FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Water Resource Management

Water Quality Status Report

NORTHWEST • GROUP 4 BASIN • 2004

Pensacola Bay

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Water Resource Management

Water Quality Status Report

Pensacola Bay

2004

Acknowledgments

The Pensacola Bay Water Quality Status Report was prepared by the 

Northwest Basin Team, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

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

Team members include the following:

Mary Paulic, Basin Coordinator

Trisha McClenahan, GIS Support

Julian Simonelli, STORET and Data Management

Julia Zimmerman, STORET and Data Management

Richard Wieckowicz, Watershed Assessment

Mike Myrga, Watershed Assessment

Katrina Sanders, Watershed Assessment

Thomas Seal, Monitoring

Barbara Ruth, Northwest District

Shelly Alexander, Northwest District

Cheryl Bunch, Northwest District

Editorial and writing assistance provided by

Linda Lord, Watershed Planning and Coordination

Production assistance provided by

Center for Information, Training, and Evaluation Services

Florida State University

210 Sliger Building

2035 E. Dirac Dr.

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800

Map production assistance provided by

Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center

Florida State University

University Center, C2200

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641

For additional information on the watershed management 

approach and potentially impaired waters in the Pensacola Bay 

Basin, contact

Mary Paulic

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

mary.paulic@dep.state.fl .us

Phone: (850) 245-8560; SunCom: 205-8560

Fax: (850) 245-8434

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 5
Access to all data used in the development of this report can be 

obtained by contacting

Richard Wieckowicz

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) 245-8536

Web Sites

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Watershed Management

TMDL Program

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

Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule

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

STORET Program

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

2002 305(b) Report 

http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/docs/2002_305b.pdf

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifi cations 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National STORET Program

http://www.epa.gov/STORET/

6 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Preface

Content Features

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

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

• Sidebar: Appears throughout the report and provides additional 

information pertinent to the text on that page.

• Noteworthy: Appears on pages near text that needs additional 

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

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

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

the text.

• References: Appear at the end of Chapter 5 and provide a complete 

listing of all sources used in the text.

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

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

STORET stations, water quality statistics, land use, and permitted 

facilities.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 7

Executive Summary

Pensacola Bay

The Water Quality Status Report for the Pensacola Bay Basin is 

developed in the fi rst phase of the Florida Department of Environmental 

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

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

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

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

implemented using a cyclical management process, provides a framework 

for implementing the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the 

1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Chapter 99-223, Laws 

of Florida).

This Status Report provides a preliminary identifi cation of impaired 

waters in the Pensacola Bay Basin that may require the development and 

implementation of TMDLs, unless the impairment is documented to be 

a naturally occurring condition that cannot be abated by a TMDL, or 

unless a management plan that is already in place is expected to correct the 

problem. This preliminary assessment, based on readily available data, will 

be revised as additional data are evaluated. The report broadly characterizes the basin’s setting and its surface water and ground water resources, 

permitted discharges, land uses, and ecological status. It also identifi es 

potential water quality concerns and water quality monitoring needs, and 

summarizes plans and projects that are under way or projected to improve 

water quality. Tables in Chapters 3 and 4 include the current Planning List

of potentially impaired waterbodies, as well as other summary information. See Noteworthy in Chapter 1 for a description of the contents of this 

report, by chapter.

In the Pensacola Bay Basin, state, federal, regional, and local agencies 

and organizations are making progress towards identifying problems and 

improving water quality. Throughout its watershed management activities, the Department works with these entities to support programs that are 

improving water quality and restoring and protecting ecological resources. 

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

basin through close coordination with the activities of key stakeholders 

such as Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, the Bay Area Resource Council, city of Pensacola, Eglin Air Force Base, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Gulf Ecology Division Sabine Island Facility, and the 

Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD).

Not only do stakeholders in the basin share responsibilities in achieving 

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

on management activities. Signifi cant data providers in the basin, in addition to the Department, include Escambia County, NWFWMD, EPA, and 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 9
the following volunteer monitoring groups: LakeWatch, the Bream Fisherman’s Association, and the Okaloosa County Environmental Council.

During the next few years, further data collection and analysis will be 

done to establish TMDLs for impaired waters in the Pensacola Bay Basin, 

establish the initial allocations of pollutant load reductions needed to meet 

those TMDLs, and produce a Basin Management Action Plan (B-MAP) 

to reduce the amount of pollutants that cause impairments. These activities depend on the participation of the water management district, local 

governments, businesses, and other stakeholders. The Department will 

work with these groups and individuals to undertake or continue reductions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established TMDLs for 

impaired waterbodies.

The information in this report is being used to identify waterbodies and parameters for which additional data are needed to verify water 

quality impairments. Data gathering and monitoring will then focus on 

these potentially impaired waters. Once these data are reevaluated and 

re assessed, in the summer of 2005 the Department will present a list of 

waters for which impairments have been verifi ed and for which TMDLs 

will be developed. The Verifi ed List of impaired waters will be adopted by 

Secretarial Order in accordance with the FWRA. Once adopted, the list 

will be submitted to the EPA for approval as the state’s Section 303(d) list 

of impaired waters for the basin.

Summary of Findings

The following summarizes the number of waterbody segments in the 

basin that are potentially impaired, by primary pollutant. Figures 3.3 

through 3.7 (in Chapter 3) depict the results of this evaluation for each 

planning unit. Planning units are smaller areas in the basin that provide a 

more detailed geographic basis for identifying and assessing water quality 

improvement activities. 

The Pensacola Bay Basin contains a total of 351 waterbody segments. 

Of these, 106 are on the Planning List as potentially impaired based on the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) evaluation criteria and/or the 1998 

303(d) list criteria. Table 1 summarizes the major parameters for which 

potential impairments were identifi ed.

For another 75 waterbodies, at least 1 designated use is met (Category 2). Many of the stream segments met their designated use as indicated by passing biological assessment scores.

For those waterbodies listed in Table 4.1 (in Chapter 4) as potentially 

impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, additional analysis is required 

to identify the pollutant causing the low DO. Low DO levels are often 

natural and not always attributable to pollutants. For this reason, additional sampling and evaluation will be conducted to differentiate between 

pollutant-related and other causes of low DO before the Verifi ed List for 

the basin is developed.

10 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Table 1: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Pensacola Bay Basin 

Parameter

Potential Waterbody Segment Impairments

Included Only 

on the 1998 

303(d) List

Identified Only by 

the Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule Evaluation

Identified on Both the 

1998 303(d) List and by 

the Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule Evaluation

Total Potential 

Impairments

Dissolved Oxygen 11 4 5 19

Nutrients (General, 

Chlorophyll a, Other Data)

 9 4 13

Coliforms (General, Total, Fecal) 23 11 11 45

Biology 49 49

Metals 1 6 7

Total Suspended Solids or 

Turbidity

 23 23

Fish Advisory 20 8 28

The greatest number of waterbodies is potentially impaired for either 

fecal or total coliform bacteria or biology. In 2001, the EPA fi nalized fecal 

coliform TMDLs for two segments of the Blackwater River and fi ve of its 

tributaries (EPA, 2001, 2001a).

Forty-nine waterbodies failed bioassessment tests and were found to be 

impaired based on the IWR. Bioassessment evaluation includes a habitat 

and water quality component. A causative pollutant must be identifi ed 

before a waterbody is verifi ed as impaired for biology. Bioassessments failed 

in many streams because of poor habitat quality caused by sedimentation 

or high suspended solids loads in the water column. The 1998 303(d) list 

does not identify biological impairment, but rather, total suspended solids 

(TSS) and turbidity. 

Four waterbodies were listed on the 1998 303(d) list for nonpoint 

source pollution, based on a survey of local experts and their best professional judgment. Those waterbodies were not counted in Table 4.1.

At the completion of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, 

the data collected for parameters listed in Table 4.1 will be reevaluated to 

verify the condition of the waterbody segments. Chapter 5 provides more 

information about the Phase 2 monitoring activities.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 11

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Purposes and Content of the Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Explanation of the Planning List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Explanation of the Verified List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Northwest District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 2: Basin Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Basin Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Riverine Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Estuarine Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Soils, Physiography, and Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Pensacola Bay Estuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Surface Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Outstanding Florida Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Minimum Flows and Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Ground Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Water Resource Caution Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Watershed Management Activities and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Major Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Environmental Protection Programs and Restoration Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Agricultural Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Nongovernmental Stakeholder Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Chapter 3: Preliminary Surface Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . 55

Scope of the Preliminary Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Sources of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Attainment of Designated Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Assessment by Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Escambia River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

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

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 13
Blackwater River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Yellow River Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

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

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Shoal River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Chapter 4: The Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters . . . . . 101

The Planning List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Relationship Between the Planning List and the 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Summary of Potential Impairments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Waters with Insufficient Data To Determine Impairment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Chapter 5: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 109

Strategic Monitoring and Data Acquisition Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Data Acquisition Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Phase 2 Assessment: Data Collection and Database Management 

Leading to the Development of the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . 110

Verified List Development and Public Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Tables

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 2.1: Historical, Current, and Projected Population Estimates in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . 24

Table 2.2: Imperiled Fish, Mussels, and Aquatic Insects in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 2.3: Physical Characteristics of Major Streams in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 2.4: Characteristics of Pensacola Bay Estuary Embayments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 2.5: Outstanding Florida Waters in the Pensacola Bay Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 2.6: Current and Projected Water Usage in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Pensacola Bay Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report . . . . 59

Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Escambia River Planning Unit. . . 64

Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Blackwater River Planning Unit . 72

14 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Yellow River Planning Unit . . . . . 79

Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Shoal River Planning Unit. . . . . . 84

Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Pensacola Bay Planning Unit . . . 89

Table 3.9: Signifi cant Sediment Contaminants and Their Location in the Pensacola Bay Estuary . . . 95

Table 4.1: Potentially Impaired Waters in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 4.2: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Table 5.1: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation Objectives for Planning List Waters in 

the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figures

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

Northwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 2.2: Water Use Classifi cation in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 2.3: a. Basin Boundaries of the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

 b. Surface Water Resources of the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 2.4: Topography of the Western Panhandle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 2.5: a. Geographic Extent and Thickness of the Sand and Gravel Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

 b. Major Aquifer Systems of the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 2.6: Proximity of Delineated Ground Water Contamination Areas to Public Water Supply 

Wells in Downtown Pensacola. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 2.7: Delineated Water Resource Caution Areas in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Pensacola Bay Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Pensacola Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

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

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Blackwater River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) 

List and Planning List Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Yellow River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List 

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Shoal River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List 

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 3.7: Composite Map of the Pensacola Bay Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List 

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 4.1: Pensacola Bay Basin Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment, with 

Overlay of 1998 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 15

Chapter 1: Introduction

Purposes and Content of the Status Report

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

is implementing a statewide watershed management approach for restoring 

and protecting water quality and addressing Total Maximum Daily Load

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

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

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

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

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

TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding reductions in 

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

which rotates through the state’s 52 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.

This report presents a Planning List of potentially impaired waterbodies in the Pensacola Bay Basin, identifi es general water quality monitoring 

needs, and provides an overview of water quality restoration plans and 

pro jects (see Noteworthy for a description of the contents of the Status 

Report, by chapter). It is intended for distribution to a broad range of 

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

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

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.

Explanation of the Planning List

The Planning List is the preliminary list of potentially impaired surface 

waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Pensacola Bay Basin. Under the 

FWRA, the Planning List is submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for informational purposes only and is not used to 

administer or implement any regulatory program.

To be placed on the Planning List, waters must meet specifi c data 

suffi ciency and data quality requirements in the state’s Identifi cation of 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). Developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory 

Committee, the rule provides a science-based methodology for identifying 

Total Maximum 

Daily Load

The maximum amount of a 

given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and 

remain healthy, such that all 

of its designated uses are 

met.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 17
impaired waters (Appendix B). It addresses chemical parameters, the 

interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fi sh 

consumption advisories, and ecological impairment. The complete text 

of the IWR is available at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/docs/

AmendedIWR.pdf.

Explanation of the Verified List

The publication of the Status Report is followed by a period of monitoring and data gathering and, at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed 

management cycle, by an Assessment Report containing a Verifi ed List of 

impaired waterbodies or segments for which TMDLs will be calculated, as 

provided in Subsection 403.067(2), Florida Statutes (F.S.). This Assessment Report also contains additional data gathered by the Department, 

other agencies, and groups doing monitoring in the basin; a more complete 

evaluation of water quality and biological resources; and an assessment of 

designated use attainment for basin waters.

The 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 assessment is used to 

identify the status of data suffi ciency, the potential for impairment, and the 

need for TMDL development for each waterbody or waterbody segment in 

the basin.

The Verifi ed List is required by Subsection 403.067(4), F.S., and 

 Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. It is adopted by the 

Department in accordance with the FWRA and the IWR (Rule 62-303, 

F.A.C.). Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA under Section 

303(d)1.c of the Clean Water Act and becomes the 303(d) list of impaired 

waters for the basin.

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

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

included a number of waterbodies in the Pensacola Bay Basin. Tables 3.4 

through 3.8 in Chapter 3 list these waters, by planning unit.

Stakeholder Involvement

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

 Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) report, submitted to 

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

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

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

allocation.pdf.

The Department will work cooperatively with a number of key stakeholders to develop, allocate, and implement TMDLs in the Pensacola 

Bay Basin.

18 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
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 basin groups will be 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.

Ochlockonee/St. Marks, a Group 1 basin, was the fi rst basin in the 

district to undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000. A preliminary 

assessment for the Group 2 basin, Apalachicola/Chipola, was completed in 

2001, and for the Group 3 basin, Choctawhatchee, in 2002. The Group 4 

preliminary assessment for the Pensacola Bay Basin is the subject of this 

report. The preliminary assessment for the Group 5 basin, Perdido River 

and Bay, will be carried out in 2004. In 2005, the cycle will resume with 

the Group 1 basin, Ochlockonee/St. Marks.

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program

Watershed Management Cycle Nature of Stakeholder Involvement

Phase 1: 

Preliminary

Evaluation

Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin water 

quality assessment; inventory existing and proposed management activities; 

identify management objectives and issues of concern; develop a Strategic Monitoring Plan; and produce a preliminary Status Report that includes a Planning List 

of potentially impaired waters

Phase 2:

Strategic Monitoring

and Assessment

Cooperative efforts between the Department and local stakeholders to collect 

additional data; get data into STORET (the EPA’s national water quality STOrage 

and RETrieval database); complete the 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 the TMDL model framework, including model requirements, parameters to be modeled, model endpoints, design 

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

process; public workshops for rule adoption of TMDLs

Phase 4:

Development of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Broad stakeholder participation in developing a Basin Management Action Plan 

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

planning process

Phase 5:

Implementation of Basin 

Management Action Plan

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

local watershed management structures; Department will continue to provide technical assistance, fulfill oversight responsibilities, and administer National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point and nonpoint source permits

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 19
Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s 

Northwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5

20 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
• Chapter 1: Introduction 

briefly characterizes the purpose and content of the Status 

Report, discusses stakeholder 

involvement, and describes 

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

Northwest District.

• Chapter 2: Basin Overview 

characterizes the basin’s 

general setting; surface water 

and ground water resources; 

and watershed management 

activities and processes.

• Chapter 3: Preliminary 

Surface Water Quality 

Assessment provides, by 

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

and land uses, a summary 

of ecological priorities and 

problems, and an overview 

of water quality improvement 

plans and projects.

Contents of This Report

• Chapter 4: Planning List of 

Potentially Impaired Waters 

contains the Planning List of 

potentially impaired waterbodies. The chapter also 

describes the relationship 

between the Planning and 

Verified Lists, and summarizes 

water quality findings for the 

basin.

• Chapter 5: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation 

summarizes strategic monitoring and data evaluation 

priorities and objectives that 

are critical to the development 

of the Verified List of impaired 

waters during the next phase 

of the watershed management 

cycle. It includes a general 

inventory of monitoring and 

data-gathering activities by 

other groups and programs 

that could be incorporated into 

the assessment.

Noteworthy 21 Water Quality Status Report: 

Pensacola Bay

Chapter 2: Basin Overview

Basin Setting

The Pensacola Bay Basin is located in the western Florida Panhandle 

and includes all or portions of Escambia County (45 percent of the county), 

Santa Rosa County (100 percent), Okaloosa County (75 percent), and 

Walton County (20 percent) (Florida Department of Environmental Protection [Department], July 1998). The basin has its headwaters in southern 

Alabama with a total drainage area of over 7,000 square miles. The Florida 

portion of the basin covers about one-third of that area. It comprises the 

Pensacola Bay estuary and portions of the Escambia River, Blackwater 

River, Shoal River, and Yellow River drainage basins.

The climate in the basin is subtropical. On average, the basin receives 

65.8 inches of rainfall (30-year average, 1971–2000, based on gauges at 

Pensacola, Milton, and Crestview [Northwest Florida Water Management 

District {NWFWMD}, 2004]). Generally, the wettest months are June 

through September, and the driest months are October through December. 

Figure 2.1 shows the principal geopolitical features in the Pensacola 

Bay Basin. The largest of the basin’s 13 municipalities is the city of Pensacola, with an estimated 2000 U.S. Census population of 56,255. The 

U.S. military, represented by the Air Force at Eglin Air Force Base and 

Hurlburt Field and the Navy at Pensacola Naval Air Station and Whiting 

Field, occupies about 241,000 acres. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research 

Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, is located on Sabine Island. 

Conservation and recreation lands make up a substantial part of the 

basin’s area, representing a diverse assemblage of ecological types (see 

Noteworthy). They protect many of the basin’s water resources and fragile 

ecosystems. Some of the larger conservation and recreation lands include 

the Blackwater River State Forest; Blackwater, Yellow, and Escambia Rivers 

Water Management Areas; Garcon Point Water Management Area; and 

Gulf Islands National Seashore. Additionally, large tracts of Eglin Air 

Force Base are managed for habitat conservation and the protection of 

endangered species.

The basin has experienced signifi cant population growth since the 

1950s. The populations of Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties have 

increased more than 500 percent between 1950 and 2000. Table 2.1 lists 

historical, current, and projected population estimates, by county.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 23
Table 2.1: Historical, Current, and Projected Population Estimates in the Pensacola Bay Basin

County Name Census 19501 Census 19901 Census 20002 2030 Medium Projection3

Escambia 112,706 262,798 294,410 363,200

Santa Rosa 18,554 81,608 117,743 217,200

Walton 14,725 27,760 40,601 79,300

Okaloosa 27,533 143,776 170,498 245,000

City of Pensacola 59,387 56,255

Sources: 1Forstall, 1995. 2U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 3Smith and Nogle, October 2001.

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Pensacola Bay Basin 

24 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Ecological Resources

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) used 

land cover maps to identify major natural communities in the basin (see 

Noteworthy). The maps identifi ed 22 different land cover classifi cations: 

17 classes of natural vegetation, 1 aquatic class, and 4 classes of disturbed 

land. The mapping is not intended to accurately portray current land use. 

Rather, it provides a relative picture of the type and spatial importance of 

natural communities and overall appears to have an accuracy of 80 to 90 

percent (Cox et al., 1994).

Prominent upland communities are sandhill (10.1 percent), pinelands 

(28.74 percent), and hardwood hammock (7.03 percent). Extensive tracts 

of mature longleaf pine forest (Pinus palustris) are still present, particularly 

in the Conecuh National Forest–Blackwater River State Forest–Eglin Air 

Force Base Corridor. Freshwater wetland communities are predominantly 

bay swamp (2.29 percent), mixed hardwood swamp (7.32 percent), and 

freshwater marsh (1.39 percent). The Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

(FNAI) also lists the rare seepage slope community as present in the basin. 

Seepage slope communities are shrub thickets or boggy meadows that 

form at the base of a slope where water moving downslope or seeping has 

created moist soil conditions. Pitcher plant communities are a common 

type of seepage slope community in the basin. Ravines and steepheads 

occur along the Escambia River (Florida Department of Natural Resources 

[DNR], 1989). 

The diversity of habitats in the basin supports a large number of rare, 

imperiled or threatened animal and plant species. There are at least 70 

identifi ed rare, imperiled, or threatened animal species in the basin (FNAI, 

2001). There are at least 68 rare, imperiled, or threatened plant species in 

the basin. Appendix C contains descriptions of habitats and lists of threatened, rare, and imperiled species in the basin.

Riverine Ecological Resources

Both the Blackwater River and the Yellow River (including its tributary, the Shoal River) are classifi ed by Beck as sand-bottomed rivers (Bass 

and Cox, 1988). Generally, these are streams with moderate to swift 

currents, with streambeds of shifting sands. Chemically, the Yellow and 

Blackwater Rivers have water with slightly acidic to neutral pH and low 

mineral content, as much of their fl ow is derived from rainfall and the 

poor mineral content water of the sand and gravel aquifer. The stream 

bottom sands are also nutrient and mineral poor. The low mineral content is expressed as low specifi c conductance and poor buffering capacity. 

Both rivers are characterized as having low nutrient and carbon content, 

resulting in lower natural productivity compared with peninsular Florida 

streams. They are generally described as blackwater streams. The Blackwater River and its tributaries drain acidic fl atwoods and wetlands, in addition to receiving drainage from the sand and gravel aquifer. The presence 

of tannic and organic acids gives the Blackwater River a reddish color or 

tea color. The Yellow River fl oodplain is about two miles wide, with an 

Sources of 

Information

Much of the information 

about the Pensacola Bay 

Basin in this report was 

obtained from Florida Rivers 

Assessment (DNR, 1989), 

River Habitat and Fishery 

Resources of Florida (Bass 

and Cox, 1988), and The 

Pensacola Bay System 

Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan 

(Thorpe, et al., 1997). The 

report cites other references 

individually. The References 

section contains a complete 

listing of all the sources used 

in creating this report.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 25
The land cover used to identify 

natural communities was mapped 

by the FWC from LandSat imagery taken from 1985 to 1989. In 

contrast, the land use data in 

this report were mapped by the 

Department from color infrared 

photography taken between late 

1993 and 1995. The total acreage 

and percentage of different land 

covers obtained from LandSat 

Management Area Name Acreage

Blackwater River State Forest....................................................185,033

Garcon Point Water Management Area ........................................ 3,158

Gulf Islands National Seashore .................................................. 55,236 *

Lower Escambia River Water Management Area ......................35,862

Yellow River Water Management Area ...................................... 17,708

Yellow River Marsh State Buffer Preserve.......................................904

Tarkiln Bayou Preserve State Park ...................................................983 *

Blackwater River State Park..............................................................636

Blackwater River Water Management Area.....................................278

Jones Swamp Wetlands Preserve....................................................554

Escambia Bay Bluffs............................................................................44

Navarre Beach State Park ................................................................. 153

*Only part of acreage in basin

Important Conservation Lands in the 

Pensacola Bay Basin

Note on Land Use/Land Cover

imagery differs from the values 

obtained for land use interpreted 

from aerial photography for a 

number of reasons. Besides 

the difference in the dates of 

mapping, different land cover 

classification schemes were used 

and the LandSat imagery had 

less resolution than the aerial 

photography. 

26 Noteworthy Water Quality Status Report: 

Pensacola Bay
 extensive fl oodplain forest (DNR, 1989). The water color of the Yellow 

River is described as clear-tan. 

The Blackwater and Yellow Rivers’ physical and chemical characteristics infl uence the types of organisms that live in them. Typical faunal 

components are aquatic insects adapted to swift waters and shifting sand 

habitats (Nordlie, 1990). Three species of endemic burrowing mayfl ies use 

the Yellow and Blackwater River Watersheds (DNR, 1989). The diversity 

of other aquatic insects in the Blackwater River watershed is exceptionally 

high (Davis, Compton, Penniman, and Mall, n.d.; see sidebar). Additionally, the nineteenth-century logging practice of fl oating logs down the 

Blackwater River to sawmills caused some of the logs to sink. These deadhead logs provide important structure and habitat for fi sh and other aquatic 

organisms.

Compared with peninsular streams, the Blackwater River has a low 

standing crop of benthic macroinvertebrates and freshwater fi sh (Bass 

and Cox, 1988). Common freshwater fi sh species in the Blackwater and 

Yellow Rivers are spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), sailfi n shiner 

(Pteronotuopis hypselopterus), chain pickerel (Esox niger), and largemouth 

bass (Micropterus salmoides). The endangered blackmouth shiner (Notropis melanostomus) is found in the Blackwater River. Estuarine fi sh such as 

spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and Atlantic 

croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) utilize the lower Blackwater River 

(Thorpe, Bartel, Ryan, Alberton, Pratt, and Cairns, 1997).

The Yellow River is rich in numbers of fi sh species, about 105 species 

including marine species, and produces large numbers of fi sh, though compared with other Florida streams, fi sh biomass is moderate (Bass and Cox, 

1988). The Yellow River contains a large number of rare and imperiled fi sh 

species, including the anadromous Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus 

desotoi), and two federally threatened species of freshwater mussel (Choctaw bean [Villosa choctawensis] and narrow pigtoe [Fusconaia escambia])

(Table 2.2). The Yellow River along with the Escambia River provides 

important fresh water spawning habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. Historically, the Gulf moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus penicillatus) was recorded 

from the Yellow River, but is no longer present (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1999).

The Gulf Coast striped bass was restocked in both the Yellow and 

Blackwater Rivers in an effort to reestablish this fi sh in coastal rivers and 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Slack and Yeager, 1993). The FWC, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stocked the Blackwater 

River with tagged striped bass in 1987. Striped bass were stocked in the 

Yellow River starting in 1990. The discharge of ground water to the Blackwater River provides a cooler water temperature in summer, allowing fi sh a 

retreat from warm summer temperatures. Big Coldwater, Big Juniper, and 

Pond Creeks also provide cool water refuge. The tracking of striped bass 

by the FWC confi rmed the presence and use of several cool water refugia 

in the Blackwater and Yellow River Basins. Tags taken from collected 

fi sh indicated the movement of fi sh between rivers, as well as good spatial 

utilization in a river system. Tagged fi sh were found as far upstream in the 

Diversity of 

Blackwater River 

Aquatic Insects in 

the Pensacola 

Bay Basin

• 33 species of dragonflies 

and damselflies

• 42 species of mayflies

• 21 species of stoneflies

• 24 species of caddisflies

• 3 species of dobsonflies 

and fishflies

• 12 species of true water 

bugs

• 20 species of beetles

• 52 genera of midges

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 27
Yellow River as Alabama and about 43 miles upstream of the mouth of the 

Blackwater River (Slack and Yeager, 1993).

The Escambia River is chemically similar to the Blackwater and Yellow 

Rivers, but with somewhat higher mineral content and specifi c conductance and slightly higher nutrient and carbon content. It is classifi ed by 

Beck as a large river (cited in Nordlie, 401, 1990), and is generally considered slow fl owing and deep. It is also an alluvial river, carrying a heavy 

sediment load with considerable variation in fl ow. In its upper Florida 

reaches, the Escambia River is sand bottomed, with sandbars and beaches 

along the inside of river bends. Bottomland hardwood forest and oxbow 

lakes border the main river. In its lower reaches or delta, the river is tidal 

and is bordered by emergent marshes and some swamp. Cordgrass marshes 

provide nursery grounds for juvenile fi sh. The river system may contain 

as many as 132 species of marine and freshwater fi sh. The number and 

biomass of sport fi sh are lower than that observed in other Florida streams 

(Bass and Cox, 1988). Common fi sh species are warmouth (Lepomis 

 gulosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and channel catfi sh 

(Ichthyomyzon punctatus).

The Escambia River watershed supports a large number of rare and 

imperiled fi sh and mussel species (Table 2.2). The fi sh species include 

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi), bluenose shiner (Pteronotropis 

welaka), saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenhunsi), crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella), and harlequin darter (Etheostoma histrio). Six mussel species 

are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened.

Estuarine Ecological Resources

More than 200 species of fi sh and shellfi sh have been recorded from 

the Pensacola Bay estuary. Common fi sh and shellfi sh species are spot, 

bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia 

patronus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), 

American oyster (Crassotrea virginica), and Penaeid shrimp (Penaeus spp.). 

Freshwater fi sh species that are tolerant of low salinities utilize the bay’s 

embayments and marshes. These include largemouth bass and redear 

sunfi sh. Four anadromous fi sh—Gulf sturgeon, Alabama shad (Alosa 

alabamae), skipjack herring (Alosa chrysochloris), and striped bass (Morone 

saxatilis)—use the bay and its tributaries.

Figure 2.2 depicts parts of the Pensacola Bay estuary classifi ed for 

shellfi sh propagating and harvesting. Areas of Escambia Bay and East Bay 

are open for oyster harvesting during part of the year. Shrimp harvests 

from Escambia Bay have been fairly stable since about 1983 and somewhat 

variable in East Bay and Santa Rosa Sound.

Fish kills have been a common occurrence since the 1960s. Red tide 

outbreaks occasionally occur in the Gulf of Mexico coastal waters and estuarine waters. In the spring and summer of 1996, a large die-off of marine 

catfi sh affected Pensacola Bay and the Gulf waters (Thorpe et al., 1997).

Three species of seagrasses—turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), 

 manatee grass (Syringodium fi liforme), and shoal grass (Halodule 

wrightii)—were at one time extensive in the salt waters of the Pensacola 

28 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Table 2.2: Imperiled Fish, Mussels, and Aquatic Insects in the Pensacola Bay Basin

Species Name Where Found

Status—

(S) Florida Fish and 

 Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (State) or 

(F) U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Federal)

Status—

Florida Committee on 

Rare and Endangered 

Plants and Animals

Fish1

Gulf sturgeon

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

Yellow River/Escambia 

River/Blackwater River/

Pensacola Bay estuary

Species of Special 

Concern (S)

Threatened (F)

Threatened

Alabama shad

Alosa alabamae

Escambia River/

Yellow River

Alligator gar

Atractosteus spatula

Escambia River Rare

Crystal darter

Crystallaria asprella

Escambia River Rare

Harlequin darter

Etheostoma histrio

Escambia River and tributaries (Big Escambia Creek, 

Canoe Creek, Pine Barren 

Creek, McCostill Mill Creek, 

Mitchell Creek)

Species of Special 

Concern (S)

Threatened

Goldstripe darter

Etheostoma parvipinne

Escambia River/Shoal River Rare

Cypress darter

Etheostoma proeliare

Escambia River Rare

Florida chub

Macrhybopsis n. sp. Cf 

aestivalis

Escambia River/

Yellow River

Rare

Southern starhead topminnow

Fundulus dispar blairae

Escambia River and Canoe 

Creek tributary

Threatened

Cypress minnow

Hybognathus hayi

Escambia River Threatened

Southern striped shiner

Luxilus chrysocephalus 

isolepis

Canoe Creek and Moore 

Creek in Escambia River 

watershed

Rare

Blacktip shiner

Lythrurus atrapiculus

Escambia River/Yellow 

River/Murder Creek in 

Blackwater watershed

Rare

Southern bluehead chub

Nocomis leptocephalus

Escambia River and 

tributaries

Rare

Rough shiner

Notropis baileyi

Escambia River tributaries Rare

Blackmouth shiner

Notropis melanostomus

Pond Creek/Blackwater 

River/Shoal River

Endangered (S) Threatened

River redhorse

Moxostoma carinatum

Escambia River Threatened

Southern logperch

Percina austroperca

Escambia River Rare

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 29
Species Name Where Found

Status—

(S) Florida Fish and 

 Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (State) or 

(F) U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Federal)

Status—

Florida Committee on 

Rare and Endangered 

Plants and Animals

Fish1

, continued

Saddleback darter

Percina vigil

Escambia River Threatened

Bluenose shiner

Pteronotropis welaka

Escambia River/Yellow 

River/Shoal River

Species of Special 

Concern (S)

Species of Special 

Concern

Freshwater Mussels2

Round ebonyshell

Fusconaia rotulata

Escambia River Endangered

Flat floater

Anodonta suborbiculata

Escambia River Threatened

Narrow pigtoe

Fusconaia escambia

Escambia River/Yellow 

River

Threatened

Southern pocketbook

Lampsilis ornata

Escambia River Threatened

Fuzzy pigtoe

Pleurobema strodeanum

Escambia River Threatened

Choctaw bean

Villosa choctawensis

Yellow River/Escambia 

River

Threatened

Purple pigtoe

Fusconaia succissa

Escambia River Species of Special 

Concern

Florida floater

Utterbackii peggyae

Escambia River/Yellow 

River

Round washboard

Megalonaias boykiniana

Escambia River

Roundlake

Amblema perplicata

Escambia River

Aquatic Insects3

Blue sand-river mayfly Blackwater River

Dolania mayfly Blackwater River

Diminutive clubtail Blackwater River

Townes’ clubtail Blackwater River

Peters’ little sister sedge Blackwater River

Zigzag Blackwater River 

caddisfly

Blackwater River

Say’s spiketail dragonfly Blackwater River

Gulf clubtail Yellow River

1

Hoehn, 1998.

2Deyrup and Franz, 1994.

3Davis et al.

Table 2.2 (continued)

30 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Figure 2.2: Water Use Classification in the Pensacola Bay Basin 

Bay estuary. Seagrasses provide important habitat for young and juvenile 

fi sh and scallops. The current coverage of seagrasses is much less than 

historically was present. Pensacola Bay lost a 14-mile stretch of seagrasses 

on the east side of the bay. Most seagrasses have been lost from Escambia 

Bay. Seagrasses were common in this bay as late as the early 1950s. The 

earliest documented loss of seagrasses was recorded in 1955, with the commencement of a discharge from the Monsanto Plant. Additional discharges 

from chemical plants exacerbated the loss of more seagrasses. Some tape 

grass and widgeon grass continue to survive in Escambia Bay, while parts 

of Santa Rosa Sound continue to support turtle grass, shoal grass, manatee 

grass, and widgeon grass. Blackwater Bay has a lower salinity than other 

parts of the Pensacola Bay estuary and supports tape grass and widgeon 

grass. These 2 species of submerged aquatic vegetation are apparently 

doing well in this part of the bay.

Different efforts have been undertaken to restore seagrasses in the 

Pensacola Bay estuary. The Escambia Bay Recovery Study Team planted 

shoal grass at 4 sites on the east and west side of Escambia Bay in 1974. 

More recently, the Department’s Northwest District Ecosystem Restoration 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 31
 Section, partly through the Project Greenshores Program, has propagated 

and planted seagrasses at over 30 sites in the Pensacola Bay estuary. 

Marsh habitat is present in the lower reaches of river fl oodplains and 

tidal creeks. In areas of higher salinity, the common marsh plant is black 

needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) in conjunction with saltmarsh cordgrass 

(Spartina alternifl ora). More freshwater-dominated areas contain sawgrass 

(Cladium jamaicense), pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata), bulrush (Scirpis 

validus), and cattail (Typha spp.). 

Large areas of Pensacola Bay estuary have a degraded benthic index. 

EPA’s benthic index identifi ed 12 sites, predominantly in Pensacola Bay, 

Bayou Chico, Bayou Grande, and Bayou Texar, as degraded. The EPA has 

observed that Pensacola Bay has predominately muddy sediments, particularly up in the bayous (EPA, 1999). Dominant organisms of the mud are 

polychaete and nemertean worms. These groups of worms are generally 

tolerant of habitat disturbances.

Surface Water Resources

The Pensacola Bay Basin drains almost 7,000 square miles of the 

western Florida Panhandle and southeastern Alabama. About one-third 

of the total area is within Florida. The Pensacola Bay Basin includes the 

Pensacola Bay estuary (Pensacola Bay, East Bay, Escambia Bay, Blackwater 

Bay, and Santa Rosa Sound) and the Escambia River, Yellow River, and 

Blackwater River watersheds. Figure 2.3a depicts the basin boundaries.

The Pensacola Bay Basin contains numerous surface waterbodies. 

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

about 382 square miles, or about 16.3 percent of the total basin area. This 

section delineates the basin’s hydrology, describes the movement and management of water in the basin, briefl y describes the major characteristics 

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

surface water classifi cations and special designations.

Figure 2.3b shows the locations of the largest waterbodies. A 

more detailed discussion in Chapter 3 provides information on each 

 planning unit.

Soils, Physiography, and Geology

The Pensacola Bay Basin lies in the Coastal Plain Province, which is 

underlain by beds of sand, silt, limestone, and clay that dip gently seaward 

(Thorpe et al., 1997). 

The Pensacola Bay estuary lies in the Gulf Coastal Lowlands, a series 

of coast-parallel, successively higher terraces formed during the Pleistocene 

Epoch by rising and falling sea levels (Thorpe et al., 1997). They merge 

with terraces along the Escambia and Perdido Rivers. The land surfaces 

are generally level, with elevations less than 100 feet above sea level. Underlying the Gulf Coastal Lowlands are gravel and coarse sands or mediumfi ne sand and silt.

Most of the Escambia, Blackwater, and Yellow River watersheds 

are contained in the Western Highlands, a subsection of the Northern 

32 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Figure 2.3a: Basin Boundaries of the Pensacola Bay Basin

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 33
Figure 2.3b: Surface Water Resources of the Pensacola Bay Basin

Highlands (Thorpe et al., 1997). The topography is well developed, with 

elevations over 300 feet in the northern reaches of the basin (Figure 2.4). 

Under the highlands are the Citronelle formations, ancient delta deposits 

of clays, clayey sands, and gravels. The area west of the Blackwater River is 

underlain largely by gravel and coarse sands, and from the Blackwater River 

east, by sandy clay and clay.

Basin soil can be characterized into three distinct groups (Collins, 

1997). Soils in the northern half of the basin, as far south as 30 miles from 

Alabama, are largely ultisols, characterized as level to sloping, well-drained 

loamy soils and sandy soils that have a great potential to erode. Entisols, 

which are present in the middle of the basin south to the boundary of 

 Pensacola Bay, are characterized as deep, excessively drained sands. Along 

the coast are poorly drained, sandy soils called spodosols. 

Hydrology

Much of the stream fl ow in the basin is generated by rainfall. On 

average the Pensacola Bay Basin receives 65.8 inches of rain per year. A 

large part of the rainfall moves quickly from land and ends up as runoff 

to streams. Rumenik (1988) estimated that at a regional scale, surface 

34 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
runoff to streams averaged about 20 to 25 inches near the Florida–Alabama 

border to 40 inches in coastal Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties. Runoff 

is enhanced by the land’s sloping relief and elevations, along with a welldeveloped stream network. While runoff values for the basin are high 

 compared with the rest of Florida, evapotranspiration values are considerably lower than in other parts of Florida. The general absence of large 

lakes and extensive wetland systems were suggested as a reason for the low 

evapotranspiration (Rumenik, 1988).

Streams

The Blackwater, Yellow, and Escambia Rivers are the major sources of 

water infl ow to the Pensacola Bay estuary. All three rivers originate in Alabama. The combination of surface topography, land elevation, low evaporation rates, and substantial surface runoff has created a well-defi ned and 

extensive dendritic pattern of surface drainage for these rivers. Many of the 

tributaries also have well-defi ned drainage basins and patterns. Table 2.3

lists lengths, drainage area, and average fl ow for each river. The following descriptions of the basin’s rivers were summarized from the Pensacola 

Bay System Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan 

(Thorpe et al., 1997) and the Florida Rivers Assessment (DNR, 1989).

The Blackwater River originates near Bradley, Alabama, and drains 

860 square miles, of which 700 square miles are in Florida. The river is 

about 62 miles long, 54.5 miles of which are in Florida. It discharges to 

Blackwater Bay in the Pensacola Bay estuary. A major source of fl ow for the 

Blackwater River is the sand and gravel aquifer. Surface runoff, to a lesser 

degree, also contributes to its fl ow. The lower temperature of ground water 

Figure 2.4: Topography of the Western Panhandle

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 35
helps to keep the Blackwater River cooler in the summer than similar-sized 

rivers in north Florida. The river’s average depth varies from 2 to 15 feet, 

and river widths vary between 110 and 300 feet. Near the mouth of the 

river, the tidal range is about 2 feet. Salt water may intrude as far upstream 

as 6 miles. Major tributaries are the Big Coldwater, Big Juniper, and Pond 

Creeks, which are also considered cool water streams. Big Coldwater Creek 

drains 241 square miles and for most of its length fl ows through a wide 

river valley.

The Yellow River originates in Covington County, Alabama, where 

Hog Foot and Limestone Creeks join. It drains 1,365 square miles, of 

which about 860 square miles are in Florida. It is 110 miles long, of which 

about 72.7 miles are in Florida, and discharges to East Bay. As the river 

traversed the Western Highlands, it created several areas of bluffs reaching 

as high as 40 feet. Above its confl uence with the Shoal River, the eastern 

side of the river valley side is dominated by high bluffs. The Yellow River 

has a wide fl oodplain, up to 2 miles, and extensive fl oodplain forest. Tidal 

fl uctuations have been observed as far upstream as 19 miles. 

The largest tributary of the Yellow River is the Shoal River, whose 

499 square miles are mostly contained in Florida. Above Interstate 10, 

the river has cut into the Western Highlands to create a deep and narrow 

 channel. Below Interstate 10, the river valley becomes wider. Titi and 

Turkey Creeks are major tributaries of the Shoal River.

Table 2.3: Physical Characteristics of Major Streams in the Pensacola Bay Basin

River Name

Total Length1

/Florida 

Length2

 (miles)

Total Drainage Area1,3/

Florida Drainage Area2 

(square miles)

Average Flow at 

Selected Locations4 

(cubic feet/second)

Blackwater River 62/54.5 860/700 350

 –Big Coldwater Creek /31.3 241/230.3

 –Big Juniper Creek /26.6 142/134.2

 –Pond Creek /22 /97.25

Escambia River 240/87 4,223/425 5,204

 –Pine Barren Creek /21.6 98.1/90

Yellow River 110/72.7 1,365/859.64 

(includes Shoal River)

1,163.1

Shoal River 50/38 499/479.69 1,114.7

 –Titi Creek /16.5 /80

Sources:

1

Thorpe et al., 1997. 

2The Department’s geographic information system (GIS) estimate. Florida drainage areas for Blackwater River 

and Escambia River are from Thorpe et al., 1997.

3Florida State Board of Conservation, 1966. Total drainage area for interstate tributaries. 4U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Data:

 Escambia River near Molino, 1988–2001

 Blackwater River near Baker, 1951–2001

 Yellow River at Milligan, 1939–2001

 Shoal River at Crestview, 1939–2001

36 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
The Escambia River originates in Alabama as the Conecuh River 

and drains about 4,223 square miles. Of the total drainage area, about 

425 square miles are in Florida. The river fl ows about 240 miles before 

 discharging to Escambia Bay. Flow is contributed largely from rainfall, 

with contributions from the sand and gravel aquifer and some spring 

discharge. Tidal fl uctuations are noticeable as far as 10 miles upstream 

from Escambia Bay. Seasonal fl uctuations in river fl ow can be quite large. 

During low fl ow, a salt wedge may extend upstream from Escambia Bay 

as far as 10 miles. The largest tributary is Pine Barren Creek, with a total 

drainage area of 98 square miles. 

Pensacola Bay Estuary

The Pensacola Bay estuary comprises Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay, 

Blackwater Bay, East Bay, and Santa Rosa Sound. Table 2.4 lists the 

general characteristics of these embayments. The description of the estuary 

system was summarized largely from the Pensacola Bay System SWIM 

Plan (Thorpe et al., 1997). 

The estuary covers about 144 square miles. Tidal fl uctuations are on 

average approximately 1.5 feet, which limits tidal fl ushing of the estuary. The Blackwater, Yellow, Escambia, and East Bay Rivers, Pond Creek, 

and smaller streams and bayous supply fresh water to the estuary. Water 

exits the estuary through a narrow pass, Caucas Channel, at the mouth of 

 Pensacola Bay. 

Pensacola Bay is bordered to the north by the city of Pensacola and 

Escambia Bay, to the east by East Bay, to the west by Big Lagoon, and to 

the south by Gulf Breeze and Santa Rosa Island. Pensacola Bay receives 

infl ow from Escambia and Blackwater Bays, along with several urbanized 

bayous (Texar, Chico, and Grande). It is usually stratifi ed, characterized 

by salinity and frequently temperature gradients. Surface salinities can 

range from near fresh water to nearly the salinity of sea water. Bottom 

Table 2.4: Characteristics of Pensacola Bay Estuary 

Embayments

Embayment Name

Surface Area 

(square miles)

Mean Depth

(feet)

Pensacola Bay 54.1 19.5

Bayou Grande 1.5 9.0

Bayou Chico 0.4 6.0

Bayou Texar 0.6 6.1

East Bay 43.9 7.9

East Bay Bayou 1.7 3.9

Escambia Bay 36.0 8.0

Mulatto Bay 0.3 4.9

Blackwater Bay 9.8 6.3

Catfish Basin 0.3 3.9

Santa Rosa Sound 42.4 8.9

Source: Thorpe et al., 1997, as adapted from Olinger et al., 1975.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 37
salinities are less variable. On a high tide, salt water moves along the 

bottom into the bay, and then follows an eastward path along the southern 

part of the bay. At low tide, water generally moves toward the pass from 

the northern and western portions of the bay. Olinger, Rogers, Force, 

Todd, Mullings, Bisterfi eld, and Wise (1975) noted that the bay’s circulation pattern could be strongly infl uenced by surface winds, and the infl uence was not limited to the upper water layers.

Escambia Bay receives most of its water from the discharge of the 

Escambia River. The upper part of Escambia Bay receives additional 

discharge from the Pace Mill Creek and Mulatto Bayou watersheds. The 

lower part of Escambia Bay receives additional discharge from the Indian 

Bayou, Trout Bayou, and Bayou Texar watersheds. Railroad and highway 

bridges restrict some fl ushing and limit exchange between the upper and 

lower parts of the bay (Department, 1998). Tidal fl ushing is poor and 

circulation is most strongly infl uenced by the discharge of water from the 

Escambia River, as well as tides and winds. The circulation pattern is 

generally counterclockwise, as water from the Escambia River tends to fl ow 

along the western shore, with more saline water following the eastern shore. 

