# 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 

# 5 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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. 

# 7 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

# 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 EnvironmentalProtection’s (Department) watershed management approach for restoring and protecting water resources and addressing Total Maximum DailyLoad (TMDL) Program requirements. A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and 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, willbe 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 Listof 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 andimproving 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 stakeholderssuch 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 achievingwater quality improvement objectives, they also play a crucial role in providing the Department with important monitoring data and information on management activities. Significant data providers in the basin, in addition to the Department, include Escambia County, NWFWMD, EPA, and 

# 9 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 willwork 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 oftennatural 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 BayTable 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 nonpointsource 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. 

# 11 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

# 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 

# 13 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayBlackwater 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 Wa terbody 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 BayTable 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 

# 15 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

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

# 17 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 ListThe 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, asprovided 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 CleanWater 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 tothe legislature, recommends relying on stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder involvement in the TMDL process will vary with each phase of implementation to achieve different purposes (Table 1.1) . A copy of the ATAC report is available at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/docs/ allocation.pdf.The Department will work cooperatively with a number of key stakeholders to develop, allocate, and implement TMDLs in the 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 STO rage and RET rieval 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, andlocal 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 

# 19 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayFigure 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: Introductionbriefly characterizes the purpose and content of the Status Report, discusses stakeholder involvement, and describeshow 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, bybasin planning unit, an evaluation of water quality, a discussion of permitted discharges and land uses, a summary of ecological priorities and problems, and an overview of water quality improvement plans and projects. 

### Contents of This Report

• Chapter 4: Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters contains the Planning List ofpotentially 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 Evaluationsummarizes 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. 

# 21 Noteworthy 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), andWalton 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 PensacolaBay 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. 

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

County Name Census 1950 1 Census 1990 1 Census 2000 2 2030 Medium Projection 3 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: 1 Forstall, 1995.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.
3 Smith 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 ResourcesBoth 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 streambottom 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 Floridastreams. They are generally described as blackwater streams. The Blackwater River and its tributaries drain acidic flatwoods 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 SystemSurface 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. 

# 25 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayThe land cover used to identify natural communities was mappedby 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. 

# Noteworthy 

# 26 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 exceptionallyhigh (Davis, Compton, Penniman, and Mall, n.d.; see sidebar). Additionally, the nineteenth-century logging practice of fl oating logs down theBlackwater 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 fish, 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 providesimportant 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 andwaters 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 theYellow 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 

# 27 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 specific conductance and slightly higher nutrient and carbon content. It is classifi ed byBeck 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 tideoutbreaks 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 BayTable 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
Fish 1 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 

# 29 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BaySpecies 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
Fish 1 , 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 Mussels 2 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 Insects 3 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.
2 Deyrup and Franz, 1994.
3 Davis et al. Table 2.2 (continued) 

# 30 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayFigure 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. Theearliest 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 

# 31 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 hasobserved 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. Thissection 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 surfacesare 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 BayFigure 2.3a: Basin Boundaries of the Pensacola Bay Basin 

# 33 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayFigure 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. Runoffis enhanced by the land’s sloping relief and elevations, along with a welldeveloped stream network. While runoff values for the basin are highcompared 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 inflow 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 flow 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 

# 35 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 Length 1 /Florida Length 2 (miles) Total Drainage Area 1,3 / Florida Drainage Area 2 (square miles) Average Flow at Selected Locations 4 (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.
2 The Department’s geographic information system (GIS) estimate. Florida drainage areas for Blackwater River and Escambia River are from Thorpe et al., 1997.
3 Florida State Board of Conservation
, 1966. Total drainage area for interstate tributaries.
4 U.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 flushing 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. 

# 37 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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, Bisterfield, and Wise (1975) noted that the bay’s circulation pattern could be strongly infl uenced by surface winds, and the influence 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: shellfish 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 

# 39 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 developand 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 theFloridan 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 tothe 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 thesub- 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 BayFigure 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. 

# 41 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 than400 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 confining 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-permeabilityzone. 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 theFloridan 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 bedsare 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 supplementaldrinking 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 baseflow 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 influences 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. 

# 43 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 hasbecome 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 settlingtank (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 AreaThe 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 

# 45 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 waterquality 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 isbased 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 forstormwater 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 fiscal 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 

# 47 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 extentpossible. 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 cubicyards 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 cruisesaboard the American Star. These cruises have provided an opportunity for over 4,000 local schoolchildren and several hundred civicgroup 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). 

# 49 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### • 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 sedimentbasin 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 OkeechobeeProtection 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 efficiency 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 GroupsNumerous 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 Office, 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 inthe 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. 

# 51 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### • Bay Area Resource Council (BARC) —The BARC was createdfrom 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 SantaRosa 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 BayWatershed 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 thenbe forwarded to the individual units of local government for consideration. The BARC’s goal is improving the area’s quality of life andthe 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, toconsolidate 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 CityCouncil 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 Countythrough 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 isbased 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. AKeeper 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 toprovide 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 AgricoChemical 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 financial 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 Delegationin 2000, this group of 20 local scientists provides annual recommendations to the delegation. 

# 53 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

# 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 waterbod ies or waterbody segments are to beplaced 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 prioritiesin 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 regulatorybackground 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. 

# 55 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### Sources of Data
The assessment of water quality in the Pensacola Bay Basin includes ananalysis 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” STO rage and RET rieval (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 5,844Florida 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

OkaloosaCounty 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 andWildlife 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 WaterManagement 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 BayFigure 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 itsdescription 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

1 991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19 99 2000 2001 2002 NWFWMD Alabama LakeWatch FWC Okaloosa Environmental Council BFA Department DOH USGS

1990 Data Providers in the Pensacola Bay Basin

YearPercent of Data 

# 57 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 thepublication 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. Thesecategories 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 fish 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 ofpollution, such as the physical alteration of a waterbody (for example, canals, dams, and ditches). However, TMDLs are established only for impairments caused by pollutants (a TMDL quantifieshow much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet its designated uses).

Waterbodies that are verifiedimpaired due to specified pollutants, and therefore require a TMDL, are listed under Category 5 in the IntegratedAssessment Report; waterbodies with water quality impairments due to other causes, or unknown causes, are listed under Category 4b. Although TMDLs arenot established for Category 4b waterbodies, these waterbodies still may beaddressed through a watershed management program (for example, the Kissimmee River restoration). 

# 58 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable 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 theuses 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. 

# 59 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### More waterbodies and segments statewide fall into Category 2 (attaining some uses but with insuffi cient data to assess completely) thanCategory 1 (attaining all uses) because monitoring programs can sometimes provide suffi cient data for partially determining whether a designated use in a particular waterbody is attain ed. A total of 49 waterbody segments in the basin falls into Category 2. However, most waterbodies in the state fall into Category 3 (having insufficient 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 flora 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. Planningunits 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. Insome 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, informationon 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, fish 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 specific 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. 

# 61 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayFigure 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 confluence 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. Theimpoundment 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 sufficient 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 impairedwaterbodies, the leading causes of impairment are failed biological assessment and mercury in fi sh tissue. Land-clearing activities from agriculture and construction, coupledwith 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 

# 63 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Escambia River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4 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, TotalColiforms, 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 BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4 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) 

# 65 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayNotes:

1 The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.
2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)
3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 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.
4 The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters . The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c/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. Anotherpotential 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 BayFigure 3.3: Composite Map of the Escambia River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List Waters 

# 67 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayPoint sources discharging pollutants to surface water or ground water originate from discrete, well-defined areas such as a facility discharge from the end of a pipe, a disposal well, or a wastewater sprayfield. Point sources generally fall into twomajor types: domestic wastewater sources (which consist of sewage from homes, businesses, and institutions) and industrial wastewater sources (which

Environmental remediation activities cover a broad spectrum of cleanup programs. Theseinclude state-managed hazardous waste, dry cleaning, and petroleum cleanup programs, as well as the federal Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (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), asoil 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, industrialsolvents, 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, runoffmay carry nonpoint source pollutants from many different sources 

### Information on Point Sources in Planning Units

include wastewater, runoff, andleachate 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 importantpart of assessing water quality and developing TMDLs. As part of this report, information is presented on point sources, including permitted facilities that discharge wastewater and landfills.



