# 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 

# 5 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 flow, 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. 

# 7 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# 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 designat ed 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 

# 9 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. 

# 11 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. 

# 13 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 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 

# 15 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. MarksLost 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 

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

### 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 agiven pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and remain healthy, such that all of its designated uses are

met. 

# 19 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### (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 manage

# 20 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 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 StrategicMonitoring 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 intoSTORET (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 re sponsibilities, 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 keyparticipants 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 groupare 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. 

# 21 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

## 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 

# 23 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

## Contents of This Report

• Chapter 1: Introductionbriefly 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 Overviewcharacterizes 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 trendsand 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, provideslistings based on other information indicating a nutrient imbalance, and describes theadoption 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, TMDLallocation and implementation, and the development of a Basin Management Action Plan (B-MAP). 

# Noteworthy 

# 24 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 classified as urban, although low

# 25 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 theirown sedimentary material and develop their characteristics based onthe discharge and sediment load that is available. Alluvial rivers and streams form featuressuch as meanders, channel bars, and islands. The stream bottom consists ofshifting 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. 

# 27 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 inacidic swamps and flatwoods, are dark brown and acidic from decaying plant materials. They aretypically slow and meandering and exist as their own distinctive ecosystem characterized by highly acidic (low pH) water and low biological diversity

. 

# 29 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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-defined 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 riverchannels 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 ofthe ground water contribution. Spring-fed rivers and streams respond more slowly than alluvial streams toprecipitation 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. 

# 31 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. 

# 33 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks



## 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 

# 35 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 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 acommon 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 wasonce 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. 

# 37 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 firstand 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. 

# 39 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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, 

# 41 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. 

# 43 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. 

# 45 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# 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 de termine 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. 

# 47 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

## 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 STO rage and RET rieval (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 Hydrolab TM and YSI TM 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 forfuture water quality modeling. This includes long-term biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) data, LICOR TM 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 YSI TM 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). 

# 49 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 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. 

# 51 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

## 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. MarksTable 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 aTMDL has already been completed After the Department and EPA approve a TMDL for the impaired waterbody or segment, it will beincluded 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 qualitystandards due to existing or proposed measures Pollutant control mechanisms designed to attainapplicable 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. 

# 53 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 wate rbodies 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 quantifieshow much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet its designated uses).

Waterbodies that are verified impaired due to specified pollutants and therefore require a TMDL are listedunder Category 5 in the Integrated Assessment Report;waterbodies with water quality impairments due to other causes, or unknown causes, are listed under Category 4b. Although TMDLs arenot established for Category 4b waterbodies, these waterbodies still may beaddressed 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. 

# 55 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

## 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 

# 57 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. MarksTable 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the North Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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
WBID 3

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 Creek Stream 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 

# 59 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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
WBID 3

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 Run Stream 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. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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
WBID 3

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) 

# 61 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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
WBID 3

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. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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
WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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) 

# 63 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### (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 twomajor 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, drycleaning 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 importantpart of assessing water quality and developing TMDLs. As part of this report, information is presented on point sources, including permitted facilities that discharge wastewater and landfills.



## Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses

Rainfall generates stormwater runoff. As it flows over the land and through the ground, runoffmay 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 agriculturallands, urban areas, and unvegetated lands. The pollutants in runoff often include fertilizers, bacteria, metals, sediments, petroleum compounds, and metals. 

# 65 Noteworthy 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 

# 67 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. MarksTable 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the South Ochlockonee River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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
WBID 3

1024 Black Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough Data

1025 Unnamed Run Stream 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 

# 69 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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
WBID 3

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 MercuryFish N/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 MercuryFish N/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, Turbidity 2 Meets Some
Uses

1248B Ochlockonee Bay Stream II N/A MercuryFish N/A DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 3c Planning
List

1255 Chaires Creek Estuary II N/A N/A N/A DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 2 Meets Some
Uses

1297A Ochlockonee
River Stream IIIF Mercury-Fish,
DO MercuryFish N/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. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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
WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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) 

# 71 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 

# 73 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Iamonia Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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
WBID 3

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 Pond Lake 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 Arrowhead Lake 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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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 

# 75 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. MarksTable 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Jackson Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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
WBID 3

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 Drain Lake 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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant; 

# 77 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks4c —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. 

# 79 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. MarksTable 3.9: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Telogia Creek Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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 WBID 3

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 

# 81 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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 WBID 3

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. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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 WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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) 

# 83 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. 

# 85 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 3.10: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Sopchoppy River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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
WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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 

# 87 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. MarksTable 3.11: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the St. Marks River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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 WBID 3

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 

# 89 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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 WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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. 

# 91 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 

# 93 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 3.12: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Miccosukee Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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 WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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 

# 95 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. MarksTable 3.13: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Lafayette Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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
WBID 3

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 

# 97 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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
WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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 

# 99 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 

# 101 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 3.14: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lake Munson/Fred George Sink Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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
WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and
wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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) 

# 103 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. 

# 105 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

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

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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 WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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. 

# 107 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### • 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. MarksTable 3.16: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Wakulla River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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 WBID 3

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.

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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. 

# 109 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 

# 111 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 3.17: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List
Parameters of
Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria

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 WBID 3

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 MercuryFish DO, 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. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 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 WBID 3

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 MercuryFish N/A 5 Verified List

8028 Coast Apalachee
Gulf East Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFish N/A 5 Verified List

8999 Florida Gulf
Coast Coastal IIIM N/A N/A MercuryFish N/A 5 Verified List

Notes:

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

2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because 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) 

# 113 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 

# 115

Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 

# 117 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 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 Development 1 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. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d)
Parameters
of Concern Parameters
Identified Using the 2002 Impaired
Surface Waters
Rule Priority
for TMDL Development 1 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 LafayetteUpper Lake N/A DO High 2002 Urban runoff. Original WBID 756 included 756A, 756B, and 756C. Linked to nutrients, high phosphorus.

756A Lake LafayetteUpper Lake N/A Nutrients (TSI) High 2002 Urban runoff.Linked to phosphorus. High priority because previously
listed under WBID756 with high priority.

756C Lake LafayetteLower Lake 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 LafayetteLower Lake 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) 

# 119 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d)
Parameters
of Concern Parameters
Identified Using the 2002 Impaired
Surface Waters
Rule Priority
for TMDL Development 1 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 BayWest Coastal 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. MarksWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1998 303(d)
Parameters
of Concern Parameters
Identified Using the 2002 Impaired
Surface Waters
Rule Priority
for TMDL Development 1 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. Datesand 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) 

# 121 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 

# 123 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 

# 125 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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 segmen t 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. 

# 127 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

# 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 contributedto the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endan

# 129 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable 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 MercuryFish Low 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. MarksPlanning Unit WBID Waterbody Segment Parameter Priority
for TMDL Development Projected
Year for
TMDL Development

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay 8025 Ochlockonee Bay Gulf MercuryFish Medium 2007

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay 8027 Coast Apalachee Gulf
Mid MercuryFish Medium 2007

Coastal Watersheds and Apalachee Bay 8028 Coast Apalachee Gulf
East MercuryFish Medium 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 MercuryFish Low 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 ownevaluation methodology until the Department has had the opportunity to investigate these waterbodies further.

All segments not designated high or low priority are medium priority, and are prioritized based on the following factors:

• The presence of Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs); Table 5.1 (continued) 

# 131 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### • 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 astraditional 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), 

# 133 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### 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. 

# 135 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

## References

Ballentine, T. 2003. Lake Lafayette Watershed Study Phase II—A Scope ofWork (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 12 th 

### 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. 

# 137 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### —. 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

12 th 

### 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. 

# 139 Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks

### Wayland, R. H., III. November 19, 2001. 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance. 

### Memorandum to EPA Regional Water Management Directors; EPA Regional Science and Technology Directors; and State, Territory, and Authorized TribeWater Quality Program Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 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 Im plementation of TMDLs.................................. 143 Federal and State Legislation on Su rface Water Quality and TMDL s ............................................ 143 Determining Impairment Based on the S tate’s Impaired Su rface Waters Rule ............................... 145 Implementing TMDL s ............................................................................................................. .......... 147 Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by Department Di strict Office

....................................................................................... 149 Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implemen tatio n................ 150 Figure A.1:Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’ s Six Di str icts........................ 151 Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stake holders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs

....................... 152


## Appendix B: Information on Reasonable Assurance ............................................... 155 Backgr ound

..................................................................................................................... ................... 155 Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Contro l Mechan isms ................................. 156 Responsible Parties for Reasona ble Assurance D emonstratio n....................................................... 156 Time Frame for Developmen t of Docu mentation ............................................................................. 157 What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Fede ral Aut hority ..................................................... 157 Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Sta ndards ........................................................................ 157 Parameter-Specific Nature of Demons tration ................................................................................... 15 8 Information To Consider and Docu ment when Assessing Reasonabl e ........................................... 158 Assurance in the IW R........................................................................................................... ............. 158 Water Quality–Based Targets a nd Aquatic Ecol ogical Go als.......................................................... 159 Interim Targets................................................................................................................ ................... 160 Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets .................................................................................. 16 0 Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restorati on Acti ons.......................................................... 160 New Sources/Growth............................................................................................................. ............ 160 Examples of Reasonable Progress................................................................................................ ..... 161 Long-Term Re quiremen ts......................................................................................................... ......... 161


## Appendix C: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rul e................................................................................. 162 The Impaired Su rface Waters Rule ............................................................................................... .... 162 Attainment of Desi gnated Use (s) ................................................................................................ ...... 162 Table C.1: Designated Use Attainment Ca tegories for Surface Waters in Flori da................. 163 Sources of Data ................................................................................................................ .................. 163 Table C.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin
Rotation Cycle

.......................................................................................................... 164 Methodol ogy .................................................................................................................... .................. 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 Planni ng Un it.................................................................. 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 L andfills

.......................................................... 228


## Appendix F: Level 1 Land Use in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by Planning Unit ............................................................................................................ 231
Table F.1: Ochlockonee and St. Ma rks Land Use Totals and Percen tage s............................. 231 Table F.2: Georgia Land Use in the Upper Ochlock onee River Basi n.................................... 232


## Appendix G: Documentation Provided during Public Co mment Per iod.............. 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 theFlorida 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 River Lagoon

Southwest Tampa Bay Tampa Bay Tributaries Sarasota Bay and Peace–Myakka Rivers Withlacoochee River Springs Coast

South Everglades West Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee River Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

Southeast Lake Okeechobee St.Lucie– Loxahatchee Rivers Lake Worth Lagoon/Palm Beach Coast 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 P ERMITS 

## 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

D OMESTIC AND I NDUSTRIAL W ASTEWATER P ERMITS 

## 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 TMDLlimitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the BMAP, they would be implemented through modifications of the existing state permits.

F LORIDA S TORMWATER /E NVIRONMENTAL R ESOURCE P ERMITS 

## 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.

L OCAL L AND D EVELOPMENT C ODES 

## 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.

B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES (BMP S ) 

## 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.

O THER S TRATEGIES 

## 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 itswatershed management cycle, which rotates through all of the state’s basins over a fiveyear, five-phased cycle 1 

## . During the first phase of the cycle, the Department will assess water quality in the basin and prepare a 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
Waters 2 

## , 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 maybe necessary if the impairment is limited to specific seasons or parts of the year. Multiyear averages may be appropriate in limited circumstances where there is naturally high variation of the 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
STO rage and RET rieval (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

E XCEEDANCES OF N UMERIC W ATER Q UALITY C RITERIA 

## The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for preparing the state’s 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

E XCEEDANCES OF N UTRIENT T HRESHOLDS 

## 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 ( μ g/L) or if annual mean chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive years. For streams, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μ g/L or if the annual mean increased by more than 50 percent over 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.