Sediments in the bay are highly organic.

Blackwater Bay receives discharge from the Blackwater River. It is 

bordered on the east by Garcon Point. East Bay receives discharge from 

Blackwater Bay, Yellow River, and the East Bay River. East Bay is bounded 

on the south by the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. Both bays are shallow and 

generally have counterclockwise circulation patterns. Fresh water from 

the Blackwater and Yellow Rivers moves south along East Bay’s western 

shoreline. More saline water moves northward along the eastern shoreline. 

Vertical stratifi cation of these bays has been observed. 

The fi fth embayment, Santa Rosa Sound, is actually a 36-mile-long 

east–west-oriented lagoon located between the mainland and Santa Rosa 

Island. It is a lagoon because it receives little freshwater infl ow. It connects 

the Pensacola Bay estuary with Choctawhatchee Bay in the east. The 

Navarre Bridge divides the sound into eastern and western regions, with 

resultant bidirectional tidal fl ow. The sound’s water depth and salinity are 

fairly uniform, with mean values of 2.7 meters and 24 parts per thousand, 

respectively. The Intracoastal Waterway, which supports moderate commercial barge traffi c, cuts through the northern half of the sound. 

Surface Water Quality Classifications 

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

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

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

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

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

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

classifi ed using the following fi ve designated use categories:

38 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
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)

Freshwater waterbodies in the basin are classifi ed as Class III. Portions 

of Pensacola Bay are classifi ed as Class II: shellfi sh propagation or harvesting. Figure 2.3b delineates Class II waters in the basin.

Special Designations

Outstanding Florida Waters

The waterbodies listed in Table 2.5 have been given additional protection through designation as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). 

 Prominent among them are the Blackwater and Shoal Rivers.

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

The Pensacola Bay estuary was fi rst prioritized by the NWFWMD 

and approved as a SWIM waterbody by the Department in May 1988. 

The Department fi rst approved a SWIM Plan in November 1988. It is the 

third highest priority watershed in the NWFWMD (Thorpe et al., 1997). 

The most recent update of the plan in 1997 expanded the watershed 

boundary to include the Escambia, Blackwater, Yellow, and Shoal Rivers 

Table 2.5: Outstanding Florida Waters in the Pensacola Bay Basin

Waterbody Name County where Located Date of Designation

Blackwater River Okaloosa, Santa Rosa 3-1-79

Shoal River Walton, Okaloosa 3-1-79

All waters in Yellow River Marsh Aquatic Preserve Santa Rosa 3-1-79

All waters in Fort Pickens Aquatic Preserve Escambia 3-1-79

All waters in Gulf Island National Seashore Escambia, Santa Rosa, 

Okaloosa

3-1-79

All waters in Blackwater River State Park Santa Rosa 3-1-79

Acquired land: Escambia Bay Bluffs Escambia 5-14-86

Acquired land: Milton to Whiting Field Santa Rosa 8-8-94

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 39
and the majority of Santa Rosa Sound, aligning the SWIM area with the 

Department’s delineated Pensacola Bay Basin. 

In 1987, the Florida legislature created the SWIM Program to restore 

waterbodies. The initial legislation identifi ed six priority water bodies—

Lake Apopka, Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, Lower 

St. Johns River, and Lake Okeechobee. The SWIM Program addresses a 

waterbody’s needs as a system of connected resources, rather than isolated 

wetlands or waterbodies. The state’s fi ve 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.

Minimum Flows and Levels

The NWFWMD will develop minimum fl ows and levels (MFL) for 

different ground water resources and the Yellow River. An MFL for the 

Floridan aquifer in the coastal areas of Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton 

Counties will be established in 2005. The establishment of MFLs for the 

Floridan aquifer will protect potable water supplies from potential saltwater encroachment (Bartel, Pratt, Macmillan, Potts, Richards, Womble, 

Bonekemper, and Countryman, 2000). MFLs for the inland sand and 

gravel aquifer in Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties will be developed in 

2007. The Yellow River MFL is scheduled for development in 2008.

Under the Florida Water Resources Act (Chapter 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 related natural systems. To help determine the amount of water that is available for environmental and human 

uses, the NWFWMD must determine MFLs. Lakes and aquifers have 

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

Ground Water Resources

Hydrogeology 

Major aquifer systems in the basin are the sand and gravel aquifer 

(local surfi cial aquifer system), intermediate aquifer system, Floridan 

aquifer system, and sub-Floridan system (Figure 2.5). Both the sand and 

gravel aquifer and the Floridan aquifer system are composed of moderate 

to highly permeable sediments that allow them to store and transmit large 

quantities of water. In contrast, the intermediate aquifer system and the 

sub- Floridan system are composed primarily of low-permeability sediments. Both systems act as regional confi ning units. 

The sand and gravel aquifer extends under all or part of Escambia, 

Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties, generally eastward to about 

the Choctawhatchee River (Figure 2.5). The NWFWMD delineates 

a hydraulically signifi cant surfi cial aquifer system, one that can be used 

for public water supply, as far west as Holmes Creek at the Holmes and 

Jackson County line (Pratt, Richards, Milla, Wagner, Johnson, and Curry, 

1996; Countryman, personal communication). The aquifer extends 

westward from the Florida state line across Alabama into Mississippi, where 

40 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Figure 2.5: a. Geographic Extent and Thickness of the Sand and Gravel Aquifer 

b. Major Aquifer Systems of the Pensacola Bay Basin

A

A'

CHOCTAW

CLARKE

WASHINGTON

MONROE

ESCAMBIA

ESCAMBIA BALDWIN

MOBILE SANTA ROSA

OKALOOSA WALTON

COVINGTON U

D

D

U

31°

32°

88°

87°

86°

SCALE 1:2,000,000

0 10 20 30 MILES

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

ALABAMA

FLORIDA

Fort Walton

Beach

Less than 400

400 to 800

800 to 1200

Greater than 1200

No data

Fault—U, upthrown side, D, downthrown side

Line of hydrogeologic section

Western Limit of Floridan Aquifer as a potable water source (defined by NWFWMD)

Eastern Limit of Bucatunna Clay Confining Unit (defined by NWFWMD)

NWFWMD Eastward Delineation of Hydraulically Significant Surficial Aquifer

D

U

A A'

Choctawhatchee

Bay

Thickness of sand and

gravel aquifer, in feet

a.

b.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 41
it grades laterally into part of the coastal lowlands aquifer system (U.S. 

Geological Survey [USGS], 1990). 

The thickness of the sand and gravel aquifer increases moving from 

east to west across the basin (Figure 2.5). The aquifer is less than 50 feet 

thick at its eastern limit in Walton County and increases to more than 

400 feet thick in Escambia County (USGS, 1990). It comprises interbedded unconsolidated quartz sand with some gravel, clay, and silt. Sand 

and some gravel are the dominant lithology of this aquifer. The rocks that 

make up the aquifer range in age from the middle Miocene to Holocene 

(USGS, 1990). 

Ground water exists in this aquifer under unconfi ned to semiconfi ned 

conditions. Beds and lenses of clay interspersed with gravel form confi ning beds to create local artesian conditions. In places the aquifer can be 

divided into two highly permeable zones, separated by a less permeable 

sand and clay unit. The water table marks the top of the upper permeable 

zone.

In Escambia County, the sand and gravel aquifer is informally divided 

and named into three distinct zones (Pratt et al., 1996). The uppermost 

zone, called the surfi cial zone, is primarily composed of fi ne sands. The 

water table represents the upper surface of the surfi cial zone and is usually 

under unconfi ned conditions (Paulic, 1999). Below the surfi cial zone is a 

low-permeability zone, which functions locally as a semiconfi ning layer. 

Due to its clay and silt content, it impedes the downward fl ow of ground 

water. The third and deepest zone is the main producing zone, which is 

composed of very permeable coarse sand and gravel beds interspersed in 

places with fi ne sand and clay-sand beds. Most potable drinking water for 

Escambia County is obtained from the main producing zone. 

This aquifer is recharged directly by rainfall. Because it is unconfi ned at the surface and overlain by very permeable soils, the entire 

 geographic extent of the sand and gravel aquifer is in effect a recharge area 

(Pratt et al., 1996). The fl ow of ground water in the aquifer is primarily 

lateral, and generally fl ow is toward surface waters and the coast (Richards, 

1998; USGS, 1990). The upper surfi cial zone provides recharge to the 

lower permeable zone because of leakage through the low-permeability 

zone. The sand and gravel aquifer eventually provides discharge or basefl ow into streams, lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. Wells also discharge a 

small amount of water.

The close connection with the land surface makes the sand and gravel 

aquifer highly vulnerable to contamination. Surface spills and poor waste 

disposal methods can easily allow contaminants to infi ltrate into this 

aquifer. Leakage between the upper surfi cial zone and the main producing 

zone allows surface contaminants to infi ltrate deep into the aquifer.

Below the sand and gravel aquifer lies the intermediate system, which 

acts as a thick confi ning unit between the sand and gravel aquifer and the 

Floridan aquifer system over most of the basin area. Only in the northeastern corner of the basin are the sand and gravel aquifer and Floridan aquifer 

system in direct contact. The intermediate system prevents most exchange 

of ground water between the two aquifer systems (Richards, 1998; Ryan, 

42 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Macmillan, Pratt, Chelette, Richards, Countryman, and Marchman, 1998; 

Pratt et al., 1996). 

The intermediate aquifer system comprises thick beds of clays, along 

with clayey limestone and shells. Its thickness varies, ranging from 100 feet 

to over 1,000 feet. It is composed of Miocene Pensacola Clay and Miocene 

Coarse Clastics.

The Floridan aquifer system, which lies below the intermediate system, 

consists of a thick sequence of carbonate rock of varying permeability and 

a regionally extensive clay confi ning layer. The top of the Floridan aquifer 

system ranges from near sea level at the eastern boundary of the basin to 

over 1,000 feet below sea level at the western boundary (Pratt et al., 1996). 

The aquifer is divided into upper and lower units by a clay confi ning bed 

known as the Bucatunna Clay Confi ning Unit, starting at about mid-

 Okaloosa County and westward. The upper limestone beds are made up of 

Oligocene and Lower Miocene carbonates. The lower limestone beds are 

composed of Ocala Limestone. 

In the south-southwestern part of the basin, the lower limestone beds 

are highly mineralized and are not usable for drinking water. In southwestern Santa Rosa County and southern Escambia County, the upper 

limestone beds are also highly mineralized and not fi t for use as drinking 

water. East of Santa Rosa County, the upper limestone beds of the Floridan 

aquifer system are the primary source of potable water, with supplemental 

drinking water provided by the sand and gravel aquifer. The overdevelopment of water resources in the Fort Walton Beach area has resulted in a 

regional cone of depression of the Floridan aquifer. Water levels that were 

50 feet above the land surface in the 1940s are now measured at 120 feet 

below the land surface near wells (Pratt et al., 1996).

The sub-Floridan system forms the bottom of the Floridan aquifer 

system. It is less permeable than the Floridan and acts as a confi ning unit 

for the Floridan aquifer system.

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions

The sand and gravel aquifer is the main source of basefl ow for wetlands, streams, and lakes in the basin. Because the intermediate aquifer 

system is an effective confi ning unit, much of the recharge to the sand 

and gravel aquifer ends up as discharge to surface waters. Stream basefl ow 

is substantial and has been estimated by Vecchioli, Tibbals, Duerr, and 

Hutchinson (1990) as exceeding 1 cubic foot per second per square mile. 

Model estimates of a ground water budget for the aquifer’s main producing zone in Escambia County indicate that more than 50 percent of the 

recharge received in this zone is discharged to the Pensacola Bay, Escambia 

River, Perdido River, and Gulf of Mexico (Ryan et al., 1998).

Where basefl ow predominates, the water quality of the aquifer infl uences the quality of surface waters. Water quality of the sand and gravel 

aquifer is characterized by low mineral content or low concentrations 

of dissolved solids. Generally, concentrations of dissolved solids are less 

than 50 milligrams per liter (mg/L), except near the coast (Miller, 1997). 

Average pH values are below 6, indicating acidic water with limited if any 

buffering capacity. 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 43
The sand and gravel aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination 

from land use practices. In the Pensacola area, poor waste management 

practices and spills have resulted in substantial contamination of the 

aquifer (Figure 2.6). Numerous delineated ground water contamination 

plumes exist in downtown Pensacola. Two of the more notorious plumes 

are the Agrico Chemical Superfund site and Escambia Wood Treating 

Company Superfund site (Paulic, 1999). Ground water contamination has 

become extensive enough to impact water supply wells used by the Escambia County Utility Authority (ECUA). In June 1986, ECUA stopped the 

operation of 5 of its downtown Pensacola municipal supply wells because of 

Figure 2.6: Proximity of Delineated Ground Water Contamination Areas to Public Water 

Supply Wells in Downtown Pensacola

44 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
contamination from a plume of tetrachloroethylene from a laundry settling 

tank (Paulic, 1999). One well was abandoned completely, and the remaining 4 were fi tted with granular-activated carbon fi lters. Since 1986, ECUA 

has abandoned a total of 3 wells in downtown Pensacola (Figure 2.6) that 

were located in contamination plumes (NWFWMD, 2001) and installed 

granular-activated carbon fi lters on 10 of their wells to remove organic 

contaminants (ECUA Web site; Touart-Rohike, 2004).

Ground Water Usage

The source of potable water supplies varies across the basin. Table 2.6

lists current and projected water demands, by county and aquifer.

Table 2.6: Current and Projected Water Usage in the Pensacola Bay Basin

County

Water Demand, 

2000 (mgd*) Primary Source

Projected Water Demand, 

2025 (mgd)

Santa Rosa County 22.8 Sand and gravel aquifer/

Floridan aquifer

39.88

Okaloosa County Inland 32.56 Floridan aquifer/sand and 

gravel aquifer

50.31

Walton County Inland 8.89 Floridan aquifer/sand and 

gravel aquifer

17.11

Escambia County 83.93 Sand and gravel aquifer 112.34

Source: Bartel et al., 2000.

*mgd = million gallons per day

The primary source of drinking water in Escambia County is the sand 

and gravel aquifer. Most potable water withdrawal for Escambia County 

is from the main producing zone of the aquifer (Pratt et al., 1996). The 

Floridan aquifer is deep, approximately 350 feet below sea level in northeast 

Escambia County to 1,450 feet below sea level in the southwest, and its 

water is brackish and highly mineralized (Ryan et al., 1998; Bartel et al., 

2000). Surface water is used for power generation and some commercial 

and industrial self-supply. 

Santa Rosa County obtains about 75 percent of its drinking water from 

the sand and gravel aquifer and the remaining 25 percent from the Floridan 

aquifer; the relative proportions are reversed for Okaloosa and Walton 

Counties (Bartel et al., 2000). The boundary between salt water and fresh 

ground water limits withdrawals from the sand and gravel aquifer in these 

three counties’ coastal areas. 

Water Resource Caution Area

The NWFWMD has designated the coastal area of Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties as Water Resource Caution Areas (WRCA). 

Figure 2.7 delineates the extent of the WRCA. This designation subjects 

all nonexempt water withdrawals to increased and rigorous scrutiny to 

ensure that a proposed withdrawal does not cause unacceptable impacts to 

the resource (Bartel et al., 2000). In Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton 

Counties, new or expanded use of the Floridan aquifer for nonpotable 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 45
purposes is prohibited. Current nonpotable users must seek alternate water 

sources. Water levels in the Floridan aquifer have declined with water 

production; heads are presently below mean sea level in much of the coastal 

area of these three counties. 

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 anticipate 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 MFLs, primarily spring fl ows;

• 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.

Figure 2.7: Delineated Water Resource Caution Areas in the Pensacola Bay Basin

46 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Watershed Management Activities and 

Processes

Over the years, management plans and activities in the basin have been 

implemented to eliminate wastewater discharges; reduce the 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 Pensacola Bay Basin 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. The local organizations and initiatives described in the following section provide leadership in 

waterbody restoration and preservation efforts.

Major Programs and Projects

Stormwater Management

Escambia County was issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) 

permit for a fi ve-year period beginning on January 1, 1999, under Phase 1 

of the federal program. A recent report on the county’s fl ooding and water 

quality enhancement program shows expenditures of over $55 million for 

stormwater and drainage projects from 1992–2003 (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2003). The county is a copermittee with the city of Pensacola, the 

town of Century, and the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). 

Other local governments in the basin will be included under Phase 2 of the 

MS4 permit program.

Pensacola’s Transportation/Stormwater Plan addresses transportation 

and stormwater related projects. It is funded largely from the Local Option 

Sales Tax and the Stormwater Capital Projects Fund. Pensacola anticipates 

spending about $2.5 million per year through fi scal year 2007 for transportation and stormwater projects. 

Environmental Protection Programs and Restoration Activities

A number of restoration projects, listed below, are planned or under 

way to address some of the environmental and water quality issues facing 

the Pensacola Bay system. If continued, these efforts are expected to 

improve water quality.

• Escambia County’s Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive 

Lands Program—The program encourages activities that avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts and discourages development that may 

adversely affect wetlands and other sensitive areas. The county 

implemented a wetland ordinance in 2001 that provides protection 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 47
standards, presents local permitting and mitigation programs, and 

establishes an environmental lands trust fund.

• Santa Rosa County Land Development Code for Environmentally Sensitive Lands—The intent of the code is to avoid the degradation of environmentally sensitive lands to the maximum extent 

possible. Sensitive lands include aquatic preserves, OFWs, functioning wetlands, fi sh and marine habitats, habitats of threatened or 

endangered plants and animals, and potable wells.

• Escambia County Wellhead Protection Ordinance—The ordinance restricts or prohibits certain land use activities within established buffers around protected wells or within the 7- or 20-year 

time of travel contours around protected wells. Protected wells are 

permitted at 100,000 gallons or more per day.

• Okaloosa County Wellhead Protection Ordinance—The ordinance prohibits certain land use activities within a 200-foot radius 

buffer of wells with a permitted capacity of 100,000 gallons per day.

• Walton County Wellhead Protection—Certain land uses in wellhead protection zones and/or aquifer recharge areas are prohibited. 

Wellhead protection zones are defi ned as a 400-foot radius around 

public potable water wells.

• Santa Rosa County Wellhead Protection

• Escambia County Dirt Road Project—The project evaluated 

alternative pavements for dirt roads to reduce sediment erosion and 

runoff to streams. Over 120 miles of dirt roads were paved as of 

2003 with about 120 additional miles of dirt roads remaining to be 

paved (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2003).

• Clear Creek Restoration—This is a stream restoration project to 

restore a natural meandering stream with a fl oodplain in a mile-long 

sand gully that has areas as large as 300 feet wide and 30 feet deep. 

Through the past 60 years, the gully has eroded thousands of cubic 

yards of sand into Clear Creek, burying and ultimately destroying the creek’s submerged grasses downstream of the gully. Just 

upstream of the gully, the creek is approximately 4 to 5 feet deep 

and fi lled with lush submerged grasses. From the point of the gully 

downstream, the water depth decreases to approximately 6 inches, 

with no submerged or emergent grasses present. Impacts from this 

erosion can be seen downstream in the system. Clear Creek is a 

tributary to the Blackwater River, which is designated as an OFW.

• Big Escambia Creek Restoration—About 30 years ago, a major 

storm rerouted the Big Escambia Creek from its original braided 

streams and fl oodplain through a series of sandpits. The new 

channel lacks a fl oodplain and stable riparian areas, thus allowing 

increased velocity and sedimentation and reducing productivity. The 

original creek bed and surrounding fl oodplain are now deprived of 

their normal hydrologic cycles. The sedimentation impacts reach 

48 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
several miles downstream in the watershed, into the Escambia 

River and Bay. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), in 

partnership with the states of Alabama and Florida, NWFWMD, 

Three Rivers Resource Conservation and Development Council, 

and Alabama Rural Development Council, has begun a large-scale 

project that will divert the creek back to its natural stream channel 

and restore the original stream fl ow through the wetland fl oodplain.

• Project GreenShores—This habitat restoration project on the north 

shore of Pensacola Bay was designed to create salt marsh, seagrass, 

and oyster reef habitat along the near shore. The fi rst site has been 

completed, providing 8 acres of salt marsh habitat and 7 acres of 

oyster reef, with additional seagrass plantings ongoing. The second 

site will provide an additional 27 acres of salt marsh/seagrass/oyster 

reef habitat. Project GreenShores received the Coastal America 

Partnership Award for its extensive community involvement. It also 

serves as an environmental education site through educational cruises 

aboard the American Star. These cruises have provided an opportunity for over 4,000 local schoolchildren and several hundred civic 

group members to participate in the project and learn about environmental and water quality issues.

• Jones Creek Restoration—The proposed Jones Creek Stream 

Restoration Project will remove historical dredged material from the 

stream back, reestablish the connectivity of Jones Creek with the 

adjacent wetland fl oodplain, restore sheetfl ow hydrology through 

the fl oodplain wetland by fi lling in existing stormwater ditches, and 

rehydrate approximately 50 acres of fl oodplain wetlands that have 

been historically ditched and drained.

• City of Pensacola Transportation/Stormwater Plan Projects—

Numerous stormwater retrofi ts, reconstruction, and drainage 

improvements are planned for fi scal years 2003 to 2007. 

– Guillemard Street Storm Sewer Reconstruction

– Long Hollow/Cervantes Street Stormwater Pond

– Carpenters Creek Retrofi t

– 17th Avenue Park and Drainage Improvement

– Sewell Street Stormwater Drainage Easement Acquisition

– Chipley Street Drainage Improvement

– L and Zarrogossa Street Drainage Improvement

– Government Street/Jones Park Drainage Improvement

– Zarrogossa and C Street Drainage Improvement

– 9th Avenue Baars Drainage Improvement

– Sanders Beach Storm Sewer Resconstruction

– Longhollow Pond Reconstruction

– 9th Avenue and Texar Drainage Improvement

– Burgess Road and Sanders Drainage Improvement

– Stormwater Treatment Vaults “Baysavers”—Construction 

 completed by end of 2004 will have added 12 baffl e boxes and 

46 separator units (Garza, 2004).

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 49
• ECUA Septic Tank Abatement Program (Navy Point and Bayou 

Chico areas)

• Section 319 Stormwater Management Projects

– Glynn Key Stormwater Wetland

– 17th Avenue Stormwater Retrofi t

– Palofax Basins L-Street Pond Alum Injection Stormwater Pilot 

 Project

• Bayou Chico Restoration Projects—Over the past eight years, 

several water quality improvement projects have been undertaken by 

the Department’s Northwest District Ecosystem Restoration Section, 

Escambia County, NWFWMD, and the Bayou Chico Association. 

Projects include the removal of the old Barrancas Street drawbridge, 

removal of the old CSX train trestle, construction of a sediment 

basin at W Street, construction of the Maggie’s Ditch stream restoration, and several emergent marsh restoration projects along the 

bayou’s shoreline. 

• Bruce Beach Marsh Creation Project—The city of Pensacola constructed this 5-acre emergent marsh in 1991 along the north shore of 

Pensacola Bay.

• Wayside Park Restoration Project—The city of Gulf Breeze, DEP, 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed this offshore 

rock breakwater and seagrass/emergent marsh at the south end of the 

Three Mile Bridge.

Agricultural Best Management Practices

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

interim measures and agricultural best management practices (BMP). 

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 a number of Florida agricultural industries, including container-grown 

plants, blended fertilizer plants, agrichemical handling and farm equipment 

50 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
maintenance, cow/calf operations, aquaculture, and landscaping. Many 

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. 

Table A.4 in Appendix A describes completed BMP manuals.

Nongovernmental Stakeholder Groups

Numerous citizen or citizen-government groups with a primary interest in protecting or enhancing water quality are active in the basin. Most 

organizations have a specifi c geographic focus at either the watershed or 

waterbody level. Identifi ed groups and their activities are as follows:

• Florida Bream Fisherman’s Association (BFA)—As a response 

to fi sh kills in the 1960s, BFA started a sampling program targeting 

local waterbodies. The sampling was initially conducted daily, and 

then weekly, and for the last 30 years has been done on a quarterly 

basis. Volunteers from BFA, in association with the Department’s 

Northwest District Offi ce, currently monitor 78 stations in the Pensacola and Perdido watersheds.

• Bayou Texar Foundation—The Bayou Texar Foundation boasts 

a membership of nearly 300 residents in the Bayou Texar drainage basin. The organization’s mission is to protect and improve the 

bayou. Its members have worked tirelessly with the city of Pensacola 

to implement a stormwater utility to fund stormwater retrofi ts. The 

foundation has educated its members and other area residents about 

stormwater runoff and what each citizen can do to improve the water 

quality of this urban bayou.

• Bayou Chico Association—The association is involved in public 

education, seeking grants, and initiating various projects promoting 

the restoration and preservation of Bayou Chico, an estuary located 

off Pensacola Bay, in southwestern Pensacola. 

• North Santa Rosa County Water Quality Task Force 

(NSRWQTF)—The NSRWQTF is dedicated to increasing awareness and developing action plans concerning water quality issues in 

the Pensacola Bay system. Established in 1998, the group is a partnership of federal, state, and local agencies; civic organizations; and 

local citizens. The NSRWQTF meets quarterly with the Pensacola 

Bay Area Resource Council Technical Advisory Committee. In 2003 

the groups addressed issues such as public deer carcass composters, 

freshwater mussel populations, and Escribano Point land acquisition 

and management plans. 

• Gulf Coast Environmental Defense League (GCED)—GCED 

was formed in 1992 to protect Florida Panhandle beaches from offshore drilling.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 51
• Bay Area Resource Council (BARC)—The BARC was created 

from the Escambia/Santa Rosa Coast Resource Planning and Management Committee formed in February 1985 by then- Governor 

Bob Graham. An interlocal agreement between Escambia and Santa 

Rosa Counties and the cities of Pensacola and Gulf Breeze was established in May 1987 to solidify the organization into an entity that 

could accept funding and promote the goals of the committee. The 

city of Milton has since joined the BARC. Advisory committees for 

citizens and scientists were established to begin the development of a 

management plan for the Pensacola Bay system. The Pensacola Bay 

Watershed Management Guide was completed in 1998 and contained 50 action plans. BARC’s Technical Advisory Committee will 

complete an update of the plan in late 2004. The updated guide and 

other information presented to and approved by the BARC may then 

be forwarded to the individual units of local government for consideration. The BARC’s goal is improving the area’s quality of life and 

the waters of the Pensacola Bay Basin through community participation and coordination with local governments, citizens, academia, 

and the private sector. 

• Environmental Education Coordination Team (EECT)—EECT 

is a partnership of representatives from more than 20 public and 

private organizations, as well as individual community members, to 

consolidate the efforts of members’ environmental education activities in the community. In 2002 the EECT became a subcommittee 

on the BARC Technical Advisory Committee.

• City of Pensacola Environmental Advisory Group—This group 

of appointed citizen volunteers was created by the Pensacola City 

Council in November 2001 to provide policy advice and recommendations on environmental matters to the City Council and city staff.

• Escambia County Citizens Environmental Committee—The 

Escambia County Citizens Environmental Committee provides 

professional advice, based on citizen input, to Escambia County 

through its Board of County Commissioners on matters of environmental concern (land, air, and water). Each commissioner appoints 

two members, with their terms running concurrently with that of the 

commissioner who appointed them, and the County Administrator 

appoints one member. Monthly meetings are open to the public.

• Pensacola Gulf CoastKeepers—The Pensacola Gulf Coast Keepers 

is a part of the Water Keeper Alliance group composed of 50 Keeper 

programs throughout North America. The Keeper philosophy is 

based on the notion that the protection and enjoyment of a community’s natural resources requires the daily vigilance of its citizens. 

The Keeper movement is an environmental “neighborhood watch” 

program, a citizen’s patrol to protect the community’s waters. A 

Keeper is a full-time, privately funded, nongovernmental ombudsperson whose special responsibility is to be the public advocate for 

a waterbody. It is the Keeper’s job to advocate compliance with 

52 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
environmental laws, respond to citizen complaints, identify problems 

that affect his or her body of water and devise appropriate remedies, 

serve as a living witness to the condition of the ecosystem, and be an 

advocate for the public’s right to protect and defend the environment. 

Within those parameters, each Keeper program is expected to represent the unique circumstances and needs of the Keeper’s community 

waterway. 

• Santa Rosa Sound Coalition—The Santa Rosa Sound Coalition is 

a nonprofi t citizens’ group based in Gulf Breeze that advocates safe 

and clean recreational waterways and drinking wells.

• Partnership for Environmental Research and Community 

Environmental Health (PERCH)—This group was formed to 

 provide input to the University of West Florida regarding environmental health studies funded by federal appropriation grants to 

investigate questions pertaining to environmental pollution and how 

it may impact human health.

• Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership—Formed in 1996, this 

is a cooperative environmental management partnership between 

the NWFWMD, Blackwater River State Forest, Conecuh National 

Forest, Nokuse Plantation, Eglin Air Force Base, International Paper, 

the Department, and the Nature Conservancy. The group’s initial 

focus was to restore and protect longleaf pine habitat. The partners 

currently manage more than 950,000 acres in northwest Florida 

and southern Alabama, including the Pensacola Bay Basin, for listed 

 species and the restoration and protection of connected ecosystems.

• Citizens Against Toxic Exposure—This group is a grassroots 

citizens’ organization formed in 1992 in response to health threats 

from the Escambia Treating Company Superfund site and the Agrico 

Chemical Company Superfund sites. The group assists with the relocation of residents from neighborhoods near the Escambia Treating 

Company Superfund site and Brown Barge School contamination 

site.

• Ecosystem Restoration Support Organization, Inc.—Formed 

in 1998, this 501(c)(3) citizen support organization provides fi nancial and volunteer support for the Department’s Northwest District 

Ecosystem Restoration Section. Fundraising and grant writing 

efforts have provided over $1 million to Project Greenshores and the 

Department’s seagrass tissue culture lab and greenhouses.

• Northwest Florida Legislative Natural Resource Advisory Committee—Appointed by the Northwest Florida Legislative Delegation 

in 2000, this group of 20 local scientists provides annual recommendations to the delegation.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 53

Chapter 3: Preliminary Surface Water 

Quality Assessment

Scope of the Preliminary Assessment

This chapter presents the results of a preliminary assessment of surface 

water quality in the Pensacola Bay Basin. The primary purpose of this 

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

placed on the Planning List of potentially 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 monitoring priorities 

in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle and help the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) coordinate with regional 

and local monitoring activities.

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

for the preliminary assessment. A section on each planning unit contains 

a general description and summary of key water quality indicators (such 

as nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological 

parameters). Permitted discharges, land uses, ecological status, and water 

quality improvement plans and projects are summarized for each planning 

unit. The discussion notes where applicable surface water quality criteria 

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

potentially impaired waterbodies in each planning unit. The chapter also 

contains background information on sources of data and on designated 

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

process.

While potentially impaired waters and their causative pollutants are 

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

of potential impairments. Information on the sources of impairment 

will be developed in subsequent phases of the watershed management 

cycle, including Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development and 

 implementation.

Appendix A contains a discussion of the legislative and regulatory 

background for TMDL development and implementation. The methodology used to develop the Planning List is provided in Appendix B. The 

complete text of the IWR is available at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/

tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 55
Sources of Data

The assessment of water quality in the Pensacola Bay Basin includes an 

analysis of quantitative data from various sources, some of which are readily available to the public. These sources include the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Legacy and “new” STOrage and RETrieval 

(STORET) databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the 

Florida Department of Health (DOH). The STORET databases contain 

water quality data from a variety of sources, including the Department, 

water management districts, local governments, and volunteer monitoring 

groups. Appendix B contains a detailed description of STORET and the 

methodology used to develop the Planning and Verifi ed Lists, based on the 

IWR.

Table 3.1 summarizes the main data providers who contributed to the 

IWR Database for the Pensacola Bay Basin for the period of record used in 

this assessment. Figure 3.1 contains a chart showing the amount of data 

provided by each source.

Table 3.1: Summary of Data Providers in the Pensacola Bay Basin

Numbers represent individual independent water quality observations. 

Agency 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Agency

Total 

U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS)

456 468 438 336 146 19 6 1,869

Alabama 892 626 591 559 662 650 651 619 594 5,844

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

(Department)

7,061 6,129 12,493 7,132 7,080 7,269 5,351 12,201 17,965 15,699 18,403 12,810 4,274 133,867

Bream Fisherman’s Association (BFA)

779 1,110 1,129 2,200 2,687 7,214 4,763 4,580 5,802 3,005 2,094 2,053 2,064 39,480

Okaloosa 

County Environmental Council

105 333 330 522 377 389 415 445 2,916

Florida Department of Health 

(DOH)

464 1,172 1,716 3,352

Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)

856 1,140 1,141 1,116 1,053 992 5,049 672 644 580 546 141 13,930

LakeWatch 124 573 690 1,387

Northwest 

Florida Water 

Management District 

(NWFWMD)

3,799 1,635 302 222 685 6,643

Annual Total 10,044 9,473 19,591 12,978 11,930 16,230 16,147 18,421 25,533 19,661 22,242 17,849 9,189 209,288

56 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Pensacola Bay Basin

Values for each agency represent portion of total data collected during a given year. 

In 2002, the Department created the IWR Database to evaluate data 

in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the Identifi cation of 

IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). For the Planning List assessment, the data 

evaluation period of record is 10 years, and for the Verifi ed List, 7.5 years. 

Table B.2 in Appendix B shows the periods of record for the Group 1 

through 5 basins for the Verifi ed and Planning Lists in the fi rst basin 

 rotation cycle. Data collected between January 1, 1993, and December 31, 

2002, were evaluated to establish the Planning List for the Pensacola Bay 

Basin (IWR 2003 Run 14.2). 

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

basin also includes qualitative information drawn from data in technical 

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

of these sources include historical water quality or ecological information 

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

of issues.

Attainment of Designated Use

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using 

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

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

description of designated uses. Because the Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the state’s 

303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology when 

assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

NWFWMD

Alabama

LakeWatch

FWC

Okaloosa Environmental

Council

BFA

Department

DOH

USGS

1990

Data Providers in the Pensacola Bay Basin

Year

Percent of Data

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 57
decision processes that are defi ned in Florida’s IWR for listing impaired 

waters are based on the following designated use attainment categories:

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

Fish and Shellfi sh Consumption Attainment

Drinking Water Use Attainment

Protection of Human Health

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

surface water classifi cations.

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). Following the 

publication of the Status Report and further data evaluation, the Department will produce an Assessment Report integrating the 303(d) list and the 

305(b) report for the basin.

Following the EPA’s guidance, the Department delineated waterbodies or waterbody segments in each of the state’s river basins, assessed them 

for potential impairment based on individual parameters, and grouped 

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

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

This Status Report contains a preliminary evaluation of waterbodies that 

fall into integrated report Categories 1 through 3 in the table.

Because not enough recent data on chemistry, biology, and fi sh consumption advisories have been collected, currently only a few 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. None of the waters in the Pensacola Bay Basin is 

 classifi ed as Category 1.

Understanding the 

Terms “Pollutant” 

and “Pollution”

For purposes of the TMDL 

Program, pollutants are 

chemical and biological 

constituents, introduced by 

humans into a waterbody 

that may result in pollution 

(water quality impairment). 

There are other causes of 

pollution, such as the physical alteration of a waterbody 

(for example, canals, dams, 

and ditches). However, 

TMDLs are established only 

for impairments caused by 

pollutants (a TMDL quantifies 

how much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive 

and still meet its designated 

uses).

Waterbodies that are verified 

impaired due to specified pollutants, and therefore require 

a TMDL, are listed under 

Category 5 in the Integrated 

Assessment Report; waterbodies with water quality 

impairments due to other 

causes, or unknown causes, 

are listed under Category 

4b. Although TMDLs are 

not established for Category 4b waterbodies, these 

waterbodies still may be 

addressed through a watershed management program 

(for example, the Kissimmee 

River restoration).

58 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report

Category Description Comments

1 Attaining all designated uses If use attainment is verified for a waterbody or segment that was 

previously listed as impaired, the Department will propose that it 

be delisted.

2 Attaining some designated uses 

and insufficient or no information 

or data are present to determine 

if remaining uses are attained

If attainment is verified for some designated uses of a waterbody 

or segment, the Department will propose partial delisting for the 

uses attained. Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if remaining uses are attained.

3a No data and information are 

present to determine if any 

designated use is attained

Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if 

designated uses are attained.

3b Some data and information 

are present but not enough to 

determine if any designated use 

is attained

Future monitoring will be recommended to gather sufficient information and data to determine if designated uses are attained.

3c Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one 

or more designated uses may 

not be attained according to the 

Planning List methodology

This indicates that a waterbody or segment is potentially impaired 

for one or more designated uses. These waters will be prioritized 

for future monitoring to verify use attainment or impaired status.

3d Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses are not 

attained according to the Verified 

List methodology

This indicates that a waterbody or segment exceeds Verified List 

evaluation criteria and may be listed as impaired at the end of 

Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. However, the data 

have not yet been fully evaluated and the waters have not been 

formally verified as impaired. Further monitoring and analysis 

may be necessary.

4a Impaired for one or more 

designated uses but does not 

require TMDL development 

because a TMDL has already 

been completed

After the EPA approves a TMDL for the impaired waterbody 

or segment, the TMDL will be included in a B-MAP to reduce 

pollutant loading toward attainment of designated use(s).

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

TMDL development because the 

water will attain water quality 

standards due to existing or 

proposed measures

Pollutant control mechanisms designed to attain applicable water 

quality standards in a reasonable time frame are either proposed 

or in place.

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

TMDL development because 

impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant

This category includes waterbodies or segments that are impaired 

because of naturally occurring conditions or other causes of 

pollution. The impairment is not caused by specific pollutants. 

(See the sidebar on previous page for a discussion of the difference between the terms “pollutant” and “pollution.”)

5 One or more designated uses 

is not attained and a TMDL is 

required

Waterbodies or segments in this category are impaired for one or 

more designated uses by a pollutant or pollutants. Waters in this 

category are included on the basin-specific Verified List adopted 

by the Department’s Secretary as Florida’s impaired waters list 

and submitted to the EPA as Florida’s 303(d) list of impaired 

waters at the end of Phase 2.

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

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

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

Category 4c, and the description of Category 4c was listed as Category 4b.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 59
More waterbodies and segments statewide fall into Category 2 

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

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

use in a particular waterbody is attained. A total of 49 waterbody segments 

in the basin falls into Category 2.

However, most waterbodies in the state fall into Category 3 (having 

insuffi cient data). In the Pensacola Bay Basin, the breakdown of waterbodies or segments in Category 3 is as follows:

• Category 3a—235 segments for which no data are available to 

 determine their water quality status;

• Category 3b—7 segments with some data, but not suffi cient data for 

making any determinations;

• Category 3c—21 segments that are potentially impaired based on the 

Planning List criteria; and 

• Category 3d—39 segments that may be impaired based on the 

 Verifi ed List criteria but require further evaluation.

Several potentially impaired (Category 3c or 3d) 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.

Category 4 includes those waterbodies/segments that are impaired but 

do not require a TMDL for one of three reasons:

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

 developed,

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

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

existing or proposed pollutant control measure, and

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

physical/hydrologic alterations to the waterbody. 

Category 5 waterbodies are determined to be impaired and require 

TMDLs. These are included on the Verifi ed List of impaired waters 

adopted by the Department’s Secretary. Waters currently listed as 

 Category 3d are most likely to be verifi ed as impaired. 

 Waters are not formally assigned to Categories 4 and 5 until the verifi ed impaired listing process has been completed, even though suffi cient 

data may be available and a waterbody may meet the requirements for 

impairment under the IWR.

60 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Planning Units

In Florida, the Pensacola Bay Basin encompasses approximately 2,100 

square miles and a complex hydrologic system. To provide a more detailed 

geographic basis for identifying and assessing water quality improvement 

activities, the basin was subdivided into smaller areas called planning units. 

A planning unit is either an individual large tributary basin or a group of 

smaller adjacent tributary basins with similar characteristics. Planning 

units help organize information and management strategies around prominent watershed characteristics.

Water quality assessments were conducted for waterbody segments 

within planning units. Each of these smaller, hydrologically based drainage 

areas within a planning unit is assigned a unique 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.

Although WBIDs often encompass several waterbodies, water quality data usually refl ect conditions in the main waterbody in a polygon. In 

some instances, however, the data from several waterbodies in the polygon have been aggregated. As the water quality assessments are refi ned 

in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, individual waterbodies in 

these aggregations that have unique water quality concerns will be assigned 

unique WBIDs and evaluated individually.

The Pensacola Bay Basin contains fi ve planning units: Blackwater 

River, Escambia River, Shoal River, Yellow River, and Pensacola Bay. 

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.

To determine the status of surface water quality in the Pensacola Bay 

Basin, chemistry data, biological data, and, if available, fi sh consumption, beach closures, and shellfi sh-harvesting advisories were evaluated 

to determine potential impairments. Appendix B contains a detailed 

description of the methodology used to determine potential impairment. 

Appendix C contains lists of rare and endangered plant and animal species, 

by planning unit.

Appendix D of this report contains defi nitions and specifi c methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. Appendix E

includes summary information, by planning unit, for permitted wastewater 

 treatment facilities, Superfund sites, and permitted landfi ll facilities in the 

basin. Appendix F, which provides a water quality summary, by planning 

unit, contains a list of water quality monitoring stations and the integrated 

assessment summary. Appendix G summarizes land uses by planning unit.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 61
Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Pensacola Bay Basin

Assessment by Planning Unit

• Escambia River Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit consists of the Florida portion of the Escambia 

River and its tributaries identifi ed as Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 

03140305. The Escambia River is the boundary between Santa Rosa and 

Escambia Counties, located at the western end of Florida’s panhandle. It 

discharges through Escambia Bay into Pensacola Bay. The river and its 

tributaries have a well-developed, dendritic surface drainage pattern.

Close to 90 percent of the Escambia River’s drainage basin is outside 

Florida (Florida Department of Natural Resources [DNR], 1989). The 

Escambia River originates near Union Springs in southeastern Alabama as 

the Conecuh River and becomes the named Escambia River at the confl uence of the Conecuh River and Escambia Creek. The Conecuh River has 

been dammed at two places in Alabama.

The Escambia River planning unit, which covers 417 square miles 

of the Escambia River Basin in Florida, is delineated into 48 waterbody 

segments. All segments are Class III waters. Tributaries of the Escambia 

River are Pine Barren Creek, Canoe Creek, Mitchell Creek, Little Pine 

62 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Barren Creek, McDavid Creek, Bray Mill Creek, Big Escambia Creek, 

 Holland Branch, and Blue Water Creek. The impoundment managed by 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Lake 

Stone (on Wiggins Branch), is also located in this planning unit. The 

impoundment was constructed by FWC and is maintained as a Fish Management Area for the purpose of providing public fi shing opportunities 

(Young, 1997).

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.4 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody segments in the planning unit. Figure 3.3, a composite map of the 

planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list and the Planning List.

There are 48 delineated WBIDs in the planning unit. Of these, 30 

WBIDs had suffi cient data for at least 1 parameter to evaluate for impairment. Monitoring data collected from 46 stations were used for water 

quality evaluations (Table F.3 in Appendix F). There are 20 waterbodies 

potentially impaired for at least 1 parameter and 8 waterbodies that meet 

their designated use for at least 1 parameter (classifi ed as Category 2) with 

no identifi ed impairment. Many of these waterbodies were not impaired 

because of good biological assessment scores. For the potentially impaired 

waterbodies, the leading causes of impairment are failed biological assessment and mercury in fi sh tissue. 

Land-clearing activities from agriculture and construction, coupled 

with easily erodable soils, have been linked to erosion and stream sedimentation accompanied by the formation of deep, wide gullies in several tributary watersheds (Department, 1998). Canoe Creek, Sandy Hollow Creek, 

Little Pine Barren Creek, Big Escambia Creek, and Pine Barren Creek were 

the most heavily affected watersheds. In many places, sedimentation has 

resulted in the fi lling in of portions of the stream channel, with a resultant 

loss of low-order stream habitat. For streams in the Pine Barren Creek 

watershed, the loss of stream habitat over the past 25 years has resulted in 

the loss of many rare biota (Department, 1998). The stonefl y Tallaperla

was once common in the watershed’s headwaters.

Numerous waterbodies in the planning unit were placed on the 1998 

303(d) list for turbidity and/or total suspended solids (TSS). Turbidity 

impairment was not confi rmed.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. Figure 3.3 shows permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities, landfi lls, and delineated ground water contamination areas in the 

planning unit (see Noteworthy for a defi nition of point sources, as well 

as discussions of environmental remediation and delineated ground water 

contamination areas).