### Environmental Remediation

threat to public health and the environment.

The National Priorities List (NPL) is a consolidated list of the uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that pose the greatest threatto public health or the environment. Sites are listed on the NPLupon the completion of a preliminary assessment, site inspection, and hazardous ranking system evaluation to determine their potential for adverse impacts and priority for corrective action. TheEPA Superfund program administers the cleanup of NPL sites.

The Department’s state-funded cleanup program administers thecleanup of contaminated hazardous waste sites when enforcement action taken against a responsible party is unsuccessful or when no responsible party is identified.



### Delineated Ground Water Contamination Areas

of contaminated ground water inFlorida. The Delineation Program is designed to ensure the protection of public health when consuming potable ground water supplies and to minimize thepotential 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 byinstalling 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. 

# Noteworthy 

# 68 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 fish species. At least 10 imperiled mussel species and 18 imperiled fish 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 fish 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. Amajor 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 streamflow 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. 

# 69 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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. Thepartners manage about 954,065 acres of northwestern Florida and southern Alabama for the purpose of protecting listed species and restoring andprotecting 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 HurricaneLake, 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 BayWater 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. Thesedeadhead 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. 

# 71 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Blackwater River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4 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 BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4
21 Sweetwater Creek Stream IIIF — Biology, Conductance, DO, Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia 2 Meets Some Uses

24 Blackwater River Stream IIIF — Biology, Mercury in Fish Chlorophyll 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, FecalColiforms, 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) 

# 73 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4
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.
2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)
3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 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.
4 The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters . The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5. F = Fresh water TSS = Total suspended solids DO = Dissolved oxygen TSI = Trophic state index Table 3.5 (continued) 

# 74 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayFigure 3.4: Composite Map of the Blackwater River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List Waters 

# 75 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayPermitted 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 providesummaries 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 fish 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 fish 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 ThreeRivers 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 southernAlabama 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 

# 77 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 flow 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 -managedimpoundment, 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 provideddata 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 threeindustrial 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 BayTable 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Yellow River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4
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 

# 79 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4 396 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.
2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)
3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 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.
4 The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters . The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.
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 BayFigure 3.5: Composite Map of the Yellow River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Planning List Waters 

# 81 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 fine 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 Alabamashad, 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 summertemperatures. 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 BayWater 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. Thepartners manage about 954,065 acres of northwestern Florida and southern Alabama for the purpose of protecting listed species and restoring andprotecting 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 defined 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 iscontained 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 andHorsehead 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. 

# 83 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Shoal River Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4 100 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 BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4
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.
2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)
3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 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.
4 The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters . The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.
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. 

# 85 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayFigure 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 BayEcological 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. Thepartners manage about 954,065 acres of northwestern Florida and southern Alabama for the purpose of protecting listed species and restoring andprotecting 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 HUC03140195, 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. 

# 87 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 stationswere 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 flushing 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 wastefacilities 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 industrialpractices 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 qualityof 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 BayTable 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Pensacola Bay Planning Unit

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 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 WBID 4
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, Turbidity 3d Verified List

548B Escambia Bay (S) Estuary IIIM Coliforms, Nutrients, Turbidity, TSS, DO Biology DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 3c Planning List

548BB Bay Bluffs Park Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some Uses
548C Pensacola Bay (N) Estuary II Coliforms — DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 2 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 

# 89 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4 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, Turbidity 3c Planning List

669 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream IIIF

— — DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 2 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, Turbidity 2 Meets Some Uses
701 East River Bay Stream IIIF Coliforms, Turbidity Conductance, DO Biology, Chlorophyll a , Fecal Coliforms, Fluoride, TotalColiforms, 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, TotalColiforms, Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia 3c Planning List Table 3.8 (continued) 

# 90 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4
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, Turbidity 2 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 Ammonia 3d 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, Turbidity 3d Verified List

848DA Sanders Beach Coastal IIIM — — Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some Uses Table 3.8 (continued) 

# 91 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4
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 BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) List Parameters of Concern Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c/3d) for Listed Parameters Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed Parameters EPA’s 305(b)/ 303(d) Integrated Report Assessment Category for WBID 4
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.
2 The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: Class I: Potable water supplies Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV: Agricultural water supplies Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)
3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 1— Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 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.
4 The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters . The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.
F = Fresh water M = Marine TSS = Total suspended solids Table 3.8 (continued) 

# 93 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayFigure 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), traceorganic 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 significant elevations of concentrations of contaminants and frequency of elevated contaminants compared with the Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (SQAG) developed byMacDonald (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 lowto 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. 

# 95 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayPermitted 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 domesticwastewater 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. Significant 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. Remnantcoastal 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 andRecovery 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).


### 1990The 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 toxicitystudy 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 shharvesting 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 

# 97 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 EPAobserved 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 educationalboat. 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 fiscal 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 governmentattention 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 Countyfor 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 retrofit 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. 

# 99 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

# 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 

# 101 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable 4.1: Potentially Impaired Waters in the Pensacola Bay Basin

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 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 BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody Impairment Identified under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Parameter of Concern 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) 

# 103 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody Impairment Identified under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Parameter of Concern 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 BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody Impairment Identified under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Parameter of Concern 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) 

# 105 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 Type 1 1998 303(d) List Causes of Potential Waterbody Impairment Identified under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Parameter of Concern 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 BayFigure 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 

# 107 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### Six waterbodies were placed on the 1998 303(d) list for nonpointsource 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 sufficient 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 efficiently 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 thetime the Planning List was generated. Data from other monitoring organizations will be included in the evaluation to help verify the condition ofpotentially 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 Verified 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. 

# 109 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 workingwith 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 BayWBID 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) 

# 111 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID 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 afterthe 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 STO rage and RET rieval (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 Verified 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 laterin 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. 

# 113 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 . PublicationSL-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. 

# 115 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 FloridaDepartment 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. 

### S mith, 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 ColiformTMDL Development for One Segment in the Blackwater River Watershed, Florida, Blackwater River–Downstream Segment, Final . Atlanta, Georgia: Region IV. 

# 117 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

### 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 Moccasin shell (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 RegionalWater 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 FederalAid 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 

# P en saco la B ay A p p en d ices

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210Water 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, developingWater 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 theFlorida Environmental Regulation Commission on April 26, 2001. It provides a sciencebased methodology for evaluating water quality data in order to identify impaired waters, and it establishes specific criteria for impairment based on chemical parameters, the interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption advisories, and ecological impairment. The 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 aquaticWater 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 River Lagoon

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

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

Southeast Lake Okeechobee St.Lucie–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 1 st Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2 nd Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters
Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may 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 DistrictsWater 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 P ERMITS 

### 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

D OMESTIC AND I NDUSTRIAL W ASTEWATER P ERMITS 

### In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters, Florida also regulates domestic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via land application. Since ground 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.

F LORIDA S TORMWATER /E NVIRONMENTAL R ESOURCE P ERMITS 

### 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.

L OCAL L AND D EVELOPMENT C ODES 

### Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development often cause ecological impacts to aquatic systems, local land development codes that promote “low-impact development” are an important component of restoring impaired waters. Local codes may need to be reviewed to determine how to promote developments that minimize impervious surfaces (such as reduced street widths or the use of pervious pavements), promote the protection of vegetation, promote the protection and restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes.

B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES (BMP S ) 

### Typically, BMPs refer to a practice or combination of practices that, based on sound science and best professional judgment, are determined to be the most effective and practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollutant discharges and improving water quality. Both economic and technological considerations are included in the evaluation of what is practicable. BMPs may include structural controls (such as retention areas or detention ponds) or nonstructural controls (such as street sweeping or public education). Many BMPs have been developed for urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type, slope, depth to groundwater, and the designation of receiving waters.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.