E XCEEDANCE SOF B IOLOGICAL T HRESHOLDS 

## 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

L AKE C ONDITION I NDEX 

## 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 ordersEphemeroptera, 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.

S TREAM C ONDITION I NDEX 

## A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of the seven metrics in the method, 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.

B IO R ECON 

## To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used: the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule.

B IOLOGICAL I NTEGRITY S TANDARD 

## 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

E VALUATION OF T OXICITY D ATA 

## 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.170Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksAppendix D: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks BasinsData collected since the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list were used to update the listing status of waters.Table D.1contains the listing status of all assessed waters in the basins as of January 2003. All of the waters in the table are ClassIII freshwater. It should be noted that subsequent to the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list, some waterbody segments were furthersubdivided to produce separate segments for lakes versus their surrounding watersheds. Therefore,Table D.1shows the WBIDsunder which these segments were designated in the 1998 303(d) list, as well as the new or currently recognized WBIDs for them.Information in this appendix was obtained from an inventory of the Legacy and modernized STORET databases, as well as datacontributed directly to the Department by individual data providers.Table D.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by Planning UnitSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1032 HOSFORDBRANCH REACHStream No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1071 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYEstuary Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1071 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYEstuary Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1071 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYEstuary Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1071 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYEstuary Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1089 EAST RIVER Estuary No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1139 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1146 SPRING CREEKDRAINEstuary No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1146Z SPRING CREEKSPRINGSpring Cu Insufficient Data 3b SpringCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1146Z SPRING CREEKSPRINGSpring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b SpringCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1146Z SPRING CREEKSPRINGSpring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b SpringWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks171St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1146Z SPRING CREEKSPRINGSpring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b SpringCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1146Z SPRING CREEKSPRINGSpring Fe Insufficient Data 3b SpringCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1146Z SPRING CREEKSPRINGSpring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b SpringCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1152 PINHOOK RIVER Stream No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1158 WEST GOOSECREEKStream No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1165 OTTER CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1165 OTTER CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1165 OTTER CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1165 OTTER CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1169 BUCKHORNCREEKStream No Data 3a Blackwater streamCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1176 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYEstuary DO Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1176 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYEstuary Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1176 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYEstuary Turbidity Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1176A LAKE ELLEN Lake No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1188 WALKER CREEK Estuary No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1198 ALLIGATOR LAKEOUTLETLake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1198 ALLIGATOR LAKEOUTLETLake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1198 ALLIGATOR LAKEOUTLETLake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1222 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3a172Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1223 DICKERSON BAY Estuary DO Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1223 DICKERSON BAY Estuary Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1223 DICKERSON BAY Estuary Turbidity Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1239 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYStream DO Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1239 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1239 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay5001 OYSTER CREEK Stream No Data 3aCoastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8025 OCHLOCKONEEBAY GULFCoastal DO Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8025 OCHLOCKONEEBAY GULFCoastal Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8025 OCHLOCKONEEBAY GULFCoastal Turbidity Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8025 OCHLOCKONEEBAY GULFCoastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent datafor coastal fishadvisories.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8025A MASH'S ISLAND Coastal DO Meets Standards 2 High 2007 Mash's Island closedfor at least 21 days in2001. Verificationpending review ofFlorida Department ofHealth (DOH) data.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8025A MASH'S ISLAND Coastal Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2 High 2007 Mash's Island closedfor at least 21 days in2001. Verificationpending review of DOHdata.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8025A MASH'S ISLAND Coastal Turbidity Meets Standards 2 High 2007 Mash's Island closedfor at least 21 days in2001. Verificationpending review of DOHdata.Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks173St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8025A MASH'S ISLAND Coastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent datafor coastal fishadvisories.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1176 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYCoastal Beach Advisory Verified List 5 High 2007 Mashes Sands beachhad advisories for atleast 21 days in 2001.Verification pendingreview of DOH data.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8026 COASTAPALACHEEGULF WESTCoastal DO Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8026 COASTAPALACHEEGULF WESTCoastal Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8026 COASTAPALACHEEGULF WESTCoastal Turbidity Meets Standards 2Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8026 COASTAPALACHEEGULF WESTCoastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent datafor coastal fishadvisories.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8026A SHELL POINT Coastal Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2 High 2007 Shell Point beachclosed for at least 21days in 2001.Verification pendingreview of DOH data.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8026A SHELL POINT Coastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent datafor coastal fishadvisories.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay1239 DIRECT RUNOFFTO BAYCoastal Beach Advisory Verified List 5 High 2007 Shell Point beach hadadvisories for at least21 days in 2001.Verification pendingreview of DOH data.New addition.Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8027 COASTAPALACHEEGULF MIDCoastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent datafor coastal fishadvisories.174Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Coastal Watershedand Apalachee Bay8028 COASTAPALACHEEGULF EASTCoastal Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Confirmed recent datafor coastal fishadvisories.Lake Iamonia 442 LAKE IAMONIAOUTLETLake Nutrients Meets Standards 2 Delist. MS for TrophicState IndexLake Iamonia 442 LAKE IAMONIAOUTLETLake TotalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) No Flow UnlessAffected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Added toPlanning List (PL) byImpaired SurfaceWaters Rule (IWR).Lake Iamonia 442 LAKE IAMONIAOUTLETLake FecalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) No Flow UnlessAffected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Added to PLby IWR.Lake Iamonia 442 LAKE IAMONIAOUTLETLake Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fish; NoFlow Unless Affectedby Ochlockonee RiverfloodingLake Iamonia 442 LAKE IAMONIAOUTLETLake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 No Flow UnlessAffected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Verificationstill pendingdetermination ofcausative pollutant. Colimited, Nitrogen, andPhosphorus limited.Lake Iamonia 442 LAKE IAMONIAOUTLETLake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 No Flow UnlessAffected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Verificationpending determinationof causative pollutant.Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks175St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Iamonia 442 LAKE IAMONIAOUTLETLake TSI Meets Standards 2 No Flow UnlessAffected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Verificationpending determinationof causative pollutant.Lake Iamonia 442 LAKE IAMONIAOUTLETLake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 No Flow UnlessAffected byOchlockonee Riverflooding. Verificationpending determinationof causative pollutant.Lake Iamonia 530 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3aLake Iamonia 535 PICKLE PONDOUTLETLake No Data 3aLake Iamonia 546 MONKEYBUSINESSOUTLETLake TSI NA Need to identify limitingnutrient-Residentialand golf courserunoff.Will not list, not awater of state.Lake Iamonia 546 MONKEYBUSINESSOUTLETLake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Need to identify limitingnutrient-Residentialand golf course runoff.Lake Iamonia 546 MONKEYBUSINESSOUTLETLake DO Meets Standards 2 Need to identify limitingnutrient-Residentialand golf course runoff.Lake Iamonia 546A LAKE DIANNA Lake TSI Meets Standards 2 Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 546A LAKE DIANNA Lake DO Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 546A LAKE DIANNA Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 546A LAKE DIANNA Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 546A LAKE DIANNA Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 546A LAKE DIANNA Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 546B MONKEYBUSINESS PONDLake TSI NA Need to identify limitingnutrient-Residentialand golf course runoff.Will not list, not a waterof state.Lake Iamonia 546B MONKEYBUSINESS PONDLake DO Insufficient Data 3b Residential and golfcourse runoff176Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Iamonia 546B MONKEYBUSINESS PONDLake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Residential and golfcourse runoffLake Iamonia 563 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Lake Iamonia 563 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream DO Meets Standards 2Lake Iamonia 564 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bLake Iamonia 564 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bLake Iamonia 564A LAKEARROWHEADLake TSI NA Not a water of state.Lake Iamonia 564A LAKEARROWHEADLake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 564A LAKEARROWHEADLake DO Meets Standards 2 Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 564B LAKE BACCUS Lake TSI Meets Standards 2Lake Iamonia 564C PETTY GULFLAKELake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 564C PETTY GULFLAKELake DO Insufficient Data 3b Not a water of the stateLake Iamonia 611 BOAT PONDOUTLETStream No Data 3aLake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Residential and septictanks. Linked toNitrogen, phosphorus,and co-limitation. NewAdditionLake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Residential and septictanksLake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake Mercury-Fish Meets Standards 2 Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishLake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake TSI Meets Standards 2 New data showTSI>40, Nitrogen,phosphorus, and colimitation.Lake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Residential and septictanksLake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Residential and septictanksLake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Residential and septictanksWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks177St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Residential and septictanksLake Jackson 582A SPRING POND Lake No Data 3aLake Jackson 678 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aLake Jackson 689 LAKEOVERSTREETDRAINLake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3aLake Jackson 689 LAKEOVERSTREETDRAINLake DO Insufficient Data 3aLake Jackson 689 LAKEOVERSTREETDRAINLake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3aLake Jackson 689 LAKEOVERSTREETDRAINLake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3aLake Jackson 689 LAKEOVERSTREETDRAINLake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3aLake Jackson 689 LAKEOVERSTREETDRAINLake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3aLake Jackson 689 LAKEOVERSTREETDRAINLake TSI Meets Standards 2Lake Jackson 689A LAKEOVERSTREETLake TSI Meets Standards 2Lake Jackson 689B LAKE HALL Lake TSI Meets Standards 2Lake Jackson 689B LAKE HALL Lake DO Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 689B LAKE HALL Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 721 UNNAMED RUN Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 721 UNNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 721 UNNAMED RUN Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 721 UNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 721 UNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 721 UNNAMED RUN Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b178Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Jackson 746 HARBINWOODESTATESStream Nutrients Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Identify limitingnutrient-Residentialand septic tanksLake Jackson 746 HARBINWOODESTATESStream Turbidity Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWR -Residential and septictanksLake Jackson 746 HARBINWOODESTATESStream TotalSuspendedSolidsPlanning List 3c (High) (2002) Residential and septictanksLake Jackson 746 HARBINWOODESTATESStream BOD Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Residential and septictanksLake Jackson 746 HARBINWOODESTATESStream DO Insufficient Data 3b Residential and septictanksLake Jackson 758 TIMBERLANERUNStream DO Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Jackson 758 TIMBERLANERUNStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Jackson 758 TIMBERLANERUNStream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Urban runoffLake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Urban runoff, added toPL by using languagein IWRLake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream TotalSuspendedSolidsNo Data 3a Delist, will monitor forturbidityLake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream BOD Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Will monitor for DOUrban runoff. Added toPL by using IWRlanguage.Lake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream DO DO Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Will monitor for DOUrban runoff. Added toPL by using IWRlangauge.Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks179St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Jackson 809 MEGGINNIS ARMRUNStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Lafayette 636 ROBERTS PONDOUTLETLake DO Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 636 ROBERTS PONDOUTLETLake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 636 ROBERTS PONDOUTLETLake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 636 ROBERTS PONDOUTLETLake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bLake Jackson 582 LAKE JACKSON Lake Nutrients (TSI) Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Linked to DO. Nitrogen,phosphorus and colimitation.Lake Lafayette 647 ALFORD ARM Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Residential runoff andminimal flow.Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Linked to BOD. Waterbody type may beconsidered a stream.Co-limitation,phosphorus andnitrogen limitation.Lake Lafayette 647 ALFORD ARM Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Residential runoff andminimal flowLake Lafayette 647 ALFORD ARM Lake TSI Meets Standards 2 Residential runoff andminimal flowLake Lafayette 647 ALFORD ARM Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Residential runoff andminimal flowLake Lafayette 647 ALFORD ARM Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Residential runoff andminimal flow180Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Lafayette 647 ALFORD ARM Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Residential runoff andminimal flowLake Lafayette 647A LAKE TOM JOHN Lake No Data 3aLake Lafayette 647B LAKE SHEELIN Lake No Data 3aLake Lafayette 647C LAKE KILLARNEY Lake DO Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 647C LAKE KILLARNEY Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 647D MOORE POND Lake No Data 3aLake Lafayette 672 GILBERTS PONDOUTLETLake No Data 3aLake Lafayette 672A GILBERTS POND Lake No Data 3aLake Lafayette 756 LAKE LAFAYETTEDRAINStream Nutrients Planning List 3c (High) (2002) Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756 LAKE LAFAYETTEDRAINStream TotalColiformsTotal Coliforms Verified List 5 (High) (2002) Urban runoff, new datawill be checked toverify sufficientexceedances.Waterbody type maybe considered astream. New founddata. NitrogenlimitationLake Lafayette 756 LAKE LAFAYETTEDRAINStream FecalColiformsFecal Coliforms Verified List 5 (High) (2002) Urban runoff, new datawill be checked toverify sufficientexceedances.Waterbody type maybe considered astream. New founddata. NitrogenlimitationLake Lafayette 756 LAKE LAFAYETTEDRAINStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756 LAKE LAFAYETTEDRAINStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks181St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Lafayette 756 LAKE LAFAYETTEDRAINStream DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff.Verification stillpending determintaionof causative pollutant.Water body type maybe considered astream. Linked toBOD. New Data.Nitrogen limitationLake Lafayette 756 LAKE LAFAYETTEDRAINStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756A UPPER LAKELAFAYETTELake TSI Verified List 2 Medium 2007 Urban runoff. Stillneed to identify limitingnutrients. Linked tophosphorus.Lake Lafayette 756A UPPER LAKELAFAYETTELake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756A UPPER LAKELAFAYETTELake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Linked tonutrients. Linked tophosphorus.Lake Lafayette 756A UPPER LAKELAFAYETTELake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756B LAKE PINEY Z Lake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Linked tonutrientsLake Lafayette 756B LAKE PINEY Z Lake TSI Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Still needto identify limitingnutrients; Co-limitationLake Lafayette 756B LAKE PINEY Z Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756B LAKE PINEY Z Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756C LOWER LAKELAFAYETTELake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756C LOWER LAKELAFAYETTELake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Landfill;Linked to nutrientsLake Lafayette 756C LOWER LAKELAFAYETTELake TSI Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Urban runoff; Still needto identify limitingnutrientsLake Lafayette 756C LOWER LAKELAFAYETTELake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoff182Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Lafayette 756C LOWER LAKELAFAYETTELake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756C LOWER LAKELAFAYETTELake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoffLake Lafayette 756D LAKE HERITAGE Lake No Data 3aLake Lafayette 756E LAKEWINDERMERELake No Data 3aLake Lafayette 836 BUCK LAKEOUTLETLake No Data 3aLake Lafayette 844 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aLake Lafayette 863 MALL DRAINAGEDITCHStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Lake Lafayette 863 MALL DRAINAGEDITCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoffLake Lafayette 863 MALL DRAINAGEDITCHStream DO Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Lafayette 863 MALL DRAINAGEDITCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoffLake Lafayette 863 MALL DRAINAGEDITCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Urban runoffLake Lafayette 883 UNNAMED RUN Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 883 UNNAMED RUN Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 919 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 919 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream DO Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 919 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 919 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Lafayette 919 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks183St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Miccosukee 459 WARD CREEK Stream DO Verified List 5 (High) (2002) Lack of Flow LimitedAbility to SampleAgricultural Area;Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Nitrogen and colimitation.Lake Miccosukee 459 WARD CREEK Stream TotalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Lack of Flow LimitedAbility to SampleAgricultural Area.Added to PL by IWRLake Miccosukee 459 WARD CREEK Stream FecalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Lack of Flow LimitedAbility to SampleAgricultural Area.Added to PL by IWRLake Miccosukee 459 WARD CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Lack of Flow LimitedAbility to SampleAgricultural AreaLake Miccosukee 459 WARD CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Lack of Flow LimitedAbility to SampleAgricultural AreaLake Miccosukee 459 WARD CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Lack of Flow LimitedAbility to SampleAgricultural AreaLake Miccosukee 716 CANEY BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Miccosukee 716 CANEY BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Miccosukee 716 CANEY BRANCH Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bLake Miccosukee 716 CANEY BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bLake Miccosukee 716 CANEY BRANCH Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Lake Miccosukee 716 CANEY BRANCH Stream DO Meets Standards 2Lake Miccosukee 791L LAKEMICCOSUKEEOUTLETStream No Data 3aLake Miccosukee 791M LAKEMICCOSUKEEDRAINLake No Data 3aLake Miccosukee 791N LAKEMICCOSUKEELake Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2011 Agriculture andresidential runoff184Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Miccosukee 791N LAKEMICCOSUKEELake DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Agriculture andresidential runoff.Need to identifycausative pollutant.Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Co-limitation.Lake Miccosukee 791N LAKEMICCOSUKEELake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Agriculture andresidential runoffLake Miccosukee 791N LAKEMICCOSUKEELake Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2 Agriculture andresidential runoffLake Miccosukee 791N LAKEMICCOSUKEELake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Agriculture andresidential runoffLake Miccosukee 791N LAKEMICCOSUKEELake Total Coliforms Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Agriculture andresidential runoff. Colimitation.Lake Miccosukee 791N LAKEMICCOSUKEELake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Agriculture andresidential runoffLake Miccosukee 791N LAKEMICCOSUKEELake TSI Meets Standards 2 Agriculture andresidential runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink776 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807 MUNSONSLOUGH (BELOWLAKE)Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807 MUNSONSLOUGH (BELOWLAKE)Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807 MUNSONSLOUGH (BELOWLAKE)Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807 MUNSONSLOUGH (BELOWLAKE)Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807 MUNSONSLOUGH (BELOWLAKE)Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks185St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807A MUNSON (AMESSINK)Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807A MUNSON (AMESSINK)Stream DO Planning List 3c Urbam runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807C LAKE MUNSON Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807C LAKE MUNSON Lake Nutrients Nutrients(TSI) Verified List 5 Low 2007 Still need to Identifylimiting nutrient; Linkedto phosphorus;Nitrogen limitationLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807C LAKE MUNSON Lake DO Verified List 5 Low 2007 Linked to nutrients;High BODLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807C LAKE MUNSON Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807C LAKE MUNSON Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807C LAKE MUNSON Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream DO Verified List 5 Low 2007 Linked to nutrientsUrban runoff; NitrogenlimitedLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream TotalColiformsTotal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream FecalColiformsInsufficient Data 3b Low 2007 Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream Turbidity Turbidity Meets Standards 2 DelistLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff186Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink807D MUNSONSLOUGH (ABOVELAKE)Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink820 GODBY DITCH Stream Nutrients Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urbanrunoff; Minimal flowexcept for storm eventsLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink820 GODBY DITCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urbanrunoff; Minimal flowexcept for storm eventsLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink820 GODBY DITCH Stream TotalSuspendedSolidsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urbanrunoff; Minimal flowexcept for storm eventsLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink820 GODBY DITCH Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except forstorm eventsLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink820 GODBY DITCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except forstorm eventsLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink820 GODBY DITCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except forstorm eventsLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink820 GODBY DITCH Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except forstorm eventsLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink820 GODBY DITCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Minimal flow except forstorm eventsLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream Nutrients No Data 3a (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand high conductivityLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand high conductivityLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream TotalSuspendedSolidsNo Data 3a (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand high conductivityLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream BOD No Data 3a Delist, MeetsStandards for DOWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks187St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff and highconductivityLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream COD No Data 3a Delist, MeetsStandards for DOLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream TotalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand high conductivityLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream FecalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand high conductivityLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream DO Meets Standards 2Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink857 CENTRALDRAINAGE DITCHStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream DO Meets Standards 2Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream Nutrients Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream TotalSuspendedSolidsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream BOD Meets Standards 2 Delist, MS for DOLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream TotalColiformsInsufficient Data 3b (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream FecalColiformsInsufficient Data 3b (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink865 ST AUGUSTINEBRANCHStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878A LAKE BRADFORD Lake DO Planning List 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by IWRLanguage-ResidentialrunoffLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878A LAKE BRADFORD Lake TSI Meets Standards 2188Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878B SILVER LAKE Lake Nutrients(TSI) Meets Standards 2Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878B SILVER LAKE Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3cLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878B SILVER LAKE Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3cLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878B SILVER