There are 18 active permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and ground water dischargers in the planning 

unit (Tables E.1 and E.2 in Appendix E) in Florida. Eight are NPDES 

industrial and domestic surface water dischargers, of which 5 discharge 

directly to the Escambia River. The largest discharger to the Escambia 

River is Solutia (formerly Monsanto Textiles Company), which is permitted 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 63
Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Escambia River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

 Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

 Parameters

Not Impaired

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

10 Big Escambia 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

TSS

Biology 3c Planning List

10A Escambia 

River

Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish Conductance, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c Verified List

10B Escambia 

River

Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish — 3c Verified List

10C Escambia 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

Mercury in 

Fish, TSS

Mercury in Fish, 

Iron

Chlorophyll a, 

Conductance, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Fluoride, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, TSS, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c Verified List

10D Escambia 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

Mercury in 

Fish, TSS

Mercury in Fish, 

Iron

Chlorophyll a, Conductance, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Fluoride, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c Verified List

10E Escambia 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

Mercury in 

Fish, DO

Conductance, 

DO, Mercury in 

Fish

Biology, Fecal 

Coliforms, pH, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c Verified List

10F Escambia 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

Mercury in 

Fish, TSS

Conductance, 

DO, Fecal Coliforms, Mercury 

in Fish, Iron

Chlorophyll a, 

Fluoride, Total 

Coliforms, TSS, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3d Verified List

111 Moore Creek Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

168 McDavid 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology — 3c Planning List

236 Bell Creek Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

25 Wiggins 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Biology — 3c Planning List

258 Thomas Creek Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

25A Lake Stone 

SW of Century

Lake IIIF — — TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses

64 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

 Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

 Parameters

Not Impaired

 (Cat. 2) for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

36 Bray Mill 

Creek

Stream IIIF Nutrients — Conductance, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia 

2 Meets Some 

Uses

5 Pine Barren 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity

Biology Conductance, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia 

3c Verified List

7 Canoe Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Biology, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Mercury in Fish

Conductance, DO, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia 

3c Verified List

79 Hall Branch Stream IIIF — Biology — 3c Planning List

8 Hobbs Branch Stream IIIF — — — 3b Not Enough 

Data

87 Little Pine 

Barren Cr

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity

Biology — 3c Planning List

9 Pritchett Mill 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Biology — 3c Verified List

118 McCostill Mill 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

192 Blue Water 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

201 Fletch Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

326 Wilder Branch Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

39 Brestworks 

Branch

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

395 Williams 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

531 Clear Creek Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

586 Thompson 

Bayou

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

6 Beaverdam 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

71 Mitchell Creek Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

Table 3.4 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 65
Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

attained;

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

3d —Meets Verified List criteria and is verified impaired for one or more designated uses;

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

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

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

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

a pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple 

parameters. The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c/3d, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., 

each WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, 

if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, 

the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

F = Fresh water

TSI = Trophic state index

DO = Dissolved oxygen

TSS = Total suspended solids

Table 3.4 (continued)

to release up to 27 million gallons per day (mgd) of industrial wastewater. 

Gulf Power’s James F. Crist Generating Plant, built in 1945, is permitted to use and release into the Escambia River 18 mgd of cooling water. 

The Container Corporation has a paper mill located in Alabama near the 

Florida state line that also discharges industrial wastewater.

There are no Superfund or state-funded hazardous waste sites or delineated ground water contamination areas in the planning unit. Another 

potential source of pollution is landfi lls. There is one closed Class II landfi ll, near Century, and six active construction and debris landfi lls in the 

planning unit (Table E.4 in Appendix E).

Escambia County was issued an NPDES MS4 stormwater permit 

in January 1999 under Phase 1 of the federal program. The county is 

a co permittee with the city of Pensacola, the town of Century, and the 

Florida Department of Transportation. 

Nonpoint Sources. Based on detailed 1995 land use summary 

information, the predominant land uses in the planning unit are tree 

plantations (silviculture), 32 percent, and wetland hardwood forests, 19 

percent. Other land uses include crop and pastureland, upland coniferous 

forests, and upland hardwood forests. In contrast, residential, industrial, 

and commercial development represent about 6 percent of the planning 

unit’s land use. Management practices for these land uses may generate 

nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments (see Noteworthy 

66 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Escambia River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and 

Planning List Waters

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 67
Point sources discharging 

pollutants to surface water or 

ground water originate from 

discrete, well-defined areas such 

as a facility discharge from the 

end of a pipe, a disposal well, or 

a wastewater sprayfield. Point 

sources generally fall into two 

major types: domestic wastewater sources (which consist of 

sewage from homes, businesses, 

and institutions) and industrial 

wastewater sources (which 

Environmental remediation 

activities cover a broad spectrum 

of cleanup programs. These 

include state-managed hazardous waste, dry cleaning, and 

petroleum cleanup programs, 

as well as the federal Superfund 

and Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) programs. 

These programs are designed 

to remediate ground water and 

soil contamination that pose a 

The Department’s Delineation Program was established 

in response to the discovery 

of ground water contaminated 

by ethylene dibromide (EDB), a 

soil fumigant that was historically used in 38 Florida counties to control nematodes in 

citrus groves and row crops. 

The program currently includes 

ground water contaminated 

by other pesticides, industrial 

solvents, and nutrients. However, the coverage of delineated 

areas in this program is not 

intended to include all sources 

Rainfall generates stormwater 

runoff. As it flows over the land 

and through the ground, runoff 

may carry nonpoint source pollutants from many different sources 

Information on Point Sources in Planning Units

include wastewater, runoff, and 

leachate from industrial or commercial storage, handling, or 

processing facilities). Landfills, 

hazardous waste sites, dry 

cleaning solvent cleanup 

program (DSCP) sites, and 

 petroleum facility discharges 

are also considered point 

sources. These sites have the 

potential to leach contaminants 

into ground water and surface 

water.

Identifying the source of waterbody impairment is an important 

part of assessing water quality and developing TMDLs. As 

part of this report, information 

is presented on point sources, 

including permitted facilities 

that discharge wastewater and 

landfills.

Environmental Remediation

threat to public health and the 

environment.

The National Priorities List 

(NPL) is a consolidated list of the 

uncontrolled hazardous waste 

sites that pose the greatest threat 

to public health or the environment. Sites are listed on the NPL 

upon the completion of a preliminary assessment, site inspection, 

and hazardous ranking system 

evaluation to determine their 

potential for adverse impacts and 

priority for corrective action. The 

EPA Superfund program administers the cleanup of NPL sites.

The Department’s state-funded 

cleanup program administers the 

cleanup of contaminated hazardous waste sites when enforcement action taken against a 

responsible party is unsuccessful 

or when no responsible party is 

identified.

Delineated Ground Water Contamination Areas 

of contaminated ground water in 

Florida. The Delineation Program is designed to ensure the 

protection of public health when 

consuming potable ground water 

supplies and to minimize the 

potential for cross-contamination of adjacent ground water 

resources.

The Delineation Program’s 

primary responsibilities are as 

follows:

• To delineate areas of ground 

water contamination,

• To implement a water well 

construction permitting/

application process that 

requires stringent construction 

standards, and

• To require water testing after 

completion of the well to 

ensure the potable quality of 

the water source.

Any newly constructed water 

wells in delineated areas, and 

existing water wells found to be 

contaminated, are remediated by 

installing individual water treatment systems or by connecting 

the users to public water supply 

systems.

Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses

to lakes, rivers, and estuaries in a 

watershed, and into ground water 

supplies. Nonpoint sources also 

include atmospheric deposition 

and leaching from agricultural 

lands, urban areas, and unvegetated lands. The pollutants in 

runoff often include fertilizers, 

bacteria, metals, sediments, and 

petroleum compounds.

68 Noteworthy Water Quality Status Report: 

Pensacola Bay
for a defi nition of nonpoint sources). Tables G.1 and G.2 in Appendix G

provide summary information on land uses in the planning unit.

The Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) has 

extensive land holdings along the Escambia River. The river’s fl oodplain 

is in public ownership as conservation lands from about State Road 4 near 

Century south to the mouth of the river.

Ecological Summary

The Escambia River supports a large number of rare and imperiled 

mussel and fi sh species. At least 10 imperiled mussel species and 18 imperiled fi sh species have been recorded from the Escambia River or its tributaries (Table 2.2). Freshwater mussels such as the round ebonyshell, narrow 

pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe depend on good water quality for their survival. 

The Escambia River watershed has the greatest number of rare and imperiled fi sh species in Florida (Hoehn, 1998). Among those species are the 

state-endangered and federally threatened blackmouth shiner and several 

state species of special concern, the Gulf sturgeon, harlequin darter, and 

bluenose shiner. Additionally, the Escambia River watershed, compared 

with other river basins in Florida, had the highest fi sh species rarity index 

(Hoehn, 1998). 

The Escambia River, along with Yellow River, provides important spawning habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. The Gulf sturgeon are 

 anadromous fi sh that leave the Gulf of Mexico each spring and enter 

freshwater streams to spawn (Hoehn, 1998). Primary spawning areas 

are unvegetated fl owing waters with rock, gravel, or other hard bottom, 

to which eggs can adhere. From 1983 to 1992, the FWC (Bass, 1993) 

collected 79 species of fi sh from the Escambia River. The more common 

fi sh species collected from the Escambia River were weed shiner, blacktail 

shiner, longear sunfi sh, redear sunfi sh, spotfi n mojarra, bluegill, spotted 

sunfi sh, and largemouth bass. Common fi sh species found in the tributaries of the Escambia River are the weed shiner, sailfi n shiner, fl agfi n shiner, 

rough shiner, spotted sunfi sh, dixie chub, and bluehead chub (Bass, 1993). 

Sunshine bass (Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis) and palmetto bass (M. saxatilis x M. chrysops) have been stocked in the lower Escambia River since 1978 

to supplement the sport fi shery (Slack and Yeager, 1993).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), in partnership with 

Florida and Alabama, NWFWMD, Three Rivers Resource Conservation 

and Development Council, and Alabama Rural Development Council, 

has undertaken a large-scale project to return Big Escambia Creek to its 

original channel. The NWFWMD has provided more than $800,000 as 

a Florida Forever Capital Improvement Grant to complete the project. A 

major storm about 30 years ago rerouted the creek from its braided channel and fl oodplain into a series of sandpits. The result has been increased 

streamfl ow and sediment erosion and deposition. Sediments are transported as far downstream as Escambia Bay. Big Escambia Creek was 

placed on the 1998 303(d) list for turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), 

and coliform bacteria.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 69
The Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership is a cooperative ecosystem partnership of the NWFWMD, Blackwater River State Forest, 

Eglin Air Force Base, Conecuh National Forest, Nokuse Plantation, 

International Paper, the Department, and the Nature Conservancy. The 

partners manage about 954,065 acres of northwestern Florida and southern Alabama for the purpose of protecting listed species and restoring and 

protecting connected ecosystems (http://www.nokuse.org). The partnership allows the connection of conservation lands in the Conecuh National 

Forest in Alabama with the Blackwater River State Forest and Eglin Air 

Force Base.

Escambia County has funded over $60 million of stormwater and 

drainage improvement projects and dirt road paving projects from 1992 

to 2003. Most funds were spent on improvements in the Escambia River 

planning unit. The county continues to spend over $2.5 million per year 

on water quality improvement projects.

• Blackwater River Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit consists of the Florida portion of the Blackwater 

River and its tributaries included in HUC 03140104. The Blackwater 

River’s headwaters are near Bradley, Alabama, with about 19 percent of 

the river’s drainage area in Alabama. In Alabama, the Blackwater River 

fl ows through the Conecuh National Forest (DNR, 1989). For most of 

its length in Florida, the Blackwater River fl ows through the Blackwater 

River State Forest in Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties before discharging 

through Blackwater Bay into the East Bay arm of Pensacola Bay. The sand 

and gravel aquifer contributes signifi cant basefl ow to the Blackwater River. 

The contribution of ground water provides cooler river water temperatures 

in the summer. 

This planning unit covers 719 square miles. It is delineated into 

104 water segments or unique WBIDs. All waterbodies are classifi ed as 

Class III. The Blackwater River is also an Outstanding Florida Water 

(OFW). Tributary waterbodies are the Big Coldwater Creek (including 

East and West Forks), Pond Creek, Big Juniper Creek, Juniper Creek, 

 Panther Creek, Sweetwater Creek, Penny Creek, Mare Creek, Hurricane 

Creek, and Manning Creek. Big Coldwater Creek and East Fork are the 

largest tributary watersheds to the Blackwater River, at approximately 

237 square miles (DNR, 1989). Portions of Big Coldwater Creek’s 

stream channel have been channelized. Portions of Big Coldwater Creek 

and East Fork have been designated as the Coldwater Creek Canoe Trail 

(DNR, 1989). 

The FWC-managed fi sh impoundments, Bear Lake and Hurricane 

Lake, are also in the planning unit. These impoundments were constructed by the FWC and are maintained as Fish Management Areas for 

the purpose of providing public fi shing opportunities (Young, 1997).

70 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Water Quality Summary

Table 3.5 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody segments in the planning unit. Figure 3.4, a composite map of the 

planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list and the Planning List 

and identifi es potential sources of pollution.

Seventy stream and 8 lake water quality monitoring stations provided 

data for the analysis of potential impairment (Table F.3 in Appendix F). 

Twenty waterbody segments were identifi ed as potentially impaired, 

while 20 segments met at least 1 designated use (listed as Category 2 in 

Table 3.5). Waterbodies are listed exclusively for impaired biology, fecal 

coliforms, and mercury in fi sh tissue. 

Much of the biology impairment is located in the Big Coldwater Creek 

watershed and lower Blackwater River. The combination of large amounts 

of rainfall, rolling topography, steep slopes, and deep, sandy clay soils has 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation in these watersheds. Biological 

assessments of major tributaries indicate impacts to aquatic communities 

from habitat smothering by sediment, mostly sand (Department, 1999). 

Land clearing associated with agriculture, silviculture, and recreation, as 

well as dirt road erosion, were identifi ed by the Department as sources of 

sediment. The heavy vehicular use of unpaved roads in the Blackwater 

River State Forest, coupled with highly erodable soils, has led to increased 

turbidity in streams and habitat smothering. The erosion of stream banks 

and the formation of gullies are evident at many streams.

Logging was an important nineteenth-century commercial activity 

in the watershed. An early practice of fl oating cut timber down the river 

to sawmills caused some of the logs to sink to the river bottom. These 

deadhead logs are important in maintaining the aquatic health of the Blackwater River and Big Coldwater Creek, as they provide important structure 

and habitat for fi sh and other aquatic organisms (Department, 1998). 

 Legislation passed in the 1990s allows the removal of some of these deadheads by loggers.

Nine waterbodies were included on the 1998 303(d) list, largely for 

coliform bacteria and TSS. The EPA fi nalized fecal coliform TMDLs for 

Big Coldwater Creek, Big Juniper Creek, the upper and lower segments 

of the Blackwater River, East Fork of Coldwater Creek, Manning Creek, 

and West Fork Big Coldwater Creek in February 2001 (EPA, February 

2001a). One segment of the Blackwater River (WBID 24A), the West Fork 

of Coldwater Creek, and Big Coldwater Creek are potentially impaired for 

fecal coliform bacteria based on the IWR evaluation. If verifi ed impaired, 

the Department will review EPA’s fecal coliform TMDLs for these segments for adequacy and appropriateness to meet state TMDL needs.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 71
Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Blackwater River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

 Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

 Parameters

Not Impaired

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

11 Big 

Coldwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

11A West Fork Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients

Fecal Coliforms Conductance, DO, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3d Verified List

127 Manning 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

TSS

Biology — 3c Planning List

132 Bull Pen 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

166 Beaver 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

173 Narrows 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

176 Pond Creek Stream IIIF — Fecal Coliforms Biology, Chlorophyll 

a, Conductance, DO, 

Fluoride, Iron, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

3d Verified List

179A Bear Lake Lake IIIF — — TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses

18 Big 

Coldwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

TSS

Fecal Coliforms Chlorophyll a, Conductance, DO, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

3d Verified List

184 Muddy 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

186 Long Branch Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

18A East Fork Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

TSS

Biology Conductance, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

TSS, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c Planning List

19 Big Juniper 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity*

— Biology, Conductance, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

2 Meets Some 

Uses

198 Pyron 

Spring 

Branch

Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

72 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

 Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

 Parameters

Not Impaired

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

21 Sweetwater 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology, Conductance, DO, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

2 Meets Some 

Uses

24 Blackwater 

River

Stream IIIF — Biology, Mercury in FishChlorophyll a, Conductance, DO, Fluoride, Fecal Coliforms, 

Iron, Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c Planning List

24A Blackwater 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Mercury in 

Fish, TSS

Biology, Conductance, Fecal 

Coliforms, Mercury in Fish

Chlorophyll a, DO, 

Fluoride, Iron, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

3d Verified List

24B Blackwater 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nonpoint 

Source 

Survey

Mercury in Fish — 3c Planning List

24C Blackwater 

River

Stream IIIF — Biology, 

Mercury in Fish

Chlorophyll a, Conductance, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

3c Planning List

24D Blackwater 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Mercury in 

Fish

Biology, 

Mercury in Fish

Chlorophyll a, Conductance, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

3c Planning List

26 Boggy 

Hollow 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

260 Clear Creek Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish Biology 3c Planning List

27 Panther 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — Biology, 

Conductance, DO

2 Meets Some 

Uses

50 Oak Creek Stream IIIF — Biology — 3c Planning List

82 Malloy 

Branch

Stream IIIF — Biology — 3c Planning List

83 Hurricane 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology Conductance, DO, 

Turbidity

3c Planning List

83A Hurricane 

Lake

Lake IIIF — — TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses

88 Mare Creek Stream IIIF Turbidity, 

DO

Biology — 3c Planning List

104 Turkey Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

Table 3.5 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 73
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

 Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

 Parameters

Not Impaired

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

12 Hawkins 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

179 Bear Creek Stream IIIF Biology, DO, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses

213 Mare Branch Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

225 Penney 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

271 Ates Creek Stream IIIF Biology Conductance, DO, 

Turbidity

3c Planning List

352 Tarkiln Head Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

90 Cobb Branch Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

179 Bear Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

299 Wolftrap 

Branch

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

314 Coon Camp Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

356 Bucket 

Branch

Stream IIIF Nonpoint 

Source 

Survey

Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

Notes:

*Included on Planning List

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

attained;

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

3d —Meets Verified List criteria and is verified impaired for one or more designated uses;

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

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

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

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

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple 

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

WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 

9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the 

single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

F = Fresh water TSS = Total suspended solids DO = Dissolved oxygen TSI = Trophic state index

Table 3.5 (continued)

74 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Blackwater River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and 

Planning List Waters

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 75
Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. Figure 3.4 shows permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities, landfi lls, and delineated ground water contamination areas 

in the planning unit. Information about these facilities is contained in 

Appendix E.

There are 14 permitted NPDES and ground water dischargers in the 

planning unit (Tables E.1 and E.2 in Appendix E). Three facilities are 

domestic waste dischargers, 8 are industrial waste dischargers, and the 

remaining 3 are concrete batch plants and petroleum cleanup sites. The 

largest surface water discharger is the city of Milton wastewater treatment 

plant, which is permitted at 2.5 mgd to the Blackwater River. 

There are no delineated ground water contamination areas of hazardous waste sites in the planning unit. There is 1 active Class III landfi ll 

near Bagdad and 11 active construction and debris landfi lls located largely 

around Milton (Table E.4 in Appendix E).

Nonpoint Sources. Tables G.3 and G.4 in Appendix G provide 

summaries of information on general and detailed land uses in the planning unit. The predominant land use is upland forest and silviculture, 

occupying approximately 66 percent of the planning unit. As noted above, 

the Blackwater River State Forest represents a large portion of those lands. 

The Blackwater River State Forest still contains extensive acreage of longleaf pine wiregrass community. Cropland and pasture occupies another 

15 percent of the planning unit. These land uses can be associated with 

nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments.

Ecological Summary

The Blackwater River was stocked with tagged striped bass in 1987 in 

an effort to reintroduce the Gulf Coast striped bass into the coastal waters 

of the Gulf of Mexico. The discharge of ground water from the sand and 

gravel aquifer to the Blackwater River provides a cooler water temperature 

refuge in summer allowing fi sh to retreat from warm summer temperatures. Big Coldwater, Big Juniper, and Pond Creeks also provide cool water 

refuge. Fish tracking of striped bass performed by the FWC confi rmed the 

presence and use of several cool water refugia in the Blackwater and Yellow 

Rivers’ watersheds. Tags taken from collected fi sh indicated the movement 

of fi sh between these two rivers, as well as good spatial utilization within 

each river system. Tagged fi sh were found about 43 miles upstream of the 

mouth of the Blackwater River (Slack and Yeager, 1993).

Bass (1993) collected 39 species of fi sh from the Blackwater River and 

its tributaries. Common fi sh species found were the sailfi n shiner, fl agfi n 

shiner, blackbanded darter, and orangeside darter. 

The relatively undisturbed Blackwater River and its watershed provide 

unique and signifi cant biological habitat and resources. It supports a high 

diversity of aquatic insects (see Chapter 2). At least seven species of aquatic 

insects have been collected from this watershed (Table 2.2) that appear 

to be restricted to or largely confi ned to the Blackwater River watershed 

(Davis et al., n.d.; DNR, 1989). Species such as the blue sand-river mayfl y 

burrow into the Blackwater River’s undisturbed sand bottom (DNR, 

1989). The river corridor serves as a special wildlife area for accipiters, 

76 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
warblers, shorebirds, waterfowl, and osprey (DNR, 1989). The state-listed 

endangered blackmouth shiner has been collected from the Blackwater 

River and Pond Creek (Bortone, 1993). Other rare or imperiled fi sh species recorded from the watershed are the Gulf sturgeon, Florida chub, and 

blacktip shiner. Three imperiled frog species, the pine barren treefrog 

(Hyla andersonii), dusky gopher frog, and tiger salamander, live in the 

watershed (Davis et al., n.d.).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

The Blackwater Forest River Restoration project was implemented 

in the Blackwater River State Forest to restore highly sloped and eroded 

entrance roads on the south side of the Blackwater River. Santa Rosa and 

Okaloosa Counties are also paving clay roads to reduce the erosion of clay 

soils. The State Forest is replacing culverts and bridges with low-water 

crossings and improved bridges. The Conecuh National Forest is covering 

dirt roads and ditches with grass to prevent erosion (Davis et al., n.d.).

The Clear Creek restoration project will restore a gully to a meandering 

stream and end the transport of tons of sediment into Clear Creek. Project 

partners are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NWFWMD, and Three 

Rivers Resource Conservation and Development Council. The water management district has provided a $100,000 Florida Forever Capital Improvement Project Grant to help complete the restoration (Thorpe, 2004). Over 

the past 60 years, surface runoff eroded a hillside and created a gully that 

now enters Clear Creek. In places, the gully is as wide as 300 feet and as 

deep as 30 feet. Its formation has allowed tons of sediment to erode and 

be deposited in Clear Creek. The creek’s depth has been decreased from 

4 to 5 feet above the gully to about 0.5 feet below the gully. Clear Creek 

 borders Whiting Field. The Blackwater River below Clear Creek was 

placed on the 1998 303(d) list for TSS.

The Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership is a cooperative ecosystem partnership of the NWFWMD, Blackwater River State Forest, 

Eglin Air Force Base, Conecuh National Forest, Nokuse Plantation, 

International Paper, the Department, and the Nature Conservancy. The 

partners manage about 954,065 acres of northwestern Florida and southern 

 Alabama for the purpose of protecting listed species and restoring and protecting connected ecosystems (http://www.nokuse.org). The partnership 

allows the connection of conservation lands in the Conecuh National 

Forest in Alabama with the Blackwater River State Forest and Eglin Air 

Force Base.

• Yellow River Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit consists of the Florida portion of the Yellow River 

Basin included in HUC 03140103, except for the Shoal River, which is 

treated as a separate planning unit. The Yellow River’s headwaters are in 

southeastern Alabama, in the Conecuh National Forest. About 37 percent 

of the river’s drainage basin is in Alabama. The Yellow River begins as 

a named stream at the confl uence of Hog Foot and Limestone Creeks in 

Alabama. In Florida, the river fl ows for about 92 miles through Okaloosa 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 77
and Santa Rosa Counties before discharging into East Bay and ultimately 

Pensacola Bay (DNR, 1989).

The Yellow River’s drainage basin has the highest elevation in Florida. 

It drains the western highlands (DNR, 1989) and carries more sediment 

than other Florida rivers of comparable size. In Santa Rosa County, the 

river does not fl ow through a wide valley, but rather, cuts into the highlands in many places, producing areas of high bluffs. Some bluffs are 

40 feet high (Carter and Pearce, 1985). In its lower reaches, the river 

fl ows through an almost 2-mile-long, wide, woody, swampy fl oodplain 

(DNR, 1991).

The planning unit covers 380 square miles and is delineated into 

49 unique waterbody segments or WBIDs. All waters are classifi ed as 

Class III. The largest tributary to the Yellow River is the Shoal River, 

which contributes about half the Yellow’s discharge. Tributaries to the 

Yellow River are Big Horse Creek, Murder Creek, Trammel Creek, Turkey 

Gobbler Creek, Davis Mill Creek, Burnt Grocery Creek, Julian Mill Creek, 

and Boiling Creek. Lake Karick, an FWC-constructed and -managed 

impoundment, is also in the planning unit. The impoundment is maintained as a Fish Management Area for the purpose of providing public 

fi shing opportunities (Young, 1997).

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.6 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody segments in the planning unit. Figure 3.5, a composite map of the 

planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list and the Planning List 

and identifi es potential sources of pollution.

Five lake and 31 stream water quality monitoring stations provided 

data for the analysis of potential impairment. Ten waterbodies are potentially impaired. The sources of impairment are biology, fecal coliform 

bacteria, iron, or mercury in fi sh tissue. Eight waterbodies met at least 1 of 

their designated uses (identifi ed as Category 2 in Table 3.6). Most waterbodies met their designated use as indicated by passing scores for biological 

assessment.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. Figure 3.5 shows permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities, landfi lls, and delineated ground water contamination areas in 

the planning unit. Appendix E lists the planning unit’s domestic and 

industrial surface discharge facilities, landfi lls or solid waste facilities, and 

hazardous waste sites.

NPDES-permitted dischargers in the planning unit include three 

industrial wastewater facilities, one concrete batch plant, and seven domestic wastewater facilities (Table E.1 in Appendix E). The largest discharger 

is the city of Crestview, at 2.1 mgd, followed by Okaloosa Correctional 

Institute and Eglin Air Force Base Auxillary Field #3 wastewater treatment 

plant. Historically, the Crestview wastewater treatment plant had repeated 

sewage spills and other operational failures that resulted in fi sh kills in 

Trammel Creek. 

78 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Yellow River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

 Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

 Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

107 Murder 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

DO

Biology — 3c Planning List

145 Lake Karick Lake IIIF — TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses

145A Deadfall 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — — 3b Not Enough 

Data

209 Silver 

Creek

Stream IIIF — — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

223 Gum Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

275 Baggett 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

231 Davis Mill 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology — 3c Planning List

28 Big Horse 

Creek

Stream IIIF — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

30 Yellow 

River

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Mercury in Fish

Biology, Chlorophyll 

a, Conductance, 

DO, Fluoride, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

3d Verified List

30A Yellow 

River

Stream IIIF Turbidity, 

Mercury in 

Fish, DO

Mercury in 

Fish, Iron

Biology, Chlorophyll 

a, Conductance, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Fluoride, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

3c Verified List

30B Yellow 

River

Stream IIIF — Mercury in 

Fish, Iron

Biology, Conductance, 

DO, Turbidity

3c Planning List

30C Yellow 

River

Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish Conductance, DO, 

Turbidity

3c Planning List

30D Yellow 

River

Stream IIIF — Mercury in Fish — 3c Planning List

30G Trammel 

Creek

Stream IIIF DO Conductance, Fecal

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia

3c Planning List

364 Julian Mill 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

380 Burnt 

Grocery 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 79
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

 Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

 Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

396 Turkey 

Gobbler 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

429 Dead River Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

610 Weaver 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

Notes:

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

attained;

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

3d —Meets Verified List criteria and is verified impaired for one or more designated uses;

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

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

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

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

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple 

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

WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 

9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the 

single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

F = Fresh water

TSI = Trophic state index

DO = Dissolved oxygen

Other permitted sources are three active construction and debris 

landfi lls. There are no Superfund or state-funded hazardous waste sites, 

brownfi elds, or delineated ground water contamination areas in the 

 planning unit.

Nonpoint Sources. The predominant land use in the planning unit 

is upland pine forest and forest regeneration areas, representing almost 87 

percent of the planning unit’s area. Other land uses include cropland and 

pasture (3.4 percent) and wetland forest or other types of upland forest. 

Residential, commercial, and industrial land uses represent less than 1 percent of the planning unit area. Land uses can be associated with nonpoint 

discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. Tables G.5 and G.6 in 

Appendix G provide more detailed summary information on land uses in 

the planning unit.

Table 3.6 (continued)

80 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Yellow River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and 

Planning List Waters

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 81
The Yellow River downstream of State Road 87 and Blackwater Bay 

are included in the 16,435-acre Yellow River Marsh Aquatic Preserve 

(DNR, 1991). 

Eglin Air Force Base borders the planning unit to the south. Eglin’s 

land area supports a variety of plant and animal species, many of which are 

found nowhere else. Tributaries of the Yellow River supply drainage from 

the air base to the river. 

Ecological Summary

The Yellow River is classifi ed as a sand-bottomed stream by Beck based 

on velocity, temperature, oxygen, water hardness, and pH, with a cool 

water environment (cited in Nordlie, 401). Most of the bottom substrate 

is fi ne sand, which is mineral poor, leaving the stream relatively demineralized compared with peninsular Florida streams. Benthic fauna adapted to 

fl owing water environments dominate the macroinvertebrate community. 

Compared with other Florida streams, the Yellow River is rich in number 

of fi sh species, estimated at 105 species, but somewhat moderate in fi sh 

biomass (Bass and Cox, 1988). The minnows or Cyprinidae are the most 

abundant family of fi sh, with 17 species. They are followed in abundance 

by the sunfi shes, Centrarchidae, with 14 species (DNR, 1991). Common 

fi sh species that may be found in tributaries are the sailfi n shiner, weed 

shiner, blacktail shiner, blackbanded darter, fl agfi n shiner, and longnose 

shiner (Bass, 1993).

The Yellow River provides habitat for numerous imperiled or statedesignated fi sh species and freshwater mussels (Table 2.2). Fish species 

of special concern are the Gulf sturgeon and bluenose shiner. The river 

provides important spawning habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. The Alabama 

shad, Florida chub, and blacktip shiner have also been found in the planning unit. The freshwater mussels, narrow pigtoe, and Choctaw bean, 

recorded from the basin, are considered threatened by the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (Deyrup and Franz, 

1994).

Seepage streams are found in the watershed. Several rare or imperiled 

species of amphibians and reptiles use the seepage streams as habitat (1000 

Friends of Florida, 2004). Examples are the fl atwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), Pine barren tree frog, and bog frog (Rana okaloosae).

The Yellow River was stocked with striped bass in 1990 in an effort 

to reintroduce the Gulf Coast striped bass into coastal waters of the Gulf 

of Mexico. The discharge of ground water to the river provides a cooler 

water temperature in summer, allowing fi sh a retreat from warm summer 

 temperatures. Fish tracking of striped bass performed by the FWC confi rmed the presence and use of several cool water refugia in the Blackwater 

and Yellow River Basins. Tags taken from collected fi sh indicated the 

movement of fi sh between rivers, as well as good spatial utilization in a 

river system. Tagged fi sh were found as far upstream as Alabama (Slack 

and Yeager, 1993).

82 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

The Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership is a cooperative ecosystem partnership of the NWFWMD, Blackwater River State Forest, 

Eglin Air Force Base, Conecuh National Forest, Nokuse Plantation, 

International Paper, the Department, and the Nature Conservancy. The 

partners manage about 954,065 acres of northwestern Florida and southern Alabama for the purpose of protecting listed species and restoring and 

protecting connected ecosystems (http://www.nokuse.org). The partnership allows the connection of conservation lands in the Conecuh National 

Forest in Alabama with the Blackwater River State Forest and Eglin Air 

Force Base. 

• Shoal River Planning Unit

General Description

The planning unit is defi ned as the Shoal River and its tributary drainage watershed in Walton and Okaloosa Counties. It covers about 480 

square miles and is delineated into 69 waterbody segments or WBIDs. The 

Shoal River travels about 33 miles before joining the Yellow River 5 miles 

south of Crestview, near Eglin Air Force Base’s northern boundary. The 

Shoal River is the largest tributary of the Yellow River and provides about 

half of the Yellow River’s discharge. The Shoal River’s drainage area is 

contained completely in Florida and drains some of the highest elevation of land in Florida (DNR, 1989). Major tributaries are Gum Creek, 

Horseshoe Creek, Pond Creek, Long Creek, Pinelog Creek, Turkey Creek, 

Juniper Creek, and Titi Creek.

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.7 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody segments in the planning unit. Figure 3.6, a composite map of the 

planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list and the Planning List.

Water quality data from 7 lake and 15 stream stations were analyzed to 

evaluate potential impairment (Table F.3 in Appendix F). Eleven waterbodies are potentially impaired, while 7 segments met at least 1 designated 

use (listed as Category 2 in Table 3.7). Primary cause of impairment is 

failed biological assessment. Two segments of the Shoal River, Pond and 

Horsehead Creeks, were impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. Two tributaries, Turkey and Little Creeks, were placed on the 1998 303(d) list for coliform bacteria, but met some designated uses based on biological assessment.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. Figure 3.6 shows permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities, landfi lls, and delineated ground water contamination areas in the 

planning unit. Tables E.1 and E.2 in Appendix E list the basin’s domestic 

and industrial surface discharge facilities, along with their permitted fl ows. 

Table E.4 in Appendix E lists landfi lls or solid waste facilities.

There are three NPDES-permitted facilities and three domestic waste 

facilities permitted to discharge to ground water. Of the NPDES permits, 

two are concrete batch plants.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 83
Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Shoal River Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

100 Caney Creek Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

101 Pinelog Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

117 Turkey Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity*

— Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

144 Little Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms* — Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

160 Shoal River Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

160A Shoal River Stream IIIF — Fecal Coliforms Conductance, DO, 

Fluoride, Iron, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

3c Planning List

160B Shoal River Stream IIIF — Fecal Coliforms Biology, Conductance, Total 

Coliforms, DO, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

3d Verified List

167 Gum Creek Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

190 Middle Creek Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

207 Bee Branch Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

266A Kings Lake Lake IIIF — — — 3b Insufficient 

Data

282 Bottle Branch Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

300 Juniper 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

306 Long Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

331 Williams 

Branch

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

34 Horsehead 

Creek

Stream IIIF Fecal Coliforms DO, Conductance, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

3c Planning List

38 Lake Jackson 

Drain

Lake IIIF 3b Insufficient 

Data

370 Pearl Creek Stream IIIF 3b Not Enough 

Data

405 Bull Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

76 Long Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

84 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

92 Unnamed 

Outlet

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

91 Green Branch Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

35 Pond Creek Stream IIIF Fecal Coliforms DO, Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

3c Planning List

Notes:

*Included on Planning List

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

attained;

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

3d —Meets Verified List criteria and is verified impaired for one or more designated uses;

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

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

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

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

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple 

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

WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 

9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the 

single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

F = Fresh water

Table 3.7 (continued)

There are nine active landfi lls in the planning unit and six closed 

landfi lls. Eight of the nine active landfi lls are permitted to accept only 

construction and demolition debris.

There are no Superfund or state-funded hazardous waste sites in the 

planning unit, nor are there any delineated ground water contamination 

areas or brownfi elds. 

Nonpoint Sources. The planning unit is largely rural. The predominant land uses are pine forest, 69 percent; tree plantation, 9.8 percent; and 

mixed hardwood and pine forest, 5.4 percent. Most pineland is in the 

Blackwater River State Forest. Cropland and pasture occupies another 

6.7 percent of the planning unit area. Less than 2 percent of the area is 

residential or commercial land use. These land uses can be associated with 

nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. Tables G.7 and 

G.8 in Appendix G provide summary information on land uses in 

the basin.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 85
Figure 3.6: Composite Map of the Shoal River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List 

Waters

86 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Ecological Summary

Several imperiled or endangered species of fi sh inhabit the Shoal River 

or its tributaries (Table 2.2). The endangered blackmouth shiner has been 

recorded from the Shoal River watershed. The bluenose shiner is a species 

of special concern found in the planning unit.

Three species of mayfl ies that burrow into sand occur in the Shoal 

River (DNR, 1989). The Florida bog frog has been recorded from the Titi 

Creek tributary, and the Pine Barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii) is found in 

the Shoal River corridor (DNR, 1989).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

The Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership is a cooperative ecosystem partnership of the NWFWMD, Blackwater River State Forest, 

Eglin Air Force Base, Conecuh National Forest, Nokuse Plantation, 

International Paper, the Department, and the Nature Conservancy. The 

partners manage about 954,065 acres of northwestern Florida and southern Alabama for the purpose of protecting listed species and restoring and 

protecting connected ecosystems (http://www.nokuse.org). The partnership allows the connection of conservation lands in the Conecuh National 

Forest in Alabama with the Blackwater River State Forest and Eglin Air 

Force Base.

• Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

General Description

The Pensacola Bay planning unit is defi ned as the area within HUC 

03140195, which delineates the Pensacola Bay system. Located in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, it covers 705 square miles and is delineated 

into 81 waterbody segments or WBIDs. The Pensacola Bay estuary 

comprises 5 interconnected arms or large embayments. The centralmost 

embayment, Pensacola Bay, receives discharge from Escambia Bay, Santa 

Rosa Sound, and East Bay. Pensacola Bay discharges to the Gulf of Mexico 

through a 0.5-mile-wide outlet called Caucas Channel (Thorpe et al., 

1997).

The westernmost embayment is Escambia Bay, located at the mouth of 

the Escambia River. Mulatto Bayou and Pace Mill Creek discharge directly 

to the upper portion of Escambia Bay. Additional discharge is received 

in the lower part of the bay from Indian and Trout Bayous. Railroad and 

highway bridges limit mixing between the waters of the upper and lower 

parts of the bay (Thorpe et al., 1997; Department, 1998).

The northeastern embayment is Blackwater Bay, which receives 

discharge from the Blackwater and Yellow Rivers and Pond Creek, and 

discharges to East Bay. In addition to the discharge from Blackwater Bay, 

East Bay receives discharge from the East Bay River. This river drains part 

of Eglin Air Force Base’s weapons test range and the Navy’s Holey Field.

South of Pensacola Bay lies Santa Rosa Sound. Santa Rosa Sound lies 

between Santa Rosa Island and the mainland, and connects Pensacola Bay 

with Choctawhatchee Bay to the east. The Intracoastal Waterway traverses 

the northern part of the sound. 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 87
The Pensacola Bay estuary is classifi ed as microtidal, with an average 

water level fl uctuation of 1.5 feet. Hydraulic characteristics of the entire 

estuary are somewhat restricted circulation and fl ushing. Pensacola Bay is 

typically well stratifi ed, while Escambia and East Bay are, by comparison, 

low in salinity.

In addition to the major river systems, several bayous discharge directly 

to Pensacola Bay. The larger bayous are Bayou Grande, Bayou Texar, and 

Bayou Chico. All three bayous are heavily industrialized and urbanized. 

Stormwater runoff from Pensacola tends to become concentrated in the 

bayous (Thorpe et al., 1997).

Water Quality Summary

Table 3.8 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all evaluated waterbody segments in the planning unit (those with at least one piece 

of data). Table F.3 in Appendix F contains a complete list of waterbody 

segments, including those with no data. Figure 3.7, a composite map of 

the planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list and the Planning 

List.

Data from 184 water quality monitoring stations were analyzed to 

evaluate potential impairment (Table F.3 in Appendix F). Most stations 

were located in coastal and estuarine waters, with only 17 stations representing streams. 

Thirty-four waterbody segments were potentially impaired, largely for 

nutrients, coliform bacteria, and biology. Seven waterbodies were placed 

on the 1998 303(d) list for nutrient impairment, but impairment was not 

confi rmed using the IWR methodology. Only East Bay, Escambia Bay, 

Bayou Chico Beach, and Floridatown Park were confi rmed as potentially 

impaired for nutrients. Twenty-six waterbodies met at least 1 designated 

use (listed as Category 2 in Table 3.8).

The EPA report, Ecological Condition of Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico

(EPA, 1999), noted that sedimentation is a problem in Pensacola Bay as a 

result of poor fl ushing and the input of large sediment loads from tributaries. Other bay problems are low benthic diversity, the decline of seagrasses, 

and contaminated sediments. 

Escambia Bay is considered the most stressed or impacted of the 

embayments in the Pensacola Bay estuary (Department, 1998; Thorpe 

et al., 1997). Historically, numerous industrial and domestic waste 

 facilities discharged to the bay and the lower Escambia River. Many discharges still exist, and urban stormwater runoff also contributes contaminants to the bay.

Sediment Quality. Pensacola Bay has a long history of industrial use 

and, unfortunately, abuse. Current and historical land uses and industrial 

practices have left a legacy of contamination in the sediments of the estuary. As noted by DeBusk, Poyer, and Herzfeld (2002), sediment problems 

are not easily reversible because of the large storage of chemically and 

physically bound contaminants within the sediments.

There have been numerous evaluations since the 1970s of the quality 

of sediments in the Pensacola Bay estuary. DeBusk et al. (2002) evaluated different sediment contaminant studies of the Pensacola Bay estuary 

88 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2)

for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

420 Pace Mill 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

TSS, DO

Biology — 3c Planning List

493 Judges 

Bayou

Estuary IIIM Nutrients, 

DO

Biology 3c Planning List

502 Blackwater 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — — Biology, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses

548A Escambia 

Bay (N)

Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

TSS, DO

Chlorophyll a DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

3c Planning List

548AB Floridatown 

Park

Coastal IIIM — Chlorophyll a, 

Fecal Coliforms

DO, Total Coliforms, Turbidity3d Verified List

548B Escambia 

Bay (S)

Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

TSS, DO

Biology DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity3c Planning List

548BB Bay Bluffs 

Park

Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses

548C Pensacola 

Bay (N)

Estuary II Coliforms — DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity2 Meets Some 

Uses

548CB Garcon Point 

Location 3

Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses

548CC Redfish Point Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses

548D Pensacola 

Bay (Mid)

Estuary IIIM — — Chlorophyll a, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses

548E Pensacola 

Bay (Mouth)

Estuary IIIM Nutrients, 

BOD, 

Turbidity, 

TSS, Lead, 

Copper*

— — 3b Not Enough 

Data

548F Bayou 

Grande

Estuary IIIM — — — 3b Not Enough 

Data

548FB Navy Point Coastal IIIM — — Chlorophyll 

a, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, pH, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses

548G Blackwater 

Bay

Estuary IIIM — — — 3b Not Enough 

Data

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 89
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2)

for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

548H East Bay Estuary II — Fecal Coliforms, 

Historical 

Chlorophyll, Total 

Coliforms

Chlorophyll a, 

DO, Turbidity

3d Verified List

639 Direct Runoff 

to Bay

Stream IIIF Nonpoint 

Source 

Survey

Conductance, 

Iron

DO, pH, Turbidity 3c Planning List

649 Indian Bayou Estuary IIIF DO, 

Coliforms

3b Not Enough 

Data

663 Direct Runoff 

to Bay

Stream IIIF — Biology DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity3c Planning List

669 Direct Runoff 

to Bay

Stream IIIF — — DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity2 Meets Some 

Uses

676 Carpenter 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

DO

Chlorophyll a, 

Conductance, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

3d Verified List

685 Prairie Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

694 Trout Bayou Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

DO*

— DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity2 Meets Some 

Uses

701 East River 

Bay

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Turbidity

Conductance, DO Biology, Chlorophyll a, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Fluoride, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3d Verified List

738 Texar Bayou Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nonpoint 

Source 

Survey

Fecal Coliforms Chlorophyll a, 

DO, Total Coliforms, Turbidity

3d Verified List

738AB Bayview 

Park Pier

Coastal IIIM — Fecal Coliforms — 3d Verified List

740 Bayou 

Grande

Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

DO

DO Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

3c Planning List

8002 Pensacola 

Bay Gulf 1

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 3c Planning List

8002A Fort Pickens Coastal IIIM — Mercury in Fish Chlorophyll a, 

Fluoride, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia

3c Planning List

Table 3.8 (continued)

90 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2)

for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

8003 Pensacola 

Bay Gulf 2

Coastal IIIM — Mercury in Fish Chlorophyll 

a, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, pH, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

3c Planning List

8003D Sabine Yacht 

and Racket

Coastal IIIM — DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms

2 Meets Some 

Uses

8003E Pensacola 

Beach

Coastal IIIM — Mercury in Fish Fecal Coliforms 3c Planning List

8004 Pensacola 

Bay Gulf 3

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 3c Planning List

8004B Santa Rosa 

Island Park

Coastal IIIM — Mercury in Fish Fecal Coliforms 3c Planning List

8004C County Park 

East

Coastal IIIM — Mercury in Fish Fecal Coliforms 3c Planning List

8005 Pensacola 

Bay Gulf 4

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 3c Planning List

8006 Pensacola 

Bay Gulf 5

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 3c Planning List

8006A Navarre 

Beach Pier

Coastal IIIM — Mercury in Fish Fecal Coliforms 3c Planning List

8007 Pensacola 

Bay Gulf 6

Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 3c Planning List

8007A El Matador Coastal IIIM — Mercury in Fish Fecal Coliforms 3c Planning List

834 Direct Runoff 

to Bay

Estuary IIIM — — DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity2 Meets Some 

Uses

846 Bayou Chico Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO

Biology, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms

DO, Turbidity 3d Verified List

846A Jones Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

DO

Biology, Conductance, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia3d Verified List

846B Jackson 

Creek

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, 

TSS, DO

Biology, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms

Conductance, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

3c Planning List

846CB Bayou Chico 

Beach

Coastal IIIM — Chlorophyll a, 

Fecal Coliforms

DO, Total Coliforms, Turbidity3d Verified List

848DA Sanders 

Beach

Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses

Table 3.8 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 91
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2)

for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

915 Santa Rosa 

Sound

Estuary II — Fecal Coliforms Chlorophyll a, 

DO, Total Coliforms, Turbidity

3d Verified List

915A Woodlawn 

Beach

Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses

915B Navarre Park 

Hwy 98

Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses

915C Liza Jackson 

Park

Coastal IIIM — — Chlorophyll a, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses

915D Marler Park Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses

915E Quiet Water 

Beach

Coastal IIIM — — Chlorophyll a, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses

915F Shoreline 

Park

Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses

925 Direct Runoff 

to Bay

Estuary IIIM — — Chlorophyll a, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses

930 Direct Runoff 

to Gulf

Estuary IIIM — — Chlorophyll a, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2 Meets Some 

Uses

987 Bayou 

Garcon

Estuary IIIM DO, Color DO, Mercury in 

Fish

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity

3d Verified List

736 Panther 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

539 Mulatto 

Bayou

Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO

3b Not Enough 

Data

537 Jakes Bayou Estuary IIIM Biology 3c Planning List

523 Live Oak 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

534 Sandy Pt 

Bayou

Estuary IIIM Biology 3c Planning List

666 Direct Runoff 

to Bay

Stream Nonpoint 

Source 

Survey

3b Not Enough 

Data

683 Dean Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

Table 3.8 (continued)

92 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 

303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria3

Potentially

Impaired (Cat. 

