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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 5
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.htm

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.htm

2006 305(b) Report

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

2006_Integrated_Report.pdf

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/surface.htm

Status/Assessment Reports

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

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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 7

Executive Summary

Perdido River and Bay

The Water Quality Assessment Report for the Perdido River and Bay 

Basin 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). TMDLs 

must be developed and implemented for these waters, unless the impairment is documented to be a naturally occurring condition that cannot 

be abated by a TMDL, or unless a management plan already in place is 

expected to correct the problem. The Verifi ed List also constitutes the 

Group 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 to 

identify 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 identifying 

problems and improving water quality. Through its watershed management activities, the Department works with these entities to support 

programs that are improving water quality and restoring and protecting ecological resources. The Department’s TMDL Program objectives 

will be carried out in the basin through close coordination with key 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 9
 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 achieving 

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

on 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 segments 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 suffi cient 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, 

16 segments have suffi cient data for assessment. Of these, 10 are verifi ed 

impaired 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 verifi cation 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. These 

waterbodies did not pass biological testing of macroinvertebrate communities, but a causative pollutant could not be determined.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 11
Total Maximum Daily Load Priority Areas

There are two high-priority areas for TMDL development in the 

Perdido 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 unconfi ned 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, 

with the majority of the monitoring wells with data in the southern half of 

the basin.

Nutrient concentrations in impaired surface waters could be infl uenced 

by 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 Unit

Elevenmile Creek (WBID 489) is listed as impaired for DO, biochemical 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 

is 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. 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 13

Table of Contents

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

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

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

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Northwest District .................................................. 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/Perdido 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 Conservation ..................................................................................................................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 Description ................................................................................................................58

Water Quality Summary .........................................................................................................58

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses .....................................................................................62

Ecological Summary ...............................................................................................................64

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

Perdido River Planning Unit ...........................................................................................68

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

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

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses .....................................................................................73

Ecological Summary ...............................................................................................................74

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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 15
Chapter 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 Reasonable Assurance .........................................................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

Table 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 Bay
Figures

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

Northwest 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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 17

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 Status 

Report, 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 more 

parameters. 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 19
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), Florida 

 Statutes, 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 (Rule 

62-303, 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 for 

TMDL 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 Bay
Watershed Management Cycle Nature of Stakeholder Involvement

Phase 1: 

Preliminary

Evaluation

Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin water 

quality assessment, inventory existing and proposed management activities, 

identify management objectives and issues of concern, develop a Strategic 

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

Phase 2:

Strategic Monitoring

and Assessment

Cooperative efforts between the Department and local stakeholders to collect additional data; enter data into STORET (the EPA’s national water quality 

STOrage and RETrieval database); complete the water quality assessment; produce a final Assessment Report that includes a Verified List of impaired waters 

for Secretarial adoption; and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to document reasonable assurance (for Department review) that existing or proposed 

management plans and projects are adequate to restore water quality without 

the establishment of a TMDL

Phase 3:

Development and

Adoption of TMDLs

Coordination with stakeholders to discuss 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 classifi cation system using hydrologic unit codes.

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

district to undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000. A preliminary assessment for the Group 2 basin, Apalachicola–Chipola, was completed in 2001. 

The Group 3 basin, Choctawhatchee–St. Andrew, was assessed on a preliminary basis in 2002. Similarly, a preliminary assessment for the Group 4 

basin, 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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 21
Figure 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 describes 

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

Northwest District.

• Chapter 2: Basin Overview

characterizes the basin’s 

general setting, 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, by 

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

and land uses, a summary 

of ecological priorities and 

problems, and an overview 

of water quality improvement 

plans and projects.

• Chapter 4: 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, provides 

listings 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, TMDL 

allocation and implementation, and the development 

of a Basin Management 

Action Plan.

Noteworthy 23 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 within 

Florida. 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). Major 

timber 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 cooperative 

project between the Department and the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM).

Miller, L. 1998. Perdido 

Ecosystem Management 

Strategies. Prepared for the 

Perdido Ecosystem Restoration Group and the Department. Support provided by 

the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida 

Department of Community 

Affairs (FDCA).

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 25
Figure 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 less 

than 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, briefl y describes the major characteristics of surface waters that infl uence water quality in the basin, and 

describes surface water classifi cations and special designations. Figure 2.2

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: 

Perdido 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 fl uctuates 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). 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 27
Figure 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 

and 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 29
Figure 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 

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

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

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

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

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

classifi ed using the following fi ve designated use categories:

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 OFW 

designation is to maintain ambient water quality, even if these designations are more protective than those required under the waterbody’s surface 

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

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

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

based on a fi nding that the waters are of exceptional recreational or ecological signifi cance, and are identifi ed as such in Rule 62-302, F.A.C.