LAKE Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3cLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878C LAKE HIAWASSA Lake Nutrients(TSI) Meets Standards 2Lake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878D CASCADE LAKE Lake No Data 3aLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink878E GRASSY LAKE Lake No Data 3aLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink916 EAST DRAINAGEDITCHStream Nutrients Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand golf coursesLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink916 EAST DRAINAGEDITCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand golf coursesLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink916 EAST DRAINAGEDITCHStream TotalSuspendedSolidsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand golf coursesLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink916 EAST DRAINAGEDITCHStream BOD Insufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand golf coursesLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink916 EAST DRAINAGEDITCHStream DO Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff and golfcoursesLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink916 EAST DRAINAGEDITCHStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Urban runoff and golfcoursesLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink916 EAST DRAINAGEDITCHStream TotalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c (High) (2002) Added to PL by IWRLanguage-Urban runoffand golf coursesLake Munson/FredGeorge Sink916 EAST DRAINAGEDITCHStream FecalColiformsInsufficient Data 3cLost Creek/FisherCreek1003 CLEAR LAKE Lake DO Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks189St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lost Creek/FisherCreek1003 CLEAR LAKE Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek1003 CLEAR LAKE Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek1003 CLEAR LAKE Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek1003 CLEAR LAKE Lake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek1044 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3aLost Creek/FisherCreek1054 BLACK CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek1054 BLACK CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek1054 BLACK CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Lost Creek/FisherCreek1054 BLACK CREEK Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2Lost Creek/FisherCreek1073 COW SWAMPDRAINStream No Data 3aLost Creek/FisherCreek1102 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3a Blackwater streamLost Creek/FisherCreek1143 MILL CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek889 MOORE LAKEDRAINLake No Data 3aLost Creek/FisherCreek889A MOORE LAKE Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek889A MOORE LAKE Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek889A MOORE LAKE Lake TSI Meets Standards 2Lost Creek/FisherCreek889A MOORE LAKE Lake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek889A MOORE LAKE Lake Mercury-Fish Verified List 5 Low 2011 2001 Data indicatesimpairment; Hgaverage = 0.5975190Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Lost Creek/FisherCreek995 LOST CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek995 LOST CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek995 LOST CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bLost Creek/FisherCreek995 LOST CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Lost Creek/FisherCreek995 LOST CREEK Stream DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Phosphorus limited.North OchlockoneeRiver1297C LAKE TALQUIN Lake Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297C LAKE TALQUIN Lake Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297C LAKE TALQUIN Lake DO Meets Standards 2 Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297C LAKE TALQUIN Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297C LAKE TALQUIN Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297C LAKE TALQUIN Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297C LAKE TALQUIN Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297D LAKE TALQUIN Lake Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297D LAKE TALQUIN Lake DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297D LAKE TALQUIN Lake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297D LAKE TALQUIN Lake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297D LAKE TALQUIN Lake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297D LAKE TALQUIN Lake Turbidity Meets Standards 2Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks191St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver1297E OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2011 Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297E OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297E OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaMeets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297E OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297E OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream DO Meets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297E OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Total Coliforms Meets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297E OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fe Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297E OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream TotalColiformsVerified List 5 Low 2007 Listed based upon newdataNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream FecalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by usinglangauge in IWRNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007North OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2 DelistNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2011 Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream DO Meets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaMeets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2North OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297F OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fe Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1297GOCHLOCKONEERIVERStream No Data 3a192Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver1298 INTERLOCKINGLAKESLake No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver1301 HOLMANBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Planning List 3c Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Planning List 3c Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream DO Meets Standards 2 Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream Chloride Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1303 QUINCY CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3b Quincy STP, UrbanRunoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver1304 ROCKYCOMFORTCREEKStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishNorth OchlockoneeRiver1304 ROCKYCOMFORTCREEKStream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1304 ROCKYCOMFORTCREEKStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1304 ROCKYCOMFORTCREEKStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1304 ROCKYCOMFORTCREEKStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks193St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver1304 ROCKYCOMFORTCREEKStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver1306 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver397 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver398 CAMEL CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver400 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver402 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver410 WILLACOOCHEECREEKStream DO Insufficient Data 3b Mining OperationsNorth OchlockoneeRiver410 WILLACOOCHEECREEKStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Mining OperationsNorth OchlockoneeRiver410 WILLACOOCHEECREEKStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Mining OperationsNorth OchlockoneeRiver410 WILLACOOCHEECREEKStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Mining OperationsNorth OchlockoneeRiver410 WILLACOOCHEECREEKStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Mining OperationsNorth OchlockoneeRiver417 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver419 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver422 ATTAPULGUSCREEKStream No Data 3a Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream TotalColiformsVerified List 5 Low 2007 Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream FecalColiformsMeets Standards 2 Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2 Delist.194Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream TotalSuspendedSolidsMeets Standards 2 Delist. MS for TurbidityNorth OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fish;Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream DO Meets Standards 2 Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver424 LITTLE RIVER Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaMeets Standards 2 Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver427 SWAMP CREEK Stream TotalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWRMining UpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver427 SWAMP CREEK Stream FecalColiformsInsufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWRMining UpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver427 SWAMP CREEK Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007 Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver427 SWAMP CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL ByLanguage in IWRMining UpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver427 SWAMP CREEK Stream TotalSuspendedSolidsPlanning List 3c Low 2007 Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver427 SWAMP CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver427 SWAMP CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Mining OperationsUpstreamNorth OchlockoneeRiver428 MILL CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver430 SHAW CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver430 SHAW CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver430 SHAW CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks195St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver430 SHAW CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver430 SHAW CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver440 UNNAMEDSTREAMStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver440 UNNAMEDSTREAMStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver440 UNNAMEDSTREAMStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver440 UNNAMEDSTREAMStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver447 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver449 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver460 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver473 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream DO Planning List 3cNorth OchlockoneeRiver474 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver480 SALEM BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver480 SALEM BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver480 SALEM BRANCH Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver480 SALEM BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver480 SALEM BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver499 HUBBERTBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver499 HUBBERTBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver499 HUBBERTBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b196Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver505 WINKLEYBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver505 WINKLEYBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver505 WINKLEYBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver506 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver513 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver524 LEWIS CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;Urban runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver524 LEWIS CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;Urban runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver524 LEWIS CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;Urban runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver524 LEWIS CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;Urban runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver524 LEWIS CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Havana STP removed;Urban runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver527 RICH BAY RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver540 HURRICANECREEKStream DO Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540 HURRICANECREEKStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540 HURRICANECREEKStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540 HURRICANECREEKStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540 HURRICANECREEKStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540A TALLAVANNALAKELake TSI Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Still need to Identifynutrient of concernResidential andnursery runoff;Lakewatch data notincludedWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks197St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver540A TALLAVANNALAKELake DO Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540A TALLAVANNALAKELake Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540A TALLAVANNALAKELake Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540A TALLAVANNALAKELake Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540A TALLAVANNALAKELake Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver540A TALLAVANNALAKELake Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Nurseries andresidential runoffNorth OchlockoneeRiver566 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver576 UNNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver576 UNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver576 UNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver595 TANYARDBRANCHStream No Data 3a Quincy urban runoff;Underground tanksNorth OchlockoneeRiver598 ORCHARD PONDOUTLETLake No Data 3a Quincy urban runoff;Underground tanksNorth OchlockoneeRiver601 MILL DAM CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver605 COX CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver609 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver614 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver615 SO PRONGTANYARD BRStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver623 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver630 DOUBLE BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b198Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver632 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver633 UNNAMED RUN Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver653 VOTE CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver657 UNNAMEDCREEKStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver659 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver661 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver680 