O THER S TRATEGIES 

### The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require variety, creativity, stakeholder commitment to watershed management, and personal stewardship. In addition to BMPs, 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 STO rage and RET rieval (STORET) databases, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department, the Florida Department of Health (DOH), the water management districts, local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. Historically, the Department carried out statewide water quality assessments using data available in the EPA’s Legacy STORET Database; STORET makes up approximately 60 percent of the statewide data used in the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule assessment. The Legacy STORET 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 theseWater 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

E XCEEDANCES OF N UMERIC W ATER Q UALITY C RITERIA 

### The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for preparing the state’s 2000 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations were included in the assessment of impairment. Water quality information from point sources or wells was excluded. Monitoring stations were classified as one of five waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria described in the latest 305(b) report. The assessments included the following parameters:

Metals Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc
Nutrients Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State Index (TSI) (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) for lakes
Conventionals Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms, total coliforms, pH, Unionized ammonia

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List included a minimum of 10 temporally independent samples from the ten-year period of record shown in 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

E XCEEDANCES OF N UTRIENT T HRESHOLDS 

### The state currently has a narrative nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The Impaired Surface Waters Rule provides an interpretation of the narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the Trophic State Index (TSI) and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whether a waterbody should be assessed further for nutrient impairment. The rule also considers other information that might indicate an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a decrease in the distribution (either in density or aerial coverage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings. Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual mean chlorophyll

a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, the TSI was calculated using chlorophyll a , total phosphorus, and total nitrogen measurements. Direct evidence of imbalances of flora and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the evaluation of nutrient impairments. In estuarine areas, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 micrograms per liter ( μ g/L) or if annual mean chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive years. For streams, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μ g/L or if the annual mean increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive years. A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units (PCUs) was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a lake was considered nutrient enriched if there was an increase in TSI over the 1989 to 2000 period or if TSI measurements were 10 units higher than historical values.

E XCEEDANCE SOF B IOLOGICAL T HRESHOLDS 

### Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and rivers using the Impaired Surface Waters Rule as guidance and following the Department’s standard operating procedures, which provide definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. These are referenced in the individual bioassessment data tables contained in the 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.

L AKE C ONDITION I NDEX 

### The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except percent Diptera, was performed according to the following formula:
100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = observed value
For percent Diptera, the following formula was used: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 ordersEphemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; ShannonWiener Diversity Index score; Hulbert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals. LCI calculations were only provided for clear lakes (< 20 platinum cobalt units [PCUs]). As macroinvertebrate-based indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in Florida accurately (> 20 PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A poor or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule.

S TREAM C ONDITION I NDEX 

### A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of the seven metrics in the method, i.e., total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent Chironomid taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. The Basin Status Reports contain definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data.

B IO R ECON 

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

B IOLOGICAL I NTEGRITY S TANDARD 

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

E VALUATION OF T OXICITY D ATA 

### Although the Impaired Surface Waters Rule describes the use of toxicity data for the assessment of aquatic life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity data are available for assessment and this metric was not used.

