# FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration



# Water Quality Assessment Report NORTHWEST DISTRICT • GROUP 5 BASIN • 2008



# Perdido River and Bay

# FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration



# Water Quality Assessment Report 2008



# Perdido River and Bay

# Acknowledgments

The Perdido River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report was prepared by the Northwest Florida Basin Team, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as part of a five-year cycle to restore and protect Florida’s water quality. Team members include the following:

Mary Paulic, Basin Coordinator, Watershed Planning and
Coordination Richard Wieckowicz, Watershed Assessment Ben Ralys, Watershed Assessment Erin Wilcox, Watershed Assessment Tricia McClenahan, GIS Support Tom Seal, Monitoring Support Brad Hartshorn, Northwest District Cheryl Bunch, Northwest District

Editorial and writing assistance provided by Linda Lord, Watershed Planning and Coordination

Production assistance provided by Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment Florida State University 210-B Sliger Building 2035 E. Paul Dirac Drive Tallahassee, FL 32310

Map production assistance provided by Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center Florida State University University Center, C2200 Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641

For additional information on the watershed management approach and impaired waters in the Perdido River and Bay Basin, contact Bonita Gorham Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Planning and
Coordination Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 bonita.gorham@dep.state.fl.us Phone: (850) 245-8513; SunCom: 205-8513 Fax: (850) 245-8434 

# 5 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Access to all data used in the development of this report can be obtained by contacting Jan Mandrup-Poulsen Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Assessment Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3555 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 jan.mandrup-poulsen@dep.state.fl.us Phone: (850) 245-8448; SunCom: 205-8448 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.ht m

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule http://www.dep.state.fl.us / legal/Rules/shared/62-303/62-303.pdf

Florida STORET Program http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.ht m

2006 305(b) Report http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/ 2006_Integrated_Report.pd f

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/surface.ht m

Status/Assessment Reports http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.ht m

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4: Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida /

National STORET Program http://www.epa.gov/storet / 

# 6 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and 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 immediately before the Appendices and provide

a complete listing of all sources used in the text.

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

information on a range of subjects such as bioassessment methodology, rainfall and stream fl ow, types of natural communities, STORET stations, water quality statistics, land use, and permitted
facilities. 

# 7 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

# Executive Summary

Perdido River and Bay

The Water Quality Assessment Report for the Perdido River and BayBasin is part of the implementation of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department’s) watershed management approach for restoring and protecting water resources and addressing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program requirements. A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the waterbody’s designated uses. A waterbody that does not meet its designated uses is defi ned as impaired. The watershed approach, which is implemented using a cyclical management process, provides a framework for implementing the requirements of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida).A Status Report, published during Phase 1 of the watershed management cycle, provided a Planning List , or preliminary identifi cation, of potentially impaired waterbodies in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. This Assessment Report presents the results of additional data gathered during Phase 2 of the cycle. The report contains a Verifi ed List of impaired waters ( Table 5.3 in Chapter 5) that has been adopted by Secretarial Order and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TMDLsmust be developed and implemented for these waters, unless the impairment is documented to be a naturally occurring condition that cannot be abated by a TMDL, or unless a management plan already in place is expected to correct the problem. The Verifi ed List also constitutes the Group 5 basin-specifi c 303(d) list of impaired waters, so called because it is required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the report provides the results of a preliminary assessment of ground water quality and ground water to surface water interactions in the basin. It also discusses priorities for further evaluation, resource priorities, and proposed actions. (See Noteworthy in Chapter 1 for a description of the contents of this report, by chapter.)The Perdido River and Bay are interstate waters that form the boundary between Alabama and Florida. The state line bisects the middle of the river and bay. This report focuses on waterbodies located within the state of Florida, where Florida water quality standards and criteria are applied toidentify impaired waterbodies requiring TMDLs. A similar but independent process also occurs in Alabama to identify impaired waters. In the Perdido River and Bay Basin, state, federal, regional, and local agencies and organizations are making progress toward identifyingproblems and improving water quality. Through its watershed management activities, the Department works with these entities to supportprograms that are improving water quality and restoring and protecting ecological resources. The Department’s TMDL Program objectives will be carried out in the basin through close coordination with key 

# 9 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### stakeholders and initiatives such as Escambia County, Florida Department of Health (DOH), and 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 informationon management activities. In addition to the Department, other monitoring support is provided by the NWFWMD, DOH, and the volunteer monitoring groups LakeWatch and Bream Fisherman’s Association. During the next few years, considerable data analysis will be done to establish TMDLs for impaired waters in the Perdido River and Bay Basin, establish the initial allocations of pollutant load reductions needed to meet those TMDLs, and produce a Basin Management Action Plan to reduce the amount of pollutants that cause impairments. These activities depend heavily on the active participation of the water management district, local governments, businesses, and other stakeholders. The Department will work with these organizations and individuals to undertake or continue reductions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established TMDLs for impaired waterbodies.



### Summary of Surface Water Findings

The Department’s assessment shows that 27 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Perdido River and Bay Basin are impaired and require the development of TMDLs. The following summarizes, by planning unit, impairments by waterbody types and the primary pollutants. Planning units are smaller areas in the basin that provide a more detailed geographic basis for identifying and assessing water quality improvement activities. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 (in Chapter 3) depict the results of this evaluation.

Perdido Bay Planning Unit Of the 31 waterbody segments in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit,

23 se gments have suffi cient data for assessment. Of these, 17 are verifi ed impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) methodology, 3 remain on the Planning List, and 3 meet standards for at least 1 designated use. One segment (waterbody
identifi cation number [WBID] 725) did not have sufficient data for evaluation by the IWR, but is included as potentially impaired because it was listed on the 1998 303(d) list. The 17 verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Elevenmile Creek (WBID 489) Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms, unionized ammonia, mercury in fi sh Tenmile Creek (WBID 489A) Fecal coliforms Marcus Creek (WBID 697) Fecal coliforms Perdido Bay Gulf (WBID 8001) Mercury in fi sh Perdido Key State Park (WBID 8001A) Mercury in fi sh 

# 10 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Johnson Beach (WBID 8001B) Mercury in fi sh Big Lagoon State Park (WBID 8001C) Mercury in fi sh Upper Perdido Bay (WBID 797) Nutrients, mercury in fi sh Big Lagoon (WBID 1004) Mercury in fi sh Bridge Creek (WBID 872) Mercury in fi sh Tarkiln Bayou (WBID 945) Mercury in fi sh Perdido Bay (WBID 974) Mercury in fi sh Bayou Garcon (WBID 987) Mercury in fi sh Direct Runoff to Bay (WBID 991) Mercury in fi sh Direct Runoff to Bay (WBID 1014) Mercury in fi sh Direct Runoff to Bay (WBID 1018) Mercury in fi sh Lower Perdido Bay (WBID 797A) Mercury in fi sh

Elevenmile is also potentially impaired for dioxin and biological oxygen demand (BOD), but these parameters could not be verifi ed and remain on the Planning List.

Perdido River Planning Unit Of the 41 waterbody segments in the Perdido River Planning Unit,

1 6 segments have suffi cient data for assessment. Of these, 10 are verifi edimpaired for at least 1 parameter assessed based on the IWR methodology, 5 remain on the Planning List, and 2 meet standards for at least 1 designated use. Jacks Branch (WBID 291) did not have suffi cient data
for verification of impairment using the IWR, but is listed on the Planning List as potentially impaired solely based on its inclusion on the 1998 303(d) list.
The 10 verifi ed impaired segments in the planning unit, and the parameters of impairment, are as follows:

Perdido River (WBID 2F) Mercury in fi sh Direct Runoff to Stream (WBID 72) Mercury in fi sh Direct Runoff to Stream (WBID 72D) Mercury in fi sh Direct Runoff to Stream (WBID 72E) Mercury in fi sh Direct Runoff to Stream (WBID 72F) Mercury in fi sh Brushy Creek (WBID 4) Fecal coliforms Perdido River (WBID 462A) Mercury in fi sh Perdido River (WBID 462B) Mercury in fi sh Perdido River (WBID 462C) Mercury in fi sh Rest Area Run (WBID 542) Turbidity

Dry Creek (WBID 290), Reedy Branch (WBID 3), Brushy Creek (WBID 4), McDavid Creek (WBID 149), and Rest Area Run (WBID 542) are on the Planning List as potentially impaired for biology. Thesewaterbodies did not pass biological testing of macroinvertebrate communities, but a causative pollutant could not be determined. 

# 11 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Total Maximum Daily Load Priority Areas

There are two high-priority areas for TMDL development in thePerdido River and Bay Basin. Section 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code, defi nes high-priority waters as waterbody segments where the impairment poses a threat to potable water supplies or human health; waterbody segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant regulated by the Clean Water Act and the pollutant has contributed to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endangered species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the species; or waterbody segments
verifi ed as impaired that are included on the EPA’s 1998 303(d) list as high priority. The waterbody segments identifi ed as a high-priority area for TMDL development are as follows: Elevenmile Creek (WBID 489), which is on the 1998 303(d) list, and the parameters causing the verifi ed impairment are DO, fecal coliforms, unionized ammonia, and BOD. Tenmile Creek (WBID 489A), which is not on the 1998 303(d) list, and the parameter causing the verifi ed impairment is fecal coliforms. TMDLs for Elevenmile Creek and Tenmile Creek are in development and will be completed by September 30, 2008. All of the remaining parameters causing impairment for the WBIDs placed on the Verifi ed List have been assigned medium priority for TMDL development and will not be addressed until 2012. Though not due until 2011, the fecal coliform bacteria TMDL for Marcus Creek was developed in 2007.



### Summary of Ground Water Findings

The primary aquifer in the Perdido River and Bay Basin is the sand and gravel aquifer, which is unconfined and highly susceptible to contamination. This aquifer also has the potential to interact freely with surface waterbodies; thus the potential exists for pollutants in ground water to
enter surface waters.

Basinwide Observations of Elevated Parameter Concentrations Available ground water quality data for the basin are relatively limited,

w ith the majority of the monitoring wells with data in the southern half of
the basin. Nutrient concentrations in impaired surface waters could be infl uencedby ground water contributions, mainly phosphorus. Phosphorus concentrations in ground water are elevated in the basin in comparison to surface water concentrations, based on available data. In addition, nitrate (and nitrate+nitrite) values for ground water in the southern, more urbanized part of basin are somewhat elevated. Low dissolved oxygen (DO) is a natural condition in ground water in both planning units. The ground water medians in the basin are much lower than the typical medians for streams and estuarine waters, and thus signifi cant inputs of ground water could depress DO levels in poorly mixed
surface waters. 

# 12 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Early ground water sampling detected lead in several ambient ground water monitoring wells; however, these were found to be an artifact of sampling technique and are not a concern.

Perdido Bay Planning UnitElevenmile Creek (WBID 489) is listed as impaired for DO, bioc hemical oxygen demand (BOD), fecal coliforms, and unionized ammonia. Marcus Creek (WBID 697) is listed for fecal coliforms. Upper Perdido Bay (WBID 797) is listed for nutrients. Tenmile Creek (WBID 489A) is listed
for fecal coliforms. Ground water seepage from a localized source could be responsible for the DO impairments in the planning unit. However, the source cannot be
determined without a more detailed evaluation. The nutrient contamination in Upper Perdido Bay could stem in part from ground water loading. Based on the available ground water data for the basin, the highest nitrate levels are found in this planning unit, and somewhat elevated orthophosphate levels are present in ground water throughout much of the basin. These pollutants could affect water quality in Upper Perdido Bay and its tributaries in the planning unit. Approximately 68 percent of the fl ow in Elevenmile Creek comes from ground water.

Perdido River Planning Unit The most prominent ground-water-related issue in the planning unit

i s the impairment for fecal coliforms in Brushy Creek (WBID 4) and the Perdido River (WBID 462B). The very limited distribution of ground water samples in the area limits any defi nitive correlations between ground water and surface water quality. 

# 13 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

# Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................19 Purposes and Content of the Assessment Report ............................................. 19 Stakeholder Involvement ..................................................................................... 20 The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection’s Northwest District .................................................. 21

Chapter 2: Basin Overview .................................................................. 25 Basin Setting ........................................................................................................ 25 Surface Water Resources .................................................................................... 25 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... .. 27 Physiographic and Soil Features ................................................................................... 29 Surface Water Quality Classifications .......................................................................... 31 Special Designations ..................................................................................................... 31 Outstanding Florida Waters .................................................................................................... 31 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 32 Ground Water Resources ..................................................................................... 34 Aquifers ...................................................................................................................... ....34 Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions .................................................................. 35 Ground Water Usage ..................................................................................................... 36 Ground Water Quality Issues ........................................................................................ 36 Watershed Management Activities and Processes

............................................ 39 History of Watershed Management ..............................................................................39
Watershed Partners .......................................................................................................40 Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership ............................................................................. 41 Wolf Bay Watershed Watch ................................................................................................... 42 Friends of Perdido Bay/Pe rdido Bay Foundation ...................................................................... 42 Bream Fisherman’s Association .............................................................................................. 42 Major Water Quality Improvement Programs and Projects ......................................... 42 Stormwater Management ...................................................................................................... 42 Agricultural Best Management Practices ............................................................................... 43 Land Conser vation .............................................................................................................

..... 45

Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment .................................. 49 Scope of the Assessment .................................................................................... 49 Update on Strategic Monitoring and Data-Gathering Activities During Phase 2 ..................................................................................................... 50 Sources of Data .................................................................................................... 50 Attainment of Designated Use ............................................................................ 53 Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview ................................. 53 Planning Units ...................................................................................................... 56 Assessment by Planning Unit.............................................................................. 58 Perdido Bay Planning Unit ............................................................................................. 58 General Desc riptio n ...........................................................................................................

..... 58 Water Qualit y Summary ......................................................................................................... 58 Permitted Discharges and Land Uses ..................................................................................... 62 Ecological Summary ............................................................................................................

... 64 Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects ...................................................................... 66 Perdido River Planning Unit ...........................................................................................68 General Desc riptio n ...........................................................................................................

..... 68 Water Qualit y Summary ......................................................................................................... 68 Permitted Discharges and Land Uses ..................................................................................... 73 Ecological Summary ............................................................................................................

... 74 Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects ...................................................................... 74 

# 15 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayChapter 4: Evaluation of Ground Water and Geologic Influences on Impaired Waterbodies ..................................................................... 75 Geology, Soil, and Ground Water ........................................................................ 75 Setting ....................................................................................................................... ..... 75 Overview of Ground Water Quality ..................................................................... 75
Nutrients ..................................................................................................................... .... 76 Dissolved Oxygen .......................................................................................................... 77
Metals ........................................................................................................................ ..... 77 Evaluations by Planning Unit ............................................................................... 77 Perdido Bay Planning Unit .............................................................................................80 Perdido River Planning Unit ...........................................................................................80 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 80

Chapter 5: The Verified List of Impaired Waters .................................81 Public Participation .............................................................................................. 81 Identification of Impaired Waters ........................................................................ 82 Documentation of Reas onable As surance ......................................................... 82 The Verified List of Impaired Waters ................................................................... 82 Pollutants Causing Impairments ...................................................................................86 Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters ............................... 90

Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, and Implementation .......91 Prioritization of Listed Waters .............................................................................. 91 Total Maximum Daily Load Development

........................................................... 92 Total Maximum Daily Load Allocation and Implementation ............................. 95 Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings .......................................................................... 95 Implementation Programs and Approaches ................................................................96 Development of Basin Management Action Plans............................................. 98

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Tables

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
T able 2.1: Outstanding Florida Waters within the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 2.2: Area of Natural Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 33 Table 2.3: Summary of Management Issues in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 2.4: Summary of Governmental and Other Organizations in the Perdido River and Bay Basin and Their Role in Total Maximum Daily Load Development and Implementation . . 41 Table 3.1: Data Providers in the Perdido River and Bay Basin, Including Number of Sample Tests by Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 51 Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the Integrated Report . . . . . . . . 54 Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit . . . . . 60 Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Perdido River Planning Unit . . . . 70 Table 4.1: Ground Water Statistics for Planning Units in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . 76 Table 5.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 5 Perdido River and Bay Verifi ed List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Table 5.2: Elements of Reasonable Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 5.3: The Verifi ed List of Impaired Waters for the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table 5.4: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . 88 Table 5.5: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on STORET Data, 1970–87 . . . . . . . . . . 89 Table 5.6: Perdido River and Bay Basin Median Values for the Verifi ed Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 

# 16 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigures

Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s
N orthwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 2.3: Physiographic Features of the Western Panhandle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 2.4: Topography of the Western Panhandle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 2.5: Location of Public Supply Wells and Known Areas of Ground Water Contamination . . . . 37 Figure 3.1: Data Providers in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . 57 Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Perdido Bay Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Perdido River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verifi ed List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 4.1: Orthophosphate Concentrations in Sand and Gravel Aquifer Monitoring Wells, Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 4.2: Nitrate Concentrations in Sand and Gravel Aquifer Monitoring Wells, Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Figure 5.1: Waters on the Verifi ed List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Figure 6.1: Perdido River and Bay Basin Priority TMDL Priority Watersheds for 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Table 5.7: Perdido River and Bay Basin Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratios for the Verifi ed Period . . . . . 90 Table 6.1: Priorities for TMDL Development in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Table 6.2: Industrial NPDES Stormwater Permittees in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . 97 

# 17 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

# Chapter 1: Introduction

Total Maximum Daily Load

The maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and remain healthy, such that all of its designated uses are

met. 

### Purposes and Content of the Assessment Report

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is implementing a statewide watershed management approach for restoring and protecting water quality and addressing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program requirements. Under Section 303(d) of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act and the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida), TMDLs must be developed for 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.A Status Report published during Phase 1 of the watershed management cycle provided a Planning List , or preliminary identifi cation, of potentially impaired waterbodies in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. A copy of the report can be found at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/ stat_rep.htm. This Assessment Report, which updates the information in the StatusReport, incorporates data collected from the Department’s strategic monitoring and gathered from other agencies and groups during Phase 2 of the watershed cycle. The report contains a Verifi ed List of impaired waters required by the FWRA and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, for which TMDLs must be developed and implemented. It also describes the results of a preliminary ground water quality assessment and discusses priorities for further evaluation, as well as resource priorities and proposed actions. (See Noteworthy for a description of the contents of the Assessment Report, by chapter.) Based on the assessment results, 27 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Perdido River and Bay Basin are verifi ed impaired for 1 or moreparameters. TMDLs must be developed for these waters, unless the impairment is documented to be a naturally occurring condition that a TMDL cannot abate, or unless a management plan is already in place to correct the problem. Perdido River and Bay are interstate waters that form the boundary
between Alabama and Florida. The state line bisects the middle of the river and bay. The focus of this report is on waterbodies located within the state of Florida, where Florida water quality standards and criteria can be applied 

# 19 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### to identify impaired waterbodies. A similar but independent process also occurs in Alabama to identify impaired waters requiring TMDLs. This report is intended for distribution to a broad range of potential stakeholders, including decision makers in federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments; public and private interests; and citizens.
The Verifi ed List is required by Subsection 403.067(4), FloridaStatutes, and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. The Department has adopted the Verifi ed List of impaired waters in accordance with
the FWRA and the Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule62-303, Florida Administrative Code). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also approved this list as the current 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin, so called because it is required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
The fi rst 303(d) list, which was required by the EPA in 1998, is to be amended annually to include basin updates. Florida’s 1998 303(d) list included a number of waterbodies in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. This Assessment Report follows the EPA’s guidance for meshing Clean Water Act requirements for Section 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. The integrated water quality assessment is used to identify the status of data suffi ciency, the potential for impairment, and the need for TMDL development for each waterbody or waterbody segment in the basin. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 in Chapter 3 provide an integrated assessment for the Perdido River and Bay Basin, by planning unit. Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background forTMDL development and implementation through the watershed management approach, and briefl y explains the TMDL Program. Background information on the Department’s TMDL Program, the process of TMDL development and implementation, lists of impaired and potentially impaired waters, and assessments for other parts of the state are available at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl/index.htm.



### Stakeholder Involvement

The FWRA requires the Department to work closely with stakeholders to develop and implement TMDLs. Stakeholder involvement in the TMDL process will vary with each phase of implementation to achieve different purposes (Table 1.1)

.The Department will work cooperatively with a number of key stakeholders to develop, allocate, and implement TMDLs in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. These include Escambia County, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Northwest Florida Water Management District, and International Paper Corporation. 

# 20 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWatershed Management Cycle Nature of Stakeholder Involvement

Phase 1: Preliminary
Evaluation Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin water quality assessment, inventory existing and proposed management activities, identify management objectives and issues of concern, develop a StrategicMonitoring Plan, and produce a preliminary Status Report that includes a Planning List of potentially impaired waters

Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring
and Assessment Cooperative efforts between the Department and local stakeholders to collect additional data; enter 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 watersfor Secretarial adoption; and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to document reasonable assurance (for Department review) that existing or proposed management plans and projects are adequate to restore water quality without
the establishment of a TMDL

Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs Coordination with stakeholders to discuss TMDL model framework, including model requirements, parameters to be modeled, model endpoints, design run scenarios, and preliminary allocations; communication of science used in the process; public workshops for rule adoption of TMDLs

Phase 4: Development of Basin Management Action Plan Broad stakeholder participation in developing a Basin Management Action Plan(B-MAP) (including detailed allocations and implementation strategies), incorporating it into existing management plans where feasible; public meetings during the planning process

Phase 5: Implementation of Basin Management Action Plan Emphasis on implementing the B-MAP, other voluntary stakeholder actions, and local watershed management structures; Department will continue to provide technical assistance, fulfill oversight responsibilities, and administer National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System point and nonpoint source permits Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program



### The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Northwest District

Figure 1.1 shows the order in which the Department’s Northwest District basins will be evaluated under the watershed management cycle. These groups are identifi ed according to a U.S. Geological Survey classification system using hydrologic unit codes. Ochlockonee–St. Marks, a Group 1 basin, was the fi rst basin in thedistrict to undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000. A preliminary assessment for the Group 2 basin, Apalachicola–Chipola, was completed in 2001.The Group 3 basin, Choctawhatchee–St. Andrew, was assessed on a preliminary basis in 2002. Similarly, a preliminary assessment for the Group 4basin, Pensacola, was initiated in 2003, and the Group 5 preliminary assessment for the Perdido River and Bay Basin was begun in 2004. In 2005, the cycle resumed with the Group 1 basin, Ochlockonee–St. Marks. 

# 21 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s Northwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 

# 22 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Contents of This Report

• Chapter 1: Introduction briefly characterizes the purposes and content of the Water Quality Assessment 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, water resources, major water quality trends, and watershed management activities and

processes.

• Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment discusses the scope of the assessment, summarizes data-gathering activities and sources of data,describes the EPA’s terminology for designated use attainment and its integrated report categories, and provides, bybasin planning unit, an evaluation of water quality, a discussion of permitted discharges and land uses, a summary of ecological priorities and problems, and an overview of water quality improvement plans and projects. • Chapter 4: Ground Water Quality Assessment describes the basin’s geology, soil,and ground water, including ground water to surface water interactions; provides a basinwide overview of ground water quality; describes the assessment results by planning unit; and makes recommendations for resource priorities and proposed actions.

• Chapter 5: The Verified List of Impaired Waters contains the Verified List of impaired waters, discusses public participation, describes documentation of reasonable assurance, lists the pollutants causing impairments, provideslistings based on other information indicating a nutrient imbalance, and describes the adoption process for the Verified List.

• Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, and Implementation discusses the prioritization of listed waters, TMDL development, TMDLallocation and implementation, and the development of a Basin Management Action Plan. 

# 23 Noteworthy Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

# Chapter 2: Basin Overview

Basin Setting

The Perdido River and Bay Basin is located in Escambia County, Florida, and Escambia and Baldwin Counties, Alabama, and covers an area of about 1,215 square miles (Schropp, Calder, Sloane, Swanson, Carlton, Holcomb, Windom, Huan, Hull, and Taylor, 1991). Most of the basin’s drainage area is within Alabama. About 399.6 square miles of the basin is
within Florida. That area was calculated based on the total area of assessment units, called waterbody identifi cation numbers, used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and includes a portion of marine nearshore waters off Florida’s coast. Perdido River and Perdido Bay form the boundary between Florida and Alabama. Florida’s western boundary is located in the middle of the Perdido River and transects the eastern lobe of Perdido Bay. Figure 2.1 shows the principal geographic and political features in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. Larger cities in the basin include Cantonment and Walnut Hill withinFlorida. Bay Minette, Atmore, Lillian, and Foley are located within Alabama. Water resource management and regional planning are overseen by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) and West Florida Regional Planning Council, respectively. Within the Florida portion of the basin, major land uses based on 1995 land use maps are upland forest (50 percent) which includes managed industrial forest lands, urbanized (14.5 percent), and agriculture (15 percent). Majortimber companies (including those in Alabama) in the basin are International Paper Corporation, DuPont Champion, and Scott Paper Company (Department and Alabama Coastal Foundation, 2000). Besides extensive silviculture, other agricultural activities include row crops (cotton, corn, peanuts, and soybeans), a small number of small dairies, tree crops (pecans and blueberries), container nurseries, and a large number of aquaculture operations (catfi sh). Facilities associated with Naval Air Station Pensacola and the Navy’s Naval Education and Training Professional Development Technology Center are located in the basin.



### Surface Water Resources

The Perdido River and Bay Basin contains numerous surface waterbodies. Within Florida, surface waters including lakes, streams, and wetlands occupy 35,661 acres, or about 16.2 percent of the total basin area. Prominent wetland types are salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and various
forested wetlands. 

### Sources of Information

Much of the information
about the Perdido River and Bay Basin in this chapter was obtained from the following
sources. The References
section at the end of this report contains a complete listing of sources.

Schropp, S. et al. 1991. A Report on Physical and Chemical Processes Affecting the Management of Perdido Bay, Results of the Perdido Bay Interstate Project. This report was a cooperativeproject between the Department and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM).

Miller, L. 1998. Perdido Ecosystem Management Strategies. Prepared for thePerdido Ecosystem Restoration Group and the Department. Support provided by the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA). 

# 25 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

# 26 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Average annual rainfall in the basin varies from 60 to 64 inches (Schropp et al., 1991; Grubbs and Pittman, 1997; and South Alabama Regional Planning Commission [SARPC], 1993), but can range from lessthan 45 inches to greater than 80 inches in a given year (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Web site: USGS Annual Statistics for Alabama ). The greatest amount of rainfall typically falls in July and August (Schropp et al., 1991). Rumenik (1988) estimated that 25 inches of rainfall per year near the Alabama border to almost 35 inches of rainfall per year near the Gulf of Mexico was discharged as surface runoff. The surfi cial geology, topography, and potential evapotranspiration of the basin are factors that
contribute to the amount of surface runoff. This section delineates the basin’s hydrology, describes the movement and management of water in the basin, briefly describes the major characteristics of surface waters that infl uence water quality in the basin, and
describes surface water classifi cations and special designations. Figure 2.2 shows the locations of the largest waterbodies. More information about individual waterbodies is contained in the planning unit discussion in Chapter 3.

Hydrology There are two components of the Perdido River and Bay Basin:

P erdido River and Perdido Bay. The headwaters of the Perdido River are near Bay Minette in Alabama. The river is formed by the confl uence of
Fletcher and Perdido Creeks. The Perdido River Basin is located in eastern Baldwin County and western Escambia County in Alabama and Escambia County in Florida. About 810 square miles of the river basin are within Alabama (SARPC, 1993). The Perdido River is 220 miles long, with 96 miles within Florida (Florida Department of Natural Resources [DNR], 1989). The river ranges from 30 yards across in its upstream segments to about 100 yards across near the mouth (Department, 2005a). River fl ow is
rainfall driven and fluctuates greatly. Average discharge of the river at Barrineau Park, as a 62-year average, was 1,174 cubic feet per second (USGS, 2006). Larger tributary watersheds are the River Styx, Blackwater River, and Dyas Creek in Alabama, and Brushy Creek, Boggy Creek, McDavid Creek, and Jacks Branch in Florida. The River Styx and the Blackwater River are the largest tributary watersheds. They enter the Perdido River close to its mouth, and drainage from them provides substantial freshwater discharge to both Perdido River and Perdido Bay (Schropp et al., 1991). The Perdido River discharges into Perdido Bay about 15 miles west of Pensacola. The bay is about 17 miles long and from 2 to 4 miles wide (SARPC, 1993). The river and its tributaries are not the only sources of water for the 28-square-mile bay. Bayou Marcus and Elevenmile Creek in Florida and Soldier Creek and Palmetto Creek in Alabama, along with several smaller creeks, add additional discharge into the bay. Perdido Bay is a relatively shallow estuary, deeper on the Alabama side of the bay relative to the Florida side. The average depth of Perdido Bay is 7 feet (USGS Web site). Deeper portions of the bay (10 feet or deeper)
are located near the mouth of the Perdido River and downstream of the U.S. 98 Bridge (Grubbs and Pittman, 1997). 

# 27 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

# 28 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### The bay is delineated into fi ve different segments based on natural constrictions and geographic features within the bay (Schropp et al., 1991). The upper bay extends from the mouth of the Perdido River and Elevenmile Creek southwest to a constriction in the bay created by Grassy and Double Points. Bayou Marcus discharges into the upper bay. The lower limit of the middle bay is at the bay constriction created by Manuel and Dupont Points. The main bay is bounded at the lower end by a line from Mill Point to Inerarity Point and another line south across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Hatchet Point. Tarkiln Bayou, Soldier Creek, and Palmetto Creek drain to the main bay. The lower bay connects the main bay to the Gulf of Mexico through Perdido Pass and includes Bayou St. John. This segment extends east to join the Big Lagoon at the State Road 292 Bridge. The Big Lagoon and Intracoastal Waterway connect Perdido Bay to Pensacola Bay. The last segment is the west bay, defi ned as the open expanse of water from Hatchett Point west to the Alabama Canal. Wolf Bay enters the west bay segment. Mobile Bay is connected to Perdido Bay by way of Bay La Launch, Wolf Bay, and the Intracoastal Canal. Circulation and water elevations within the bay are controlled by wind speed, wind direction, tidal fl uctuation, and freshwater discharges from
tributaries. The lowest streamfl ows occur during the fall and the highest
streamfl ows occur in winter and spring. Tides are typically diurnal though they can be semidiurnal (Grubbs and Pittman, 1997). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tide tables estimate that the tidal range is 0.5 feet, but it was observed by the USGS during a 1994–95
water fl ow and loading study to have a range of 0.8 feet (USGS Web site). Other observers have noted that strong winds, when aligned with the north-to-south orientation of the bay, can induce up to a 0.5-foot change in water level (Niedoroda, 1992, as referenced in Grubbs and Pittman, 1997).

Physiographic and Soil Features The Perdido River and Bay Basin lies within the Western Highlands

a nd Gulf Coastal Lowlands physiographic provinces (Figure 2.3) . The
Perdido River Basin has well-defi ned topographic relief, with land surface elevations in its northern portion of 300 feet or more above mean sea level (Figure 2.4) . Much of the Perdido River and its tributary streams drain the hilly terrain of the Western Highlands. Soils that have formed across the northern reaches of the basin originated from the Plio-Pleistocene Citronelle Formation, which consists of quartz sand with beds of clay, gravel, hardpans, fossil woods, and kaolinitic burrows of aquatic animals. Karst topography is not evident because of the depth of the Citronelle Formation and older impermeable clastic layers. Soils are unconsolidated sands, silts, and clays deposited from prehistoric seas and Appalachian deposits. Soils can be easily eroded and, coupled with the hilly terrain, contribute to fairly severe soil erosion and stream sedimentation problems. The sediments within Perdido Bay are largely terrigenous clastics originating from freshwater infl ows to the bay. Finer particles have settled in the deeper portions and more central areas of the bay, resulting in the accumulation of clayey silt and silty clay sediments. Coarser sands are 

# 29 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 2.4: Topography of the Western Panhandle Figure 2.3: Physiographic Features of the Western Panhandle 

# 30 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### deposited closer to the shoreline. Sediment grain size generally increases moving seaward (Schropp et al., 1991).

Surface Water Quality Classifications Florida’s water quality standards, the foundation of the state’s program

o f water quality management, designate the “present and future most
benefi cial uses” of the waters of the state (Subsection 403.061[10], Florida Statutes [F.S.]). Water quality criteria for surface water and ground water, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specifi c parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain these uses. Florida’s surface water is
classifi ed using the following fi ve designated use categories:

Class I Potable water supplies Class II Shellfi sh propagation or harvesting Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fi sh and wildlife Class IV Agricultural water supplies Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class)

All waters within the basin are designated as Class III, suitable for recreation and propagation and maintenance of fi sh and wildlife. There are
no Class II shellfi sh waters designated in the basin, and there are no open
active shellfi sh-harvesting areas.

Special Designations

Outstanding Florida Waters


### The waterbodies listed in Table 2.1 have been given additional protection through designation as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs). OFWs are designated for “special protection because of their natural attributes” (Section 403.061[27], F.S.). These waters are listed in Section 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The intent of an OFWdesignation is to maintain ambient water quality, even if these designations are more protective than those required under the waterbody’s surface
water classifi cation. Most OFWs are associated with managed areas in the state or federal park system, such as aquatic preserves, national seashores, or wildlife refuges. Other OFWs may also be designated as “Special Waters”
based on a finding that the waters are of exceptional recreational or ecological signifi cance, and are identifi ed as such in Rule 62-302, F.A.C.

Table 2.1: Outstanding Florida Waters within the Perdido River and Bay Basin

Waterbody Designated OFW Date of Designation

Big Lagoon State Recreation Area 12/1/82 and modified in 5/14/86
and 8/8/94

Perdido Key State Recreation Area 12/1/82

Perdido River 1979

Gulf Islands National Seashore 1979 

# 31 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Biological Resources

Various researchers have devised stream classifi cation systems in an
effort to define and describe the natural system and its biological potential to support various organisms. Classifi cation schemes are generally derived based on combinations of physical, chemical, and biological factors. Variations in velocity of fl ow, substratum, temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and water hardness are generally considered in the development of a
classifi cation scheme (Nordlie, 1991). Beck (as referenced in Nordlie, 1991) classifi ed the Perdido River as a sand-bottomed stream. In general, this type of stream has moderate to swift currents and a streambed of shifting sand. Predominate stream fauna are species of immature insects such as mayfl ies, caddisfl ies, and blackfl ies. The Perdido River, like the Escambia and Blackwater Rivers, is in closeconnection with the sand and gravel aquifer, with much of the river’s basefl ow supplied from the aquifer. The chemical characteristics of the sand and gravel aquifer infl uence the quality of water in the Perdido River. The Perdido River is characterized as having low pH and low buffering capacity, making it susceptible to disturbances and alterations in its watershed. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) classifi es the Perdido River as a blackwater system. This type of system is characterized as having tea-colored water with a high content of particulate and dissolved organic matter, iron, and low pH, but with a sandy bottom substrate. Much of the organic matter is derived by drainage from swamps and marshes. This type of system generally lacks a fl oodplain (FNAI and DNR, 1990). Vegetation and land cover were mapped for the entire state by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission using 2003 Landsat imagery (Gilbert and Stys, 2004; and Stys, Kautz, Reed, Keris, Kawula, Keller, and Davis, 2004). Vegetation and land cover were grouped into 26 categories of natural and seminatural communities, 1 category for water, and an additional 16 categories of disturbed land cover types. Table 2.2 summarizes information for the Perdido River and Bay. Table B.1 in Appendix B contains descriptions of the basin’s natural communities. By far, the largest acreage of natural community within the basin is pineland. This community type includes both forests managed for timber and natural pine forest. Second in area is the mixed hardwood-pine forest community type. Natural communities provide important habitat for many rare or imperiled species of plants and animals. In addition to the community types listed in Table 2.2 , the FNAI identifi es seepage slopes as one of the unique habitats found in the basin. Seepage slopes are wetlands at the base of a slope where moisture is maintained (FNAI and DNR, 1990). Within the basin, seepage slopes provide habitat for pitcher plants, including the state-listed endangered white-top pitcher plant (Sarracenia leucophylla) and threatened sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra)

. Tables B.2 through B.4 in Appendix B contain lists of rare and imperiled plants and animals in the basin. There are 17 animal and 16 plant species that are listed at the state and/or federal level(s) (FNAI, 2005b). 