RICHLANDERCREEKStream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver680 RICHLANDERCREEKStream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver680 RICHLANDERCREEKStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver680 RICHLANDERCREEKStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver680 RICHLANDERCREEKStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver698 UNNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver698 UNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver698 UNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver702 ROBINSONBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver703 HOG CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver704 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver706 CAMP CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver706 CAMP CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks199St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver706 CAMP CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver710 SWEETWATERBRANCHStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver711 MONROE CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver727 TURKEY CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver733 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver734 CANE CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver745 HOLLEY BRANCH Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver752 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver757 BEAR CREEK Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver757 BEAR CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver757 BEAR CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver757 BEAR CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver757 BEAR CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver757 BEAR CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver767 MIDWAY BRANCH Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver777 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver787 HUNTER CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver794 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver796 JUNIPERBRANCHStream No Data 3a200Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver798 DOUBLE BRANCH Stream Fish-Mercury Planning List 3cNorth OchlockoneeRiver801 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver804 MULE CREEK Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver806 GULLEY BRANCH Stream Fish-Mercury Planning List 3cNorth OchlockoneeRiver810 UNNAMEDSTREAMStream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver811 OCKLAWAHACREEKStream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver811 OCKLAWAHACREEKStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver811 OCKLAWAHACREEKStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver812 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver814 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver816 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver817 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver818 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver823 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver828 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver831 POLE BRANCH Stream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver832 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver835 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver842 TODD BRANCH Stream No Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks201St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver845 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver849 MCINTOSHBRANCHStream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver852 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver853 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver854 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver855 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver856 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver858 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver860 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver879 HAMMOCKCREEKStream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver879 HAMMOCKCREEKStream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver879 HAMMOCKCREEKStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver879 HAMMOCKCREEKStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver879 HAMMOCKCREEKStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver879 HAMMOCKCREEKStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver882 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver884 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver887 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver896 POLK CREEK Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3b202Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***North OchlockoneeRiver896 POLK CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver896 POLK CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver896 POLK CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver896 POLK CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver900 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver902 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aNorth OchlockoneeRiver921 HARVEY CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver921 HARVEY CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver921 HARVEY CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver921 HARVEY CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver954 FREEMAN CREEK Stream Nutrients Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver954 FREEMAN CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver954 FREEMAN CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver954 FREEMAN CREEK Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver954 FREEMAN CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver954 FREEMAN CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver954 FREEMAN CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver954 FREEMAN CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bNorth OchlockoneeRiver960 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks203St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Sopchoppy River 1038 WEST BRSOPCHOPPY RIStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fish andBlackwaterSopchoppy River 1038B EAST BRSOPCHOPPYRIVEStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 1038B EAST BRSOPCHOPPYRIVEStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 1038B EAST BRSOPCHOPPYRIVEStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 1125 MONKEY CREEK Stream Cu Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamSopchoppy River 1125 MONKEY CREEK Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamSopchoppy River 1125 MONKEY CREEK Stream Pb Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamSopchoppy River 1125 MONKEY CREEK Stream Ni Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamSopchoppy River 1125 MONKEY CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamSopchoppy River 1125 MONKEY CREEK Stream Zn Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamSopchoppy River 1179 DEEP CREEK Stream No Data 3aSopchoppy River 1186 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream No Data 3aSopchoppy River 1189 MILL CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 1189 MILL CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 1189 MILL CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 1189 MILL CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 1199 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream No Data 3aSopchoppy River 1248C OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishSopchoppy River 1248C OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream DO Meets Standards 2Sopchoppy River 1248C OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2Sopchoppy River 1248C OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2Sopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Ni Insufficient Data 3b204Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Sopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Se Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Fe Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Sopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream DO Meets Standards 2Sopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2Sopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2Sopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaMeets Standards 2Sopchoppy River 998 SOPCHOPPYRIVERStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishSouth OchlockoneeRiver1017 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1024 BLACK CREEK Stream TotalColiformsTotal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWRSouth OchlockoneeRiver1024 BLACK CREEK Stream FecalColiformsFecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWRSouth OchlockoneeRiver1024 BLACK CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1024 BLACK CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1024 BLACK CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1025 UNNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1025 UNNAMED RUN Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1025 UNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks205St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***South OchlockoneeRiver1025 UNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1033 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1035 REEDY BRANCH Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishSouth OchlockoneeRiver1059 SWEETWATERCREEKStream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1068 HIGH HILL CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1072 PANTHER CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1077 PINE CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1081 INDIAN CREEK Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1085 BETSY BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1090 FOX BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1097 MILL CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1104 TIGER CREEK Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1115 REEDY BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1126 CAT BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1132 NORTH BRANCHSMITH CRStream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1140 COXES BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1147 SMITH CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1147 SMITH CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1147 SMITH CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3b206Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***South OchlockoneeRiver1147 SMITH CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1147 SMITH CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1157 FLAT BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1160 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1166 GULLY BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1167 VAUSE BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1168 ARBOR BUSHBRANCHStream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1173 EAST FORKSYFRETT CRStream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1175 SYFRETT CREEK Stream No Data 3a Blackwater streamSouth OchlockoneeRiver1187 MILL BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1193 DOUBLE BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1197 SHOOLHOUSEBRANCHStream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1200 JOEL BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1203 TITI BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1206 BAKER BRANCH Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1208 COW CREEK Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishSouth OchlockoneeRiver1210 BIG SPRING Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1213 UNNAMED DRAIN Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1214 HAW CREEK Stream No Data 3aWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks207St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***South OchlockoneeRiver1216 BUMPY CREEK Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1234 WOMACK CREEK Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1241 CROOKED RIVER Stream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishSouth OchlockoneeRiver1245 TOM HAHNCREEKStream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1246 COW CREEK Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1247 BRANDY CREEK Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver1248A OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream DO Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1248A OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1248A OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1248B OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishSouth OchlockoneeRiver1248B OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1248B OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream DO Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1248B OCHLOCKONEEBAYStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1255 CHAIRES CREEK Estuary Turbidity Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1255 CHAIRES CREEK Estuary DO Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1255 CHAIRES CREEK Estuary Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1255 CHAIRES CREEK Estuary Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1255 CHAIRES CREEK Estuary Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2011208Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***South OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream DO DO Meets Standards 2 DelistSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaMeets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Total Coliforms Meets Standards 2South OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297A OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fe Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream DO DO Meets Standards 2 DelistSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream TotalColiformsTotal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWRSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream FecalColiformsFecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWRSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007South OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3c Low 2007 Added to PL By usinglanguage in IWRSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3c Low 2007 Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Fe Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver1297B OCHLOCKONEERIVERStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver941 PITTMAN CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver941 PITTMAN CREEK Stream Conductivity Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks209St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***South OchlockoneeRiver941 PITTMAN CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver941 