3c/3d) for Listed 

Parameters

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2)

for Listed 

 Parameters

EPA’s 305(b)/

303(d) Integrated 

Report Assessment 

Category for WBID4

864 Williams 

Creek

Stream IIIF Biology 3c Planning List

893 Direct Runoff 

to Bay

Estuary IIIM Fecal Coliforms 3c Planning List

510 Turtle Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 Meets Some 

Uses

740 Bayou 

Grande

Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

DO

3b Not Enough 

Data

444 Spencer 

Field Drain

Stream IIIF — Biology — 3c Planning List

481 Pelican 

Bayou

Biology — 3c Planning List

635 White Oak 

Bayou

Biology — 3c Planning List

870 Direct Runoff 

to Bay

Biology 3c Planning List

Notes:

*Included on Planning List

1

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

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

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies

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

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

attained;

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

3d —Meets Verified List criteria and is verified impaired for one or more designated uses;

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

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

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

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

pollutant; and

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 4The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple 

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

WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 

9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the 

single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

F = Fresh water

M = Marine

TSS = Total suspended solids

Table 3.8 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 93
Figure 3.7: Composite Map of the Pensacola Bay Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List 

Waters

(see sidebar on page 96 for a list of evaluated sediment quality studies). 

Santa Rosa Sound was not included in the evaluation. Three broad categories of contaminants were evaluated: trace metals (heavy metals), trace 

organic compounds, and nutrients. Potential sources of metal contaminants are urban stormwater, manufacturing and fabricating processes, pesticides and other biocides, and some household wastes. Street and building 

runoff potentially contain polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from 

asphalt, tar, and tires. Evaluated data were compiled from 510 sampling 

sites and 55 different analytes. The following text summarizes fi ndings 

from that report.

Several areas of the estuary had signifi cant elevations of concentrations of contaminants and frequency of elevated contaminants compared 

with the Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (SQAG) developed by 

MacDonald (1994). SQAGs are established guidelines for 34 high-priority compounds utilizing biological effects-based criteria or threshold levels 

for expected impacts to biota. The areas of greatest concern for sediment 

contamination were identifi ed as Bayou Chico, lower Bayou Grande, upper 

Bayou Texar, mid and upper Escambia Bay, and Pensacola Bay, near the 

downtown Pensacola waterfront. Table 3.9 summarizes these fi ndings. 

94 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Heavy metals were identifi ed as an important contaminant for Bayous 

Chico, Grande, and Texar, and for Pensacola Bay. Pesticides were found 

in all of these waterbodies and included many of the older, now-banned 

chlorinated pesticides. Nutrients, as nitrogen and phosphorus, were also 

identifi ed as sediment contaminants of concern in all of these waterbodies. 

Though parts of the Pensacola Bay estuary have high levels of sediment contamination, overall, the bay would be characterized as having low 

to moderate sediment contamination problems. Compared with evaluations performed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) (Long, Sloane, Carr, Johnson, Biedenbach, Scott, Thursby, Crecelius, Peven, Windon, Smith, and Loganathon, 1997) for three other Panhandle estuaries (Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrews Bay, and Apalachicola 

Bay), Pensacola Bay had higher rates of exceedance of background metals 

concentrations and relatively high concentrations of PAHs. Much of this 

baywide elevation of contaminants was attributed to the high contaminant 

levels found in Bayou Chico. Long et al. (1997) found that the highest 

incidence of sediment toxicity occurred with Bayou Chico samples. By 

comparison, sediment contaminant levels of pesticides and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in Pensacola Bay were similar to those of Choctawhatchee 

Bay and St. Andrew Bay.

Table 3.9: Significant Sediment Contaminants and Their Location in the Pensacola Bay 

Estuary

Waterbody Sediment Contaminants

Bayou Chico Heavy metals: cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and mercury

PAHs: benzo(a)-pyrene, anthracene, acenapthene

PCBs

Pesticides: chlordane, DDD, DDT, endrin, dieldrin, Mirex

Bayou Grande—primarily 

lower bayou

Heavy metals: silver, cadmium, and lead

Nutrients: nitrogen

Pesticides: dieldrin

PCBs

Bayou Texar—primarily 

upper bayou

Heavy metals: cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, and mercury

Nutrients: phosphorus, lower bayou

PAHs: benzo(a)-pyrene, acenapthene, fluoranthene, perylene

Hydrocarbons

Pesticides: chlordane, DDD, DDT, endosulfan, dieldrin

PCBs

Escambia Bay Nutrients: phosphorus and nitrogen

PAHs: napthalene

Hydrocarbons

Pesticides: endosulfan and Mirex

PCBs

Pensacola Bay Heavy metals: cadmium, copper, and lead

Nutrients: phosphorus and nitrogen

PAHs: benzo(a)-pyrene

Hydrocarbons

Pesticides: endosulfan and Mirex

PCBs

Source: DeBusk, 2002. 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 95
Permitted Discharges and Land Uses

Point Sources. Figure 3.7 shows permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities, landfi lls, and delineated ground water contamination areas in the 

planning unit. Appendix E lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface 

discharge facilities, along with their permitted fl ows. It also lists landfi lls 

or solid waste facilities.

There are 23 permitted NPDES surface water dischargers in the planning unit. Of these, 3 are industrial wastewater discharges, 5 are domestic 

wastewater discharges, 8 are concrete batch plants, 3 are industrial stormwater, and 4 are petroleum cleanup sites. The largest surface discharge of 

wastewater, 20 mgd, is from the Main Street Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

Other large domestic waste discharges are 2.35 mgd from the U.S. Naval 

Air Station and 2.4 mgd from Pensacola Beach’s Wastewater Treatment 

Plant. Signifi cant industrial dischargers are Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (1.5 mgd) and Sterling Fibers, Inc. (5.5 mgd). As of December 

2003, Air Products removed its surface water discharge from Pensacola 

Bay and redirected it to percolation ponds. There are an additional 

17 permitted ground water discharges, including 8 domestic wastewater 

and 9 industrial wastewater.

There are 3 active Superfund and 3 active state-funded hazardous 

waste sites in the planning unit. They cover a range of contaminants, 

including wood-preserving waste, dry-cleaning waste, and chemical-

 manufacturing waste. There are 4 identifi ed brownfi elds areas, ranging 

in size from 10,650 acres to 2.44 million acres. Historically, poor waste 

management practices have led to the contamination of the sand and gravel 

aquifer in parts of Pensacola, with the resultant closure of 1 public water 

supply well and the fi tting of 10 others with granular carbon fi lters (ECUA 

Web site; Touart-Rohike, 2004). Figure 2.6 depicts the location of public 

water supply wells infl uenced by delineated ground water contamination 

areas. There are 17 active construction and demolition debris landfi lls and 

1 active Class I landfi ll.

Nonpoint Sources. Predominant land uses in the planning unit are 

upland pine forests and tree plantations, 40 percent; residential, 17 percent; 

and wetlands, 9.1 percent. Other land uses include institutional, 5.1 percent, and shrub and brushland, 6.2 percent. These land uses can be 

 associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. 

Tables G.9 and G.10 in Appendix G contain summary information on 

general land uses in the planning unit.

The NWFWMD purchased 3,235 acres of land on Garcon Point 

between Escambia and Blackwater Bays as conservation land. Remnant 

coastal bog communities cover these conservation lands. These bog communities contain one of the state’s remaining pitcher plant prairies, along 

with other carnivorous plants (NWFWMD, 2001). Another 1,176 acres 

of conservation lands were purchased in the Escribano Point area to protect 

remaining estuarine habitat.

Nonpoint Source Loading Estimates. A NWFWMD study made 

initial estimates of nonpoint source land use loadings into the Pensacola 

Bay estuary (Hunner, Ard, and Edmunds, 1994). The purpose of the 

study was to provide an estimated annual load for the estuary and to 

Sediment Quality 

Studies of the 

Pensacola Bay 

Estuary

1974–75

EPA Environmental and 

Recovery studies of Escambia Bay and the Pensacola 

Bay system, Florida (Olinger 

et al., 1975).

1988

Data for Physical Sediment 

Properties and Sediment 

Organic Matter (George, 

1988).

1982–1991

The Department collected 

data for Pensacola Bay, upper 

Escambia Bay, and Bayous 

Chico and Grande (Seal, 

Calder, Sloane, Shropp, and 

Windam, 1994).

1990

The NWFWMD, with assistance from the University of 

West Florida, collected data 

from Bayou Chico (Stone and 

Morgan, 1991).

1994

Bayou Chico Sediment and 

Water Quality Data Report 

(Wood and Bartel, 1994).

1994

EPA statistical summary and 

assessment framework for 

Bayou Chico conducted with 

the University of North Texas 

(EPA, 1998).

1993–94

EPA sediment studies of 

Bayous Texar and Chico. 

1993–94

NOAA sediment toxicity 

study of Panhandle estuaries, Pensacola Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, St. Andrew 

Bay, and Apalachicola Bay 

(Long et al., 1997).

1991–94 and 1996

EPA EMAP sampling and 

1996 Pensacola Bay Study 

conducted by the EPA’s Gulf 

Ecology Division at Gulf 

Breeze, Florida.

96 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
 identify and prioritize subbasins with the greatest potential to contribute loading to the estuary. Loadings were derived for nutrients, organic 

sediments, and suspended sediments for each land use per subbasin. It 

was concluded that the highest priority basins were Pond Creek, the lower 

Escambia River, and the East River, because they produced the largest 

loadings.

Stormwater data were collected and analyzed for the Palofax/Coyle 

watershed (Hunner, Bartel, and Edmunds, 1995) in downtown Pensacola. 

Periodic exceedances of water quality criteria were found for zinc, lead, 

cadmium, and iron. 

Ecological Summary

More than 200 species of fi sh and shellfi sh, both freshwater and 

marine, have been recorded from the Pensacola Bay estuary, including four 

anadromous fi sh species: Gulf sturgeon, Alabama shad, skipjack herring, 

and striped bass. Many freshwater species are tolerant of low salinity and 

utilize the estuary’s embayments and marshes.

Submerged aquatic vegetation was once common in the estuary until 

about the 1950s. Pensacola Bay has since lost about a 14-mile stretch 

of seagrass beds, while Escambia Bay is nearly void of seagrasses. Three 

species of true seagrasses (turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoal grass) and 

two species of a brackish water grass (tape grass and widgeon grass) were 

historically abundant in the Pensacola Bay estuary. Some patches of tape 

grass and widgeon grass remain in Escambia Bay, while parts of Santa 

Rosa Sound continue to support turtle grass, shoal grass, manatee grass, 

and widgeon grass. More recent analyses indicate that there may be some 

recovery of submerged aquatic vegetation in upper Escambia Bay (Lores, 

Pasko, Patrick, Quarles, Campbell, and Macauley, 2000). Tape grass and 

widgeon grass are present in Blackwater Bay. Efforts are under way by the 

Department’s Northwest District Ecosystem Restoration Section to restore 

seagrasses and other wetland habitat in Pensacola Bay, as exemplifi ed by 

Project Greenshores, described in the following section on Water Quality 

Improvement Plans and Projects.

The harvest of shellfi sh is allowed in portions of the Pensacola Bay 

estuary (http://www.fl oridaaquaculture.com/SEAS/SEAS_westgulf.htm). 

Part of East Bay is conditionally approved for winter harvest from November to February, while the northwestern part of the bay is conditionally 

restricted during that time period. East Bay is conditionally approved 

during the spring, March to June, and during October. The eastern 

edge of Escambia Bay is conditionally approved for winter harvest from 

November to March, while the remainder of the bay south of Interstate 10 

is conditionally restricted for that period. Escambia Bay is conditionally 

approved for spring harvest, April to June, and during October. Shellfi sh 

harvesting is prohibited in Pensacola Bay, the East Bay River, north Escambia Bay, and Blackwater Bay.

Historically, fi sh kills frequently occurred in the Pensacola Bay estuary 

and its tributary bayous, particularly Bayous Texar, Grande, and Chico. 

Many of these kills were fairly substantial in size, more than 1,000 fi sh. 

Fish kills were particularly prevalent before the mid-1990s, but with water 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 97
quality improvements the size and number of fi shkills have decreased. 

More recently, red tide events in 1999 and 2000 resulted in fi sh kills (http:

//www.fl oridamarine.org/fi shkill/search_results.asp).

The EPA’s evaluation of benthic habitats noted that large areas of the 

Pensacola Bay estuary have a degraded benthic index (EPA, July 1999). 

Twelve sites, predominantly in Pensacola Bay and Bayous Chico, Grande, 

and Texar, were identifi ed as degraded using a benthic index. The EPA 

observed that Pensacola Bay has predominately muddy sediments, particularly up into the bayous. The dominant organisms living in the mud 

are polychaete and nemertean worms, both generally tolerant of habitat 

disturbances.

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects

Project Greenshores is a partnership between the Department and over 

60 partners, including the military and local governments. It was begun as 

a habitat restoration project for the north shore of Pensacola Bay to create 

salt marsh, seagrass, and oyster reef habitat. The Department maintains its 

own greenhouses to propagate vegetation for planting. The fi rst restoration 

site has been completed, providing 8 acres of salt marsh and 7 acres of 

oyster reef, with additional plantings of seagrasses. A second site is under 

construction and when completed will provide an additional 27 acres of 

salt marsh, oyster, and seagrass habitat. 

The project includes an environmental education component, allowing community involvement from volunteers, media exposure, educational 

signage, and school participation through the American Star educational 

boat. Volunteers help with the Department’s greenhouse, planting, monitoring, and preparing and deploying oyster shells used in reefs.

Pensacola’s Transportation/Stormwater Plan addresses transportation and stormwater-related projects. It is funded largely from the Local 

Option Gas Tax and the Stormwater Capital Projects Fund. The city 

implemented a stormwater utility fee that generates about $1.5 million per 

year. Pensacola anticipates spending about $2.5 million per year through 

fi scal year 2007 for transportation and stormwater projects. About 15 different stormwater retrofi t and drainage improvement projects are planned 

by the city of Pensacola through fi scal year 2007 (see Chapter 2 for a 

project list).

Citizen advocacy groups such as the Bayou Texar Foundation and the 

Bayou Chico Association have been instrumental in focusing government 

attention on improving water quality in Pensacola Bay and its tributaries. The Bayou Chico Association lobbied for the removal of bridges at 

State Road 292 and railroad crossings to enhance fl ushing of Bayou Chico 

(NWFWMD, 2001). The association in partnership with the Department 

and Escambia County continues to pursue additional wetland protection 

and possible restoration for the Jones Swamp Preserve (Thorpe, 2004).

Many of the city’s proposed stormwater improvements will provide 

expected improvements in Bayou Chico and Bayou Texar. Stormwater 

treatment vaults will be installed to remove sediments and suspended 

sediments from stormwater runoff. The city anticipates that by the 

end of 2004, 12 baffl e boxes and 46 separators will have been installed 

98 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
to treat stormwater runoff (Garza, 2004). The Department is providing Section 319 funds to the city for the 17th Avenue stormwater retrofi t 

 project to remove pollutants from Bayou Texar. The project will include an 

underground vault to remove solids and a wet retention pond for nutrient 

and biological oxygen demand removal (Sanzone, 2004). In a separate 

effort, the Department is providing Section 319 funds to Escambia County 

for the Glynn Key Stormwater Wetland. This project will provide stormwater treatment for the Southgate Plaza Shopping Center in the western 

headwater area of Bayou Chico (Sanzone, 2004).

The NWFWMD is also working to improve water quality in the 

Pensacola Bay planning unit. The district has designed a stormwater 

treatment system for the Palofax drainage basin that uses alum injection to 

remove contaminants. Alum sludge is removed for disposal in an ECUA 

waste water collection system. A portion of the funding for this project 

is provided by an EPA 319 grant. The water management district is also 

developing a stormwater treatment facility for Jackson Branch, using the 

Clark Sand Pits as a retention area. Jackson Branch feeds into the upper 

reach of Bayou Chico (NWFWMD, 2001). The water management 

district is providing Florida Forever Capital Improvement Grants for new 

stormwater retrofi t projects in the Bayou Texar/Carpenter Creek watershed and Little Sabine Bay watershed, which are part of Santa Rosa Sound 

(Thorpe, 2004).

Escambia County received federal funds for a Jones Creek Stream 

Restoration Project that will restore wetland hydrology and improve water 

quality in Jones Creek and Bayou Chico. 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 99

Chapter 4: The Planning List of Potentially 

Impaired Waters

The Planning List

The Planning List (Table 4.1) includes all waterbody segments (waterbody identifi cation numbers [WBID]) in the Pensacola Bay Basin that are 

identifi ed as potentially impaired. The table also indicates the parameters 

of concern.

Figure 4.1 shows waterbody segments on the Planning List. In this 

fi gure, the entire watersheds for listed waterbody segments are highlighted. 

Often, however, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has been 

assessed. Other waters in the assessment unit may not be impaired, or data 

may not be available.

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) methodology used to 

develop the Planning List follows the tenet of “independent applicability,” 

which means that a waterbody will be listed if any of its designated uses are 

potentially impaired. Waterbody segments on the Planning List must meet 

specifi c thresholds and data suffi ciency and data quality requirements in the 

IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). Appendix A

describes the legislative and regulatory background for the development 

of the Planning and Verifi ed Lists. The methodology in Appendix B

describes the criteria and thresholds required for both lists under the IWR.

Relationship Between the Planning List and 

the 303(d) List

The state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the Pensacola Bay 

Basin is updated in two stages. The Planning List represents the fi rst stage 

of this process.

Potentially impaired waters identifi ed in this report will be further 

assessed in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle to verify their 

impairment. In addition to evaluating more thoroughly the data used to 

place these waters on the Planning List (including the verifi cation of quality 

assurance and data suffi ciency), the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (Department), working with local stakeholders, will identify 

other existing data and collect additional data as needed to complete the 

assessment.

Once the additional monitoring is completed, the data will be assessed 

and the Department will develop a Verifi ed List of impaired waters. 

Appendix B describes the criteria for data evaluation used to verify 

impaired waterbodies and produce the Verifi ed List. The Verifi ed List will 

be adopted by Secretarial Order in late 2005 and then submitted to the 

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 101
Table 4.1: Potentially Impaired Waters in the Pensacola Bay Basin 

WBID Waterbody Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody 

Impairment Identified under the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Parameter of 

 Concern

Projected Year of 

TMDL Development

Blackwater River Planning Unit

356 Bucket Branch Stream Nonpoint 

Source Survey

2011

11A West Fork Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients

2011–Nutrients

1999–Coliforms

Fecal Coliforms

127 Manning Creek Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity, TSS

2011

1999–Coliforms

Biology

176 Pond Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms

18 Big Coldwater Creek Stream Coliforms, TSS 2011

1999–Coliforms

Fecal Coliforms

18A East Fork Stream Coliforms, TSS 2011

1999–Coliforms

Biology

19 Big Juniper Creek Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2011–Turbidity

1999–Coliforms

24 Blackwater River Stream Biology, Mercury in Fish

24A Blackwater River Stream Coliforms, Mercury 

in Fish, TSS

2011

1999–Coliforms

Biology, Conductance, Fecal 

Coliforms, Mercury in Fish

24B Blackwater River Stream Coliforms, 

Nonpoint Source 

Survey

2011

1999–Coliforms

Mercury in Fish

24C Blackwater River Stream Biology, Mercury in Fish

24D Blackwater River Stream Coliforms, 

Mercury in Fish

2011–Fish

1999–Coliforms

Biology, Mercury in Fish

260 Clear Creek Stream Mercury in Fish, Biology

50 Oak Creek Stream Biology

82 Malloy Branch Stream Biology

83 Hurricane Creek Stream Biology

88 Mare Creek Stream Turbidity, DO 2011 Biology

90 Cobb Branch Stream Biology

213 Mare Branch Stream Biology

225 Penny Creek Stream Biology

271 Ates Creek Stream Biology

352 Tarkiln Head Stream Biology

Escambia River Planning Unit

10 Big Escambia Creek Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity, TSS

2011 Biology

10A Escambia River Stream Mercury in Fish

10B Escambia River Stream Mercury in Fish

10C Escambia River Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Mercury 

in Fish, TSS

2011 Mercury in Fish, Iron

102 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
WBID Waterbody Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody 

Impairment Identified under the 

Parameter of Concern Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Projected Year of 

TMDL Development

Escambia River Planning Unit, continued

10D Escambia River Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Mercury 

in Fish, TSS

2011 Mercury in Fish, Iron

10E Escambia River Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Mercury 

in Fish, DO

2011 Conductance, DO, Mercury 

in Fish

10F Escambia River Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Mercury 

in Fish, TSS

2011 Conductance, DO, Fecal 

 Coliforms, Mercury in Fish, 

Iron

168 McDavid Creek Stream Biology

25 Wiggins Branch Stream Biology

36 Bray Mill Creek Stream Nutrients 2011

5 Pine Barren Creek Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2011 Biology

7 Canoe Creek Stream Coliforms 2011 Biology, Fecal Coliforms, 

Mercury in Fish

79 Hall Branch Stream Biology

87 Little Pine Barren 

Creek

Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2011 Biology

9 Pritchett Mill Branch Stream Biology

39 Brestworks Branch Stream Biology

395 Williams Creek Stream Biology

531 Clear Creek Stream Biology

586 Thompson Bayou Stream Biology

6 Beaverdam Creek Stream Biology

71 Mitchell Creek Stream Biology

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

420 Pace Mill Creek Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity, TSS, DO

2011 Biology

444 Spencer Field Drain Stream Biology

481 Pelican Bayou Estuary Biology

493 Judges Bayou Estuary Nutrients, DO 2011 Biology

539 Mulatto Bayou Estuary Coliforms, DO, 

Nutrients

2011

548A Escambia Bay (N) Estuary Coliforms, 

Nutrients, Turbidity, 

TSS, DO

2006 Chlorophyll a

548AB Floridatown Park Coastal Chlorophyll a, Fecal 

Coliforms

548B Escambia Bay (S) Estuary Coliforms, 

Nutrients, Turbidity, 

TSS, DO

2006 Biology

Table 4.1 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 103
WBID Waterbody Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody 

Impairment Identified under the 

Parameter of Concern Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Projected Year of 

TMDL Development

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit, continued

548C Pensacola Bay (N) Estuary Coliforms 2006

548E Pensacola Bay 

(Mouth)

Estuary Nutrients, BOD, 

Turbidity,

2006 TSS, Pb, Copper

548H East Bay Estuary Fecal Coliforms, Historical 

Chlorophyll, Total Coliforms

635 White Oak Bayou Estuary Biology

639 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream Nonpoint Source 

Survey

2006 Conductance, Iron

649 Indian Bayou Estuary Coliforms, DO, 

Nonpoint Source 

Survey

2011

663 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream Biology

666 Direct Runoff to Bay 

(Mulatto Bay)

Estuary Nonpoint Source 

Survey

2006

676 Carpenter Creek Stream Coliforms 2011 Fecal Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, DO

694 Trout Bayou Estuary Coliforms, DO 2011

701 East River Bay Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2011 Conductance, DO

738 Texar Bayou Estuary Coliforms, 

Nonpoint Source 

Survey

2011 Fecal Coliforms

738AB Bayview Park Pier Coastal Fecal Coliforms

740 Bayou Grande Estuary Coliforms, DO 2006 DO

846 Bayou Chico Estuary Coliforms, 

Nutrients, DO

2006 Biology, Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms

846A Jones Creek Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

Turbidity, DO

2011 Biology, Conductance, 

DO, Fecal Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms

846B Jackson Creek Stream Coliforms, 

Nutrients, Turbidity, 

TSS, DO

2011 Biology, DO, Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms

846CB Bayou Chico Beach Coastal Chlorophyll a, Fecal 

Coliforms

915 Santa Rosa Sound Estuary Fecal Coliforms

987 Bayou Garcon Estuary DO, Color 2006 DO, Mercury in Fish

8002 Pensacola Bay Gulf 1 Coastal Mercury in Fish

8002A Ft. Pickens Coastal Mercury in Fish

8003 Pensacola Bay Gulf 2 Coastal Mercury in Fish

8003E Pensacola Beach Coastal Mercury in Fish

8004 Pensacola Bay Gulf 3 Coastal Mercury in Fish

Table 4.1 (continued)

104 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
WBID Waterbody Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody 

Impairment Identified under the 

Parameter of Concern Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Projected Year of 

TMDL Development

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit, continued

8004B Santa Rosa Island 

Park

Coastal Mercury in Fish

8004C County Park East Coastal Mercury in Fish

8005 Pensacola Bay Gulf 4 Coastal Mercury in Fish

8006 Pensacola Bay Gulf 5 Coastal Mercury in Fish

8006A Navarre Beach Pier Coastal Mercury in Fish

8007 Pensacola Bay Gulf 6 Coastal Mercury in Fish

8007A El Matador Coastal Mercury in Fish

Shoal River Planning Unit

100 Caney Creek Stream Biology

117 Turkey Creek Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity

2011

144 Little Creek Stream Coliforms 2011

160 Shoal River Stream Biology

160A Shoal River Stream Fecal Coliforms

160B Shoal River Stream Fecal Coliforms

167 Gum Creek Stream Biology

190 Middle Creek Stream Biology

282 Bottle Branch Stream Biology

300 Juniper Creek Stream Biology

331 Williams Branch Stream Biology

34 Horsehead Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms

35 Pond Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms

91 Green Branch Stream Biology

92 Unnamed Outlet Stream Biology

Yellow River Planning Unit

30 Yellow River Stream Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Mercury 

in Fish

2011 Fecal Coliforms, 

Mercury in Fish

30A Yellow River Stream Turbidity, Mercury 

in Fish, DO

2011 Mercury in Fish, Iron

30B Yellow River Stream Mercury in Fish, Iron

30C Yellow River Stream Mercury in Fish

30D Yellow River Stream Mercury in Fish

107 Murder Creek Stream Coliforms, DO 2011 Biology

145 Lake Karick Lake Biology

231 Davis Mill Creek Stream Biology

364 Julian Mill Creek Stream Biology

Table 4.1 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 105
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an update to Florida’s 

 current 303(d) list. Subsequently, the Department will develop Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for 303(d) listed waterbodies.

Summary of Potential Impairments

The Pensacola Bay Basin contains a total of 351 waterbody segments. 

Of these, 112 are on the Planning List as potentially impaired based on 

the IWR evaluation criteria and/or the 1998 303(d) list criteria. Table 4.2

summarizes the major parameters for which potential impairments were 

identifi ed.

For those waterbodies listed in Table 4.2 as potentially impaired for

dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, additional analysis is required to identify the 

pollutant causing the low DO. As previously mentioned, low DO levels 

are often natural and not always attributable to pollutants. For this reason, 

additional sampling and evaluation will be conducted to differentiate 

between pollutant-related and other causes of low DO before the Verifi ed 

List for the basin is developed.

The greatest number of waterbodies is potentially impaired for either 

fecal or total coliform bacteria or biology. In 2001, the EPA fi nalized fecal 

coliform TMDLs for two segments of the Blackwater River and fi ve of its 

tributaries (EPA, February 2001a, 2001b). 

Forty-nine waterbodies failed bioassessment tests and were found to be 

impaired based on the IWR. Bioassessment evaluation includes a habitat 

and water quality component. A causative pollutant must be identifi ed 

before a waterbody is verifi ed as impaired for biology. Bioassessments failed 

in many streams because of poor habitat quality caused by sedimentation 

or high suspended solids loads in the water column. The 1998 303(d) list 

does not identify biological impairment, but rather total suspended solids 

(TSS) and turbidity.

WBID Waterbody Segment

Waterbody 

Type1

1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody 

Impairment Identified under the 

Parameter of Concern Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Projected Year of 

TMDL Development

Yellow River Planning Unit, continued

306 Trammel Creek Stream DO

429 Dead River Stream Biology

Notes:

1

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

Fish = Fish consumption advisory issued by the Florida Department of Health based on mercury

TSS = Total suspension solids

DO = Dissolved oxygen

BOD = Biological oxygen demand

Pb = Lead

Table 4.1 (continued)

106 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Figure 4.1: Pensacola Bay Basin Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment, with Overlay of 1998 

303(d) List

Table 4.2: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Pensacola Bay Basin 

Parameter

Potential Waterbody Segment Impairments

Included Only 

on the 1998 

303(d) List

Identified Only 

by the Impaired 

 Surface Waters 

Rule Evaluation

Identified on Both 

the 1998 303(d) 

List and by the 

Impaired Surface 

Waters Evaluation

Total Potential 

Impairments

Dissolved Oxygen 11 4 5 20

Nutrients (General, Chlorophyll a,

Other Data)

 9 4 13

Coliforms (General, Total, Fecal) 23 11 11 45

Biology 55 55

Metals 1 6 7

Total Suspended Solids or Turbidity 23 23

Fish Advisory 23 8 31

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 107
Six waterbodies were placed on the 1998 303(d) list for nonpoint 

source pollution, based on a survey of local experts and their best professional judgment. Those waterbodies were not counted in Table 4.2.

At the completion of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, 

the data collected for parameters listed in Table 4.1 will be reevaluated to 

verify the condition of the waterbody segments. Chapter 5 provides more 

information about the Phase 2 monitoring activities.

Waters with Insufficient Data To Determine 

Impairment

Any waters that do not have suffi cient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR, but that were included on the 

1998 303(d) list, will remain on the 303(d) list maintained by the EPA. 

They will also be included on the Planning List until suffi cient data are 

available to evaluate their condition. The Department intends to collect 

data on these waters in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle to 

verify their condition.

Many waterbodies in the Pensacola Bay Basin are not identifi ed on 

the 1998 303(d) list and do not have suffi cient (or any) data to be assessed 

under the IWR methodology. Because of resource limitations, it may not 

be possible for the Department to monitor all of these waterbodies during 

the fi rst fi ve-year watershed management cycle. The priority during 

Phase 2 of the cycle is to conduct monitoring and other data gathering to 

address potentially impaired waters identifi ed on the Planning List.

While the Department plans to monitor waters without enough data 

to determine potential impairment during subsequent watershed cycles, 

available data gathered by others will also be used for this purpose. It is 

important that the Department and stakeholders in the basin coordinate 

their monitoring plans to collect data most effi ciently for these waterbodies. Chapter 5 discusses monitoring and data evaluation priorities 

and objectives, database management issues, and the development of the 

Verifi ed List.

108 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Chapter 5: Strategic Monitoring and 

Data Evaluation 

Strategic Monitoring and Data Acquisition 

Priorities

Waters on the Planning List must meet specifi c thresholds and data 

suffi ciency and data quality requirements in the Impaired Surface Waters 

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

Planning List includes waterbody segments that were previously on the 

1998 303(d) list, but for which the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (Department) had insuffi cient data for assessment under the 

IWR. Additional data that are collected will be used to verify the status of 

waters listed as potentially impaired, assess those with insuffi cient data, and 

support modeling efforts to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) 

for impaired waterbodies.

Due to resource limitations, the Department alone is not capable of 

addressing all of the strategic monitoring objectives in the fi rst fi ve-year 

cycle for the six Group 4 basins. The Department’s monitoring focus 

during the months prior to submitting the Verifi ed List of impaired waters 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (in late 2005) is to 

obtain data necessary to verify the status of potentially impaired waters.

Priority for data acquisition has been given to Planning List waterbody 

segments that are also on the 1998 303(d) list and the potentially impaired 

waterbodies that did not have suffi cient data to verify their condition at the 

time the Planning List was generated. Data from other monitoring organizations will be included in the evaluation to help verify the condition of 

potentially impaired waterbodies and provide data by which other waterbodies can be evaluated.

Data Acquisition Objectives

Currently, 66 waterbody segments on the Planning List in the basin 

are targeted for additional monitoring. As discussed, the Department’s 

focus prior to producing the Verifi ed List is to collect suffi cient data to 

evaluate waterbodies that are potentially impaired for parameters that do 

not have suffi cient data to meet the Verifi ed List evaluation criteria (Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.). The priority is to collect data for waterbodies on 

the 1998 303(d) list. An additional monitoring priority is to develop data 

that may be needed to identify pollutants causing dissolved oxygen (DO) 

exceedances or biological impairments. As mentioned in Chapter 3, these 

conditions are at times not attributable to pollutants.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 109
Table 5.1 summarizes the objectives of data gathering and evaluation 

to verify the condition of waterbody segments on the Planning List.

Phase 2 Assessment: Data Collection and 

Database Management Leading to the 

Development of the 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters

The Department has been working to update the database that will be 

used in the Phase 2 assessment, collecting its own data as well as working 

with the other key data providers to obtain the most current and comprehensive water quality data. The data to be used in evaluating waterbodies 

to be included on the Verifi ed List include the following:

• Existing data in the database that were not collected during the Planning List period of record,

• Existing data that had not been imported into the IWR Database at 

the time of the Planning List evaluation, and 

• Monitoring data that had not been collected or reported.

Table 5.1: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation Objectives for Planning List Waters in 

the Pensacola Bay Basin 

WBID Waterbody Segment

Monitoring and Data Evaluation Objectives To Address 

Planning List Waterbody Segments

Verify Potential Impairment 

(Parameters Exceeding Planning 

List Evaluation Criteria and/or 

Included on the 1998 303[d] List)

Confirm Impairment 

(Parameters Exceeding 

Verified List Evaluation 

Criteria)

Identify/Verify Causative 

Pollutant(s)

Escambia River Planning Unit

10 Big Escambia Creek SCI, Fecals, Totals, Turbidity, 

TSS

SCI

168 McDavid Creek SCI SCI

25 Wiggins Branch SCI SCI

39 Brestworks Branch SCI SCI

5 Pine Barren Creek SCI SCI

79 Hall Branch SCI SCI

9 Pritchett Mill 

Branch

SCI SCI

87 Little Pine Barren 

Creek

Fecals, Totals, Turbidity

88 Mare Creek Turbidity, DO DO

36 Bray Mill Creek Chlorophyll a

10E Escambia River DO DO

7 Canoe Creek Fecals

110 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
WBID Waterbody Segment

Monitoring and Data Evaluation Objectives To Address 

Planning List Waterbody Segments

Verify Potential Impairment 

(Parameters Exceeding Planning 

List Evaluation Criteria and/or 

Included on the 1998 303[d] List)

Confirm Impairment 

(Parameters Exceeding 

Verified List Evaluation 

Criteria)

Identify/Verify Causative 

Pollutant(s)

Escambia River Planning Unit, continued

395 Williams Creek SCI SCI

531 Clear Creek SCI SCI

586 Thompson Bayou SCI SCI

10F Escambia River Fecals

Blackwater River Planning Unit

24 Blackwater River SCI SCI

24A Blackwater River SCI, Fecals SCI

24B Blackwater River SCI, Fecals, Totals SCI

24C Blackwater River SCI SCI

24D Blackwater River SCI SCI

18 Big Coldwater 

Creek

Fecals

11A West Fork Fecals, Chlorophyll a

127 Manning Creek Totals, Fecals, TSS, Turbidity

225 Penny Creek SCI SCI

260 Clear Creek SCI SCI

271 Ates Creek SCI SCI

352 Tarkiln Head SCI SCI

50 Oak Creek SCI SCI

83 Hurricane Creek SCI SCI

90 Cobb Branch SCI SCI

Yellow River Planning Unit

107 Murder Creek Fecals, Totals, DO, SCI DO

30 Yellow River Fecals

145 Lake Karick SCI

190 Middle Creek SCI SCI

231 Davis Mill Creek SCI SCI

282 Bottle Branch SCI SCI

300 Juniper Creek SCI SCI

91 Green Branch SCI SCI

364 Julian Mill Creek SCI SCI

356 Bucket Branch SCI SCI

429 Dead River SCI SCI

92 Unnamed outlet SCI SCI

Table 5.1 (continued)

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 111
WBID Waterbody Segment

Monitoring and Data Evaluation Objectives To Address 

Planning List Waterbody Segments

Verify Potential Impairment 

(Parameters Exceeding Planning 

List Evaluation Criteria and/or 

Included on the 1998 303[d] List)

Confirm Impairment 

(Parameters Exceeding 

Verified List Evaluation 

Criteria)

Identify/Verify Causative 

Pollutant(s)

Shoal River Planning Unit

160 Shoal River SCI SCI

117 Turkey Creek Fecals, Totals, Turbidity

144 Little Creek Fecals, Totals

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

420 Pace Mill Creek Fecals, Totals, Turbidity, TSS, 

DO

DO

444 Spencer Field Drain SCI SCI

846A Jones Creek SCI, Chlorophyll a, Fecals, 

DO

Totals SCI, DO

846B Jackson Creek SCI, Chlorophyll a, Fecals, 

Totals, DO

SCI, DO

639 Direct Runoff to 

Bay

SCI, Fluoride, Iron SCI

666 Direct Runoff to 

Bay

SCI SCI

676 Carpenter Creek Fecals, Totals

539 Mulatto Bayou Fecals, Totals, 

Chlorophyll a, DO

DO

548C Pensacola Bay Totals

493 Judges Bayou Chlorophyll a, DO DO

548B Escambia Bay Totals, Chlorophyll a

548E Pensacola Bay 

Mouth

Chlorophyll a, Lead, Copper, 

DO, Turbidity

DO

649 Indian Bayou Fecals, Totals, DO DO

694 Trout Bayou Totals

846 Bayou Chico Chlorophyll a Fecals, Totals

548A Escambia Bay Chlorophyll a

987 Bayou Garcon Color, DO DO

738 Bayou Texar Fecals

SCI = Stream condition index

Fecals = Fecal coliforms

Totals = Total coliforms

TSS = Total suspended solids

Table 5.1 (continued)

112 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
The database now includes monitoring data collected before and after 

the Planning List period of record that were not evaluated for the Planning List. The 10-year period of record for the data used to produce the 

Planning List for the Pensacola Bay Basin extends from January 1, 1993, 

to December 31, 2002. The 7.5-year period of record for the Verifi ed List 

evaluation, from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2005, will capture more 

recent data.

The IWR Database contains data that were uploaded since the Planning List evaluation was conducted. Over the past year, the Department 

has provided support to organizations that are interested in uploading their 

water quality data to the national STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 

Database. Data uploaded since the Planning List evaluation will be 

included in the database.

Additional data records produced by the EPA’s Gulf Breeze Laboratory 

that were not available for the Planning List evaluation are anticipated to 

be available via STORET and will be included in the Verifi ed List evaluation. Additional data from other providers may also be included in the next 

download from STORET.

Based on preliminary data reviewed for the production of this Status 

Report, the Department developed a plan to address potential data gaps. 

The Water Quality Section of the Department’s Northwest District began 

a strategic monitoring program in 2004 to address TMDL Program data 

needs. The focus of this program is to collect additional data to verify 

conditions in many of the potentially impaired waterbody segments. 

 Additional data are needed for 66 waterbody identifi cation numbers 

(WBID). Bioassessments are needed in 37 WBIDs to verify biological impairment. As with DO, a causative pollutant is needed to confi rm 

 biological impairment. 

Verified List Development and Public 

Comment

The Verifi ed List of impaired waters for the Pensacola Bay Basin will 

be produced by the Department in the early summer of 2005, and will be 

adopted by the Secretary of the Department and submitted to the EPA later 

in the year. The tentative submittal date to the EPA for the adopted Verifi ed List is October 1, 2005.

Prior to the Secretary’s action, the Department will distribute the draft 

Verifi ed List to the public. As part of the review process, public workshops 

will be advertised and held in each basin to help explain the process for 

developing the Verifi ed List, exchange information, and encourage public 

involvement.

If additional information or data is provided during the public comment period or before, the Department will consider it before submitting 

the proposed list to the Secretary and EPA.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 113
References

Bartel, R., T. R. Pratt, T. L. Macmillan, R. R. Potts, C. J. Richards, R. D. 

Womble, J. A. Bonekemper, and R. A. Countryman. 2000. Regional 

Water Supply Plan for Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties. 

Northwest Florida Water Management District Water Resources 

Assessment 2000-1.

Bass, D. G., and D. T. Cox. 1988. River Habitat and Fishery Resources of 

Florida. In Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources, W. Seaman, 

Ed., 121–187. 

Bass, D. G., 1993. 1988–1993 Completion Report as Required by Federal 

Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Wallop-Breaux Project F-36 North Florida 

Streams Research Project Fish Community Analysis. Florida Game and 

Fresh Water Fish Commission.

Bonds, J. July 8, 1991. Findings of the Pensacola VISA Preliminary Report. 

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Ground Water 

Quality Monitoring Program.

Bortone, S. A. 1993. Life History, Habitat Assessment, and Systematics of the 

Blackmouth Shiner (Notropis sp.), Blackwater River Drainage. Department of Biology, University of West Florida, Pensacola. Final Report 

for Nongame Wildlife Program Project NG88-025.

Carter, E. F., and J. L. Pearce. 1985. A Canoeing and Kayaking Guide to 

Streams of Florida, Volume I, North Central Peninsula and Panhandle. 

Birmingham: Menasha Ridge.

Collins, M. E. October 1997. Key to Soil Orders in Florida. Publication 

SL-43, Soil & Water Science Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida.

Countryman, T. April 28, 2004. Northwest Florida Water Management. 

Personal Communication.

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

in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Florida Game and 

Fresh Water Fish Commission.

Davis, S., V. Compton, P. Penniman, and C. Mall, n.d. A Guide to Understanding and Protecting the Blackwater River Watershed. The Nature 

Conservancy. 

DeBusk, W. F., I. Poyer, and I. Herzfeld. 2002. Sediment Quality in the 

Pensacola Bay System, Final Report, submitted to Northwest Florida 

Water Management District. University of Florida, Soil and Water 

Science Department.

Deyrup, M., and R. Franz, Eds. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of 

Florida, Volume IV. Invertebrates. Gainesville: University Press of 

Florida.

Escambia County Utility Authority Web site. Available: http://

www.ecua.org/y2k.html.

Federal Clean Water Act. Section 303(d).

114 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Fernald, E. A., and E. D. Purdum, Eds. 1998. Water Resources Atlas of 

Florida. Tallahassee: 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 Board of Conservation, Division of Water Resources and 

 Conservation. 1966. Gazetteer of Florida Streams. Tallahassee.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. A Report to the 

Governor and the Legislature on the Allocation of Total Maximum Daily 

Loads in Florida. Tallahassee: Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of Watershed Management.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. Minibasin Study: 

Blackwater River.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1998. The Pensacola 

Watershed Management Guide: An Integrated Ecosystem Action Plan. 

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Florida Rivers Assessment. 

Tallahassee: Bureau of Park Planning, Division of Recreation and 

Parks.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. September 12, 1991. Yellow 

River Marsh Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Tallahassee: Division 

of State Lands, Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2001. Element Occurrence Database.

Florida Watershed Restoration Act. 1999. Chapter 99-223, Laws of 

Florida.

Forstall, R., Ed. March 27, 1995. Florida Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. Washington, D.C.: Population Division, 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Garza, A. 2004. City of Pensacola Stormwater Management Creating a 

Stormwater Utility. Presentation at Florida Stormwater Association Watershed Protection Workshop, September 10, 2004. Destin, 

Florida.

George, S. 1988. Data for Physical Sediment Properties and Sediment 

Organic Matter. Masters Thesis, University of Southern Mississippi. 

Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Hatch Mott MacDonald. 2003. LOST—Funding for Stormwater Management, Flooding, and Water Quality Enhancement Program, Escambia County, Florida.

Hoehn, T. 1998. Rare and Imperiled Fish Species of Florida: A Watershed 

Perspective. Offi ce of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh 

Water Fish Commission.

Hunner, W. C., F. B. Ard, and J. Edmonds. 1994. Preliminary Nonpoint Source Loading Rate Analysis of the Pensacola Bay System. Water 

Resources Special Report 92-2. Northwest Florida Water Management 

District.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 115
Hunner, W. C., R. L. Bartel, and J. Edmonds. 1995. Stormwater Monitoring Assessment of the Coyle Watershed, Escambia County, Florida. 

Technical File Report 95-2. Northwest Florida Water Management 

District.

Long, E. R., G. M. Sloane, R. S. Carr, T. Johnson, J. Biedenbach, 

K. J. Scott, G. B. Thursby, E. Crecelius, C. Peven, H. L Windom, 

R. D. Smith, and R. Loganathon. 1997. Magnitude and Extent of 

Sediment Toxicity in Four Bays of the Florida Panhandle: Pensacola, 

Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Apalachicola. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS ORCA 117. Silver Spring Maryland: Coastal 

Monitoring Bioeffects Assessment Division, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

Lores, E. M., E. Pasko, J. M. Patrick, R. L. Quarles, J. Campbell, and 

J. Macauley. 2000. “Mapping and Monitoring of Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation in Escambia-Pensacola Bay System, Florida.” Gulf of 

Mexico Science 18(1):1–14.