# 32 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 2.2: Area of Natural Communities

Description Acres Square
miles Percent

area

Coastal strand 379.18 0.592 0.15

Sand/beach 1,146.22 1.791 0.45

Xeric oak 147.45 0.230 0.06

Sand pine scrub 281.77 0.440 0.11

Sandhill 93.85 0.147 0.04

Mixed hardwood pine forest 12,801 20.002 5.02

Hardwood hammock and forest 5,911.9 9.237 2.32

Pineland 87,154.45 136.179 34.21

Freshwater marsh and wet prairie 1,105.08 1.727 0.43

Shrub swamp 133.88 0.209 0.05

Bay swamp 5,968.39 9.326 2.34

Cypress swamp 709.44 1.108 0.28

Mixed wetland forest 14,213.2 22.208 5.58

Hardwood swamp 14,046.85 21.948 5.51

Salt marsh 267.1 0.417 0.10



### The basin’s coastal beaches, scrub, and strand communities provide important habitat for many of the listed species. Scrub and strand communities west of Perdido Key State Recreation Area are important to migratory birds that utilize the coastal areas for feeding and resting during migration between the tropics and North America (Cox, Kautz, MacLaughlin, and Gilbert, 1994). From March to August, sandy beaches provide nesting habitat for the royal tern (Sterna maxima) , state-listed snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) , black skimmer (Rynchops niger)

, least tern (Sterna antillarum) , and federally listed endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodus) (Gulf Islands National Seashore, 2006a; FNAI, 2005b). The Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) is a federally endangered species limited in range to sand dunes located on Perdido Key (Gulf Islands National Seashore–Florida District, 2006b). Four species of marine sea turtles—loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) , Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) , and green

sea (Chelonia mydas) —utilize coastal beaches for nesting from May to September, though the most common sea turtles are loggerheads and green sea turtles (Gulf Islands National Seashore, 2006c). Godfrey’s golden aster (Chrysopsis godfreyi) can be found on patches of scrub and coastal strand (Cox et al., 1994). Perdido Bay has three species of seagrasses: turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) , and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime) . Eel grass (Vallisneria americana) is also present in freshwater and brackish portions of the bay. Seagrasses provide spawning, nursery, and adult habitat for many commercially and recreationally important species. A comparison of seagrass acreage between 1941 and 1992 revealed that total bay acreage had decreased by 74 percent to about 307 acres (Kirschenfeld, Turpin, and Handley, 2006). More recent seagrass coverage 

# 33 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### analysis completed in 2003 found 300 acres of shoal grass in the bay (Gulf of Mexico Program Habitat Team, 2004). The Perdido River and Bay Basin provides habitat for several rare and imperiled fi sh species. Three rare fi sh species were historically noted from the Perdido River: one listed species of special concern, the saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkinsi), as well as the crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella) and goldstripe darter (Etheostoma parvipinne) (DNR, 1989). Bass, Hoehn, Couch, and McDonald (2004) confirmed the presence of the saltmarsh topminnow during fi eld sampling in 2001 to 2002 in tributaries of the Perdido Bay watershed. Striped bass use the Perdido River throughout its length (DNR, 1989). The Gulf race of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi) utilizes the Perdido River, as documented by the Alabama Geological Survey in 2004 (referenced in Bass et al., 2004).



### Ground Water Resources

Aquifers Major aquifer systems in the basin are the sand and gravel aquifer (local

su rfi cial aquifer system), the intermedia te aquifer system, and the Floridan aquifer system. Both the sand and gravel aquifer and the Floridan aquifer systems are composed of moderate to highly permeable sediments that transmit large quantities of water. In contrast, the intermediate aquifer system and the sub-Floridan systems are composed primarily of low- permeability sediments that act as regional confi ning units. The sand and gravel aquifer extends under all or part of Escambia,Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties, eastward to the Choctawhatchee River. The sand and gravel aquifer comprises interbedded unconsolidated quartz sand with some gravel, clay, and silt that range in age from the middle Miocene to Holocene (USGS, 1990). Ground water is present in this aquifer under unconfi ned to semiconfi ned conditions. Beds and lenses of clay interspersed with gravel form confi ning beds to create local
artesian conditions. In Escambia County, the sand and gravel aquifer is informally divided and named into three distinct zones (Pratt, Richards, Milla, Wagner, Johnson, and Curry, 1996). The uppermost zone, called the surfi cial zone, is primarily composed of fi ne sands and is usually under unconfined conditions (Paulic, 1999). Below the surfi cial zone is a low-permeability zone.
As a semiconfi ning layer, 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. The entire geographic extent of the sand and gravel aquifer is in effect a recharge area (Pratt et al., 1996). The primary fl ow of ground water in the aquifer is laterally toward surface waters and the coast (Richards, 1998; USGS, 1990) providing discharge or basefl ow into streams, lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. Wells also indirectly discharge a small amount of water to surface waters. 

# 34 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### The closeness 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 this aquifer. Below the sand and gravel aquifer lies the intermediate aquifer system,
which acts as a thick confi ning unit between the sand and gravel aquifer and the Floridan aquifer system in most of the basin. Composed of thick beds of clays, along with clayey limestone, shells, and coarse clastics of Miocene age, the intermediate system prevents most exchange of groundwater between the two aquifer systems (Richards, 1998; Ryan, MacMillan, Pratt, Chelette, Richards, Countryman, and Marchman, 1998; Pratt et al., 1996). The Floridan aquifer system, underlying 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).

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions The sand and gravel aquifer is the main source of basefl ow for wetlands, streams, and lakes in the basin. Because the intermediate 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). Both the Escambia River and the Perdido River form significant discharge boundaries for the sand and gravel aquifer. Because these discharge boundaries are relatively close together near Cantonment, essentially no ground water flows from the northern portion of the county to the southern portion. Ground water south of Cantonment is hydraulically isolated from the northern portion of the county and is derived from local recharge. Relatively thin and discontinuous layers of clay and silt occur within
both the surfi cial zone and in the overlying unsaturated materials, creating a perched water table considerably higher than that of the true water table
of the surficial zone commonly observed in the middle portion of Escambia County. For example, in the vicinity of the intersection of Interstate 10 and Highway 29, there is a continuous drainage of perched ground water into the interstate drainage system (Pratt, Richards, and Milla, 1997). The land surface elevation at this site is approximately 120 feet above sea level. The underlying surfi cial zone potentiometric surface lies at an elevation of about 65 feet above sea level.
The surfi cial zone of the sand and gravel aquifer is dissected by the Perdido and Escambia Rivers, as well as by many smaller streams. Where the streams and rivers have eroded into the water table, ground water may discharge as springs or seeps and form steephead ravines. This has resulted in the development of numerous independent fl ow systems within 

# 35 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### the surfi cial zone. These steephead stream systems consist of an upland recharge area and adjacent lowland (perennial stream) discharge area. Steephead ravine development is particularly prevalent in the northern half of the county, where topographic relief is greatest. In the southern half of the county, much of the surface discharge from the surfi cial zone occurs as discharge to the bays and bayous.
Where basefl ow predominates, the water quality of the aquifer can
infl uence the quality of surface waters. Water quality in the sand andgravel 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, except near the coast (Miller, 1997). Average pH values are below 6, indicating acidic water with limited, if any, buffering capacity.

Ground Water Usage The primary source of drinking water in Escambia County is the main

p roducing zone of the sand and gravel 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. Surface water is used for power generation and some commercial and industrial self-supply. There are 25 wells in the Perdido Basin identifi ed in the Department’s Public Water System database as public water supply wells (Figure 2.5)

. The largest water supply system, Emerald Coast Utilities, has 13 wells. Public supply wells in the basin range between 192 and 415 feet in depth, with an average well depth of 255 feet. The largest consumer of water fromthe sand and gravel aquifer is International Paper, which utilizes approximately 24.7 million gallons per day (Pratt et al., 1997). The discharge from International Paper is currently released into the Perdido River. A new discharge permit proposed in April 2005 requires that the facility discharge be moved to a treatment wetland. That permit was denied on August 10, 2007 (Evans, 2007). Additional information on International Paper’s permit is contained in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit section in Chapter 3.

Ground Water Quality Issues Ground water has been contaminated by isolated pollution sources

i n small localized areas of the basin. Leaking underground fuel storage
tanks have been identifi ed as cleanup sites; dry cleaning solvent sites arealso sources of contamination that are being addressed by the Department’s Waste Management Division. In the basin, there are approximately250 petroleum facilities and 8 dry cleaners that have reported contamination, as well as 4 larger contaminated sites. Figure 2.5 shows the basin’s

waste sites.

• Beulah Landfi ll —Escambia County government operated this
landfi ll from 1966 until all operations ceased in June 1984. The contaminated area is divided into two sections by Coffee Creek. The site received municipal solid waste, domestic septic tank waste, 

# 36 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 2.5: Location of Public Supply Wells and Known Areas of Ground Water Contamination 

# 37 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### demolition debris, and municipal sludge. Benzene, naphthalene, and pentachlorophenol were found in ground water downgradient of sludge disposal sites. Exceedances of ground water maximum contaminant levels were limited to a single on-site well detection ofbenzene and one off-site well with naphthalene and pentachlorophenol detections. This site was offi cially delisted from the National Priorities List (NPL) with Department concurrence in June 1998. Postclosure monitoring of the site continues. Escambia County’s Comprehensive Plan designates the old landfi ll as a conservation area and prohibits development on it (Department, 2006a).

• Pioneer Sand —This 20-acre site was operated from 1972 to 1981.

Construction debris, shredded automobile strippings, and various industrial sludges and resins were dumped into the fi ll areas of this
sand mine. The fi ll areas also received metal plating sludge from the Naval Air Station Pensacola, as well as phenols and resin compounds from the Reichold Chemical Company. Several leachate streams were present at the base of the fi ll area. Environmental testing hasrevealed no off-site contamination. However, long-term remediation will be conducted until July 2011. This site was offi cially delisted from the NPL with Department concurrence in August 1999 (Department, 2006b).

• Dubose Oil Products —This site, located near Cantonment, was

used for oil and hazardous waste storage and recycling from early 1979 until 1982. The northern edge of the site is a low-lying area forming the headwaters of Jacks Branch, which is a tributary of the Perdido River. The site had varying degrees of contamination of soil, surface water, and ground water with volatile and semivolatile organics before remediation was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and completed in October 2004. During2003, the Department agreed with the EPA proposal to commence the deletion of the Dubose Oil Superfund Site from the NPL (Department, 2006c).

• Maucher Property —This site is located at a private residence and operates as a state-funded cleanup site near Molino. The propertyowner purchased various military surplus supplies at auctions beginning in the early 1970s. The site poses a threat to the underlying aquifer. A public supply well operated by Molino Utilities is located within 1 mile of the site. Additionally, a small stream is located approximately 650 feet east of the site, which might reasonably have
received contaminant runoff. The stream leads to Cow Devil Creek and eventually to the Perdido River, both of which contain fi sheries and sensitive environments. Storage of military surplus items and damaged metal drums, some containing hazardous materials, led to wide-scale contamination of ground water and soil, primarily with trichloroethylene (TCE). On-site investigations in 2004 found thata plume of contaminated ground water extended beyond the property boundary. The area of TCE-contaminated soil was delineated. A Decision Memo for the site was signed on January 27, 2006, 

# 38 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### recommending excavation of contaminated soils and air sparging for contaminated ground water. Construction of the ground water treatment system is anticipated in late 2007 (Department, 2007).



### Watershed Management Activities and Processes

Over the past two decades, there have been several attempts at organizing watershed management activities and preparing management plans to address environmental issues in the basin. The following section describes historical, current, and ongoing activities and processes to address water quality problems.

History of Watershed Management The EPA began the Perdido Bay Cooperative Management Project

i n 1988 as part of the Near Coastal Waters Program. The purpose of the project was to more accurately describe and defi ne the pollutant sources present in the basin, engage and organize citizen involvement, create an advisory task force, and develop and implement a management plan.The Department, Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) completed studies characterizing the physical characteristics of the basin and land use. Citizen monitoring groups were established. The Florida–Alabama Water Resources Coordinating Council (FAWRCC), which was created by resolutions of both the Florida and Alabama legislatures, assumed the role of the advisory task force. It was charged with recommending solutions to interstate pollution problems. A product of the activities of the Resources Coordinating Council was the preparation of the Perdido Basin Management Strategies report in 1995. The EPA funded the collection and analysis of samples from the Perdido Bay area for contaminants by the FWS in 1989. Testing by the FWS included the chemical analysis of water, sediment, and biota; the evaluation of dioxin compounds; 10-day toxicity testing; and a fi sh health assessment. The FWS presented the results in a Toxics Characterization Report for Perdido Bay, Alabama, and Florida (Brim, 1993). The results of the testing indicated that there were detectable levels of contaminants at some locations in the Perdido Bay area. Toxicity testing revealed that water and sediments were not acutely toxic, but that water quality at some
locations was reduced. The last organized initiative to develop a basin management plan wasundertaken in the late 1990s as part of the Department’s Ecosystem Management Program and through collaboration with the FAWRCC. As a
fi nal component of the Perdido Bay Cooperative Management Project, the Perdido Ecosystem Management Strategies plan was prepared in 1998 (Miller, 1998). The Perdido Ecosystem Restoration Group provided much of the plan’s content, with funding for the plan provided by the Florida Coastal Management Program. The Perdido Ecosystem Restoration Group was created as a partnership of local and state governments and agencies in both Florida and Alabama, and federal agencies and nongovernmental 

# 39 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### organizations interested in the protection and restoration of the Perdido River and Bay Basin. Table 2.3 provides updated and shortened summaries of management issues originally identifi ed as part of the Perdido Bay Cooperative Management Project and Perdido Ecosystem Management Strategies plan. Through a grant awarded to the Department’s Northwest District Regulatory Office from the Coastal Zone Management Program, a volunteer water quality monitoring initiative was undertaken in Perdido Bay from August 1999 to September 2000 (Department and Alabama CoastalFoundation, 2000). The effort engaged local volunteer watershed organizations and was coordinated with the Alabama Coastal Foundation.

Table 2.3: Summary of Management Issues in the Perdido River and Bay Basin

Issue Category Problem

Water Quality Nutrient inputs to Perdido Bay leading to eutrophication

Impact of International Paper discharge on Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay

Dirt road erosion and subsequent deposition of dirt in streams, resulting in loss of benthic habitat and declines in water quality.

Loss of seagrass acreage

Nonpoint Source
Runoff Stormwater runoff causes erosion of streambeds and water quality impacts

Poor implementation of agriculture and forestry best management practices (BMPs) to control
runoff

Lack of stormwater management plans

Watershed Management Lack of interstate coordination between Florida
and Alabama



### Watershed Partners A number of governmental agencies and watershed organizations are

ac tive in the basin. Much of the progress in the Perdido River and Bay Basin for developing water quality restoration plans and implementing watershed and water quality improvements is attributable to coordinated local, state, and regional efforts. Many plans share common goals, and their implementation is based on various groups playing critical rolesin 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 implementation of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and continued improvement in water quality will depend on the collaborative efforts of the Department’s local partners. Table 2.4 summarizes the local agencies and organizations and their role in TMDL development and implementation in the basin. The following sections describe in
more detail the activities of nongovernmental organizations located in both
Florida and Alabama. 

# 40 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayCoastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership 

### The Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership is a coalition of Alabama governmental agencies, private organizations and citizens, and businesses created to provide solutions for the protection and preservationof aquatic resources in Alabama. The Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership specifi cally works with the Perdido River and Bay Basin, Mobile Bay Basin, and Escatawpa River Basin within Alabama. The partnership isa project of the Mobile and Baldwin County Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the ADEM. Auburn University Marine Extension and Research Center provides project facilitation. A Steering Committee composed of environmental interests, government, and business interests directs the activities of the partnership by setting policy and providing oversight. Table 2.4: Summary of Governmental and Other Organizations in the Perdido River and Bay Basin and Their Role in Total Maximum Daily Load Development and Implementation

Organization Role

Governmental Organizations

Department Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), land conservation, water quality improvement, monitoring, wetland permitting, park and recreation area management, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting

Northwest Florida Water Management District Assists Department with water quality data collection; land conservation

Escambia County Engineering Department—road paving and stormwater management Neighborhoods and Environmental Services Department—water quality monitoring support, land conservation

Florida Division of Forestry Implementation of BMPs for silviculture

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services Implementation of BMPs for agriculture

Alabama Department of Environmental Management TMDL development, NPDES permitting within Alabama

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental testing, fish assessments, listing of endangered species

Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission Listing of endangered species, fish assessments, water quality testing

Perdido River and Bay Basin Organizations

Bream Fisherman’s Association Water quality monitoring support

Friends of Perdido Bay Environmental advocacy group with focus on International Paper Company permit allowing discharge into Elevenmile Creek

Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership Group that implements watershed management solutions for TMDLs developed within Alabama

Wolf Bay Watershed Watch/ Wolf Bay Watershed Project Water quality monitoring; prepared watershed management plan for Wolf Bay watershed 

# 41 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWolf Bay Watershed Watch 

### Wolf Bay Watershed Watch is a community advocacy group whose mission is to promote the protection and preservation of the natural resources of the Wolf Bay watershed (Alabama Water Watch, 2002). Wolf Bay is connected to the western end of Perdido Bay in Alabama. This watershed organization is affi liated with the larger Alabama Watershed Watch organization coordinated by Auburn University’s Department of Fisheries Allied Aquaculture and International Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments. Wolf Bay Watershed Watch, formed in 1998, collects water quality samples from Wolf Bay and Perdido Bay, and members participatein coastal cleanups. More recently, the group participated in the preparation of a nonpoint source pollution management guide, the Wolf Bay Plan: A Stakeholder’s Guide to Protecting the Watershed (Wolf Bay Watershed Project, 2005). The Wolf Bay Watershed Project is a multiagency initiativeformed for the purpose of developing the plan for improving and protecting Wolf Bay. The plan was prepared with funding from an ADEM Clean Water Act, Section 319 grant.

Friends of Perdido Bay/Perdido Bay Foundation 

### The Friends of Perdido Bay was formed in response to wastewaterdischarges from International Paper’s Kraft paper plant located in Cantonment (http://www.friendsofperdidobay.com). The Friends have participated with government and other interest groups with a 2000 plan for monitoring Perdido Bay. The Perdido Bay Foundation is a charitable trust formed in 1997 for the purpose of improving water quality in Perdido Bay. The foundation’s activities are organized and coordinated through a Board of Directors. Both organizations are tax exempt.

Bream Fisherman’s Association

### The Bream Fisherman’s Association is a volunteer organization dedicated to improving water quality in northwest Florida. The organization has assisted the Department with water quality data collection since the

1970s.

Major Water Quality Improvement Programs and Projects This section describes a number of different regulatory, restoration,

a nd protection initiatives that are under way in the basin.

Stormwater Management 

### Urban nonpoint source runoff is regulated through NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits. Escambia County was granted an MS4 permit under Phase 1 of the federal program as a copermittee withthe city of Pensacola, town of Century, and Florida Department of Transportation. The permit was renewed in May 2004 for another fi ve-year period (Escambia County Engineering Department Web site). As part of the MS4 program, Escambia County’s Stormwater Program, with the assistance of consultants, has delineated the county into 41 drainage basins or watersheds (http://www.co.escambia.fl .us/departments/ engineering/ default.php). Individual drainage basins have been numerically ranked 

# 42 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### based on the severity of water quality and drainage issues to establish an order of priority for remediation. A countywide Stormwater Master Plan has been completed (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2004). Countywidedrainage plans have either been completed or are under way for 23 individual drainage basins. Within the Perdido River and Bay Basin, about 13 stormwater master plans are proposed or under way. Each plan describes
current stormwater structural controls and identifi es and recommends waterquality and drainage improvement projects. Escambia County’s Engineering Department has completed the inventorying and mapping of private and public stormwater ponds (http://www.myescambia.com/departments/ engineering/Stormwater.php or http://www.myescambia.com/departments/ engineering/DrainageBasins.php). Additionally, as part of the drainage evaluation for each basin, residents are surveyed regarding their concerns about drainage and water quality. Funding for stormwater retrofi ts is provided by a local option sales tax (LOST), which was approved by Escambia County voters in 1992. The intent of the tax is to help pay for capital improvement projects that address
fl ooding, improve access to residential and commercial properties (improve transportation), and improve stormwater quality (Hatch Mott McDonald, 2004). The LOST became effective June 1, 1992, and was renewed by a voter referendum in 1999. The tax expired on May 31, 2007, unless reapproved by voters. If approved, the third LOST will be in effect until December 31, 2017 (Escambia County, 2005). Revenue generated by LOST has provided money to pave dirt roads and improve drainage and transportation. As of February 2003, $37.3 million had been spent for projects to primarily improve drainage, $28.4 million to primarily improve transportation, and $16.2 million to pave dirt roads (Hatch Mott McDonald, 2004).

Agricultural Best Management Practices 

### The FWRA authorizes the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) to develop interim measures and BMPs to reduce pollutant discharges from agricultural operations. Additional authority for DACS to adopt 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.), and Agricultural Water Conservation (Section 570.085, F.S.). The Florida Right to Farm Act generally prohibits local government regulation of activities on farm operations whereDEP, DACS, or a water management district has adopted by rule agricultural BMPs that address those activities. Though adopted by rule, DACS BMP programs are voluntary, unless otherwise required by regulatory programs or necessary for implementation of a Basin Management ActionPlan adopted by the Department. By statute, the Department is responsible for verifying the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing pollutant loadings. Implementation of DACS-adopted BMPs that the Department verifi es aseffective provides a presumption of compliance with water quality standards for the target pollutants. Over the past several years, DACS has worked with agricultural producers, soil and water conservation districts, the University of Florida’s 

# 43 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), and other major interests to develop BMPs that meet water quality and water conservation objectives, while maintaining or improving product marketability and operational efficiency. In addition, DACS is collaborating with other agencies to create a network of state, local, federal, and private sources of funds to develop BMPs, provide cost share for their implementation, and assist the Department in verifying their effectiveness.

Manuals and Other Publications for Best Management Practices 

### Manuals for cow/calf, sod, and equine operations are currently being developed. The use of a BMP manual alone, however, does not afford a presumption of compliance with the Department’s water quality standards.In general, qualifying for a presumption of compliance requires that a sitespecifi c BMP assessment process be in place or that practices being usedhave been proven effective through research and demonstration. DACSadopted BMP manuals pertinent to the Perdido River and Bay Basin include the following:

• Vegetable and Agronomic Crops: BMPs and manual adopted by

rule under Section 5M-8, F.A.C. BMPs address vegetables, potatoes, corn, soybeans, peanuts, peppers, and cotton.

• Florida Container Nurseries: BMPs and manual “Water Quality/

Quantity Best Management Practices for Florida Container Nurseries” was adopted as Rule 5M-6, F.A.C., on August 2, 2007. This manual expands the geographic extent of the rule to include all of Florida. It requires nutrient management practices by growers enrolling in Best Management Practices for Florida Container

Nurseries.

• Silviculture: Silviculture BMPs were adopted by rule under Section

5I-6.002, F.A.C., and silviculture BMPs are established in the
manual Silviculture Best Management Practices . Silviculture BMPs were established in the mid-1970s in response to the Clean Water Act, and revised most recently in 2004. These BMPs are minimum standards for protecting and maintaining water quality and wildlife habitat during forestry activities. BMPs also address fertilization.Since 1981 the Division of Forestry has monitored BMP implementation through a biennial Compliance Survey.
• 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 specifi c, an effort is currently under way to use the document in developing a Florida-specifi c manual. 

# 44 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### • Best Management Practices for Agrichemical Handling and Farm Equipment Maintenance: This 1998 document was a cooperative effort between DACS, the Department, other state and federal agencies, the agricultural industry associations, and the land grant universities. The document discusses practices for pollutionprevention on the farm. It is an educational, not a regulatory, document and has been well received by the industry. Recently revisedand reprinted in March 2000, this manual gives producers guidance on hazardous materials, proper pesticide handling, and the proper disposal of waste products. It is the intent of the Department to distribute this document statewide to all persons or businesses engaged in agricultural activities. It is available at no charge through the County Extension Service offi ces, Soil and Water Conservation
District offi ces, Department offi ces, the Florida Farm Bureau, and several trade organizations.
• Water Quality Best Management Practices for Cow/Calf

Operations: Many cattle operators statewide have been trained in using this manual and are applying BMPs. The Florida Cattlemen’s Association and several state, federal, and local agencies developed the manual, which was published in 1999. Copies were printed and distributed in 2000 using EPA Section 319 grant funds. Currently, this BMP has only been implemented in the Lake Okeechobee Basin.
• Aquaculture Best Management Practices: 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 requiresthat the Department adopt the manual by rule and provides regulatory exemptions under Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., for operators 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.

Land Conservation 

### The conservation and preservation of natural lands is also an effective means of protecting water quality. Through land acquisition programs,such as Florida Forever, funds have been provided for the purchase of critical lands because of their importance in providing important habitat, protecting rare and imperiled species, or protecting water quality. Figure 2.2 depicts some of the basin’s conservation lands. Within the Perdido River and Bay Basin are several conservation areas. The Perdido Pitcher Plant Prairie is a unique savannah-type systemthat is home to the rare white top pitcher plant. The prairie is approximately 7,661 acres in size, with 4,070 acres in state ownership as part of the Tarkiln Bayou Preserve State Park (Department, 2003). The most recent addition of 226 acres occurred in 2004. The Tarkiln Bayou Preserve State Park contains 100 other rare and imperiled plants and animals. The Betty and Crawford Rainwater Perdido River Nature Preserve protects an additional 2,331 acres, including 8 miles of river front, along 

# 45 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### the Perdido River (FNAI, 2005a). The white top pitcher plant and numerous other rare and imperiled plants are found on the preserve property. The preserve land was purchased from International Paper by the NatureConservancy, which manages the land (Timber Mart–South Market Newsletter, 2003). The preserve is named for Betty and Crawford Rainwater, whose trust funds contributed funds toward its purchase.
The Lower Perdido River Buffer was added to the Florida Forever acquisition list in 2002. The future purchase of this property will add another 7,800 acres of conservation land along and near the Perdido River north of the Betty and Crawford Rainwater Perdido River Nature Preserve (Department, 2005a; FNAI, 2005a). In Alabama, several tracts of land within the Perdido River watershed in Baldwin County have been purchased. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Forever Wild Land Trust AcquisitionProgram, in partnership with NOAA’s Coastal Impact Assistance Program funds, the Alabama Forestry Commission, and a U.S. Forest Service Forest Legacy grant, purchased the following tracts of land: Perdido River Longleaf Hills Tract in 2006, Lillian Swamp South Addition in 2003, and Lillian Swamp-Caney Bayou Tract in 2003 (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2006). These tracts geographically complement the Nature Conservancy’s purchase of the Betty and CrawfordRainwater Perdido River Nature Preserve and the proposed state acquisition of the Lower Perdido River Buffer. Perdido Key State Park, Gulf Islands National Seashore, and Big Lagoon State Park protect and preserve fragile coastal dune ecosystems, scrub, and estuarine marsh ecosystems from development. These parks provide important habitat for rare and imperiled species. The endangered Perdido Key mouse is limited in range to dunes located on Perdido Key. Four species of marine sea turtles—loggerhead, leatherback, Ridley, and green sea—utilize these coastal parks for nesting. More detail about plants
and animals is contained in the Biological Resources section located earlier in this chapter.

Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership

### The Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership is a voluntary partnership between 10 private and public land owners in western Florida andincludes the following governmental, business, and environmental interests: the U.S. Department of Defense, Department, Florida Division of Forestry, International Paper, Conecuh National Forest (in Alabama), Nokuse Plantation, NWFWMD, National Park Service, FWC, and theNature Conservancy. The parties operate together under a 1996 Memorandum of Understanding for the management of about one million acres of northwest Florida and south Alabama. The partnership is directed by a Steering Committee composed of two representatives of each participating organization (Albrecht, 2006).The purpose of the Plains Ecosystem Partnership is to provide a collaborative approach to the preservation and management of natural lands. It was initially formed in response to extensive loss of longleaf pine and aquatic habitats and to increase the land buffers surrounding military 

# 46 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### reservations (http://www.cooperativeconservationamerica.org/viewproject .asp?pid=544). Members of the partnership have agreed to a set of landmanagement principles directed at ecosystem preservation by using prescribed burns, recovering listed species, restoring aquatic habitat, providing public outreach, and sharing and exchanging relevant information and technology on new land management and protection techniques. Through collaboration and the pooling of resources, the partners are able to leverage the purchase of additional conservation lands. Within the Perdido River and Bay Basin, the partnership has provided review and assistance for the Department’s Tarkiln Bayou Burn Plan and assistance with purchases of the Betty and Crawford Rainwater Perdido River Nature Preserve along the Perdido River. 

# 47 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

# Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment

Scope of the Assessment

This chapter presents the results of an updated assessment of surface water quality in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. The primary purpose of the assessment is to determine if waterbodies or waterbody segments are to be placed on the Verified List of impaired waterbodies. The listing will be in accordance with evaluation thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality requirements in the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The results of the assessment will be used to identify waters in the basin for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) will be developed. The chapter describes the planning units in the basin used as a basis for the assessment. A section on each planning unit contains a general description and summary of key water quality indicators (such as nutri

ents, chlorophyll a , dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological param

eters). 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 findings in maps, noting the impaired waterbodies in each planning unit. The chapter also contains background information on sources of data and on designated use attain

ment, and explains the state’s integrated water quality assessment process. While impaired waters and their causative pollutants are identified, it is not within the scope of this report to identify discrete sources of impair

ments. Information on the sources of impairment will be developed in subsequent phases of the watershed management cycle, including TMDL development and implementation. Appendix A contains a discussion of the legislative and regulatory background for TMDL development and implementation. Appendix B contains supplementary ecological information on plant and animal rank

ings and community types. Appendix C provides additional information
on reasonable assurance. Appendix D provides the methodology used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists. Appendix E contains the inte

grated water quality assessment (Master List) summary (Table E.1) and the water quality monitoring stations used in the assessment (Table E.2)

. Appendix F lists, by planning unit, permitted wastewater treatment facili

ties in the basin that discharge to surface water and ground water, as well as hazardous waste sites and landfills; Appendix G lists Level I land use by planning unit; and Appendix H contains the documentation that was provided during the public comment period. The complete text of the
IWR is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us / legal/Rules/shared/62-303/ 62-303.pdf

. 

# 49 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Update on Strategic Monitoring and DataGathering Activities During Phase 2

During Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, strategic monitoring and data-gathering activities focused fi rst on waters on the 1998 303(d) list, followed by waters that were placed on the Planning List through the IWR assessment alone. The majority of the strategic monitoring work was conducted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department’s) Northwest District staff and included both chemical and biological monitoring and data upload to STO rage and RET rieval (STORET) databases. Data-gathering activities included working withenvironmental monitoring staff in the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD), Bream Fisherman’s Association, Escambia County Department of Health, and local governments to obtain applicable monitoring data from their routine monitoring programs and special water quality projects in the basin. Three waterbody segments on the Planning List and the 1998 303(d) list needed further data to verify impairment. Parameters included DO, fecal coliforms, and turbidity. Twenty-seven waterbody segments were verifi ed impaired for at leastone parameter in the Perdido River and Bay Basin as the result of strategic monitoring and data-gathering activities in Phase 2. Table E.1 in Appendix E provides the updated impairment status of the basin through September 10, 2007.



### Sources of Data

The assessment of water quality in the Perdido River and Bay Basin includes an analysis of quantitative data from various sources, some of which are readily available to the public. These sources include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Legacy and “new” STORET databases, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Florida Department of Health (DOH). The STORET databases contain water quality data froma number of sources, including the Department, water management districts, local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. Appendix D 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 individual data providers who contributed to the IWR Database for the Perdido River and 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. The Department and the Bream Fisherman’s Association collect most of the water quality data in the basin. The Bream Fisherman’s Association is a volunteer group that assists the Department with water quality sample collection, with analyses performed by the Department. The association has assisted the Department since the late 1970s. 

# 50 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 3.1: Data Providers in the Perdido River and Bay Basin, Including Number of Sample Tests by YearAgency Code Organization1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total112WRD U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS)0 0 0 0 0 148 5 10 20 25 15 8 25 13 30 20 0 31911NPSWRD National Park Service(NPS)0 294 266 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57221AWIC Alabama Departmentof EnvironmentalManagement (ADEM)360 313 139 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85721FLBFA Bream Fisherman’sAssociation767 797 1,039 1,573 2,654 4,811 3,861 3,402 3,540 1,544 1,055 1,063 1,003 1,426 1,113 1,177 490 31,31521FLBRA Biological ResearchAssociates (BRA)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1482 1,48221FLDOH Florida Departmentof Health (DOH)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 150 285 478 365 169 311 1,81621FLFMRI Florida MarineResearch Institute(FMRI)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 14 0 0 0 5021FLGBO1 Pensacola BayNutrient Study (EPAGulf Breeze)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 50021FLGFWF Florida Fish andWildlife ConservationCommission (FWC)258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25821FLKWAT Florida LakeWatch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 10 23 0 0 0 0 0 6421FLNWFD Northwest FloridaWater ManagementDistrict (NWFWMD)0 0 1,296 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,72221FLPNSand 21FLGWDepartmentCombined Monitoring1,506 1,071 917 403 372 671 532 1,126 2,351 2,440 2,342 2,430 3,053 3,401 2,327 6,960 3,122 35,024 

# 51 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### NWFWMD participates in the Department’s status and temporal variability monitoring programs. The district assists with sample collection for these programs. The DOH initiated the Healthy Beaches Program in 1998 as a pilot monitoring program and was expanded to include all the state’s coastalcounties in August 2000. Escambia County’s Health Department participates in the program with weekly monitoring of beaches for enterococcus and fecal coliform bacteria. County health departments issue health advisories or warnings when bacterial counts are too high. In 2002, the Department created the IWR Database to evaluate data in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). For the Planning List assessment, the data evaluation period of record is 10 years, and for the Verifi ed List, 7.5 years. Table D.2 in Appendix D shows the periods of record for the Verifi ed and Planning Lists in
the fi rst basin rotation cycle. Data collected between January 1, 1999, and June 30, 2006, were evaluated to establish the Verifi ed List for the Perdido River and Bay Basin (IWR Run 29z_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. Figure 3.1: Data Providers in the Perdido River and Bay Basin 40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0Number of Water Quality Analysis U.S. Geological Survey

National Park Service
Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Bream Fisherman’s Association
Biological Research Associates
Florida Department of Health

Florida Marine Research Institute
Pensacola Bay Nutrient Study

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida LakeWatch

Northwest Florida Water Management District
Department Combined Monitoring 

# 52 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### 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 decision processes that are defi ned in Florida’s IWR for listing impaired waters are based on the following designated use attainment categories:

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment
Fish and Shellfi sh Consumption Attainment Drinking Water Use Attainment
Protection of Human Health

Table 3.2 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various
surface water classes.