# 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 of Basin 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 LEWater 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 LTWater 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 LSWater 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 LSWater 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 dataWater 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: Pensacola Bay155Table D.1: Stream Condition Index (SCI) Scoring and Evaluation WorksheetSummer Index Period (May-October): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI)Macroinvertebrate Dipnet (20sweeps of most productivesubstrates)ValuePanhandlePeninsulaNortheast5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 ScoreTotal Number of Taxa ≥ 31 30-16 < 16 ≥ 26 25-14 < 14 ≥ 22 21-12 < 12EPT 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 DominantTaxon≤ 22 23-61 > 61 ≤ 29 30-64 > 64 ≤ 31 32-66 > 66% Diptera --- ≤ 50 > 50 --- ≤ 37 > 37 --- ≤ 47 > 47Florida Index ≥ 16 15-8 < 8 ≥ 7 6-4 < 4 ≥ 8 7-5 < 5% Suspension Feeders/Filterers ≥ 12 11-6 < 6 --- ≥ 7 < 7 --- ≥ 7 < 7Total ScoreEvaluation Excellent 27-33 Excellent 26-31 Excellent 25-29Good 21-26 Good 20-25 Good 19-24Poor 14-20 Poor 13-19 Poor 13-18Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 7-12 Very Poor 7-12Winter Index Period (November-April): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI)Macroinvertebrate Dipnet (20sweeps of most productivesubstrates)ValuePanhandlePeninsulaNortheast5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 ScoreTotal Number of Taxa ≥ 27 26-14 < 14 ≥ 27 26-14 < 14 ≥ 18 17-9 < 9EPT 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 DominantTaxon≤ 25 26-62 > 62 ≤ 30 31-65 > 65 ≤ 37 38-69 > 69% Diptera --- ≤ 60 > 60 --- ≤ 52 > 52 --- ≤ 67 > 67Florida 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 < 13Total ScoreEvaluation Excellent 27-33 Excellent 27-33 Excellent 26-31Good 21-26 Good 21-26 Good 20-25Poor 14-20 Poor 14-20 Poor 14-19Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 7-13156Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable D.2: Lake Condition Index (LCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet for Clear Florida Lakes(< 20 platinum cobalt units)Macroinvertebrate 12-benthic grab compositeAB100(B/A)95th Percentileof Ref PopObservedValuesMetricScoreTotal Number of Taxa 30.5Total Number of EOT Taxa 5.2% EOT Taxa 34.4Shannon-Wiener Index 4.39Hulbert Index 17.4AB100(100-B)/(100-A)95th Percentileof Ref PopObservedValuesMetricScore% Dipteran Individuals 13.6Total of Metric ScoresLCI Score (average metric score)Acid (pH < 6.5)Alkaline (pH > 6.5)EvaluationEcoregion 65Ecoregion 75> 55> 44> 50Very Good> 35> 30> 35Good> 18> 15> 18Poor> 18> 15> 18Very PoorWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay157Appendix E: Permitted Discharge Facilities, Superfund Sites, and Landfills in the Pensacola BayBasin, by Planning UnitTable E.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water (NPDES) in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning UnitPermitNumberFacility Name City LocationType ofFacilityFacilityStatusDesignCapacity(mgd)Basin Where Located(WBID Name)WBIDEscambia River Planning UnitFLG911464 JORDANS EXXON CENTURY PET A BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK 10FLG910249 SOUTHERN PIT STOP CENTURY PET A BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK 10FL0032468 CENTURY, TOWN OF CENTURY DW A 0.4500 ESCAMBIA RIVER 10CFL0102202 PACE WATER SYSTEM, INC WWTP #1 PACE DW A 1.0000 ESCAMBIA RIVER 10EFL0002488 SOLUTIA INC GONZALEZ IW A 27.0000 ESCAMBIA RIVER 10EFL0038318 NITROUS OXIDE CORP CANTONMENT IW A 0.0006 ESCAMBIA RIVER 10EFL0002275 GULF POWER CRIST STEAM PENSACOLA IW A 18.0000 ESCAMBIA RIVER 10FFLRNEE173 DANA-COUPLED PRODUCTS, INC. PENSACOLA NEX A COTTON CREEK 131Blackwater River Planning UnitFLG830355 NUGGET STORE #33 PEA RIDGE/MILTON PET A POND CREEK 176FLG110445 RMC EWELL - MILTON MILTON CBP A POND CREEK 176FLG110002 PENSACOLA READY MIX - MILTON MILTON CBP A POND CREEK 176FL0021903 MILTON, CITY OF (STP) MILTON DW A 2.5000 BLACKWATER RIVER 24AYellow River Planning UnitFLG110441 CEMEX - CRESTVIEW CRESTVIEW CBP A WILLIAMS BRANCH 331FLA187411 PHIL-DIRT INDUSTRIES INC CRESTVIEW IW A DAVIS MILL CREEK 231FLA010183 BAKER HIGH SCHOOL BAKER DW A 0.0240 MILL CREEK 254FLA180017 CAMPBELL SAND & GRAVEL - MOSSY HEAD MOSSY HEAD IW A BOTTLE BRANCH 282FLA180238 CEMEX - MOSSY HEAD MINE MOSSY HEAD IW A BOTTLE BRANCH 282FLA010193 CRESTVIEW, CITY OF WWTF CRESTVIEW DW A 2.1000 JUNIPER CREEK 300FLA010202 OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE CRESTVIEW DW A 0.1750 TITI CREEK 321FLA016768 GREEN ACRES ROAD WWTP MOSSY HEAD DW A 0.0250 GUM CREEK 324158Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable E.1: (continued)PermitNumberFacility Name City LocationType ofFacilityFacilityStatusDesignCapacity(mgd)Basin Where Located(WBID Name)WBIDYellow River Planning Unit (continued)FLA010186 EGLIN A F B AUX FIELD #3 STP EGLIN AFB DW A 0.1250 SILVER CREEK 359FLA010188 EGLIN A F B AUX FIELD #6 STP FT WALTON BEACH DW A 0.0720 METTS CREEK 415FLA010246 CITY OF PAXTON WWTP PAXTON DW A 0.0750 LONG CREEK 76Shoal River Planning UnitFLRNEE269 FEDEX GROUND CRESTVIEW NEX A SHOAL RIVER 160BFLG110035 RMC EWELL - CRESTVIEW CRESTVIEW CBP A SHOAL RIVER 160BFLG110434 FORT WALTON CONCRETE - CRESTVIEW CRESTVIEW CBP N SHOAL RIVER 160BPensacola Bay Planning UnitFL0002313 AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS INC PACE IW A 1.5000 JUDGES BAYOU 493FL0002593 STERLING FIBERS, INC PACE IW A 5.5000 JUDGES BAYOU 493FLG110210 WPR, INC MILTON CBP A JAKES BAYOU 537FLRNEE235AMERICAN ACCESSORIES OF PENSACOLAINC.PENSACOLA NEX ADIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY639FLG110354 CEMEX - PENSACOLA PENSACOLA CBP A CARPENTER CREEK 676FLG110376 CEMEX - NAVARRE NAVARRE CBP A EAST RIVER BAY 701FL0003174 HURLBURT FIELD AIR FORCE BASE HURLBURT FIELD DW A 1.0000 EAST RIVER BAY 701FLG830419 ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT PENSACOLA PET A BAYOU GRANDE 740FLG110453 PENSACOLA READY MIX - SORRENTO RD PENSACOLA CBP A 0.2160 BAYOU GRANDE 740FLG110289 RMC EWELL - PENSACOLA PENSACOLA CBP A BAYOU GRANDE 740FL0002500 US NAVAL AIR STATION PENSACOLA DW A 2.3500 BAYOU GRANDE 740FLRNEE145 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY PENSACOLA NEX A BAYOU GRANDE 740FLRNEE085 PENSACOLA - REDDY PLANT # 330 PENSACOLA NEX A BAYOU GRANDE 740FL0021440 MAIN STREET A W W T STP PENSACOLA DW A 20.0000 BAYOU GRANDE 740FLG911515 GROCERY SUPPLY COMPANY PENSACOLA PET A JACKSON CREEK 846BFLG911201 DOUBLE G #1 NAVARRE PET ADIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY870FLG110435FORT WALTON CONCRETE - FT WALTONBEACHFORT WALTONBEACHCBP NDIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY870Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay159Table E.1: (continued)PermitNumberFacility Name City LocationType ofFacilityFacilityStatusDesignCapacity(mgd)Basin Where Located(WBID Name)WBIDPensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)FLG911452 NAVARRE BEACH CABINS NAVARRE PET ADIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY870FLG110227 PENSACOLA READY MIX - MIDWAY GULF BREEZE CBP ADIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY893FL0044377 US EPA LABORATORY - SABINE ISLAND GULF BREEZE IW A 0.8500DIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY925FL0024007 PENSACOLA BEACH WWTP PENSACOLA BEACH DW A 2.4000DIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY925FLG110343 PENSACOLA READY MIX - PORTOFINO PENSACOLA BEACH CBP ADIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY925FL0023981 NAVARRE BEACH STP NAVARRE BEACH DW A 0.9000DIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY925160Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable E.2: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Ground Water in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning UnitPermitNumberFacility Name City LocationType ofFacilityFacilityStatusDesignCapacity(mgd)Basin Where Located(WBID Name)WBIDEscambia River Planning UnitFLA016218CAMPBELL SAND & GRAVEL - CENTURYWASHPADCENTURY IW A BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK 10FLA278246 PACE SAND & GRAVEL - CENTURY MINE 1 CENTURY IW A BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK 10FLA267813 CAMPBELL SAND & GRAVEL - VULCAN PIT CENTURY IW A BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK 10FLA181757 CRARY DAIRY CENTURY AFO N ESCAMBIA RIVER 10CFLA295990 PACE SAND & GRAVEL- OIL WELL MINE CENTURY IW A ESCAMBIA RIVER 10CFLA280330 MCDAVID SAWMILL MCDAVID IW A FLETCH CREEK 201FLA010206 JAY, TOWN OF (STP) JAY DW A 0.1200 BRAY MILL CREEK 36FLA016110 COUCH READY MIX - BARTH PIT CANTONMENT IW A