PITTMAN CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver941 PITTMAN CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver947 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver952 BLUFF CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver956 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aSouth OchlockoneeRiver961 BLUE CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver961 BLUE CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver961 BLUE CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver961 BLUE CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver985 SOAPSTONEBRANCHStream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver985 SOAPSTONEBRANCHStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver989 HUBBARDBRANCHStream Mercury-Fish Planning List 3b Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishSouth OchlockoneeRiver989 HUBBARDBRANCHStream DO Insufficient Data 3bSouth OchlockoneeRiver996 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aSt. Marks River 922 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aSt. Marks River 932 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 932 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 932 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b210Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***St. Marks River 932 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 939 LUTTERLOHSLOUGHStream No Data 3aSt. Marks River 942 CROW PONDOUTLETLake No Data 3aSt. Marks River 965 SWEETWATERBRANCHStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cutforestsSt. Marks River 965 SWEETWATERBRANCHStream DO Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cutforestsSt. Marks River 965 SWEETWATERBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cutforestsSt. Marks River 965 SWEETWATERBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cutforestsSt. Marks River 965 SWEETWATERBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Dirt roads and clear cutforestsSt. Marks River 971 CHICKENBRANCHStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2 Intermittent flow; Eastof spray fieldSt. Marks River 971 CHICKENBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2 Intermittent flow; Eastof spray fieldSt. Marks River 971 CHICKENBRANCHStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 971 CHICKENBRANCHStream DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Verification stillpending because Needto identify causitivepollutant-Intermittentflow; East of sprayfield; Nitrogen limitationSt. Marks River 971 CHICKENBRANCHStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Intermittent flow; Eastof spray fieldSt. Marks River 971 CHICKENBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Intermittent flow; Eastof spray fieldSt. Marks River 971A LAKE ERIE Lake TSI Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 977 MOORE BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Dirt RoadsSt. Marks River 977 MOORE BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 977 MOORE BRANCH Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 977 MOORE BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 977 MOORE BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks211St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***St. Marks River 1000 LIMESTONECREEKStream DO Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 1121 MORIAH CREEK Stream Dioxin Planning List 3c DEP evaluating newdioxin data in sedimentsamplesSt. Marks River 1121 MORIAH CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 1121 MORIAH CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 1121 MORIAH CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 1121 MORIAH CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 533 PATTY SINKDRAINStream No Data 3aSt. Marks River 628 BLACK CREEK Stream DO DO Verified List 5 Low 2007 Need to identifypollutant of concern;High phosphorusvalue; Nitrogen and colimited.St. Marks River 628 BLACK CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 628 BLACK CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 628 BLACK CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 628 BLACK CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 761 MORRIS BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 761 MORRIS BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 761 MORRIS BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 791A LLOYD CREEK Stream DO Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 791A LLOYD CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 791A LLOYD CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 791A LLOYD CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 791A LLOYD CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 793A ST. MARKSRIVER (SOUTHEstuary Dioxin Planning List 3c DEP evaluating newdioxin data in sedimentsamplesSt. Marks River 793A ST. MARKSRIVER (SOUTHEstuary TotalColiformsTotal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b (High) (2002) Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWRSt. Marks River 793A ST. MARKSRIVER (SOUTHEstuary FecalColiformsTotal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b (High) (2002) Added to PL by usinglanguage in IWRSt. Marks River 793A ST. MARKSRIVER (SOUTHEstuary DO DO Insufficient Data 3b212Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***St. Marks River 793A ST. MARKSRIVER (SOUTHEstuary Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream Dioxin Planning List 3c DEP evaluating newdioxin data in sedimentsamplesSt. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream DO DO Verified List 5 High 2002 Urban runoff; Minimalflow. Will not listunless causativepollutant identified.Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Nitrogen limitation.St. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream Flouride Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream Total Coliforms Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream Fe Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream Turbidity Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 793B ST. MARKSRIVERStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 793X NEWPORTSPRINGSpring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793X NEWPORTSPRINGSpring DO Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 793X NEWPORTSPRINGSpring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 793X NEWPORTSPRINGSpring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 793X NEWPORTSPRINGSpring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 793Y ST.MARKSSPRINGSpring DO Planning List 3c Spring-Naturally lowDOWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks213St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***St. Marks River 793Y ST.MARKSSPRINGSpring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Y ST.MARKSSPRINGSpring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Y ST.MARKSSPRINGSpring Fe Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Y ST.MARKSSPRINGSpring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Y ST.MARKSSPRINGSpring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Z HORN SPRING Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Z HORN SPRING Spring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Z HORN SPRING Spring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Z HORN SPRING Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b SpringSt. Marks River 793Z HORN SPRING Spring DO Verified List 4 Medium 2007 Spring-Naturally lowDO; Nitrogen limitedSt. Marks River 808 COPELAND SINKDRAINStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 808 COPELAND SINKDRAINStream DO Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Need to identifycausative pollutant.Verification stillpending determinationof causative pollutant.Nitrogen limited.St. Marks River 808 COPELAND SINKDRAINStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 808 COPELAND SINKDRAINStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 808 COPELAND SINKDRAINStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 808 COPELAND SINKDRAINStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 862 POLAR MILLBRANCHStream DO Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 868 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aSt. Marks River 873 HALL BRANCH Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 899 LANG BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b214Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***St. Marks River 899 LANG BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 899 LANG BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 910 CUBA BRANCH Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 910 CUBA BRANCH Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 910 CUBA BRANCH Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 912 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aSt. Marks River 918 BURNT MILLCREEKStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 918 BURNT MILLCREEKStream Conductivity Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 918 BURNT MILLCREEKStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 918 BURNT MILLCREEKStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 918 BURNT MILLCREEKStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bSt. Marks River 918 BURNT MILLCREEKStream DO Meets Standards 2St. Marks River 918A LAKE WOOTEN Lake TSI Meets Standards 2Telogia Creek 1002 BARBECUEBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1005 DYKES BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1011 RATTLESNAKEBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1023 CYPRESSBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1023A STOKES BRANCH Stream No Data 3a Timber Energy; MixingZone: Cu,Temperature,ConductivityTelogia Creek 1046 WESTERNBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1047 COOPERBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1049 BIG BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1052 YELLOW CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamTelogia Creek 1052 YELLOW CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks215St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Telogia Creek 1052 YELLOW CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamTelogia Creek 1052 YELLOW CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamTelogia Creek 1052 YELLOW CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3b Blackwater streamTelogia Creek 1058 WESTERNBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1299 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1299 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1299 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1300 TELOGIA CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Verified List 5 Medium 2007Telogia Creek 1300 TELOGIA CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Verified List 5 Medium 2007Telogia Creek 1300 TELOGIA CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaMeets Standards 2Telogia Creek 1300 TELOGIA CREEK Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2Telogia Creek 1300 TELOGIA CREEK Stream DO Meets Standards 2Telogia Creek 1300 TELOGIA CREEK Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Telogia Creek 1300 TELOGIA CREEK Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1300 TELOGIA CREEK Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1300Z INDIAN SPRING Spring DO Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1300Z INDIAN SPRING Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1300Z INDIAN SPRING Spring Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1302 MCDONALDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1305 LITTLE TELOGIACREEKStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1307 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 1308 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1308 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 1308 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b216Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Telogia Creek 485 PITTMANBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 497 HURRICANEBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 558 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 579 TALLAHASSEECREEKStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 579 TALLAHASSEECREEKStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 588 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 602 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 617 JUNIPERBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 617 JUNIPERBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 617 JUNIPERBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 626 YON CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 626 YON CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 626 YON CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 629 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 643 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 675 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 677 UNNAMEDSLOUGHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 682 JUNIPER CREEK Stream TotalColiformsPlanning List 3c Low 2007Telogia Creek 682 JUNIPER CREEK Stream Nutrients Planning List 3c Low 2007Telogia Creek 682 JUNIPER CREEK Stream FecalColiformsFecal Coliforms Planning List 3c Low 2007Telogia Creek 682 JUNIPER CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 682 JUNIPER CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 682 JUNIPER CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 684 MULE CREEK Stream Turbidity Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 684 MULE CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks217St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Telogia Creek 684 MULE CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 684 MULE CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 684 MULE CREEK Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 687 CAMP CREEK Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 691 LONG BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 707 UNNAMED RUN Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 707 UNNAMED RUN Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 707 UNNAMED RUN Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 709 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 714 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 720 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 726 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 732 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 737 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 775 CARNIGANBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 775 CARNIGANBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 775 CARNIGANBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 788 EAST MINNOWBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 790 STARVATIONBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 799 MURRAY HEAD Stream No Data 3a Verify dates are within7.5 years for fishTelogia Creek 800 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 802 TURKEY