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

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in Impaired Surface Waters Rule Evaluation Applicable Florida Surface
Water Classification

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment Class I, II, and III

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment Class I, II, and III

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment Class II

Drinking Water Use Attainment Class I

Protection of Human Health Class I, II, and III



### 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 Guidance (Wayland, 2001). This Assessment Report integrates the 303(d) list and the 305(b) report for the Perdido River and Bay Basin.Following the EPA’s guidance, the Department delineated waterbodies or waterbody segments in each of the state’s river basins, assessed them for impairment based on individual parameters, and then placed them into
one of fi ve major assessment categories and subcategories. These categoriesprovide information on a waterbody’s status based on water quality, suffi ciency of data, and the need for TMDL development (Table 3.3)

. This 

### Understanding the Terms “Pollutant” and “Pollution”

For purposes of the TMDL Program, pollutants are chemical and biological constituents, introduced by humans into a waterbody, that may result in pollution (water quality impairment).
There are other causes ofpollution, such as the physical alteration of a waterbody (for example, canals, dams, and ditches). However, TMDLs are established only for impairments caused by pollutants (a TMDL quantifieshow much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet its designated uses).

Waterbodies that are verified impaired due to specified pollutants, and therefore require a TMDL, are listed under Category5 in the Integrated Assessment Report; waterbodies
with water quality impairments due to other causes, or unknown causes, are listed
under Category 4c. Although
TMDLs are not establishedfor Category 4c waterbodies, these waterbodies still may be addressed through a watershed management program (for example, the Kissimmee River restoration). 

# 53 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the Integrated Report

Category Description Comments

1 Attaining all designated uses If use attainment is verified for a waterbody or segment that was previously listed as impaired, the Department will propose that it be delisted.

2 Attaining some designated uses
and insufficient or no information or data are present to determine if remaining uses are attained If attainment is verified for some designated uses of a waterbody or segment, the Department will propose partial delisting for the uses attained. Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if remaining uses
are attained.

3a No data and information are present to determine if any designated use is attained Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if designated uses
are attained.

3b Some data and information arepresent but not enough to determine if any designated use is
attained Future monitoring will be recommended to gather sufficient information and data to determine if designated uses are attained.

3c Enough data and information are present to determine that one or more designated uses may not be attained according to the Planning List methodology A waterbody or segment is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses. These waters will be prioritized for future monitoring to verify use attainment or impaired status

.

3d Enough data and information are present to determine that one ormore designated uses are not attained according to the Verified List methodology A waterbody or segment exceeds Verified List evaluation criteria andmay be listed as impaired at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. However, the data have not yet been fully evaluated andthe waters have not been formally verified as impaired. Further monitoring and analysis may be necessary.
NOTE: This category is applicable only to the Status Report. Waters that pass the Verified List criteria at this stage of the process are placed in Category 5.

4a Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL development because a TMDL has already been completed After the EPA approves a TMDL for the impaired waterbody or segment, the TMDL will be included in a Basin Management Action Plan to reduce pollutant loading toward attainment of designated use(s).

4b Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL development because the water will attain water quality standards due to existing or proposed

measures Pollutant control mechanisms designed to attain applicable water quality standards within a reasonable time frame are either proposed or in place.

4c Impaired for one or more designated uses but does not require TMDL development because impairment is not caused by a pollutant This category includes waterbodies or segments that are impaired because of naturally occurring conditions or other causes of pollution. The impairment is not caused by specific pollutants. (See sidebar on previous page for a discussion of the difference between the terms “pollutant” and “pollution.”)

5 One or more designated uses 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. 

# 54 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Assessment Report contains a comprehensive evaluation of waterbodies that fall into Integrated Report Categories 1 through 5 in the table. Not enough recent data on chemistry, biology, and fi sh consumption advisories have been collected; therefore, currently only a few waterbodiesor waterbody segments statewide fall into Category 1 (attaining all designated uses). In particular, fi sh tissues in many waterbodies statewide have not been tested for mercury. Out of 72 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Perdido River and Bay Basin, none are in Category 1. 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 attained. One waterbody segment in the basin falls into Category 2. Most waterbodies in the state, however, fall into Category 3 (having
insuffi cient data). In the Perdido River and Bay Basin, the breakdown of waterbodies or segments in Category 3 is as follows:

• Category 3a—25 segments for which no data are available to

determine their water quality status,
• Category 3b—12 segments with some data but not suffi cient data for making any determinations, and
• Category 3c—7 segments that are potentially impaired based on the

Planning List criteria.

A number of waters either fail to meet water quality standards for DO or show signs of biological stress or nutrient impairment. According to the IWR, specifi c pollutants causing DO exceedances or biological stress, or an underlying nutrient imbalance creating an imbalance in fl ora or fauna, must be documented for a waterbody or segment to be listed as impaired. Sometimes these conditions cannot be linked to a causative pollutant, and sometimes they may refl ect natural background conditions. Currently, no waterbodies in the basin are designated as being in Category 4. This category includes those waterbodies/segments that are impaired but do not require a TMDL for one of three reasons:

• Category 4a—No segments for which a TMDL has already been

developed,
• Category 4b—No 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—No 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. 

# 55 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Finally, 27 waterbodies in the basin are in Category 5. These impaired
waterbodies are on the Verifi ed List of impaired waters adopted by the Department’s Secretary and will require TMDLs. Chapter 5 of this report discusses in detail the waters in this category.



### Planning Units

The Perdido River and Bay Basin encompasses approximately 1,219 square miles—399.6 square miles of which is within Florida—and a complex hydrologic system. To provide a more detailed geographic basis for identifying and assessing water quality improvement activities, the basin was subdivided into smaller areas called planning units. A planning unit is either an individual large tributary basin or a group of smaller adjacent tributary basins with similar characteristics. Planning units help organize information and management strategies around prominent watershed
characteristics. Water quality assessments were conducted for waterbody segmentswithin 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 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 the main waterbody conditions within a polygon. In some instances, however, the data from several waterbodies within the polygon were aggregated. As the water quality assessments were refi ned in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, individual waterbodies within these aggregations that have unique water quality concerns were assigned unique WBIDs and evaluated individually. The Perdido River and Bay Basin contains two planning units: Perdido Bay and Perdido River. Figure 3.2 shows their locations and boundaries. In general, planning units are delineated as the drainage boundaries of watersheds that drain to major rivers and bays. Major river and bay watersheds in the Panhandle are typically defi ned by unique hydrologic unit codes (HUC). The remainder of this chapter provides a general description of eachplanning unit, information on land use and potential point sources of pollution, water quality assessments for individual waterbody segments, and summaries of ecological issues and watershed quality improvement plans and projects. Appendix E of this report provides, by planning unit, a list of water quality monitoring stations, the integrated assessment (Master List) summary, and trend data. Appendix F includes summary information, 

# 56 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

# 57 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### by planning unit, for permitted wastewater treatment facilities, hazardous waste sites, and permitted landfi ll facilities. Appendix G lists land uses, by planning unit.



### Assessment by Planning Unit

• Perdido Bay Planning Unit

General Description 

### The Perdido Bay Planning Unit (as delineated for assessment purposes) is located in Escambia County, Florida, covers about 165 square miles, and contains 30 segments or waterbodies with delineated WBIDs. Nearshore coastal waters are included as waterbodies. The boundary of the planning unit generally follows the delineation for HUC 03140107. The boundary
between Florida and Alabama defines the western boundary of the planning unit and dissects Perdido Bay in a north to south direction. Major waterbodies include Perdido Bay, Big Lagoon, Tarkiln Bayou, Elevenmile Creek, Tenmile Creek, Marcus Creek, Turner Creek, and Eightmile Creek.The largest city within the planning unit is Warrington. Smaller communities include Gonzalez, Ensley, Bellview, Brent, and Myrtle Grove.

Water Quality Summary 

### Seventeen segments within the planning unit are listed as verifi ed impaired. Figure 3.3 , a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list, the Verifi ed List, and potential pollution sources.
Table 3.4 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody segments in the planning unit. A total of 87 water quality monitoring stations were assessed to determine the impairment status of waterbodies within the planning unit. Monitoring data were collected from 3 coastal, 51 estuarine, 7 lake, and 26 stream locations.
Three streams are listed as verifi ed impaired because of fecal coliform bacteria violations. Fourteen segments are verifi ed impaired because of
fi sh consumption advisories based on high levels of mercury in fi sh. This is a limited consumption advisory directed at marine and nearshore fi sh (DOH, 2005). Unnamed Branch (WBID 725) was placed on the 1998 303(d) list because of suspected impairment from fecal coliform bacteria. There are no data available to assess this waterbody; thus, it is listed as Category 3a in
Table 3.4 . This waterbody will be included on the Planning List. Additional data will be collected during the next watershed management cycle. Upper Perdido Bay (WBID 797) is listed as impaired for nutrients because chlorophyll a levels exceeded an average of 11 μg/l in at least oneyear. Lower Perdido Bay, Elevenmile Creek, and two segments that transmit runoff to Perdido Bay and the Gulf of Mexico met their designated use for nutrients and bacteria. Except for Elevenmile Creek, these same four segments also met criteria for DO. Historically, fi sh kills occurred in the bay as a result of low DO levels (Department and Alabama Coastal Foundation, 2000). 

# 58 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 3.3: Composite Map of the Perdido Bay Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources 

# 59 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit

Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria 3

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)
List
Parameters
of Concern Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c) for Listed
Parameters 4 Verified Impaired (Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, or 5) for Listed
Parameters 5 Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed
Parameters EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) Integrated Report
Assessment Category for WBID 6

489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF Nutrients, Turbidity, TSS, DO, Coliforms,
Unionized Ammonia,
BOD 5 Biology, Dioxin, Mercury
in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms,
Unionized
Ammonia Chlorophyll

a , Fluoride,
Historical Chlorophyll, Turbidity 5

624 Eightmile
Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, Turbidity Biology, DO Chlorophyll

a , Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity,
Unionized
Ammonia 3c

681 Hurst Branch Stream IIIF 3a

697 Marcus Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Biology, DO Fecal
Coliforms Chlorophyll

a , Turbidity,
Unionized
Ammonia 5

725 Unnamed
Branch Stream IIIF Coliforms Unionized Ammonia, Turbidity 3c

730 Turner Creek Stream IIIF 3b

763 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream IIIF 3a

779 Bellshead
Branch Stream IIIF 3a

784 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream IIIF Chlorophyll a , DO, Fluoride, Turbidity 2

797 Upper Perdido Bay Estuary IIIM DO,
Nutrients Dioxin Chlorophyll a , Mercury
in Fish DO, Fecal Coliforms,
Historical Chlorophyll, Turbidity 5

848 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream IIIF 3a

871 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream IIIF 3a

872 Bridge Creek Estuary IIIM Mercury
in Fish Chlorophyll a 5

935 Unnamed
Stream Stream IIIF DO DO Chlorophyll a , Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity,
Unioniz ed
Ammonia 3c 

# 60 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayData Evaluation under the IWR Criteria 3

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)
List
Parameters
of Concern Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c) for Listed
Parameters 4 Verified Impaired (Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, or 5) for Listed
Parameters 5 Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed
Parameters EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) Integrated Report
Assessment Category for WBID 6

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary IIIM Mercury
in Fish 5

974 Perdido Bay Estuary IIIM Mercury
in Fish 5

987 Bayou Garcon Estuary IIIM DO, Color DO Mercury
in Fish Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 5

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary IIIM DO Mercury
in Fish Chlorophyll

a , DO, Fecal Coliforms,
Historical Chlorophyll, Turbidity 5

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary IIIM Mercury
in Fish Bacteria, Chlorophyll a , DO,
Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 5

1014 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary IIIM Mercury
in Fish 5

1015 Direct Runoff
to Gulf Stream IIIF Chlorophyll

a , DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity,
Unionized
Ammonia 2

1018 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary IIIM Mercury
in Fish 5

8001 Perdido Bay
Gulf Coastal IIIM Mercury
in Fish Fecal Coliforms 5

489A Tenmile Creek Stream IIIF Fecal
Coliforms Chlorophyll a , DO, Turbidity,
Unionized
Ammonia 5

489B Coffee Creek Stream IIIF 3b

697A Crescent Lake Lake IIIF 3b

797A Lower Perdido Bay Estuary IIIM Dioxin Mercury
in Fish Chlorophyll a , DO, Turbidity 5

8001A Perdido Key
State Park Coastal IIIM Mercury
in Fish Fecal Coliforms 5

8001B Johnson
Beach Coastal IIIM Mercury
in Fish Fecal Coliforms 5

8001C Big Lagoon
State Park Coastal IIIM Mercury
in Fish Fecal Coliforms 5 Table 3.4 (continued) 

# 61 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### The erosion of dirt roads and subsequent deposition of dirt in streams is a problem in many of the freshwater stream segments in the planning unit. Hilly terrain and easily erodible soils contribute to the erosion problem.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses 

### Point Sources. Figure 3.3 shows permitted wastewater treatment facilities, landfi lls, and hazardous waste sites in the planning unit (see Noteworthy for a definition of point sources and discussions of environmental remediation and delineated ground water contamination areas).
Table F.1 in Appendix F lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface discharge facilities, along with their permitted amount of wastewater discharge. Table F.2 lists landfi lls or solid waste facilities. There are 19 permitted wastewater dischargers in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit in Florida: 15 are industrial dischargers, 1 is a petroleumcleanup site, 1 is a permit for residuals, and 2 are domestic wastewater dischargers. Sixteen of the permits are active and, of that number, 4 discharge wastewater to surface waters. The largest surface discharger of industrial wastewater is International Paper’s Integrated Bleached Kraft Pulp and Fine Paper Manufacturing Mill in Cantonment. The mill is permitted to discharge up to 28 million gallons per day (mgd) into Elevenmile Creek. Table 3.4 (continued)

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 potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 4c —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant; and 5 —Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

4 Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.

5 Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development.

6 The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters

. The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliform as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliform–shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

BOD = Biological oxygen demand DO = Dissolved oxygen F = Fresh water M = Marine TSS = Total suspended solids 

# 62 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### The facility has a history of water quality problems and violations, and International Paper has been under a Consent Order since 1989 (with the previous owner of the mill, Champion International Corporation). The largest surface water discharger of domestic wastewater is the Bayou MarcusWater Reclamation Facility, at 8.2 mgd. The only other discharger permitted for more than 0.1 mgd is the Clark/Sand and Dirt Rilling Hills Pit, which is allowed to discharge up to 2.3 mgd. The Naval Air Station Pensacola also holds a permit for industrial stormwater. There are additional wastewater dischargers in the Alabama portion of the Perdido River and Bay Basin. These include, but are not limited to, industrial waste discharges from Masland Carpets, Plasmine Tech, Baldwin Pole and Piling, and Swift Lumber, and domestic wastewater dischargesfrom the cities of Foley, Atmore, Robertsdale, and Bay Minette (Department and Alabama Coastal Foundation, 2000).
There are 29 landfi lls listed in Table F.2 in Appendix F. Only 3 of those are solid waste facilities—the Mobile Highway Landfill, Auto Shredders Industrial Landfi ll, and Klondike Landfi ll. All 3 are closed but are monitored for potential ground water contamination. The remaining
26 landfi lls are construction and demolition debris, many of which were opened after Hurricane Ivan in 2004. As of August 2005, only 12 of the
construction and demolition debris landfi lls remained open.There are two delisted National Priorities List (NPL) sites in the planning unit: Beulah Landfi ll and Pioneer Sand. Figure 3.3 displays ground
water contamination areas associated with both sites. A discussion of the threats to ground water from both of these sites is contained in the Ground Water Quality Issues section in Chapter 2.
The 101-acre Beulah Landfi ll, located northwest of Pensacola, was operated by Escambia County until June 1984. Coffee Creek, a tributary of Elevenmile Creek, transects the property. The site received municipal solid waste, domestic septic tank waste, demolition debris, and municipal sludge. Sludge pits were located on the site. Benzene, naptholene, and pentachlorophenol (PCP) were found in ground water downgradient of thesludge pits and upgradient of Elevenmile Creek. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCP, and metals were found in soils and residual sludge on the site. A remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study completed in 1993
found low levels of contaminants on site. Exceedances of maximum contaminant levels in ground water were limited to a single on-site well detection of benzene and off-site single well detections of naphthalene and PCP.
Tributaries near the landfill were free of contamination. In 1993, the county’s Comprehensive Plan designated the old landfi ll acreage as conservation and prohibited any type of development on it. Though delisted in 1998, surface and ground water monitoring continues (Department, 2006a). The 20-acre Pioneer Sand Company site is located on Saufl ey Field Road. It was operated from 1972 to 1981 as a disposal site for construction debris, shredded automobile strippings, and various industrial sludges and resins, which were dumped into the fi ll areas of this sand mine. The fi llareas also received metal plating sludge from the Naval Air Station Pensacola, as well as phenols and resin compounds from the Reichold Chemical Company. Several leachate streams were present at the base of the fi ll 

# 63 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### areas, though environmental testing has revealed no off-site contamination. With the signing of a Record of Decision, the state and EPA agreed that the site would be remediated by long-term monitoring, the grading and capping of the landfi ll, and the installation of a leachate collection system. Long-term remediation will be conducted until July 2011. This site was
offi cially delisted from the NPL with Department concurrence in August 1999 (Department, 2006b). Nonpoint Sources. Based on land use information delineated from 1995 aerial photography, the primary land use in the planning unit isurban and built-up (36.6 percent). About half the urban area is represented by medium-density residential housing. High-density residential occupies about 6.6 percent of the planning unit area, while low-density residential occupies about 3.5 percent. Industrial and commercial uses account for another 3.4 percent of the total area. Agriculture is also presentin the planning unit (5.4 percent), with crop and pastureland accounting for 4.9 percent of the planning unit area. Upland pine forests cover 17.6 percent of the planning unit, and wetlands cover another 16.7 percent
of the total area. Tables G.1 and G.2 in Appendix G summarize land use information for the planning unit.These land uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments (see Noteworthy for a defi nition of nonpoint sources). Urban stormwater is managed through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits. Escambia County, Pensacola, and the Florida Department of Transportation are copermittees under one MS4 permit. The permit applies only to publicly owned stormwater management systems.

Ecological Summary 

### The lower reaches of the Perdido River cut through soil hardpans to form low but steep bluffs and escarpments around the bay and lower river segments (Florida Department of Natural Resources [DNR], 1989). The Perdido Bay area provides important habitat for several rare and imperiled species. Bass, Hoehn, Couch, and McDonald (2004) confi rmed the presence of the saltmarsh topminnow during fi eld sampling in 2001 to 2002 in tributaries of the Perdido Bay watershed. Striped bass use the Perdido River and Bay throughout its length (DNR, 1989). The Gulf race of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi) utilizes the Perdido River, as documented by the Alabama Geological Survey in 2004 ( referenced in Bass et al., 2004). The state-listed black skimmer, least tern, and snowy plover, as well as the federally listed threatened piping plover, nest along the basin’s sandy coastal beaches (Gulf Islands National Seashore, 2006a, and Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 2005b). Perdido Key is the home of the federally endangered Perdido Key mouse (Gulf Islands National Seashore–Florida District, 2006b). Sea turtles use the planning unit’s sandy beaches as nesting habitat. Sea turtle species include loggerhead, green, Ridley’s, and leatherback (Gulf Islands National Seashore–Florida District, 2006c). Perdido Bay has three species of seagrasses: turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) , shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) , and widgeon grass 

# 64 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayEnvironmental remediation activities cover a broad spectrum of cleanup programs. Theseinclude state-managed hazardous waste, dry cleaning, and petroleum cleanup programs; as well as the federal Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs. These programs are designed to remediate ground water and soil contamination that pose a threat to public health and the environment. Point sources discharging pollutants to surface water or ground water originate from discrete, well-defined areas such as a facility discharge from the end of a pipe, a disposal well, or a wastewater sprayfield. Point sources generally fall into twomajor types: domestic wastewater sources (which consist of sewage from homes, businesses, and institutions) and industrial wastewater sources (which

The Department’s Delineation Program was established in response to the discovery of ground water contaminated byethylene dibromide, a soil fumigant that was historically used in 38 Florida counties to control nematodes in citrus groves androw crops. The program currently includes ground water contaminated by other pesticides,industrial solvents, and nutrients. However, the coverage of delineated areas in this program is not intended to include all sources of contaminated ground

Rainfall generates stormwater runoff. As it flows over the land and through the ground, runoffmay carry nonpoint source pollutants from many different sources to lakes, rivers, and estuaries in a 

### Information on Point Sources in Planning Units

Environmental Remediation

Delineated Ground Water Contamination Areas

Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses

watershed, and into ground water supplies. Nonpoint sources also include atmospheric deposition and leaching from agriculturallands, urban areas, and unvegetated lands. The pollutants in runoff often include fertilizers, bacteria, metals, sediments, and petroleum compounds. include wastewater, runoff, and leachate from industrial or commercial storage, handling,or processing facilities). Landfills, hazardous waste sites, theDepartment’s Dry Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Program sites, and petroleum facility discharges are also considered point sources. These sites have the potential to leach contaminants into ground water and surface water. Identifying the source of waterbody impairment is an important part of assessingwater quality and developing TMDLs. As part of thisreport, information is presented on point sources, including permitted facilities that discharge wastewater and landfills.

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 statefunded cleanup program administers the cleanup of contaminated hazardouswaste sites when enforcement action taken against aresponsible party is unsuccessful or when no responsible party is identified.

water in Florida. The Delineation Program is designed to ensure the protection of public health when consuming potable ground water supplies and to minimizethe potential for cross-contamination of adjacent ground water

resources.

The Delineation Program’s primary responsibilities are as follows: • Delineate areas of ground water contamination, • Implement a water wellconstruction permitting/application process that requires stringent construction standards, and • 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 waterwells found to be contaminated, are remediated by installing individual watertreatment systems or by connecting the users to public water supply systems. 

# 65 Noteworthy Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### (Ruppia maritime) . Seagrasses provide habitat for many commercially and recreationally important species, including shrimp ( Penaeus sp.), crabs ( Callinectes sp.), scallops ( Argopecten sp.), speckled trout ( Cynoscion sp.), redfi sh ( Sciaenops sp.), and mullet ( Mugil sp.). Eel grass (Vallisneria americana) is also present in freshwater and brackish areas of the bay. A comparison of the acreage of submerged vegetation between 1941 and 1992 revealed that the total bay acreage had decreased by 74 percent to 307.1 acres (Kirschenfeld, Turpin, and Handley, 2006). From 1940 to 1987,the area around Lillian (upper Perdido Bay) showed an increase in seagrass acreage (Miller, 1998) but subsequently declined to 3.3 acres in 1992 (Kirschenfeld et al., 2006). Seagrasses were not detected in middle Perdido Bay, and the lower Perdido Bay declined to about 303.8 acres, based on an analysis of 1992 data (Kirschenfeld et al., 2006). More recent data (2003) indicate about 300 acres of shoal grass remain in Perdido Bay (Gulf of Mexico Program Habitat Team, 2004). Most of this acreage is located around or near Ono Island and Big Lagoon (Department, 2001b). Sediments from numerous locations in the Perdido Bay area, Bayou Marcus, Tarkiln Bay, Bayou Garcon, and Elevenmile Creek were collectedby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1989 and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management from 1993 to 1994. Sediment samples were analyzed for organic contaminants and trace metals. Only polyaromatic hydrocarbons were found in sediments in detectable amounts, but levels were below recommended threshold effect levels guidelines.
Concentrations below the threshold effect levels are considered to be concentrations that should not cause biological effects. Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls were not detected. Varying levels of trace metals were found; in some instances, concentrations exceeded threshold effect levels and in a few instances, exceeded probable effect levels developed as sediment quality guidelines for metals. Sediment quality guidelines consider probable effect levels to be the concentrations of specifi c trace metals that would most likely cause biological effects. Most exceedances of threshold effect and probable effect levels were found for Elevenmile Creek, Tarkiln Bayou, and Bayou Garcon (Miller, 1998; Brim, 1993).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects 

### The Department issued a Notice of Intent to issue a new permit for International Paper Company in April 2005. Along with the permit was a Consent Order requiring corrective actions to improve the treatment of the plant’s discharge. Improvements included the construction of treatment wetlands bordering Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. The discharge from the Kraft mill would be mixed with 5 mgd of wastewater from an Emerald Coast Utility Authority advanced wastewater treatment plantbefore discharge to the wetland (Department, 2005b). The permit application was denied on August 10, 2007. The Department granted a stay of the denial on August 22, 2007, pending International Paper’s appeal of thedenial. International Paper is allowed to continue discharging into Elevenmile Creek under the conditions of its old permit and the Consent Order granting the stay. International Paper reapplied for a permit for the same 

# 66 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### wetland discharge project with newer wetland information. That application is under review by the Department (Evans, 2007). In 1991, Escambia County had 282 miles of unpaved dirt roads and was using more than 100,000 cubic yards of fi ll material per year to grade and maintain those roads. Most of the material washed off the roadways and frequently entered streams or stormwater drainage systems. Escambia County started the Hilltop to Hilltop Paving Project to address dirt roadproblems. Countywide, 120 miles of dirt road were paved and best management practices (BMPs) for those newly paved dirt roads were institutedas of the end of 2002. BMPs generally constitute the creation of grasslined swales and a greater frequency of road grading. Within the Perdido Bay Planning Unit, 32.1 miles of dirt roads were paved. An additional 12.6 miles are proposed for paving in this planning unit by 2007 (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2004). A Stormwater Management Master Plan was completed for Escambia County by Hatch Mott MacDonald Consultants, with funding providedfrom the local option sales tax (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2004). Watershed-specifi c Stormwater Management Master Plans have been completedfor the Elevenmile Creek and Eightmile Creek watersheds and are in development for the Bayou Marcus, Millview, Herron Bayou, Garcon Swamp, Tarklin Bayou, Bridge Creek, Bronson Field, Paradise Beach, Sandy Creek/ Weekly Bayou, Southwest Side, and the southern part of the Perdido River watersheds. The county proposes to initiate a stormwater basin study for Escambia Bay in 2008. Each plan describes current stormwater structural
controls and identifi es and recommends water quality and drainage improvement projects. Escambia County’s Engineering Department has completed the inventorying and mapping of private and public stormwater ponds (http://www.myescambia.com/departments/engineering/ Stormwater.php).Escambia County completed two dry retention ponds in the Eightmile Creek watershed. The ponds treat stormwater, thus improving itsquality. Additional dry retention ponds are proposed to treat stormwater in the Elevenmile Creek and Bayou Marcus watersheds (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2004). As part of Escambia County’s MS4 Program individual watershed drainage evaluations, residents were surveyed about their drainage and water quality concerns in the northern half of the Southwest Side Drainage Basin in fall 2004. The Southwest Side Drainage Basin is located north of Big Lagoon and Bayou St. John. The survey revealed that 83 residents
identifi ed drainage as a problem and 26 residents identifi ed water quality as a problem (GECI and Associates, 2004). Escambia County received legislative funding in 2005 for the Perdido Bay Monitoring and Assessment Study (Kirschenfeld and DeBusk, 2006). The focus of the project is water quality and sediment sampling of thebay, with an emphasis on pollutants associated with urban and agricultural runoff (nutrients, metals, and organics). The purpose of the study is to map contaminant levels found in the bay to aid in tracking sources of pollution and for use in ecological risk assessments. 

# 67 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Escambia County was awarded Florida Forever capital improvement grant monies from the NWFWMD. Funds will be used for the restoration
of Tenmile Creek to a natural stable channel in an effort to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Other funds will be used in the same drainage basin to construct the Blue Pit Wetland Stormwater Retention project to enhance water quality and biological diversity, provide fl ood protection, and ground water recharge (http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl .us/recreation/perdido.html).

• Perdido River Planning Unit

General Description 

### The Perdido River Planning Unit covers about 240 square miles (asdelineated for assessment purposes) of Escambia County, Florida, and contains 41 waterbodies or segments with WBIDs. The prominent waterbodyin the planning unit is the Perdido River. Overall, the Perdido River watershed drains 925 square miles of southern Alabama and western Florida and serves as the boundary between Florida and Alabama. Generally, the state line splits the river in half. The larger portion of the river’s drainage area, about 75 percent, is located in Baldwin County, Alabama (DNR, 1989).
Perdido River starts at the confl uence of Fletcher and Perdido Creeks near Bay Minette, Alabama. The Perdido River travels 65.2 miles before discharging to Perdido Bay at a point 15 miles west of Pensacola. The largest tributary of the Perdido River is the River Styx, located in Alabama. Larger tributaries within Florida are Brushy Creek, Boggy Creek, Bowman/McDavid Creek, Alligator Creek, and Jacks Branch. Florida communities located in the planning unit include Barrineau Park, McKinnon, and Walnut Hill. These communities are small and generally rural in character.

Water Quality Summary 

### Ten segments within the planning unit are listed as verifi ed impaired. Figure 3.4 , a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on the 1998 303(d) list, the Planning List and Verified List, and potential pollution sources. Table 3.5 summarizes the water quality assessment statusof all waterbody segments in the planning unit. A total of 31 water quality monitoring stations were assessed to determine the impairment status of waterbodies within the planning unit. Monitoring data were collected from 7 estuarine and 24 stream locations.
Most of the verifi ed impaired segments, including all three segments of the Perdido River, are listed because of fish consumption advisory recommending limited consumption due to elevated levels of mercury in fi sh. The advisory is directed at the consumption of largemouth bass, bluegill,
redear sunfi sh, gar, and bowfi n (DOH, 2005). All three segments of Perdido River were listed on the 1998 303(d)list as impaired for coliform bacteria. Evaluation under the IWR methodology determined that only WBID 462A was potentially impaired for bacteria, while the remaining two segments of the Perdido River met their designated use for bacteria. Jacks Branch (WBID 291) was listed on the 1998 303(d) list for DO, fecal coliform bacteria, and turbidity. There is 

# 68 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 3.4: Composite Map of the Perdido River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List, Planning List and Verified List Waters, and Potential Pollution Sources 

# 69 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Perdido River Planning Unit

Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria 3

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)
List
Parameters
of Concern Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c) for Listed
Parameters 4 Verified Impaired (Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, or 5) for Listed
Parameters 5 Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed
Parameters EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) Integrated Report
Assessment Category for WBID 6

3 Reedy Branch Stream IIIF Biology 3c

4 Brushy Creek Stream IIIF DO, Turbidity, TSS,
Coliforms Biology Fecal
Coliforms Chlorophyll a , DO, Fluoride,
Historical Chlorophyll, Turbidity,
Unionized
Ammonia 5

14 Hubbard
Creek Stream IIIF 3a

72 Direct Runoff
to Stream Stream IIIF Mercury
in Fish Unionized Ammonia, Chlorophyll a , DO, Fecal Coliforms, Fluoride,
Historical Chlorophyll, Turbidity,
Conductance 5

73 Unnamed
Branch Stream IIIF 3a

105 Freeman Springs
Branch Stream IIIF 3b

135 Boggy Creek Stream IIIF 3b

138 Rocky Creek Stream IIIF 3a

148 Helverson
Creek Stream IIIF 3a

149 McDavid
Creek Stream IIIF Biology Chlorophyll a 3c

169 Buckeye
Branch Stream IIIF 3a

172 Reedy Branch Stream IIIF 3a

182 West Fork Stream IIIF Biology 2

197 Narrow Gap
Branch Stream IIIF 3a

208 McDade Creek Stream IIIF 3a

228 Jackson Springs
Branch Stream IIIF 3a

243 Schoolhouse
Branch Stream IIIF 3a

245 Alligator Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 

# 70 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 3.5 (continued)

Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria 3

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)
List
Parameters
of Concern Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c) for Listed
Parameters 4 Verified Impaired (Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, or 5) for Listed
Parameters 5 Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed
Parameters EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) Integrated Report
Assessment Category for WBID 6

252 Still Branch Stream IIIF 3a

259 Pond Branch Stream IIIF 3a

278 Cowhide
Creek Stream IIIF 3b

290 Dry Creek Stream IIIF Biology 3c

291 Jacks Branch Stream IIIF DO, Coliforms, Turbidity DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 3c

297 Penasula
Creek Stream IIIF 3a

311 Bowman
Creek Stream IIIF 3b

345 Cow Devil
Creek Stream IIIF 3a

357 Churchhouse
Branch Stream IIIF 3b

407 Farm Hill Run Stream IIIF 3a

494 Jacks Branch Stream IIIF 3b

542 Rest Area Run Stream IIIF Biology, DO,
Fecal
Coliforms Turbidity Chlorophyll a 5

607 Claypit Branch Stream IIIF 3a

616 Beulah Drain Stream IIIF 3a

696 Black Lake Lake IIIF 3a

2F Perdido River Stream IIIF Mercury
in Fish 5

462A Perdido River Estuary IIIM Nutrients, DO, Coliforms, Mercury (Based
on Fish Consumption) Mercury
in Fish Chlorophyll a , DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity 5

462B Perdido River Stream IIIF Coliforms, Mercury (Based
on Fish Consumption) Fecal Coliforms, Mercury
in Fish Chlorophyll a , DO, Turbidity,
Unionized
Ammonia 5

462C Perdido River Stream IIIF Coliforms, Mercury (Based
on Fish Consumption) Mercury
in Fish Biology, Chlorophyll a , DO, Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity,
Unionized
Ammonia 5 

# 71 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 3.5 (continued)

Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria 3

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d)
List
Parameters
of Concern Potentially Impaired (Cat. 3c) for Listed
Parameters 4 Verified Impaired (Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, or 5) for Listed
Parameters 5 Not Impaired (Cat. 2) for Listed
Parameters EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) Integrated Report
Assessment Category for WBID 6

696A Black Lake
Drain Stream IIIF 3a

72D Direct Runoff
to Stream Stream IIIF Mercury
in Fish 5

72E Direct Runoff
to Stream Stream IIIF Mercury
in Fish 5

72F Direct Runoff
to Stream Stream IIIF Mercury
in Fish 5

Notes:

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

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

3 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:
1 —Attains all designated uses; 2 —Attains some designated uses; 3a —No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 3b —Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 3c —Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 3d —Meets Verified List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 4a —Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 4b —Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 4c —Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant; and 5 —Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.

4 Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.

5 Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development.

6 The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters

. The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliform as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliform–shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is Category 5.