MacDonald, D. 1994. Approach to the Assesssment of Sediment Quality in 

Florida Coastal Waters. Volume 1—Development and Evaluation of 

Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines. MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd, Ladysmith, British Columbia. Prepared for Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. 

Miller, J. A. 1997. “Hydrogeology of Florida,” in The Geology of Florida, 

75–76. Tallahassee: University Press of Florida.

Nordlie, F. 1990. “Chapter 12. Rivers and Springs.” In Ecosystems of 

Florida, 392–425. Orlando: University of Central Florida Press.

Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2001. Looking at the Big 

Picture: The Pensacola Bay Watershed. 

Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2004. 30 Year Normal 

Rainfall Totals. Available: http://www.state.fl .us/nwfwmd/rmd/rain/

miscrain.htm.

Olinger, L. W., R. G. Rogers, P. L. Force, T. L. Todd, B. L. Mullings, 

F. T. Bisterfeld, and L. A. Wise II. 1975. Environmental and Recovery 

 Studies of Escambia Bay and the Pensacola Bay System, Florida. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.

1000 Friends of Florida. 2004. Blackwater River State Forest/Conecuh 

National Forest. Available: http://1000fof.org/EMAs/Blackwater.htm.

Paulic, M. December 31, 1999. Draft Fact Sheet Heavy Industrial Land 

Use and Ground Water Quality in the Pensacola, Florida Very Intense 

Study Area. Tallahassee: Ambient Monitoring Section, Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection.

Pratt, T., C. Richards, K. Milla, J. Wagner, J. Johnson, and R. Curry. 

October 1996. Hydrogeology of the Northwest Florida Water Management District. Water Resources Special Report 96-4. Havana, Florida: 

Northwest Florida Water Management District.

Richards, C. J. 1998. Results of the Milton T-Field Aquifer Test Sand-andGravel Aquifer, Santa Rosa County Florida. Northwest Florida Water 

Management District. 

116 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Rumenik, R. P. 1988. Runoff to Streams in Florida. Map Series 122. 

 Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Florida 

Department of Environmental Regulation, and the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, Florida.

Ryan, P. L., T. L. Macmillan, T. R. Pratt, A. R. Chelette, C. R. Richards, 

R.A. Countryman, and G. L. Marchman. 1998. District Water Supply 

Assessment, Northwest Florida Water Management District. Water 

Resources Assessment 98-2.

Sanzone, P. March 3, 2004. Florida Department of Environmental 

 Protection. Personal Communication.

Seal, T. L., F. D. Calder, G. M. Sloane, S. J. Shropp, and H. L. Windam. 

1994. Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants Atlas: A Summary of 

Coastal Sediment Quality Surveys. Tallahassee: Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection.

Slack, R. A., and D. M. Yeager. 1993. 1988–1993 Completion Report as 

Required by Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Wallop-Breaux Project 

F-36, North Florida Streams Research Project, Morone Fishery Research: 

Rivers. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

Smith, S. K., and J. M. Nogle. 2001. Projections of Florida Population 

by County, 2001–2030. Florida Population Studies, Volume 35(2), 

 Bulletin 132.

Stone, G., and J. P. Morgan. 1991. Heavy Metal Concentrations in Subsurface Sediments Bayou Chico, Pensacola, Florida. Pensacola: University 

of West Florida.

Thorpe, P., R. Bartel, P. Ryan, K. Albertson, T. Pratt, and D. Cairns. 1997. 

The Pensacola Bay System Surface Water Improvement and Management 

Plan. Program Development Series 97-2. Northwest Florida Water 

Management District.

Thorpe, P. May 7, 2004. Northwest Florida Management District. 

 Personal Communication.

Touart-Rohike, T. April 29, 2004. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. Personal Communication.

U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000. Summary File 1. Available: 

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfi le1.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Development and Evaluation of Diagnostic Indicators of Ecological Conditions of Gulf of Mexico 

Bayous: Bayous Chico Statistical Summary and Assessment Framework. 

Gulf Breeze, Florida: Gulf Ecology Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2001a. Fecal Coliform 

TMDL Development for Six Segments in the Blackwater River Watershed, 

Florida, Big Coldwater Creek, Big Juniper Creek, Blackwater River, East 

Fork Big Coldwater Creek, Manning Creek, and West Fork Big Coldwater 

Creek, Final. Atlanta, Georgia: Region IV.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2001b. Fecal Coliform 

TMDL Development for One Segment in the Blackwater River Watershed, Florida, Blackwater River–Downstream Segment, Final. Atlanta, 

Georgia: Region IV.

Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 117
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1999. The Ecological Condition of Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA 620-R-98-004. Gulf 

Breeze, Florida: Offi ce of Research and Development, National 

Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology 

 Division.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 1999. Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan for Endangered Fat Threeridge (Amblema neilerii), Shinyrayed 

Pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata), Gulf Moccasinshell (Medionidus 

penicillatus), Ochlockonee Moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus), 

Oval Pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme), Threatened Chipola Slabshell 

(Elliptio chipolaensis), and Purple Bankclimber (Elliptoideus sloatianus). 

Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina. Hydrologic Investigations 

Atlas 730-G.

Vecchioli, J., C. H. Tibbals, A. D. Duerr, and C. B. Hutchinson. 1990. 

Ground-Water Recharge in Florida—A Pilot Study in Okaloosa, Pasco, 

and Volusia Counties. Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4195. 

U.S. Geological Survey.

Wayland, R. H., III. 2001. 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring 

and Assessment Report Guidance. Memorandum to EPA Regional 

Water Management Directors; EPA Regional Science and Technology Directors; and State, Territory, and Authorized Tribe Water 

 Quality Program Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental 

 Protection Agency.

Wood, K. A., and R. L. Bartel. 1994. Bayou Chico Sediment and Water 

Quality Data Report. NWFWMD Technical File Report 94-3. 

Northwest Florida Water Management District.

Young, N. 1997. 1994–1997 Completion Report as Required by Federal 

Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Wallop-Breaux Project F-51 Commission Managed Impoundments Study I. Management, Maintenance, and 

 Evaluations. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

118 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay
Water Quality Status Report 2004

Pensacola Bay Appendices

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed

Management Approach and the Implementation of TMDLs.................................. 121

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and TMDLs........................................121

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule...........................123

Implementing TMDLs...................................................................................................................124

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by

Department District Office .......................................................................................127

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation.................127

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts.......................128

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs.......................129

Table A.4: Description of Completed Best Management Practice Manuals............................131

Appendix B: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based on the

Impaired Surface Waters Rule................................................................................. 133

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule ...............................................................................................133

Attainment of Designated Use(s) ..................................................................................................133

Table B.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida .................134

Sources of Data ..............................................................................................................................134

Table B.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin

Rotation Cycle...........................................................................................................135

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................135

Appendix C: Supplementary Ecological Information for the Pensacola

Bay Basin................................................................................................................... 141

Table C.1: Types of Natural Communities in the Pensacola Bay Basin...................................141

Florida Natural Areas Inventory Rankings...................................................................................143

Table C.2: Imperiled Species in the Pensacola Bay Basin........................................................144

Appendix D: Bioassessment Supporting Data for the Pensacola Bay Basin......... 152

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................152

Metric Definitions..........................................................................................................................153

References......................................................................................................................................154

Table D.1: Stream Condition Index (SCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet .......................155

Table D.2: Lake Condition Index (LCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet for Clear

Florida Lakes............................................................................................................156
120 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Appendix E: Permitted Discharge Facilities, Superfund Sites, and Landfills

in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit ......................................................... 157

Table E.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water (NPDES) in the

Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit ..................................................................157

Table E.2: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Ground Water in the Pensacola Bay

Basin, by Planning Unit............................................................................................160

Table E.3: Superfund and State Funded Hazardous Waste Sites in the Pensacola Bay

Basin, by Planning Unit............................................................................................162

Table E.4: Permitted Landfill Facilities in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit........163

Table E.5: Brownfields in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit...................................167

Appendix F: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Pensacola Bay Basin .. 168

Table F.1: Integrated Assessment for the Pensacola Bay Basin for Nutrients, Biology,

Fish, and Conventional Parameters, by Planning Unit ..........................................168

Table F.2: Integrated Assessment for Metals in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by

Planning Unit............................................................................................................182

Table F.3: Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by

Planning Unit............................................................................................................191

Appendix G: Land Use for the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit................ 202

Table G.1: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Escambia River

Planning Unit............................................................................................................202

Table G.2: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Escambia River

Planning Unit............................................................................................................202

Table G.3: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Blackwater River

 Planning Unit...........................................................................................................204

Table G.4: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Blackwater River

 Planning Unit...........................................................................................................204

Table G.5: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Yellow River Planning Unit ....... 206

Table G.6: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Yellow River Planning Unit..........206

Table G.7: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Shoal River Planning Unit..........208

Table G.8: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Shoal River Planning Unit............208

Table G.9: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Pensacola Bay

Planning Unit............................................................................................................210

Table G.10: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Pensacola Bay

 Planning Unit..........................................................................................................210
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 121

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 EPA

on their water quality. The 305(b) 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)
122 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

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.

• 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
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 123

TMDLs, and conducting at least one public meeting in the watershed. Implementation is

voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs.

• Authorizes the Department and FDACS to develop interim measures and BMPs to address

nonpoint sources. While BMPs would be adopted by rule, they will be voluntary if not

covered by regulatory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department verifies their

effectiveness, then implementation will provide a presumption of compliance with water

quality standards.

• Directs the Department to document the effectiveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary

approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include

participation rates and recommendations for statutory changes.

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the Florida Watershed Restoration

Act describe impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not

meet applicable water quality standards. “Impairment” is a broad term that includes

designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating

provisions (see Noteworthy for explanations of these terms).

The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.)

was developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory Committee and adopted by the

Florida Environmental Regulation Commission on April 26, 2001. It provides a sciencebased methodology for evaluating water quality data in order to identify impaired waters,

and it establishes specific criteria for impairment based on chemical parameters, the

interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption

advisories, and ecological impairment. The complete text of 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.

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
124 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

established for it. Any lowering of water quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to

surface waters must be in the public interest (that is, the benefits of the discharge to public

health, safety, and welfare must outweigh any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or

recreation). Further, the permittee must demonstrate that other disposal alternatives (for

example, reuse) or pollution prevention are not economically and technologically reasonable

alternatives to the surface water discharge.

• Moderating provisions (provided in Subsection 62-302.300[10] and Rules 62-4 and 62-6,

F.A.C., and described in Sections 62-302.300, 62-4.244, 62-302.800, 62-4.243, F.A.C., and

Sections 403.201 and 373.414, F.S.) include mixing zones, zones of discharge, site-specific

alternative criteria, exemptions, and variances. These provisions are intended to moderate

the applicability of water quality standards where it has been determined that, under certain

special circumstances, the social, economic, and environmental costs of such applicability

outweigh the benefits.

Determining impairment in individual waterbodies takes place in two phases. First,

in each river basin the Department evaluates the existing water quality data, using the

methodology prescribed in the 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

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
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 125

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.

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 Basin Status

Report is developed, containing a Planning List of potentially impaired waters that

may require the establishment of TMDLs. The report characterizes each basin’s

hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting as well as historical, current, and

proposed watershed management issues and activities. It also contains a preliminary

evaluation of major water quality parameters, water quality issues by planning unit,

ecological resources, and basinwide pollutant loading trends related to land uses. At

the end of Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is developed.
126 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

• 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 (BMAP). A BMAP

will be developed for each basin to specify how pollutant loadings from point and

nonpoint sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements.

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

and nonstructural strategies, and existing management plans will be used where

feasible. The involvement and support of affected stakeholders in this phase will be

especially critical.

• Phase 5: Implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan. Implementation of

the activities specified in the BMAP will begin. This includes carrying out rule

development as needed, securing funding, informing stakeholders and the public, and

monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan.

To implement the watershed cycle, the state’s river basins have been divided into

five groups in 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.
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 127

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–Chip

ola Rivers

Choctawhatchee

River and Bay and

St. Andrews Bay

Pensacola Bay Perdido River and

Bay

Northeast Suwannee River Lower St. Johns

River

Upper St. Johns

River

St. Marys–Nassau

Rivers

Northeast Coast

Lagoons

Central Ocklawaha River Middle St. Johns

River Kissimmee River Indian RiverLagoon

Southwest Tampa Bay Tampa Bay

Tributaries

Sarasota Bay and

Peace–Myakka

Rivers

Withlacoochee

River Springs Coast

South Everglades West

Coast Charlotte Harbor CaloosahatcheeRiver Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

Southeast Lake Okeechobee St.Lucie–Loxahatch

ee Rivers

Lake Worth

Lagoon/Palm

Beach Coast

Southeast Urban

Coast Everglades

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation

Year 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 09 09 10

Group 1 PHASE

1

PHASE

2

PHASE

3

PHASE

4

PHASE

5

PHASE

1

PHASE

2

PHASE

3

PHASE

4

PHASE

5

Group 2 PHASE

1

PHASE

2

PHASE

3

PHASE

4

PHASE

5

PHASE

1

PHASE

2

PHASE

3

PHASE

4

Group 3 PHASE

1

PHASE

2

PHASE

3

PHASE

4

PHASE

5

PHASE

1

PHASE

2

PHASE

3

Group 4 PHASE

1

PHASE

2

PHASE

3

PHASE

4

PHASE

5

PHASE

1

PHASE

2

Group 5 PHASE

1

PHASE

2

PHASE

3

PHASE

4

PHASE

5

PHASE

1

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

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may change due to accelerated local activities, length of plan

development, legal challenges, etc.
128 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 129

Pollutants can enter a waterbody through point source discharges (generally from a

specific facility) or nonpoint discharges (e.g., stormwater runoff, septic tanks).

Government agencies, businesses, organizations, and individuals who contribute to these

discharges will be asked to share the responsibility of attaining TMDLs through load

allocations (the amount of a specified pollutant allotted for discharge) that are based on

an established TMDL. Table A.3 summarizes these potentially affected stakeholders and

the actions they may be asked to take to help achieve a TMDL.

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs

Potentially Affected Stakeholders Actions To Achieve TMDL

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through

stormwater retrofits, replacement of septic tanks

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual

homeowners

Improve development design and construction,

enhance best management practices, replace septic

tanks

Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment

facilities, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permitted facilities

Reduce pollutant loadings from permitted

discharges

Farming and silviculture operations Reduce and treat runoff through best management

practices

Federal, regional, state agencies; regional and

local water quality coalitions Carry out waterbody restoration projects

Permitting and Other Approaches

NPDES PERMITS

All point sources that discharge to surface waterbodies 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 BMAP is completed:

“The permittee shall undertake those activities specified in the (Pensacola Bay of

Waterbody) Basin Management Action Plan in accordance with the approved schedule

set forth in the BMAP.”
130 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMITS

In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters,

Florida also regulates domestic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via

land application. Since ground water and surface water are so intimately linked in much

of the state, reductions in loadings from these facilities may be needed to meet TMDL

limitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the

BMAP, they would be implemented through modifications of the existing state permits.

FLORIDA STORMWATER/ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS

With the implementation of the state’s stormwater treatment rule in 1982, Florida

became the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new development.

Today, except in the area served by the NWFWMD, new development projects receive

an Environmental Resource Permit that combines stormwater flood protection,

stormwater treatment, and wetland protection/mitigation into a single permit. These

permits are designed to obtain 80 percent average annual load reduction of total

suspended solids. This level of treatment may need to be increased, depending on the

allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the St. Johns River

Water Management District recently adopted basin-specific criteria for the Lake Apopka

Basin that require the phosphorus loading from new development not to exceed

predevelopment phosphorus loading.

LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES

Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of

load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development

often cause ecological impacts to aquatic systems, local land development codes that

promote “low-impact development” are an important component of restoring impaired

waters. Local codes may need to be reviewed to determine how to promote

developments that minimize impervious surfaces (such as reduced street widths or the use

of pervious pavements), promote the protection of vegetation, promote the protection and

restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the

Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)

Typically, BMPs refer to a practice or combination of practices that, based on sound

science and best professional judgment, are determined to be the most effective and

practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollutant discharges and improving water

quality. Both economic and technological considerations are included in the evaluation

of what is practicable. BMPs may include structural controls (such as retention areas or

detention ponds) or nonstructural controls (such as street sweeping or public education).

Many BMPs have been developed for urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and

peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type,

slope, depth to groundwater, and the designation of receiving waters.
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 131

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. Table A.4 describes

completed BMP manuals.

Table A.4: Description of Completed Best Management Practice Manuals

Guide for Producing Container Grown Plants: This manual, published in 1995 by the Southern

Nurserymen’s Association, includes irrigation and fertilization BMPs for the container cultivation of nursery

plants. It was produced through a cooperative effort between the University of Florida, Auburn University,

Tennessee Tech University, and Virginia Tech. Since the manual is not Florida specific, an effort is currently

under way to use the document in developing a Florida-specific manual.

BMPs for Blended Fertilizer Plants in Florida: The manual for blended fertilizer industrial operations,

published in October 1997, was cooperatively produced by the Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical

Association, DACS, and the Department.

BMPs for Agrichemical Handling and Farm Equipment Maintenance: Recently revised and reprinted,

this manual gives producers guidance on hazardous materials, proper pesticide handling, and the proper

disposal of waste products. It was cooperatively produced in 1998 by DACS, the Department, and several

industry associations.

Water Quality Best Management Practices for Cow/Calf Operations: Many cattle operators statewide

have been trained in using this manual and applying BMPs. The Florida Cattlemen’s Association and

several state, federal, and local agencies developed the manual, which was published in 1999. Copies were

printed and distributed in 2000 using EPA Section 319 grant funds.

Water Quality/Quantity BMPs for Indian River Area Citrus Groves: Although the regional BMPs in this

manual apply to all or parts of seven east coast (Volusia to Martin) counties, other Florida flatwoods citrus

operations can benefit from the same practices. The Indian River Citrus League led a cooperative effort

involving fifteen agencies and industry associations in developing these BMPs. Beginning in 2000, the BMP

manual and guidance booklets were published using EPA Section 319 and industry funds.

Aquaculture BMPs: As directed by the 1998 Florida legislature, DACS worked cooperatively with industry,

state agencies, and the environmental community to develop a comprehensive BMP manual for

aquaculture. Florida law requires that the Department adopt the manual by rule and provides regulatory

exemptions under Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., for growers who implement BMPs and are certified by

DACS’ Division of Aquaculture. The manual, which was printed and distributed in 2000, has been adopted

by rule.
132 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources in Florida:

This manual provides BMPs for professional turfgrass and landscape managers. Published in 2002, it was

developed through a cooperative effort by Florida Green Industries (an industry association); the

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

Southwest Florida Water Management Districts.

Rule-Based Initiatives: Under Chapter 576, F.S., in 2002 DACS adopted BMPs by rule for the Lake Wales

Citrus Ridge region, and in 1996 adopted BMPs by rule for leatherleaf fern production areas in and around

Volusia County.

OTHER STRATEGIES

The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require

variety, creativity, stakeholder commitment to watershed management, and personal

stewardship. In addition to BMPs, other possible strategies for meeting TMDLs,

restoring water quality, and preventing the further degradation of Florida’s watersheds

include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land

use design and development, and pollutant trading. The Department will assemble a

Technical Advisory Committee to help develop a pollutant-trading rule, which must be

reviewed by the legislature prior to its adoption. The Department will also continue to

work with local stakeholders on TMDL allocation issues and implementation plans.

Sources of Information

For additional information on the Department’s Watershed Management Program

and TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators:

• Southwest Florida and Lake Okeechobee, Pat Fricano (850) 245-8559

• Southeast Florida and Ochlockonee-St. Marks Basins, Dan Apt (305) 795-3486

• 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 Status Report: Pensacola Bay 133

Appendix B: 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 and

shellfish consumption use support, drinking water use support, and protection of human

health. Data older than 10 years cannot be used to evaluate water quality criteria

exceedances for the Planning List. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the

Planning List will not be used to administer or implement any regulatory program, and is

submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only.

After further assessment, using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400,

F.A.C., the Department will determine if waters on the Planning List are, in fact,

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. These waters are

placed on a Verified List. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those

for the Planning List. Data older than 7.5 years should not be used to verify impairment.

The Verified List will be adopted by Secretarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for

approval as Florida’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Department will

develop TMDLs for these waters under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S.

Attainment of Designated Use(s)

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the surface

water quality classification system described previously, it is important to note that the

EPA uses slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because the

Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report

and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology

when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision

processes for listing impaired waters that are defined in Florida’s Impaired Surface

Waters Rule are based on the following designated use attainment categories:
134 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

Drinking Water Use Attainment

Protection of Human Health

Table B.1 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various surface

water classifications.

Table B.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in

Impaired Surface Waters Rule Evaluation

Applicable Florida Surface Water Classification

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

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

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment Class II

Drinking Water Use Attainment Class I

Protection of Human Health Class I, II, and III

Sources of Data

The Department’s assessment of water quality for each basin statewide includes an

analysis of quantitative data from a variety of sources, many of which are readily

available to the public. These sources include the EPA’s Legacy and modernized

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) databases, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the

Department, the Florida Department of Health (DOH), the water management districts,

local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups.

Historically, the Department carried out statewide water quality assessments using

data available in the EPA’s Legacy STORET Database; STORET makes up

approximately 60 percent of the statewide data used in the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters

Rule assessment. The Legacy STORET Database 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 http://www.epa.gov/storet/). However, because of software

difficulties associated with batch uploading of data to the modernized STORET, the data

being uploaded to the national repository decreased dramatically, and lingering problems

have temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses

only about 5 percent of the statewide Impaired Surface Waters Rule Database.

Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the assessment under the Impaired

Surface Waters Rule 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
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 135

databases are readily available to the public via the Internet: the South Florida Water

Management District at http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/, the USGS at

http://water.usgs.gov/, and LakeWatch at http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/.

The Department created the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Database 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.” As discussed earlier,

for the Verified List assessment, the window is 7.5 years (for the Impaired Surface

Waters Rule Database), and the Planning List assessment window is 10 years. Table B.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 Basin Status Reports and Assessment

Reports for each basin.

Table B.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 – June 30, 2003

Group 3 Planning List January 1, 1992 – December 31, 2001

Verified List January 1, 1997 – June 30, 2004

Group 4 Planning List January 1, 1993 – December 31, 2002

Verified List January 1, 1998 – June 30, 2005

Group 5 Planning List January 1, 1994 – December 31, 2003

Verified List January 1, 1999 – June 30, 2006

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.

Methodology

To determine the status of surface water quality in individual river basins in Florida,

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

advisories—were evaluated to determine potential impairments for the four designated

use attainment categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation,

fish and shellfish consumption, 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).
136 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

EXCEEDANCES OF NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for

preparing the state’s 2000 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations

were included in the assessment of impairment. Water quality information from point

sources or wells was excluded. Monitoring stations were classified as one of five

waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria

described in the latest 305(b) report. The assessments included the following parameters:

Metals Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III,

copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,

thallium, and zinc

Nutrients Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State

Index (TSI) (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total

phosphorus) for lakes

Conventionals Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms, total coliforms,

pH, Unionized ammonia

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List included a minimum of 10

temporally independent samples from the ten-year period of record shown in Table B.2,

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. For

most parameters, an exceedance is recorded any time the measured value is higher than

the applicable water quality criterion by any amount. However, for the DO criterion,

which is expressed as a minimum numeric value, an "exceedance" is recorded whenever

the measured value is lower than the applicable DO 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 Rule 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.
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 137

EXCEEDANCES OF NUTRIENT THRESHOLDS

The state currently has a narrative nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for

nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient

concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural

populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The Impaired Surface Waters Rule provides an

interpretation of the narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the Trophic State Index (TSI)

and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whether a

waterbody should be assessed further for nutrient impairment.

The rule also considers other information that might indicate an imbalance in flora or

fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a

decrease in the distribution (either in density or aerial coverage) of seagrasses or other

submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel

oxygen swings.

Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual mean chlorophyll

a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, the TSI was

calculated using chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen measurements. Direct

evidence of imbalances of flora and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the

evaluation of nutrient impairments.

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

chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 micrograms per liter (μg/L) or if annual mean

chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least

two consecutive years. For streams, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the

annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μg/L or if the annual mean

increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive

years.

A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units (PCUs) was

considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean

color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean

TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a lake was considered nutrient enriched if there was an

increase in TSI over the 1989 to 2000 period or if TSI measurements were 10 units higher

than historical values.

EXCEEDANCE SOF BIOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS

Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and rivers using the

Impaired Surface Waters Rule as guidance and following the Department’s standard

operating procedures, which provide definitions and specific methods for the generation

and analysis of bioassessment data. These are referenced in the individual bioassessment

data tables contained in the Basin 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.
138 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

For the Planning and Verified List assessments, the reference condition data were

used to establish expected scores, ranging from best to worst, for various measures of

community structure and function, such as numbers or percentages of particular species

or feeding groups. Data on community structure and function from waters of unknown

quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of

metrics to evaluate their biological integrity.

Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Diptera, percent filter feeders) were used

independently and as an aggregated group called an index. Indices have advantages over

individual metrics in that they can integrate several related metrics into one score that

reflects a wider range of biological variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and

indices exist for assessing populations of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms

(e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankton), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects,

crayfish, snails, and mussels).

Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in

the bioassessments analyzed for the Planning and Verified Lists. The data included sites

designated as test and background sites for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) fifth-year inspections, but excluded data from effluent outfalls from

discharging facilities or data from monitoring sites not clearly established to collect

ambient water quality data. Because site-specific habitat and physicochemical

assessment information (e.g., percent suitable macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities,

extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian [Definition: Of, on, or relating to the

banks of a natural course of water.] buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of

reporting, it was not included. However, this information is instrumental in pinpointing

the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and will be included in future reporting.

The data used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists were obtained from the

Department’s Biological Database (SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality

Database, where it could be substantiated that the data were generated in compliance with

the bioassessment standard operating procedures referenced in the 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. For the purposes of the Basin Status Reports, the seasons are defined as

follows: winter (1/1–3/31), spring (4/1–6/30), summer (7/1–9/30), and fall (10/1–12/31).

Wet seasons are generally spring and summer, and dry seasons are fall and winter,

although conditions can vary in the state as a whole.

LAKE CONDITION INDEX

The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except

percent Diptera, was performed according to the following formula:

100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = observed

value

For percent Diptera, the following formula was used:
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 139

100 (100-B)/(100-A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B

= observed value

An average LCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the six metrics in

the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders

Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; ShannonWiener Diversity Index score; Hulbert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals.

LCI calculations were only provided for clear lakes (< 20 platinum cobalt units [PCUs]).

As macroinvertebrate-based indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in

Florida accurately (> 20 PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A poor

or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule.

STREAM CONDITION INDEX

A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of

the seven metrics in the method, i.e., total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging

to the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent

Chironomid taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and

Florida Index. A poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed

bioassessment, based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. The Basin Status Reports

contain definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment

data.

BIORECON

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used:

the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three

metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the

Impaired Surface Waters Rule.

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY STANDARD

Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester-Dendy artificial substrate

samplers, were used to calculate Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index scores for paired

background and test sites, as specified in the Biological Integrity Standard, Subsection

62-302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the standard meant that a waterbody segment was

listed as potentially impaired.

EVALUATION OF TOXICITY DATA

Although the 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.
140 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

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.

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

DOH’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.
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 141

Appendix C: Supplementary Ecological Information for the

Pensacola Bay Basin

Table C.1: Types of Natural Communities in the Pensacola Bay Basin

Community

Type Acres Percent of

Basin Area Community Description

Uplands

Coastal strand 2,940.8 0.18

Coastal strand communities occur on well-drained sandy soils and include the

typically zoned vegetation of the upper beach, nearby dunes, or coastal rock

formations. This community occupies areas formed along high-energy

shorelines and is strongly affected by wind, waves, and salt spray. Vegetation

consists of low-growing vines, grasses, and herbaceous plants with very small

trees or large shrubs. Typical plant species include beach morning glory,

railroad vine, sea oats, saw palmetto, Spanish bayonet, yaupon holly, wax

myrtle, and sea grape.

Pinelands 468,278.9 28.74

Pinelands occur on flat, sandy terrain. Dominant overstory trees are longleaf

pine, slash pine, or pond pine. This community includes pine plantations. Fire

is a major source of natural disturbance. Dominance by longleaf pine occurs

on drier, well-drained sites. Pond pine occur on poorly drained sites, and slash

pine occur on intermediate or moderately wet sites.

Sand pine scrub 7,736.2 0.48

Sand pine scrub, a very dry community, occurs on extremely well-drained,

sterile sands deposited along ridges or former dunes. This community is

dominated by an overstory of sand pine with an understory of myrtle oak,

Chapman's oak, sand live oak, and scrub holly. Ground cover is usually

sparse. Fire is an important land management tool that results in even-aged

stands in regenerated sites.

Sandhill 164,955.2 10.1

Sandhill communities occur in areas of rolling terrain on deep, well-drained,

white to yellow sterile sands. This xeric community is dominated by an

overstory of scattered longleaf pine and an understory of turkey oak and

bluejack oak. Ground cover includes wiregrass and various grasses and

herbs. Fire is an important ecological management tool. Although many sites

in Florida have been modified through the selective or severe cutting of

longleaf pine, these areas are still included in the sandhill category.

Xeric oak scrub 9.165 0.56

This community occurs in areas of deep sands. It comprises clumped patches

of low-growing xeric oak species. Common species are myrtle oak, scrub

plum, sand live oak, Chapman’s oak, and saw palmetto. Fire is an important

factor in maintaining oak scrub.

Mixed pine–

hardwood forest 7,399.1 0.45

This community contains a relatively equal mix of hardwood and pine species.

Common tree species are beech, mockernut hickory, water oak, loblolly pine,

dogwood, slash pine, longleaf pine, and live oak.

Hardwood

hammock and

forest

114,550.2 7.03

These major upland hardwood-dominated associations are found on fairly rich

sandy soils. They can occur across a range of soil moisture conditions,

including hydric, mesic, and xeric.

Wetlands and Open Water

Salt marsh 878.3 0.05

These herbaceous and shrubby wetland communities occur in brackish waters

along protected low-energy estuarine shorelines. Plant distribution in a salt

marsh depends on the degree of tidal inundation. A typical zonation pattern is

as follows: smooth cordgrass is found at the lowest elevations near tidal

creeks and pools; black needlerush dominates less frequently inundated areas;

and the higher marsh elevations form transitional areas characterized by

glasswort, saltwort, saltgrass, sea oxeye daisy, marsh elder, and saltbush.
142 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Community

Type Acres Percent ofBasin Area Community Description

Freshwater

marsh and wet

prairie

22,721.4 1.39

These communities are dominated by herbaceous plant species growing on

sand, clay, marl, or organic soils. Common species are pickerel weed,

spatterdock, cattail, and sawgrass. Water depths and inundation regimes vary.

Generally, freshwater marshes occur in deeper areas that are inundated longer

and are characterized by tall emergents and floating-leafed species. This

category also includes portions of freshwater lakes, rivers, and canals that are

dominated by floating-leafed plants. Wet prairies commonly occur in shallow,

periodically inundated areas or are found in scattered shallow depressions dry

prairies. They are usually dominated by aquatic grasses, sedges, and their

associates.

Cypress swamp 12,419.5 0.76

The dominant overstory tree is either pond or bald cypress. This community is

found along the borders of large rivers, creeks, and lakes or in isolated

depressions.

Mixed hardwood

swamp 119,198.6 7.32

These swamps occur as either stands of hardwoods or a mix of hardwoods and

cypress. Overstory tree species are black gum, water tupelo, bald cypress,

dahoon holly, cabbage palm, red maple, or sweetbay. Swamps are commonly

found on organic soils along the floodplains of nonalluvial rivers, creeks, and

lakes.

Bay swamp 37,285.6 2.29

The dominant vegetation consists of broadleaf evergreen hardwoods,

including sweetbay, swamp bay, and loblolly bay. This community occurs in

shallow depressions or at the base of sandy ridges where seepage keeps the

soil wet. Soils are usually acidic peat or muck.

Shrub swamp 12,756.4 0.78

Shrub swamps are dominated by dense, woody shrubs or small trees. Some

common species are willow, wax myrtle, buttonbush, and saplings of red

maple, black gum, or other wooded wetland species. Shrub swamps can be

indicative of wetlands experiencing environmental change.

Bottomland

hardwoods 12,513.4 0.77

These wetland forests are composed of either pure stands of hardwoods, or

occur as a mixture of hardwoods and cypress. These communities form the

floodplain of nonalluvial rivers, creeks, and lakes. Tree species include a

mixed overstory of black gum, water tupelo, bald cypress, blue beech, and

swamp ash.

Open water 130,657.3 8.02 Lakes and streams

Disturbed Lands

Grassland/

agricultural

land

157,678.4 9.68

These upland communities consist of very low-growing grasses and forbs.

They are usually found on intensively managed sites such as improved

pastures, lawns, golf courses, road shoulders, cemeteries, or weedy, fallow

agricultural fields. This early successional category includes all sites with

herbaceous vegetation between the stages of bare ground and shrub and

brush, as well as all agricultural fields.

Shrub and

brush land 176,248.4 10.82

Shrub and brush land includes natural upland communities that have been

recently disturbed (such as clear-cutting commercial pinelands, land clearing,

or fire) and are recovering through natural successional processes. It is

characterized as an early stage of succession for old fields, dominated by

various shrubs, tree saplings, and lesser amounts of grasses and herbs.

Barren land 172,183.1 10.57

Highly reflective areas such as roads, beaches, strip mines, tilled agricultural

sites, and cleared land are included as barren land. Unvegetated urban

areas are also included. Vegetated tracts in urban areas are mapped by

their predominate vegetative cover.
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 143

Florida Natural Areas Inventory Rankings

In addition to the rankings established by state and federal governments, the Florida

Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) determines a species’ global and state rank based on its

status (Table C.2). Status is based on factors such as estimated abundance, range,

adequacy of protection, ecological fragility (vulnerability), and threat of extinction.

Several animal species in the basin are not protected species but have FNAI rankings

indicating that they are imperiled or rare in Florida or very local in range (rankings of S2

and S3).
144 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table C.2: Imperiled Species in the Pensacola Bay Basin

Species Name Common Name Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Escambia River Planning Unit

CALYCANTHUS FLORIDUS SWEET-SHRUB G5 S2 N LE

CAREX BALTZELLII BALTZELL'S SEDGE G3 S3 N LT

DROSERA INTERMEDIA SPOON-LEAVED SUNDEW G5 S3 N LT

EPIGAEA REPENS TRAILING ARBUTUS G5 S2 N LE

HEXASTYLIS ARIFOLIA HEARTLEAF G5 S3 N LT

ILEX AMELANCHIER SERVICEBERRY HOLLY G4 S2 N LT

KALMIA LATIFOLIA MOUNTAIN LAUREL G5 S3 N LT

LACHNOCAULON

DIGYNUM BOG BUTTON G3 S3 N LT

LILIUM IRIDOLLAE PANHANDLE LILY G2 S2 MC LE

MACRANTHERA FLAMMEA HUMMINGBIRD FLOWER G3 S2 N LE

MAGNOLIA PYRAMIDATA PYRAMID MAGNOLIA G4 S3 N LE

PLATANTHERA INTEGRA YELLOW FRINGELESS ORCHID G3G4 S3 N LE

RHODODENDRON

AUSTRINUM ORANGE AZALEA G3 S3 N LE

SARRACENIA

LEUCOPHYLLA WHITE-TOP PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LE

SIDEROXYLON THORNEI THORNE'S BUCKTHORN G2 S1 N LE

STEWARTIA

MALACODENDRON SILKY CAMELLIA G4 S3 N LE

XYRIS DRUMMONDII DRUMMOND'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS

G3 S3 N N

Blackwater River Planning Unit

BAPTISIA CALYCOSA VAR

VILLOSA HAIRY WILD INDIGO G3T3 S3 MC LT

CALAMOVILFA CURTISSII CURTISS' SANDGRASS G3 S3 MC LT

COELORACHIS

TUBERCULOSA PIEDMONT JOINTGRASS G3 S3 MC LT

DROSERA INTERMEDIA SPOON-LEAVED SUNDEW G5 S3 N LT

FOTHERGILLA GARDENII DWARF WITCH-ALDER G4 S1 N LE

ILEX AMELANCHIER SERVICEBERRY HOLLY G4 S2 N LT

JUNCUS GYMNOCARPUS COVILLE'S RUSH G4 S2 N LE

LACHNOCAULON

DIGYNUM BOG BUTTON G3 S3 N LT

LILIUM IRIDOLLAE PANHANDLE LILY G2 S2 MC LE

LOBELIA BOYKINII POND'S LOBELIA G2G3 S1 N N

MACRANTHERA FLAMMEA HUMMINGBIRD FLOWER G3 S2 N LE

MYRIOPHYLLUM LAXUM PIEDMONT WATER-MILFOIL G3 S3 N N

NAJAS FILIFOLIA NARROWLEAF NAIAD G1 S1 N LT

NUPHAR LUTEA SSP

ULVACEA WEST FLORIDA COWLILY G5T2 S2 MC N

PINGUICULA

PRIMULIFLORA

PRIMROSE-FLOWERED

BUTTERWORT G3G4 S3 N LE

PLATANTHERA

CLAVELLATA LITTLE CLUB-SPUR ORCHID G5 S1 N LE

PLATANTHERA INTEGRA YELLOW FRINGELESS ORCHID G3G4 S3 N LE
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 145

Species Name Common Name Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

POTAMOGETON

FLORIDANUS FLORIDA PONDWEED G1 S1 N LE

PTEROGLOSSASPIS

ECRISTATA GIANT ORCHID G2 S2 MC LT

RHEXIA PARVIFLORA SMALL-FLOWERED

MEADOWBEAUTY G2 S2 MC LE

RHODODENDRON

AUSTRINUM ORANGE AZALEA G3 S3 N LE

RHYNCHOSPORA

CRINIPES

HAIRY-PEDUNCLED

BEAKRUSH G1 S1 MC LE

RHYNCHOSPORA

STENOPHYLLA NARROW-LEAVED BEAKRUSH G4 S3 N LT

SARRACENIA

LEUCOPHYLLA WHITE-TOP PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LE

SARRACENIA RUBRA SWEET PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LT

XYRIS CHAPMANII CHAPMAN'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS G3 S1 N LE

XYRIS DRUMMONDII DRUMMOND'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS G3 S3 N N

XYRIS SCABRIFOLIA HARPER'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS G3 S3 N LT

Yellow River Planning Unit

BAPTISIA CALYCOSA VAR

VILLOSA HAIRY WILD INDIGO G3T3 S3 MC LT

CALAMOVILFA CURTISSII CURTISS' SANDGRASS G3 S3 MC LT

CAREX BALTZELLII BALTZELL'S SEDGE G3 S3 N LT

CAREX TENAX SANDHILL SEDGE G5? S3 N N

CLADIUM MARISCOIDES POND RUSH G5 S1 N N

DROSERA INTERMEDIA SPOON-LEAVED SUNDEW G5 S3 N LT

ELEOCHARIS ROSTELLATA BEAKED SPIKERUSH G5 S1 N LE

HEXASTYLIS ARIFOLIA HEARTLEAF G5 S3 N LT

ILEX AMELANCHIER SERVICEBERRY HOLLY G4 S2 N LT

JUNCUS GYMNOCARPUS COVILLE'S RUSH G4 S2 N LE

LACHNOCAULON

DIGYNUM BOG BUTTON G3 S3 N LT

LILIUM IRIDOLLAE PANHANDLE LILY G2 S2 MC LE

LINDERA SUBCORIACEA BOG SPICEBUSH G2 S1 MC LE

MACRANTHERA FLAMMEA HUMMINGBIRD FLOWER G3 S2 N LE

MAGNOLIA ASHEI ASHE'S MAGNOLIA G2 S2 MC LE

MYRIOPHYLLUM LAXUM PIEDMONT WATER-MILFOIL G3 S3 N N

NUPHAR LUTEA SSP

ULVACEA WEST FLORIDA COWLILY G5T2 S2 MC N

QUERCUS ARKANSANA ARKANSAS OAK G3 S3 N LT

RHEXIA PARVIFLORA SMALL-FLOWERED

MEADOWBEAUTY G2 S2 MC LE

RHODODENDRON

AUSTRINUM ORANGE AZALEA G3 S3 N LE

RHYNCHOSPORA

CRINIPES

HAIRY-PEDUNCLED

BEAKRUSH G1 S1 MC LE
146 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Species Name Common Name Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

RHYNCHOSPORA

STENOPHYLLA NARROW-LEAVED BEAKRUSH G4 S3 N LT

SARRACENIA

LEUCOPHYLLA WHITE-TOP PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LE

SARRACENIA RUBRA SWEET PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LT

SIDEROXYLON THORNEI THORNE'S BUCKTHORN G2 S1 N LE

STEWARTIA

MALACODENDRON SILKY CAMELLIA G4 S3 N LE

TEPHROSIA MOHRII PINELAND HOARY-PEA G3 S3 MC LT

XYRIS DRUMMONDII DRUMMOND'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS G3 S3 N N

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

ANDROPOGON ARCTATUS PINE-WOODS BLUESTEM G3 S3 N LT

BAPTISIA CALYCOSA VAR

VILLOSA HAIRY WILD INDIGO G3T3 S3 MC LT

CALAMOVILFA CURTISSII CURTISS' SANDGRASS G3 S3 MC LT

CAREX BALTZELLII BALTZELL'S SEDGE G3 S3 N LT

CAREX TENAX SANDHILL SEDGE G5? S3 N N

CHRYSOPSIS GODFREYI GODFREY'S GOLDEN ASTER G2 S2 MC LE

CHRYSOPSIS GOSSYPINA

SSP CRUISEANA CRUISE'S GOLDEN ASTER G5T2 S2 MC LE

CLADIUM MARISCOIDES POND RUSH G5 S1 N N

CLADONIA PERFORATA PERFORATE REINDEER

LICHEN G1 S1 LE LE

DROSERA INTERMEDIA SPOON-LEAVED SUNDEW G5 S3 N LT

JUNCUS GYMNOCARPUS COVILLE'S RUSH G4 S2 N LE

LACHNOCAULON

DIGYNUM BOG BUTTON G3 S3 N LT

LILAEOPSIS

CAROLINENSIS CAROLINA LILAEOPSIS G3G5 S3 N N

LILIUM IRIDOLLAE PANHANDLE LILY G2 S2 MC LE

LINUM WESTII WEST'S FLAX G2 S2 MC LE

LOBELIA BOYKINII POND'S LOBELIA G2G3 S1 N N

LUPINUS WESTIANUS GULF COAST LUPINE G2 S2 MC LT

MAGNOLIA ASHEI ASHE'S MAGNOLIA G2 S2 MC LE

NUPHAR LUTEA SSP

ULVACEA WEST FLORIDA COWLILY G5T2 S2 MC N

PLATANTHERA INTEGRA YELLOW FRINGELESS ORCHID G3G4 S3 N LE

POLYGONELLA

MACROPHYLLA LARGE-LEAVED JOINTWEED G3 S3 MC LT

QUERCUS ARKANSANA ARKANSAS OAK G3 S3 N LT

RHEXIA PARVIFLORA SMALL-FLOWERED

MEADOWBEAUTY G2 S2 MC LE

RHEXIA SALICIFOLIA PANHANDLE MEADOWBEAUTY G2 S2 MC LT

RHODODENDRON

AUSTRINUM ORANGE AZALEA G3 S3 N LE

SARRACENIA

LEUCOPHYLLA WHITE-TOP PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LE

SARRACENIA RUBRA SWEET PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LT
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 147

Species Name Common Name Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

STEWARTIA

MALACODENDRON SILKY CAMELLIA G4 S3 N LE

TEPHROSIA MOHRII PINELAND HOARY-PEA G3 S3 MC LT

XYRIS DRUMMONDII DRUMMOND'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS G3 S3 N N

XYRIS LONGISEPALA KARST POND XYRIS G2 S2 MC LE

XYRIS SCABRIFOLIA HARPER'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS G3 S3 N LT