PINE BARREN CREEK 5FLA181986 VAN PELT BROTHER DAIRY CENTURY AFO N PINE BARREN CREEK 5FLA017063 CAMPBELL SAND & GRAVEL - BARTH CANTONMENT IW A PINE BARREN CREEK 5FLA010055 COUCH READY MIX - PENSACOLA PENSACOLA IW N 0.0011 CLEAR CREEK 531FLA010032 BRATT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BRATT DW A 0.0120 BEAVERDAM CREEK 6FLA010033 NORTHVIEW HIGH SCHOOL BRATT DW A 0.0280 CANOE CREEK 7Blackwater Planning UnitFLA010223 BERRYDALE FORESTRY CAMP JAY DW A 0.0500 MANNING CREEK 127FLA187569 PEA RIDGE PIT MILTON IW A POND CREEK 176FLA016937 GENERAL RENTAL MILTON IW A POND CREEK 176FLA010214 FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION C/S 12 MILTON IW A 0.0050 BIG JUNIPER CREEK 19FLA010195 BAKER LAUNDRETTE BAKER IW A 0.0003 PENNY CREEK 225FLA274917 SHOWROOM DETAILING *PERMIT EXEMPT* MILTON IW N BLACKWATER RIVER 24AFLA273341 DEJOHN'S CARWASH *PERMIT EXEMPT* MILTON IW N BLACKWATER RIVER 24AFLA187551 BAKER PIT MILTON IW A PELICAN BAYOU 481FLA010221SANTA ROSA COUNTY I-10 REST AREAWWTPMILTON DW A 0.0134 PELICAN BAYOU 481FLA182982 MOONEY SAND MINE MILTON IW A MALLOY BRANCH 82Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay161Table E.2: (continued)PermitNumberFacility Name City LocationType ofFacilityFacilityStatusDesignCapacity(mgd)Basin Where Located(WBID Name)WBIDShoal River Planning UnitFLA010181 BOB SIKES INDUSTRIAL PARK WWTF CRESTVIEW DW A 0.1000 SHOAL RIVER 160BFLA010200 D O T I-10 REST AREA WEST STP CRESTVIEW DW A 0.0086 SHOAL RIVER 160BFLA010201 D O T I-10 REST AREA EAST STP CRESTVIEW DW A 0.0086 SHOAL RIVER 160BPensacola Bay Planning UnitFLA016779 HIGHWAY 191 WWTP BAGDAD DW A 0.0600 SANDY POINT BAYOU 534FLA016996 RUSSELL SAND MINE MILTON IW A JAKES BAYOU 537FLA010218 AVALON UTILITIES MILTON DW A 0.1000 MULATTO BAYOU 539FLA010219 ADRIAN WOODS SUBDIVISION WWTP PENSACOLA DW A 0.0600DIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY669FLA016989 CARPENTERS CAMPERS INC PENSACOLA IW A CARPENTER CREEK 676FLA271993FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO *PERMITEXEMPT*TAMPA IW N BAYOU GRANDE 740FLA016165 MARK DUNNING INDUSTRIES, INC PENSACOLA IW A 0.0011 BAYOU GRANDE 740FLA016808 GULF-ATLANTIC CONSTRUCTORS PENSACOLA IW A BAYOU GRANDE 740FLA016231 CLARK SITE CONTRACTORS - NAVARRE NAVARRE IW A EAST RIVER BAY 825FLA010215 WARSH-A-MANIA, INC GULF BREEZE IW ADIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY834FLA010049 MORENO COURTS PENSACOLA DW A 0.1400 JONES CREEK 846AFLA272019 MARGARET CAR WASH *PERMIT EXEMPT* PENSACOLA IW N JACKSON CREEK 846BFLA282812 AUTO-SHRED RECYCLING, L L C PENSACOLA IW A BAYOU CHICO DRAIN 846CFLA010211 HOLLEY-NAVARRE WASTEWATER SYSTEM NAVARRE DW A 1.0000 WILLIAMS CREEK 864FLA010182 RUSSELL F W STEPHENSON MARY ESTHER DW A 1.0000DIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY870FLA010191 MARY ESTHER, TOWN OF (STP) MARY ESTHER DW A 1.1000DIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY870FLA010212 SOUTH SANTA ROSA UTILITIES SYSTEM GULF BREEZE DW A 2.0000DIRECT RUNOFF TOBAY893162Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable E.3: Superfund and State Funded Hazardous Waste Sites in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning UnitSite ID Number Name City Program Status Source of Contaminants Basin Name WBIDPensacola Bay Planning Unit000000000002 American Creosote Pensacola Superfund Active Wood Preserving Waste Bayou Grande 740000000000111Escambia WoodTreatingPensacola Superfund Active Wood Preserving Waste Bayou Grande 740000000000074 Agrico Chemical Co. Pensacola Superfund Active Chemical Manufacture/Processor Bayou Grande 740000000000050 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 ContaminantsWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay163Table E.4: Permitted Landfill Facilities in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning UnitFacility Name City County StatusClass ofWaste *Basin (WBID) Where LocatedEscambia River Planning UnitAMERSON ROOFING, INC. (C & D) CENTURY Escambia Inactive 540 CANOE CREEKTOWN OF CENTURY C & D DEBRIS DISPOS CENTURY Escambia Active 540 PRITCHETT MILL BRANCHHOLSBERRY C&D- HEATON SITE PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 THOMPSON BAYOUHOLESBERRY PIT (L C DEBRIS DISPOSAL CANTONMENT Escambia Active 540 THOMPSON BAYOUHOLSBERRY C&D- LEE SITE PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 THOMPSON BAYOUCAMP FIVE LANDFILL CENTURY Escambia Closed, monitored 200 MITCHELL CREEKFLOYD CONTRACTORS, INC. PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 THOMPSON BAYOUCHARLES T. SAPP C & D DEBRIS DISP. COTTAGE HILL Escambia Active 540 WILLIAMS CREEKBlackwater River Planning UnitNORTHWEST SANTA ROSA LANDFILL JAY Santa Rosa Closed, monitored 200 POND CREEKRIDGE AVENUE PIT C&D MILTON Active 540 POND CREEKS.R.CNTY ROAD DEPT-GEIGER C&D FACIL MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PELICAN BAYOUGULF COAST PAVING & GRADING(GALT E) MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 POND CREEKDREAM BUILDERS-PERSIMMON HOLLOW RD MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PELICAN BAYOUJOINER FILL DIRT MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 BLACKWATER RIVERNWF CONTRACTORS, INC. C&D DEBRIS MILTON Santa RosaClosed, notmonitored540 BLACKWATER RIVERS.R.CNTY ROAD DEPT-AVALON C&D FACIL MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 POND CREEKCURTIS LEE LANDCLEARING C & D FACIL MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 BLACKWATER RIVERROWLEY C&D DEBRIS LANDFILL MILTON Santa RosaClosed, notmonitored540 BLACKWATER RIVERBILLY BOB LANE AKA (GCP&G BILLY BOB) MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 BLACKWATER RIVERP&S CONSTRUCTION HONEYBEE LANE PIT MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 PELICAN BAYOURUSSELL SEPTIC TANK SERVICE (C & D) MILTON Santa RosaClosed, notmonitored540 LONG BRANCHFOWLER WRECKER SERVICE C&D FACIL. MILTON Santa RosaClosed, notmonitored540 POND CREEKS.R.CNTY ROAD DEPT-BELL LN C&D FACL MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 POND CREEKPERSIMMON HOLLOW C&D DISPOSAL NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 PELICAN BAYOUFERGUSON (ET AL.) C & D FACILITY MILTON Santa RosaClosed, notmonitored540 CLEAR CREEK164Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable E.4: (continued)Facility Name City County StatusClass ofWaste *Basin (WBID) Where LocatedBlackwater River Planning Unit (continued)SANTA ROSA NORTH LF BERRYDALE Santa Rosa Closed, monitored 200 EAST FORKKEMBRO C&D DEBRIS LANDFILL MILTON Santa RosaClosed, notmonitored540 BLACKWATER RIVERSANTA ROSA TRASH LANDFILL BAGDAD Santa Rosa Active 300 POND CREEKYellow River Planning UnitWALKER, AUTRY L. C&D MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 YELLOW RIVERBOWMAN C & D FACIL. CRESTVIEW OkaloosaClosed, notmonitored540 MATHISON CREEKGREG M. CASEY C & D FACIL. CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Inactive 540 TRAMMEL CREEKOKALOOSA COUNTY BAKER EAST C & D BAKER Okaloosa Inactive 540 MILL CREEKBAKER (#1) DUMP BAKER Okaloosa Closed, monitored 100 MILL CREEKLAUREL HILL LANDFILL LAUREL HILL Okaloosa Closed, monitored 300 BIG CREEKARENA LANDFILL & SAND LLC CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 TRAMMEL CREEKBAKER (#2) LF (AKA BAKER WEST) BAKER Okaloosa Closed, monitored 100 BAGGETT CREEKPOINT CENTER INC Okaloosa Active 540 YELLOW RIVERShoal River Planning UnitCAMPTON LANDFILL CAMPTON OkaloosaActive, notpermitted100 CYPRESS POND BRANCHJ&B SAND COMPANY CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 TITI CREEKWINGARD C & D FACILITY CRESTVIEW OkaloosaClosed, notmonitored540 JUNIPER CREEKRAY CONSTRUCTION OF OKALOOSA COUNTY CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 JUNIPER CREEKFRED C. AND MARIE BOWMAN C&D CRESTVIEW OkaloosaClosed, notmonitored540 JUNIPER CREEKWASTE RECYCLERS OF N.FL C & D FACIL CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 HONEY CREEKWASTE RECYCLERS OF NORTH FL. INC. CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 HONEY CREEKDAVID A. RUSSELL C&D FACILITY CRESTVIEW OkaloosaClosed, notmonitored540 SILVER CREEKSOUTHSIDE SAND PIT LCD (SILVER CREEK) CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 TITI CREEKCRESTVIEW C & D FACILITY #2 CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 SHOAL RIVERGULF COAST PAVING & GRADING, INC CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 HONEY CREEKWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay165Table E.4: (continued)Facility Name City County StatusClass ofWaste *Basin (WBID) Where LocatedShoal River Planning Unit (continued)CRESTVIEW C & D FACILITY #1 CRESTVIEW OkaloosaClosed, notmonitored540 SHOAL RIVERKING C & D FACIL. CRESTVIEW OkaloosaClosed, notmonitored540 SHOAL RIVERDIAMOND SAND CO. C & D FACILITY MOSSY HEAD