DO = Dissolved oxygen F = Fresh water M = Marine TSS = Total suspended solids 

# 72 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### inadequate data available for this waterbody to verify impairment; thus, it is listed as Category 3c in Table 3.5 and maintained on the Planning List. McDavid Creek, Dry Creek, Reedy Branch, Brushy Creek, and the Rest Area Run are all listed as potentially impaired for biology because they failed bioassessment monitoring. The next step is to identify if the source of impairment is a pollutant or the result of habitat damage or loss. BoggyCreek, West Fork, Alligator Creek, and the Perdido River passed bioassessments and are listed as meeting designated use for biology.Hilly terrain and easily erodible soils have resulted in erosion and sedimentation problems in many streams within the basin. Failed bioassessments are frequently the result of sedimentation of the streambed. One of the larger sources of sediments has been poorly graded and maintained dirt roads. The problem is evident in both Florida and Alabama.

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses 

### Point Sources. Figure 3.4 shows permitted wastewater treatment facilities, landfi lls, and hazardous waste sites in the planning unit.
Table F.1 in Appendix F lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface discharge facilities, along with their permitted amount of wastewater discharge. It also lists landfi lls or solid waste facilities. There are three permitted wastewater dischargers in the planning unit. Two permits are for active industrial waste dischargers, and one permit is for the inactive Milkaway Dairy animal-feeding operation. None of the permitted dischargers has surface water discharges.
There are three landfi lls located in the Perdido River Planning Unit.
The Perdido Landfi ll in Muskogee has permits for both Class 3 and Class 1
facilities. The third landfi ll is a construction and demolition debris landfi ll. As of August 2005, all three landfi lls were active.
There is one active state-funded hazardous waste site and one delisted NPL (Superfund) site in the planning unit. The Maucher property became a state-funded hazardous waste site in November 2002 (Department, 2007). The property is located near a tributary of Cow Devil Creek. Thestorage of military surplus items and damaged drums, some containing various hazardous materials, led to the wide-scale contamination of ground water and soil, primarily with trichlorethylene (TCE). Figure 3.4displays the extent of ground water contamination. A second phase of onsite investigations in 2004 revealed that a plume of contaminated ground water extends beyond the property boundary. The Department succeededthrough negotiations with the Navy to have the drums containing hazardous material removed from the property. The area of TCE-contaminated soil was delineated. A Decision Memo for the site was signed on January 27, 2006, recommending excavation of contaminated soils and air spargingfor contaminated ground water. Construction of the ground water treatment system is anticipated in late 2007.
Dubose Oil was fi rst listed on the NPL in October 1984 (Department, 2006c). The site, which is located in the headwaters of Jacks Branch, was used from 1979 to 1982 for the storage of oil and hazardous waste. The site had varying degrees of contamination of soil, ground water, and surface water with volatile and semivolatile organics from oil and hazardous waste 

# 73 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### before the EPA completed and approved remediation. The site was listed inthe Federal Register for delisting by the EPA in October 2004. A discussion of the threats to ground water from both of these sites is contained in
the Ground Water Quality Issues section in Chapter 2. Nonpoint Sources. Based on land use information from 1995, the primary land use in the planning unit is upland pine forest (49.8 percent).Of the total acreage of pine forest, 21.1 percent is in managed pine plantation. Agriculture, represented by crop and pastureland, occupies another 18.9 percent of the planning unit’s area. Wetland forests account for another 11.5 percent. Residential development accounts for 4.3 percent of the planning unit. Most residential development is a mix of medium and low density. Tables G.3 and G.4 summarize land uses in the basin.These land uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. Urban stormwater is managed through MS4 permits. Escambia County is a Phase 1 MS4 permitted entity. The permit only applies to publicly owned stormwater management systems.

Ecological Summary

### The Perdido River provides important habitat for rare and imperiled fi sh species. Gravel and sandbars are evident on most of the river’s
bends. Historical records indicate that three rare fi sh species used the Perdido River: one species of special concern, the saltmarsh topminnow, as well as the crystal darter and goldstripe darter (DNR, 1989). Bass et al. (2004) confi rmed the presence of the saltmarsh topminnow during fi eld sampling from 2001 to 2002 in tributaries of the Perdido Bay watershed. Striped bass use the Perdido River and Bay throughout its length (DNR, 1989). The Gulf race of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi) utilizes the Perdido River, as documented by the Alabama Geological Survey in 2004 (referenced in Bass et al., 2004).

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects 

### In 1991, Escambia County had 282 miles of unpaved dirt roads and was using more than 100,000 cubic yards of fi ll material each year for grading of dirt roads. Most of the material washed off the roadways and frequently entered streams or stormwater drainage systems. Escambia County started the Hilltop to Hilltop Paving Project to address dirt road problems. Countywide, 120 miles of dirt road have been paved and BMPs for those newly paved dirt roads were instituted as of the end of 2002. Within the Perdido River Planning Unit, 34.5 miles of dirt roads were paved. BMPs generally constitute the creation of grass-lined swales and a greater frequency of road grading. An additional 45.6 miles is proposed for paving in the planning unit by 2007 (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2004). Baldwin County, Alabama, amended subdivision rules to stop the creation of dirt roads in large subdivisions. Baldwin County anticipates paving 30 miles or more of dirt roadway, with most public dirt roads in the county paved by 2020 (Miller, 1998). 

# 74 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

# Chapter 4: Evaluation of Ground Water and Geologic Influences on Impaired Waterbodies

This chapter evaluates the potential infl uences of ground water and natural geologic, soil, and or ground water chemistry on surface water quality in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. In particular, it focuses on surface waters on the Planning or Verifi ed Lists. The chapter contains a general and by-planning-unit discussion and presentation of information.It also includes recommendations for an alternative listing status for waterbodies that exceed Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) listing thresholds due to natural conditions. The listing parameters receiving scrutiny in ground water include nutrients (colimited based on the median total nitrogen/total phosphorus [TN/TP] ratio), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and dissolved oxygen (DO).



### Geology, Soil, and Ground Water

Setting As discussed in Chapter 2, there are three principal aquifer systems

i n the basin, the sand and gravel aquifer (local surfi cial aquifer system), the intermediate aquifer system, and the Floridan aquifer system. Thesand and gravel aquifer is recharged directly by rainfall and in the Perdido Basin is the aquifer that interacts with surface water. The entire area underlain by the sand and gravel aquifer comprises a recharge area (Pratt, Richards, Milla, Wagner, Johnson, and Curry, 1996). The ground water in the aquifer primarily fl ows laterally toward surface waters and the coast ( Richards, 1998; U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 1990), providing discharge or basefl ow into streams, lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. Ground water basefl ow may account for as much as half of the total stream fl ow. In addition to providing a mechanism for conveying pollutants to surface waters, the ground water media can itself infl uence surface water quality. The natural chemical makeup of soils and aquifer material and ambient ground water chemistry should also be evaluated when assessing surface water quality infl uences.



### Overview of Ground Water Quality

Table 4.1 summarizes ground water quality statistics for all of the basin’s planning units, based on available data. The data were obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department’s) Oracle-based Ground Water Information System (OGWIS) ambient monitoring database. Data retrieved from OGWIS were for the sand and gravel aquifer. 

# 75 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 4.1: Ground Water Statistics for Planning Units in the Perdido River and Bay Basin

Perdido Bay Planning Unit Perdido River Planning Unit# wellsMedian# wellsMedian

Sand and Gravel Aquifer

Ammonia+Organic Nitrogen, Dissolved 16 0.11 9 0.09

Nitrate+Nitrite, Dissolved (as N) 17 0.83 9 0.03

Nitrate, Total (as N) 16 0.82 10 0.13

Orthophosphate, Dissolved (as P) 11 0.01 8 0.01

Orthophosphate, Total (as P) 18 0.09 10 0.07

Phosphorus, Dissolved (as P) 17 0.02 9 0.02

DO 17 6.60 10 2.44

pH 21 4.80 11 5.19

Notes: Department data were obtained from the OGWIS database using the Hydroport retrieval system; medians are based on median value per well. All parameter concentrations are reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L) except for pH, which is reported in standard units.

Highlighted values exceed (or in the case of DO, are lower than) potential or actual surface water thresholds that are based on surface water criteria or guidance levels.



### Nutrients The pollutants responsible for excessive chlorophyll growth, measured

a s high chlorophyll alevels in streams, canals, and estuaries, are phosphorus and nitrogen. Both of these nutrients exist naturally in the environment, but both can be pollutants released by anthropogenic activities. Phosphorus occurs naturally in clayey geologic material and in ground water that is in contact with phosphatic material. The ground waterdata available for this assessment include dissolved phosphorus and dissolved orthophosphate. Orthophosphate is the soluble, inorganic form of phosphorus that is most typical of ground water and can be derived from natural geologic material, mineralized and released from peat and muck, or leached from inorganic fertilizers. Nitrogen also occurs naturally in both organic and inorganic forms, but elevated detections of inorganic nitrogen in ground water (nitrate, nitrite, and sometimes ammonia) are typically associated with pollutant sources such as inorganic fertilizers, animal waste, and human wastewater. Nitrate or nitrate+nitrite is associated with a pollutant source when present at elevated levels. Ammonia-nitrogen is not typically found at elevated concentrations in ground water except near a source (which could be anthropogenic or natural), particularly in poorly drained areas with a high water table. Sources of elevated ammonia can include fertilizers, livestock waste, and domestic wastewater, but they can also include decayed plant matter in an anaerobic environment, such as a swamp or marsh. According to Table 4.1 , median values for both planning units with data indicate that phosphorus concentrations in ground water are elevated, with medians for total orthophosphate in the sand and gravel aquifer 

# 76 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### ranging from 0.07 mg/L (in the Perdido River Planning Unit) to as high as 0.09 mg/L (in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit). The areal distribution ofthe wells with data available for this analysis is not ideal, with the majority of the wells being located in the southernmost portion of the basin. A
few wells are located at a landfi ll in clusters only several feet apart. Based on the available ground water data, it appears that the phosphorus in these
surface waterbodies could be attributed to its natural abundance in the aquifer media. It is also possible that phosphorus could be transported from agricultural or industrialized locations via ground water pathways, although phosphorus is not very mobile in ground water. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of orthophosphate in the basin’s sand and gravel aquifer. According to Table 4.1, ammonia-nitrogen in ground water is low compared with other basins in the state; however, nitrate (and nitrate+nitrite) values for the sand and gravel aquifer are somewhat elevated in the monitoring wells of the Perdido Bay Planning Unit. Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of nitrate in the sand and gravel aquifer

.
Dissolved Oxygen DO levels can be depressed in surface water systems because of nutrient

en richment and/or BOD. Low DO can also be attributed to poor water circulation caused by stream channelization or disruption in fl ows. In addition, ground water infl ows, where signifi cant, can lower DO levels in surface water systems. This may be more likely to occur during extended periods of drought, where the principal water source for a waterbody may be ground water. DO levels in ground water are always much lower than the surface water standard. Low DO (reducing conditions) could also correspond with mobile iron and phosphorus in the water column. Low DO is a natural condition in ground water and is documented as such in both planning units. The ground water medians in Table 4.1 are much lower than the typical medians for streams and estuarine waters (2.44 mg/L in the Perdido River Planning Unit); therefore, signifi cant inputs of ground water could depress DO levels in poorly mixed
surface waters.

Metals Early ground water sampling revealed detections of lead in several

a mbient ground water monitoring wells. The accuracy of these detections was considered to be suspect. Consequently, strategic sampling was carried out to verify the detections. The results from the latest round of sampling indicate that any concerns were unwarranted and that the elevated lead in the earlier sampling was an artifact of sampling technique.



### Evaluations by Planning Unit

This section summarizes, for each planning unit, ground water chemical characteristics that may be related to waterbodies on the draft Verifi edList, evaluates ground water fl ow, reviews pertinent geologic and soil information, and evaluates land use and anthropogenic sources. 

# 77 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 4.1: Orthophosphate Concentrations in Sand and Gravel Aquifer Monitoring Wells, Perdido River and Bay Basin 

# 78 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 4.2: Nitrate Concentrations in Sand and Gravel Aquifer Monitoring Wells, Perdido River and Bay Basin 

# 79 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Perdido Bay Planning Unit Elevenmile Creek (WBID 489) is listed as impaired for DO, BOD,
fe cal coliforms, and unionized ammonia. Marcus Creek (WBID 697) is listed for fecal coliforms. Upper Perdido Bay (WBID 797) is listed for nutrients. Tenmile Creek (WBID 489A) is listed for fecal coliforms. Ground water seepage from a localized source could be responsible for the DO impairments in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit. When low DO occurs but there are no obvious causative pollutants, it can be caused by ground water infl ows (particularly where the waterbody is poorly mixed). However, that cannot be determined without a more detailed evaluation. The nutrient-related issues that have been recorded in Upper Perdido Bay could include contributions of nutrients from ground water. Based on the available ground water data for the basin, the highest nitrate levels were found in this planning unit, and somewhat elevated orthophosphate levels occur in ground water throughout much of the basin. The elevated nitrate and/or orthophosphate levels could affect water quality in Upper Perdido Bay and its tributaries in the planning unit. According to a baseflow separation analysis, approximately 68 percent of the fl ow in Elevenmile Creek comes from ground water.

Perdido River Planning Unit The planning unit includes Brushy Creek (WBID 4), Rest Area Run ( WBID 542), and the Perdido River (WBID 462B). The most prominent ground water related issue is the impairment for fecal coliforms in Brushy Creek and the Perdido River. The very limited distribution of ground water samples in this area limits any defi nitive correlations between ground water quality and surface water quality. However, the ground water samples collected in the planning unit appear to indicate background conditions, showing limited (if any) impact from land use.



### Recommendations

As is the case elsewhere in the state, ground water seepage provides water to the streams, canals, and coastal waterbodies of the basin and can
infl uence surface water quality. Phosphorus and nitrate are elevated in the sand and gravel aquifer in some areas of the basin and could affect surface water quality to varying extents via ground water infl ows. The following recommendations apply to ground water as a contributing factor to surface waters listed as impaired in the basin:

• Where there are suffi cient data, ground water related phosphorus inputs as well as potential nitrate inputs should be considered in total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) developed for DO-listed surface waters, particularly in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit.

• Ground water contributions of low DO may be further evaluated for

waterbodies that have been listed as potentially impaired because of
low DO but have no identifi ed causative pollutant. 

# 80 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

# Chapter 5: The Verified List of Impaired Waters

Public Participation

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has worked with a variety of stakeholders and held public meetings on developing and adopting the Verifi ed Lists of impaired waters for the fi ve Group 5 basins across the state. Table 5.1 lists the statewide schedule for the development and adoption of the Group 5 Verifi ed Lists, including thepublic meetings. The schedule for the Perdido River and Bay Basin is highlighted in boldface type. Appendix H contains documentation provided during the public comment period. Basin-specifi c draft Verifi ed Lists of waters that met the requirements of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) were made available to the public. The lists were placed on the Department’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program Web site, at http://www.dep.state.fl .us/water/tmdl, and were also sent on request to interested parties by mail or e-mail. Citizens were given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists in person and/or in writing. Public meetings were held across the state to encourage public participation on a basin-by-basin basis. The Department also accepted written comments for 45 days. Following the public meetings for the Group 5 basins, revised draftlists were made available to the public, who had the opportunity to comment on these revised lists either in writing and/or at a fi nal public meeting in Tallahassee. Comments on any of the lists were accepted and considered throughout the full comment period. The fi nal basin-specifi c Verifi ed Listsdeveloped through the public participation process are adopted by Secretarial Order, and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the state’s current 303(d) list of impaired waters.

Table 5.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 5 Perdido River and Bay Verified List

Date Scheduled Activity

July 19, 2006 Publication of Draft Verified Lists for the Perdido, Upper East Coast, and Indian River Lagoon Basins and Beginning of Public Comment Period

August 2, 2006 Public Meeting in Pensacola on the Perdido River and Bay Basin Draft Verified List

October 3, 2007 Public Meeting in Tallahassee on Revised Draft Verified Lists for All Basins, and Public Comments and Input from Prior Public Meetings

October 4, 2007 Public Meeting in Orlando on Revised Draft Verified Lists for All Basins, and Public Comments and Input from Prior Public Meetings

October 22, 2007 Final Deadline for Receiving Public Comments for All Basins

December 12, 2007 Adoption of Verified List by Secretarial Order and Submittal to EPA as State’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters 

# 81 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Identification of Impaired Waters

As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on the Verifi ed and Planning Lists must meet specifi c thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality requirements in the IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background for the development of the Planning and Verifi ed Lists. Appendix D contains a methodology that describes the criteria and thresholds required for both
lists under the IWR. Any waters that do not have sufficient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR will remain on the 1998 303(d) list of impaired waters maintained by the EPA. These waters are not delisted, and they will be sampled during the next phases of the watershed management cycle so that their impairment status can be verifi ed.



### Documentation of Reasonable Assurance

Under the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, the Department will not place impaired waters on the Verifi ed List if reasonable assurance is provided that these waters will attain water quality standards in the futureand will make reasonable progress towards attaining water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is scheduled to be submitted to the EPA. Reasonable assurance can be provided if existing or proposed technology-based effl uent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards. Examples include Surface Water Improvement and Management Program restoration projects that provide ongoing monitoring, and permitted facilities that upgrade to advanced treatment or remove discharges to surface waters. Table 5.2 lists the major elements of reasonable assurance, and Appendix C provides additional
information.



### The Verified List of Impaired Waters

Table 5.3 contains the Verifi ed List of impaired waters for the Perdido River and Bay Basin, based on the water quality assessment performed using IWR Run 29z_2, as of September 10, 2007. Figure 5.1 shows
waters on the Verifi ed List for the entire basin as of September 21, 2007, and the projected year for TMDL development. For presentation purposes, the entire watershed for the listed water is highlighted. However, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has been assessed, and other waters in the watershed may not be impaired.
Table E.1 in Appendix E contains the Master List of all assessed waters in the basin as of September 21, 2007. During Phase 2 of the basin management cycle, draft Verifi ed Lists for all fi ve Group 5 basins go out to the public in the summer. Following a series of public meetings and an extended period for public comment, the Department’s Secretary 

# 82 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 5.2: Elements of Reasonable Assurance

Descriptive
• 303(d) listed waterbody
• Water quality standards being violated or other criteria not met

• Pollutant(s) of concern
• Designated use classification
• Length (mi) or area (acres) of impairment or potential impairment
• Watershed/eight-digit cataloging unit code

• EPA Reach File Number
• Description of waterbody and watershed location
• Suspected or documented source(s) of impairment
Management Strategy
• Responsible entity
• Participating entities (government, agency, private, others)
• Summary of management strategy
• Supporting document(s)
• Pollutant(s) reduction goals/targets
• Assurance of participation (such as written agreements)
• Strategy for future growth and new sources
• Funding sources
• Implementation schedule
• Enforcement program if management strategy is not voluntary

Monitoring and Reporting Results
• Water quality monitoring program design and brief description
• Quality assurance/quality control elements
• Supporting document(s)
• Monitoring of implementation
• Reporting of monitoring and implementation results
• Expected response (time frame and degree of improvement)
• Responsible entity for reporting
• Frequency of reporting results
• Evaluating progress towards goals (water quality and implementation)
Corrective Actions/Strategy (if water quality does not improve after implementation)
• Description of strategy
• Supporting document(s)



### generally adopts the Verifi ed List for each basin in the summer and fall. Subsequently, errors and omissions to the list are corrected, and the Secretary signs an order amending the Verifi ed List. Each order is offi cially
noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly ; this initiates a 21-day period
to fi le a petition challenging the order and a 30-day period to appeal
the order. 

# 83 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 5.3: The Verified List of Impaired Waters for the Perdido River and Bay Basin

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Waterbody
Class 1 1998 303(d)
Parameters
of Concern Parameters Assessed Using the Impaired
Waters Rule Priority
for TMDL Development 2 Projected
Year for TMDL Development 2 Comments (# of Exceedances/ # of Samples) 3

489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF DO (mg/L) DO High 2007 Planning period: 74/152; verified period: 74/170. DO
met verification threshold of the IWR; TN, TP, and BODare the causative pollutants. 147 TN values, with a median of 4.5 mg/L. 148 TP values, with a median of 0.34 mg/L. 62 BOD values, with a median of 8.8 mg/L. Dr. Livingston DO data, (<4.0 mg/L). Planning period: 104/275; verified period: 56/141 (<5.0 mg/L). Planning period: 170/275; verified period: 87/141.

489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF BOD 5-Day (mg/L) DO High 2007 Verified period: 62 BOD values, with a median of 8.8 mg/L. Dr. Livingston data: Planning period: 250 BOD
values with a median of 6.73 mg/L; verified period: 148
BOD values with a median 6.45 mg/L.

489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal
Coliforms High 2007 Planning period: 55/184; verified period: 23/131.

489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF Unionized
Ammonia Low 2012 Planning period: 75/133; verified period: 72/121.

697 Marcus
Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal
Coliforms Low 2011 Planning period: 34/107; verified period: 17/97.

797 Upper
Perdido Bay Estuary IIIM Nutrients Nutrients Low 2012 Planning period: Chlorophyll a annual means = 12.83 (1994), 7.7 (1998), 7.310 (1999), 8.316 (2000), 7.449 (2001), 7.887 (2002), and 6.41 μg/L (2003). One Chlorophyll a annual meanexceeded 11 μg/L; verified period: Chlorophyll a annual means = 7.310 (1999), 8.316 (2000), 7.887 (2002), 6.41 (2003), 11.87 (2004), and 7.621 μg/L (2005). Colimited based on median TN/TP ratio of 16.35, using 35 values. 

# 84 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 5.3 (continued)

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Waterbody
Class 1 1998 303(d)
Parameters
of Concern Parameters Assessed Using the Impaired
Waters Rule Priority
for TMDL Development 2 Projected
Year for TMDL Development 2 Comments (# of Exceedances/ # of Samples) 3

489A Tenmile
Creek Stream IIIF Fecal
Coliforms High 2007 Planning period: 9/33; verified period: 6/25. This is a newly verified impairment, but because it adjoins WBID 489 (on the 1998 303(d) list for Fecal Coliforms) it has been assigned a higher priority.

4 Brushy
Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal
Coliforms Low 2011 Planning period: 33/143; verified period: 30/137.

542 Rest Area
Run Stream IIIF Turbidity Low 2012 A natural background turbidity of 24.2 NTUs was
assumed based on the lower 20th percentile of 36 turbidity measurements taken during the planning and verified periods. The threshold of impairment
becomes 53.2 NTUs. Planning period: 11/17; verified period: 16/19.

2F Perdido
River Stream IIIF Mercury
in Fish Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5 years. In 2004, 22 largemouth bass had an
average mercury concentration of 0.64 mg/kg.

462A-C Perdido
River Estuary IIIM Mercury (Based on
Fish Consumption) Mercury
in Fish Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5 years. In 2004, 22 largemouth bass had an
average mercury concentration of 0.64 mg/kg.

462B Perdido
River Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal
Coliforms Low 2011 Planning period: 6/74; verified period: 10/61.

72,
72D-F Direct
Runoff to
Stream Stream IIIF Mercury
in Fish Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5 years. In 2004, 22 largemouth bass had

an average mercury concentration of 0.64 mg/kg. This includes the following WBIDs 72, 72D, 72E, and
72F. 

# 85 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Waterbody
Class 1 1998 303(d)
Parameters
of Concern Parameters Assessed Using the Impaired
Waters Rule Priority
for TMDL Development 2 Projected
Year for TMDL Development 2 Comments (# of Exceedances/ # of Samples) 3

8999 Gulf Coast Coastal/ Estuary IIIM Mercury
in Fish Low 2011 Data verified to be withinthe last 7.5 years. Confirmed recent data for coastal fish advisory for king
mackerel and bull shark. This includes the following WBIDs 797, 797A, 872, 945, 991, 974, 987, 1004, 1014, 1018, 8001, 8001A, 8001B,
and 8001C.

Notes:

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

2 Priority and schedule reflect the priority established for the WBID in the 1998 303(d) list. Where a parameter was 1998 303(d) listed, the priority shown in the 1998 303(d) list was retained if it was originally high, or changed to medium if it was origi nally low. In the case of mercury in fish, the priority remains low. Where a parameter was only identified as impaired under the IW R, priorities of high, medium, or low were used.

3 Planning period = January 1, 1994, through December 31, 2003; Verified period = January 1, 1999, through June 30, 2006.

BOD = Biological oxygen demand DO = Dissolved oxygen IWR = Impaired Surface Waters Rule mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram mg/L = Milligrams per liter NTU = Nephelometric turbidity units TN = Total nitrogen TP = Total phosphorus WBID = Waterbody identification number μg/L = Micrograms per liter Table 5.3 (continued)



### Pollutants Causing Impairments Of the 72 waterbody segments in the Perdido River and Bay Basin,

2 7 waterbody identifi cation numbers are impaired for at least 1 parameter, and a TMDL is required for these waters. There are a total of 32 parameter listings for verifi ed impairment following the methodology in Appendix D

.The Perdido Bay Planning Unit has the largest number of impaired parameter listings with 17, followed by the Perdido River Planning Unit with 10 listings. Table 5.4 summarizes the major parameters for which potential impairments were identifi ed. Table 5.4 shows that dissolved oxygen (DO) levels exceeding criteria are a potential cause of impairment in 10 waterbody segments in this basin. As previously mentioned, low DO levels are often natural and not always attributable to pollutants. For this reason, additional work will be 

# 86 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 5.1: Waters on the Verified List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development 

# 87 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 5.4: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Perdido River and Bay Basin

Parameter Potential Waterbody Segment Impairments

Included Only on the

1998 303(d) List Identified Only by the
IWR Evaluation Identified on Both the 1998 303(d) List and by the
IWR Evaluation Total Potential Impairments

Dissolved Oxygen 0 3 3 6

Nutrients (General, Chlorophyll a, Other Data) 0 0 00

Coliforms (General, Total, Fecal) 0 1 1 2

Biology 8 8

Conductance 0 0 0 0

Suspended Solids/Turbidity 0 1 1 2

Fish Advisory 1 0 1 01

1 Fish consumption advisory issued by the Florida Department of Health based on mercury.



### conducted to differentiate between pollutant-related and other causes of
low DO before the Verifi ed List for the basin is developed. Eight streams were listed because of biological impairment measured
as at least one failed bioassessment. To be listed on the Verifi ed List, thestream must fail a second bioassessment. Additionally, a causative pollutant for the biological impairment must be determined before the water is
verifi ed impaired. Bacteria are another common source of impairment in streams. Nine
streams were identifi ed for exceedances of bacteriological criteria, either fecal or total coliform or both. The distribution of bacterially impaired waters was split evenly between 1998 303(d) listed waters, IWR evaluation,
and both. Perdido Bay, Elevenmile Creek, and part of the Perdido River are listed as potentially impaired because either they were on the 1998 303(d) or, in the case of Perdido Bay, the average chlorophyll a level exceeds the 11 micrograms per liter threshold of impairment.All coastal nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico are listed as potentially impaired because of a fi sh consumption advisory for several marine
fi sh species. The concentration of mercury in fi sh exceeds the health threshold of 0.5 milligrams.As required by the IWR, the Department must identify the pollutants causing or contributing to DO exceedances in order to place DO on
the Verifi ed List. If a water segment is on the Verifi ed List for both DO and nutrients, nutrients are identifi ed as a pollutant contributing to DOexceedances. The Department also applies the following analysis to identify the pollutant(s) contributing to DO exceedances: 

# 88 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### 1. The waterbody segment median values for biological oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP)
are determined for the verifi ed period (i.e., January 1, 1999, to June 30, 2006).
2. The median values are then compared with the screening levels for the appropriate waterbody type. The screening levels represent the 70th percentile value of data collected from streams, lakes, or

estuaries (Table 5.5)

. 3. If a waterbody segment’s median value exceeds the screening level, the parameter is identifi ed as a pollutant contributing to the
exceedances.

Table 5.5: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on STORET Data, 1970–87

Waterbody Type BOD (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L)

Streams 2.0 1.6 0.22

Lakes 2.9 1.7 0.11

Estuaries 2.1 1.0 0.19

Source: Friedemann and Hand, 1989.



### Table 5.6 provides the median values for waterbody segments where
there is a suffi cient number of DO exceedances to place the water on the
Verifi ed List. If a waterbody has a suffi cient number of exceedances for placement on the Verifi ed List but the median values are less than the screening levels, the DO for that segment is included on the Planning List.

Table 5.6: Perdido River and Bay Basin Median Values for the Verified Period

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type BOD 5-Day (mg/L) Total Nitrogen

(mg/L) Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

291 Jacks Branch Stream 0.7 0.73 0.02

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 8.8 4.5 0.34

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 0.8 0.385 0.02

697 Marcus Creek Stream 0.6 0.665 0.018

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 0.7 0.54 0.0145

987 Bayou Garcon Estuary 1 0.735 0.013



### Additionally, to place a waterbody segment on the Verifi ed List for nutrients, the Department must identify the limiting nutrient or nutrients on the Verifi ed List, as required by the IWR. The following method is used to identify the limiting nutrient(s) in streams and lakes:

1. The ratios of TN to TP are calculated for each paired value of TN and TP (per sampling event) collected during the verifi ed period. 

# 89 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### 2. The individual ratios over the entire verifi ed period are evaluated to determine the limiting nutrient(s). If all the sampling event ratios are less than 10, nitrogen is identifi ed as the limiting nutrient, and if all the ratios are greater than 30, phosphorus is identifi ed as the limiting nutrient. Both nitrogen and phosphorus are identifi ed as limiting nutrients if the ratios are between 10 and 30.

Table 5.7 displays the nitrogen to phosphorus ratios for an estuary segment potentially impaired by nutrients.

Table 5.7: Perdido River and Bay Basin Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratios for the Verified Period

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Total Nitrogen Median (mg/L) Total Phosphorus Median (mg/L) Nitrogen to Phosphorus
Ratio Median Nitrogen to Phosphorus
Ratio Minimum Nitrogen to Phosphorus
Ratio Maximum

797 Upper Perdido Bay Estuary 0.592 0.042 16.346 7.586 37.5



### Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters

The Verifi ed List must be submitted in a specifi c format (Section 62-303.710, F.A.C.) before being approved by order of the Department’s Secretary. The list must specify the pollutant and concentration causingthe impairment. If a waterbody segment is listed based on water quality criteria exceedances, then the list must provide the applicable criteria. However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met,
the Verifi ed List is required to specify the concentration of the pollutant relative to the water quality criteria and explain why the numeric criterion is not adequate. For waters with exceedances of the DO criteria, the Department must identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list both the pollutant and DO in the Verifi ed List.For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department is required to identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting nutrients, and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the Verifi ed List.
The Verifi ed List must also include the priority and schedule for TMDL development established for a waterbody segment and note any waters that are being removed from the current Planning List. In future watershed management cycles, the list must also note waters that are being removed from any previous Verifi ed List for the basin. 

# 90 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

# Chapter 6: TMDL Development, Allocation, and Implementation

Prioritization of Listed Waters

Following the identifi cation of impaired waters on the 303(d) list, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) determines priorities for developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) in Phase 3 of the watershed management cycle. When TMDLs are established, general allocations of pollutant load reductions are identifi ed, at least to the level of point and nonpoint source categories. Because TMDLs cannot be developed for all listed waters during a single watershed management cycle, waterbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Section 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code). The rule states that when establishing the TMDL development schedule for waters on the Verifi edList, the Department will prioritize impaired waterbody segments according to the severity of the impairment and each waterbody’s designated uses, taking into account the most serious water quality problems, the most valuable and threatened resources, and the risk to human health and aquatic life. Under the IWR, the determination of high-, low-, and medium- priority waters is based on the following criteria.

High-priority waters:

• Waterbody segments where the impairment poses a threat to potable

water supplies or human health;
• Waterbody segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant

regulated by the Clean Water Act and the pollutant has contributedto the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endangered species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the species;

or • Waterbody segments verifi ed as impaired that are included on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 1998 303(d) list as high priority.

Low-priority waters:

• Waterbody segments that are listed before 2010 because of fi sh consumption advisories for mercury (due to the current insuffi cient understanding of how mercury cycles in the environment); 

# 91 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### • Canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artifi cial waterbody segments that are listed only due to exceedances of dissolved oxygen
criteria; or
• Waterbody segments that were not on the Planning List but were

identifi ed as impaired during Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle and were included on the Verifi ed List, unless the segment meets the second high-priority criterion.
• The EPA has also proposed assigning to this category the list of additional waterbody segments that the agency developed using its ownevaluation methodology, until the Department has had the opportunity to investigate these waterbodies further.

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

• The presence of Outstanding Florida Waters;
• The presence of waterbody segments that fail to meet more than one

designated use, i.e., aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, fi sh
and shellfi sh consumption, drinking water, and the protection of human health;
• The presence of waterbody segments that exceed an applicable water

quality criterion or alternative threshold with a frequency of greater than 25 percent at a minimum confi dence level of 90 percent;
• The presence of waterbody segments that exceed more than one

applicable water quality criterion; or
• Administrative needs of the TMDL Program, including meeting a

TMDL development schedule agreed to with the EPA, basin priorities related to the Department’s watershed management approach, and the number of administratively continued permits in the basin.

The Department is adhering to the TMDL schedule established in the Consent Decree between the EPA and Earthjustice for waters on the 1998 303(d) list that are also identifi ed as impaired under the IWR.
Table 6.1 lists the high-priority waters for TMDL development in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. Completion of these TMDLs is required by September 30, 2008. Figure 6.1 shows the locations of these waters and their watersheds. The three waters listed in the table were also high priorities on the 1998 303(d) list.



### Total Maximum Daily Load Development

During Phase 3 of the watershed management cycle, TMDLs will be developed for both point and nonpoint sources of pollutants in impaired waterbodies and will be adopted by rule at the end of this phase. TMDL development involves determining the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the applicable 

# 92 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable 6.1: Priorities for TMDL Development in the Perdido River and Bay Basin

Planning

Unit WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody Type Waterbody
Class 1 Parameters

Included on

the 1998 303(d) List Parameters Assessed Using the Impaired

Waters Rule Priority
for TMDLDevelopment 2 Projected
Year for

TMDLDevelopment 2 Comments (# of Exceedances/ # of Samples) 3

Perdido Bay 489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF DO (mg/L) DO High 2007 Planning period: 74/152; verified period: 74/170. DO met
verification threshold of the IWR; TN, TP, and BOD are the causative pollutants. 147 TN values, with a median of 4.5 mg/L. 148 TP values, with a median of 0.34 mg/L. 62 BOD values, with a median of 8.8 mg/L. Dr. Livingston DO data, (<4.0 mg/L). Planning period: 104/275; verified period: 56/141 (<5.0 mg/L). Planning period: 170/275; verified period: 87/141.

Perdido Bay 489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF BOD 5-Day (mg/L) DO High 2007 Verified period: 62 BOD values, with a median of 8.8 mg/L. Dr. Livingston data. Planning period: 250 BOD
values with a median of 6.73 mg/L; verified period: 148

BOD values with a median 6.45 mg/L.

Perdido Bay 489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal
Coliforms High 2007 Planning period: 55/184; verified period: 23/131.

Perdido Bay 489 Elevenmile
Creek Stream IIIF Unionized

Ammonia Low 2012 Planning period: 75/133; verified period: 72/121.

Perdido Bay 697 Marcus
Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms Fecal
Coliforms Low 2011 Planning period: 34/107; verified period: 17/97.