XYRIS STRICTA VAR

OBSCURA KRAL'S YELLOW-EYED GRASS G5T3 S1 N N

Shoal River Planning Unit

ANDROPOGON ARCTATUS PINE-WOODS BLUESTEM G3 S3 N LT

BAPTISIA CALYCOSA VAR

VILLOSA HAIRY WILD INDIGO G3T3 S3 MC LT

CALAMOVILFA CURTISSII CURTISS' SANDGRASS G3 S3 MC LT

CAREX BALTZELLII BALTZELL'S SEDGE G3 S3 N LT

CAREX TENAX SANDHILL SEDGE G5? S3 N N

COELORACHIS

TUBERCULOSA PIEDMONT JOINTGRASS G3 S3 MC LT

DROSERA INTERMEDIA SPOON-LEAVED SUNDEW G5 S3 N LT

FOTHERGILLA GARDENII DWARF WITCH-ALDER G4 S1 N LE

HEXASTYLIS ARIFOLIA HEARTLEAF G5 S3 N LT

ILEX AMELANCHIER SERVICEBERRY HOLLY G4 S2 N LT

JUNCUS GYMNOCARPUS COVILLE'S RUSH G4 S2 N LE

KALMIA LATIFOLIA MOUNTAIN LAUREL G5 S3 N LT

LACHNOCAULON

DIGYNUM BOG BUTTON G3 S3 N LT

LILIUM IRIDOLLAE PANHANDLE LILY G2 S2 MC LE

LITSEA AESTIVALIS PONDSPICE G3 S2 MC LE

MACRANTHERA FLAMMEA HUMMINGBIRD FLOWER G3 S2 N LE

MAGNOLIA ASHEI ASHE'S MAGNOLIA G2 S2 MC LE

MAGNOLIA TRIPETALA UMBRELLA MAGNOLIA G5 S1 N LE

MONOTROPA HYPOPITHYS PINESAP G5 S1 N LE

NUPHAR LUTEA SSP

ULVACEA WEST FLORIDA COWLILY G5T2 S2 MC N

PINGUICULA

PRIMULIFLORA

PRIMROSE-FLOWERED

BUTTERWORT G3G4 S3 N LE

PLATANTHERA INTEGRA YELLOW FRINGELESS ORCHID G3G4 S3 N LE

QUERCUS ARKANSANA ARKANSAS OAK G3 S3 N LT

RHEXIA PARVIFLORA SMALL-FLOWERED

MEADOWBEAUTY G2 S2 MC LE

RHEXIA SALICIFOLIA PANHANDLE MEADOWBEAUTY G2 S2 MC LT

RHYNCHOSPORA

CRINIPES

HAIRY-PEDUNCLED

BEAKRUSH G1 S1 MC LE

SARRACENIA

LEUCOPHYLLA WHITE-TOP PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LE

SARRACENIA RUBRA SWEET PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 MC LT

STEWARTIA

MALACODENDRON SILKY CAMELLIA G4 S3 N LE

TEPHROSIA MOHRII PINELAND HOARY-PEA G3 S3 MC LT
148 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Species Name Common Name Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

XYRIS DRUMMONDII DRUMMOND'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS G3 S3 N N

XYRIS LONGISEPALA KARST POND XYRIS G2 S2 MC LE

XYRIS SCABRIFOLIA HARPER'S YELLOW-EYED

GRASS G3 S3 N LT

Escambia River Planning Unit

ACIPENSER OXYRINCHUS

DESOTOI GULF STURGEON G3T2 S2 LT LS

AGKISTRODON

CONTORTRIX COPPERHEAD G5 S2 N N

AMBLEMA PLICATA THREERIDGE G5 SH N N

ANODONTA

SUBORBICULATA FLAT FLOATER G5 S1S2 N N

APALONE MUTICA

CALVATA

GULF COAST SMOOTH

SOFTSHELL G5T5 S1 N N

ATRACTOSTEUS SPATULA ALLIGATOR GAR G3G4 S3 N N

CRYSTALLARIA ASPRELLA CRYSTAL DARTER G3 S1 N LT

DESMOGNATHUS

MONTICOLA SEAL SALAMANDER G5 S1 N N

DRYMARCHON CORAIS

COUPERI EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE G4T3 S3 LT LT

ELANOIDES FORFICATUS SWALLOW-TAILED KITE G5 S2 N N

ETHEOSTOMA HISTRIO HARLEQUIN DARTER G5 S1 N LS

ETHEOSTOMA PARVIPINNE GOLDSTRIPE DARTER G4G5 S2 N N

ETHEOSTOMA PROELIARE CYPRESS DARTER G5 S2 N N

FUNDULUS BLAIRAE LOWLAND TOPMINNOW G4 S1S2 N N

FUNDULUS JENKINSI SALTMARSH TOPMINNOW G2 S2 C LS

FUSCONAIA ESCAMBIA NARROW PIGTOE G2 S? N N

GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS GOPHER TORTOISE G3 S3 N LS

GRAPTEMYS ERNSTI ESCAMBIA MAP TURTLE G2 S2 N N

HYBOGNATHUS HAYI CYPRESS MINNOW G5 S1S2 N N

LAMPSILIS ORNATA SOUTHERN POCKETBOOK G5 S1 N N

LUXILUS

CHRYSOCEPHALUS STRIPED SHINER G5 SE? N N

LYTHRURUS ATRAPICULUS BLACKTIP SHINER G4 S2 N N

MACRHYBOPSIS SP 2 FLORIDA CHUB G3 S2 N N

MACROCLEMYS

TEMMINCKII

ALLIGATOR SNAPPING

TURTLE G3G4 S3 N LS

MEGALONAIAS NERVOSA WASHBOARD G5 S3 N N

MOXOSTOMA CARINATUM RIVER REDHORSE G4 S1S2 N N

MUSTELA FRENATA

OLIVACEA SOUTHEASTERN WEASEL G5T4 S3? N N

NOCOMIS

LEPTOCEPHALUS BLUEHEAD CHUB G5 SE? N N

NOTROPIS BAILEYI ROUGH SHINER G5 SE? N N

PERCINA AUSTROPERCA SOUTHERN LOGPERCH G3 S2 N N

PERCINA VIGIL SADDLEBACK DARTER G5 S1 N N

PTERONOTROPIS WELAKA BLUENOSE SHINER G4 S4 N LS

TAMIAS STRIATUS EASTERN CHIPMUNK G5 S2 N LS
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 149

Species Name Common Name Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

UTTERBACKIA PEGGYAE FLORIDA FLOATER G3 S3 N N

Blackwater River Planning Unit

AGKISTRODON

CONTORTRIX COPPERHEAD G5 S2 N N

AIMOPHILA AESTIVALIS BACHMAN'S SPARROW G3 S3 N N

AMBYSTOMA CINGULATUM FLATWOODS SALAMANDER G2G3 S2S3 LT LS

AMBYSTOMA TIGRINUM TIGER SALAMANDER G5 S3 N N

CORDULEGASTER SAYI SAY'S SPIKETAIL G2 S1S2 N N

CROTALUS ADAMANTEUS EASTERN DIAMONDBACK

RATTLESNAKE G4 S3 N N

DRYMARCHON CORAIS

COUPERI EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE G4T3 S3 LT LT

GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS GOPHER TORTOISE G3 S3 N LS

HOMOEONEURIA DOLANI BLUE SAND-RIVER MAYFLY G2 S1S2 N N

HYLA ANDERSONII PINE BARRENS TREEFROG G4 S3 N LS

MACROCLEMYS

TEMMINCKII

ALLIGATOR SNAPPING

TURTLE G3G4 S3 N LS

MUSTELA FRENATA

OLIVACEA SOUTHEASTERN WEASEL G5T4 S3? N N

NOTROPIS

MELANOSTOMUS BLACKMOUTH SHINER G2 S1 N LE

PICOIDES BOREALIS RED-COCKADED

WOODPECKER G3 S2 LE LT

PITUOPHIS

MELANOLEUCUS MUGITUS FLORIDA PINE SNAKE G4T3? S3 N LS

RANA CAPITO GOPHER FROG G3G4 S3 N LS

SCIURUS NIGER SHERMANI SHERMAN'S FOX SQUIRREL G5T3 S3 N LS

TAMIAS STRIATUS EASTERN CHIPMUNK G5 S2 N LS

Yellow River Planning Unit

ACCIPITER COOPERII COOPER'S HAWK G5 S3? N N

ACIPENSER OXYRINCHUS

DESOTOI GULF STURGEON G3T2 S2 LT LS

AGKISTRODON

CONTORTRIX COPPERHEAD G5 S2 N N

AIMOPHILA AESTIVALIS BACHMAN'S SPARROW G3 S3 N N

AMBYSTOMA CINGULATUM FLATWOODS SALAMANDER G2G3 S2S3 LT LS

ARDEA ALBA GREAT EGRET G5 S4 N N

ATHENE CUNICULARIA

FLORIDANA FLORIDA BURROWING OWL G4T3 S3 N LS

CROTALUS ADAMANTEUS EASTERN DIAMONDBACK

RATTLESNAKE G4 S3 N N

DRYMARCHON CORAIS

COUPERI EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE G4T3 S3 LT LT

EUMECES ANTHRACINUS COAL SKINK G5 S3 N N

FUSCONAIA ESCAMBIA NARROW PIGTOE G2 S? N N

GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS GOPHER TORTOISE G3 S3 N LS

GRAPTEMYS ERNSTI ESCAMBIA MAP TURTLE G2 S2 N N

HETERODON SIMUS SOUTHERN HOGNOSE SNAKE G2 S2 N N
150 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Species Name Common Name Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

HYLA ANDERSONII PINE BARRENS TREEFROG G4 S3 N LS

LYTHRURUS

ATRAPICULUS BLACKTIP SHINER G4 S2 N N

MACROCLEMYS

TEMMINCKII

ALLIGATOR SNAPPING

TURTLE G3G4 S3 N LS

MUSTELA FRENATA

OLIVACEA SOUTHEASTERN WEASEL G5T4 S3? N N

PANDION HALIAETUS OSPREY G5 S3S4 N LS*

PICOIDES BOREALIS RED-COCKADED

WOODPECKER G3 S2 LE LT

PITUOPHIS

MELANOLEUCUS MUGITUS FLORIDA PINE SNAKE G4T3? S3 N LS

PTERONOTROPIS WELAKA BLUENOSE SHINER G4 S4 N LS

RANA CAPITO GOPHER FROG G3G4 S3 N LS

RANA OKALOOSAE FLORIDA BOG FROG G2 S2 N LS

SCIURUS NIGER

SHERMANI SHERMAN'S FOX SQUIRREL G5T3 S3 N LS

TAMIAS STRIATUS EASTERN CHIPMUNK G5 S2 N LS

URSUS AMERICANUS

FLORIDANUS FLORIDA BLACK BEAR G5T2 S2 N LT*

UTTERBACKIA PEGGYAE FLORIDA FLOATER G3 S3 N N

VILLOSA CHOCTAWENSIS CHOCTAW BEAN G2 S1 N N

Shoal River Planning Unit

AIMOPHILA AESTIVALIS BACHMAN'S SPARROW G3 S3 N N

AMPHIUMA PHOLETER ONE-TOED AMPHIUMA G3 S3 N N

ARDEA ALBA GREAT EGRET G5 S4 N N

CROTALUS ADAMANTEUS EASTERN DIAMONDBACK

RATTLESNAKE G4 S3 N N

CROTALUS HORRIDUS TIMBER RATTLESNAKE G5 S3 N N

DRYMARCHON CORAIS

COUPERI EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE G4T3 S3 LT LT

EGRETTA CAERULEA LITTLE BLUE HERON G5 S4 N LS

ETHEOSTOMA

PARVIPINNE GOLDSTRIPE DARTER G4G5 S2 N N

EUMECES ANTHRACINUS COAL SKINK G5 S3 N N

GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS GOPHER TORTOISE G3 S3 N LS

HETERODON SIMUS SOUTHERN HOGNOSE SNAKE G2 S2 N N

HOMOEONEURIA DOLANI BLUE SAND-RIVER MAYFLY G2 S1S2 N N

HYLA ANDERSONII PINE BARRENS TREEFROG G4 S3 N LS

MACRHYBOPSIS SP 2 FLORIDA CHUB G3 S2 N N

NOTROPIS

MELANOSTOMUS BLACKMOUTH SHINER G2 S1 N LE

PICOIDES BOREALIS RED-COCKADED

WOODPECKER G3 S2 LE LT

PITUOPHIS

MELANOLEUCUS MUGITUS FLORIDA PINE SNAKE G4T3? S3 N LS

RANA CAPITO GOPHER FROG G3G4 S3 N LS

RANA OKALOOSAE FLORIDA BOG FROG G2 S2 N LS

SCIURUS NIGER SHERMAN'S FOX SQUIRREL G5T3 S3 N LS
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 151

Species Name Common Name Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

SHERMANI

TAMIAS STRIATUS EASTERN CHIPMUNK G5 S2 N LS

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

ACIPENSER OXYRINCHUS

DESOTOI GULF STURGEON G3T2 S2 LT LS

AIMOPHILA AESTIVALIS BACHMAN'S SPARROW G3 S3 N N

ALLIGATOR

MISSISSIPPIENSIS AMERICAN ALLIGATOR G5 S4 T(S/A) LS

AMBYSTOMA CINGULATUM FLATWOODS SALAMANDER G2G3 S2S3 LT LS

AMMODRAMUS MARITIMUS

FISHERI

LOUISIANA SEASIDE

SPARROW G4T4 S1 N N

AMPHIUMA PHOLETER ONE-TOED AMPHIUMA G3 S3 N N

CARETTA CARETTA LOGGERHEAD G3 S3 LT LT

CHARADRIUS

ALEXANDRINUS SNOWY PLOVER G4 S1 N LT

CHARADRIUS MELODUS PIPING PLOVER G3 S2 LT LT

CHELONIA MYDAS GREEN TURTLE G3 S2 LE LE

CROTALUS ADAMANTEUS EASTERN DIAMONDBACK

RATTLESNAKE G4 S3 N N

DRYMARCHON CORAIS

COUPERI EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE G4T3 S3 LT LT

EUMECES ANTHRACINUS COAL SKINK G5 S3 N N

FALCO SPARVERIUS

PAULUS

SOUTHEASTERN AMERICAN

KESTREL G5T4 S3 N LT

FUNDULUS JENKINSI SALTMARSH TOPMINNOW G2 S2 C LS

GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS GOPHER TORTOISE G3 S3 N LS

HETERODON SIMUS SOUTHERN HOGNOSE SNAKE G2 S2 N N

HYLA ANDERSONII PINE BARRENS TREEFROG G4 S3 N LS

MACROCLEMYS

TEMMINCKII

ALLIGATOR SNAPPING

TURTLE G3G4 S3 N LS

NERODIA CLARKII CLARKII GULF SALT MARSH SNAKE G4T3 S3? N N

PANDION HALIAETUS OSPREY G5 S3S4 N LS*

PEROMYSCUS

POLIONOTUS

LEUCOCEPHALUS

SANTA ROSA BEACH MOUSE G5T1 S1 N N

PICOIDES BOREALIS RED-COCKADED

WOODPECKER G3 S2 LE LT

PITUOPHIS

MELANOLEUCUS MUGITUS FLORIDA PINE SNAKE G4T3? S3 N LS

RALLUS LONGIROSTRIS

SCOTTII FLORIDA CLAPPER RAIL G5T3? S3? N N

RANA CAPITO GOPHER FROG G3G4 S3 N LS

RANA OKALOOSAE FLORIDA BOG FROG G2 S2 N LS

RYNCHOPS NIGER BLACK SKIMMER G5 S3 N LS

SCIURUS NIGER

SHERMANI SHERMAN'S FOX SQUIRREL G5T3 S3 N LS

STERNA ANTILLARUM LEAST TERN G4 S3 N LT

URSUS AMERICANUS

FLORIDANUS FLORIDA BLACK BEAR G5T2 S2 N LT*
152 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Appendix D: Bioassessment Supporting Data for the

Pensacola Bay Basin

Methodology

An increasingly accepted tool for evaluating the biological integrity of surface water

is bioassessment. The premise behind using bioassessment methodology in surface water

characterizations is that biological components of the environment manifest long-term

water quality conditions and can presumably give a better indication of the true health of

the waters involved 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. The reference condition data are 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 are compared with the expected scores of metrics to evaluate their

biological integrities. Metrics may be used independently or 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, and macroinvertebrates.

Only macroinvertebrate data are included in the following bioassessments. Because

site-specific habitat and physicochemical assessment information (e.g., percent suitable

macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities, extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian

buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of reporting, it is not included here.

However, habitat and physicochemical assessment information is instrumental in

pinpointing the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and should be included in future

reporting.

Data used in this report were obtained from the Department’s Biological Database

(SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality Database, where it could be substantiated

that such data were generated in compliance with the bioassessment standard operating

procedures referenced in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Section 62-303.330, F.A.C.).

Bioassessments are provided from streams, canals, and rivers, with data generated

according to Department standard operating procedure FS-7420 and FS-7430 and

analyzed according to the Stream Condition Index (SCI) for Florida (Barbour et al.,

1996; FDEP SOP #LT-7200) and/or Subsection 62-302.530(11), F.A.C. (Biological

Integrity Standard). Bioassessments are also provided for clear lakes (< = 20 platinum

cobalt units) with data generated according to Department standard operating procedure

FS-6460 and analyzed according to the Lake Condition Index (LCI) for Florida

(Gerritsen et al., 2000; FDEP SOP #LT-7300). Since macroinvertebrate-based indices

have not been shown to assess colored lakes in Florida accurately (>20 platinum cobalt

units), they have been excluded from the following bioassessments.

Only ambient data from state surface waters were used in the following

bioassessments, excluding data from effluent outfalls from discharging facilities or data
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 153

from monitoring sites not clearly established to collect ambient water quality data. Data

were used from the databases noted above without regard to the randomness of sample

site selection. For the purposes of this report, the seasons are defined as follows; winter

(1/1-3/31), spring (4/1-6/30), summer (7/1-9/30) and fall (10/1-12/31). Wet seasons are

generally spring and summer and dry seasons are fall and winter, although conditions can

vary within the state as a whole.

Metric Definitions

# of Taxa—This metric is otherwise known as taxa richness. In this report, it

indicates the total number of macroinvertebrate taxa found in a sample of stream or lake

bottom, other in-water substrate such as fallen branches or roots, or artificial surface in

the waterbody for invertebrate colonization. A taxon (singular) is a group of organisms

with common traits and characteristics, such as dragonflies (taxon Odonata). As the

environment is stressed, the number of taxa generally decreases.

# of Chironomid Taxa—Chironomids are larval flies that are prevalent in many

surface waters. This metric is also a measure of taxa richness.

# of EPT or EOT Taxa—Particular organisms or groups of organisms in a given

surface water habitat are more sensitive to changes in the environment than others,

making them good indicators of environmental stress. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera),

stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and dragonflies and damselflies

(Odonata) are four such taxa.

% Diptera—Dipterans are larval flies, many of which are tolerant of poor water

quality conditions. This metric represents the fraction of the total number of dipteran

organisms in a sample. A large fraction indicates an invertebrate community that is

predominantly tolerant of low water quality.

Florida Index—The Florida Index is a weighted measurement of the numbers of

Class I and Class II macroinvertebrate species known in Florida. It assigns points to

stream-dwelling macroinvertebrates based on their sensitivities to pollution. It is an

index in itself, but the results can be incorporated into other indices as measurements of

biological integrity.

% Filter Feeders—Filter-feeding organisms indicate the flow regime in a

waterbody. The larger the fraction of the total community consisting of filter feeders, the

more likely it is that the waterbody has a good flow regime.

% Dominant Taxon—In all waterbodies, the taxon that exists in greater number

than all others is known as the dominant taxon. A high percentage of dominant taxon in a

sample indicates lower diversity and poorer water quality.

Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index—This is a measurement of macroinvertebrate

community health, which is specified in Rule 62-302, F.A.C. It incorporates level of taxa
154 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

richness (how many taxa are present) within the distribution of individuals among taxa

present (how evenly they are distributed). Like the Florida Index, it is an index in itself.

However, the result is often included in other indices of biological integrity. Low

diversity scores are indicative of conditions where only a few species are present to the

exclusion of other taxa.

Hulbert Index—This index is also a weighted measurement of the numbers of Class

A and Class B species of macroinvertebrates known in Florida lakes. It is an index in

itself, but the result is included in the calculation of the LCI as a separate metric value.

References

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerrisen, and J.S. White. 1996. Development of the Stream Condition

Index (SCI) for Florida. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection. Owings Mills, Maryland: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Gerritsen, J., B. Jessup, E. Leppo, and J. White. 2000. Development of Lake Condition

Indexes (LCI) for Florida. Owings Mills, Maryland: Tetra Tech, Inc.
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

Table D.1: Stream Condition Index (SCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet

Summer Index Period (May-October): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI)

Macroinvertebrate Dipnet (20

sweeps of most productive

substrates)

Value Panhandle Peninsula Northeast

5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 

Total Number of Taxa ≥ 31 30-16 < 16 ≥ 26 25-14 < 14 ≥ 22 21-12 < 12

EPT Index ≥ 7 6-4 < 4 ≥ 4 3-2 < 2 --- ≥ 2 < 2

# Chironomid Taxa ≥ 9 8-5 < 5 ≥ 7 6-4 < 4 ≥ 7 6-4 < 4

% Contribution of Dominant

Taxon ≤ 22 23-61 > 61 ≤ 29 30-64 > 64 ≤ 31 32-66 > 66

% Diptera --- ≤ 50 > 50 --- ≤ 37 > 37 --- ≤ 47 > 47

Florida Index ≥ 16 15-8 < 8 ≥ 7 6-4 < 4 ≥ 8 7-5 < 5

% Suspension Feeders/Filterers ≥ 12 11-6 < 6 --- ≥ 7 < 7 --- ≥ 7 < 7

Total Score

Evaluation Excellent 27-33 Excellent 26-31 Excellent 

Good 21-26 Good 20-25 Good 

Poor 14-20 Poor 13-19 Poor 

Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 7-12 Very Poor 

Winter Index Period (November-April): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI)

Macroinvertebrate Dipnet (20

sweeps of most productive

substrates)

Value Panhandle Peninsula Northeast

5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 

Total Number of Taxa ≥ 27 26-14 < 14 ≥ 27 26-14 < 14 ≥ 18 17-9 < 9

EPT Index ≥ 6 5-3 < 3 ≥ 4 3-2 < 2 --- ≥ 3 < 3

# Chironomid Taxa ≥ 9 8-5 < 5 ≥ 9 8-5 < 5 ≥ 4 3-2 < 2

% Contribution of Dominant

Taxon ≤ 25 26-62 > 62 ≤ 30 31-65 > 65 ≤ 37 38-69 > 69

% Diptera --- ≤ 60 > 60 --- ≤ 52 > 52 --- ≤ 67 > 67

Florida Index ≥ 13 12-7 < 7 ≥ 10 9-5 < 5 ≥ 6 5-3 < 3

% Suspension Feeders/Filterers ≥ 13 12-7 < 7 ≥ 15 14-8 < 8 ≥ 25 25-13 < 13

Total Score

Evaluation Excellent 27-33 Excellent 27-33 Excellent 

Good 21-26 Good 21-26 Good 

Poor 14-20 Poor 14-20 Poor 

Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 
156 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table D.2: Lake Condition Index (LCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet for Clear Florida Lakes(< 20 platinum cobalt units)

Macroinvertebrate 12-benthic grab composite A B 

95th Percentile

of Ref Pop

Observed

Values

Total Number of Taxa 30.5

Total Number of EOT Taxa 5.2

% EOT Taxa 34.4

Shannon-Wiener Index 4.39

Hulbert Index 17.4

A B 100

95th Percentile

of Ref Pop

Observed

Values

% Dipteran Individuals 13.6

Total of Metric Scores

LCI Score (average metric score)

Acid (pH < 6.5) Alkaline (pH > 6.5) 

Ecoregion 65 Ecoregion 75

> 55 > 44 > 50 > 35 > 30 > 35 > 18 > 15 > 18 > 18 > 15 > 18 
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

Appendix E: Permitted Discharge Facilities, Superfund Sites, and Landfills in the 

Basin, by Planning Unit

Table E.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water (NPDES) in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit

Permit

Number Facility Name City Location Type of Facility Facility Status Design Capacity (mgd) Basin Where 

(WBID N

Escambia River Planning Unit

FLG911464 JORDANS EXXON CENTURY PET A BIG ESCAMBFLG910249 SOUTHERN PIT STOP CENTURY PET A BIG ESCAMB

FL0032468 CENTURY, TOWN OF CENTURY DW A 0.4500 ESCAMBIA FL0102202 PACE WATER SYSTEM, INC WWTP #1 PACE DW A 1.0000 ESCAMBIA FL0002488 SOLUTIA INC GONZALEZ IW A 27.0000 ESCAMBIA FL0038318 NITROUS OXIDE CORP CANTONMENT IW A 0.0006 ESCAMBIA FL0002275 GULF POWER CRIST STEAM PENSACOLA IW A 18.0000 ESCAMBIA 

FLRNEE173 DANA-COUPLED PRODUCTS, INC. PENSACOLA NEX A COTTON 

Blackwater River Planning Unit

FLG830355 NUGGET STORE #33 PEA RIDGE/MILTON PET A POND CFLG110445 RMC EWELL - MILTON MILTON CBP A POND CFLG110002 PENSACOLA READY MIX - MILTON MILTON CBP A POND C

FL0021903 MILTON, CITY OF (STP) MILTON DW A 2.5000 BLACKWATE

Yellow River Planning Unit

FLG110441 CEMEX - CRESTVIEW CRESTVIEW CBP A WILLIAMS 

FLA187411 PHIL-DIRT INDUSTRIES INC CRESTVIEW IW A DAVIS MILL FLA010183 BAKER HIGH SCHOOL BAKER DW A 0.0240 MILL CRFLA180017 CAMPBELL SAND & GRAVEL - MOSSY HEAD MOSSY HEAD IW A BOTTLE BFLA180238 CEMEX - MOSSY HEAD MINE MOSSY HEAD IW A BOTTLE BFLA010193 CRESTVIEW, CITY OF WWTF CRESTVIEW DW A 2.1000 JUNIPER FLA010202 OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE CRESTVIEW DW A 0.1750 TITI CRFLA016768 GREEN ACRES ROAD WWTP MOSSY HEAD DW A 0.0250 GUM CR
158 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table E.1: (continued)

Permit

Number Facility Name City Location Type of Facility Facility Status Design Capacity (mgd) Basin Wh

(WBID 

Yellow River Planning Unit (continued)

FLA010186 EGLIN A F B AUX FIELD #3 STP EGLIN AFB DW A 0.1250 SILVER FLA010188 EGLIN A F B AUX FIELD #6 STP FT WALTON BEACH DW A 0.0720 METTS FLA010246 CITY OF PAXTON WWTP PAXTON DW A 0.0750 LONG 

Shoal River Planning Unit

FLRNEE269 FEDEX GROUND CRESTVIEW NEX A SHOA

FLG110035 RMC EWELL - CRESTVIEW CRESTVIEW CBP A SHOAFLG110434 FORT WALTON CONCRETE - CRESTVIEW CRESTVIEW CBP N SHOA

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

FL0002313 AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS INC PACE IW A 1.5000 JUDGEFL0002593 STERLING FIBERS, INC PACE IW A 5.5000 JUDGE

FLG110210 WPR, INC MILTON CBP A JAKES 

FLRNEE235 AMERICAN ACCESSORIES OF PENSACOLA INC. PENSACOLA NEX A DIRECT R

B

FLG110354 CEMEX - PENSACOLA PENSACOLA CBP A CARPENTFLG110376 CEMEX - NAVARRE NAVARRE CBP A EAST R

FL0003174 HURLBURT FIELD AIR FORCE BASE HURLBURT FIELD DW A 1.0000 EAST R

FLG830419 ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT PENSACOLA PET A BAYOU FLG110453 PENSACOLA READY MIX - SORRENTO RD PENSACOLA CBP A 0.2160 BAYOU FLG110289 RMC EWELL - PENSACOLA PENSACOLA CBP A BAYOU 

FL0002500 US NAVAL AIR STATION PENSACOLA DW A 2.3500 BAYOU 

FLRNEE145 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY PENSACOLA NEX A BAYOU FLRNEE085 PENSACOLA - REDDY PLANT # 330 PENSACOLA NEX A BAYOU 

FL0021440 MAIN STREET A W W T STP PENSACOLA DW A 20.0000 BAYOU 

FLG911515 GROCERY SUPPLY COMPANY PENSACOLA PET A JACKSOFLG911201 DOUBLE G #1 NAVARRE PET A DIRECT R

B

FLG110435 FORT WALTON CONCRETE - FT WALTON BEACH FORT WALTON BEACH CBP N DIRECT R

B
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

Table E.1: (continued)

Permit

Number Facility Name City Location Type of Facility Facility Status Design Capacity (mgd) Basin Where 

(WBID N

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)

FLG911452 NAVARRE BEACH CABINS NAVARRE PET A DIRECT RU

BAY 

FLG110227 PENSACOLA READY MIX - MIDWAY GULF BREEZE CBP A DIRECT RU

BAY 

FL0044377 US EPA LABORATORY - SABINE ISLAND GULF BREEZE IW A 0.8500 DIRECT RU

BAY 

FL0024007 PENSACOLA BEACH WWTP PENSACOLA BEACH DW A 2.4000 DIRECT RU

BAY 

FLG110343 PENSACOLA READY MIX - PORTOFINO PENSACOLA BEACH CBP A DIRECT RU

BAY 

FL0023981 NAVARRE BEACH STP NAVARRE BEACH DW A 0.9000 DIRECT RU

BAY 
160 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table E.2: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Ground Water in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit

Permit

Number Facility Name City Location Type of Facility Facility Status Design Capacity (mgd) Basin Where 

(WBID N

Escambia River Planning Unit

FLA016218 CAMPBELL SAND & GRAVEL - CENTURY WASHPAD CENTURY IW A BIG ESCAMBFLA278246 PACE SAND & GRAVEL - CENTURY MINE 1 CENTURY IW A BIG ESCAMBFLA267813 CAMPBELL SAND & GRAVEL - VULCAN PIT CENTURY IW A BIG ESCAMBFLA181757 CRARY DAIRY CENTURY AFO N ESCAMBIA FLA295990 PACE SAND & GRAVEL- OIL WELL MINE CENTURY IW A ESCAMBIA FLA280330 MCDAVID SAWMILL MCDAVID IW A FLETCH CFLA010206 JAY, TOWN OF (STP) JAY DW A 0.1200 BRAY MILL FLA016110 COUCH READY MIX - BARTH PIT CANTONMENT IW A PINE BARREFLA181986 VAN PELT BROTHER DAIRY CENTURY AFO N PINE BARREFLA017063 CAMPBELL SAND & GRAVEL - BARTH CANTONMENT IW A PINE BARREFLA010055 COUCH READY MIX - PENSACOLA PENSACOLA IW N 0.0011 CLEAR CFLA010032 BRATT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BRATT DW A 0.0120 BEAVERDAFLA010033 NORTHVIEW HIGH SCHOOL BRATT DW A 0.0280 CANOE C

Blackwater Planning Unit

FLA010223 BERRYDALE FORESTRY CAMP JAY DW A 0.0500 MANNING FLA187569 PEA RIDGE PIT MILTON IW A POND CFLA016937 GENERAL RENTAL MILTON IW A POND CFLA010214 FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION C/S 12 MILTON IW A 0.0050 BIG JUNIPEFLA010195 BAKER LAUNDRETTE BAKER IW A 0.0003 PENNY CFLA274917 SHOWROOM DETAILING *PERMIT EXEMPT* MILTON IW N BLACKWATEFLA273341 DEJOHN'S CARWASH *PERMIT EXEMPT* MILTON IW N BLACKWATEFLA187551 BAKER PIT MILTON IW A PELICAN FLA010221 SANTA ROSA COUNTY I-10 REST AREA WWTP MILTON DW A 0.0134 PELICAN FLA182982 MOONEY SAND MINE MILTON IW A MALLOY B
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

Table E.2: (continued)

Permit

Number Facility Name City Location Type of Facility Facility Status Design Capacity (mgd) Basin Where 

(WBID N

Shoal River Planning Unit

FLA010181 BOB SIKES INDUSTRIAL PARK WWTF CRESTVIEW DW A 0.1000 SHOAL RFLA010200 D O T I-10 REST AREA WEST STP CRESTVIEW DW A 0.0086 SHOAL RFLA010201 D O T I-10 REST AREA EAST STP CRESTVIEW DW A 0.0086 SHOAL R

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

FLA016779 HIGHWAY 191 WWTP BAGDAD DW A 0.0600 SANDY POINFLA016996 RUSSELL SAND MINE MILTON IW A JAKES BFLA010218 AVALON UTILITIES MILTON DW A 0.1000 MULATTO FLA010219 ADRIAN WOODS SUBDIVISION WWTP PENSACOLA DW A 0.0600 DIRECT RU

BAY 

FLA016989 CARPENTERS CAMPERS INC PENSACOLA IW A CARPENTEFLA271993 FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO *PERMIT EXEMPT* TAMPA IW N BAYOU GFLA016165 MARK DUNNING INDUSTRIES, INC PENSACOLA IW A 0.0011 BAYOU GFLA016808 GULF-ATLANTIC CONSTRUCTORS PENSACOLA IW A BAYOU GFLA016231 CLARK SITE CONTRACTORS - NAVARRE NAVARRE IW A EAST RIVFLA010215 WARSH-A-MANIA, INC GULF BREEZE IW A DIRECT RU

BAY 

FLA010049 MORENO COURTS PENSACOLA DW A 0.1400 JONES CFLA272019 MARGARET CAR WASH *PERMIT EXEMPT* PENSACOLA IW N JACKSON FLA282812 AUTO-SHRED RECYCLING, L L C PENSACOLA IW A BAYOU CHICFLA010211 HOLLEY-NAVARRE WASTEWATER SYSTEM NAVARRE DW A 1.0000 WILLIAMS FLA010182 RUSSELL F W STEPHENSON MARY ESTHER DW A 1.0000 DIRECT RU

BAY 

FLA010191 MARY ESTHER, TOWN OF (STP) MARY ESTHER DW A 1.1000 DIRECT RU

BAY 

FLA010212 SOUTH SANTA ROSA UTILITIES SYSTEM GULF BREEZE DW A 2.0000 DIRECT RU

BAY 
162 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table E.3: Superfund and State Funded Hazardous Waste Sites in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit

Site ID Number Name City Program Status Source of Contaminants Bas

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

000000000002 American Creosote Pensacola Superfund Active Wood Preserving Waste Bayo000000000111 Escambia Wood Treating Pensacola Superfund Active Wood Preserving Waste Bayo000000000074 Agrico Chemical Co. Pensacola Superfund Active Chemical Manufacture/Processor Bayo000000000050 Omni-Vest Landfill Pensacola State Funded Active Landfill/ Dump000000000135 Maucher Property Molino State Funded Active Other000000000140 Edgecumbe Used Oil Pensacola State Funded Denied Waste Oil Disposal Site000000000078 Fashion Dry Cleaners Pensacola State Funded Active Dry Cleaning Site Contaminants
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

Table E.4: Permitted Landfill Facilities in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit

Facility Name City County Status Class of Waste * Basin (WB

Escambia River Planning Unit

AMERSON ROOFING, INC. (C & D) CENTURY Escambia Inactive 540 CA

TOWN OF CENTURY C & D DEBRIS DISPOS CENTURY Escambia Active 540 PRITCHE

HOLSBERRY C&D- HEATON SITE PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 THOM

HOLESBERRY PIT (L C DEBRIS DISPOSAL CANTONMENT Escambia Active 540 THOM

HOLSBERRY C&D- LEE SITE PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 THOM

CAMP FIVE LANDFILL CENTURY Escambia Closed, monitored 200 MITC

FLOYD CONTRACTORS, INC. PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 THOM

CHARLES T. SAPP C & D DEBRIS DISP. COTTAGE HILL Escambia Active 540 WILL

Blackwater River Planning Unit

NORTHWEST SANTA ROSA LANDFILL JAY Santa Rosa Closed, monitored 200 PO

RIDGE AVENUE PIT C&D MILTON Active 540 PO

S.R.CNTY ROAD DEPT-GEIGER C&D FACIL MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PEL

GULF COAST PAVING & GRADING(GALT E) MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PO

DREAM BUILDERS-PERSIMMON HOLLOW RD MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PEL

JOINER FILL DIRT MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 BLACK

NWF CONTRACTORS, INC. C&D DEBRIS MILTON Santa Rosa Closed, not monitored 540 BLACK

S.R.CNTY ROAD DEPT-AVALON C&D FACIL MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PO

CURTIS LEE LANDCLEARING C & D FACIL MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 BLACK

ROWLEY C&D DEBRIS LANDFILL MILTON Santa Rosa Closed, not monitored 540 BLACK

BILLY BOB LANE AKA (GCP&G BILLY BOB) MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 BLACK

P&S CONSTRUCTION HONEYBEE LANE PIT MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PEL

RUSSELL SEPTIC TANK SERVICE (C & D) MILTON Santa Rosa Closed, not monitored 540 LO

FOWLER WRECKER SERVICE C&D FACIL. MILTON Santa Rosa Closed, not monitored 540 PO

S.R.CNTY ROAD DEPT-BELL LN C&D FACL MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PO

PERSIMMON HOLLOW C&D DISPOSAL NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 PEL

FERGUSON (ET AL.) C & D FACILITY MILTON Santa Rosa Closed, not monitored 540 CL
164 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table E.4: (continued)

Facility Name City County Status Class of Waste * Basin (WB

Blackwater River Planning Unit (continued)

SANTA ROSA NORTH LF BERRYDALE Santa Rosa Closed, monitored 200 E

KEMBRO C&D DEBRIS LANDFILL MILTON Santa Rosa Closed, not monitored 540 BLACK

SANTA ROSA TRASH LANDFILL BAGDAD Santa Rosa Active 300 PO

Yellow River Planning Unit

WALKER, AUTRY L. C&D MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 YE

BOWMAN C & D FACIL. CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Closed, not monitored 540 MAT

GREG M. CASEY C & D FACIL. CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Inactive 540 TRA

OKALOOSA COUNTY BAKER EAST C & D BAKER Okaloosa Inactive 540 M

BAKER (#1) DUMP BAKER Okaloosa Closed, monitored 100 M

LAUREL HILL LANDFILL LAUREL HILL Okaloosa Closed, monitored 300 B

ARENA LANDFILL & SAND LLC CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 TRA

BAKER (#2) LF (AKA BAKER WEST) BAKER Okaloosa Closed, monitored 100 BAG

POINT CENTER INC Okaloosa Active 540 YE

Shoal River Planning Unit

CAMPTON LANDFILL CAMPTON Okaloosa Active, not permitted 100 CYPRES

J&B SAND COMPANY CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 T

WINGARD C & D FACILITY CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Closed, not monitored 540 JUN

RAY CONSTRUCTION OF OKALOOSA COUNTY CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 JUN

FRED C. AND MARIE BOWMAN C&D CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Closed, not monitored 540 JUN

WASTE RECYCLERS OF N.FL C & D FACIL CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 HO

WASTE RECYCLERS OF NORTH FL. INC. CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 HO

DAVID A. RUSSELL C&D FACILITY CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Closed, not monitored 540 SIL

SOUTHSIDE SAND PIT LCD (SILVER CREEK) CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 T

CRESTVIEW C & D FACILITY #2 CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 SH

GULF COAST PAVING & GRADING, INC CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 HO
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

Table E.4: (continued)

Facility Name City County Status Class of Waste * Basin (WB

Shoal River Planning Unit (continued)

CRESTVIEW C & D FACILITY #1 CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Closed, not monitored 540 SH

KING C & D FACIL. CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Closed, not monitored 540 SH

DIAMOND SAND CO. C & D FACILITY MOSSY HEAD Walton Closed, not monitored 540 BOT

PARKER C & D FACILITY CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 JUN

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

PHILLIP C BARNARD NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 DE

WHITROCK ASSOCIATES, INC FT WALTON BEACH Okaloosa Active 540 EAS

52ND ST LCD (FORMERLY WILLOW VALLEY LCD) PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 JAC

NAVARRE PIT (M&L SAND) NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 EAS

SANTA ROSA CENTRAL LF BAGDAD Santa Rosa Active 100 JA

DAVIS C & D FACIL. FT. WALTON BCH. Okaloosa Closed, not monitored 540 EAS

APAC FLORIDA, INC BOLEY PIT LCD PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 BAY

WEST PENSACOLA BAPTIST CHURCH C&D PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 JAC

GULF COAST PAVING & GRADING (GALT) MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 JA

BAYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CO LCD (FORMERLY

HOLLEY DIRT) NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 EAS

MILLS, GEO H. C&D NAVARRE Escambia Active 540 EAS

SANTA ROSA UTILITIES INC HOLLEY Santa Rosa Active 540 EAS

APAC FLORIDA INC KILBEE PIT LCD PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 BAY

WRIGHT LANDFILL WRIGHT Okaloosa Closed, monitored 100 EAS

DIAMOND DISPOSAL INC C&D MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 MUL

COYOTE-NAVARRE (FORMERLY K&K) HOLLEY Santa Rosa Active 540 EAS

SANTA ROSA ASPHALT & MATERIALS INC HOLLEY Santa Rosa Active 540 EAS

STOCKS, BILLY WAYNE NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 TOM 

CHADBOURNE C & D FACIL - HOLLEY PIT HOLLEY Santa Rosa Closed, not monitored 540 EAS
166 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table E.4: (continued)

Facility Name City County Status Class of Waste * Basin (WB

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)

MIDWAY SANITATION SERVICE (C & D) GULF BREEZE Santa Rosa Inactive 540 DIRECT 

MCN OF PACE INC (C&D) MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 MUL

CHADBOURNE (MCCOY PIT) C&D DEBRIS PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 BAY

SANTA ROSA HOLLEY LF HOLLEY Santa Rosa Closed, monitored 100 DE

* Definitions of Waste Classes:100 – Class 1 landfill200 – Class 2 landfill300 – Class 3 landfill540 – Construction/Demolition debris
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

Table E.5: Brownfields in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit

Brownfield Area Name City County Acres

Date of Brownfield

Site Rehabilitation

Agreement

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

Palafox Corridor Redevelopment Area Pensacola Escambia 2444397.95 9/16/99

Strategic Crossings Corporation Pensacola Escambia 10654.27 1/25/01 

Pensacola Mainstreet Area Pensacola Escambia 27459.14 12/19/02

MidTown BF Redevelopment Area Pensacola Escambia 1483447.00 1/23/03
168 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Appendix F: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Pensacola Bay 

Table F.1: Integrated Assessment for the Pensacola Bay Basin for Nutrients, Biology, Fish, and Conventional Parameters, by PlaWBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

Blackwater River Planning Unit104 TURKEY CREEK Stream 3F NI 11 BIG COLDWATER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 114 CEDAR CREEK Stream 116 DOGWOOD BRANCH Stream 11A WEST FORK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI 12 HAWKINS CREEK Stream 3F NI 122 PRINGLE BRANCH Stream 127 MANNING CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 129 DANLEY BRANCH Stream 13 DIXON BRANCH Stream 132 BULL PEN BRANCH Stream 3F ID NI 15 REEDY BRANCH Stream 152 THOMPSON SPRING BRANCH Stream 153 SURVEYORS CREEK Stream 154 WOLF CREEK Stream 155 BLACKJACK CREEK Stream 156 BARREL BRANCH Stream 158 MINCY BRANCH Stream 16 COBB CREEK Stream 166 BEAVER CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 17 YELLOW WATER CREEK Stream 171 HOG PEN BRANCH Stream 173 NARROWS CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 176 POND CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI NI NI 
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

179 BEAR CREEK Stream 3F NI NI ID NI 179A BEAR LAKE Lake 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI 18 BIG COLDWATER CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI IM NI 181 GUNSTOCK BRANCH Stream 184 MUDDY BRANCH Stream 3F ID NI 186 LONG BRANCH Stream 3F ID NI 188 CLARK BRANCH Stream 18A EAST FORK Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM 19 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI NI 193 BLUE CREEK Stream 194 DUNN BRANCH Stream 198 PYRON SPRING BRANCH Stream 3F ID NI 20 REEDY CREEK Stream 21 SWEETWATER CREEK Stream 3F NI ID ID NI NI NI ID 211 MASON BRANCH Stream 213 MARE BRANCH Stream 3F IM 214 PITTMAN CREEK Stream 215 BIG BRANCH Stream 218 RED WASH BRANCH Stream 22 LONG BRANCH Stream 220 MIDDLE CREEK Stream 221 WOLFE CREEK Stream 225 PENNY CREEK Stream 3F IM 229 ALLIGATOR CREEK Stream 23 ROCK CREEK Stream 238 BASS BRINKS CREEK Stream 24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM IM NI NI 
170 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

241 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID 242 THREE HOLLOW HEAD Stream 247 LIGHTER KNOT CREEK Stream 248 POPLAR HEAD Stream 24A BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI IM IM NI NI 24B BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F ID ID ID IM 24C BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM IM ID NI 24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM IM NI 250 EARNEST MILL CREEK Stream 257 HORNS CREEK Stream 26 BOGGY HOLLOW CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 260 CLEAR CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID NI IM 27 PANTHER CREEK Stream 3F NI ID ID ID ID NI ID 271 ATES CREEK Stream 3F NI NI ID IM 276 READER CREEK Stream 284 RATTLESNAKE SPRING Stream 287 MILL CREEK Stream 288 DRY BRANCH Stream 292 MASH BRANCH Stream 294 BONE CREEK Stream 295 HYNOTE BRANCH Stream 296 SHINGLE BRANCH Stream 299 WOLFTRAP BRANCH Stream 3F NI 303 GREEN BRANCH Stream 31 GOODSON BRANCH Stream 312 SNOWDEN CREEK Stream 313 CHICKEN HEAD Stream 
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

314 COON CAMP Stream 3F NI 322 ADAMS MILL CREEK Stream 325 ADAMS SPRING BRANCH Stream 334 HURRICANE BRANCH Stream 352 TARKILN HEAD Stream 3F IM 354 HURRICANE BRANCH Stream 356 BUCKET BRANCH Stream 3F NI 37 LONG BRANCH Stream 383 LONG BRANCH Stream 481 PELICAN BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 50 OAK CREEK Stream 3F ID IM 62 JUNIPER CREEK Stream 3F 64 WOLF CREEK Stream 65 UNNAMED CREEK Stream 70 BISHOP BRANCH Stream 75 BUCK CREEK Stream 82 MALLOY BRANCH Stream 3F IM 83 HURRICANE CREEK Stream 3F NI ID ID NI ID IM ID 83A HURRICANE LAKE Lake 3F NI 83B HURRICANE LAKE DRAIN Lake 88 MARE CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID IM 90 COBB BRANCH Stream 3F IM 93 CLEAR CREEK Stream 96 CRANE BRANCH Stream 98 BEAR BRANCH Stream 99 LEWIS BRANCH Stream 
172 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