WaltonClosed, notmonitored540 BOTTLE BRANCHPARKER C & D FACILITY CRESTVIEW Okaloosa Active 540 JUNIPER CREEKPensacola Bay Planning UnitPHILLIP C BARNARD NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 DEAN CREEKWHITROCK ASSOCIATES, INCFT WALTONBEACHOkaloosa Active 540 EAST RIVER BAY52ND ST LCD (FORMERLY WILLOW VALLEY LCD) PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 JACKSON CREEKNAVARRE PIT (M&L SAND) NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 EAST RIVER BAYSANTA ROSA CENTRAL LF BAGDAD Santa Rosa Active 100 JAKES BAYOUDAVIS C & D FACIL.FT. WALTONBCH.OkaloosaClosed, notmonitored540 EAST RIVER BAYAPAC FLORIDA, INC BOLEY PIT LCD PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 BAYOU GRANDEWEST PENSACOLA BAPTIST CHURCH C&D PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 JACKSON CREEKGULF COAST PAVING & GRADING (GALT) MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 JAKES BAYOUBAYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CO LCD (FORMERLYHOLLEY DIRT)NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 EAST RIVER BAYMILLS, GEO H. C&D NAVARRE Escambia Active 540 EAST RIVER BAYSANTA ROSA UTILITIES INC HOLLEY Santa Rosa Active 540 EAST RIVER BAYAPAC FLORIDA INC KILBEE PIT LCD PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 BAYOU GRANDEWRIGHT LANDFILL WRIGHT Okaloosa Closed, monitored 100 EAST RIVER BAYDIAMOND DISPOSAL INC C&D MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 MULATTO BAYOUCOYOTE-NAVARRE (FORMERLY K&K) HOLLEY Santa Rosa Active 540 EAST RIVER BAYSANTA ROSA ASPHALT & MATERIALS INC HOLLEY Santa Rosa Active 540 EAST RIVER BAYSTOCKS, BILLY WAYNE NAVARRE Santa Rosa Active 540 TOM KING BAYOUCHADBOURNE C & D FACIL - HOLLEY PIT HOLLEY Santa RosaClosed, notmonitored540 EAST RIVER BAY166Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayTable E.4: (continued)Facility Name City County StatusClass ofWaste *Basin (WBID) Where LocatedPensacola Bay Planning Unit (continued)MIDWAY SANITATION SERVICE (C & D) GULF BREEZE Santa Rosa Inactive 540 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAYMCN OF PACE INC (C&D) MILTON Santa Rosa Active 540 MULATTO BAYOUCHADBOURNE (MCCOY PIT) C&D DEBRIS PENSACOLA Escambia Active 540 BAYOU GRANDESANTA ROSA HOLLEY LF HOLLEY Santa Rosa Closed, monitored 100 DEAN CREEK* Definitions of Waste Classes:100 – Class 1 landfill200 – Class 2 landfill300 – Class 3 landfill540 – Construction/Demolition debrisWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay167Table E.5: Brownfields in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning UnitBrownfield Area Name City County AcresDate of BrownfieldSite RehabilitationAgreementBasin WaterbodyName (wherelocated)Pensacola Bay Planning UnitPalafox Corridor Redevelopment Area Pensacola Escambia 2444397.95 9/16/99Strategic Crossings Corporation Pensacola Escambia 10654.27 1/25/01 Bayou GrandePensacola Mainstreet Area Pensacola Escambia 27459.14 12/19/02MidTown BF Redevelopment Area Pensacola Escambia 1483447.00 1/23/03168Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayAppendix F: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Pensacola Bay BasinTable F.1: Integrated Assessment for the Pensacola Bay Basin for Nutrients, Biology, Fish, and Conventional Parameters, by Planning UnitWBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment CategoryBlackwater River Planning Unit104 TURKEY CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses11 BIG COLDWATER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses114 CEDAR CREEK Stream3a no data116 DOGWOOD BRANCH Stream3a no data11A WEST FORK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI 3d verified list12 HAWKINS CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses122 PRINGLE BRANCH Stream3a no data127 MANNING CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list129 DANLEY BRANCH Stream3a no data13 DIXON BRANCH Stream3a no data132 BULL PEN BRANCH Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses15 REEDY BRANCH Stream3a no data152 THOMPSON SPRING BRANCH Stream3a no data153 SURVEYORS CREEK Stream3a no data154 WOLF CREEK Stream3a no data155 BLACKJACK CREEK Stream3a no data156 BARREL BRANCH Stream3a no data158 MINCY BRANCH Stream3a no data16 COBB CREEK Stream3a no data166 BEAVER CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses17 YELLOW WATER CREEK Stream3a no data171 HOG PEN BRANCH Stream3a no data173 NARROWS CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses176 POND CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI NI NI 3d verified listWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay169WBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category179 BEAR CREEK Stream 3F NI NI ID NI 2 meets some uses179A BEAR LAKE Lake 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI 2 meets some uses18 BIG COLDWATER CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI IM NI 3d verified list181 GUNSTOCK BRANCH Stream3a no data184 MUDDY BRANCH Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses186 LONG BRANCH Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses188 CLARK BRANCH Stream3a no data18A EAST FORK Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM 3c planning list19 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI NI 2 meets some uses193 BLUE CREEK Stream3a no data194 DUNN BRANCH Stream3a no data198 PYRON SPRING BRANCH Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses20 REEDY CREEK Stream3a no data21 SWEETWATER CREEK Stream 3F NI ID ID NI NI NI ID 2 meets some uses211 MASON BRANCH Stream3a no data213 MARE BRANCH Stream 3F IM 3c planning list214 PITTMAN CREEK Stream3a no data215 BIG BRANCH Stream3a no data218 RED WASH BRANCH Stream3a no data22 LONG BRANCH Stream3a no data220 MIDDLE CREEK Stream3a no data221 WOLFE CREEK Stream3a no data225 PENNY CREEK Stream 3F IM 3c planning list229 ALLIGATOR CREEK Stream3a no data23 ROCK CREEK Stream3a no data238 BASS BRINKS CREEK Stream3a no data24 BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM IM NI NI 3c planning list170Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category241 BIG JUNIPER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID 3b not enough data242 THREE HOLLOW HEAD Stream3a no data247 LIGHTER KNOT CREEK Stream3a no data248 POPLAR HEAD Stream3a no data24A BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI IM IM NI NI 3d verified list24B BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F ID ID ID IM 3c planning list24C BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM IM ID NI 3c planning list24D BLACKWATER RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM IM NI 3c planning list250 EARNEST MILL CREEK Stream3a no data257 HORNS CREEK Stream3a no data26 BOGGY HOLLOW CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses260 CLEAR CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID NI IM 3c planning list27 PANTHER CREEK Stream 3F NI ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses271 ATES CREEK Stream 3F NI NI ID IM 3c planning list276 READER CREEK Stream3a no data284 RATTLESNAKE SPRING Stream3a no data287 MILL CREEK Stream3a no data288 DRY BRANCH Stream3a no data292 MASH BRANCH Stream3a no data294 BONE CREEK Stream3a no data295 HYNOTE BRANCH Stream3a no data296 SHINGLE BRANCH Stream3a no data299 WOLFTRAP BRANCH Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses303 GREEN BRANCH Stream3a no data31 GOODSON BRANCH Stream3a no data312 SNOWDEN CREEK Stream3a no data313 CHICKEN HEAD Stream3a no dataWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay171WBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category314 COON CAMP Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses322 ADAMS MILL CREEK Stream3a no data325 ADAMS SPRING BRANCH Stream3a no data334 HURRICANE BRANCH Stream3a no data352 TARKILN HEAD Stream 3F IM 3c planning list354 HURRICANE BRANCH Stream3a no data356 BUCKET BRANCH Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses37 LONG BRANCH Stream3a no data383 LONG BRANCH Stream3a no data481 PELICAN BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 3c planning list50 OAK CREEK Stream 3F ID IM 3c planning list62 JUNIPER CREEK Stream 3F3a no data64 WOLF CREEK Stream3a no data65 UNNAMED CREEK Stream3a no data70 BISHOP BRANCH Stream3a no data75 BUCK CREEK Stream3a no data82 MALLOY BRANCH Stream 3F IM 3c planning list83 HURRICANE CREEK Stream 3F NI ID ID NI ID IM ID 3c planning list83A HURRICANE LAKE Lake 3F NI 2 meets some uses83B HURRICANE LAKE DRAIN Lake3a no data88 MARE CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID IM 3c planning list90 COBB BRANCH Stream 3F IM 3c planning list93 CLEAR CREEK Stream3a no data96 CRANE BRANCH Stream3a no data98 BEAR BRANCH Stream3a no data99 LEWIS BRANCH Stream3a no