Perdido Bay 797 Upper

Perdido Bay Estuary IIIM Nutrients Nutrients Low 2012 Planning period: Chlorophyll a annual means = 12.83 (1994), 7.7 (1998), 7.310 (1999), 8.316 (2000), 7.449 (2001), 7.887 (2002), and 6.41 μg/L (2003). One Chlorophyll a annual mean exceeded 11 μg/L; verified period: Chlorophyll a annual means = 7.310 (1999), 8.316 (2000), 7.887 (2002), 6.41 (2003), 11.87 (2004), and 7.621 μg/L (2005). Colimited based on median TN/TP ratio of 16.35, using 35 values.

Perdido Bay 489A Tenmile
Creek Stream IIIF Fecal
Coliforms High 2007 Planning period: 9/33; verified period: 6/25. This is a newly verified impairment, but because it adjoins WBID 489 (on the 1998 303(d) list for Fecal Coliforms) it has been assigned a higher priority.

BOD = Biological oxygen demand DO = Dissolved oxygen IWR = Impaired Surface Waters Rule mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram mg/L = Milligrams per liter NTU = Nephelometric turbidity units TN = Total nitrogen TP = Total phosphorus WBID = Waterbody identifi cation number μg/L = Micrograms per liter 

# 93 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure 6.1: Perdido River and Bay Basin Priority TMDL Priority Watersheds for 2006 

# 94 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### numeric or narrative water quality criterion for the pollutant. In mostcases, this “assimilative” capacity will be determined using computer modeling (both hydrodynamic and water quality models) that predicts the fateand transport of pollutants in the receiving waters. Modeling for the typical TMDL will include model setup, calibration, and verifi cation, f ollowed by a variety of model runs that determine the assimilative capacity of the
water under worst-case conditions. State law and federal regulations require that TMDLs include a margin of safety (MOS) that takes into account “any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effl uent limitations and water quality” (Section303[d][1][C], Clean Water Act). The EPA has allowed states to establish either a specifi c MOS (typically some percentage of the assimilative capacity) or an implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the modeling. To date, the Department has elected to establish an implicitMOS based on predictive model runs that incorporate a variety of conservative assumptions. (They examine worst-case ambient fl ow conditions and worst-case temperature, and assume that all permitted point sources discharge at their maximum permitted amount.) It is important to note that TMDLs will be developed only for the actual pollutants causing the impairment in the listed waterbody. These are called the “pollutants of concern.” In Florida, the most commonlylisted pollutants of concern are nutrients, sediments, and coliform bacteria. TMDLs will not be developed for impairments not due to pollutant discharges—for example, natural conditions, physical alterations such as dams and channelization, or changes in the fl ow of water. In other cases, a waterbody may be deemed potentially impaired based on bioassessment data or toxicity data. In these cases, the Department must determine the actual pollutant causing the impairment before a TMDL can be developed.



### Total Maximum Daily Load Allocation and Implementation

Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) requires that a

T MDL include the “establishment of reasonable and equitable allocations . . . among point and nonpoint sources . . . .” The Department refers to this as the “initial allocation,” which is adopted by rule. For the purposes of allocating the required pollutant loadings, the term “point sources” primarily includes traditional sources such as domestic and industrial wastewater discharges. Recent EPA guidance requires states to include as point sources those stormwater systems that are covered by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit. However, NPDES- permitted stormwater discharges are not subject to the same types of effluent limitations, cannot be centrally collected and treated, and typically have not invested in treatment controls to the same degree as traditional point sources. Nonpoint sources include intermittent, rainfall-driven, diffuse sources of pollutants associated with everyday human activities, including 

# 95 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### runoff from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, and mining; discharges from failing septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. These point and nonpoint defi nitions do not directly relate to whether a source is regulated. Some nonpoint sources such as stormwater systems are permitted under the regulatory programs of the Department or watermanagement districts, while others, such as agricultural stormwater discharges, are not. This distinction is important because the implementation of the allocations to nonpoint sources outside the authority of regulatory programs will require cooperation from dischargers to implement best management practices (BMPs) voluntarily. While a detailed allocation will ultimately be necessary to implementa TMDL fully, a key goal of the initial allocation is to assign responsibility for pollutant load reductions between point and nonpoint sources. For point sources, allocations will be implemented through the Department’sNPDES wastewater and stormwater permitting programs. The implementation of nonpoint source load reductions will be done through a combination of regulatory and nonregulatory processes. Initial allocations of pollutant loadings will also be made to historical sources (e.g., the phosphorus-laden sediments at the bottom of a lake) and upstream sources (those entering into an impaired waterbody). Upstream sources include sources outside Florida, and these sources will receive
reduced allocations similar to in-state sources. The FWRA provided direction for the allocation of TMDLs and directed the Department to provide guidance on the allocation process byestablishing an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC), consisting of representatives of key stakeholder groups. The committee recommended a three-step process for developing initial allocations and addressed detailed allocations for nonpoint sources, stakeholder involvement, the use of BMPs, and other TMDL implementation issues (Department, 2001).

Implementation Programs and ApproachesThe FWRA designates the Department as the lead agency in coordin ating the implementation of TMDLs. Existing programs and approaches through which TMDLs may be carried out include the following:

• Permitting and other existing regulatory programs, such as NPDES

permits, domestic and industrial wastewater permits, and stormwater/Environmental Resource Permits. ( Table 6.2 lists the industrial NPDES stormwater permittees in the Perdido River and Bay Basin).

• Local land development codes;
• Nonregulatory and incentive-based programs, including BMPs, cost

sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land use design and development, and public education;
• Basin Management Action Plans (B-MAPs) developed under the

FWRA; 

# 96 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### • Other water quality management and restoration activities, for example, Surface Water Improvement and Management plans approved under Section 373.453, Florida Statutes;
• Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based agreements;
• Public works, including capital facilities; or

• Land acquisition.

These programs and approaches will be carried out at local, regional, state, and possibly federal levels. TMDL implementation will require extensive stakeholder involvement throughout the state and, in some cases,
between Florida and other states. Appendix A provides additional details on the implementation programs and approaches listed here. Escambia County was granted a municipal separate storm sewer system permit under Phase 1 of the federal program as a copermittee with the cityof Pensacola, town of Century, and Florida Department of Transportation. The permit was renewed in May 2004 for another fi ve-year period (Escambia County Engineering Department Web site). Industrial NPDES stormwater permits are listed in Table 6.2

.

Table 6.2: Industrial NPDES Stormwater Permittees in the Perdido River and Bay Basin

WBID Facility ID # NPDES ID # Facility

489 FLA416274 FLA416274 Zachary Co Septage Receiving &
Process

489 FLA017366 FLA017366 Escambia County North Rd Camp

489 FLA016166 FLA016166 Evergreen Transportation

489 FL0002526 FL0002526 International Paper Company

407 FLA183881 FLA183881 Pensacola Tractor & Equipment, Inc

290 FLA303755 FLA303755 Molino-Barrineau K–8 School

991 FLA010058 FLA010058 Innerarity Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant

697 FL0031801 FL0031801 Bayou Marcus Water Reclamation Facility

624 FLA184551 FLA184551 McDirt Industries

624 FLA016675 FLA016675 Clark Sand Company–East Fence

697 FLA016910 FLA016910 Greens Fill Dirt–Blossom Trail Mine

725 FLA185094 FLA185094 Nations Rent

725 FLA016856 FLA016856 Clark Site Contractors

697 FL0184624 FL0184624 Clark–Sand & Dirt–Rolling Hills Pit

697 FLA010053 FLA010053 Cowin Equipment Company, Inc

624 FLG912517 FLG912517 Exprezit! #740

624 FLA016534 FLA016534 Outpost Equipment Rental 

# 97 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Development of Basin Management Action Plans

The FWRA authorizes the Department to develop B-MAPs for implementing TMDLs. These plans will be developed with extensive stakeholder input to build consensus on detailed allocations based on the initial general allocations to categories of discharges.
The B-MAPs will contain fi nal allocations, strategies for meeting the allocations, schedules for implementation, funding mechanisms, applicablelocal ordinances, and other elements. In cases where stakeholder consensus could not be reached on detailed allocations and/or a B-MAP within a reasonable time, the Department will develop the allocations. Once a B-MAP is developed, the Department will make it available for public review and comment. Guidance for the content and format of the B-MAPs is being developed; the plans are likely to include a description of both regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to meeting specifi c TMDLs. 

# 98 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### References

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. January 20,
2006. Forever wild program acquisitions . Available: http://www.dcnr .state.al.us/public-lands/stateLands/foreverWild. Alabama Water Watch. January 2002. Citizen volunteer water quality monitoring on Alabama’s coast: Wolf Bay (B. Deutsch, Ed.). Alabama
Water Watch Coastal Series. Albrecht, B. November 17, 2006. GCPEP partnering for a better future. PowerPoint presentation. The Nature Conservancy. Bass, G., T. Hoehn, J. Couch, and K. McDonald. November 16, 2004. Florida imperiled fi sh species investigation. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Holt, Florida: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Blackwater Fisheries Research and Development Center.
Brim, M. 1993. Toxics characterization report for Perdido Bay, Alabama,
and Florida. Publication Number PCFO-EC-93-04. Panama City, Florida: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Offi ce. Copeland, R., S. Upchurch, K. Summers, A. Janicki, P. Hansard, M. Paulic, G. Maddox, J. Silvanima, and P. Craig. 1999. Overview of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s integrated water resource monitoring efforts and the design plan of the status network. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Ambient Monitoring Section. Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat conservation system. Tallahassee, Florida:
Offi ce of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission. Escambia County. November 28, 2005

. How your penny works: What your local options sales tax “can do.” Local Option Sales Tax Facts 4, November 28, 2005. Available: http://www.myescambia.com/ departments/public_info_commun/documents/ WhatisLOST_000.pdf. Escambia County Engineering Department Web site. Available: http:// www.myescambia.com/departments/engineering/Engineering.php. Evans, W. October 26, 2007. Personal Communication. Professional engineer, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Federal Clean Water Act. Section 303(d). Fernald, E. A., and E. D. Purdum (Eds.). 1998. Water resources atlas of
Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, Institute of
Science and Public Affairs.
Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-302. Surface water quality
standards.
—. Rule 62-303. Identifi cation of impaired surface waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. February 1, 2001a. Areport to the governor and the legislature on the allocation of total maximum daily loads in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Watershed Management, Division of Water Resource Management. 

# 99 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### —. December 2001b. Seagrass management plan for Big Lagoon and Santa
Rosa Sound. Ecosystem Restoration Section, Northwest District. —. November 12, 2003. Perdido pitcher plant prairie parcel acquired

. Press Release. —. 2005a. Lower Perdido River buffer. 2005 interim report of the Florida Forever Program, pp. 293–295. Prepared for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the state of Florida. Division
of State Lands. —. April 12, 2005b. Intent to issue permit noticed by Northwest District

. —. January 5, 2006a. Beulah landfi ll. Available: http://www.fl oridadep .com/waste/quick_topics/publications/wc/sites/summary/082.pdf. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management. —. January 5, 2006b. Pioneer Sand Company. Available: http://
www.fl oridadep.com/waste/quick_topics/publications/wc/sites/ summary/025.pdf. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management. —. January 5, 2006c. Dubose Oil Products . Available: http://
www. fl oridadep.com/waste/quick_topics/publications/wc/sites/ summary/011.pdf. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management. —. September 10, 2007 . Impaired surface waters rule database Run 29z.2. —. October 26, 2007. Maucher property. Available: http://www
. fl

oridadep.com/waste/quick_topics/publications/wc/sites/ summary/135.pdf . Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management. Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Alabama Coastal
Foundation. October 2000. Volunteer monitoring in the Perdido Bay

. Funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Florida Department of Health. 2005. Your guide to eating fi sh caught in
Florida . Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission. Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Perdido River. Florida

rivers assessment. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. January 25, 2005a. Florida forever board of trustees projects GIS layer. —. December 2005b. Element occurrence 2006 GIS layer. Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources. February 1990. Guide to the natural communities of
Florida.
Florida Watershed Restoration Act. 1999. Chapter 99-223, Laws of
Florida. Friedemann, F., and J. Hand. July 1989. Typical water quality values for Florida’s lakes, streams, and estuaries. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 

# 100 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### GECI and Associates, Inc. Survey conducted between October 22 and December 15, 2004. Final report: Public involvement study of north 1⁄2 southwest side drainage basin study. Prepared for Escambia County Engineering Department

. Gilbert, T., and B. Stys. March 17, 2004. Descriptions of vegetation and land cover types mapped using Landsat imagery . Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission. Grubbs, J. W., and J. R. Pittman. 1997. Application of acoustical methods for estimating water flow and constituent loads in Perdido Bay, Florida. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4101. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership. 2006. Fire learning network participating landscape fourth (final) progress report.
Gulf Islands National Seashore–Florida District. Downloaded February 20, 2006a. Shorebird nesting. Available: http://www.nps .gov/guis/extended/FLA/Nature/birdnest.ht m

. —. Downloaded February 20, 2006b. Other beach and dune dwellers.
Available: http://www.nps.gov/archive/guis/gothabitat/dwellers.ht m

. —. Downloaded February 20, 2006c. Marine turtles. Available: http://www.nps.gov/guis/extended/FLA/Nature/Turtle.ht m

. Gulf of Mexico Program Habitat Team. 2004. Seagrass habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Degradation, conservation and restoration of a
valuable resource . Publication Number 855-R-04-001. U.S. Geological Survey and the Gulf of Mexico Program. Harrington, D. J. 2003. Data quality assurance and statistical analysis proto

cols for the status network. Ground Water Protection Section Technical Document No. 2003-103. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. Harrington, D. J., J. E. McNeal, and R. W. Hicks. 2004. Integrating ground water into watershed management. Ground Water Protection Section Technical Document 2004-101 (in press). Tallahassee, Florida. Hatch Mott MacDonald. January 2004. LOST—Funding for stormwater management flooding and water quality enhancement program, Escambia County, Florida . Prepared for the Escambia County Engineering Department. Kirschenfeld, T., and B. DeBusk. February 20, 2006. Personal Communi

cation. Perdido Bay monitoring and assessment study . Escambia County Engineering Department. Kirschenfeld, T., R. K. Turpin, and L. Handley. February 20, 2006.
Personal Communication. Perdido Bay

. Maddox, G. L., J. M. Lloyd, T. M. Scott, S. B. Upchurch, and R. Cope

land (Eds.). 1992. Florida ground water quality monitoring program–
volume 2: Background hydrogeochemistry. Florida Geological Survey, Special Publication No. 34. Miller, J. A. 1997. Hydrogeology of Florida. In A. F. Randazzo and

D. S. Jones (Eds.), Geology of Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: University
Press of Florida. 

# 101 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Miller, L. July 1998. Perdido ecosystem management strategies . Preparedfor the Perdido Ecosystem Restoration Group and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Support provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Nordlie, F. 1991. Chapter 12: Rivers and Springs. In R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel (Eds.), Ecosystems of Florida , 398-401. Orlando, Florida: University of Central Florida Press. Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2003. Water supply projections. 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, Florida: Ambient Monitoring Section, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Perdido Bay Cooperative Management Program. June 1995. Perdido Basin management strategies report. Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Near Coastal Waters Program. Pratt, T., C. Richards, and K. Milla. 1997. Wellhead protection area delineation in Southern Escambia County, Florida. Water Resources Special Report 97-4. Havana, Florida: Northwest Florida Water Management District. Pratt, T., C. Richards, K. Milla, J. Wagner, J. Johnson, and R. Curry.
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. September 1998. Results of the Milton T-Field aquifer test sand-and-gravel aquifer, Santa Rosa County, Florida. Northwest Florida Water Management District. Rumenik, R. 1988. Runoff to streams in Florida. Map Series 122. Prepared by U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and 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. June 1998. District water supply assessment, Northwest Florida Water Management District. Water
Resources Assessment 98-2. Schropp, S., F. Calder, G. Sloane, K. Swanson, J. Carlton, G. Holcomb, H. Windom, F. Huan, T. Hull, and B. Taylor. January 25, 1991. A report on physical and chemical processes affecting the management of Perdido Bay, results of the Perdido Bay interstate project . A cooperative project between the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. South Alabama Regional Planning Commission. April 1993. Draft Baldwin County long range development and management plan. Stys, B., R. Kautz, D. Reed, M. Keris, R. Kawula, C. Keller, and A. Davis. March 17, 2004. Florida vegetation and land cover data derived from 2003 Landsat ETM+ imagery . Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

# 102 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Timber Mart—South Market Newsletter. Fourth Quarter 2003. Timberland transactions. Timber Mart—South Market Newsletter 8(4):6. U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Ground water atlas of the United States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-G. —. January 10, 2006. Available: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis.
USGS Water Resources of Alabama. U.S. Geological Survey Web site: USGS annual statistics for Alabama. Available: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis/annual/ calendar_year. 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. November 19, 2001. 2002 integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report guidance. Memorandum to EPA Regional Water Management Directors; EPA Regional Science and Technology Directors; and State, Territory, and Authorized TribeWater Quality Program Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wolf Bay Watershed Project. March 2005. Wolf Bay plan: A stakeholder’s guide to protecting the watershed. 

# 103 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

### Water Quality Assessment Report 2008 

# Perdido River and Bay Appendices

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Legislative and Regu latory Background on the Watershed Management Approach and the Impl ementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads ................................................................................................................... . 107 Federal and State Legislation on Surface Wate r Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads ...... 107 Determining Impairment Based on the Stat e’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule .......................... 109 Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads ............................................................................... 111 Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by Department District Office ................................................................................. 113 Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule fo r TMDL Development and Implementation ............ 113 Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts ................... 114 Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs ................... 115


### Appendix B: Supplementary Ecological Information for the Perdido River and Bay Basin ............................................................................................................... 118 Table B.1: Types of Natural Communities ........................................................................... 118 Table B.2: Rare and Imperiled Animal Species in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit ............ 120 Table B.3: Rare and Imperiled Plant Species in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit ............... 120 Table B.4: Rare and Imperiled Plant and Animal Species in the Perdido River Planning Unit ...................................................................................................... 121


### Appendix C: Information on Reasonable Assurance ............................................... 122 Background .................................................................................................................... ............. 122 Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluatio n of Pollution Control Mechanisms ............................. 123 Responsible Parties for Reasonabl e Assurance Demonstration .................................................. 123 Time Frame for Development of Documentation ....................................................................... 124 What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority ................................................. 124 Time Frame for Attaining Wa ter Quality Standards ................................................................... 124 Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration .............................................................................. 125
Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable Assurance in the IWR... 125 Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals ..................................................... 126 Interim Targets ............................................................................................................... ............. 127 Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets ............................................................................. 127
Estimates of Pollutant Reducti ons from Restoration Actions ..................................................... 127
New Sources/ Growth ............................................................................................................ ...... 127 Examples of Reasonable Progress ............................................................................................... 128 Long-Term Requirements ........................................................................................................ ... 128


### Appendix D: Methodology for Determ ining Impairment Based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule .................................................................................... 129 The Impaired Surface Waters Rule ............................................................................................. 129 Attainment of Designated Use(s) ............................................................................................... . 129

# 106 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



### Table D.1: Designated Use Attainment Ca tegories for Surface Waters in Florida ............. 130
Sources of Data ............................................................................................................... ............ 130 Table D.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle ..................................................................................................... 131 Methodology ................................................................................................................... ............ 131


### Appendix E: Integrated Assessment (M aster List) for the Perdido River and Bay Basin ................................................................................................................ 137 Table E.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Perdido River and Bay Basin, by Planning Unit ............................................................................... 138 Table E.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stati ons Used in the Assessm ent for the Perdido River and Bay Basin, by Planning Unit .............................................................. 169


### Appendix F: Permitted Discharge Facilities and Landfills in the Perdido River and Bay Basin ..................................................................................................... 175
Table F.1: Permitted Facilities with Dischar ges to Surface Water and Ground Water ...... 175 Table F.2: Permitted Landfill Facilities .............................................................................. 176


### Appendix G: 2000 Land Use, by Planning Unit ........................................................ 178 Table G.1: Land Use for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit .................................................... 178 Table G.2: Detailed Land Use Analysis for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit ........................ 179 Table G.3: Land Use for the Perdido River Planning Unit ................................................. 181 Table G.4: Detailed Land Use Analysis for the Perdido River Planning Unit ..................... 182


### Appendix H: Documentation Provided during Public Comment Period ............... 184Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 107

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed Management Approach and the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads

Federal and State Legislation on Surfa ce Water Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads

Clean Water Act

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 with the goal of restoring and maintaining the “chemical, physical, and biolog ical integrity of th e nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a]). The ultimate goal of the act is to eliminate the “discharge of [all] pollutants into navigable wate rs” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]). Section 305(b) of the Clean Wate r Act requires states to report biennially to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on th eir water quality. The 305(b) assessment report provides information on the physical, chem ical, biological, and cultural features of
each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a co mmon factual basis for identifying information sources and major issu es, and for determining the future changes, strategies, and actions needed to preserve , protect, and/or restore water quality. Understanding the physical framework of each basin allows the development of a science-based methodology for assessing wate r quality and an accurate picture of the waters that are most impaired or vulnerable to contamination. Section 303(d) of the Clean Wa ter Act requires states to submit to the EPA lists of surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each of th ese waters on a schedule. A pollution limit is then allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin. A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can
assimilate and meet all of its designated uses (see Noteworthy on Florida’s surface water quality classifications for a listing of thes e classifications). A waterbody that does not meet its designated use is defined as impaired

.

NOTEWORTHY: FLORIDA’S SURFACE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
Florida’s water quality standards program, the f oundation of the state’s program of water quality management, designates the “present and future most beneficial uses” of the waters of the state (Subsection 403.061[10], Florida Statutes [F.S.]). Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specific parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain these uses for surface water and ground water. Florida’s surface water is protected for five designated use classifications, as follows:

Class I Potable water supplies Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting Class III Recreation, propagation, and main tenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife Class IV Agricultural water supplies Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial u se (there are no state waters currently in this class)

# 108 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



### Florida Watershed Restoration Act

In 1998, the EPA settled a lawsuit with th e environmental group Earthjustice over Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decr ee resulting from the lawsuit requires all TMDLs on the state’s 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed in 13 years. If the state fails to develop the TMDLs, the EPA is required to do so. In response to concerns about the TMDL la wsuit and in recognition of the important role that TMDLs play in re storing state waters, the 1999 Fl orida legislature enacted the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Cha pter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act clarified the Florida Department of Envir onmental Protection’s (Department) statutory authority to establish TMDLs, required th e 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 im paired waters developed using this new methodology, and directed the Department to es tablish an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) to address the allocation pr ocess 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 cont ains the following major provisions:

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

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

• Requires the Department to verify impairm ent and then establish a Verified List for each basin. The Department must also evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs are sufficient to meet water quality standards, lis t the specific pollutant(s) and concentration(s) causing impairment, and adopt the basin-specific 303(d) list by Secretarial Order.

• Requires the Department’s Secretary to adopt TMDL allocations by rule. The legislation requires the Department to establish “reasonabl e and equitable” allocations of TMDLs, but does not mandate how allocations will be made among individual sources.

• Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing treatment levels and management practices; the differing impacts that pollutant sources may have; the availability of treatment technologies, best management practices (BMPs), or other pollutant reduction measures; the feasibility, costs, and benefits of achieving the allocation; reasonable time frames for implementation; the potential applicability of moderating provisions; and the extent that nonattainment is caused by pollutants from outside Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alteration to a waterbody.

• Required a report to the legislature by Febr uary 2001 addressing the allocation process.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 109

• Authorizes the Department to develop basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the water management districts, the Florida Depa rtment of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), the Soil and Water Conservation Dist ricts, regulated parties, and environmental groups in assessing waterbodies for impairm ent, collecting data for TMDLs, developing TMDLs, and conducting at least one public meeting in the watershed. Implementation is voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs.

• Authorizes the Department and 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 ad opted by rule and the Department verifies their effectiveness, then implementation will provi de a presumption of compliance with water quality standards.

• Directs the Department to document the effect iveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include participation rates and recommendat ions for statutory changes.



## Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Wate r Act and the FWRA describe impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody se gments that do not meet applicable water quality standards. “Impairment” is a broa d term that includes designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegrada tion policy, and moderating provisions (see Noteworthy for explanations of these terms).
The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303,
Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]) was developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory Committee and adopted by the Fl orida Environmental Regulation Commission on April 26, 2001. It provides a science-ba sed methodology for evaluating water quality data in order to identify impaired waters, and establishes specific criteria for impairment based on chemical parameters, the interpretatio n 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/legal/R ules/shared/62-303/62- 303.pdf.
The IWR also establishes thresholds for data sufficiency and data quality, including the minimum sample size required and the number of exceedances of the applicable water quality standard for a given sample size that identify a waterbody as impaired. The
number of exceedances is based on a statisti cal approach designed to provide greater
confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. Waters that are identified as impaired through the IWR are prioritized for TMDL development and implementation

.

NOTEWORTHY: EXPLANATION OF TERMS

• Designated uses, discussed in an earlier sidebar, comprise the five classifications applied to each of the state’s surface waterbodies.

# 110 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

• The Florida Antidegradation Policy (Sections 62-302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C.) recognizes that pollution that causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to the continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of the state. Under this policy, the permitting of new or previously unpermitted existing discharges is prohibited where the discharge is expected to reduce the quality of a receiving water below the classification established for it. Any lowering of water quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to surface waters must be in the public interest (t hat is, the benefits of the discharge to public health, safety, and welfare must outweigh any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or recreation). Further, the permittee must demons trate that other disposal alternatives (for example, reuse) or pollution prevention are not economically and technologically reasonable alternatives to the surface water discharge.

• Moderating provisions (provided in Subsection 62-302.300[10] and Rules 62-4 and 62-6, F.A.C., and described in Sections 62-302.300, 62-4.244, 62-302.800, 62-4.243, F.A.C., and Sections 403.201 and 373.414, F.S.) include mixing zones, zones of disc harge, site-specific alternative criteria, exemptions, and variances . These provisions are intended to moderate the applicability of water quality standards where it has been determined that, under certain special circumstances, the social, econ omic, and environmental costs of such applicability outweigh the benefits.



### Determining impairment in individual water bodies takes place in two phases. First, in each river basin the Department evaluate s the existing water quality data, using the methodology prescribed in the IWR, to de termine whether waters are potentially impaired. Waters found to be potentially impaired are included on a Planning List for further assessment under Subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List is not used to administer or implement any regulatory program. It is submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only. The second step is to assess waters on the Planning List under Subsection 403.067(3), F.S., as part of the Department’s watershed management approach (described in the following section). The Department carries out additional data gathering and strategic monitoring, focusing on these poten tially impaired waters, and determines— using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.—if a waterbody is, in fact, impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. A Water Quality Assessment Report is pr oduced containing the results of this updated evaluation and a Verified List of impaired waters. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those for the Pla nning List. The Depart ment is required to develop TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A watershed management plan (called a Basi n Management Action Plan, or BMAP) to reduce the amount of pollutants that cause impairments must also be produced and implemented. The Verified List is adopted by Secretar ial Order in accordance with the FWRA. Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EP A for approval as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 111

Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads

The Watershed Management Approach

The Department's statewide approach to water resource management, called the watershed management approach, is the fr amework for implementing TMDLs as required by the federal and state governments. The a pproach does not focus on individual causes of pollution. Instead, each ba sin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic
resources are evaluated from a basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative
effects of human activities. Water resour ces are managed on the basis of natural boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulator y boundaries. Federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water or other natural resource goals and work coope ratively to focus resources and implement effective strategies to rest ore water quality. Extensive public participation in the decision-making process is crucial. The watershed management approach is not new, nor does it compete with or replace existing programs. Rather than relying on si ngle solutions to water resource issues, it is intended to improve the health of su rface water and ground water resources by strengthening coordination among such act ivities as monitoring, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, wetland restoration, land acquisition, and public
involvement. By promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the
cumulative effects of human activities on a wate rshed basis, this approach is intended to protect and enhance the ecol ogical structure, function, a nd integrity of Florida’s watersheds. It provides a framework for sett ing priorities and focu sing the Department’s resources on protecting and restoring water quality, and ai ms to increase cooperation among state, regional, local, a nd federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement, the approach encourages stewardship by all Fl oridians to preserve water resources for future generations. The watershed approach is intended to speed up projects by focusing funding and other resources on priority water quality problems, strengthening public support, establishing agreements, and funding multiage ncy projects. It avoids duplication by building on existing assessments and restorat ion activities and promotes cooperative monitoring programs. It encourages accountability for achieving water quality improvements through improved monitoring and the establishment of TMDLs.

The Watershed Management Cycle

As part of the Department’s watershed management approach, TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding pollutant load ings allocated, as part of a watershed management cycle that rotates through the st ate’s 52 river basins ove r a 9-year period. The cycle’s 5 phases are as follows:

• Phase 1: Preliminary Watershed Evaluation. For each river basin, a Water Quality Status Report is developed, containing a Planning List of potentially

# 112 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



### impaired waters that may require the establishment of TMDLs. The report characterizes each basin’s hydrologic, ecologi cal, and socioeconomic setting as well as historical, current, and pr oposed watershed management issues and activities. It also contains a preliminary evaluation of major water quality parameters, water quality issues by planning unit, ecological resources, and basinwide pollutant loading
trends related to land uses. At the end of Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is developed.

• Phase 2: Strategic Mo nitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify whether potentially impaired wa ters in each basin are impa ired and to calibrate and verify models for TMDL development. At the end of Phase 2, a Water Quality Assessment Report is produced for each basin that contains a Verified List of impaired waters. The report also provid es an updated and more thorough evaluation of water quality, associated bi ological resources, and current management plans. The Department will adopt the Verified List through a Secretarial Order and submit it to the EPA as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.

• Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs. TMDLs for priority impaired
waters in the basin will be developed and adopted by rule. Because TMDLs cannot be developed for all listed waters during a single watershed management cycle due to
fiscal and technical limitations , waterbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in the IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.).

• Phase 4: Development of a Basin Management Action Plan. A BMAP will be developed for each basin to specify how po llutant loadings from point and nonpoint
sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements. The plans will include regulator y and nonregulatory (i.e., volunt ary) and structural and nonstructural strategies, and existing manageme nt plans will be used where feasible. The involvement and support of affected stakeh olders in this phase will be especially
critical.

• Phase 5: Implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan. Implementation of the activities specified in the BMAP will begin. This includes carrying out rule development as needed, securing funding, in forming stakeholders and the public, and monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan.

To implement the watershed cycle, the stat e’s river basins have been divided into five groups within each of the Department’s si x districts statewide, and each district will assess one basin each year. Table A.1 shows the basin groups for implementing the cycle in the Department’s districts, and Figure A.1 shows these groups and the rotating cycle in the districts. Table A.2, which lists the basin rota tion schedule for TMDL development and implementation, shows that it will take nine years to complete one full cycle of the state.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 113

The watershed management cycle is an iterati ve, or repeated, proce ss. One of its key components is that the effec tiveness of management activ ities (TMDL implementation) will be monitored in successive cycles. M onitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent cycles will be targeted at evaluating whethe r water quality objectives are being met and whether individual waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the implementation of scheduled restoration activ ities, whether required or voluntary, to ensure continued progress towards meeting the TMDLs.

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by Department District Office

District Group 1 Basins Group 2 Basins Group 3 Basins Group 4 Basins Group 5 Basins

Northwest Ochlockonee– St. Marks Rivers Apalachicola– Chipola Rivers Choctawhatchee River and Bay–St. Andrew Bay Pensacola Bay Perdido River and Bay

Northeast Suwannee River Lower St. Johns River – St. Marys–Nassau Rivers Northeast Coast Lagoons

Central Ocklawaha River Middle St. Johns River Upper St. Johns River Kissimmee River Indian River Lagoon

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

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

Southeast Lake Okeechobee St. Lucie– Loxahatchee Rivers Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm Beach Coast Biscayne Bay– Southeast Coast Everglades

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation
Yea r 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 s t Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2 n d Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may chang e due to accelerated local activities, length of plan development, legal challenges, etc.114Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayFigure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six DistrictsWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 115

Pollutants can enter a waterbody through point source discharges (generally from a specific facility) or nonpoint discharges (e.g., stormwater runoff, septic tanks). Government agencies, businesses, organizati ons, and individuals w ho contribute to these discharges will be asked to share the res ponsibility of attaining TMDLs through load allocations (the amount of a specified pollutant allotted for discharge) that are based on
an established TMDL. Table A.3 summarizes these potentially affected stakeholders, and the actions they may be asked to take to help achieve a TMDL.

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs

Potentially Affected Stakeholders Actions To Achieve TMDL

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through stormwater retrofits, repl acement of septic tanks

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual homeowners Improve development design and construction, enhance BMPs, replace septic tanks
Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities Reduce pollutant loadings from permitted discharges

Farming and silviculture operations Reduce and treat runoff through BMPs

Federal, regional, state agencies; regional and local water quality coalitions Carry out waterbody restoration projects



### Permitting and Other Approaches

N ATIONAL P OLLUTANT D ISCHARGE E LIMINATION S YSTEM P ERMITS 

### All point sources that discharge to surf ace waterbodies require an NPDES permit. These permits can be classified into two t ypes: 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 De partment 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 the permit renewal and workload. For NP DES municipal stormwater permits, the Department intends to insert the followi ng statement once a BMAP is completed:

“The permittee shall undertake those activities specified in the (Name of Waterbody) Basin Management Action Plan in accordance w ith the approved schedule set forth in the
BMAP.”

# 116 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

D OMESTIC AND I NDUSTRIAL W ASTEWATER P ERMITS 

### In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, a ll of which discharge to surface waters, Florida also regulates domes tic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via land application. Since ground wa ter and surface water are so intimately linked in much of the state, reductions in loadings from th ese facilities may be needed to meet TMDL limitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the BMAP, they would be implemented through modi fications of the existing state permits.

F LORIDA S TORMWATER /E NVIRONMENTAL R ESOURCE P ERMITS 

### With the implementation of the state’s st ormwater treatment rule in 1982, Florida became the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new development. Today, except in the area served by the No rthwest Florida Water Management District, new development projects receive an Envir onmental Resource Permit that combines stormwater flood protection, stormwater trea tment, and wetland protection/mitigation into a single permit. These permits are desi gned to obtain 80 percent average annual load reduction of total suspended solids. This le vel of treatment may n eed to be increased, depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basi n-specific criteria for the Lake Apopka watershed that require th e phosphorus loading from new development not to exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading.

L OCAL L AND D EVELOPMENT C ODES 

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

B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES 

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

# 117

The passage of the FWRA increased the emphasis on implementing BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollutant discharges from ag ricultural operations. Recognizing that the development and adoption of BMPs might take several years, the legislature authorized the use of Interim Measures (IMs) during th e BMP development process for agricultural operations. In essence, IMs ar e 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 FDACS adopts BMPs, the Department is charged with verifying their effectiveness in reducing ag ricultural nonpoint s ources. Once verified, agricultural operations that have implemented BMPs will receive a waiver of liability and presumption of compliance similar to th at granted a developer who obtains an
Environmental Resource Permit.