Escambia River Planning Unit10 BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID IM ID 102 HOLLAND BRANCH Stream 10A ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM 10B ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F IM 10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI NI IM NI NI 10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM NI NI 10E ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F IM NI NI NI NI NI IM 10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F IM IM NI NI NI IM NI NI 10G ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 111 MOORE CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 118 MCCOSTILL MILL CREEK Stream 3F NI 131 COTTON CREEK Stream 134 UNNAMED BRANCH Stream 168 MC DAVID CREEK Stream 3F ID IM 192 BLUE WATER CREEK Stream 3F NI 201 FLETCH CREEK Stream 3F NI 217 BLACK BRANCH Stream 236 BELL CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 237 GULLY BRANCH Stream 244 DELANEY CREEK Stream 25 WIGGINS BRANCH Stream 3F ID IM 258 THOMAS CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 25A LAKE STONE SW OF CENTU Lake 3F ID NI 265 MORGAN BRANCH Stream 310 TENMILE CREEK Stream 315 BUFFALO MILL CREEK Stream 
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

316 CROOKED CREEK Stream 326 WILDER BRANCH Stream 3F NI 341 THE CANAL Stream 342 PRETTY BRANCH Stream 36 BRAY MILL CREEK Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI 374 ROCKY BRANCH Stream 389 BEARLE CREEK Stream 39 BRESTWORKS BRANCH Stream 3F IM 395 WILLIAMS CREEK Stream 3F IM 475 SPANISH MILL CREEK Stream 5 PINE BARREN CREEK Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM ID 531 CLEAR CREEK Stream 3F IM 586 THOMPSON BAYOU Stream 3F IM 6 BEAVERDAM CREEK Stream 3F IM 7 CANOE CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI IM IM 71 MITCHELL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 74 HOLLY CREEK Stream 79 HALL BRANCH Stream 3F IM 8 HOBBS BRANCH Stream 3F ID ID ID 87 LITTLE PINE BARREN CR Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 89 WILSON BRANCH Stream 9 PRITCHETT MILL BRANCH Stream 3F ID IM Pensacola Bay Planning Unit1007 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 1012 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 420 PACE MILL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 444 SPENCER FIELD DRAIN Stream 3F IM 
174 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

493 JUDGES BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 502 BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI ID 510 TURTLE CREEK Stream 3F NI 523 LIVE OAK CREEK Stream 3F IM 525 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 534 SANDY POINT BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 537 JAKES BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 539 MULATTO BAYOU Estuary 3M ID ID ID ID NA ID 543 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI NA IM 548AB FLORIDATOWN PARK Coastal 3M NI IM NI NI IM 548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 3M NI NI NI IM 548BB BAY BLUFFS PARK Coastal 3M NI 548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary 2 NI NI ID NI NA 548CB GARCON POINT LOCATION 3 Coastal 3M NI 548CC REDFISH POINT Coastal 3M ID NI ID ID NA 548D PENSACOLA BAY (MID) Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI NA NI 548E PENSACOLA BAY (MOUTH) Estuary 3M ID ID ID ID NA 548F BAYOU GRANDE Estuary 3M ID ID ID 548FB NAVY POINT Coastal 3M NI NI NI NI NI 548G BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 3M ID ID ID ID 548H EAST BAY Estuary 2 NI IM IM NI NA NI IM 560 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 600 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 635 WHITEOAK BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 637 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 639 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 3F NI NI ID 
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

649 INDIAN BAYOU Estuary 663 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 3F NI NI NI IM 666 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 669 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 3F NI NI NI 676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream 3F NI IM IM NI NI NI 683 DEAN CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 685 PRAIRIE CREEK Stream 3F NI 694 TROUT BAYOU Estuary 3M NI NI NI 701 EAST RIVER BAY Stream 3F IM NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 736 PANTHER CREEK Stream 3F NI 738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary 3M NI IM NI NI NA NI 738AB BAYVIEW PARK PIER Coastal 3M IM 740 BAYOU GRANDE Estuary 3M IM NI NI NI NA 782 UNNAMED Stream Stream 8002 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 1 Coastal IM 8002A FORT PICKENS Coastal 3M NI IM 8003 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 2 Coastal 3M NI NI NI NI IM NI 8003D SABINE YACHT AND RACKET Coastal 3M NI NI NI ID ID 8003E PENSACOLA BEACH Coastal 3M NI IM 8004 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 3 Coastal IM 8004B SANTA ROSA ISLAND PARK Coastal 3M NI IM 8004C COUNTY PARK EAST Coastal 3M NI IM 8005 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 4 Coastal IM 8006 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 5 Coastal IM 8006A NAVARRE BEACH PIER Coastal 3M NI IM 8007 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 6 Coastal IM 8007A EL MATADOR Coastal 3M NI IM 
176 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

825 EAST RIVER BAY Stream 829 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 833 TOM KING BAYOU Estuary 834 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 3M NI NI ID NI NA 846 BAYOU CHICO Estuary 3M NI IM IM NI NA IM 846A JONES CREEK Stream 3F IM IM IM NI NI IM 846B JACKSON CREEK Stream 3F IM IM IM NI NI IM 846C BAYOU CHICO DRAIN Estuary 846CB BAYOU CHICO BEACH Coastal 3M NI IM NI NI IM 848DA SANDERS BEACH Coastal 3M NI 864 WILLIAMS CREEK Estuary 3M IM 870 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 3M IM 893 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 3M ID IM ID ID NA 915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 2 NI IM NI NI NA NI 915A WOODLAWN BEACH Coastal 3M ID NI ID ID NA ID 915B NAVARRE PARK HWY 98 Coastal 3M NI ID 915C LIZA JACKSON PARK Coastal 3M NI NI NI NI NA NI 915D MARLER PARK Coastal 3M NI 915E QUIET WATER BEACH Coastal 3M NI NI NI NI NA NI 915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal 3M ID NI ID ID NA 925 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI NA NI 930 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI NI 987 BAYOU GARCON Estuary 3M IM NI NI NI NA IM Shoal River Planning Unit100 CANEY CREEK Stream 3F IM 101 PINE LOG CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 106 JUNIPER CREEK Stream 
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

117 TURKEY CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID NI ID 128 MACK BRANCH Stream 141 UNNAMED Stream Stream 144 LITTLE CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID NI ID 159 CYPRESS POND BRANCH Stream 160 SHOAL RIVER Stream 3F ID ID ID IM 160A SHOAL RIVER Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI 160B SHOAL RIVER Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI ID 160F SHOAL RIVER Stream 161 POVERTY CREEK Stream 167 GUM CREEK Stream 3F IM 167A GUM CREEK Stream 177 UNNAMED BRANCH Stream 187 RUM STILL BRANCH Stream 189 KIRKLAND BRANCH Stream 190 MIDDLE CREEK Stream 3F IM 191 JUNIPER CREEK Stream 196 BEECH TREE CREEK Stream 202 SPRING BRANCH Stream 207 BEE BRANCH Stream 3F NI 222 BENDS CREEK Stream 224 CLEAR CREEK Stream 264 BATTLE CREEK Stream 266 HOLLY LAKE OUTLET Lake 266A KINGS LAKE Lake 3F ID ID ID ID ID 266B HOLLY LAKE Lake 268 WARD MILL CREEK Stream 
178 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

274 BEAR CREEK Stream 277 MARE CREEK Stream 280 MOSSY HEAD BRANCH Stream 281 NARROWS CREEK Stream 282 BOTTLE BRANCH Stream 3F IM 285 LAIRD MILL CREEK Stream 300 JUNIPER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID IM 301 BIG FORK Stream 306 LONG CREEK Stream 3F NI 321 TITI CREEK Stream 324 GUM CREEK Stream 328 KING BRANCH Stream 33 WATSON BAY BRANCH Stream 330 HOG CREEK Stream 331 WILLIAMS BRANCH Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 333 HORSESHOW BRANCH Stream 338 RED DEER CREEK Stream 34 HORSEHEAD CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI 347 CAWTHON BRANCH Stream 35 POND CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI 358 INDIGO BRANCH Stream 359 SILVER CREEK Stream 35C FLEMING CREEK Stream 363 HONEY CREEK Stream 365 DESERTER CREEK Stream 367 GOPHER CREEK Stream 372 TURKEY HEN CREEK Stream 
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

379 BLUE SPRING CREEK Stream 38 LAKE JACKSON DRAIN Lake 3F ID ID ID ID ID 38A LAKE JACKSON Lake 403 RAMER CREEK Stream 405 BULL CREEK Stream 3F NI 76 LONG CREEK Stream 3F NI 91 GREEN BRANCH Stream 3F IM 92 UNNAMED OUTLET LAKE 3F IM Yellow River Planning Unit107 MURDER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 110 MILL CREEK Stream 137 POLLEY CREEK Stream 145 Lake KARICK Lake 3F ID ID ID ID NI 145A DEADFALL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID 145B LAKE KARICK DRAIN Lake 162 BEAR BRANCH Stream 200 BUCKHANNON BRANCH Stream 203 COTTON CREEK Stream 209 SILVER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 223 GUM CREEK Stream 3F NI 231 DAVIS MILL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 254 MILL CREEK Stream 255 MATHISON CREEK Stream 256 PINEY WOODS CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID 275 BAGGETT CREEK Stream 3F NI 28 BIG HORSE CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 29 LITTLE HORSE CREEK Stream 
180 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI IM NI NI 308 RESERVOIR OUTLET Stream 30A YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI NI IM NI NI 30B YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F NI ID ID NI ID NI IM ID ID 30C YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F NI NI IM 30D YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F IM 30E YELLOW RIVER Stream 30F YELLOW RIVER Stream 30G TRAMMEL CREEK Stream 3F IM NI NI NI NI 319 GULLY BRANCH Stream 32 BIG CREEK Stream 335 TRAWICK CREEK Stream 336 WILKENSON CREEK Stream 35A POND CR in MCCLOUD BAY Stream 35B POND CREEK Stream 360 CANOE CREEK Stream 364 JULIAN MILL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 370 PEARL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID 380 BURNT GROCERY CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 392 GAINER CREEK Stream 396 TURKEY GOBBLER CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 408 MALONE CREEK Stream 41 UNNAMED CREEK Stream 415 METTS CREEK Stream 418 MIDDLE CREEK Stream 429 DEAD RIVER Stream 3F IM 443 LOST BOY POND OUTLET LAKE 
Water Quality Status Report: Pens

WBID Basin Name Waterbody

Type

Water Use

Classification

Dissolved

Oxygen

Fecal

Coliforms

Total

 Coliforms

Turbidity

Unionized

Ammonia

Biology

Fish

Fluoride

Chlorophyll a

TSI

Historic

Chlorophyll a

443A LOST BOY POND Lake 517 BOILING CREEK Stream 592 POPLAR BRANCH Stream 610 WEAVER CREEK Stream 3F NI 631 LITTLE BOILING CREEK Stream 652 INDIGO CREEK Stream 78 CAMBELLS MILL CREEK Stream 95 BAILY BRANCH Stream 
182 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table F.2: Integrated Assessment for Metals in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

Escambia River Planning Unit

10 BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK Stream IIIF

102 HOLLAND BRANCH Stream

10A ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream IIIF

10B ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream IIIF

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream IIIF IM ID

10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream IIIF IM

10E ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream IIIF

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream IIIF IM

10G ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream

111 MOORE CREEK Stream IIIF

118 MCCOSTILL MILL CREEK Stream IIIF

131 COTTON CREEK Stream

134 UNNAMED BRANCH Stream

168 MC DAVID CREEK Stream IIIF

192 BLUE WATER CREEK Stream IIIF

201 FLETCH CREEK Stream IIIF

217 BLACK BRANCH Stream

236 BELL CREEK Stream IIIF

237 GULLY BRANCH Stream

244 DELANEY CREEK Stream

25 WIGGINS BRANCH Stream IIIF

258 THOMAS CREEK Stream IIIF

25A LAKE STONE SW OF CENTU Lake IIIF

265 MORGAN BRANCH Stream

310 TENMILE CREEK Stream

315 BUFFALO MILL CREEK Stream

316 CROOKED CREEK Stream

326 WILDER BRANCH Stream IIIF

341 THE CANAL Stream

342 PRETTY BRANCH Stream

36 BRAY MILL CREEK Stream IIIF

374 ROCKY BRANCH Stream

389 BEARLE CREEK Stream

39 BRESTWORKS BRANCH Stream IIIF

395 WILLIAMS CREEK Stream IIIF

475 SPANISH MILL CREEK Stream

5 PINE BARREN CREEK Stream IIIF

531 CLEAR CREEK Stream IIIF

586 THOMPSON BAYOU Stream IIIF
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 183

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

6 BEAVERDAM CREEK Stream IIIF

7 CANOE CREEK Stream IIIF

71 MITCHELL CREEK Stream IIIF

74 HOLLY CREEK Stream

79 HALL BRANCH Stream IIIF

8 HOBBS BRANCH Stream IIIF

87 LITTLE PINE BARREN CR Stream IIIF

89 WILSON BRANCH Stream

9 PRITCHETT MILL BRANCH Stream IIIF

Blackwater River Planning Unit

104 TURKEY CREEK Stream IIIF

11 BIG COLDWATER CREEK Stream IIIF

114 CEDAR CREEK Stream

116 DOGWOOD BRANCH Stream

11A WEST FORK Stream IIIF

12 HAWKINS CREEK Stream IIIF

122 PRINGLE BRANCH Stream

127 MANNING CREEK Stream IIIF

129 DANLEY BRANCH Stream

13 DIXON BRANCH Stream

132 BULL PEN BRANCH Stream IIIF

15 REEDY BRANCH Stream

152 THOMPSON SPRING BRANCH Stream

153 SURVEYORS CREEK Stream

154 WOLF CREEK Stream

155 BLACKJACK CREEK Stream

156 BARREL BRANCH Stream

158 MINCY BRANCH Stream

16 COBB CREEK Stream

166 BEAVER CREEK Stream IIIF

17 YELLOW WATER CREEK Stream

171 HOG PEN BRANCH Stream

173 NARROWS CREEK Stream IIIF

176 POND CREEK Stream IIIF NI

179 BEAR CREEK Stream

179A BEAR LAKE Stream IIIF

18 BIG COLDWATER CREEK Lake IIIF

181 GUNSTOCK BRANCH Stream IIIF

184 MUDDY BRANCH Stream

186 LONG BRANCH Stream IIIF

188 CLARK BRANCH Stream IIIF
184 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

18A EAST FORK Stream

19 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream IIIF

193 BLUE CREEK Stream IIIF

194 DUNN BRANCH Stream

198 PYRON SPRING BRANCH Stream

20 REEDY CREEK Stream IIIF

21 SWEETWATER CREEK Stream

211 MASON BRANCH Stream IIIF

213 MARE BRANCH Stream

214 PITTMAN CREEK Stream IIIF

215 BIG BRANCH Stream

218 RED WASH BRANCH Stream

22 LONG BRANCH Stream

220 MIDDLE CREEK Stream

221 WOLFE CREEK Stream

225 PENNY CREEK Stream

229 ALLIGATOR CREEK Stream IIIF

23 ROCK CREEK Stream

238 BASS BRINKS CREEK Stream

24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream IIIF NI ID ID ID

241 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream IIIF

242 THREE HOLLOW HEAD Stream

247 LIGHTER KNOT CREEK Stream

248 POPLAR HEAD Stream

24A BLACKWATER RIVER Stream IIIF NI

24B BLACKWATER RIVER Stream IIIF

24C BLACKWATER RIVER Stream IIIF ID

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream IIIF

250 EARNEST MILL CREEK Stream

257 HORNS CREEK Stream

26 BOGGY HOLLOW CREEK Stream IIIF

260 CLEAR CREEK Stream IIIF

27 PANTHER CREEK Stream IIIF

271 ATES CREEK Stream IIIF

276 READER CREEK Stream

284 RATTLESNAKE SPRING Stream

287 MILL CREEK Stream

288 DRY BRANCH Stream

292 MASH BRANCH Stream

294 BONE CREEK Stream

295 HYNOTE BRANCH Stream

296 SHINGLE BRANCH Stream
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 185

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

299 WOLFTRAP BRANCH Stream IIIF

303 GREEN BRANCH Stream

31 GOODSON BRANCH Stream

312 SNOWDEN CREEK Stream

313 CHICKEN HEAD Stream

314 COON CAMP Stream IIIF

322 ADAMS MILL CREEK Stream

325 ADAMS SPRING BRANCH Stream

334 HURRICANE BRANCH Stream

352 TARKILN HEAD Stream IIIF

354 HURRICANE BRANCH Stream

356 BUCKET BRANCH Stream IIIF

37 LONG BRANCH Stream

383 LONG BRANCH Stream

481 PELICAN BAYOU Estuary IIIM

50 OAK CREEK Stream IIIF

62 JUNIPER CREEK Stream IIIF

64 WOLF CREEK Stream

65 UNNAMED CREEK Stream

70 BISHOP BRANCH Stream

75 BUCK CREEK Stream

82 MALLOY BRANCH Stream IIIF

83 HURRICANE CREEK Stream IIIF

83A HURRICANE LAKE Lake IIIF

83B HURRICANE LAKE DRAIN Lake

88 MARE CREEK Stream IIIF

90 COBB BRANCH Stream IIIF

93 CLEAR CREEK Stream

96 CRANE BRANCH Stream

98 BEAR BRANCH Stream

99 LEWIS BRANCH Stream

107 MURDER CREEK Stream IIIF

110 MILL CREEK Stream

137 POLLEY CREEK Stream

145 LAKE KARICK Lake IIIF

145A DEADFALL CREEK Stream IIIF

145B LAKE KARICK DRAIN Lake

162 BEAR BRANCH Stream

200 BUCKHANNON BRANCH Stream

203 COTTON CREEK Stream

209 SILVER CREEK Stream IIIF

223 GUM CREEK Stream IIIF
186 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

231 DAVIS MILL CREEK Stream IIIF

254 MILL CREEK Stream

255 MATHISON CREEK Stream

256 PINEY WOODS CREEK Stream IIIF

275 BAGGETT CREEK Stream IIIF

28 BIG HORSE CREEK Stream IIIF

29 LITTLE HORSE CREEK Stream

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream IIIF ID ID ID ID

308 RESERVOIR OUTLET Stream

30A YELLOW RIVER Stream IIIF IM

30B YELLOW RIVER Stream IIIF IM

30C YELLOW RIVER Stream IIIF ID

30D YELLOW RIVER Stream IIIF

30E YELLOW RIVER Stream

30F YELLOW RIVER Stream

30G TRAMMEL CREEK Stream IIIF

319 GULLY BRANCH Stream

32 BIG CREEK Stream

335 TRAWICK CREEK Stream

336 WILKENSON CREEK Stream

35A POND CR in MCCLOUD BAY Stream

35B POND CREEK Stream

360 CANOE CREEK Stream

364 JULIAN MILL CREEK Stream IIIF

370 PEARL CREEK Stream IIIF

380 BURNT GROCERY CREEK Stream IIIF

392 GAINER CREEK Stream

396 TURKEY GOBBLER CREEK Stream IIIF

408 MALONE CREEK Stream

41 UNNAMED CREEK Stream

415 METTS CREEK Stream

418 MIDDLE CREEK Stream

429 DEAD RIVER Stream IIIF

443 LOST BOY POND OUTLET Lake

443A LOST BOY POND Lake

517 BOILING CREEK Stream

592 POPLAR BRANCH Stream

610 WEAVER CREEK Stream IIIF

631 LITTLE BOILING CREEK Stream

652 INDIGO CREEK Stream

78 CAMBELLS MILL CREEK Stream

95 BAILY BRANCH Stream
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 187

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

Shoal River Planning Unit

100 CARNEY CREEK Stream IIIF

101 PINE LOG CREEK Stream

106 JUNIPER CREEK Stream IIIF

117 TURKEY CREEK Stream

128 MACK BRANCH Stream

141 UNNAMED Stream Stream IIIF

144 LITTLE CREEK Stream

159 CYPRESS POND BRANCH Stream IIIF

160 SHOAL RIVER Stream IIIF

160A SHOAL RIVER Stream IIIF NI

160B SHOAL RIVER Stream ID ID ID

160F SHOAL RIVER Stream IIIF

161 POVERTY CREEK Stream

167 GUM CREEK Stream IIIF

167A GUM CREEK Stream

177 UNNAMED BRANCH Stream

187 RUM STILL BRANCH Stream

189 KIRKLAND BRANCH Stream

190 MIDDLE CREEK Stream IIIF

191 JUNIPER CREEK Stream

196 BEECH TREE CREEK Stream

202 SPRING BRANCH Stream

207 BEE BRANCH Stream IIIF

222 BENDS CREEK Stream

224 CLEAR CREEK Stream

264 BATTLE CREEK Stream

266 HOLLY LAKE OUTLET Lake

266A KINGS LAKE Lake IIIF

266B HOLLY LAKE Lake

268 WARD MILL CREEK Stream

274 BEAR CREEK Stream

277 MARE CREEK Stream

280 MOSSY HEAD BRANCH Stream

281 NARROWS CREEK Stream

282 BOTTLE BRANCH Stream IIIF

285 LAIRD MILL CREEK Stream

300 JUNIPER CREEK Stream IIIF

301 BIG FORK Stream

306 LONG CREEK Stream IIIF

321 TITI CREEK Stream
188 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

324 GUM CREEK Stream

328 KING BRANCH Stream

33 WATSON BAY BRANCH Stream

330 HOG CREEK Stream

331 WILLIAMS BRANCH Stream IIIF

333 HORSESHOW BRANCH Stream

338 RED DEER CREEK Stream

34 HORSEHEAD CREEK Stream IIIF

347 CAWTHON BRANCH Stream

35 POND CREEK Stream IIIF

358 INDIGO BRANCH Stream

359 SILVER CREEK Stream

35C FLEMING CREEK Stream

363 HONEY CREEK Stream

365 DESERTER CREEK Stream

367 GOPHER CREEK Stream

372 TURKEY HEN CREEK Stream

379 BLUE SPRING CREEK Stream

38 LAKE JACKSON DRAIN Lake IIIF

38A LAKE JACKSON Lake

403 RAMER CREEK Stream

405 BULL CREEK Stream IIIF

76 LONG CREEK Stream IIIF

91 GREEN BRANCH Stream IIIF

92 UNNAMED OUTLET Lake IIIF

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

1007 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream IIIF

1012 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream IIIF

420 PACE MILL CREEK Stream IIIF

444 SPENCER FIELD DRAIN Stream IIIF

493 JUDGES BAYOU Estuary IIIM

502 BLACKWATER BAY Estuary

510 TURTLE CREEK Stream IIIF

523 LIVE OAK CREEK Stream IIIF

525 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary IIIM

534 SANDY POINT BAYOU Estuary

537 JAKES BAYOU Estuary IIIM

539 MULATTO BAYOU Estuary IIIM

543 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream IIIF

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary IIIM

548AB FLORIDATOWN PARK Coastal IIIM
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 189

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary IIIM

548BB BAY BLUFFS PARK Coastal IIIM

548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary II

548CB GARCON POINT LOCATION 3 Coastal IIIM

548CC REDFISH POINT Coastal IIIM

548D PENSACOLA BAY (MID) Estuary IIIM

548E PENSACOLA BAY (MOUTH) Estuary IIIM

548F BAYOU GRANDE Estuary IIIM

548FB NAVY POINT Coastal IIIM

548G BLACKWATER BAY Estuary IIIM

548H EAST BAY Estuary II

560 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream

600 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary

635 WHITEOAK BAYOU Estuary IIIM

637 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream

639 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream IIIF IM

649 INDIAN BAYOU Estuary

663 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream IIIF

666 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream

669 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream IIIF

676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream IIIF

683 DEAN CREEK Stream IIIF

685 PRAIRIE CREEK Stream IIIF

694 TROUT BAYOU Estuary IIIM

701 EAST RIVER BAY Stream IIIF ID

736 PANTHER CREEK Stream IIIF

738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary IIIM

738AB BAYVIEW PARK PIER Coastal IIIM

740 BAYOU GRANDE Estuary IIIM

782 UNNAMED STREAM Stream

8002 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 1 Coastal

8002A FORT PICKENS Coastal IIIM

8003 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 2 Coastal IIIM

8003D SABINE YACHT AND RACKET Coastal IIIM

8003E PENSACOLA BEACH Coastal IIIM

8004 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 3 Coastal

8004B SANTA ROSA ISLAND PARK Coastal IIIM

8004C COUNTY PARK EAST Coastal IIIM

8005 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 4 Coastal

8006 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 5 Coastal

8006A NAVARRE BEACH PIER Coastal IIIM

8007 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 6 Coastal
190 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name

WaterbodyTypeWater UseClassificationFECR3NIZNPB

8007A EL MATADOR Coastal IIIM

825 EAST RIVER BAY Stream

829 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary

833 TOM KING BAYOU Estuary

834 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary IIIM

846 BAYOU CHICO Estuary IIIM

846A JONES CREEK Stream IIIF

846B JACKSON CREEK Stream IIIF

846C BAYOU CHICO DRAIN Estuary

846CB BAYOU CHICO BEACH Coastal IIIM

848DA SANDERS BEACH Coastal IIIM

864 WILLIAMS CREEK Estuary IIIM

870 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary IIIM

893 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary IIIM

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary II

915A WOODLAWN BEACH Coastal IIIM

915B NAVARRE PARK HWY 98 Coastal IIIM

915C LIZA JACKSON PARK Coastal IIIM

915D MARLER PARK Coastal IIIM

915E QUIET WATER BEACH Coastal IIIM

915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal IIIM

925 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary IIIM

930 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF Estuary IIIM

987 BAYOU GARCON Estuary IIIM
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 191

Table F.3: Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Escambia River Planning Unit

10 BIG ESCAMBIA

CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020079 BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK @ FANNE RD 1998 1998 22

10A ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33020004 ESCAMBIA RIVER OFF HWY 29 AT

MCDAVID 1993 1997 342

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 112WRD - 02375500 ESCAMBIA RIVER NEAR CENTURY,

FL 1993 1994 194

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21ALAI –CC E-9 ESCAMBIA RIVER 1993 1998 3726

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33020001 ESCAMBIA RIVER HWY 4 BRIDGE 1993 2002 1028

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF - 03140305-ER-10 Escambia River Station 10 1996 2001 316

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW - 0037 ESCAMBIA RIVER AT HWY. 4 BRIDGE

JAY 1993 1996 264

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGW – 3549 S377 1998 2002 1373

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD – 305758087140401 Escambia River @ Century 1993 1993 72

10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - S377 Escambia River @ SR4 2000 2001 77

10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33020007 ESCAMBIA RIVER HWY 184 BR 1995 1995 5

10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33020006 ESCAMBIA RIVER AT MOLINO FISH

CAMP 1993 1997 381

10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33020007 ESCAMBIA RIVER AT HWY 184

BRIDGE 1993 2002 872

10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF - 03140305-ER-07 Escambia River Station 7 1996 2001 331

10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW - 0043 ESCAMBIA RIVER AT HWY. 184

BRIDGE - QUINTETTE 1993 1996 288

10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGW - 3541 S417 1998 2002 1486

10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - S417 Escambia River @ CR184 2000 2001 81

10E ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33020009 ESCAMBIA RIVER AT UPPER BLUFFS 1993 1996 60

10E ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33020029 ESCAM RI ABOV MONSANTO NEW

OUTFA 1996 1996 28

10E ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33020021 ESCAMBIA RIVER, GOVERNORS

BAYOU 1993 1997 260

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33020019 ESCAMBIA RI AT HWY 90 BR 1994 1994 12

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33020146 ESCAMBIA RIVER BELOW US90 1998 1998 187

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLBFA -33020019 ESCAMBIA RIVER HWY 90 BRIDGE 1993 2002 462

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF - 03140305-ER-06 Escambia River Station 6 1996 2001 336

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW - 0042 ESCAMBIA RIVER JIM'S FISH CAMP -

HWY. 90 BRIDGE 1993 1996 303

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW - 0287 ESCAMBIA RIVER SMITH'S FISH

CAMP AT HWY 90 1993 1996 304

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD – 303254087114401 Escambia River @ Hwy. 90 1993 1993 74

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLPNS - 33020019 ESCAMBIA RI AT HWY 90 BR 2000 2001 97

10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 21FLPNS - 33020146 ESCAMBIA RIVER BELOW US90 1998 2002 1803

111 MOORE CREEK Stream 21FLA -33020094 MOORE CR ABOVE MINERAL

SPRINGS RD SR CO 1998 1998 6

111 MOORE CREEK Stream 21FLA -33020100 MOORE CREEK SR197 1998 1998 24

258 THOMAS CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020142 THOMAS CR.MOLINO BRIDGE RD.

ECOREG.65F 1994 1995 67

258 THOMAS CREEK Stream 21FLPNS - 33020142 THOMAS CR.MOLINO BRIDGE RD.

ECOREG.65F 1999 1999 9

25A LAKE STONE SW OF

CENTU Lake 21FLA - 33020097 LAKE STONE SW OF CENTURY AN

IMPOUNDMENT 1998 1998 10

25A LAKE STONE SW OF

CENTU Lake 21FLKWAT - ESC-STONE-1 Escambia-Stone-1 2002 2002 44

25A LAKE STONE SW OF

CENTU Lake 21FLKWAT - ESC-STONE-2 Escambia-Stone-2 2002 2002 44
192 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Escambia River Planning Unit (continued)

25A LAKE STONE SW OF

CENTU Lake 21FLKWAT - ESC-STONE-3 Escambia-Stone-3 2002 2002 38

36 BRAY MILL CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020085 BRAY MILL CR AT OLD PLANT RD

1.8MI N OF CR4 JAY 1996 1996 17

36 BRAY MILL CREEK Stream 21FLBFA -33020165 BRAY MILL CR. AT BRIDGE BELOW

EXXON 1993 2002 733

36 BRAY MILL CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD – 305800087095901 Bray Mill Creek 1993 1993 72

5 PINE BARREN

CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020082 SANDY HOLLOW CREEK 2MI.

SOUTHWEST OF BRATT 1995 1996 41

5 PINE BARREN

CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33020040 PINE BARREW CR HWY 29 1993 2002 1013

5 PINE BARREN

CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD – 304631087202301 Pine Barren Creek @ U.S. 29 1993 1993 72

7 CANOE CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33020039 CANOE CR HWY 29 1993 2002 1023

71 MITCHELL CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020140 MITCHELL CREEK HWY.29 ESCAMBIA

CO. 1993 1996 179

87 LITTLE PINE BARREN

CR Stream 21FLA - 33020081 LITTLE PINE BARREN CR CO.RD.99 E

OF WALNUT HILL 1998 1998 23

Blackwater River Planning Unit

11A WEST FORK Stream 21FLBFA - 33030029 COLDWATER CREEK AT HIGHWAY 87 1993 2002 719

127 MANNING CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030090 MANNING CREEK SR87 N OF

ALLENTOWN 1998 1998 24

176 POND CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030019 POND CR HWY 90 BR W MILTON 1997 1998 832

176 POND CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33030019 POND CR HWY 90 BR W MILTON 1993 2002 990

176 POND CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33030028 BLACKWATER RIVER BELOW GRAIN

ELE 1993 2002 718

176 POND CREEK Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-PC-01 Pond Creek Station 1 1996 2001 313

176 POND CREEK Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0317 POND CREEK AT HIGHWAY 90

BRIDGE MILTON 1993 1996 301

176 POND CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD - 304644087101201 Pond Creek @ C.R. 182 1993 1993 89

176 POND CREEK Stream 21FLPNS 33030019 POND CR HWY 90 BR W MILTON 1997 2002 2155

179 BEAR CREEK Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-BC-06 Bear Creek Station 6 1996 1996 170

179 BEAR CREEK Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0581 BEAR CREEK BELOW BEAR LAKE 1996 1996 91

179A BEAR LAKE Lake 21FLA - 33030057 BEAR LAKE CENTER 1996 1997 53

179A BEAR LAKE Lake 21FLKWATSAN-BEAR-1 Santa Rosa-Bear-1 2001 2002 88

179A BEAR LAKE Lake 21FLKWATSAN-BEAR-2 Santa Rosa-Bear-2 2001 2002 88

179A BEAR LAKE Lake 21FLKWATSAN-BEAR-3 Santa Rosa-Bear-3 2001 2002 88

18 BIG COLDWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030005 BIG COLDWAT CR HWY 191 NE

MILTON 1997 1997 80

18 BIG COLDWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030069 BIG COLDWATER CR @ OLD IRON

BRIDGE 1997 1998 622

18 BIG COLDWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33030005 BIG COLDWAT CR HWY 191 NE

MILTON 1993 2002 992

18 BIG COLDWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33030030 BIG COLDWATER CR JCT OF E+W

FORK 1993 2002 691

18 BIG COLDWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLPNS 33030069 BIG COLDWATER CR @ OLD IRON

BRIDGE 1998 2002 2008

184 MUDDY BRANCH Stream 21FLA - 33030077 MUDDY BR 100M BELOW HWY 4 OKA

CO 1998 1998 6

186 LONG BRANCH Stream 21FLA - 33030082 LONG BR BELOW MARTIN MILL RD

SECT 20 1998 1998 6

18A EAST FORK Stream 21FLBFA - 33030003 BIG COLDWATER CR E FORK HWY 4 1993 2002 693

19 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33030040 BIG JUNIPER CR AT INDIAN FORD RD 1993 2002 1006

19 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-JC-08 Big Juniper Creek Station 8 1996 1996 170
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 193

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Blackwater River Planning Unit (continued)

19 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD - 304338086535801 Big Juniper Cr. ab Blackwater Riv. 1993 1994 88

21 SWEETWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030043 SWEETWATER CR. ABOVE CEDAR

CR. STATE FOREST RD. 1994 1998 31

21 SWEETWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-SC-05 Sweetwater Creek Station 5 1996 1996 173

21 SWEETWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-SC-07 Sweetwater Creek Station 7 1996 1996 171

21 SWEETWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0311 SWEETWATER CREEK AT HIGHWAY

4 BRIDGE 1996 1996 72

21 SWEETWATER

CREEK Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0580 SWEETWATER CREEN ABOVE BEAR

LAKE NORTH OF MUNSON 1996 1996 91

24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33030026 BLACKWATER RIVER N OF HAROLD 1997 1998 642

24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-BR-11A Blackwater River Station 11A 1996 1996 142

24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-BR-12 Blackwater River Station 12 1996 2001 279

24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0014 BLACKWATER RIVER AT STATE

PARK BRIDGE 1993 1996 348

24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0585 BLACKWATER RIVER BELOW

BRYANT BRIDGE 1996 1996 91

24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - S360 Blackwater River @ SR4 2000 2001 75

24A BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33030011 BLACKWATER RI N HWY 90 BR 1994 1998 79

24A BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33030011 BLACKWATER RI N HWY 90 BR 1993 2002 712

24A BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0013 BLACKWATER RIVER AT HIGHWAY

90 AND 10 MILTON 1993 1996 299

24A BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLPNS 33030011 BLACKWATER RI N HWY 90 BR 1998 2002 1739

24B BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33030017 BLACKWATER RI MO BIG COLDWATE

CR 1997 1997 114

24C BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33030074 BLUFF LANDING BR @ MOUTH TO

BLACKWATER R 1998 1998 6

24C BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33030018 BLACKWATER RIVER AT HWY 180 1993 2002 676

24C BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-BR-10 Blackwater River Station 10 1996 1996 172

24C BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-BR-11 Blackwater River Station 11 1996 2001 331

24C BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGW 3545 S360 1998 2002 1293

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33030001 BLACKWATER RI AT HWY 4 NW

BAKER 1993 1994 261

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33030073 RED WASH BR 100M ABOVE MOUTH

TO BLACKWATER R 1998 1998 6

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33030001 BLACKWATER RI AT HWY 4 NW

BAKER 1993 1996 311

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-BR-01 Blackwater River Station 1 1996 1996 169

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-BR-03 Blackwater River Station 3 1996 1996 172

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-BR-04 Blackwater River Station 4 1996 1996 171

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0309 BLACKWATER RIVER AT HIGHWAY 4

BRIDGE 1996 1996 91

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0576 BLACKWATER RIVER AT CHESSER

BRIDGE 1996 1996 91

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0578 BLACKWATER RIVER AT KENNEDY

BRIDGE 1996 1996 91

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - 305921086431501 Blackwater River @ Hwy. 180 1993 1994 161

24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 21FLPNS 33030113 Blackwater River upstream of Kennedy

Bridge NE sid 2000 2000 24

26 BOGGY HOLLOW

CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030076 BOGGY HOLLOW CR BELOW

LOONEY RD OKA CO 1998 1998 6

260 CLEAR CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD - 303952087001901 Clear Creek @ Hwy. 191 1993 1993 72

260 CLEAR CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD - 304243087024501 Clear Creek @ C.R. 87 1993 1993 89
194 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Blackwater River Planning Unit (continued)

27 PANTHER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030042 PANTHER CR JHN RILEY BARNHILL

RD OKA.CO.SECT.11 1993 1996 169

27 PANTHER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030071 PANTHER CR BELOW MATTIE

KENNEDY RD W OF BLKMAN 1998 1998 6

27 PANTHER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030072 PANTHER CREEK BELOW SHERMAN

KENNEDY RD 1998 1998 6

271 ATES CREEK Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-AC-09 Ates Creek Station 9 1996 1996 174

271 ATES CREEK Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-AC-12 Ates Creek Station 12 1996 1996 170

271 ATES CREEK Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0584 ATES CREEK BELOW BLACKWATER

FISH HATCHERY 1996 1996 91

271 ATES CREEK Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0586 ATES CREEK ABOVE BLACKWATER

FISH HATCHERY 1996 1996 91

83 HURRICANE CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33030056 HURRICANE LAKE CENTER 1996 1996 28

83 HURRICANE CREEK Stream 21FLGFWF03140104-HC-02 Hurricane Creek Station 2 1996 1996 164

83 HURRICANE CREEK Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0577 HURRICANE CREEK BELOW

HURRICANE LAKE 1996 1996 91

83 HURRICANE CREEK Stream 21FLPNS 33030112 Hurricane Creek abv Bullard Church

Road 2000 2000 24

83A HURRICANE LAKE Lake 21FLKWATOKA-HURRICANE-1 Okaloosa-Hurricane-1 2001 2002 88

83A HURRICANE Lake Lake 21FLKWATOKA-HURRICANE-2 Okaloosa-Hurricane-2 2001 2002 88

83A HURRICANE LAKE Lake 21FLKWATOKA-HURRICANE-3 Okaloosa-Hurricane-3 2001 2002 88

83A HURRICANE LAKE Lake 21FLKWAT - OKA-HURRICANE-4 Okaloosa-Hurricane-4 2001 2002 88

88 MARE CREEK Stream 21FLA - - 33030075 MARE CREEK 100M BELOW MATTIE

KENNEDY RD 1998 1998 6

88 MARE CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD - -305533086423201 Mare Creek 1993 1993 72

Yellow River Planning Unit

28 BIG HORSE CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040014 BIG HORSE CREEK S.R.2 OKA.CO. 1993 1998 175

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 112WRD 02368000 YELLOW RIVER AT MILLIGAN, FLA. 1993 1993 83

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33040001 YELLOW RIVER HWY 2 EAST OF OAK

GROVE 1993 2002 981

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33040004 YELLOW RIVER HY 90 W OF

CRESTVIE 1993 2002 705

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140103-YR-13 Yellow River Station 13 1996 1996 170

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140103-YR-15 Yellow River Station 15 1996 1996 169

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0401 YELLOW RIVER AT HIGHWAY 90

MILLIGAN 1993 1993 57

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0587 YRLLOE RIVER AT HWY 2 BRIDGE 1996 1996 91

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0589 YELLOW RIVER AT RR TRESTLE AT

MILLIGAN 1996 1996 91

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGW 3546 S365 1998 2002 1290

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - 305538086332601 Yellow River @ S.R. 2 1993 1994 172

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - S271 Yellow River @ US 90 2000 2001 242

30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - S365 Yellow River @ SR 2 2000 2001 239

107 MURDER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040053 MURDER CREEK NE OF SENTERFITT

RD 1998 1998 2

107 MURDER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040056 MURDER CREEK @ SR85A AKA BILL

LUNDY RD 1998 1998 23

145 LAKE KARICK Lake 21FLA - 33040042 KARICK LAKE 1995 1995 11

145 LAKE KARICK Lake 21FLKWATOKA-KARICK-1 Okaloosa-Karick-1 2001 2002 88

145 LAKE KARICK Lake 21FLKWATOKA-KARICK-2 Okaloosa-Karick-2 2001 2002 88
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 195

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Yellow River Planning Unit (continued)

145 LAKE KARICK Lake 21FLKWATOKA-KARICK-3 Okaloosa-Karick-3 2001 2002 85

145 LAKE KARICK Lake 21FLPNS 33040091 Karick Lake SE side 2000 2000 25

209 SILVER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040057 SILVER CREEK BELOW SILVER LAKE

RD 1998 1998 23

380 BURNT GROCERY

CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040069 BURNT GROCERY CREEK ABOVE

FISHER OLD MILL RD 1998 1998 23

396 TURKEY GOBBLER

CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040040 TURKEY GOBBLER CR.EGLIN RANGE

RD.211 ECOREG.65F 1994 1994 6

145A DEADFALL CREEK Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0588 DEADFALL CREEK BELOW KARICK

LAKE 1996 1996 91

145A DEADFALL CREEK Stream 21FLPNS 33040092 Deadfall Creek upstream of Deadfall Cr

Northeast B 2000 2000 24

145A DEADFALL CREEK Stream 21FLPNS 33040093 Deadfall Creek upstream of Shockley

Springs Road 2000 2000 23

30A YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33040003 YELLOW RI HWY 87 BR SE MILTON 1993 2002 698

30A YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140103-YR-01 Yellow River Station 1 1996 1998 177

30A YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0408 YELLOW RIVER AT HIGHWAY 87

BRIDGE 1993 1993 57

30A YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0409 YELLOW RIVER BROWNS FISH

CAMP, PINE BLUFF HWY 89 1993 1996 241

30A YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGW 3551 S364 1998 2002 1424

30A YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - 303428086553301 Yellow River @ S.R. 87 1993 1993 72

30B YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33040002 YELLOW RIVER HY 189 S OF HOLT 1993 1994 66

30B YELLOW RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0525 YELLOW RIVER AT LOG LAKE

BRIDGE 1993 1995 194

30G TRAMMEL CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33040009 TRAMMEL CREEK AT HWY 4 ALSO

FDEP STATION 1995 1996 294

30G TRAMMEL CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD - 304452086371501 Trammel Creek @ S.R. 4 1993 1993 72

Shoal River Planning Unit

160 SHOAL RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - 304743086182601 Shoal River @ C.R. 285 1993 1993 72

35 POND CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33040008 POND CREEK AT SR 85 W OF

PAXTON 1993 2002 997

35 POND CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD - 305802086220101 Pond Creek @ C.R. 85 1993 1993 72

38 LAKE JACKSON

DRAIN Lake 21AWIC LAKE JACKSON 01 LAKE JACKSON FLORALA 1997 1997 43

38 LAKE JACKSON

DRAIN Lake 21FLA - 33040043 LAKE JACKSON NEAR FLORALA ALA. 1996 1996 28

101 PINE LOG CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040015 PINE LOG CREEK S.R.2 WALTON CO. 1993 1997 133

101 PINE LOG CREEK Stream 21FLNWFD - 305110086225301 Pine Log Creek 1993 1993 72

117 TURKEY CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040054 TURKEY CREEK @ SR2A W OF US331 1998 1998 22

144 LITTLE CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040055 LITTLE CREEK LOWER NEW

HARMONY RD WNW HARMONY 1998 1998 22

300 JUNIPER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040021 JUNIPER CR AT RASPBERRY RD

CRESTVIEW 1996 1996 15

300 JUNIPER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33040023 JUNIPER CR AT SR4 E OF HWY85

CRESTVIEW 1996 1996 9

160A SHOAL RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33040031 SHOAL RIVER AT HWY85 ALSO FDEP

STATION 1995 1996 294

160A SHOAL RIVER Stream 21FLGFWF03140103-SR-11 Shoal River Station 11 1996 2001 317

160A SHOAL RIVER Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW0406 SHOAL RIVER AT HIGHWAY 85

WAYSIDE PARK 1993 1996 304

160B SHOAL RIVER Stream 21FLA - 33040030 SHOAL R AT FLA 393 1993 1994 89

160B SHOAL RIVER Stream 21FLBFA - 33040032 SHOAL RIVER HY 90 E OF

CRESTVIEW 1993 2002 746

160B SHOAL RIVER Stream 21FLNWFD - S511 Shoal River @ US 90 2000 2001 143
196 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Shoal River Planning Unit (continued)