data172Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment CategoryEscambia River Planning Unit10 BIG ESCAMBIA CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list102 HOLLAND BRANCH Stream3a no data10A ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM 3dc planning list10B ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F IM 3c planning list10C ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI NI IM NI NI 3dc planning list10D ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM NI NI 3c planning list10E ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F IM NI NI NI NI NI IM 3c planning list10F ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream 3F IM IM NI NI NI IM NI NI 3d verified list10G ESCAMBIA RIVER Stream3a no data111 MOORE CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses118 MCCOSTILL MILL CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses131 COTTON CREEK Stream3a no data134 UNNAMED BRANCH Stream3a no data168 MC DAVID CREEK Stream 3F ID IM 3c planning list192 BLUE WATER CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses201 FLETCH CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses217 BLACK BRANCH Stream3a no data236 BELL CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses237 GULLY BRANCH Stream3a no data244 DELANEY CREEK Stream3a no data25 WIGGINS BRANCH Stream 3F ID IM 3c planning list258 THOMAS CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses25A LAKE STONE SW OF CENTU Lake 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses265 MORGAN BRANCH Stream3a no data310 TENMILE CREEK Stream3a no data315 BUFFALO MILL CREEK Stream3a no dataWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay173WBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category316 CROOKED CREEK Stream3a no data326 WILDER BRANCH Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses341 THE CANAL Stream3a no data342 PRETTY BRANCH Stream3a no data36 BRAY MILL CREEK Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI 2 meets some uses374 ROCKY BRANCH Stream3a no data389 BEARLE CREEK Stream3a no data39 BRESTWORKS BRANCH Stream 3F IM 3c planning list395 WILLIAMS CREEK Stream 3F IM 3c planning list475 SPANISH MILL CREEK Stream3a no data5 PINE BARREN CREEK Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI IM ID 3c planning list531 CLEAR CREEK Stream 3F IM 3c planning list586 THOMPSON BAYOU Stream 3F IM 3c planning list6 BEAVERDAM CREEK Stream 3F IM 3c planning list7 CANOE CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI IM IM 3c planning list71 MITCHELL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list74 HOLLY CREEK Stream3a no data79 HALL BRANCH Stream 3F IM 3c planning list8 HOBBS BRANCH Stream 3F ID ID ID 3b not enough data87 LITTLE PINE BARREN CR Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list89 WILSON BRANCH Stream3a no data9 PRITCHETT MILL BRANCH Stream 3F ID IM 3c planning listPensacola Bay Planning Unit1007 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream3a no data1012 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream3a no data420 PACE MILL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list444 SPENCER FIELD DRAIN Stream 3F IM 3c planning list174Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category493 JUDGES BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 3c planning list502 BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI ID 2 meets some uses510 TURTLE CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses523 LIVE OAK CREEK Stream 3F IM 3c planning list525 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary3a no data534 SANDY POINT BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 3c planning list537 JAKES BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 3c planning list539 MULATTO BAYOU Estuary 3M ID ID ID ID NA ID 3b not enough data543 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream3a no data548A ESCAMBIA BAY (N) Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI NA IM 3c planning list548AB FLORIDATOWN PARK Coastal 3M NI IM NI NI IM 3d verified list548B ESCAMBIA BAY (S) Estuary 3M NI NI NI IM 3c planning list548BB BAY BLUFFS PARK Coastal 3M NI 2 meets some uses548C PENSACOLA BAY (N) Estuary 2 NI NI ID NI NA 2 meets some uses548CB GARCON POINT LOCATION 3 Coastal 3M NI 2 meets some uses548CC REDFISH POINT Coastal 3M ID NI ID ID NA 2 meets some uses548D PENSACOLA BAY (MID) Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI NA NI 2 meets some uses548E PENSACOLA BAY (MOUTH) Estuary 3M ID ID ID ID NA 3b not enough data548F BAYOU GRANDE Estuary 3M ID ID ID 3b not enough data548FB NAVY POINT Coastal 3M NI NI NI NI NI 2 meets some uses548G BLACKWATER BAY Estuary 3M ID ID ID ID 3b not enough data548H EAST BAY Estuary 2 NI IM IM NI NA NI IM 3d verified list560 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream3a no data600 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary3a no data635 WHITEOAK BAYOU Estuary 3M IM 3c planning list637 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream3a no data639 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 3F NI NI ID 3c planning listWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay175WBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category649 INDIAN BAYOU Estuary3a no data663 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 3F NI NI NI IM 3c planning list666 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream3a no data669 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Stream 3F NI NI NI 2 meets some uses676 CARPENTER CREEK Stream 3F NI IM IM NI NI NI 3d verified list683 DEAN CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses685 PRAIRIE CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses694 TROUT BAYOU Estuary 3M NI NI NI 2 meets some uses701 EAST RIVER BAY Stream 3F IM NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 3d verified list736 PANTHER CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses738 TEXAR BAYOU Estuary 3M NI IM NI NI NA NI 3d verified list738AB BAYVIEW PARK PIER Coastal 3M IM 3d verified list740 BAYOU GRANDE Estuary 3M IM NI NI NI NA 3c planning list782 UNNAMED Stream Stream3a no data8002 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 1 Coastal IM 3c planning list8002A FORT PICKENS Coastal 3M NI IM 3c planning list8003 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 2 Coastal 3M NI NI NI NI IM NI 3c planning list8003D SABINE YACHT AND RACKET Coastal 3M NI NI NI ID ID 2 meets some uses8003E PENSACOLA BEACH Coastal 3M NI IM 3c planning list8004 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 3 Coastal IM 3c planning list8004B SANTA ROSA ISLAND PARK Coastal 3M NI IM 3c planning list8004C COUNTY PARK EAST Coastal 3M NI IM 3c planning list8005 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 4 Coastal IM 3c planning list8006 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 5 Coastal IM 3c planning list8006A NAVARRE BEACH PIER Coastal 3M NI IM 3c planning list8007 PENSACOLA BAY GULF 6 Coastal IM 3c planning list8007A EL MATADOR Coastal 3M NI IM 3c planning list176Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category825 EAST RIVER BAY Stream3a no data829 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary3a no data833 TOM KING BAYOU Estuary3a no data834 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 3M NI NI ID NI NA 2 meets some uses846 BAYOU CHICO Estuary 3M NI IM IM NI NA IM 3d verified list846A JONES CREEK Stream 3F IM IM IM NI NI IM 3d verified list846B JACKSON CREEK Stream 3F IM IM IM NI NI IM 3c planning list846C BAYOU CHICO DRAIN Estuary3a no data846CB BAYOU CHICO BEACH Coastal 3M NI IM NI NI IM 3d verified list848DA SANDERS BEACH Coastal 3M NI 2 meets some uses864 WILLIAMS CREEK Estuary 3M IM 3c planning list870 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 3M IM 3c planning list893 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 3M ID IM ID ID NA 3c planning list915 SANTA ROSA SOUND Estuary 2 NI IM NI NI NA NI 3d verified list915A WOODLAWN BEACH Coastal 3M ID NI ID ID NA ID 2 meets some uses915B NAVARRE PARK HWY 98 Coastal 3M NI ID 2 meets some uses915C LIZA JACKSON PARK Coastal 3M NI NI NI NI NA NI 2 meets some uses915D MARLER PARK Coastal 3M NI 2 meets some uses915E QUIET WATER BEACH Coastal 3M NI NI NI NI NA NI 2 meets some uses915F SHORELINE PARK Coastal 3M ID NI ID ID NA 2 meets some uses925 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI NA NI 2 meets some uses930 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF Estuary 3M NI NI NI NI NI 2 meets some uses987 BAYOU GARCON Estuary 3M IM NI NI NI NA IM 3d verified listShoal River Planning Unit100 CANEY CREEK Stream 3F IM 3c planning list101 PINE LOG CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses106 