O THER S TRATEGIES 

### The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require variety, creativity, stakeholder commitment to watershed management, and personal stewardship. In addition to BMPs, othe r possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, restoring water quality, and preventing the fu rther degradation of Florida’s watersheds include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollu tion prevention, new approaches to land use design and development, and pollutant tr ading. The Department will assemble a Technical Advisory Committee to help devel op a pollutant-trading ru le, which must be reviewed by the legislature prior to its adop tion. The Department will also continue to
work with local stakeholders on TMDL a llocation issues and im plementation plans.

Sources of Information

For additional information on the Depart ment’s Watershed Management Program and TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators:

• Southwest Florida and Lake Okeechobee, Pat Fricano (850) 245-8559,

• Northwest and Central Florida (except Indian River Lagoon), Mary Paulic (850) 245-8560,

• Northeast Florida (except Lower St. Johns Basin), Middle St. Johns Basin, Upper St. Johns Basin, St. Lucie Basin, Suwa nnee Basin, and Ochlockonee–St. Marks Basin, Jennifer Gihring (850) 245-8418

• Indian River Lagoon, Southeast Florida (excep t St. Lucie Basin), and Lower St. Johns Basin, Amy Tracy (850) 245-8506

• West Central Florida and Tampa Ba y Region, Terry Hansen (850) 245-8561.

For information on establishing and imp lementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional informa tion is available on the Department’s Web site at www.dep.state.fl.us/w ater/watersheds/index.htm.118Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayAppendix B: Supplementary Ecological Information for the Perdido River and Bay BasinTable B.1: Types of Natural CommunitiesCommunity Type Description of Community AcreageSquareMilesCoastal strandCoastal strand community occurs on well-drained sandy soils and typically includes the zoned vegetationof the upper beach, dunes, or coastal rock formations. This community forms along high-energyshorelines and is strongly affected by wind, waves, and salt spray. Vegetation typically consists of lowgrowing vines, grasses, herbaceous plants, and small trees or shrubs. Common plants are morning glory,Spanish bayonet, sea oats, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, and sea grape.379.2 0.6Sand/beachBarren land with little or no vegetation. These areasare constantly affected by waves and tidal actionsand dune sands or other bare areas of sand.1146.2 1.8Xeric oak scrubA xeric hardwood community composed of clumped patches of low-growing oaks interspersed with bareareas of sand. This community type occurs on deep,well-washed, sterile sands, and is also found as theunderstory in sand pine scrub communities. Dominant plant species are Chapman’s oak, myrtle oak,sand-live oak, scrub holly, scrub plum, scrub hickory, rosemary, and saw palmetto.147.45 0.23Sand pine scrubSand pine scrub is found on extremely well drained, sorted, sterile sandsdeposited along ancientshorelines and islands of ancient seas. The overstory is dominated by sand pine, with a woody understoryof myrtle oak, Chapman’s oak, sand-live oak, and scrub holly. This community is found almost exclusivelywithin Florida. Fire is an important factor in the maintenance and survival of this type of community.281.8 0.44SandhillThese communities are found in areas of rolling terrain on deep, well-drained, white to yellow, sterilesands. This community is dominated by an overstory of longleaf pine and an understory of turkey oak andbluejack oak. A diverse assemblage of herbaceousplants comprise the ground cover. Fire is animportant factor in controlling the community.93.85 0.15Mixed hardwood–pine forestUpland forest that contains a mixture of conifers and hardwoods ascodominant overstory components.This community may include longleaf pine, slash pine, and loblolly pine in association with live oak, laureloak, water oak, and other hardwood species.12,801 20Hardwood hammockand forestsMajor upland hardwood associations occurring on fairly rich sandy soils. Species composition and localdistributions are due in part to differences in soil moistureregimes, soil type, and location within the state.Both mesic and xeric hammocks exist. Mesic hammocks are characterized by laurel oak, hop hornbeam,blue beech, sweetgum, cabbage palm, American holly, and southern magnolia. Xeric hammocks occur ondeep, well-drained soils where fire has been absentfor long periods of time. Common xeric hammockspecies are live oak, sand-live oak, and pignut hickory.5,911.9 9.2PinelandsThis category includes both pine flatwoods and pine plantations. Pine flatwoods occur on flat sandyterrain where the overstory is characterized by longleaf pine, slash pine, or pond pine, depending on soilmoisture and drainage at a given location. Scrubby flatwoods, another pineland type, is found on drierridges and on or near old coastal dunes.87154.5 136.2Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay119Community Type Description of Community AcreageSquareMilesFreshwater marshand wet prairieWetland communities dominated by herbaceous plants growing on a variety of substrates in areas ofvariable water depth and inundation regimes. Generally, freshwater marshes occur in deeper water withmore regular inundation and are characterized by tallemergent and floating-leaved species. Freshwatermarshes can occur within flatwood depressions, along lakes and river shorelines, and as open areaswithin hardwood and cypress swamps. Wet prairies commonly occur as scattered, shallow depressionswithin dry prairies. Combinations of pickerel weed, sawgrass, maidencane, arrowhead, fire flag, cattail,spike rush, bulrush, water lily, water shield, and various sedges dominate freshwater marshes and wetprairies.1,105.1 1.7Shrub swampShrub swamps are wetland communities dominated by dense, low-growing, woody shrubs or small trees.They are usually characteristic of wetland areas thatare experiencing environmental change and are earlyto midsuccessional in species composition and structure. Common species include willow, wax myrtle,primrose willow, buttonbush, and saplings of red maple, sweetbay, andother hydric trees.133.9 .21Bay swampHardwood swamps contain broadleaf, alternate leafedevergreen trees that grow in shallow, stagnantdrainages or depressions. Overstory trees are dominated by sweetbay, swamp bay, and loblolly bay.5,968.4 9.3Cypress swampThese communities are strongly dominated by eitherbald cypress or pond cypress. They occur asforested borders along streams and lakes, or in depressions as circular domes or linear strands.709.4 1.1Mixed wetland forest This is a mixed wetland forest community inwhich neither hardwoods nor conifers achieves dominance. 14,213.2 22.2Hardwood swampWooded wetland communities composed of either purestands of hardwoods or a mixture of hardwoodand cypress where hardwoods achieve dominance. They occur on organic soilsand form the forestedfloodplain of nonalluvial rivers, creeks, and broad lake basins. Tree species include black gum, watertupelo, bald cypress, dahoon holly, red maple,swamp ash, sweetbay, and cabbage palm.14,046.8 21.95Salt marshHerbaceous and shrubby wetland community found in low-energy estuarine shorelines. Salt marshes canbe found interspersed within mangrove communities oras transitional zones between freshwater marshesand mangroves. Plant composition and distributionlargely depend on the degree of tidal inundation.267.1 0.4Open water Freshwater lakes and streams and estuarine and coastal marine waters. 36,795.1 57.5Shrub and brushlandAreas where natural upland communities have recently been disturbed through clear-cutting oncommercial pine plantations, land clearing, or fire and are recovering by succession. Common speciesinclude wax myrtle, saltbrush, sumac, elderberry,saw palmetto, blackberry, gall berry, dog fennel, andbroom sedge, together with hardwood and pine seedlings or saplings.8,147.8 12.7Bare soil/clear-cutAreas of bare soil representing recent timber cutting,fire, natural areas of exposed soil, or soil exposurefrom clearing for unknown reasons.3,337.0 5.2Source:Gilbert, T., and B. Stys. March 17, 2004..

# 120 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

Table B.2: Rare and Imperiled Animal Species in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit

Species Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Status Alligator mississippiensis American alligator G5 S4 SAT LS

Ardea alba Great egret G5 S4 N N

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle G3 S3 LT LT

Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy plover G4 S1 N LT

Charadrius melodus Piping plover G3 S2 LT LT

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle G3 S2 LE LE Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle G2 S2 LE LE Egretta caerulea Little blue heron G5 S4 N LS

Egretta thula Snowy egret G5 S4 N LS Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat G5 S3 N N

Eudocimus albus White ibis G5 S4 N LS
Fundulus jenkinsi Saltmarsh top minnow G2 S2 SC LS Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise G3 S3 N LS

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle G1 S1 LE LE Macroclemys temminckii Alligator snapping turtle G3G4 S3 N LS

Nerodia clarkii clarkii Gulf salt marsh snake G4T4 S3? N N

Pandion haliaetus Osprey G5 S3S4 N LS* Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis Perdido Key beach mouse G5T1 S1 LE LE

Rallus longirostris scottii Florida clapper rail G5T3? S3? N N Rynchops niger Black skimmer G5 S3 N LS

Sterna antillarum Least tern G4 S3 N LT

Sterna maxima Royal tern G5 S3 N N

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern G5 S2 N N

Table B.3: Rare and Imperiled Plant Species in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit

Species Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Status Agrimonia incisa Incised groove-bur G3 S2 N LE Calycanthus floridus Sweet shrub G5 S2 N LE Chrysopsis godfreyi Godfrey’s golden aster G2 S2 N LE

Drosera intermedia Spoon-leaved sundew G5 S3 N LT Lachnocaulon digynum Bog button G3 S3 N LT
Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina lilaeopsis G3? S3 N N Pinguicula primuliflora Primrose-flowered butterwort G3G4 S3 N LE

Platanthera nivea Snowy orchid G5 S3S4 N LT Polygonella macrophylla Large-leaved jointweed G3 S3 N LT Rhynchospora stenophylla Narrow-leaved beakrush G4 S2S3 N LT

Sarracenia leucophylla White-top pitcherplant G3 S3 N LE

Sarracenia rubra Sweet pitcherplant G4 S3 N LT

Xyris drummondii Drummond’s yellow-eyed
grass G3 S3 N N

Xyris scabrifolia Harper’s yellow-eyed grass G3 S3 N LTWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 121

Table B.4: Rare and Imperiled Plant and Anim al Species in the Perdido River Planning Unit

Species Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Status
Animals

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern diamondback rattlesnake G4 S3 N N Drymarchon couperi Eastern indigo snake G3 S3 LT LT

Plants Sarracenia leucophylla White-top pitcherplant G3 S3 N LE

Stewartia malacodendron Silky camellia G4 S3 N LE

Lachnocaulon digynum Bog button G3 S3 N LT Xyris stricta var. obscura Kral’s yellow-eyed grass G3T3 S1 N N

Notes for Tables B.2, B.3, and B.4:

Global Rank/State Rank: G1/S1 – Critically imperiled globally becaus e of extreme rarity (5 or less occurrences, or fewer than 1,000 individuals, or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction. G2/S2 – Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 o ccurrences, or fewer than 3,0 00 individuals), or because of vulnerability to extinction. G3/S3 – Either very rare and local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences, or fewer than 10,000 individuals), or found locally in a restricted range, or vulnerable to extinction from other factors. G4/S4 – Apparently secure globally. G5/S5 – Demonstrably secure globally and in Florida. G3?/S3? – Tentative ranking. G3G4/S3S4 – Range of rank ings because of insufficient data to assign rank. G4T3 – Rank of a taxonomic subgroup such as a subspecies or variety. The G portion of the rank refers to the entire species and the T portion refers to the specific subgr oup. Numbers follow the same ranking in scarcity. G5T1 – Demonstrably secure globally as a species/ subspecies critically imperil ed globally because of extreme rarity. S2? – Imperiled in Florida because of ra rity, but tentative state ranking. G5T3? – Demonstrably secure globally as a species/subs pecies either very rare and local throughout its range. S2S3 –Range of rank. Insufficient data to assign specific Florida rank.

Federal Status: N – Not listed LT – Threatened LE – Endangered (PS) – Proposed listing as s pecies of special concern T(S/A) – Listed because of similarity to listed species C – Candidate for listing SAT – Threatened due to similarity of appearance to a threatened species

State Status: N – Not listed LT – Threatened LE – Endangered LS* – Listed for part of the species’ range in Florida

# 122 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



# Appendix C: Information on Reasonable Assurance

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Mimi Drew, Director Division of Water Facilities

DATE: September 2002

SUBJECT: Guidance for Developmen t of Documentation To Provide Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollu tion Control Mechanisms Will Result in the Restoration of Designated Uses in Impaired Waters

The purpose of this memo is to describe the types of information that should be considered, and subsequently documented, wh en evaluating whether there is sufficient
reasonable assurance that:

• Proposed pollution control mechanisms (typically described in watershed management or restoration plans) addre ssing impaired waters will result in the attainment of applicable water quality st andards (designated uses) at a clearly defined point in the future, and

• Reasonable progress towards restoration of designated uses will be made by the time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is due to be submitted to the EPA.

There are many site-specific issues rela ted to determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided. Accordingly, this document describes the elements or issues that should be considered when evaluating a submittal or when documenting the basis for the Department’s decision, rather than attempting to establis h specific criteria on
what constitutes reasonable assurance. It should be noted that the term “reasonable assurance” is used throughout many Department programs and rules, and this guidance specifically addresses the issues
related to the “reasonabl e assurance” provided by proposed pollution control mechanisms. This guidance should not be us ed to evaluate the meaning of reasonable assurance in other contexts, par ticularly in permitting decisions.



## Background

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR), Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (Identification of Impaired Surface Waters), establishes a formal mechanism for identifying surface waters in Florida that are impaired (do not meet applicable water qua lity standards) by pollutants. Most waters that are verified as being impaired by a pollutant will be listed onWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 123

the state’s 303(d) list purs uant to the Florida Watershe d Restoration Act (FWRA) and Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Once listed, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) will be developed for the pollutants causing the impairment of the listed waters. However, as required by the FWRA, the Department will evaluate whether existing or proposed pollution control mechanisms will effectively address the impairment before placing a water on the stat e’s Verified List. If the Department can document there is reasonable assurance that the impairment will be effectively addressed by the control measure, then the water will not be listed on the final Verified List (other impaired waters that will not be listed in clude waters with TMDLs and waters impaired by pollution).



## Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluati on of Pollution Co ntrol Mechanisms

The rule text addressing the evaluation of proposed pollution control mechanisms is
as follows:

Section 62-303.600, Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms



### • Upon determining that a waterbody is im paired, the Department shall evaluate whether existing or proposed technol ogy-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to
result in the attainment of a pplicable water qua lity standards.

• If, as a result of the factors set forth in (1), the waterbody segment is expected to attain water quality standards in the futu re and is expected to make reasonable progress towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA, the segment shall not be listed on the Verified List. The Department shall document the basis for its decisio n, noting any proposed pollution control mechanisms and expected improvements in water quality that provide reasonable assurance that the wate rbody segment will attain applicable water quality standards.



## Responsible Parties for Reason able Assurance Demonstration

It is ultimately the Department’s responsib ility to assure adequate documentation in
the administrative record whenever the De partment decides to not list an impaired waterbody segment for a given pollutant. This documentation will be very important because the Verified Lists will be adopted by Order of the Secretary and third parties will be provided an opportunity to challenge, via an administrative hearing, all listing decisions (both those listing a wa ter and those to not list a wa ter for a given pollutant). However, the Department expects that local st akeholders will often offer to prepare the necessary documentation to demonstrate re asonable assurance th at proposed control mechanisms will restore a given waterbody. The Department will provide guidance to
stakeholders on what information is needed and how it should be submitted.

# 124 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



## Time Frame for Development of Documentation

The Department plans to prepare basin-sp ecific Verified Lists as part of its watershed management cycle, which rotates th rough all of the state’ s basins over a fiveyear, five-phased cycle 1 

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



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

Both the FWRA and the IWR require that the pollution control programs under consideration be “under local, stat e, or federal authority.” A pollution control program will be considered "under loca l, state, or federal authority" if the program is subject to or re quired by a local ordinance, state statute or rule, or federal statute or regulation. Programs will also be considered under local, state, or federal authority if they are subject to a written agreement, signed by both local stakeholders and at least one governmental entity, that includes measurable goals, performance criteria, benchmarks, and back-up corrective action s to assure the further progress of the

program. It is important to note that these written agreements do not need to be enforceable for nonregulated nonpoint sources. Many nonpoint sources are currently outside of the regulatory pr ograms of EPA, the Department, and the water management di stricts, and reducti ons at these nonpoint sources will be voluntary. In fact, pollu tion control mechanisms for these nonpoint sources would be voluntary even if a TMDL we re developed. As such, these agreements may provide the same level of reasonable assurance that can be provided for a TMDL implementation plan as long as they maintain the Department’s enforcement capability over all point sources involved.



## Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards

The FWRA and the IWR do not establish a specific time limit by which waters must attain applicable water quality standards or designated uses. However, the pollution control mechanisms or watershed restoration pl an must provide reasonable assurance that designated uses will be met at some time in the future . As such, the documentation submitted to the Department must provide a specific date by which time designated uses are expected to be restored. In cases where designated uses will not be met for many years, the documentation should also provide justification as to why the specified time is needed to restore designated uses.

1 Federal regulations currently call for state 303(d) lists every tw o years, but Florida plan s to submit annual updates based on the basin-specific Verified Lists.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 125

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration

For the Department not to place an impaire d waterbody segment on the Verified List, reasonable assurance must be provided for each pollutant that has been documented to be causing impairment of the waterbody segment. However, some entities, including the Department, may want to provide reasona ble assurance addressing only selected pollutants, which could result in the Department not listi ng the waterbody segment for those pollutants, but still listing it for othe rs. In this event, TMDLs will only be developed for the remaining listed pollutants.



## Information To Consider and Docu ment when Assessing Reasonable Assurance in the IWR

To provide reasonable assurance that existing or proposed pollution control mechanisms will restore designated uses, the following information should be evaluated
and documented for the Administrative Record:

• A Description of the Impaired Water —name of the water listed on the Verified List, the location of the waterbody a nd watershed, the watershed/8-digit cataloging unit code, the NHD identifier (whe n they become available), the type (lake, stream, or estuary) of water, the water use classification, the designated use not being attained, the length (miles) or area (acres) of impaired area, the pollutant(s) of concern (those identifie d as causing or contributing to the impairment), and the suspected or docume nted source(s) of the pollutant(s) of

concern.

• A Description of the Water Qua lity or Aquatic Ecological Goals —a description of the water qua lity–based targets or aqua tic ecological goals (both interim and final) that have been established for the pollutant(s) of concern, the averaging period for any numeric water qu ality goals, a discussion of how these goals will result in the rest oration of the waterbody’s impaired designated uses, a schedule indicating when interim and final targets are expected to be met, and a description of procedures (with thresholds) to determine whether additional (backup) corrective actio ns are needed.

• A Description of the Proposed Man agement Actions To Be Undertaken

— names of the responsible participating en tities (government, private, others), a summary and list of existing or propos ed management activities designed to restore water quality, the geographic scope of any proposed management activities, documentation of the estimat ed pollutant load reduction and other benefits anticipated from implementa tion of individual management actions, copies of written agreements committing pa rticipants to the management actions, a discussion on how future growth and new sources will be addressed, confirmed sources of funding, an implementation schedule (including interim milestones

# 126 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



### and the date by which designated uses w ill be restored), and any enforcement programs or local ordinances, if the management strategy is not voluntary.

• A Description of Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Results —a description of the water quality m onitoring program to be implemented (including station locations, parameters sampled, and sampling frequencies) to demonstrate reasonable progress; quality assurance/quality control elements that demonstrate the monitoring will comply with Rule 62-160, F.A.C.; procedures for entering all appropriate data into STORET; the responsible monitoring and reporting entity; the frequency and format for reporting results; the frequency and format for reporting on the implemen tation of all proposed management activities; and methods for ev aluating progress towards goals.

• A Description of Proposed Corrective Actions —a description of proposed corrective actions (and any supporting document[s]) that will be undertaken if water quality does not improve after impl ementation of the management actions or if management actions are not co mpleted on schedule, and a process for notifying the Department that these corre ctive actions are being implemented.



## Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals

Some of the most important elements liste d above are the requirements to provide water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals and a discussion on how resultant pollutant(s) reduction targets/goals will result in restoration of designated uses. Some people have expressed concern about these ta rgets because they e quate a water quality– based restoration target with a TMDL (thus assuming a “Catch 22” that a TMDL is
needed to make a demonstration that a TMDL is not needed). However, as is also the case for TMDLs, water quality–based targets can take many forms, and need not be a result of a complex hydrodyna mic/water quality model. In some cases, there may be sufficient hi storical data (pal eolimnological data, loadings from periods predating the impairmen t, or baseline data for Outstanding Florida
Waters 2 

### , for example) that could be used to dete rmine an appropriate water quality target. In other cases, simplified modeling (incl uding regression analysis) may allow for conservative estimates of the assimilative capacity that could then be used as the basis for restoration goals. And, finally, a water qual ity target may have been developed that would be scientifically equiva lent to (or act as the basis for) a TMDL, but the target has not been administratively adopted as a TM DL. In each of these cases, a sound water quality target could be used to evalua te whether the proposed pollution control mechanisms will sufficiently reduce loadings to meet the assimilative capacity of the water in question and result in at tainment of designated uses.

2 Baseline data would be data for the year prior to designation of the OFW.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 127

Interim Targets

Because it will usually take many years to restore fully the designated uses of an impaired water, interim water quality targets will often be needed to measure whether reasonable progress is being made towards the restoration of designa ted uses. Examples of such interim targets are provided in the last section of this docum ent, but site-specific measures are also encouraged.



## Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets

While the averaging period for water qualit y–based targets should be consistent with how the underlying standard is expressed, they can often be expre ssed in a variety of ways and need not be expressed as “daily lo ads.” Annual averages or medians are often appropriate for some parameters, but shorte r-term (seasonal, for example) averages maybe necessary if the impairment is limited to specific seasons or parts of the year. Multiyear averages may be appropriate in limited circumstances where there is naturally high
variation of the wate r quality target.



## Estimates of Pollutant Reducti ons from Restoration Actions

It will often be difficult to estimate precisely the pollutant reductions that will result from specific restoration activities. This is particularly true for the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). Howeve r, to provide reasonable assurance that a
BMP or other restoration action will reduce loadings of the po llutant of concern to a level that will restore the water’s designated uses, documentation should address how the reductions were calculated, in cluding providing documented values from the scientific
literature for reductions attri buted to similar management actions. If the expected reductions are expressed as a range, the midpoint of the range should be used as the basis for estimating reductions, unless documenta tion is provided supporting the use of
different removal efficiencies in this specific application.



## New Sources/Growth

Another key element is the discussion on how future growth and new sources will be addressed. Restoration goals mu st address possible increased loadings of the pollutant of concern that are anticipated due to population growth or land use changes in contributing watersheds, both from point and nonpoint sources. This will be particularly important for waters impaired by nutrients, given that so many Florida watersheds are faced with continuing urban, residential, and agricultura l development that results in increased nutrient loading from stor mwater, septic tanks, and wastewater discharges.

# 128 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



## Examples of Reasonable Progress

The determination of whether there will be reasonable progress towards attainment of water quality standards will be very site- and pollutant-specific. Documentation should be provided supporting specific progre ss towards restoration of the designated uses of the impaired water. Possible exampl es of reasonable progre ss include, but are not limited to the following:

• A written commitment to implement controls reducing loadings within a specified time frame from watershed stakeholders representing at least 50 percent of the anthropogenic load of the pollutant(s) of concern;

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent reducti on (or alternatively, a percent reduction consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in annual anthropogenic loading of the pollutant(s) of concern;

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent decreas e (or alternatively, a percent decrease consistent with meeting the water quality ta rget by the specified date) in the annual average concentration of the polluta nt(s) of concern in the water;

• Bioassessment results showing there has been an improvement in the health of the biological community of the water, as meas ured by bioassessment procedures similar to those used to determine impairment and conducted in si milar conditions; or

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

Reasonable progress must be made by the ti me the next 303(d) list is due to be submitted to EPA, which is currently every two years. EPA has contemplated changing the listing cycle to every four or five y ears, and the IWR was specifically worded to allow a longer time frame for requiring reas onable progress in the event that the listing cycle changes.



## Long-Term Requirements

If at any time the Department determines that reasonable assu rance and reasonable progress are not being met, the order adopti ng the Verified List will be amended to include the waterbody on the Ve rified List for the pollutant(s) in question. Additional reasonable progress must be made each time a waterbody is considered for listing under Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (every five years)

. If you have any questions about this guida nce memo, contact Daryll Joyner of the Department’s Bureau of Watershed Ma nagement in Tallahassee at 850-245-8431.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 129

Appendix D: Methodology fo r Determining Impairment Based on the Impaired Sur face Waters Rule

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule

To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river basins, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) evaluates water quality data using the science-based methodology in the Identifi cation of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Co de [F.A.C.]). The rule establishes specific criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data quality requirements. The methodology describe d in the rule is based on a statistical approach designed to provide greater confid ence that the outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. The complete text of the IWR is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lega l/Rules/shared/ 62-303/62-303.pdf. As part of the watershed management appr oach, for each river ba sin in the state the Department will follow the methodology in Section 62-303.300, F.A.C., to develop a Planning List of potentially impaired wate rs to be assessed under Subsections 403.067(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (F.S.). The methodology for developing the Planning List includes an evaluation of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use support, fish and shellfish consumption use support, drinking water use support, and protection of human health. Data older than 10 years cannot be used to evaluate water quality criteria exceedances for the Planni ng List. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List will not be used to administer or implement any regulatory program, and is submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for informational purposes only. After further assessment, using the me thodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C., the Department will determine if wa ters on the Planning List are, in fact, impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. These waters are placed on a Verified List. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those for the Planning List. Data older than 7.5 year s should not be used to verify impairment. The Verified List will be adopted by Secr etarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for approval as Florida’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Department will develop TMDLs for these waters under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S.



## Attainment of Designated Use(s)

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the surface water quality classification system described pr eviously, it is important to note that the EPA uses slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because the Department is required to provide use attain ment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired wa ters, the Department uses EPA terminology when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision processes for listing impaired waters that ar e defined in Florida’s IWR are based on the following designated use attainment categories:

# 130 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and 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 D.1 summarizes the designated uses as signed to Florida’s various surface
water classifications.

Table D.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in IWR Evaluation Applicable Florida Surface Water Classification

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment Class I, II, and III Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment Class I, II, and III Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment Class II Drinking Water Use Attainment Class I

Protection of Human Health Class I, II, and III



## Sources of Data

The Department’s assessment of water qua lity for each basin statewide includes an analysis of quantitative data from a vari ety of sources, many of which are readily available to the public. These sources in clude the EPA’s Legacy and Modernized STO rage and RET rieval (STORET) Databases, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department, the Florida Department of Hea lth (FDOH), the water management districts, local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. Historically, the Department carried out statewide water quality assessments using data available in the EPA’s Legacy STORET Database; STORET makes up approximately 60 percent of the statewide data used in the IWR assessment. The Legacy STORET dataset is a repository of da ta collected and uploaded by numerous organizations through 1999. The Legacy STORET Database can be accessed at http://www.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 da ta quality assurance/ quality control concerns (see the new STORET Web site at http:// www.epa.gov/storet/. However, because of software difficulties associated with batch uploading of data to Modernized STORET, the data being uploaded to the national repository d ecreased dramatically, and lingering problems have temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses only about 5 percent of th e statewide IWR Database. Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the IWR assessment was provided by individual organizations that for various r easons, such as time constraints or resource limitations, were not able to en ter their data into the nationa l database. The organizations providing the largest datasets in clude the South Florida, Sout hwest Florida, and St. Johns River Water Management Distri cts; the USGS; and the University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring group. Severa l of these databases are read ily available to the publicWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 131

via the Internet: the South Florid a Water Management District at http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/, the USGS at http://water.usgs.gov/, and LakeWatch at http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/. The Department created the IWR Database in 2002 to evaluate data simultaneously in accordance with the IWR methodology for every basin in the state, based on the appropriate data “window.” For the Verifi ed List assessment, the window is 7.5 years (for the IWR Database), and the Planni ng List assessment window is 10 years. Table D.2 shows the periods of record for the Veri fied and Planning Lists for the 5 basin

groups. The evaluation of water quality in the state’s basins also includes some qualitative
information. These sources are described in the Water Quality Status Reports and Water Quality Assessment Reports for each basin.

Table D.2: Data Used in Developing the Planni ng and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle

Basin Group Reporting Period of Data Record Used in IWR Evaluation Group 1 Planning List January 1, 1989 – December 31, 1998
Verified List January 1, 1995 – June 30, 2002
Group 2 Planning List January 1, 1991 – December 31, 2000
Verified List January 1, 1996 – June 30, 2003
Group 3 Planning List January 1, 1992 – December 31, 2001
Verified List January 1, 1997 – June 30, 2004
Group 4 Planning List January 1, 1993 – December 31, 2002
Verified List January 1, 1998 – June 30, 2005
Group 5 Planning List January 1, 1994 – December 31, 2003
Verified List January 1, 1999 – June 30, 2006

Note: Typically, a 10-year data record is used for the development of the Planning Lists, and a 7.5- year record is used for the Verified Lists.



## Methodology

To determine the status of surface water qualit y in individual river basins in Florida, three categories of data—chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption advisories—were evaluated to determine pot ential impairments for the four designated use attainment categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, fish and shellfish consumption, drinking wa ter use, and protection of human health.

Aquatic Life Based Attainment

The IWR follows the principle of independe nt applicability. A waterbody is listed for potential impairment of aquatic life use support based on exceedances of any one of four types of water quality indi cators (numeric water quality criteria, nutrient thresholds, biological thresholds, and toxicity data).

# 132 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and 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 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations were included in the assessment of impairment. Wa ter quality information from point sources
or wells was excluded. Monito ring stations were classified as one of five waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or black water—based on criter ia described in the latest 305(b) report. The assessmen ts included the following parameters:

Metals Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc

Nutrients Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State Index (TSI) (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) for lakes

Conventionals Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliform, total coliform, pH,
unionized ammonia

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List include d a minimum of 10 temporally independent samples from th e 10-year period of record shown in Table D.2, unless there were 3 exceedances of water qua lity or 1 exceedance of an acute toxicity criterion in a 3-year period. The screeni ng methodology for the Verified List requires at least 20 samples from the last 5 years pr eceding the Planning List assessment. An exceedance, meaning that water quality criteria or standards are not met, is recorded any time the criterion is exceeded by any amount . An exceedance for DO, however, means that a waterbody does not meet the DO criterion , rather than an actual exceedance of the
criterion. To determine if a water should be placed on the Planning List for each parameter, the chemical data were analyzed using a comput er program written to assess the data, based on criteria established in the IWR, with tw o exceptions. First, unionized ammonia data were not analyzed by the program, but rath er with an Excel spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criter ion could not be programmed, the incomplete listings for pH are not included. They will be further examined while additional data are collected during Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. Data analysis and statistical summaries of waterbody identific ation numbers (WBIDs ), waterbody types, and parameters obtained from the STORET Da tabase were conducted using Access, SAS statistical software, and Ar cView geographic information system (GIS) applications The data for metals and conventional para meters were compared with the state surface water quality criteria in Section 62-302.530, F.A.C. (IWR). The rule contains a table of sample numbers versus exceedan ces. A waterbody was placed on the Planning List if there was at least 80 percent confiden ce that the actual criteria exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10 percent. To be placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 percent confidence rate was required.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 133

E XCEEDANCES OF N UTRIENT T HRESHOLDS 

### The state currently has a narra tive nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for
nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of wa ter be altered so as to cau se an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The IWR provides an interpretation of the
narrative nutrient crite rion. In general, the TSI and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whethe r 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 (e ither in density or aerial c overage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in al gal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings. Potential nutrient impairment was evalua ted by calculating annual mean chlorophyll

a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, the TSI was calculated using chlorophyll a , total phosphorus, and total nitr ogen measurements. Direct
evidence of imbalances of flora and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the evaluation of nutrient impairments. In estuarine areas, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 micrograms per liter ( μ g/L), or if annual mean chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percen t over historical values for at least two consecutive years. For streams, a wate r was considered nutri ent enriched if the annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μ g/L, or if the annual mean increased by more than 50 percent over hist orical values for at least two consecutive

years. A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units (PCUs) was
considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a lake was cons idered nutrient enriched if there was an increase in TSI over the 1989 to 2000 period, or if TSI measurements were 10 units higher than historical values.

E XCEEDANCES OF B IOLOGICAL T HRESHOLDS 

### Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and rivers using the IWR as guidance and following the Department ’s standard operating procedures, which provide definitions and specific methods for th e generation and analysis of bioassessment
data. These are referenced in the individua l bioassessment data tabl es contained in the Status Reports. The purpose behind usi ng a bioassessment methodology in surface water
characterizations is that bi ological components of the envi ronment manifest long-term water quality conditions and thus provide a bette r indication of a wate rbody’s true health than discrete chemical or physical measuremen ts alone. Similar to water quality criteria,
bioassessment methods involve the identific ation of a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpaired or least impacted waters in a given region.

# 134 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



### For the Planning and Verified List assessm ents, the reference condition data were used to establish expected sc ores, ranging from best to wors t, for various measures of community structure and function, such as numbe rs or percentages of particular species or feeding groups. Data on community stru cture and function from waters of unknown quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of
metrics to evaluate th eir biological integrity. Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Dipt era, percent filter feeders) were used independently and as an aggr egated group called an index. Indices have advantages over individual metrics in that they can integrat e several related metrics into one score that reflects a wider range of biol ogical variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and indices exist for assessing populations of plan t and animal life, including fish, diatoms (e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankt on), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, crayfish, snails, and mussels). Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient si tes in state surface waters were used in the bioassessments analyzed for the Planning and Verified Lists. The data included sites designated as test and background sites for National Pollutant Di scharge Elimination System (NPDES) fifth-year insp ections, but excluded data fr om effluent outfalls from discharging facilities, or data from monitoring sites not cl early established to collect ambient water quality data. Because s ite-specific habitat and physicochemical assessment information (e.g., percent suitable m acroinvertebrate habita t, water velocities,
extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian [Definition: Of, on, or relating to the banks of a natural course of water.] buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of reporting, it was not included. However, this information is instrumental in pinpointing the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and will be included in future reporting. The data used to develop the Planning a nd Verified Lists were obtained from the Department’s Biological Database (SBI O) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality Database, where it could be substantiated that the data were generated in compliance with the bioassessment standard operating proce dures referenced in the IWR (Section 62- 303.330, F.A.C.).
The data from these databases are used w ithout regard to the randomness of sample site selection. For the purposes of the 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, a nd dry seasons are fall and winter, although conditions can vary in the state as a whole.

L AKE C ONDITION I NDEX 

### The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except percent Diptera, was performed acco rding to the following formula:

100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = observed
valueWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 135

For percent Diptera, the following formula was used:

100 (100-B)/(100-A) where A = the 95 percen tile of the reference population and B
= observed value

An average LCI score was cal culated by averaging the scor es of the six metrics in the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; Shannon– Wiener Diversity Index score; Hulbert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals. LCI calculations were only provided for clear lakes (< 20 PCUs). As macroinvertebratebased indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in Florida accurately (> 20 PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassess ments. A poor or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR.

S TREAM C ONDITION I NDEX 

### A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of
the seven metrics in the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent Chironomid taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; pe rcent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A poor or very poor rating based on the total sc ore constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR. The Water Quality Status Repor ts 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 wate r was deemed “impaired” based on the IWR.

B IOLOGICAL I NTEGRITY S TANDARD 

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

E VALUATION OF T OXICITY D ATA 

### Although the IWR describes the use of toxicity data for the assessment of aquatic life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity da ta are available for assessment and this
metric was not used.