CREEK Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 805 SHANTY FORDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 813 MOORE BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 821 WEST MINNOWBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 830 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 840 MILL BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 847 WHITE PANTHERCREEKStream No Data 3a218Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Telogia Creek 877 BUMPY BAYDRAINStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 880 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 888 KENT RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 890 LONG BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 895 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 898 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 903 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 904 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 908 SHORT BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 909 DEASONBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 911 UNNAMED RUN Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 913 BIG CREEK Stream DO Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 920 BULL CREEK Stream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 920 BULL CREEK Stream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 920 BULL CREEK Stream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bTelogia Creek 926 CAMP BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 927 WHITE BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 934 PANTHER CREEK Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 940 RATTLESNAKEBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 946 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 948 EAST FORKPANTHER CRStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 949 DEVELS BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 953 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 955 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 968 DOUBLE BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 975 GIN BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 979 GOFF BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 984 REEDY BRANCH Stream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 988 BEAR BRANCH Stream No Data 3aWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks219St. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Telogia Creek 990 UNNAMEDBRANCHStream No Data 3aTelogia Creek 997 SPRING BRANCH Stream No Data 3aWakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Dioxin Planning List 3c DEP evaluating newdioxin data in sedimentsamplesWakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Conductivity Meets Standards 2Wakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream DO Meets Standards 2Wakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Fecal Coliforms Meets Standards 2Wakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Total Coliforms Meets Standards 2Wakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Turbidity Meets Standards 2Wakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Fe Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Biology Verified List 5 Medium 2007 Failed 5 SCIWakulla River 1006 WAKULLA RIVER Stream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006A TROUT POND Spring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006A TROUT POND Spring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006A TROUT POND Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006B LOFTON POND Lake Cu Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006B LOFTON POND Lake Fe Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006B LOFTON POND Lake Pb Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006B LOFTON POND Lake Ni Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006B LOFTON POND Lake Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006B LOFTON POND Lake Zn Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006C LITTLE LOFTONPONDLake No Data 3aWakulla River 1006X WAKULLASPRINGSSpring Fluoride Insufficient Data 3b Hydrilla Herbicided in2002Wakulla River 1006X WAKULLASPRINGSSpring Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Hydrilla Herbicided in2002Wakulla River 1006X WAKULLASPRINGSSpring Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b Hydrilla Herbicided in2002Wakulla River 1006Y SALLY WARDSPRINGSpring DO Planning List 3c Spring; Natural low DOin boilWakulla River 1006Z INDIAN SPRINGS Spring DO Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1006Z INDIAN SPRINGS Spring Turbidity Insufficient Data 3b220Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksSt. Marks River /OchlockoneeRiver HUC WBIDWaterbodySegmentWaterbodyType1998 303(d)Parametersof ConcernParametersAssessed byUsing theImpairedWaters RuleProposed Status(Meets Standards,No Data,Insufficient Data,Planning List,Verified List)EPA'sIntegratedReportCategory*Priority forTMDLDevelopment**ProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment Comments***Wakulla River 1006Z INDIAN SPRINGS Spring Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1028 MCBRIDESLOUGHStream DO Planning List 3c Naturally low DOWakulla River 1028 MCBRIDESLOUGHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1028 MCBRIDESLOUGHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1028 MCBRIDESLOUGHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1124 BIG BOGGYBRANCHStream Fecal Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b St Marks PowderDischargeWakulla River 1124 BIG BOGGYBRANCHStream Total Coliforms Insufficient Data 3b St Marks PowderDischargeWakulla River 1124 BIG BOGGYBRANCHStream DO Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1124 BIG BOGGYBRANCHStream Fluoride Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1124 BIG BOGGYBRANCHStream Fe Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1124 BIG BOGGYBRANCHStream Turbidity Insufficient Data 3bWakulla River 1124 BIG BOGGYBRANCHStream Un-ionizedAmmoniaInsufficient Data 3bNotes:*The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d)Integrated Report categories are as follows:1 – Attains all designated uses,2 – Attains some designated uses,3a – No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained,3b – Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained,3c – Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses,4a – Is impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete,4b – Is impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL will be developed because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant,4c – Is impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure providesreasonable assurance that the water will attainstandards in the future, and5 – Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.** Priorities were retained from 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.*Note - This list reflects changes as of 8/19/02.Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks221Appendix E: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water in theOchlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by Planning UnitTable E.1: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Discharging to Surface WaterPerm. Des.WAFRCap. Cap. Latitude LongitudeNameFacilityIDFacility DescriptionTreatment ProcessSummary(MGD) (MGD) DD MM SS DD MM SS5th YearInspectionDates(s)North Ochlockonee Planning UnitQUINCY, CITY OF (STP) FL0029033 10075 Domestic WWTP Contact stabilization;to Quincy Creek, LittleRiver and then LakeTalquin1.5 1.5 30 35 2.28 84 33 14.14 November-91,March-97,November-95, June00HAVANA, TOWN OF (STP) FL0030333 10076 Domestic WWTP High rate trickling filter.Effluent to WomackMill Creek0.4 0.4 30 36 52 84 24 49.99ENGELHARD CORP. (QUINCYPLANT)FL0002577 10089 Industrial Wastewater Detention forsedimentation of solids12.8 12.8 30 36 2.48 84 34 22.63 November-96ENGELHARD CORP. (COMPLEXA)FL0038466 16016 Industrial Wastewater Detention forsedimentation ofsuspended solids.2.16 November-96ENGELHARD CORP (COMPLEX C) FL0038474 10090 Industrial Wastewater Detention forsedimentation of solids2.16 30 35 57.7 84 34 24.52 November-96ENGELHARD CORP. (COMPLEX F) FL0039101 16021 Industrial Wastewater Detention forsedimentation ofsolids.2.16 November-96OIL DRI CORPORATION FL0040827 10080 Industrial Wastewater Impoundment/siltbarrier/rip-rap2.16 2.16 30 36 52 84 33 15QUINCY CLUSTER – SYSTEM 3(LOLLEYS & SOUTH)FLG910836 18333 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)30 35 16.7 84 34 56.94QUINCY CLUSTER – SYSTEM 1(QUINCY CITGO)FLG910837 18334 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)30 35 17.9 84 34 58.29QUINCY CLUSTER – SYSTEM 2(BEAN & NEELY BP)FLG910838 18335 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)30 35 16.2 84 34 58.91Lake Iamonia Planning UnitFDOT KATE IRELAND/FOSHALEEFARMFLG910616 17659 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)Lake Jackson Planning UnitLAKEWOOD AREA STP, TALQUINELECTRICN/AFebruary-87PRINTING HOUSE N/AOctober-84222Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksPerm. Des.WAFRCap. Cap. Latitude LongitudeNameFacilityIDFacility DescriptionTreatment ProcessSummary(MGD) (MGD) DD MM SS DD MM SS5th YearInspectionDates(s)Telogia Planning UnitTIMBER ENERGY RESOURCES FL0039951 10174 Industrial Wastewater Intermittent dischargefrom WWTF for an 14MW wastewood fueledpower plant.30 20 8.52 84 49 5.88 November-91,October-93, August93JUNIOR FOOD STORE NO. 240 FLG830331 16438 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)30 23 15 84 48 0GRUBBS PETROLEUM SITES FLG830450 16497 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)30 32 43.5 83 51 54.77BP OIL COMPANY FLG910291 16918 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)St. Marks Planning UnitSAM O. PURDOM GEN STATION FL0025526 10230 Industrial Wastewater Chlorination, pHneutralization andstabilization30 9 46.7 84 11 57.19 July-95MURPHY OIL CORPORATION FL0032433 16046 Industrial WastewaterST. MARKS WWTP FL0040835July-98ST MARKS REFINERY (AMERICANINTL REFINERY)FL0035220 10236 Industrial Wastewater Collection lagoon withstabilization ponds0.016 0.016 30 9 53 84 12 23.52 January-96Lake Lafayette Planning UnitGREENWOOD MHP FL0022772 10147 Domestic WWTP Extended aerationsand filter to creek andnatural depression0.02 0.02 30 25 21.4 84 13 7.54AMOCO STA NO. 60456 FLG040033 16288 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)Lake Munson Planning UnitFLORIDA MINING ANDMATERIALSFL0034754 Ind. WW 0.006 March-93, April-93,June-93ARVAH B. HOPKINS GENERATINGSTATIONFL0025518 10142 Industrial Wastewater Oil/gas fueled steamelectric power plant1.87 1.87 30 27 3.2 84 23 58.92 Dec.-85, May-95,Feb.-96, June-96HANDEX OF FLORIDA, INC. FLG830379 16460 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)Discharge treatedground water30 27 30 82 0 0REFRESHMENT SERVICES PEPSI FLG910156 16739 Petro. Cleanup GP (longterm)permit cancelled1/7/99DEERTREE HILLS MOBILE HOMEPARKFL0038199 10170 Domestic WWTP Extended aeration w/teriary filter andreclaimed waterdischarge0.015 0.015 30 26 18.4 84 21 52.78 December-98Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks223Perm. Des.WAFRCap. Cap. Latitude LongitudeNameFacilityIDFacility DescriptionTreatment ProcessSummary(MGD) (MGD) DD MM SS DD MM SS5th YearInspectionDates(s)Wakulla Planning UnitST. MARKS POWDER (AKA:PRIMEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.)FL0002518 10235 Industrial Wastewater spray irrig. w/ effluentindirectly to Big BoggyBranch and WakullaRiver0.786 0.79 30 10 51.8 84 13 12.22 November-95,December-97224Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable E.2: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Wastewater Facilities Not Discharging to Surface WaterNamePlanningUnit Facility IDWAFRSite IDFacilityType/Description.AverageDesignFlow(mgd)Discharge Groups –NS_DescriptionWAFRFAC.Lat.DDLat.MMLat.SSLong.DDLong.MMLong.SS5thYearInspectionTALLAHASSEE EAST KOA ST. MARKS FLA010133 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.0068 Reuse/secondary treatment 10133 30 28 39.78 83 54 57.74BIG BEND TRUCK PLAZA (CAPITAL CITY PLAZAWWTP)ST. MARKS FLA010134 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.042 Reuse system 10134 30 29 0.71 84 1 34.48ST. MARKS WWTF ST. MARKS FLA102318 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.05 Industrial reuse system 10231 30 9 11.39 84 12 27.42 Jul-98TEXACO TRADING & TRANSPORTATION ST. MARKS FLA010131 Ind. WW 10131 30 29 2.01 84 1 42.01FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. ST. MARKS FLA010132 Ind. WW 10132 30 29 3.84 84 1 30.32MCKENZIE SERVICE CO. INC. ST. MARKS FL0042161 Ind. WW 10234 30 9 35.82 84 11 57.26HYCREST DAIRY, INC. ST. MARKS FLA181803 Ind. WW 18180IFAS RESEARCH LABORATORY MICCOSKEE FLA010135 Dom. WWTP 10135 30 40 0.01 83 55 0MEADOWS-AT-WOODRUN WWTF LAFAYETTE FLA010159 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.07 Reuse system 10159 30 25 17.79 84 8 10.2FALLSCHASE LAFAYETTE FLA010172 Dom. WWTP 0.175 10172 30 27 47.41 84 12 46.29LAFAYETTE KENNELS LAFAYETTE FLA010153 Ind. WW 10153 30 25 53 84 11 19T P SMITH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY MUNSON FLA010139 R-001 Dom. WWTP 19.84Southeast Farm and SouthwestSprayfield10139 30 23 29.25 84 19 20.9T P SMITH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY MUNSON FLA010139 R-002 Dom. WWTP 19.84Southeast Farm Pump Station.