JUNIPER CREEK Stream3a no dataWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay177WBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category117 TURKEY CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses128 MACK BRANCH Stream3a no data141 UNNAMED Stream Stream3a no data144 LITTLE CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses159 CYPRESS POND BRANCH Stream3a no data160 SHOAL RIVER Stream 3F ID ID ID IM 3c planning list160A SHOAL RIVER Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI 3c planning list160B SHOAL RIVER Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI ID 3d verified list160F SHOAL RIVER Stream3a no data161 POVERTY CREEK Stream3a no data167 GUM CREEK Stream 3F IM 3c planning list167A GUM CREEK Stream3a no data177 UNNAMED BRANCH Stream3a no data187 RUM STILL BRANCH Stream3a no data189 KIRKLAND BRANCH Stream3a no data190 MIDDLE CREEK Stream 3F IM 3c planning list191 JUNIPER CREEK Stream3a no data196 BEECH TREE CREEK Stream3a no data202 SPRING BRANCH Stream3a no data207 BEE BRANCH Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses222 BENDS CREEK Stream3a no data224 CLEAR CREEK Stream3a no data264 BATTLE CREEK Stream3a no data266 HOLLY LAKE OUTLET Lake3a no data266A KINGS LAKE Lake 3F ID ID ID ID ID 3b not enough data266B HOLLY LAKE Lake3a no data268 WARD MILL CREEK Stream3a no data178Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category274 BEAR CREEK Stream3a no data277 MARE CREEK Stream3a no data280 MOSSY HEAD BRANCH Stream3a no data281 NARROWS CREEK Stream3a no data282 BOTTLE BRANCH Stream 3F IM 3c planning list285 LAIRD MILL CREEK Stream3a no data300 JUNIPER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID IM 3c planning list301 BIG FORK Stream3a no data306 LONG CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses321 TITI CREEK Stream3a no data324 GUM CREEK Stream3a no data328 KING BRANCH Stream3a no data33 WATSON BAY BRANCH Stream3a no data330 HOG CREEK Stream3a no data331 WILLIAMS BRANCH Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list333 HORSESHOW BRANCH Stream3a no data338 RED DEER CREEK Stream3a no data34 HORSEHEAD CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI 3c planning list347 CAWTHON BRANCH Stream3a no data35 POND CREEK Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI 3c planning list358 INDIGO BRANCH Stream3a no data359 SILVER CREEK Stream3a no data35C FLEMING CREEK Stream3a no data363 HONEY CREEK Stream3a no data365 DESERTER CREEK Stream3a no data367 GOPHER CREEK Stream3a no data372 TURKEY HEN CREEK Stream3a no dataWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay179WBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category379 BLUE SPRING CREEK Stream3a no data38 LAKE JACKSON DRAIN Lake 3F ID ID ID ID ID 3b not enough data38A LAKE JACKSON Lake3a no data403 RAMER CREEK Stream3a no data405 BULL CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses76 LONG CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses91 GREEN BRANCH Stream 3F IM 3c planning list92 UNNAMED OUTLET LAKE 3F IM 3c planning listYellow River Planning Unit107 MURDER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list110 MILL CREEK Stream3a no data137 POLLEY CREEK Stream3a no data145 Lake KARICK Lake 3F ID ID ID ID NI 2 meets some uses145A DEADFALL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID 3b not enough data145B LAKE KARICK DRAIN Lake3a no data162 BEAR BRANCH Stream3a no data200 BUCKHANNON BRANCH Stream3a no data203 COTTON CREEK Stream3a no data209 SILVER CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses223 GUM CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses231 DAVIS MILL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list254 MILL CREEK Stream3a no data255 MATHISON CREEK Stream3a no data256 PINEY WOODS CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID 3b not enough data275 BAGGETT CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses28 BIG HORSE CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses29 LITTLE HORSE CREEK Stream3a no data180Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola BayWBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category30 YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F NI IM NI NI NI NI IM NI NI 3d verified list308 RESERVOIR OUTLET Stream3a no data30A YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F NI NI NI NI NI NI IM NI NI 3c planning list30B YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F NI ID ID NI ID NI IM ID ID 3c planning list30C YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F NI NI IM 3c planning list30D YELLOW RIVER Stream 3F IM 3c planning list30E YELLOW RIVER Stream3a no data30F YELLOW RIVER Stream3a no data30G TRAMMEL CREEK Stream 3F IM NI NI NI NI 3c planning list319 GULLY BRANCH Stream3a no data32 BIG CREEK Stream3a no data335 TRAWICK CREEK Stream3a no data336 WILKENSON CREEK Stream3a no data35A POND CR in MCCLOUD BAY Stream3a no data35B POND CREEK Stream3a no data360 CANOE CREEK Stream3a no data364 JULIAN MILL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID IM ID 3c planning list370 PEARL CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID 3b not enough data380 BURNT GROCERY CREEK Stream 3F ID ID ID ID ID NI ID 2 meets some uses392 GAINER CREEK Stream3a no data396 TURKEY GOBBLER CREEK Stream 3F ID NI 2 meets some uses408 MALONE CREEK Stream3a no data41 UNNAMED CREEK Stream3a no data415 METTS CREEK Stream3a no data418 MIDDLE CREEK Stream3a no data429 DEAD RIVER Stream 3F IM 3c planning list443 LOST BOY POND OUTLET LAKE3a no dataWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay181WBID Basin Name WaterbodyType Water Use Classification Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliforms Total Coliforms Turbidity Unionized Ammonia Biology Fish Fluoride Chlorophyll a TSI Historic Chlorophyll aOverall WBIDAssessment Category443A LOST BOY POND Lake3a no data517 BOILING CREEK Stream3a no data592 POPLAR BRANCH Stream3a no data610 WEAVER CREEK Stream 3F NI 2 meets some uses631 LITTLE BOILING CREEK Stream3a no data652 INDIGO CREEK Stream3a no data78 CAMBELLS MILL CREEK Stream3a no data95 BAILY BRANCH Stream3a no data

# 182 Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay

Table F.2: Integrated Assessment for Metals in the Pensacola Bay Basin, by Planning Unit

WBID Basin NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 IIIFWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 183

WBID Basin NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 StreamWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 185

WBID Basin NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 StreamWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 187

WBID Basin NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 IIIMWater Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 189

WBID Basin NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 NameWaterbodyTypeWater 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 IIIMWater 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 First Year 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 First Year 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 170Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 193

WBID Basin Name Station Type Agency Code – Station Number Station Name First Year 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 First Year 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 88Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 195

WBID Basin Name Station Type Agency Code – Station Number Station Name First Year 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 First Year 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 2198Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 197

WBID Basin Name Station Type Agency Code – Station Number Station Name First Year 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 First Year 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 73Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 199

WBID Basin Name Station Type Agency Code – Station Number Station Name First Year 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 First Year 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 2417Water Quality Status Report: Pensacola Bay 

# 201

WBID Basin Name Station Type Agency Code – Station Number Station Name First Year 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 OperationsWater 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 CropsWater 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 BrushlandWater 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 FacilitiesWater 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 DisposalFlorida 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