# 136 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and 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 1 week or more than once during a calendar year based on b acteriological data,

• The waterbody segment included a bathing ar ea for which a local health department or county government issued closures, advi sories, or warnings totaling 21 days or more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed or had advisories or warnings for more than 12 weeks dur ing a calendar year based on previous bacteriological data or on de rived relationships between bact eria levels and rainfall or
flow.

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody wa s potentially impaired if it did not meet the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, or if a fish consumption advisory had been issued. Fish consumption advisories were based on the FDOH’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories for surface waters because of high levels of mercury in fish tissue. In addition, for Class II waters, waterbody segments that had been appr oved for shellfish harvesting but were downgraded to a more restrictive classificat ion were listed as potentially impaired.

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potenti ally impaired if it did not meet the applicable Class I water quality criteria.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 137

Appendix E: Integrated Asse ssment (Master List) for the Perdido River and Bay Basin

Data collected since the update of the 303(d) list were used to update the listing
status of waters. Table E.1 contains the listing status of all assessed waters in the basin
as of June 30 , 

### 2006. It should be noted that subseque nt to the update of the 303(d) list, some waterbody segments were further subdi vided to produce separate segments for
lakes versus their surroundi ng watersheds. Therefore, Table E.1 shows the waterbody identification numbers (WBIDs) under which th ese segments were designated in the 1998 303(d) list, as well as th e new or currently recognized WBIDs for them. Information in this appendix was obtaine d from an inventory of the Legacy and Modernized STORET Databases, as well as data contributed dire ctly to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (D epartment) by individual data providers. Table E.2 includes only stations with data from the planning and verified assessment periods.138Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable E.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Perdido River and Bay Basin, by Planning UnitWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3CNeed to determine causative pollutant.489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 High 2006 PP - Chl a annual means = 1.6 (2000),1.1 (2001), 1.4 (2002), and 2.3 ug/L(2003). No chl a annual meansexceeded 20 ug/L. VP - Chl a annualmeans = 1.6 (2000), 1.1 (2001), 1.4(2002), 2.3 (2003), 2.4 (2004), and 3.7ug/L (2005). No chl a annual meansexceeded 20 ug/L.Livingston data:(>20.0 ug/L) pp = 7/284; VP = 5/150489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Dioxin PL 3CPP =No data; VP =TEQs exceed EPAscreening value.489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 High 2006 PP = 74 / 152; VP = 74 / 170. DO metverification threshold of the IWR; TN,TP, and BOD are the causativepollutants. 147 TN values, with amedian of 4.5 mg/L. 148 TP values,with a median of 0.34 mg/L. 62 BODvalues, with a median of 8.8 mg/L.Ambient Permit data, pp: 261/658VP: 240/528:Livingston DO data,(<4.0 mg/L) pp = 104/275; VP =56/141 (<5.0 mg/L) pp = 170/275; VP= 87/141489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 High 2006 PP = 55 / 184; VP = 23 / 131489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Fluoride NI 2 PP = 0 / 66; VP = 0 / 115Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay139WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll NI2 High 2006 Historic chl a data from the period1998-2002, with five year mean valueof 2 ug/L. pp: Historic chl a annualmeans = 1.6 (2000), 1.1 (2001), 1.4(2002), and 2.3 ug/L (2003). Noannual means exceeded the historicminimum of 2 ug/L by more than 50%(for two consecutive years). VP:Historic chl a annual means = 1.6(2000), 1.1 (2001), 1.4 (2002), 2.3 ug/L(2003), 2.4 ug/L (2004), and 3.8 ug/L(2005). No annual means exceededthe historic minimum of 2 ug/L by morethan 50% (for two consecutive years).489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Mercury (in FishTissue)PL 3C Low 2011 PP: No data; VP = 3 samples ofLargemouth Bass (12 samplesrequired), mean Hg value = 0.37mg/kg, does not exceed screeningvalue of 0.5 mg/kg.489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 High 2006 Background turbidity was set at the20th percentile of the data for theverified period, which was 1 NTU. PP= 23 / 136. VP = 9 / 155.489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia VL 5 High 2006 PP = 75 / 133; VP = 72 / 121140Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM BOD 5-Day (mg/l) VL 5 High 2007 PP = 70 BOD values, with a median of7.2 mg/L. VP = 62 BOD values, with amedian of 8.8 mg/L.Ambient Permitdata: pp = 630 BOD5 values with amedian of 7.0 mg/L; VP = 507 valueswith a median of 6.0 mg/LLivingstondata: PP = 250 BOD values with amedian of 6.73 mg/L; VP = 148 BODvalues with a median 6.45 mg/L.489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Total SuspendedSolids (TSS)NI 2 High 2006 Delisted based on turbidity data, whichindicates the creek is not impaired forturbidity.624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C Need to determine causative pollutant.624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Insufficient data. VP: No chl aannual means exceeded 20 ug/L. Chla annual mean value for 2004, and2005 are 5 ug/L.624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C PP = 8 / 36; VP = 8 / 38. DO met theverification threshold of the IWR, butthe causative pollutant can not bedetermined. 30 TN values, with amedian of 0.39 mg/L. 36 TP values,with a median of 0.02. 32 BOD values,with a median of 0.8.624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 Low 2011 PP = 11 / 32; VP = 4 / 22624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B VP = 0 / 1624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: InsufficientdataWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay141WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 Low 2011 Background turbidity was set at 20thpercentile of the data for the verifiedperiod, which was 1 NTU. PP = 1/38.VP = 2/39624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 0 / 32; VP = 0 / 24681 HURST BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.681 HURST BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C Need to determine causative pollutant.697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Insufficient data. VP: No chl aannual means exceeded 20 ug/L. Chla annual mean value for 2005 is 5ug/L.Livingston data: (>20.0 ug/L) pp= 0/73; VP = 0/45697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C PP = 18 / 124; VP = 30 /108. DO metthe verification threshold of the IWR,but the causative pollutant can not bedetermined. 112 TN values, with amedian of 0.67 mg/L. 114 TP values,with a median of 0.02. 82 BOD values,with a median of 0.6.Livingstondata: (<4.0 mg/L) pp = 1/75; VP = 0/44(<5.0 mg/L) pp = 5/75; VP = 2/44697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2011 PP = 34 / 107; VP = 17 / 97697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B VP = 0 / 1697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.142Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 PP = 0 / 106. The natural backgroundfor WBID 697 is the 20th percentile = 1NTU. The threshold = naturalbackground + 29 NTU = 30 NTU.Based on the binomial distributiontable; we would need 17 exceedancesto verify. VP = 0 / 120. The naturalbackground for WBID 697 is the 20thpercentile = 1 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 30NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 17exceedances to verify.697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 0 / 100; VP = 0 / 86725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Unionized Ammonia PL 3C PP = 0 / 19; VP = 0 / 2725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B PP: No data. VP: Insufficient data. Colimited based on median TN/TP ratio of25.5, using 6 values.725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B VP = 1 / 18725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B Low 2011 PP = 6 / 19; VP = 0 / 8725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B PP: No data. VP: Insufficient data.725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Turbidity PL 3C VP = 0 / 13. Threshold not calculated,however all Turbidity values werebelow 29 NTU.730 TURNER CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.730 TURNER CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 1 / 1;730 TURNER CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.763 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.763 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.779 BELLSHEAD BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay143WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable779 BELLSHEAD BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: No data. VP: Chl a annual mean= 16.08 ug/L for 2005. No chl a annualmeans exceeded 20 ug/L.784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 PP: No data. VP = 3 / 20784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B VP = 2 / 18784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Fluoride NI 2 VP = 0 / 20784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B PP: No data. VP: Insufficient data784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Turbidity NI 2 PP: No data. VP = 0 / 20. Thresholdnot calculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll VL 5 Low 2012 PP: Chl a annual means = 12.83(1994), 7.7 (1998), 7.310 (1999), 8.316(2000), 7.449 (2001), 7.9 (2002), and6.324 ug/L (2003). One chl a annualmean exceeded 11 ug/L. VP: Chl aannual means = 7.310 (1999), 8.316(2000), 7.449 (2001), 7.887 (2002),6.41 (2003), 11.87 (2004) and 7.621ug/L (2005). Co-limited based onmedian TN/TP ratio of 16.35, using 35values.797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Dioxin PL 3CPP = No data; VP = TEQs exceed EPAscreening value.797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 Low 2011 PP = 66 / 762; VP = 52 / 747Livingston data, (<4.0 mg/L) PP =29/463; VP = 11/224797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 42 / 720; VP = 31 / 625797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Fluoride ID 3B VP = 0 / 4144Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Historic ChlorophyllNI 2 Low 2011 Historic minimum chl a was 6.2 ug/Lfor the period 1989-1993. PP: Historicchl a annual means = 12.8 (1994),7.694 (1998), 7.310 (1999), 8.316(2000), 7.449 (2001), 7.887 (2002),and 6.41 ug/L (2003). No annualmeans exceeded the historic minimumof 6.2 ug/L by more than 50%. VP:Historic chl a annual means = 7.310(1999), 8.316 (2000), 7.887 (2002),6.41 (2003), 11.87 (2004) and 7.621ug/L (2005). No annual meansexceeded the historic minimum of 6.2ug/L by more than 50%.797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay145WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 PP = 10 / 403. The naturalbackground for WBID 797 is the 20thpercentile = 2 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 31NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 49exceedances to verify. VP = 11 / 408.The natural background for WBID 797is the 20th percentile = 2 NTU. Thethreshold = natural background + 29NTU = 31 NTU. Based on thebinomial distribution table; we wouldneed 48 exceedances to verify.848 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.848 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.871 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.871 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Insufficient data. VP: Chl a annualmean = 7.188 ug/L for 2005. No chl aannual means exceeded 11 ug/L.872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 1 / 3; VP = 2 / 15872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 3 / 17872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Fluoride ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 13872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata to calculate any Chl a annualmean.146Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 17. Threshold notcalculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Insufficient data. VP: Chl a annualmean = 5 ug/L for 2005. No chl aannual means exceeded 20 ug/L.935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C Low 2011 PP = 26 / 45; VP = 24 / 40. DO metthe verification threshold of the IWR,but the causative pollutant can not bedetermined. 31 TN values, with amedian of 0.54 mg/L. 42 TP values,with a median of 0.01. 29 BOD values,with a median of 0.7.935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 2 / 44; VP = 4 / 29935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Turbidity NI 2 PP = 0 / 46; VP = 0 / 39. Thresholdnot calculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 2 / 40; VP = 0 / 27945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Chlorophyll ID 3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 0 / 7; VP = 0 / 13Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay147WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 4; VP = 0 / 8945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 7; VP = 0 / 10. Threshold notcalculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.974 PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.974 PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.974 PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Chlorophyll ID 3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Color Inappropriate to list for color becausethere currently is no Florida Standard.148Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C PP = 23 / 35; VP = 22 / 39. DO metthe verification threshold of the IWR,but the causative pollutant can not bedetermined. Changed call to 3C perRule 62-303.710(2). 14 TN values,with a median of 0.74 mg/L. 26 TPvalues, with a median of 0.01 mg/L.29 BOD values, with a median of 1mg/L.987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 2 / 27; VP = 3 / 29987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP = Insufficient data; VP = Insufficientdata987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Mercury (in fishtissue)VL 5 Low 2012 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 PP = 0 / 32; VP = 0 / 35.991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Chl a annual means = 7.3 (1998)5.287 (2002) and 5.945 ug/L (2003).No chl a annual means exceeded 11ug/L. VP: Chl a annual means = 5.334(2002) 5.972 (2003) and 5 (2004) ug/L.No chl a annual means exceeded 11ug/L.991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 Low 2011 PP = 1 / 227; VP = 0 / 132991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 4 / 210; VP = 4 / 114Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay149WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll NI 2 Historic chl a data from the period2001-2005, with five year mean valueof 5.4 ug/L. pp: Historic chl a annualmeans = 5.3 ug/L for 2002 and 5.9 for2003. No annual means exceeded thehistoric minimum of 5.4 ug/L by morethan 50%. VP: Historic chl a annualmeans = 5.3 (2002), 5.9 (2003), and 5ug/L (2005). No annual meansexceeded the historic minimum of 5ug/L by more than 50%.991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 PP = 0 / 135; VP = 0 / 83. Thresholdnot calculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Chl a annual means = 6.586 ug/Lfor 1997. VP: Chl a annual means =10.5 ug/L for 2005.1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 PP = 5 / 219; VP = 5 / 531004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 5 / 173; VP = 4 / 191004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.150Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 PP = 0 / 214; VP = 0 / 53. Thresholdnot calculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll ID 3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 0 / 4; VP = 0 / 21014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Chl a annual means = 7.875 ug/L(1997). No chl a annual meansexceeded 20 ug/L. VP: Insufficientdata.1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 PP = 0 / 20; VP = 0 / 21015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 0 / 18; VP = 0 / 11015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: No data.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay151WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Turbidity NI 2 PP = 0 / 20; VP = 0 / 2. Threshold notcalculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 0 / 20; VP = 0 / 11018 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.1018 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.1018 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 9 / 384; VP = 13 / 5841004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Bacteria NI 2 Beach advisories were < 21 days/yr for2005.489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Insufficient data. VP: Chl a annualmeans = 5 ug/L for 2004 and 2005.No chl a annual means exceeded 20ug/L.489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 PP = 1 / 31; VP = 5 / 39152Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 High 2007 PP = 9 / 33; VP = 6 / 25. This is anewly verified impairment, but becauseit adjoins WBID 489 (on the 1998 303(d) list for Fecal Coliform) it has beenassigned a higher priority.489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B VP = 0 / 1489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 PP = 1 / 34. The natural backgroundfor WBID 489A is the 20th percentile =3 NTU. The threshold = naturalbackground + 29 NTU = 32 NTU.Based on the binomial distributiontable; we would need 6 exceedancesto verify. VP = 0 / 42. The naturalbackground for WBID 489A is the 20thpercentile = 1.2 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 30.2NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 8exceedances to verify.489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 0 / 29; VP = 0 / 23489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 0 / 2;489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 1;489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; Threshold not calculated,however all Turbidity values werebelow 29 NTU.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay153WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 2;697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 1 / 4; VP = 1 / 3697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 4; VP = 0 / 3697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Fluoride ID 3B PP = 0 / 3; VP = 0 / 3697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Historic TSI ID 3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE TSI ID 3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 4; VP = 0 / 3. Threshold notcalculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 4; VP = 0 / 3797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: No data. VP: Chl a annual means= 7.243 ug/L for 2005. No chl a annualmeans exceeded 11 ug/L. VP:Insufficient data.797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Dioxin PL 3C PP: No data; VP: TEQs exceed EPAscreening value.797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 VP = 2 / 20797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Fecal Coliform ID 3B VP = 2 / 20797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Fluoride ID 3B VP = 0 / 6797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Historic ChlorophyllID 3B PP: No data. VP: Insufficient data.797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.154Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 VP = 0 / 20. Threshold not calculated,however all Turbidity values werebelow 29 NTU.8001A PERDIDO KEY STATEPARKCOASTAL Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.8001A PERDIDO KEY STATEPARKCOASTAL Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 1 / 127; VP = 1 / 1788001A PERDIDO KEY STATEPARKCOASTAL Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.8001A PERDIDO KEY STATEPARKCOASTAL Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.8001B JOHNSON BEACH COASTAL Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.8001B JOHNSON BEACH COASTAL Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 0 / 127; VP = 0 / 2168001B JOHNSON BEACH COASTAL Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.8001B JOHNSON BEACH COASTAL Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.8001C BIG LAGOON STATE PARK COASTAL Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.8001C BIG LAGOON STATE PARK COASTAL Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 6 / 127; VP = 10 / 2398001C BIG LAGOON STATE PARK COASTAL Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay155WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable8001C BIG LAGOON STATE PARK COASTAL Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackerel hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullShark had an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.3 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Biology PL 3CNeed to determine causative pollutant.3 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.3 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C Need to determine causative pollutant.4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Chl a annual means = 1 (2000),1.033 (2001), 1 (2002), and 2.32 ug/L(2003). No chl a annual meansexceeded 20 ug/L. VP: Chl a annualmeans = 1 (2000), 1.033 (2001), 1(2002), 2.32 (2003), 2.79 (2004), and3.363 ug/L (2005). No chl a annualmeans exceeded 20 ug/L.4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 Low 2011 PP = 5 / 159; VP = 5 / 1874 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2012 PP = 33 / 143; VP = 30 / 1374 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Fluoride NI 2 PP = 0 / 64; VP = 0 / 91156Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll NI 2 Historic chl a data from the period1998-2002, with five year mean valueof 2 ug/L. pp: Historic chl a annualmeans = 1 (2000), 1 (2001), 1 ug/L(2002) and 2.3 ug/L (2003). No annualmeans exceeded the historic minimumof 2 ug/L by more than 50%. VP:Historic chl a annual means = 1 ug/L(2000), 1 (2001), 1 ug/L (2002), 2.3ug/L (2003), 2.8 (2004), and 4.2 ug/L(2005). No annual means exceededthe historic minimum of 2 ug/L by morethan 50%.4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 Low 2011 Background turbidity was set at the20th percentile of the data for theverified period, which was 2.2 NTU.PP = 9 / 154. VP = 7 / 156.4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 0 / 141; VP = 0 / 1324 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Total SuspendedSolids (TSS)NI 2 Low 2011 Delisted based on turbidity data, whichindicates the creek is not impaired forturbidity.14 HUBBARD CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.14 HUBBARD CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND3A PP: No data. VP: No data.72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 0 / 64; VP = 0 / 90Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay157WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Chl a annual means = 1.233(2000), 1.042 (2001), 1.225 (2002),and 1 ug/L (2003). No chl a annualmeans exceeded 20 ug/L. VP: Chl aannual means = 1.233 (2000), 1.042(2001), 1.225 (2002), 1 ug/L (2003),1.092 ug/L (2004), 1.183 (2005). Nochl a annual means exceeded 20 ug/L.72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 PP = 0 / 73; VP = 0 / 12172 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 PP = 7 / 64; VP = 9 / 9072 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Fluoride NI 2 PP = 0 / 70; VP = 0 / 9672 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll NI 2 Historic chl a data from the period2001-2005, with five year mean valueof 2 ug/L. PP: Historic chl a annualmeans = 1.2 (2000), 1 (2001), 1.2(2002), and 1 ug/L (2003). No annualmeans exceeded the historic minimumof 2 ug/L by more than 50%. VP:Historic chl a annual means = 1.2(2000), 1 (2001), 1.2 (2002), 1 (2003),and 1.1 ug/L (2004). No annualmeans exceeded the historic minimumof 2 ug/L by more than 50%.72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2004, 22 Large Mouth Basshad an average mercury concentrationof 0.64 mg/kg.158Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Turbidity NI 2 PP = 1 / 70 The natural backgroundfor WBID 72 is the 20th percentile =1.68 NTU. The threshold = naturalbackground + 29 NTU = 30.68 NTU.Based on the binomial distributiontable; we would need 10 exceedancesto verify. VP = 1 / 96. The naturalbackground for WBID 72 is the 20thpercentile = 1.8 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 30.8NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 14exceedances to verify.72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Conductance NI 2 PP = 0 / 66; VP = 0 / 9273 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.73 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.105 FREEMAN SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1105 FREEMAN SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B PP:Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.105 FREEMAN SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1105 FREEMAN SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1105 FREEMAN SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Fluoride ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1105 FREEMAN SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3BPP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay159WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable105 FREEMAN SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1. Threshold notcalculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Biology ID 3BNeed to determine causative pollutant.135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3BPP: Insufficient data. VP: No data.135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 0 / 1;135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 1 / 1;135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND3A PP: No data. VP: No data.135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; Threshold not calculated,however all Turbidity values werebelow 29 NTU.135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 1;138 ROCKY CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.138 ROCKY CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.148 HELVERSON CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.148 HELVERSON CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP: No data. VP: No data.149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3CNeed to determine causative pollutant.149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP: Insufficient data; VP: Chl a annualmean value was 5.367 ug/L for 2005.No chl a annual means exceeded 20ug/L.149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 0 / 5; VP = 3 / 16149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 5; VP = 3 / 18149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP: Insufficient data. VP: Insufficientdata.160Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0/6. The natural background forWBID 149 is the 20th percentile = 3NTU. The threshold = naturalbackground + 29 NTU = 32 NTU.Based on the binomial distributiontable; we would need 3 exceedancesto verify. VP = 3/18. The naturalbackground for WBID 149 is the 20thpercentile = 4.4 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 33.4NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 5exceedances to verify.149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 3; VP = 0 / 7169 BUCKEYE BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.169 BUCKEYE BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.172 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.172 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.182 WEST FORK STREAM Biology NI 2 Need to determine causative pollutant.182 WEST FORK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B PP=Insufficient data; VP=No data.182 WEST FORK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 1 / 1;182 WEST FORK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 1;182 WEST FORK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.182 WEST FORK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; Threshold not calculated,however all Turbidity values werebelow 29 NTU.182 WEST FORK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 1;197 NARROW GAP BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.197 NARROW GAP BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay161WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable208 MCDADE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.208 MCDADE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.228 JACKSON SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.228 JACKSON SPRINGSBRANCHSTREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.243 SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.243 SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.245 ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM Biology NI 2Need to determine causative pollutant.245 ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.245 ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.252 STILL BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.252 STILL BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.259 POND BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.259 POND BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3BPP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 1 / 1; VP = 1 / 1278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1. Threshold notcalculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.290 DRY CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C Need to determine causative pollutant.290 DRY CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3BPP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.162Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable290 DRY CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 1 / 2;290 DRY CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 1;290 DRY CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.290 DRY CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 1/2. The natural background forWBID 290 is the 20th percentile = 50.4NTU. The threshold = naturalbackground + 29 NTU = 79.4 NTU.Based on the binomial distributiontable; we would need 3 exceedancesto verify. VP = No data.290 DRY CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 2;291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3BPP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C Low 2011 VP = 5 / 11291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Fecal Coliform PL 3C Low 2011 VP = 0 / 11291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID3B PP=No data; VP=Insufficient data.291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Turbidity PL 3C Low 2011 PP = No data. VP = 1/12. The naturalbackground for WBID 291 is the 20thpercentile = 5 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 34NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 5exceedances to verify.297 PENASULA CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.297 PENASULA CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3BPP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay163WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Historic ChlorophyllID 3B PP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 1; VP = 0 / 1. Threshold notcalculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.345 COWDEVIL CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.345 COWDEVIL CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Fluoride ID 3B VP = 0 / 1357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.407 FARM HILL RUN STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.407 FARM HILL RUN STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3BPP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B VP = 0 / 1494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B VP = 1 / 1494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Turbidity ID 3B VP = 0 / 1. Threshold not calculated,however all Turbidity values werebelow 29 NTU.542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Biology PL 3CNeed to determine causative pollutant.542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP=Insufficient data; VP=Chl a annualmean value was 5.956 ug/L for 2005.No chl a annual means exceeded 20ug/L.542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C PP = 4 / 11; VP = 2 / 17164Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Fecal Coliform PL 3C PP = 7 / 13; VP = 7 / 18542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Historic ChlorophyllID 3B PP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Turbidity VL 5 Low 2012 A natural background turbidity of 24.2NTU's was assumed based upon thelower 20th percentile of 36 turbiditymeasurements taken during theplanning and verified periods. Thethreshold of impairment becomes 53.2NTU's. PP = 11/17. VP = 16/19.542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 4; VP = 0 / 2607 CLAYPIT BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.607 CLAYPIT BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.616 BEULAH DRAIN STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.616 BEULAH DRAIN STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.696 BLACK LAKE LAKE Historic TSI ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.696 BLACK LAKE LAKE TSI ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.2F PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.2F PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.2F PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2004, 22 Large Mouth Basshad an average mercury concentrationof 0.64 mg/kg.462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 Low 2011 PP=Insufficient data; VP=Chl a annualmean value was 5 ug/L for 2004 and5.058 for 2005. No chl a annualmeans exceeded 11 ug/L.462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 Low 2011 PP = 4 / 90; VP = 1 / 44Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay165WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 Low 2011 PP = 20 / 90; VP = 6 / 36462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID3B Low 2011 PP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficient.462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2002, 87 King Mackeral hadan average mercury concentration of0.67 mg/kg. In 2003/2004, 28 BullSharkhad an average mercuryconcentration of 1.85 mg/kg.462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 PP = 0/98. The natural background forWBID 462A is the 20th percentile = 2.4NTU. The threshold = naturalbackground + 29 NTU = 31.41 NTU.Based on the binomial distributiontable; we would need 13 exceedancesto verify. VP = 0/48. The naturalbackground for WBID 462A is the 20thpercentile = 2 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 31NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 9exceedances to verify.462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP=Insufficient data; VP=Chl a annualmean value was 5 ug/L for 2004 and2005. No chl a annual meansexceeded 20 ug/L.462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 PP = 4 / 73; VP = 3 / 69462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2011 PP = 6 / 74; VP = 10 / 61462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Historic ChlorophyllID 3B PP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.166Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2004, 22 Large Mouth Basshad an average mercury concentrationof 0.64 mg/kg.462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Turbidity NI 2 PP = 2/79. The natural background forWBID 462C is the 20th percentile = 1NTU. The threshold = naturalbackground + 29 NTU = 30 NTU.Based on the binomial distributiontable; we would need 11 exceedancesto verify. VP = 3/76. The naturalbackground for WBID 462C is the 20thpercentile = 1 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 30NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 12exceedances to verify.462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 0 / 60; VP = 0 / 45462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Biology NI 2 Need to determine causative pollutant.462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 PP=Insufficient data; VP=Chl a annualmean values were 5 ug/L for 2004 and2005. No chl a annual meansexceeded 20 ug/L.462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 PP = 2 / 62; VP = 0 / 38462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 Low 2011 PP = 5 / 64; VP = 5 / 30462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Historic ChlorophyllID 3B PP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay167WBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2004, 22 Large Mouth Basshad an average mercury concentrationof 0.64 mg/kg.462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Turbidity NI 2 PP = 1/69. The natural background forWBID 462C is the 20th percentile = 2NTU. The threshold = naturalbackground + 29 NTU = 31 NTU.Based on the binomial distributiontable; we would need 10 exceedancesto verify. VP = 0/42. The naturalbackground for WBID 462C is the 20thpercentile = 1 NTU. The threshold =natural background + 29 NTU = 30NTU. Based on the binomialdistribution table; we would need 8exceedances to verify.462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 PP = 1 / 57; 0 / 21696A BLACK LAKE DRAIN STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.696A BLACK LAKE DRAIN STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B PP = 0 / 2; VP = 0 / 272D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM ChlorophyllID 3B PP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B PP = 0 / 2; VP = 0 / 272D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B PP = 2 / 2; VP = 2 / 272D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Fluoride ID 3B PP = 0 / 2; VP = 0 / 272D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B PP=Insufficient data; VP=Insufficientdata.168Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody SegmentWaterbodyType1ParametersAssessed1998 303(d) ListEPA’sIntegratedReportCategory2Priorityfor TMDLDevelopmentProjectedYear forTMDLDevelopment CommentsProposed Status:NI = Not Impaired; VL =Verified List; PL = PlanningList; RA = ReasonableAssurance; NP = NoPollutant; ID = InsufficientData; ND = No Data; NA = NotApplicable72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2004, 22 Large Mouth Basshad an average mercury concentrationof 0.64 mg/kg.72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Turbidity ID 3B PP = 0 / 2; VP = 0 / 2. Threshold notcalculated, however all Turbidityvalues were below 29 NTU.72E DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.72E DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.72E DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2004, 22 Large Mouth Basshad an average mercury concentrationof 0.64 mg/kg.72F DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.72F DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A PP=No data; VP=No data.72F DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Mercury (in FishTissue)VL 5 Low 2011 Data verified to be within the last 7.5years. In 2004, 22 Large Mouth Basshad an average mercury concentrationof 0.64 mg/kg.1The designation "stream" includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes.2The 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 todetermine 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 potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;4a– Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;4b– Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that thewater will attain standards in the future;4c– Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment isnot caused by a pollutant; and5– Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay169Table E.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations Used in the Assessment for the Perdido River andBay Basin, by Planning UnitWBID Waterbody NamesWaterbodyType Class Station Numbers Station NameStartYearEndYear#Obs.Perdido Bay1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010H91 ICW MARKER 35 EAST OLD RIVER 1999 1999 281004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M32BIG LAGOON 500FT OFFSHORE N JOHNSONBCHRDCULDESA 1999 1999 401004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M29 BIG LAGOON WEST END ICW MARKER 18 1999 1999 281004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M15 BIG LAGOON TWEEN REDFISH/SPANISH PTS 100YD 15DEP 1999 1999 261004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M13 BIG LAGOON BETWEEN TROUT PT AND REDFISH PT 1999 1999 281004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M10 BIGLAGOON 500FT SOUTH OF SEAGLADES PIER 1999 1999 251004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA330200M7 BIG LAGOON FT MCREE LNDING SOUTH CUT MID CHANNEL 1999 1999 281004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M33 SEQUIENZA COVE SR 292 "BRENTS DITCH 1999 2006 2561004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330200M3 BIG LAGOON 500FT SOUTH ROD AND REEL MARINA PIER 1999 1999 441004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M12G LangleyPoint at Big Lagoon (GNIS) - Seagrass 1999 1999 391004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M20GBig Lagoon State Park-Seagrass Station 1999 1999 531004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M16G Spanish Cove within Big Lagoon - Seagrass 1999 1999 391004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M13G Redfish Point within Big Lagoon (GINS) - Seagrass 1999 1999 531004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33020M9G Grande Lagoon at Seaglades (Big Lagoon)-Seagrass 1999 1999 391004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33020M4G East of Trout Point within Big Lagoon - Seagrass 1999 1999 421004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M30G BigLagoon Near Johnson Beach (GNIS)-Seagrass 1999 1999 401014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLGBO1P09PB0312 Pensacola Bay P09PB0312 2003 2003 1951014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLGBO1P09PB0311 Pensacola Bay P09PB0311 2003 2003 2991015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010H21 OLD RIVER AT FLORIDA/ALABAMA LINE 1999 1999 31489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17373 NWD-SL-1015 UNNAMED LAKE 2003 2003 28489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010093 Eleven MileCreek @ Hwy 186 Cantonment STP (removed) Outfall 2006 2006 12489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBRA 489-A 489 - Elevenmile Creek - at 297A and 97A junction 2006 2006 62489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330148921 Tributary to Eleven Mile Creek @ Turtle Pond 2005 2005 26489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330148917Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-17 2005 2005 41489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010041 Eleven Mile Creek 1700 Yards above Mouth 2005 2005 26489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330148916Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-16 2005 2005 25489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330148915Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-15 2005 2005 25489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBRA 489-B 489- Elevenmile Creek - At Kingsfield 2006 2006 61489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBRA 489-D489 - Elevenmile Creek - at US-90 2006 2006 31489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17366 NWD-SL-1006 UNNAMED LAKE 2003 2003 32489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33014895 Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-5 2005 2005 26170Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody NamesWaterbodyType Class Station Numbers Station NameStartYearEndYear#Obs.489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 3565 ELEVENMILE CREEK NEAR WEST PENSACOLA 1999 2006 2731489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010040 Elevenmile Creek 500 Yards from Mouth 2005 2005 52489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010105 Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-10 2005 2005 26489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010013 ElevenMile Creek at Highway 90 Bridge 2005 2006 128489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010012 Eleven Mile Creek at Hwy 90A 2005 2005 42489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010011 11 MILE CREEK at SR 297A Bridge 2005 2006 93489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 112WRD 02376115 ELEVENMILE CREEK NEAR PENSACOLA, FL. 1999 2005 89489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBRA 489-C 489- Elevenmile Creek - at US-90A 2006 2006 60489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010011 11 MILE CREEK AT SR 297A BR 1999 2006 633489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010080 Ten Mile Creek at Hwy 297 (also BFA) 2005 2005 40489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301489A4 Ten Mile Creek at Amanda Lane and Sunday Road 2005 2006 48489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010134 Ten Mile Creek at Roberts Road 2006 2006 13489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010080 TEN MILE CREEK AT HWY 297 1999 2004 275489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010125 TenMile Cr abv Stephani Rd aka Sr489 2004 2006 140489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010125 Ten Mile Cr abv Stephani Rd aka Sr489 2005 2005 41489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010109 TENMILE CREEK 50M N OF GALLOWS RD. 2005 2005 20489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010104 TEN MILE CR. AT GULF POWER EASEMENT 2005 2006 72489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010103 TEN MILE CR. N OF CITATION AT BONANZA AT STORM D 2005 2006 41489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301489A5 Ten Mile Creek at Greenhills Road (EastFork tributary) 2005 2005 29624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010113EIGHTMILE CREEK ABOVE KLONDIKE ROAD 2005 2005 20624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010015 8 MI CR SR 297 BR 2005 2005 18624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010128 Eight Mile Creek @ Cove Ave. 2005 2005 19624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010016 8 MI CR HWY 90 BRIDGE 1999 2006 482624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010016 8 Mile Creek at Hwy 90 Bridge 2005 2005 47624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33016245 Tributaryto Eight Mile Creek (TMDL wbid 624-5) 2005 2005 19624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010122 Eightmile Creek--WBID 624-2 2005 2005 81697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010036 MARCUS CR ABOVE AVONDALE STP 1999 2006 552697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330100C9 Marcus Creek--WBID 697-1 2005 2006 31697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010021 Marcus Creek at Longleaf Drive 1999 2006 528697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010030 MARCUS CREEK HWY 90 BR 1999 2006 508697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010021 Marcus Creek at West arm of Longleaf Road 2005 2006 154697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010075 MARCUS CREEK 100 Yards above Mo. of Perdido Bay 2005 2006 44697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010038 Marcus Creek100 yards above mouth of Bayou Marcus 2005 2006 55697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010036 Marcus Creek - 150 Ft. above Avondale STP at Millview Road 2006 2006 88Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay171WBID Waterbody NamesWaterbodyType Class Station Numbers Station NameStartYearEndYear#Obs.697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010030 MARCUS CREEK at Highway 90 Bridge 2005 2006 143697A CRESSENT LAKE LAKE 3F 21FLGW 19172 NWD-LL-1011 CRESCENT LAKE 2003 2003 32697A CRESSENT LAKE LAKE 3F 21FLGW 19167 NWD-LL-1006 CRESCENT LAKE 2003 2003 32697A CRESSENT LAKE LAKE 3F 21FLGW 19169 NWD-LL-1008 CRESCENT LAKE 2003 2003 32725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33017251 Marcus Creek@ Marcus Point Bridge (Upper East Branch) 2005 2006 106725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33017252 MarcusCreek, Upper Arm off Rolling Hills Road 2005 2006 81784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7843 Tee Lake--WBID 784-3 2005 2005 88784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7841 Tee Lake--WBID 784-1 2005 2005 63784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7845 Tee Lake--WBID 784-5 2005 2005 78784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7842 Tee Lake--WBID 784-2 2005 2005 67784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7848 Wicker Lakes-Upper End (TMDL wbid 784-8) 2005 2005 26784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7844 Tee Lake--WBID 784-4 2005 2005 59784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7846 Wicker Lakes--WBID 784-6 2005 2005 79784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7847 Wicker Lakes--WBID 784-7 2005 2005 47797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330100C6 PERDIDO BAY PNS 1999 1999 31797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330100E2 PERDIDOBAY BETWEEN INERARITY PT AND RED BLUFF 1999 1999 29797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010D16 PERDIDO BAY CENTER OFF DU PONT POINT 1999 1999 44797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100A5 PERDIDO B 100 YDS OFFSHORE 2005 2005 34797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100C6 PERDIDO BAY SEC C BACKGROUND STA 2005 2005 52797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330100A3 PERDIDOBAY 100YDS OFF MOUTH OF ELEVENMILE CREEK 1999 1999 34797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100D4 PERDIDO BAY AT PARADISE BEACH 2005 2005 52797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010G10 LOWER PERDIDO BAY OFF PALE MOON DR NR PAPAGO RD 1999 2006 3530797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100A1 PERDIDO BAY MO PERDIDO R 2005 2005 57797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010C14 PERDIDO BAY ESCAMBIA COUNTY 1999 2006 3623797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010A10 PERDIDO BAY SEC A BACKGROUND STA 2005 2005 52797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301D79712 Perdido Bay @ Lillian Bridge (TMDL wbid 797-12) 2005 2005 65797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301D79713 Perdido Bay off Bronson Field (TMDL wbid 797-13) 2005 2005 84797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010D16 PERDIDO BAY CENT BAY 2005 2005 49797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301462C5 PerdidoRiver @ Ruby's Landing on Hwy 90 (TMDL wbid 462C-5) 2005 2006 61797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010I22 PERDIDO B MID CHAN DUPONT PO 2005 2005 22797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010F16 LOWER PERDIDO BAY N OF INERARITY ISLAND 2005 2005 60797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100F4 PERDIDO BAY CENTER OF BAY WEST O 2005 2005 61797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100E4 PERDIDO BAY SEC E BACKGROUND STA 2005 2005 57172Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody NamesWaterbodyType Class Station Numbers Station NameStartYearEndYear#Obs.8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL 3M21FLDOHESCAMBIA94 FL524842 2000 2006 1908001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL 3M21FLDOHESCAMBIA92 FL785378 2000 2006 1728001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL 3M21FLDOHESCAMBIA93 FL988248 2000 2006 227872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010C19 PERDIDO BAY BRIDGE CR 2005 2005 12872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010078 BRIDGE CR HWY98 HERON BAYOU LILLIAN HWY ESC CO. 2005 2006 120872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLGW 17887 NWD-SS-1031 BRIDGE CREEK 2003 2003 27872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010126 Bridge Creek at Dogtrack Road 2005 2006 131935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010G4W WEEKLY BAYOU 1999 1999 32935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301G9351 Weekly Bayou-lower portion (TMDL wbid 935-1) 2005 2005 51935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301G9352 Weekly Bayou-upper portion (TMDL wbid 935-2) 2005 2005 34935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301G9353 WeeklyBayou-Middle Portion (TMDLwbid 935-3) 2005 2005 35935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301G9354 Weekly Bayou-Upper portion (TMDL wbid 935-4) 2005 2005 63935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010082 WEEKLY BAYOU CREEK CO RD 293 ESC.CO. 1999 2006 501945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010G4T TARKLIN BAYOU 1999 1999 30945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010G4T Tarklin Bayou 2002 2002 15945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9453 Tarklin Bayou- Mid to Lower Portion (TMDL wbid 945-3) 2005 2005 34945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9451 TarklinBayou - Upper Portion (TMDL wbid 945-1) 2005 2006 68945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9454 Tarklin Bayou-Lower Portion near Mouth (TMDL-wbid 945-4) 2005 2005 44945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9452 Tarklin Bayou-Mid to Upper Portion (TMDL wbid 945-2) 2005 2005 34987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIPEN200326 Pensacola - Bayou Garcon 2003 2003 13987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9874 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-4 2005 2005 23987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9871 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-1 2005 2005 23987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9873 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-3 2005 2005 24987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9875 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-5 2005 2005 12987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9877 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-7 2005 2005 12987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9878 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-8 2005 2005 23987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9872 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-2 2005 2005 23987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010FA9 BAYOU GARCON AT HWY 292 2005 2005 10987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010FA7 BAYOU GARCON 1.3 MI E 292-293 IN 1999 2006 439991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M31 BIG LAGOON HWY. 292 ICW BRIDGE ESC.CO. 1999 2006 435991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33020M20 Big Lagoon State Park West Beach 2002 2004 1022Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay173WBID Waterbody NamesWaterbodyType Class Station Numbers Station NameStartYearEndYear#Obs.Perdido River105FREEMAN SPRINGSBRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17876 NWD-SS-1019 FREEMAN SPRINGS BRANCH 2003 2003 28149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010118 MCDAVID CR @ TUNG OIL ROAD 2005 2006 119149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010054 MCDAVID CREEK AT SR99 2005 2005 74149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010127 McDavid Creek @ SR99 2005 2006 108278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17866 NWD-SS-1006 UNNAMED STREAM 2003 2003 28291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010131 Jacks Branch @ SR196 2005 2006 56291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010130 Jacks Branch@SR196 East of Hwy29 2005 2005 43291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010132 Jacks Branch @ Hwy 29 2005 2006 62311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17391 NWD-SL-1038 UNNAMED LAKE 2003 2003 32357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010069 CHURCHHOUSE BR. SR97 NW OF CANTONMENT South Fork 2005 2005 204 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010055 BRUSHY CREEK AT COUNTY RD 2005 2005 544 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010119 BRUSHY CR @ O C PHILLIPS ROAD 2005 2005 234 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 3550 BRUSHY CREEK AT NAKOMIS RD 1999 2006 27194 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010055 BRUSHY CREEK AT COUNTY RD 1999 2006 5434 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010060 BRUSHY CREEK AT HWY 31 1999 2006 5444 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010063 BRUSHYCREEK AT NAKOMIS RD. ALSO BFA STATION 2005 2005 49462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010004 PERDIDO RIVER AT HWY 90 BRIDGE 1999 2006 513462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301A462A2 Lower Perdido River above Hurst Landing 2005 2006 137462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010006 PERDIDO R PERDIDO BAY MIDSTREAM 1999 1999 33462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301462A3 LowerPerdido River TMDL site wbid 462A-3 2005 2006 104462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRISTR200201 StateNonTrend - Perdido River 2002 2002 24462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462B1 PerdidoRiver at Blackwater River (AL) Confluence 2005 2006 51462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010002 PERDIDO R BARRINEAU PARK BR 1999 2006 516462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010092 BLACKWATER RIVER CR91 WAYBURN RD ALA 1999 2006 578462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462B3 PerdidoRiver, Below Styx River near Brown's Landing 2005 2006 61462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462B2 Perdido River, 250 Meters above Blackwater (AL) Confluence 2005 2006 83462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010001 PERDIDO R ABOVE JUNC BRUSHY CR 1999 2006 526462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462C4 Slew off Perdido River-(TMDL-462C-4) 2005 2005 16462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462C3 Perdido River-Mid to Upper (TMDL-wbid 462C-3) 2005 2005 15462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462C1 PerdidoRiver, 400 Meters above Mouth of Styx River 2005 2006 78462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462C2 Perdido River at Power Easement 2005 2006 45494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010057 JACKS BRANCH AT SR 97 2005 2005 11174Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayWBID Waterbody NamesWaterbodyType Class Station Numbers Station NameStartYearEndYear#Obs.542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33015424 Beaver Pond Creek @ the Perdido Landing (TMDL wbid 542-4) 2005 2006 46542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33015421 Beaver Pond Creek below Perdido Landfill on N side of I-10 2005 2006 18542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33015425 Tributary East of Perdido Landfill, North of I-10 2005 2006 81542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010077 E. TRIB TO I10 REST STOP CR E OF PERDIDO FILL 2005 2006 83542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010065 Rest Area Run Creek blw I 10 ECO REG 75A 2005 2005 36542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010066 BEAVER POND CREEK I10 ECO REG 75A 2005 2005 7172 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 19253 NWD-LR-1016 PERDIDO RIVER 2003 2003 3272 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17872 NWD-SS-1015 UNNAMED STREAM 2003 2003 2872 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 3542 PERDIDO RIVER AT BARRINEAU PARK BRIDGE 1999 2006 276972D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 19262 NWD-LR-1025 PERDIDO RIVER 2003 2003 3272D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 19267 NWD-LR-1030 PERDIDO RIVER 2003 2003 321F – Fresh water; M – Marine.Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay175Appendix F: Permitted Discharge Facilities and Landfills in the Perdido River and Bay BasinTable F.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground WaterPermit numbers in bold and italic typeface arelocated within the Perdido River Planning Unit.Permit Number Facility Name City Where LocatedFacilityType1Status2NPDESPermit3Facility DesignCapacity (mgd)FLA016856 Clark Site Contractors–Wingfoot WayPensacola IW A N 0FLA010030 Ernest Ward Middle SchoolWalnut HillDW AN0.0140FLA016534 Outpost Equipment Rental Pensacola IW A N 0FLA016675 Clark Sand Company–East Fence Pensacola IW A N 0FLA183881 Pensacola Tractor & Equipment,Inc Cantonment IW A N 0FLA181862MilkawayDairy#3Walnut HillAFONN0FLA016166 Evergreen Transportation Cantonment IW A N 0FLG911000 HappyStore #521 Cantonment PET A Y 0FL0184624 Clark/Sand & Dirt RollingHills Pit Pensacola IW A Y 2.3FLA184551 McDirt Industries Pensacola IW A N 0FLA185094 Nations Rent - Pensacola Pensacola IW A N 0FLA016808 Gulf-Atlantic Constructors Pensacola IW A N 0FLA016910 Greens Fill Dirt - Blossom Trail Mine Pensacola IW X N 0FLA017366Escambia CountyNorth Road CampCenturyIW AN0FL0031801 Bayou Marcus Water Reclamation FacilityPensacola DW A Y 8.2FLA010053 Cowin Equipment Company,Inc Pensacola IW A N 0.0144FLA010055 Couch ReadyMix - Pensacola Pensacola IW N N 0.0011FLA010058 InnerarityIsland Pensacola DW A N 0.09FLA016989 Carpenters Campers Inc Pensacola IW A N 0FLA416274 Zacharjc Septage Recoveryand Process Cantonment RES A N 0.037FL0002526 International Paper CompanyCantonment IW A Y 28FlR05A334 Beullah Landfill Cantonment SW N Y 0FLR04E058 Naval Air Station Pensacola MS2 A Y 01Facility Type: IW – Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant; DW– Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant, AFO – Animal feeding operation; PET – Petroleum cleanup general permitlongterm; RES –Residuals/septage Management Facility; MS2 –Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) phase II permit.2Status: A – Active; N – Active, permitnot required; X – Active unpermitted discharge.3NPDES Permit: Y – Yes; N – No.176Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and BayTable F.2: Permitted Landfill FacilitiesFacility IDNumberFacility Name Address City Status1Facility Type2, 33029 D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. C&D In Beulah, on Tower Ridge Rd. Cantonment A C&D Debris3026Heaton Bros Construction Co. C&DDebris5805 Saufley Field Rd. Pensacola I C&D Debris3066 Saufley LF (Morton C.A. C & C Facility) 4512 Trice St. Milton A C&D Debris3351 Fairgrounds Pit N of Godwin Ln., W of Mobile Hwy. Pensacola J C&D Debris1744 Mobile Highway LF 3100 Mobile Highway Pensacola K Class 3 Landfill3116 Cerny Rd. C&D Milford Rd, near Cerny Blvd. Pensacola A C&D Debris3079 Gulf Coast Paving & Grading, Inc. #17320 Hayward St. Pensacola A C&D Debris4056 Green Fill Dirt North WingfootWay Pensacola A C&D Debris3133 Rolling Hills Rd C&D Disposal 200FT South of Kemp Rd. Pensacola A C&D Debris2984 Gilley’s Dozer Service, Inc. PostOffice Box 728 Lillian A C&D Debris3154 Auto Shred Industrial Landfill Bedford Avenue Pensacola K Class 3 Landfill3459 Laney E. Strange 6640 Frank Reeder Road Pensacola J C&D Debris3032Surrey Pit (Panhandle Grading &Paving 8 Mile)8 Mile Creek Rd - near I-10 Pensacola A C&D Debris3770 Bankhead C&D Site Bankhead Road Pensacola A C&D Debris3400Cove Avenue C&D – RapidManagement Company10350 Cove Ave. – Cove Ave +/- 1 MiN of 9 Mi Rd.Pensacola A C&D Debris3027 Saufley Pit (Clark Sand Co.) E. Fence Rd.– Next to Sauf. Fld. Pensacola A C&D Debris3040Gulf-Atlantic Construction, Inc.(H-Wood)Hollywood @ Fairfield Pensacola J C&D Debris3031 Escambia District School Bd. C&D 2400 Longleaf Dr. Pensacola J C&D Debris3060 Clark Sand Co. 395 N Ehrmann Street Pensacola K C&D Debris1690 Klondike SLF 7219 Mobile Hwy. Pensacola K Class 1 Landfill3345 United Southco, Inc. 9235 PineForest Road Pensacola J C&D Debris3005 Langford & Mills Home Builders, Inc. CornerLepley & Ashland Sts. Pensacola J C&D DebrisWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay177Facility IDNumberFacility Name Address City Status1Facility Type2, 33157 Panhandle Paving & Grading (Long LF) 2390 Longleaf Dr. Pensacola J C&D Debris1688 Perdido Landfill Beulah-Muskogee Rd. Muscogee A Class 1 Landfill3051G.F.D. Construction Co., Inc. C&DDebrisEnd of Blossom Trail Pensacola K C&D Debris3028 Bedford Pit Off Godwin – N End ofBedford Pensacola A C&D Debris3030Gulf-Atlantic Construction Inc.(Godwin)OFF Godwin –E of Pine Forest Rd. Pensacola A C&D Debris1688 Perdido Landfill Beulah-Muskogee Rd. Pensacola A Class 3 Landfill91106 Clark Site Contractors, Inc. 3131 Navy Blvd. Pensacola O C&D Debris3037 English Brothers Demolition C&D OFF HWY.297-A (Pine Forest ) Pensacola J C&D Debris2997 Langford C&D DisposalOFF Pine Forest Rd. (7500 PineForest Rd.)Pensacola J C&D Debris4034 Fairgrounds Land Clearing Debris .4M W Mobile Hwy. on Belleview A Pensacola A C&D DebrisNotes:1Status: A – Active; I – Inactive; J – Closed; K – Closed with ground water monitoring; O – Never operated, permit never used.2Class I landfills receive an average of 20 tons or more ofsolid waste per day, while Class II landfills receive an average ofless than 20 tons of solid waste per day. Both Class I andClass III landfills are those that receive only yard trash, construction and demolition debris, waste tires, asbestos, carpet,cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other thanappliances, or other materials approved by the Department that are not expected to produce leachate that poses a threat to public health or the environment. They do not acceptputrescible household waste.3C&D – Construction and demolition debris.