(SECOND R-001)10139 30 23 29.25 84 19 20.9LAKE BRADFORD ROAD WWTP MUNSON FLA010140 R-001 Dom. WWTP 4.5SOUTHEAST FARM ANDSOUTHWEST SPRAYFIELD10140 30 25 34.29 84 18 4.88TALLAHASSEE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT STP MUNSON FLA010141 Dom. WWTP 0.06 10141 30 24 27.34 84 21 20.61LAKE BRADFORD ESTATES STP MUNSON FLA010148 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.036EFF: DRAINFIELD: LAKEBRADFORD MHP STP10148 30 24 24.2 84 19 26.47SOUTHERN BELL TRAILER PARK MUNSON FLA010151 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.015 reuse system 10151 30 27 28.46 84 22 25.23SOUTHERN BELL TRAILER PARK MUNSON FLA010151 R-002 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10151 30 27 28.46 84 22 25.23WESTERN ESTATES MHP MUNSON FLA010152 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 EF TO REUSE SYSTEM R001 10152 30 26 6.3 84 22 22.28SANDSTONE RANCH WWTF MUNSON FLA010167 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.0707 Effluent 10167 30 26 4.76 84 23 43.44BORDEN INC. DISTRIBUTION CENTER MUNSON FLA010143 Ind. WW 10143 30 25 50 84 20 10BUDGET RENT A CAR MUNSON FLA010144 Ind. WW 10144 30 25 49 84 21 10CAPITAL EUROCARS, INC. MUNSON FLA010145 Ind. WW 10145 30 27 25 84 21 26RAINBOW CAR WASH MUNSON FLA010149 G-001 Ind. WWDRAIN FIELD - DISCHARGEFROM SAND FILTER10149 30 26 6.47 84 22 22.45COURTESY CARS MUNSON FLA010154 G-001 Ind. WW drain field 10154 30 27 23.8 84 22 13.59Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks225NamePlanningUnit Facility IDWAFRSite IDFacilityType/Description.AverageDesignFlow(mgd)Discharge Groups –NS_DescriptionWAFRFAC.Lat.DDLat.MMLat.SSLong.DDLong.MMLong.SS5thYearInspectionLAKE JACKSON ANIMAL HOSPITAL MUNSON FLA010158 Ind. WW 10158 30 29 38.4 84 19 31.83FLINT EQUIPMENT CO. MUNSON FLA010160 Ind. WW 10160 30 27 29.55 84 22 54.06ISLAND FOOD STORE, LTD. MUNSON FLA010161 Ind. WW 10161 30 26 25.02 84 18 50.93ISLAND FOOD STORE, LTD MUNSON FLA010162 Ind. WW 10162 30 26 15.54 84 16 12.24DOLLAR RENT A CAR MUNSON FLA010163 Ind. WW 10163 30 24 8.99 84 21 6.6JACKSON-COOK INC. MUNSON FLA010164 Ind. WW 10164 30 26 20 84 20 5G.W. HUNTER, INC. # 337 (CHEVRON) MUNSON FLA010166 Ind. WW 10166 30 24 0.01 84 16 0.01SOUTHDOWN, INC. / TALLAHASSEE MUNSON FLA010168 Ind. WW 10168 30 26 3.71 84 17 55.69DAVIS REFINING CORPORATION MUNSON FLA010169 Ind. WW 10169 30 24 42 84 18 13NATIONAL HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD LAB - FSU MUNSON FLA016533 G-001 Ind. WW 0.075 discharge system to lawn irrigation 16533 30 25 28.54 84 19 35.35SOUTHDOWN, INC. / TALLAHASSEE MUNSON FLA016653 Ind. WW 16653 30 26 6 84 17 48.92PROCTOR ACURA LOST FLA010150 R-002 Ind. WW 10150 30 21 16 84 27 30WOODVILLE ELEM SCHOOL WAKULLA FLA010136 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.01 reuse system 10136 30 18 50.03 84 14 47.64DISC VILLAGE WWTP WAKULLA FLA010137 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02 Land Application System 10137 30 18 16.61 84 13 42.72SHADEVILLE ELEMENTARY WWTF WAKULLA FLA010227 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.016EFF TO ABSORP FIELD:SHADEVILLE ELEM SCH10227 30 12 54.06 84 19 13.07WAKULLA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CTR WAKULLA FLA010228 Dom. WWTP 0.02 10228 30 11 34.36 84 22 20.04OYSTER BAY ESTATES STP WAKULLA FLA010237 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.06 REUSE SYSTEM 10237 30 15 33.97 84 18 58.4RIVER PLANTATION ESTATES WWTP WAKULLA FLA010241 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.025EF TO PERC POND: RIVERPLANTATION CLOSED10241 30 12 18.12 84 15 5.94WINCO UTILITIES, INC. WAKULLA FLA016544 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.495 Sprayfield Irrigation System 16544 30 15 23.66 84 13 6.06LEWISWOOD CENTER & SELF SVC STORAGE WAKULLA FLA010155 G-001 Ind. WW 0.0013Drainfield after sand filter/septictank10155 30 19 35.79 84 14 59.16MIKE'S LAUNDRY WAKULLA FLA010156 Ind. WW 0.0027 10156 30 19 5 84 14 55ACE COIN LAUNDRY WAKULLA FLA010232 Ind. WW 0.0068 10232 30 11 4.73 84 22 28.15MUDBUSTERS WAKULLA FLA010233 Ind. WW 10233 30 12 41 84 22 13LAND OF WAKULLA D.B.A. QUIK LUBE WAKULLA FLA010239 Ind. WW 10239 30 12 23.93 84 21 57.43WAKULLA STATION CNTY CAFE & LAUNDROMAT WAKULLA FLA185965 Ind. WW 18596HAVANA, TOWN OF (STP) N. OCHL FL0030333 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.4 REUSE SYSTEM 10076 30 36 52.03 84 24 49.99226Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksNamePlanningUnit Facility IDWAFRSite IDFacilityType/Description.AverageDesignFlow(mgd)Discharge Groups –NS_DescriptionWAFRFAC.Lat.DDLat.MMLat.SSLong.DDLong.MMLong.SS5thYearInspectionRENTZ MHP N. OCHL FLA010079 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012EF TO DRAINFIELD:MCLENDON PARK STP10079 30 33 0.05 84 31 21.83NICHOLSON FARMHOUSE RESTAURANT N. OCHL FLA010084 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.006 REUSE SYSTEM 10084 30 36 37.22 84 28 1.28HAVANA MIDDLE SCHOOL WWTP N. OCHL FLA010085 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10085 30 37 15.71 84 24 5.71FORT BRADEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL N. OCHL FLA010138 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.011 Absorption Field 10138 30 26 25.26 84 30 57.85WESTVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK N. OCHL FLA010146 Dom. WWTP 0.015 10146 30 26 34 84 24 12LAKE JACKSON WWTF (AKA LAKEWOOD) N. OCHL FLA010171 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.3 REUSE SYSTEM 10171 30 32 8.57 84 22 0.35FLYING J, INC. N. OCHL FLA016632 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.02Effluent discharge to absorptionbeds-16632 30 29 34.71 84 25 43.94WILLIAMS TRAVEL CENTERS WWTF N. OCHL FLA182923 Dom. WWTP 0.013 18292 30 29 42.84 84 26 2.51ROBERTS SAND COMPANY, INC. N. OCHL FLA010082 Ind. WW 10082 30 28 22.46 84 39 25.9FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO. #14 N. OCHL FLA010083 R-001 Ind. WW 0.005 reuse system 10083 30 30 19.64 84 42 35.6FDOT MAINTENANCE FACILITY TRUCK WSH N. OCHL FLA010087 Ind. WW 10087 30 29 29.69 84 25 22.36COASTAL LUMBER CO. N. OCHL FLA010091 Ind. WW 0 10091 30 38 1.32 84 24 9.28IFAS RESEARCH LABORATORY N. OCHL FLA010092 Ind. WW 10092 30 32 25 84 35 50CROWDER SAND PROCESSING PLANT N. OCHL FLA017081 Ind. WW 17081 30 28 19.48 84 39 23.45DIVISION OF FORESTRY DISTRICT OFFICE N. OCHL FLA017296 Ind. WW 17296LIBERTY 67 MINE S. OCHL FLA010178 Ind. WW 10178 30 1 5.91 84 36 40.16KILLEARN LAKES SUBDIVISION IAMONIA FLA010173 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.7 sprayfield irrigation system 10173 30 35 35.01 84 13 12.57KILLEARN LAKES SUBDIVISION IAMONIA FLA010173 R-002 Dom. WWTP 0.7 rapid infiltration basins 10173 30 35 35.01 84 13 12.57AMOCO/SING OIL CO. IAMONIA FLA010165 Ind. WW 10165 30 33 53.11 84 12 52.04GREENSBORO HIGH SCHOOL TELOGIA FLA010074 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012 EFFLUENT 10074 30 34 17.07 84 44 5.69LIBERTY CO INTERMEDIATE HEALTH CARE TELOGIA FLA010176 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.012 STP Effluent 10176 30 25 23.94 84 54 59.73LIBERTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION TELOGIA FLA010179 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.2 STP Effluent 10179 30 28 5.98 84 51 47.86GRETNA, TOWN OF (STP) TELOGIA FLA100781 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.35 REUSE SYSTEM 10078 30 37 51.53 84 39 58.59QUINCY MUSHROOM FARM TELOGIA FLA010088 R-001 Ind. WW Spray Irrigation/Created Wetland 10088 30 32 1.79 84 41 25.25SHULER, DAVID TELOGIA FLA010177 Ind. WW 10177 30 21 6.35 84 49 38.16ENGELHARD CORPORATION TELOGIA FLA016194 Ind. WW 16194SHELL POINT STP COASTAL FLA010242 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.024EF TO PERC POND: SHELLPOINT STP10242 30 3 31.19 84 17 22.21Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks227NamePlanningUnit Facility IDWAFRSite IDFacilityType/Description.AverageDesignFlow(mgd)Discharge Groups –NS_DescriptionWAFRFAC.Lat.DDLat.MMLat.SSLong.DDLong.MMLong.SS5thYearInspectionWAKULLA COUNTY WWTF COASTAL FLA010225 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.2 reuse system 10225 30 4 55.41 84 25 0.51WAKULLA CO HIGH SCHOOL COASTAL FLA010226 Dom. WWTP 0.018 10226 30 6 22.63 84 22 29.58WAKULLA MIDDLE SCHOOL COASTAL FLA010229 R-001 Dom. WWTP 0.018 REUSE SYSTEM 10229 30 7 36.43 84 22 19.74WAKULLA MANOR COASTAL FLA010238 R-OO1 Dom. WWTP 0.024 reuse system 10238 30 5 5.64 84 23 12.87MURPHY OIL CORPORATION COASTAL FL0032433 R-001 Ind. WW SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM 16046HANNON LIMESTONE PIT COASTAL FLA010240 Ind. WW 10240 30 9 37.12 84 17 30.41228Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTable E.3: Ochlockonee and St. Marks WACS LandfillsTOTAL Cell WaterTot. Surf. Oper. Waste Meas. Refuse TableWACS Pop. Mon. Mon. Beg. Expec Quan./ Des Unit Liner Loc NPDES Leach. Depth DepthFac. ID Name City Served Wells Points Year Life Day Cap. Type Type Type Permit Disch. (ft.) (ft.)5851 BRYD TRANSFER STATION QUINCY5729 BYRD LANDFILL QUINCY 9000 8 2 1975 7 75 CYD E N 6 405699 CONCORD DUMP HAVANA 200 0 1970 N 6 205962 ENGELHARD-BLOCK II DOGTOWN 2 1983 50 25 655701 ENGELHARD-LA CAMELIA SLF DOGTOWN 2 0 1981 50 CYD N O Y 25 655702 ENGELHARD-SWISHER SLF DOGTOWN 2 0 1981 50 CYD N F N 25 655871 GADSDEN COUNTY TRANSFERSTATIONQUINCY5700 GADSDEN EAST LANDFILL HAVANA 6000 10 2 1979 0 15 TON N N 25 405697 GREENSBORO JUNIPER DUMP GREENSBORO300 0 0 82 CYD N N 3 505726 GRETNA VOLUME REDUCTION PLANT GRETNA 4000005698 HARDAWAY DUMP HARDAWAY 300 0 0 55 CYD N N 6 305692 HAVANA DUMP HAVANA 2000 0 1962 197 CYD N N 8 205696 JAMIESON DUMP JAMIESON 200 0 1970 0 41 CYD N 6 305694 LAKE TALQUIN #1 DUMP LAKETALQUIN150 0 1968 38 CYD N N 6 1205695 LAKE TALQUIN #2 DUMP QUINCY 150 0 0 37 CYD N N 705693 MIDWAY DUMP MIDWAY 300 0 1970 0 41 CYD N N 6 105834 SAILOR C & D FACILITY QUINCY 199136851 JEFFERSON CO CENTRAL C & D L/F MONTICELLO36850 JEFFERSON COUNTY SLF (CAPPS) CAPPS 10000 16 1 1980 20 50 CYD C N 4 356567 LLOYD DUMP LLOYDN6569 WAUKEENAH SLF WAUKEENAH 10000 4 1 1973 0 200 200 CYD N O N N 15 217890 ALLEN'S EXCAVATION, INC.- TRAM RD. TALLAHASSEE8102 BRIDGES TREE FARM C&D FACIL. TALLAHASSEE 1991 108050 BURCH C & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1991 27909 CALLAWAY C & D DEBRIS DISPOSAL TALLAHASSEE6661 CAPITOLA DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3000 N O 4 57036 CODY-TRAM RD DUMP TALLAHASSEE 600 0 1972 4 TON C O N N 7 188009 COUNCIL RENTAL PROPERTY,INC.(C&D)TALLAHASSEE 208272 CROSSWAY DISPOSAL FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1993 10Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks229TOTAL Cell WaterTot. Surf. Oper. Waste Meas. Refuse TableWACS Pop. Mon. Mon. Beg. Expec Quan./ Des Unit Liner Loc NPDES Leach. Depth DepthFac. ID Name City Served Wells Points Year Life Day Cap. Type Type Type Permit Disch. (ft.) (ft.)8662 CROWDER LF TALLAHASSEE 0 0 1984 20 50 TON C O N N 157897 DONALD E. RUTLAND-RUTLANDCONST.TALLAHASSEE7063 EISENHOWER PIT TALLAHASSEE8162 F.J.MARRONE C & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1992 28182 FERRELL C & D LANDFILL TALLAHASSEE 1992 158132 FLORIDA DEVELOPERS, INC TALLAHASSE 1992 107079 FT BRADEN (JOE THOMAS RD) DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3000 0 1974 5 TON N O N N 6 77033 FT BRADEN DUMP (OLD SITE) TALLAHASSEE 500 0 C N N 12 147034 LAKE TALQUIN/BLOUNT RD DUMP BLOXHAM 2000 0 2 TON N O N N 4 77032 LAKEWOOD DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3000 1972 C N N 15 147943 LEON COUNTY BOARD OF CNTYCOMMTALLAHASSEE7992 MCNEILL COMPANY, INC. TALLAHASSEE6662 MICCOSUKEE DUMP MICCOSUKEE 2500 N O 10 148290 MITCHELL BROTHERS, INC. TALLAHASSEE 1993 207914 MORRISON HAULING/TRAM RD PIT TALLAHASSEE7927 MYLES SAHLGREN C & D DEBRIS DISP. TALLAHASSEE8633 NORFLEET MINE SANITARY LANDFILL TALLAHASSEE 0 0 1983 5 30 CYD C O N Y7994 PERFORMANCE RUBBER RETREADINGPLANTTALLAHASSEE8471 PRIME HOLDINGS, INC C&D TALLAHASSEE8443 RANKIN AVENUE PIT TALLAHASSEE11232 RANKIN AVENUE PIT TALLAHASSEE8189 SANDCO,INC TALLAHASSEE 1992 258266 SOLOMON CONSTRUCTION CO OFQUINCYTALLAHASSEE 1993 148039 SONAS SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE7281 TALLAHASSEE DUMP (OLD AIRPORTLF)TALLAHASSEE 100000 7 1961 333 CYD N O N N 30 407324 TALLAHASSEE TRASH DUMP TALLAHASSEE 120000 7 1968 250 TON N O N N 30 206663 TOWER RD DUMP TALLAHASSEE 3500 TON N O 15 147915 TOWER ROAD C & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE6664 TRAM RD DUMP TALLAHASSEE 141000 6 C O 8 7230Water Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. MarksTOTAL Cell WaterTot. Surf. Oper. Waste Meas. Refuse TableWACS Pop. Mon. Mon. Beg. Expec Quan./ Des Unit Liner Loc NPDES Leach. Depth DepthFac. ID Name City Served Wells Points Year Life Day Cap. Type Type Type Permit Disch. (ft.) (ft.)8286 TRAM ROAD PIT TALLAHASSEE 1993 206660 US 27 SOUTH LANDFILL TALLAHASSEE 175700 19 2 1976 7 445 TON P O N 10 328040 W. SHUFORD DAVIS C & D FACILITY TALLAHASSEE 1991 38154 WILLIAMS CONCRETE CONST CO #2(C&D)TALLAHASSEE 1992 107858 WILLIAMS CONCRETE CONST.CO. (C &D)TALLAHASSEE 87035 WOODVILLE DUMP WOODVILLE 3000 0 1958 10 6 TON C O N N 8 149012 HOSFORD DUMP HOSFORD 3700 0 0 1955 700 CYD N F N 6 614595 CRAB SCRAP COMPOST R,D&DPROJECTCRAWFORDVILLE 1014498 CRAWFORDVILLE DUMP CRAWFORDVILLE3500 1 2 4 TON C N N 2 614499 DUGGAR CEMETERY DUMP IVAN14587 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INC. ST. MARKS 6014628 HARRELL BROTHERS SOPCHOPPY 1992 3014500 HYDE PARK (#1) DUMP HYDE PARK 1400 0 C N N 3 1014503 HYDE PARK (#2) DUMP HYDE PARK 1400 0 7 2 TON C N N 10 1014629 J STRICKLAND & C. THOMANN-TAYLOR ARRON 1992 114494 LOWER BRIDGE LANDFILL CRAWFORDVILLE13700 5 1984 5 270 CYD P O Y 1314494 LOWER BRIDGE LANDFILL CRAWFORDVILLE13700 5 1984 5 270 CYD P O Y 1314463 MEDART CENTRAL SLF MEDART 9300 5 1977 25 TON N N N 4 1514497 MEDART DUMP MEDART 0 N N 6 414501 NEWPORT STATION DUMP NEWPORT 0 N N N 0 214496 PANACEA DUMP PANACEA 2500 0 4 TON N N N 2 1014502 SMITH CREEK DUMP (RURAL) 0 N N N 10 314495 SOPCHOPPY DUMP SOPCHOPPY 1100 0 5 1 TON N N N 1 214504 SPRING CREEK DUMP SPRINGCREEK1000 0 1973 2 2 TON C N N 2 414660 STOUTAMIRE, JAMES C&D CRAWFORDVILLE14632 WAKULLA CTY LOWER BRIDGE TS CRAWFORDVILLE14661 WELCH, JAMES T C&D CRAWFORDVILLE14666 WITHERS' PIT SOPCHOPPYWater Quality Assessment Report: Ochlockonee and St. Marks231Appendix F: Level 1 Land Use in the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins, by Planning UnitTable F.1: Ochlockonee and St. Marks Land Use Totals and PercentagesSUMMARYOF ACRES (Totals)ST.MARKSLAKEMICC.LAKELAF.LAKEMUNSONFISHER/LOSTCREEKWAKULLARIVERNORTHOCHL.SOUTHOCHL.LAKEIAMONIALAKEJACKSONTELOGIACREEKSOPCHOPPYCOASTALTotal Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total0 Total 14,248.31 - - - - - - - - - - -1000 (Urban and Built -Up) 11,704.87 3,516.78 23,180.32 22,624.35 1,587.30 16,038.83 20,840.17 1,865.86 3,585.88 10,224.79 4,553.90 715.32 7,916.992000 (Agriculture) 22,823.85 21,527.20 7,949.99 690.15 531.68 2,262.29 25,117.13 854.94 4,214.24 1,189.01 15,294.17 770.63 3,543.993000 (Rangelands) 1,939.94 257.55 358.22 119.47 992.82 3,448.19 6,626.74 4,727.47 190.01 18.78 5,320.36 521.10 848.804000 (Upland Forests) 100,408.28 107,027.19 16,228.46 27,820.58 51,935.31 49,258.86 182,529.44 106,643.98 34,427.83 9,955.08 105,067.86 38,847.29 74,855.575000 (Water) 4,218.82 6,271.32 2,226.43 1,024.28 324.35 535.99 11,149.38 4,181.07 1,370.65 3,327.09 502.62 1,223.68 3,773.936000 (Wetlands) 33,527.07 9,969.78 3,422.50 3,937.15 30,921.10 6,779.66 20,853.46 89,437.09 8,862.98 2,565.31 31,599.47 45,157.88 69,966.997000 (Barren Land) 22.34 - - 14.80 - 27.00 51.85 31.40 - - 91.66 - 495.878000 (Transportation,Communications, Utilities)697.98 761.18 536.91 2,471.47 392.34 1,055.93 2,231.73 270.84 136.37 315.21 371.03 114.01 285.05TOTAL ACRES: 175,343.16 163,579.31 53,902.82 58,702.25 86,684.89 79,406.75 269,399.90 208,012.64 52,787.97 27,595.28 162,801.08 87,349.91 161,687.19SUMMARYOF ACRES (%)ST.MARKSLAKEMICC.LAKELAF.LAKEMUNSONFISHER/LOSTCREEKWAKULLARIVERNORTHOCHL.SOUTHOCHL.LAKEIAMONIALAKEJACKSONTELOGIACREEKSOPCHOPPYCOASTALTotal Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total0 Total 0.00% 8.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%1000 (Urban and Built -Up) 6.68% 2.15% 43.00% 38.54% 1.83% 20.20% 7.74% 0.90% 6.79% 37.05% 2.80% 0.82% 4.90%2000 (Agriculture) 13.02% 13.16% 14.75% 1.18% 0.61% 2.85% 9.32% 0.41% 7.98% 4.31% 9.39% 0.88% 2.19%3000 (Rangelands) 1.11% 0.16% 0.66% 0.20% 1.15% 4.34% 2.46% 2.27% 0.36% 0.07% 3.27% 0.60% 0.52%4000 (Upland Forests) 57.26% 65.43% 30.11% 47.39% 59.91% 62.03% 67.75% 51.27% 65.22% 36.08% 64.54% 44.47% 46.30%5000 (Water) 2.41% 3.83% 4.13% 1.74% 0.37% 0.67% 4.14% 2.01% 2.60% 12.06% 0.31% 1.40% 2.33%6000 (Wetlands) 19.12% 6.09% 6.35% 6.71% 35.67% 8.54% 7.74% 43.00% 16.79% 9.30% 19.41% 51.70% 43.27%7000 (Barren Land) 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.31%8000 (Transportation,Communications, Utilities)0.40% 0.47% 1.00% 4.21% 0.45% 1.33% 0.83% 0.13% 0.26% 1.14% 0.23% 0.13% 0.18%% TOTAL: 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

# 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