266A KINGS LAKE Lake 21FLA - 33040046 KINGS LK. .5MI W OF US331/5MI NW

DE FUNIAK SPR. 1995 1997 46

266A KINGS LAKE Lake 21FLKWATWAL-KING-1 Walton-King-1 2000 2002 11

266A KINGS LAKE Lake 21FLKWATWAL-KING-2 Walton-King-2 2000 2002 11

266A KINGS LAKE Lake 21FLKWATWAL-KING-3 Walton-King-3 2000 2002 11

266A KINGS LAKE Lake 21FLKWATWAL-KING-5 Walton-King-5 2000 2002 11

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

420 PACE MILL CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020028 ESCAMBIA RI BELOW MO N DITCH 1996 1996 17

420 PACE MILL CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020031 ESCAM RI BELO MONSANTO NEW

OUTFA 1996 1996 28

420 PACE MILL CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020066 PACE MILL CREEK US90 SW PACE 1998 1998 23

502 BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 21FLA - 02800SEAS Radio tower four disks East Bay 1993 2000 1298

502 BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 21FLNWFD – 303449087004501 Blackwater Bay - Shields Pt. 1993 1993 101

539 MULATTO BAYOU Estuary 21FLA - 33020CD1 MULATTO BAYOU CEN AVALON BCH

BR 1995 1995 82

539 MULATTO BAYOU Estuary 21FLA - 3302CD14 MOORS STORMWATER POND E OF

281 S OF MOORS OAKS D 1995 1995 82

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02582SEAS Mouth of Indian Bayou 1993 2000 1013

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02583SEAS Live Oak Point south of I-10 bridge 1993 2000 982

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02584SEAS Halfway between Trout Bayou and CM 7 1993 2000 996

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02590SEAS Channel marker 10 in Escambia Bay 1993 2000 695

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02595SEAS Center span of I-10 Bridge 1993 2000 695

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02600SEAS Northwest corner I-10 Bridge 1993 2000 526

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02630SEAS Devils Point 1993 2000 518

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02670SEAS Old chimney on west Escambia Bay 1993 2000 521

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 330200C1 ESCAMBIA BAY FISHERMANS POINT 1996 1996 17

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 33020A13 ESC. BAY BKGD FOR AIR PRODUCTS 1996 1996 19

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 33020A14 ESC. BAY OFF AIR PRODUCTS

OUTFAL 1996 1996 19

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 33020C11 ESCAMBIA BAY SECTION C

BACKGROUND STATION 1993 1996 226

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLBFA -30200E8 ESCAMBIA BAY 500YDS OFF INDIAN

BAYOU 1997 1999 156

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020C11 ESCAMBIA BAY SECTION C

BACKGROUND 1993 1999 443

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLPNS - 330200A2 ESCAMBIA BAY BASS HOLE COVE 2001 2001 11

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLPNS - 330200B3 ESCAMB BA OFFSH ELLYSO FLD

DISCH 2000 2001 49

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLPNS - 330200C1 ESCAMBIA BAY FISHERMANS POINT 2001 2001 18

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLPNS - 33020A21 UP ESCAMBI B AMER CYANAMI

OUTFAL 2001 2001 17

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLPNS - 33020B14 ESCAMBIA B WEST END RR TRESTLE

N 2000 2001 41

548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLPNS - 33020C11 ESCAMBIA BAY SECTION C

BACKGROUND STATION 2000 2001 41

548AB FLORIDATOWN PARK Coastal 21FLA - 330200A4 ESCAMBIA BAY S FLORIDATOWN

PIER 1997 1998 722

548AB FLORIDATOWN PARK Coastal 21FLDOH - SANTA ROSA261 FLORIDATOWN PARK 2000 2002 55

548AB FLORIDATOWN PARK Coastal 21FLPNS - 330200A4 ESCAMBIA BAY S FLORIDATOWN

PIER 1997 2002 2198
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 197

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 02580SEAS Lease post in eastern Escambia Bay 1993 2000 1487

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 02620SEAS Channel marker 7 in Escambia Bay 1993 2000 695

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 02650SEAS Channel marker 2 in Escambia Bay 1993 2000 933

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 02660SEAS Mid-way between station 670 and 650 1993 2000 933

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 02680SEAS Hernadez Point 1993 2000 1402

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 02690SEAS Between Hernandez Pt & radio tower 1993 2000 1113

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 02700SEAS L&N Rail Road section houses 1993 2000 929

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 02710SEAS West mooring bouy in Escambia Bay 1993 2000 925

548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 21FLA - 33020F30 LOWER ESCAMBIA BAY NEAR

BARGE MOORING BUOYS 1994 1994 31

548BB BAY BLUFFS PARK Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA98 BAY BLUFFS PARK 2000 2002 76

548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02685SEAS Hernadez Point 1st canal-PVC poles 1993 2000 1401

548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02720SEAS Garcon Point 1993 2000 1473

548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02730SEAS Between Devil and Butcherpen Points 1993 2000 1086

548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02740SEAS Emanuel Point 1993 2000 757

548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLA - 02795SEAS Red Fish Point channel 1993 2000 1461

548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030D23 PENSACOLA BAY 1200YDS OFF

GARCON PT NEAR MK C1 1997 1999 156

548CB GARCON POINT

LOCATION 3 Coastal 21FLDOH -SANTA ROSA331 GARCON POINT LOCATION 3 2000 2002 53

548CC REDFISH POINT Coastal 21FLBFA - 33030D45 EAST BAY OFF REDFISH PT NEAR N

2 1997 1999 191

548CC REDFISH POINT Coastal 21FLDOH - SANTA ROSA332 REDFISH POINT 2000 2002 53

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLA - 02750SEAS Mouth of Texar Bayou 1993 2000 515

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLA - 33020K20 PENSACOLA BAY, S END OF BAY

BRID 1996 1998 899

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLA - 33020L11 PENSACO BA 1000 YDS N NAS

OUTFA 1996 1996 20

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLA - 33020L12 PENSACOLA BAY SEC L BACKGR

STA 1994 1994 6

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020H21 PENSACOLA BAY OFF ENTRANCE TO

BAYOU TEXAR 1997 1999 165

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020J10 PENSACOLA BAY SANDERS BEACH

100YDS OFF PIER 1997 1999 156

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020J12 PENSACOLA BAY MAIN ST WWTP

OUTFALL 1997 1999 182

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020K24 PENSACOLA BAY MARKER 4 R OFF

FAIR POINT 1997 1999 181

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020L15 PENSACOLA BAY AT NAS WWTP

OUTFALL 1997 1999 159

548D PENSACOLA BAY

(MID) Estuary 21FLPNS - 33020K20 PENSACOLA BAY, S END OF BAY

BRID 1996 2002 2432

548E PENSACOLA BAY

(MOUTH) Estuary 21FLA - 33020L19 PENSACO BA 1000 YDS S NAS

OUTFA 1996 1996 20

548E PENSACOLA BAY

(MOUTH) Estuary 21FLPNS - 3303G31G Fair Point off Gulf Breeze, Florida -

Seagrass 1999 1999 26

548E PENSACOLA BAY

(MOUTH) Estuary 21FLPNS - 3303Z27G Ranger Station off GINS Pensacola BaySeagrass 1999 1999 26

548F BAYOU GRANDE Estuary DEMOTEST - 3302LC15 BAYOU GRANDE N ARM SUNSET AVE 1998 1998 4

548FB NAVY POINT Coastal 21FLA - 3302LC15 BAYOU GRANDE N ARM SUNSET AVE 1996 1998 896

548FB NAVY POINT Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA89 NAVY POINT 2000 2002 85

548FB NAVY POINT Coastal 21FLPNS - 3302LC15 BAYOU GRANDE N ARM SUNSET AVE 1996 2002 2431
198 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)

548G BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 21FLKWAT- SAN-EA-STBAY-1 Santa Rosa-East Bay-1 2001 2001 4

548G BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 21FLKWAT -SAN-EA-STBAY-2 Santa Rosa-East Bay-2 2001 2001 4

548G BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 21FLNWFD – 303253087005201 Blackwater Bay - Robinson Pt. 1993 1993 103

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLA - 02822SEAS Creek on east shore of East Bay 1993 2000 1026

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLA - 02880SEAS South of Escribano Point 1993 2000 1001

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLA - 02890SEAS Channel marker 10 in East Bay 1993 2000 1011

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLA - 02900SEAS North of White Point at plant site 1993 2000 1012

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLA - 02910SEAS Halfway between White Pt & Redfish Pt 1993 2000 1328

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLA - 33030D71 LOWER EAST BAY REDFISH COVE

NE W SANDY BLUFF RD 1998 1998 353

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLBFA -330300C3 EAST BAY CHAN AT BUOY N12 1993 1999 173

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLBFA -33030E27 EAST BAY AT EAST BAY RIVER

POWER LINES 1997 1999 156

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLKWAT -SAN-EA-STBAY-3 Santa Rosa-East Bay-3 2001 2001 4

548H EAST BAY Estuary 21FLPNS - 33030D71 LOWER EAST BAY REDFISH COVE

NE W SANDY BLUFF RD 1998 2002 1972

663 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Stream 21FLA - 02821SEAS Mouth of Tom King Bayou green shed 1993 2000 970

669 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Stream 21FLA - 02610SEAS Stilt house on eastern Escambia Bay 1993 2000 1450

669 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Stream 21FLA - 02640SEAS A frame house with white boat shed 1993 2000 1406

676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream 21FLA - 33020048 CARPENTERS CR 9TH AVE BRIDGE 1996 1996 17

676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33020048 CARPENTERS CREEK AT 9TH AVE 1993 2002 1023

676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33020049 CARPENTERS CREEK AT DAVIS HWY 1993 2001 645

676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33020057 CARPENTER CREEK OLIVE RD. 1999 2002 217

676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream 21FLKWAT - ESC-CA-CREEK-1 Escambia-Carpenters Creek-1-1 2000 2002 59

676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream 21FLKWAT - ESC-CA-CREEK-2 Escambia-Carpenters Creek-2-2 2000 2002 56

694 TROUT BAYOU Estuary 21FLA - 02581SEAS Mouth of Trout Bayou 1993 2000 1019

701 EAST RIVER BAY Stream 21FLBFA - 33030025 EAST BAY CREEK AT FL87 ALSO

FDEP SATAION 1995 1996 298

701 EAST RIVER BAY Stream 21FLGFWFGFCNW - 0476 EAST BAY RIVER AT HIGHWAY 87 1993 1994 128

701 EAST RIVER BAY Stream 21FLGW - 3533 S384 1998 2002 1484

738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary 21FLA - 3302HC11 BAYVIEW PARK PIER, BAYOU TEXAR 1996 1998 909

738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020HF1 BAYOU TEXAR AT 12TH AVE BRIDGE 1993 2002 729

738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary 21FLBFA - 3302HC11 BAYVIEW PARK PIER BAYOU TEXAR 1993 2002 699

738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary 21FLKWAT - ESC-BA-SOUTH-1 Escambia-Bayou Texar South-1 2000 2002 40

738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary 21FLKWAT - ESC-BA-SOUTH-2 Escambia-Bayou Texar South-2 2000 2002 40

738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary 21FLPNS - 3302HC11 BAYVIEW PARK PIER, BAYOU TEXAR 1996 2002 2420

738AB BAYVIEW PARK PIER Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA317 BAYVIEW PARK PIER 2000 2002 85

740 BAYOU GRANDE Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020LT2 BAYOU GRANDE 500FT W OF

BAUERS C 1993 2002 687

8002 PENSACOLA BAY

GULF 1 Coastal 11NPSWRDGUIS_WI_049 SR IS GULF(S) SHORE 1993 1993 2

8002 PENSACOLA BAY

GULF 1 Coastal 11NPSWRDGUIS_WI_111 SR IS TIDE POOL 1993 1993 2

8002A FORT PICKENS Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA88 FORT PICKENS 2000 2002 73
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 199

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)

8003D SABINE YACHT AND

RACKET Coastal 21FLA - 33030G69 SANT ROS SOUND ENT LITTLE

SABINE 1997 1998 149

8003D SABINE YACHT AND

RACKET Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA100 SABINE YACHT AND RACKET 2000 2002 54

8003E PENSACOLA BEACH Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA90 PENSACOLA BEACH 2000 2002 76

8004B SANTA ROSA ISLAND

PARK Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA95 SANTA ROSA ISLAND PARK 2000 2002 69

8004C COUNTY PARK EAST Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA87 COUNTY PARK EAST 2000 2002 75

8006A NAVARRE BEACH

PIER Coastal 21FLDOH - SANTA ROSA333 NAVARRE BEACH PIER 2000 2002 75

8006A NAVARRE BEACH

PIER Coastal 21FLDOH - SANTA ROSA364 NAVARRE BEACH WEST 2002 2002 22

8007A EL MATADOR Coastal 21FLDOH - OKALOOSA196 EL MATADOR 2000 2002 53

834 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Estuary 11NPSWRDGUIS_WI_072 GULF BREEZE POND 1 1993 1993 3

834 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Estuary 21FLA - 02790SEAS Bulkhead marsh south shore East Bay 1993 2000 1377

834 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Estuary 21FLA - 33020K24 PENSACOL BA FLASH RED LIGH R 4 1996 1996 20

846 BAYOU CHICO Estuary 21FLBFA - 33020JF1 Bayou Chico at "W" Street 1999 2002 224

846 BAYOU CHICO Estuary 21FLBFA - 3302JE20 BAYOU CHICO AT NAVY BLVD

BRIDGE 1993 2002 711

846A JONES CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33020118 JONES CREEK AT OLD CORRY ROAD 1993 2002 737

846B JACKSON CREEK Stream 21FLBFA - 33020136 JACKSON CREEK AT OLD CORRY

ROAD 1993 2002 655

846CB BAYOU CHICO

BEACH Coastal 21FLA - 33020JD4 S W ARM BAYOU CHICO NEAR PARK

N OF MANDALAY DR 1997 1998 602

846CB BAYOU CHICO

BEACH Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA96 BAYOU CHICO 2000 2002 87

846CB BAYOU CHICO

BEACH Coastal 21FLPNS - 33020JD4 S W ARM BAYOU CHICO NEAR PARK

N OF MANDALAY DR 1997 2002 2185

848DA SANDERS BEACH Coastal 21FLDOH - ESCAMBIA91 SANDERS BEACH 2000 2002 78

893 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Estuary 21FLA - 33030050 UNKNAMED CR. AT LAUREL ST

BRIDGE W OF FAIRLANE 1995 1996 21

893 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Estuary 21FLA - 33030060 UNNAMED DITCH AT 5376 WEST AVE

ORIOLE BEACH 1996 1996 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLA - 330300G9 SANTA ROSA SND @ ORIOLE BEACH

CR191 RAMP 1997 1998 671

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLA - 33030G17 SANTA ROSA SOUND AT SCOUT

CAMP 1995 1995 17

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLA - 33030H41 SANTA ROSA SOUN SEC H BACKGR

STA 1995 1995 12

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLA - 33030H50 NAVARRE BEACH SRS WEST OF STP

AND CANALS 1995 1995 12

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 330300G1 SANTA ROSA SND OFF BAY ST

ORIOLE BEACH 1997 1999 149

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 330300G3 SANTA SOSA SND SOUTH OF TIGER

PT TEE 15-W 1997 1999 153

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 330300G9 SANTA ROSA SND BACKGROUND

FOR DEVEL0PMENT CANALS 1997 1999 194

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 330300J4 SAMTA ROSA SND MANATEE PT

MARKER 75 PNS 1997 1999 157

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030G17 SANTA ROSA SND 100YDS OFF OLD

SCOUT CAMP GINS 1997 1999 148

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030G53 SANTA ROSA SND AT S W END

PENSACOLA BEACH BRIDGE 1997 1999 153

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030G72 SANTA ROSA SND AT PENSACOLA

BEACH WWTP OUTFALL 1997 1999 154

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030G77 PENSACOLA BAY S OF DEER PT

ENTRANCE TO FT PICKEN 1997 1999 160

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030H31 SANTA ROSA SND AT NAVARRE BCH

WWTP OUTFALL 1997 1999 151

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030H77 SANTA ROSA SND BIG SABINE COVE

SE OF B.G.POINT 1997 1999 175
200 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030I14 SANTA ROSA SND 400YDS E OF

NAVARRE BRIDGE 1997 1999 175

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLCMP - 32010A10 BROOKS BRIDGE SANTA ROSA

SOUND 1995 2002 1205

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWAT - SAN-SA-SOUND-2 Santa Rosa-Santa Rosa Sound-2 2001 2002 36

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWAT - SAN-SA-SOUND-3 Santa Rosa-Santa Rosa Sound-3 2001 2002 27

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR4-840 Santa Rosa-STR4-840 2001 2001 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR4-867 Santa Rosa-STR4-867 2000 2000 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR4-868 Santa Rosa-STR4-868 2001 2001 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR5-494 Santa Rosa-STR5-494 2001 2001 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR5-515 Santa Rosa-STR5-515 2000 2000 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR5-520 Santa Rosa-STR5-520 2001 2001 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR6-108 Santa Rosa-STR6-108 2001 2001 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR6-110 Santa Rosa-STR6-110 2001 2001 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLKWATSAN-STR6-115 Santa Rosa-STR6-115 2000 2000 4

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 330300G9 SANTA ROSA SND @ ORIOLE BEACH

CR191 RAMP 1997 2002 2215

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 33030G4G Tiger Point within Santa Rosa Sound -

Seagrass 1999 1999 26

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 33030G9G Oriole Beach within Santa Rosa SoundSeagrass 1999 1999 26

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 33030H26 Santa Rosa Sound at Navarre Beach 1997 2002 2321

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 3303G18G Naval Live Oaks within Santa Rosa

Sound (GINS) - S 1999 1999 25

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 3303G46G Big Sabine Bay Point-Santa Rosa

Sound-Seagrass 1999 1999 17

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 3303G54G E. Toll Booth within Santa Rosa SoundSeagrass 1999 1999 25

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 3303G61G Sugarbowl within Santa Rosa Sound

(GINS)-Seagrass 1999 1999 28

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 3303G68G Villa Sabine within Santa Rosa SoundSeagrass 1999 1999 24

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 3303H14G Woodlawn Beach within Santa Rosa

Sound-Seagrass 1999 1999 27

915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 21FLPNS 3303H72G UWF Beach within Santa Rosa SoundSeagrass 1999 1999 25

915A WOODLAWN BEACH Coastal 21FLA - 33030H16 SANTA ROSA SND WOODLAWN

BEACH AREA NORTH SHORE 1995 1995 17

915A WOODLAWN BEACH Coastal 21FLBFA - 33030H16 SANTA ROSA SND OFF WOODLAWN

BEACH 1997 1999 149

915A WOODLAWN BEACH Coastal 21FLDOH SANTA ROSA262 WOODLAWN BEACH 2000 2002 75

915B NAVARRE PARK HWY

98 Coastal 21FLDOH SANTA ROSA263 NAVARRE PARK HIGHWAY 98 2000 2002 75

915B NAVARRE PARK HWY

98 Coastal 21FLKWATSAN-SA-SOUND-1 Santa Rosa-Santa Rosa Sound-1 2001 2002 34

915C LIZA JACKSON PARK Coastal 21FLCMP 320100A5 LIZA JACKSON PARK NEAR BOAT

DOCK 1995 2002 1272

915C LIZA JACKSON PARK Coastal 21FLDOH OKALOOSA194 LIZA JACKSON PARK 2000 2002 76

915D MARLER PARK Coastal 21FLDOH OKALOOSA198 MARLER PARK 2000 2002 75

915E QUIET WATER

BEACH Coastal 21FLA - 33030G70 SANT ROS SOU QUIE WATE BE REC

AR 1996 1998 895

915E QUIET WATER

BEACH Coastal 21FLBFA - 33030G70 SANTA ROSA SND 100YDS OFF

QUIETWATER BCH RECAREA 1997 1999 150

915E QUIET WATER

BEACH Coastal 21FLDOH ESCAMBIA99 QUIET WATER BEACH 2000 2002 76

915E QUIET WATER

BEACH Coastal 21FLPNS 33030G70 SANT ROS SOU QUIE WATE BE REC

AR 1996 2002 2417
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 201

WBID Basin Name Station

Type

Agency Code – Station

Number Station Name FirstYear

Last

Year

# of

Analyses

Pensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)

915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal 21FLA - 330300G1 SANTA ROSA SND S OF BYU TWN S

FAIRLANE/BAY ST 1995 1995 18

915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal 21FLA - 330300G2 SANTA ROSA SND S OF LK11 TIGER

PT GOLF COURSE 1995 1995 17

915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal 21FLA - 330300G3 SANTA ROSA SND S OF TEE 15W

NORTH SHORE 1995 1995 17

915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal 21FLA - 330300G4 SANTA ROSA SND S OF TIGER PT

LKS 22/23 1995 1995 17

915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal 21FLDOH SANTA ROSA257 SHORELINE PARK 2000 2002 75

915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal 21FLPNS 3303G50G Shoreline Park within Santa Rosa Sound

-Seagrass 1999 1999 26

925 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Estuary 21FLBFA - 33030G82 LITTLE SABINE BAY OFF MAI KAI

DOCK 1997 1999 163

925 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

BAY Estuary 21FLPNS 33030GA1 LITTLE SABINE BAY NEAR NE SHORE

NEAR TANKS 1998 2002 1941

930 DIRECT RUNOFF TO

GULF Estuary 21FLA - 33020N15 PENSACOLA BAY CHANNEL MARKER

14 1996 1998 838

987 BAYOU GARCON Estuary 21FLBFA - 33010FA7 BAYOU GARCON 1.3 MI E 292-293 IN 1993 2002 605
202 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

 Appendix G: Land Use for the Pensacola Bay Basin, by

Planning Unit

Table G.1: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Escambia River Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1000 15831.49 24.74 6.095 Urban and Built Up

2000 45179.27 70.59 17.393 Agriculture

3000 1028.45 1.61 0.396 Rangeland

4000 129954.68 203.06 50.030 Upland Forests

5000 3993.23 6.24 1.537 Water

6000 61189.70 95.61 23.557 Wetlands

7000 617.11 0.96 0.238 Barren Land

8000 1961.03 3.06 0.755 Transportation, Communication, and

Utilities

Table G.2: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Escambia River Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1100 2890.81 4.52 1.11 Residential, Low Density

1120 12.81 0.02 0.00 Mobile Home Units

1200 7793.38 12.18 3.00 Residential, Medium Density

1300 1401.34 2.19 0.54 Residential, High Density

1320 22.56 0.04 0.01 Mobile Home Units, High Density

1400 988.90 1.55 0.38 Commercial and Services

1420 9.85 0.02 0.00 Junk Yards

1480 45.78 0.07 0.02 Cemeteries

1500 624.37 0.98 0.24 Industrial

1600 105.23 0.16 0.04 Extractive

1610 218.86 0.34 0.08 Strip Mines

1620 16.13 0.03 0.01 Sand and Gravel Pits

1660 67.48 0.11 0.03 Holding Ponds

1700 236.41 0.37 0.09 Institutional

1710 348.77 0.55 0.13 Educational Facilities

1720 131.38 0.21 0.05 Religious

1730 208.53 0.33 0.08 Military

1790 37.11 0.06 0.01 Institutional under Construction

1800 192.03 0.30 0.07 Recreational

1820 426.21 0.67 0.16 Golf Courses

1840 9.08 0.01 0.00 Marinas and Fish Camps

1850 12.76 0.02 0.00 Parks and Zoos

1860 25.52 0.04 0.01 Community Recreational Facilities

1890 6.18 0.01 0.00 Other Recreational

2100 44745.43 69.92 17.23 Cropland and Pastureland

2200 250.75 0.39 0.10 Tree Crops

2300 107.12 0.17 0.04 Feeding Operations
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 203

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

2400 5.86 0.01 0.00 Nurseries and Vineyards

2540 9.76 0.02 0.00 Aquaculture

2600 60.35 0.09 0.02 Other Open Lands (Rural)

3200 1028.45 1.61 0.40 Shrub and Brushland

4100 30060.85 46.97 11.57 Upland Coniferous Forests

4200 503.42 0.79 0.19 Upland Hardwood Forests

4340 15396.63 24.06 5.93 Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood

4400 4.94 0.01 0.00 Tree Plantations

4410 64519.17 100.81 24.84 Coniferous Plantations

4430 19469.68 30.42 7.50 Forest Regeneration Areas

5100 2535.08 3.96 0.98 Streams and Waterways

5200 244.26 0.38 0.09 Lakes

5300 1186.70 1.85 0.46 Reservoirs

5600 27.18 0.04 0.01 Slough Waters

6100 16159.47 25.25 6.22 Wetland Hardwood Forests

6110 24.96 0.04 0.01 Bay Swamps

6120 11.04 0.02 0.00 Mangrove Swamps

6130 37.05 0.06 0.01 Gum Swamps

6150 33079.71 51.69 12.73 Stream and Lake Swamps

6160 192.84 0.30 0.07 Inland Ponds and Sloughs

6200 350.73 0.55 0.14 Wetland Coniferous Forests

6210 1022.07 1.60 0.39 Cypress

6230 13.85 0.02 0.01 Atlantic White Cedar

6300 4891.04 7.64 1.88 Wetland Forested Mixed

6410 1189.84 1.86 0.46 Freshwater Marshes

6420 2896.46 4.53 1.12 Saltwater Marshes

6440 14.23 0.02 0.01 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation

6530 11.44 0.02 0.00 Intermittent Ponds

6900 1294.97 2.02 0.50 Wetland Scrub Shrub

7200 0.91 0.00 0.00 Sand Other than Beaches

7400 350.51 0.55 0.13 Disturbed Land

7450 190.20 0.30 0.07 Burned Areas

7500 75.49 0.12 0.03 Riverine Sandbars

8140 637.74 1.00 0.25 Roads and Highways

8170 116.90 0.18 0.05 Oil, Water, or Gas Transmission Lines

8210 1.70 0.00 0.00 Transmissions Towers

8300 117.80 0.18 0.05 Utilities

8310 159.77 0.25 0.06 Electrical Power Facilities

8320 770.78 1.20 0.30 Electrical Power Transmission Lines

8340 66.42 0.10 0.03 Sewage Treatment

8350 89.92 0.14 0.03 Solid Waste Disposal
204 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table G.3: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Blackwater River Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1000 17769.46 27.76 3.864 Urban and Built Up

2000 72573.61 113.40 15.783 Agriculture

3000 5212.09 8.14 1.134 Rangeland

4000 303566.60 474.32 66.019 Upland Forests

5000 3627.36 5.67 0.789 Water

6000 52354.14 81.80 11.386 Wetlands

7000 337.98 0.53 0.074 Barren Land

8000 4377.47 6.84 0.952 Transportation, Communications, and

Utilities

Table G.4: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Blackwater River Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1100 5883.55 9.19 1.280 Residential, Low Density

1120 43.13 0.07 0.009 Mobile Home Units

1200 7537.50 11.78 1.639 Residential, Medium Density

1220 35.77 0.06 0.008 Mobile home units, Medium Density

1300 591.91 0.92 0.129 Residential, High Density

1320 35.86 0.06 0.008 Mobile home units, High Density

1400 1136.25 1.78 0.247 Commercial and Services

1420 7.77 0.01 0.002 Junk Yards

1450 70.58 0.11 0.015 Tourist Services

1480 132.57 0.21 0.029 Cemeteries

1500 120.58 0.19 0.026 Industrial

1600 125.29 0.20 0.027 Extractive

1610 83.30 0.13 0.018 Strip Mines

1620 599.80 0.94 0.130 Sand and Gravel Pits

1640 44.96 0.07 0.010 Oil and Gas Fields

1660 27.14 0.04 0.006 Holding Ponds

1710 319.35 0.50 0.070 Educational Facilities

1720 197.02 0.31 0.043 Religious

1730 80.94 0.13 0.018 Military

1740 63.82 0.10 0.014 Medical and Health Care

1750 1.37 0.00 0.000 Governmental

1760 11.87 0.02 0.003 Correctional

1800 90.43 0.14 0.020 Recreational

1820 275.66 0.43 0.060 Golf Courses

1830 30.33 0.05 0.007 Race Tracks

1850 30.45 0.05 0.007 Parks and Zoos

1860 24.49 0.04 0.005 Community Recreational Facilities

1900 167.77 0.26 0.037 Open Land (Urban)

2100 70901.70 110.78 15.420 Cropland and Pastureland

2200 911.34 1.42 0.198 Tree Crops
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 205

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

2300 135.93 0.21 0.030 Feeding Operations

2400 363.75 0.57 0.079 Nurseries and Vineyards

2500 7.47 0.01 0.002 Specialty Farms

2540 102.31 0.16 0.022 Aquaculture

2600 151.11 0.24 0.033 Other Open Lands (Rural)

3200 5205.26 8.13 1.132 Shrub and Brushland

3220 5.48 0.01 0.001 Coastal Scrub

3300 1.35 0.00 0.000 Mixed Rangeland

4100 152796.01 238.74 33.230 Upland Coniferous Forests

4130 1.87 0.00 0.000 Sand Pines

4200 1525.74 2.38 0.332 Upland Hardwood Forests

4340 21686.21 33.88 4.716 Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood

4400 39.22 0.06 0.009 Tree Plantations

4410 93356.85 145.87 20.303 Coniferous Plantations

4430 34160.69 53.38 7.429 Forest Regeneration Areas

5100 1596.52 2.49 0.347 Streams and Waterways

5200 437.20 0.68 0.095 Lakes

5300 1592.81 2.49 0.346 Reservoirs

5600 0.84 0.00 0.000 Slough Waters

6100 5607.01 8.76 1.219 Wetland Hardwood Forests

6110 0.53 0.00 0.000 Bay Swamps

6130 8.63 0.01 0.002 Gum Swamps

6160 475.55 0.74 0.103 Inland Ponds and Sloughs

6200 803.19 1.26 0.175 Wetland Coniferous Forests

6210 217.53 0.34 0.047 Cypress

6300 42641.49 66.63 9.274 Wetland Forested Mixed

6400 0.79 0.00 0.000 Vegetated Nonforested Wetlands

6410 744.03 1.16 0.162 Freshwater Marshes

6420 101.79 0.16 0.022 Saltwater Marshes

6440 11.71 0.02 0.003 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation

6530 19.38 0.03 0.004 Intermittent Ponds

6900 1722.52 2.69 0.375 Wetland Scrub Shrub

7200 30.55 0.05 0.007 Sand Other than Beaches

7400 150.92 0.24 0.033 Disturbed Land

7450 49.97 0.08 0.011 Burned Areas

7500 106.53 0.17 0.023 Riverine Sandbars

8100 29.16 0.05 0.006 Transportation

8110 2556.02 3.99 0.556 Airports

8140 315.11 0.49 0.069 Roads and Highways

8170 291.82 0.46 0.064 Oil, Water, or Gas Transmission Lines

8210 4.48 0.01 0.001 Transmissions Towers

8310 44.41 0.07 0.010 Electrical Power Facilities

8320 1106.46 1.73 0.241 Electrical Power Transmission Lines

8340 30.01 0.05 0.007 Sewage Treatment
206 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table G.5: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Yellow River Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1000 25431.48 39.74 2.254% Urban and Built Up

2000 39124.14 61.13 3.468% Agriculture

3000 5249.77 8.20 0.465% Rangeland

4000 999167.83 1561.20 88.559% Upland Forests

5000 3175.06 4.96 0.281% Water

6000 43452.82 67.90 3.851% Wetlands

7000 627.70 0.98 0.056% Barren Land

8000 12030.81 18.80 1.066% Transportation, Communication, and

Utilities

Table G.6: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Yellow River Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1100 4126.60 6.45 0.366% Residential, Low Density

1120 20.31 0.03 0.002% Mobile Home Units

1200 3306.88 5.17 0.293% Residential, Medium Density

1220 23.32 0.04 0.002% Mobile Home Units, Medium Density

1300 882.23 1.38 0.078% Residential, High Density

1400 1263.07 1.97 0.112% Commercial and Services

1420 31.71 0.05 0.003% Junk Yards

1450 71.81 0.11 0.006% Tourist Services

1480 49.35 0.08 0.004% Cemeteries

1500 159.87 0.25 0.014% Industrial

1600 102.16 0.16 0.009% Extractive

1610 196.51 0.31 0.017% Strip Mines

1620 219.91 0.34 0.019% Sand and Gravel Pits

1660 5.56 0.01 0.000% Holding Ponds

1710 77.04 0.12 0.007% Educational Facilities

1720 32.05 0.05 0.003% Religious

1730 14584.97 22.79 1.293% Military

1750 16.22 0.03 0.001% Governmental

1800 26.54 0.04 0.002% Recreational

1820 97.72 0.15 0.009% Golf Courses

1830 64.17 0.10 0.006% Race Tracks

1850 21.05 0.03 0.002% Parks and Zoos

1860 48.99 0.08 0.004% Community Recreational Facilities

1900 3.44 0.01 0.000% Open Land (Urban)

2100 38606.88 60.32 3.422% Cropland and Pastureland

2200 197.70 0.31 0.018% Tree Crops

2300 12.86 0.02 0.001% Feeding Operations

2500 10.11 0.02 0.001% Specialty Farms

2540 48.92 0.08 0.004% Aquaculture

2600 247.66 0.39 0.022% Other Open Lands (Rural)
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 207

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

3200 5249.77 8.20 0.465% Shrub and Brushland

4100 917462.14 1433.53 81.317% Upland Coniferous Forests

4200 162.54 0.25 0.014% Upland Hardwood Forests

4340 19769.59 30.89 1.752% Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood

4410 45865.22 71.66 4.065% Coniferous Plantations

4430 15908.34 24.86 1.410% Forest Regeneration Areas

5100 1986.76 3.10 0.176% Streams and Waterways

5200 47.65 0.07 0.004% Lakes

5300 1135.89 1.77 0.101% Reservoirs

5600 4.75 0.01 0.000% Slough Waters

6100 3271.98 5.11 0.290% Wetland Hardwood Forests

6130 54.30 0.08 0.005% Gum Swamps

6150 14537.58 22.71 1.289% Stream and Lake Swamps

6160 81.18 0.13 0.007% Inland Ponds and Sloughs

6200 1124.86 1.76 0.100% Wetland Coniferous Forests

6210 38.18 0.06 0.003% Cypress

6300 20586.22 32.17 1.825% Wetland Forested Mixed

6410 464.03 0.73 0.041% Freshwater Marshes

6420 1611.49 2.52 0.143% Saltwater Marshes

6440 10.29 0.02 0.001% Emergent Aquatic Vegetation

6510 12.45 0.02 0.001% Tidal Flats

6530 50.37 0.08 0.004% Intermittent Ponds

6900 1609.90 2.52 0.143% Wetland Scrub Shrub

7200 134.23 0.21 0.012% Sand Other than Beaches

7400 461.11 0.72 0.041% Disturbed Land

7450 17.36 0.03 0.002% Burned Areas

7500 14.99 0.02 0.001% Riverine Sandbars

8100 17.12 0.03 0.002% Transportation

8110 2665.13 4.16 0.236% Airports

8140 7237.95 11.31 0.642% Roads and Highways

8170 69.80 0.11 0.006% Oil, Water, or Gas Transmission Lines

8200 6.38 0.01 0.001% Communications

8210 1.17 0.00 0.000% Transmissions Towers

8220 6.62 0.01 0.001% Communications Facilities

8310 1.94 0.00 0.000% Electrical Power Facilities

8320 1934.33 3.02 0.171% Electrical Power Transmission Lines

8340 25.99 0.04 0.002% Sewage Treatment

8350 64.36 0.10 0.006% Solid Waste Disposal
208 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table G.7: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Shoal River Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1000 18222.21 28.47 2.086% Urban and Built Up

2000 59252.89 92.58 6.784% Agriculture

3000 11666.90 18.23 1.336% Rangeland

4000 734192.05 1147.18 84.059% Upland Forests

5000 5299.92 8.28 0.607% Water

6000 37947.88 59.29 4.345% Wetlands

7000 234.29 0.37 0.027% Barren Land

8000 6607.40 10.32 0.756% Transportation, Communication, and

Utilities

Table G.8: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Shoal River Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1100 5538.89 8.65 0.634% Residential, Low Density

1120 2.80 0.00 0.000% Mobile Home Units

1200 4671.97 7.30 0.535% Residential, Medium Density

1220 51.11 0.08 0.006% Mobile Home Units, Medium Density

1300 4299.36 6.72 0.492% Residential, High Density

1320 6.73 0.01 0.001% Mobile Home Units, High Density

1400 1118.16 1.75 0.128% Commercial and Services

1420 36.48 0.06 0.004% Junk Yards

1480 67.59 0.11 0.008% Cemeteries

1600 346.31 0.54 0.040% Extractive

1610 66.89 0.10 0.008% Strip Mines

1620 556.04 0.87 0.064% Sand and Gravel Pits

1660 35.98 0.06 0.004% Holding Ponds

1710 97.56 0.15 0.011% Educational Facilities

1720 58.04 0.09 0.007% Religious

1730 939.03 1.47 0.108% Military

1750 20.34 0.03 0.002% Governmental

1760 6.43 0.01 0.001% Correctional

1800 54.68 0.09 0.006% Recreational

1820 99.94 0.16 0.011% Golf Courses

1850 48.39 0.08 0.006% Parks and Zoos

1860 9.02 0.01 0.001% Community Recreational Facilities

1890 21.81 0.03 0.002% Other Recreational

1900 68.65 0.11 0.008% Open Land (Urban)

2100 58259.04 91.03 6.670% Cropland and Pastureland

2200 624.71 0.98 0.072% Tree Crops

2300 164.74 0.26 0.019% Feeding Operations

2400 14.94 0.02 0.002% Nurseries and Vineyards

2600 189.46 0.30 0.022% Other Open Lands (Rural)

3200 11666.90 18.23 1.336% Shrub and Brushland
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 209

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

4100 601154.38 939.30 68.828% Upland Coniferous Forests

4130 25.72 0.04 0.003% Sand Pines

4200 254.36 0.40 0.029% Upland Hardwood Forests

4340 47335.20 73.96 5.420% Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood

4410 63781.00 99.66 7.302% Coniferous Plantations

4430 21641.38 33.81 2.478% Forest Regeneration Areas

5100 2029.66 3.17 0.232% Streams and Waterways

5200 740.01 1.16 0.085% Lakes

5300 2529.15 3.95 0.290% Reservoirs

5600 1.11 0.00 0.000% Slough Waters

6100 1413.94 2.21 0.162% Wetland Hardwood Forests

6130 148.63 0.23 0.017% Gum Swamps

6150 2733.04 4.27 0.313% Stream and Lake Swamps

6160 15.85 0.02 0.002% Inland Ponds and Sloughs

6200 122.11 0.19 0.014% Wetland Coniferous Forests

6210 169.59 0.26 0.019% Cypress

6300 30680.94 47.94 3.513% Wetland Forested Mixed

6400 4.80 0.01 0.001% Vegetated Nonforested Wetlands

6410 658.57 1.03 0.075% Freshwater Marshes

6440 45.23 0.07 0.005% Emergent Aquatic Vegetation

6530 48.03 0.08 0.005% Intermittent Ponds

6900 1907.15 2.98 0.218% Wetland Scrub Shrub

7300 9.42 0.01 0.001% Exposed Rocks

7400 83.14 0.13 0.010% Disturbed Land

7450 6.37 0.01 0.001% Burned Areas

7500 135.36 0.21 0.015% Riverine Sandbars

8100 12.13 0.02 0.001% Transportation

8110 1317.00 2.06 0.151% Airports

8140 3376.66 5.28 0.387% Roads and Highways

8170 290.64 0.45 0.033% Oil, Water, or Gas Transmission Lines

8310 14.94 0.02 0.002% Electrical Power Facilities

8320 1442.88 2.25 0.165% Electrical Power Transmission Lines

8330 11.09 0.02 0.001% Water Supply Plants

8340 142.06 0.22 0.016% Sewage Treatment
210 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table G.9: Summary (Level 1) Land Use Breakout for the Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1000 65290.43 102.02 28.152 Urban and Built Up

2000 4245.22 6.63 1.830 Agriculture

3000 14557.69 22.75 6.277 Rangeland

4000 95238.77 148.81 41.065 Upland Forests

5000 2922.89 4.57 1.260 Water

6000 34854.63 54.46 15.028 Wetlands

7000 5758.78 9.00 2.483 Barren Land

8000 9056.12 14.15 3.905 Transportation, Communication, and

Utilities

Table G.10: Detailed (Level 3) Land Use Breakout for the Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1100 5225.40 8.16 2.253 Residential, Low Density

1120 97.85 0.15 0.042 Mobile Home Units

1200 23290.06 36.39 10.042 Residential, Medium Density

1220 241.91 0.38 0.104 Mobile Home Units, Medium Density

1300 10366.02 16.20 4.470 Residential, High Density

1320 437.44 0.68 0.189 Mobile Home Units, High Density

1400 7462.55 11.66 3.218 Commercial and Services

1420 32.84 0.05 0.014 Junk Yards

1440 11.81 0.02 0.005 Cultural and Entertainment

1450 19.04 0.03 0.008 Tourist services

1480 274.59 0.43 0.118 Cemeteries

1500 1568.98 2.45 0.677 Industrial

1560 18.37 0.03 0.008 Other Heavy Industrial

1600 249.37 0.39 0.108 Extractive

1610 83.21 0.13 0.036 Strip Mines

1620 773.85 1.21 0.334 Sand and Gravel Pits

1640 1.40 0.00 0.001 Oil and Gas Fields

1660 97.15 0.15 0.042 Holding Ponds

1700 4.54 0.01 0.002 Institutional

1710 1198.08 1.87 0.517 Educational Facilities

1720 432.69 0.68 0.187 Religious

1730 10075.95 15.74 4.345 Military

1740 142.91 0.22 0.062 Medical and Health Care

1750 78.44 0.12 0.034 Governmental

1790 6.79 0.01 0.003 Institutional under Construction

1800 698.44 1.09 0.301 Recreational

1810 1.83 0.00 0.001 Swimming Beach

1820 1352.73 2.11 0.583 Golf Courses

1840 52.22 0.08 0.023 Marinas and Fish Camps

1850 54.66 0.09 0.024 Parks and Zoos

1860 14.66 0.02 0.006 Community Recreational Facilities
Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 211

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

1870 8.05 0.01 0.004 Stadiums

1880 110.60 0.17 0.048 Historic Sites

1890 53.55 0.08 0.023 Other Recreational

1900 752.44 1.18 0.324 Open Land (Urban)

2100 4091.74 6.39 1.764 Cropland and Pastureland

2200 97.14 0.15 0.042 Tree Crops

2400 5.34 0.01 0.002 Nurseries and Vineyards

2500 37.16 0.06 0.016 Specialty Farms

2540 2.72 0.00 0.001 Aquaculture

2600 11.13 0.02 0.005 Other Open Lands (Rural)

3200 11659.29 18.22 5.027 Shrub and Brushland

3220 2820.72 4.41 1.216 Coastal Scrub

3300 77.68 0.12 0.034 Mixed Rangeland

4100 67457.24 105.40 29.086 Upland Coniferous Forests

4130 166.73 0.26 0.072 Sand Pines

4200 1003.46 1.57 0.433 Upland Hardwood Forests

4340 11571.54 18.08 4.989 Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood

4350 39.11 0.06 0.017 Dead Trees

4400 52.60 0.08 0.023 Tree Plantations

4410 9642.62 15.07 4.158 Coniferous Plantations

4430 5305.46 8.29 2.288 Forest Regeneration Areas

5100 1993.95 3.12 0.860 Streams and Waterways

5200 61.64 0.10 0.027 Lakes

5300 835.88 1.31 0.360 Reservoirs

5420 31.42 0.05 0.014 Embayments < Gulf

6100 1680.93 2.63 0.725 Wetland Hardwood Forests

6110 0.69 0.00 0.000 Bay Swamps

6120 20.07 0.03 0.009 Mangrove Swamps

6150 415.15 0.65 0.179 Stream and Lake Swamps

6160 4.73 0.01 0.002 Inland Ponds and Sloughs

6200 3834.34 5.99 1.653 Wetland Coniferous Forests

6210 29.05 0.05 0.013 Cypress

6300 21098.36 32.97 9.097 Wetland Forested Mixed

6400 10.72 0.02 0.005 Vegetated Nonforested Wetlands

6410 1502.81 2.35 0.648 Freshwater Marshes

6420 2184.76 3.41 0.942 Saltwater Marshes

6440 5.91 0.01 0.003 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation

6510 346.94 0.54 0.150 Tidal Flats

6530 114.82 0.18 0.050 Intermittent Ponds

6900 3605.35 5.63 1.555 Wetland Scrub Shrub

7100 1565.95 2.45 0.675 Beaches

7200 3704.24 5.79 1.597 Sand Other than Beaches

7300 4.11 0.01 0.002 Exposed Rocks

7400 482.45 0.75 0.208 Disturbed Land

7500 2.04 0.00 0.001 Riverine Sandbars
212 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Land

Use/Cover

Classification

Acres Square Miles

Percent of Total

Planning Unit

Area

Description of Land Use

8100 199.61 0.31 0.086 Transportation

8110 4178.32 6.53 1.802 Airports

8120 82.68 0.13 0.036 Railroads

8140 2374.35 3.71 1.024 Roads and Highways

8150 66.42 0.10 0.029 Port Facilities

8170 28.01 0.04 0.012 Oil, Water, or Gas Transmission Lines

8200 2.06 0.00 0.001 Communications

8210 2.94 0.00 0.001 Transmissions Towers

8220 0.83 0.00 0.000 Communications Facilities

8300 108.95 0.17 0.047 Utilities

8310 54.72 0.09 0.024 Electrical Power Facilities

8320 1051.38 1.64 0.453 Electrical Power Transmission Lines

8330 32.08 0.05 0.014 Water Supply Plants

8340 514.74 0.80 0.222 Sewage Treatment

8350 359.03 0.56 0.155 Solid Waste Disposal
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Water Resource Management

Bureau of Water Management

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

(850) 245-8561

www.dep.state.fl.us/water