the lake, especially new construction along I-10.

Response

Lake Jackson (WBIDs=582) is listed for medium priority in 2007. The new

construction along I-10 merits concern at this time, however. The DEP WAS has

also collected data in this basin during an intensive survey in August 2001 and

has installed two continuous stream flow gages on Butlers Mill Creek and

Jackson Heights Creek on the US 27 side of the lake. Sediment oxygen demand

measurements were made at two locations in September 2002 and more will be

made later this fall to relate various factors contributing to the DO budget for the

lake. Most of the data collected to date has been in the main lake and Meginnis

Arm area. More data will have to be collected from each of the 10 or more

tributaries to this lake in order to develop the TMDL.

6. Comment

Letter from Dr. Don Alford, President of Friends of Lake Jackson regarding listing

of all Lake Jackson as a high priority for nutrients and DO. Concern was also

raised about high turbidity, especially in Meginnis Arm. Raw water quality data

on nutrients and DO were provided.

Response

The TSI data provided shows average values between 48 and 124. The IWR

rule requires TSI to be computed as an annual average from quarterly values.

The TSI screening level is 60 for lakes with color>40 units and TSI is 40 for lakes

with color<40 units.

7. Comment

Email from Mr. Ed Allen concerning Tallahassee Democrat article. Concern

about Ochlockonee River and pollution input from the State of Georgia, including

Cairo STP.
236 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

Response

The State of Georgia has criteria for fecal coliform, but not total coliform bacteria,

while the State of Florida has criteria for both. The DEP and Leon County have

had several discussions concerning bacteria and the sharing of information

starting on November 17, 2000. The DEP and Leon County’s consultant have

collected recent data on the Ochlockonee River basin and Lake Talquin to move

waters to the verified list. The Ochlockonee River (WBID-1297F) and Little River

(WBID-424) have both been verified for total coliform.
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