# 178 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



# Appendix G: 20 00 Land Use, by Planning Unit

Table G.1: Land Use for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit
Florida Land Use Classification Description Acres Square Miles Percentage of Basin

0 Outside Study Area 25.70 0.04 0.04
1000 Urban and Built-up 24, 448.80 38.20 36.59
2000 Agriculture 3,604.96 5.63 5.40
3000 Rangeland 3,198.56 5.00 4.79
4000 Upland Forests 20,321.53 31.75 30.42

5000 Water 795.95 1.24 1.19

6000 Wetlands 11,174.52 17.46 16.72

7000 Barren Land 815.87 1.27 1.22
8000 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 2,428. 11 3.79 3.63

Total 100Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 179

Table G.2: Detailed Land Use Analysis for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit

Florida Land

Use

Classification Description Acres Square

Miles Percentage

of Basin

1 Outside Study Area 25.70 0.04 0.04

1100 Residential, Low D ensity 2,321.67 3.63 3.47

1120 Mobile Home Units 50.93 0.08 0.08

1200 Residential, Medium D ensity 11,603.96 18.13 17.37

1220 Mobile Home Units, Medi um Density 58.70 0.09 0.09
1300 Residential, High De nsity 4,412.82 6.90 6.60
1320 Mobile Home Units, Hig h Density 194.21 0.30 0.29
1400 Commercial and Services 1,629.45 2.55 2.44

1420 Junk Yards 22.47 0.04 0.03

1450 Tourist services 1.75 0.00 0.00

1480 Cemeteries 11.23 0.02 0.02

1500 Industrial 655.57 1.02 0.98

1600 Extractive 148.45 0.23 0.22
1610 Strip Mines 727.98 1.14 1.09

1620 Sand and Gravel Pits 30.06 0.05 0.05
1660 Holding Ponds 102.09 0.16 0.15

1700 Institutional 78.17 0.12 0.12

1710 Educational Facilit ies 569.13 0.89 0.85
1720 Religious 155.12 0.24 0.23
1730 Military 682.61 1.07 1.02

1800 Recreational 210.52 0.33 0.32

1820 Golf Courses 398.05 0.62 0.60

1830 Race Tracks 118.63 0.19 0.18
1840 Marinas and Fish Camps 4.07 0.01 0.01

1880 Historic Sites 4.32 0.01 0.01
1900 Open Land (Urban) 256.87 0.40 0.38
2100 Cropland and Pasturel and 3,293.90 5.15 4.93
2200 Tree Crops 292.10 0.46 0.44
2300 Feeding Operations 18.97 0.03 0.03
3200 Shrub and Brushland 1,811.25 2.83 2.71
3220 Coastal Scrub 1,387.32 2.17 2.08
4100 Upland Coniferous Fore sts 11,729.61 18.33 17.56
4200 Upland Hardwood Forests 253.53 0.40 0.38
4340 Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood 4,397.13 6.87 6.58

4400 Tree Plantations 69.72 0.11 0.10
4410 Coniferous Plantations 3,337.84 5.22 5.00
4430 Forest Regeneration Areas 533.71 0.83 0.80
5100 Streams and Waterways 152.63 0.24 0.23

5200 Lakes 103.34 0.16 0.15

# 180 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

Florida Land

Use

Classification Description Acres Square

Miles Percentage

of Basin

5300 Reservoirs 534.99 0.84 0.80
5420 Embayments < Gulf 4.99 0.01 0.01

6100 Wetland Hardwood Forests 1,506.50 2.35 2.25
6130 Gum Swamps 1.12 0.00 0.00
6160 Inland Ponds and Sloughs 32.50 0.05 0.05

6200 Wetland Coniferous Forests 975.74 1.52 1.46
6210 Cypress 8.06 0.01 0.01

6300 Wetland Forested Mixed 5,250.24 8.20 7.86
6400 Vegetated Nonforested We tlands 17.95 0.03 0.03

6410 Freshwater Marshes 239.85 0.37 0.36

6420 Saltwater Marshes 667.26 1.04 1.00
6440 Emergent Aquatic Veget ation 23.55 0.04 0.04
6900 Wetland Scrub Shrub 2,451.74 3.83 3.67

7100 Beaches 683.58 1.07 1.02

7200 Sand Other than Beaches 41.43 0.06 0.06

7400 Disturbed Land 90.03 0.14 0.13

7500 Riverine Sandbars 0.82 0.00 0.00
8100 Transportation 200.73 0.31 0.30
8110 Airports 968.72 1.51 1.45
8140 Roads and Highways 531.41 0.83 0.80
8170 Oil, Water, or Gas Trans mission Lines 12.64 0.02 0.02
8180 Auto Parking Facilities 4.55 0.01 0.01

8200 Communications 2.92 0.00 0.00

8300 Utilities 114.65 0.18 0.17

8310 Electrical Power Facilities 21.97 0.03 0.03

8320 Electrical Power Transmission Lines 419.18 0.66 0.63
8340 Sewage Treatment 151.34 0.24 0.23

Total 100Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 181

Table G.3: Land Use for the Perdido River Planning Unit
Florida Land Use Classification Description Acres Square Miles Percentage of Basin

0 Outside Study Area 25.25 0.04 0.02
1000 Urban and Built-up 7,577.95 11.84 4.95 2000 Agriculture 29,429.09 45.98 19.23 3000 Rangeland 871.09 1.36 0.57 4000 Upland Forests 90,128.44 140.83 58.88
5000 Water 1,052.74 1.64 0.69
6000 Wetlands 22,474.34 35.12 14.68

7000 Barren Land 573.02 0.90 0.37
8000 Transportation, Communication , and Utilities 929.25 1.45 0.61

Total 100

# 182 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

Table G.4: Detailed Land Use Analysis for the Perdido River Planning Unit
Florida Land Use Classification Description Acres Square Miles Percentage of Basin

1 Outside Study Area 25.25 0.04 0.02

1100 Residential, Low D ensity 2,102.88 3.29 1.37

1200 Residential, Medium Density 3,750.87 5.86 2.45

1220 Mobile Home Units, Medi um Density 6.92 0.01 0.00
1300 Residential, High Density 773.96 1.21 0.51
1320 Mobile Home Units, Hig h Density 2.64 0.00 0.00

1400 Commercial and Services 163.29 0.26 0.11

1420 Junk Yards 10.40 0.02 0.01

1480 Cemeteries 3.69 0.01 0.00

1500 Industrial 17.24 0.03 0.01

1600 Extractive 30.49 0.05 0.02
1610 Strip Mines 318.45 0.50 0.21

1620 Sand and Gravel Pits 12.61 0.02 0.01
1660 Holding Ponds 48.67 0.08 0.03

1700 Institutional 39.76 0.06 0.03

1710 Educational Facilit ies 31.08 0.05 0.02
1720 Religious 34.16 0.05 0.02
1730 Military 14.27 0.02 0.01

1800 Recreational 8.61 0.01 0.01

1820 Golf Courses 45.41 0.07 0.03
1860 Community Recreational Facilities 17.09 0.03 0.01
1900 Open Land (Urban) 145.43 0.23 0.10
2100 Cropland and Pasturela nd 28,910.41 45.17 18.89
2200 Tree Crops 282.85 0.44 0.18
2300 Feeding Operations 57.18 0.09 0.04
2400 Nurseries and Vineyards 12.71 0.02 0.01
2540 Aquaculture 34.98 0.05 0.02
2600 Other Open Lands (R ural) 130.95 0.20 0.09

3200 Shrub and Brushland 871.09 1.36 0.57
4100 Upland Coniferous Fore sts 43,892.81 68.58 28.68
4200 Upland Hardwood Forests 192.78 0.30 0.13

4340 Mixed Coniferous/Har dwood 7,474.53 11.68 4.88

4400 Tree Plantations 6.72 0.01 0.00
4410 Coniferous Plantations 32,339.77 50.53 21.13
4430 Forest Regeneration Areas 6,221.81 9.72 4.06
5100 Streams and Waterways 593.59 0.93 0.39

5200 Lakes 49.84 0.08 0.03

5300 Reservoirs 394.44 0.62 0.26
5600 Slough Waters 14.87 0.02 0.01Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 183

Florida Land Use Classification Description Acres Square Miles Percentage of Basin

6100 Wetland Hardwood Forests 14,865.90 23.23 9.71
6110 Bay Swamps 95.89 0.15 0.06
6120 Mangrove Swamps 42.30 0.07 0.03

6150 Stream and Lake Swam ps 3,339.19 5.22 2.18
6160 Inland Ponds and Sloughs 117.87 0.18 0.08

6200 Wetland Coniferous Forests 374.10 0.58 0.24
6210 Cypress 135.01 0.21 0.09

6300 Wetland Forested Mixed 2,232.28 3.49 1.46

6410 Freshwater Marshes 344.21 0.54 0.22

6420 Saltwater Marshes 135.54 0.21 0.09
6440 Emergent Aquatic Veget ation 0.92 0.00 0.00
6500 Nonvegetated 13.43 0.02 0.01

6530 Intermittent Ponds 1.09 0.00 0.00

6900 Wetland Scrub Shrub 776.62 1.21 0.51

7400 Disturbed Land 47.42 0.07 0.03

7450 Burned Areas 517.16 0.81 0.34

7500 Riverine Sandbars 8.44 0.01 0.01
8100 Transportation 9.47 0.01 0.01
8140 Roads and Highways 245.70 0.38 0.16
8170 Oil, Water, or Gas Trans mission Lines 95.05 0.15 0.06

8320 Electrical Power Transmission Lines 458.75 0.72 0.30
8350 Solid Waste Disposal 120.28 0.19 0.08

Total 100

# 184 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



# Appendix H: Documentation Pr ovided during Public Comment Period

8/02/2006 1:00 pm Conference Room A, Building 22 University of West Florida

Group 5 Perdido Public Meeting
Rich Wieckowicz notes

1. DJ intro. – TV cameraman left Jackie Lane- asked about change to Water Quality standards DJ reviewing IWR rule now EPA 10% exceedance rate
DEP- used binomial method Upper Perdido Bay – other info
Fish kills Algal mats Algal blooms Incorrectly assigned stations Lat/long
Nutrient calls
DO calls Depth profile

TMDL priority H M C 1998 list Year done is key ?? Public comments to Aug. 18
Oct. 2006 revised Oct- Nov. next meeting Dec- adopt list by secretary 2007 EPA accept

Chips: 1998 list, Planning list

2. R.W. presentation Chips K.
Ernie Rivers- Class II Perdido Carl Wernike citizen Class II –go back to 1950’s Chip- - BMAP diversion? – who does what; who knocks on door? Jackie Lane- if WBID impaired for nutrient any new discharge
D.J.- no moratorium IP could be required to reduce JD- BOD5 why not sampled, trend network Ernie- fish- Escambia Bay
Joe Brikeeze DOH – fish advisories Jackie- atmospheric deposition Cheryl- diatom in sediment in database Jackie- diversity > Cheryl saidDon RayKen- what are we doing with AlabamaWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 185

Graham ? – nutrients TMDL; has EPA done any
I mentioned Choctawhatchee Pigeon River Champion? Hg- 2011 TMDL date DJ- ? sources for Hg. Jeff Hilke- IP- priority year DJ- 1998 list Jackie- are you still putting data in mill, Cheryl get in DJ- still considering? Data prior to June 30, 2006 Cheryl- meta data Joe Hand T, W remark codes Ernie R.- about Skip data Kyle Moore- mill work with Skip and Nutter Inter.

1:00 pm Group 5 Perdido Public Meeting Conference Room A, Building 22 8/02/2006 University of West Florida Jessica’s Notes

Darryl Joyner Presentation + Responsiveness summary prov ide to EPA your comments

Jackie Lane (Friends of Perdido Bay): your response to IWR elements changing water quality standards? Darryl: will be changed after EPA admin. process; our current list based on old assessment methodology

+ TMDL = what list leading to + List = Rich going over Assessment of data (List) + Impaired Waters Rule adopted in 2002 -Methodology 1.Planning List: potentially impaired WBIDs 2.Verified List: Impaired Waters list move on to EPA -Rule assess exceedances of water quality criteria *use EPA-recommended listing *we add 80% (for Planning List) and 90% (for Verified List) confidence level
based on binomial distribution -Nutrients: narrative interpretation *Streams- algal mats
*Lakes- TSI thresholds *Estuaries- chl a >11 ug/L or annual mean above 50%... + Watershed Management Approach: 5 phase cycle that rotates through basins + FL 303(d) List revising + Before Adopted: identify pollutant if listed for D.O. or Biology; evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs sufficient to meet standards -won’t list if have reasonable assurance; i.e. Elev enmile Creek permit up, if permit changes, won’t worry about pollutant + Addressed changes to Verified list today i.e. 797 Uppe r Perdido Bay for Nutrients by “other info...like algal mats” + Listings are segment-specific, BU T TMDLs go upstream to sources -storm water runoff + Listings are parameter specific (can De list for something while verify for another) + Verified List submitted as 303( d) List (Impaired Waters List)

# 186 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay

+ Draft list on web: take Public comments through Aug 19
October revised Draft List based on comments Oct/Nov. Public meeting in Tallahassee Dec. Secretary adopt EPA accept 2007 + List- only Delist waters when have enough data; otherwise stay on 1998 List

Chips Kirshenfeld (Escambia County): Can copies of Planning List be given to Bream Fishermen so they know the areas that need more monitoring? Darryl: that was our plan, hope 2 nd Cycle we’ll be able to use research like that

Rich Wieckowicz Presentation + no AL. people here today + WBID 1004B created; in list, based on DOH Beach Closures, 2 Not Impaired

Kirshenfeld: any thought to add Enterococcus ? Darryl: EPA wants to; think get rid of Total Coliform and this addition in the works; Total removed by end
of month

+ Fish advisories based mostly on fish tissue; can include Dioxin *Sediment study Dr. Snyder

Lane: zero means zero for Friends of Perdido Bay data (based on sample size he had on those days)

+ TMDL- Mass balance or Load Curve Approach (the one we’ve been using more frequently) + Group 4 is also included is Group 5 TMDL listings now

Ernie Rivers (BFA): No Shellfish wa ters? Accepting they’re gone forever? Darryl: no Shellfish Harvesting because no Class II waters: also assess any coliform data, see how compares to our data

Ken W. Kallies (TNC): If list water, then what do you do? Darryl: The date with listing is when TMDL would be completed for that parameter; listing starting point
that leads to TMDL

Carl Wernicke (News Journal): What is the basis for the point which you want to restore the waters to? Darryl: answered Nutrients narrative criteria, imbalance in flora and fauna, a lot of art in what shooting for because not colonial days; Tampa Bay back to 1950’s as a regi onal target because had aerial photos; will not always have those nor necessarily want to go back that far

Kirschenfeld: TMDL developed > BMAP, all Point and Non-point Sources make decisions on what will do; is it going to be that detailed? Darryl: BMAPs really are most important thing, most specific; find workload limitations must be very specific...adopted by secretarial order therefore can take enforcement action if not implemented

Lane: If impaired for Nutrients, will no one ever get new permit to load? Darryl: do assessment of permit and say can’t make worse; after TMDL completed can redo permit
restrictions

J.D. Brown (BFA): BOD does state of FL. Monitor? Rich: we do but not everyone does; our sector samp les BOD5 carbonaceous and sometimes longtime BOD; we can’t control everyone else, storm water don’t; Lakes 2-2.9 rangeWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 187

Darryl: mentioning table Rich had of screening level; BOD threshold trips usu. by Nutrients; BOD trend network thought added to parameter list but maybe they didn’t; BOD nutrient limit

Rivers: Mullet in Escambia Bay, PCB found in flesh of mullet; what will happen to the tourist trade? has a copy with Dr. Snyder’s study Darryl: key is if DOH has a copy of the study; we defer to their expertise Rivers: Who do you talk to? Everyone is trying to cover up that largemouth bass and mullet aren’t safe to eat. Husdon River- Bobby Kennedy got people to know they’re not allowed to eat the fish in the river.

Lane: atmospheric disposition > arsenic Cheryl Bunch (DEP District): it is in the database Lane: low diversity in the database? Cheryl: should be available in SBIO
Rich: SBIO doesn’t al ways go into IWR Cheryl: I was probably wrong with SBIO, it’s in Tallahasse’s LIMS Don Ray: probably Dave Whiting requested the sampling Rich: sediment data not evaluated by Joe Hand Darryl: but benthic diversity should be.

Kallies: What are we going to do with Alabama to work on this? Darryl: we have no magic bullet; some receptive contacts; once get TM DL written AL will be forced to implement too (EPA verbally committed to making sure AL has to follow our permit restrictions) Kallies: Would you enforce in AL? Darryl: No.

Graham Lewis (NWFWMD): 1) ? Rich: Pigeon River 2)Impaired nearly half lis t is for Mercury and Low Priority, why low? Darryl: agreement with EPA, recommend to defer all Mercury TMDLs to 2011 and the statewide; link air sources and water quality criteria

Jeff Hilleke (IP): Priority practical meaning? Darryl: depends on 1998 list or not; if on it maintaining that Priority; if we don’t do it on time EPA will do it; limited resources- intent to do next cycle; if not then the next time

Lane: Livingston data will be used? Darryl: will still consider data collected before June 30, 2006; we just try not to encourage more collection

now

Rivers: Skip said anyone can get his data that wants it Kyle Moore (IP): said he could get us Skip’s data



# PERDIDO BASIN PUBLIC MEETING NOTES

August 2, 2006
1:00 PM University of West Florida

# 188 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay



# CONFERENCE CENTER A

11000 University Parkway Pensacola, Florida

*also have audio file of meeting



## Presentations

Daryll Joyner

• Upper Perdido Bay was added to the verified list fo r nutrients; may get listed for DO and Chl-a as well, pending further analysis

• Public comment period for the list extends through August 18; will have another public meeting in October or November in Tallahassee; then there will be another 30-day comment period, followed by the adoption of the list by the secretary, and submittal to EPA



## Questions

Chips Kirschenfeld (Escambia County)

• It would be helpful for local governments and interested organizations to have copies of planning list, since those are the waters that need more sampling

• (Daryll) That had been the original plan, but DEP hasn’t had time to do that sort of outreach; hopefully we’ll be able to do so in the next cycle

Ernie Rivers (BFA)

• Pensacola used to have shellfish waters, but the shellfish were killed by pollution; are we just supposed to accept that the shellfish are gone from this area forever?

• (Daryll) There are no class II shellfish waters in G5

Carl Wernicke (Pensacola News Journal)

• How do you decide to what point waters will be restored?

• (Daryll) It’s up to the community; a good example is Tampa Bay where they used aerial photos of seagrass beds from the fifties as the basis of their restoration program

Jackie Lane (Friends of Perdido Bay)

• If a water is determined to be impaired for nutrient s, does that mean that no new discharge permits will be issued on that waterbody?

• (Daryll) No, but that’s where TMDLs come into play to look at all the dischargers in the area and
set a limit

JD Brown (BFA)

• Where does BOD currently stand in the state’s monitoring program?

• (Rich) Our sector monitors BODs, but not everyone else doesWater Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

# 189

Ernie Rivers (BFA)

• There was a study done on mullet and largemouth bass, and PCBs were found to be very high; very concerned about safety of eating fish; is DEP going to do anything about PCBs in fish?

• (Daryll and Mary) We will get your name and e-mail address and forward to you the proper
contact information

Ken Kallies (TNC)

• What is going to be done to work with Alabama?

• (Daryll) They’ve already been helpful with sharin g data; EPA has agreed to help DEP work with Alabama to revise permits and take other steps to aid reductions; DEP would not have enforcement power over Alabama

Graham Lewis (NWFWMD)

• Have you given any thought to how you’ll handle Mercury?

• (Daryll) EPA recommended that DEP postpone all Mercury TMDLs until 2011, and DEP was in agreement; the proper approach to take is still being worked on; there will be a Mercury TMDL
done in 2011

Jackie Lane (Friends of Perdido Bay)

• Will you still consider data that is submitted to you for this basin?

• (Daryll) Yes, as long as it was collected before June 2006

Ernie Rivers (BFA)

• Has anything been done to get Skip Livingston’s data?

• (Daryll) We’ve gotten some, but only bits and pieces

• Kyle Moore (IP) I would be glad to help DEP obtain Skip’s dataFlorida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Bureau of Watershed Restoration 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

- 2400 (850) 245

- 8561 www.dep.state.fl.us/water