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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 31
Biological Resources

Various researchers have devised stream classifi cation systems in an 

effort to defi ne 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 close 

connection 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 Bay
Table 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 33
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) 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 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 

surfi cial aquifer system), the intermediate 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 unconfi ned 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 ground 

water 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 baseflow 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 signifi cant discharge boundaries for the sand and gravel aquifer. Because these discharge 

boundaries are relatively close together near Cantonment, essentially no 

ground water fl ows 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 surfi cial 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 35
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 and 

gravel aquifer is characterized by low mineral content or low concentrations of dissolved solids. Generally, concentrations of dissolved solids 

are less than 50 milligrams per liter, 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 

producing 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 from 

the 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 

in small localized areas of the basin. Leaking underground fuel storage 

tanks have been identifi ed as cleanup sites; dry cleaning solvent sites are 

also sources of contamination that are being addressed by the Department’s Waste Management Division. In the basin, there are approximately 

250 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 Bay
Figure 2.5: Location of Public Supply Wells and Known Areas of Ground Water Contamination

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 37
 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 of 

benzene 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 has 

revealed 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. During 

2003, 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 property 

owner 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 that 

a 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 

in 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 was 

undertaken 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 39
 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 Offi ce 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 Coastal 

Foundation, 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 

active 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 roles 

in planning, funding, managing, and executing projects. The Department continues to coordinate its efforts with these entities to obtain data, 

strengthen monitoring activities, and exchange information through 

periodic meetings. The 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 Bay
Coastal 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 preservation 

of 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 is 

a 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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 41
Wolf 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 participate 

in 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 initiative 

formed 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 wastewater 

discharges 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, 

and 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 with 

the 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). Countywide 

drainage 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 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 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 Okeechobee 

Protection 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 where 

DEP, 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 Action 

Plan 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 as 

 effective 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 43
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 effi ciency. 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 used 

have 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 pollution 

prevention on the farm. It is an educational, not a regulatory, document and has been well received by the industry. Recently revised 

and 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 requires 

that 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 certifi ed 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 system 

that 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 45
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 Nature 

Conservancy, 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 Acquisition 

Program, 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 Crawford 

Rainwater 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 and 

includes 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 the 

Nature 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 land 

management 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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 47

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 nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological parameters). Permitted discharges, land uses, ecological status, and water quality 

improvement plans and projects are summarized for each planning unit. 

The discussion notes where applicable surface water quality criteria have 

been exceeded and summarizes the report’s 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 attainment, 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 impairments. 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 rankings 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 integrated 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 facilities 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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 49
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 STOrage and RETrieval 

(STORET) databases. Data-gathering activities included working with 

environmental 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 least 

one 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 from 

a 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 Bay
Table 3.1: Data Providers in the Perdido River and Bay Basin, Including Number of Sample Tests by Year

Agency Code Organization 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total112WRD U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS)

0 0 0 0 0 148 5 10 20 25 15 8 25 13 30 20 0 319

11NPSWRD National Park Service 

(NPS)

0 294 266 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 572

21AWIC Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management (ADEM)

360 313 139 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 857

21FLBFA Bream Fisherman’s 

Association

767 797 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 31,315

21FLBRA Biological Research 

Associates (BRA)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1482 1,482

21FLDOH Florida Department 

of Health (DOH)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 150 285 478 365 169 311 1,816

21FLFMRI Florida Marine 

Research Institute (FMRI)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 14 0 0 0 50

21FLGBO1 Pensacola Bay 

 Nutrient Study (EPA Gulf Breeze)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 500

21FLGFWF Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)

258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 258

21FLKWAT Florida LakeWatch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 10 23 0 0 0 0 0 6421FLNWFD Northwest Florida 

Water Management District (NWFWMD)

0 0 1,296 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,722

21FLPNS and 21FLGW

Department Combined Monitoring

1,506 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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 51
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 coastal 

counties 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

0

Number 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 its 

description of designated uses. Because the Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and the state’s 

303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology when 

assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and 

decision processes that are defi ned in Florida’s IWR for listing impaired 

waters are based on the following designated use attainment categories:

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment

Fish and Shellfi sh Consumption Attainment

Drinking Water Use Attainment

Protection of Human Health

Table 3.2 summarizes the designated uses assigned to 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 categories 

provide information on a waterbody’s status based on water quality, suffi ciency of data, and the need for TMDL development (Table 3.3). This 

Understanding the 

Terms “Pollutant” 

and “Pollution”

For purposes of the TMDL 

Program, pollutants are 

chemical and biological 

constituents, introduced by 

humans into a waterbody, 

that may result in pollution 

(water quality impairment). 

There are other causes of 

pollution, such as the physical alteration of a waterbody 

(for example, canals, dams, 

and ditches). However, 

TMDLs are established only 

for impairments caused by 

pollutants (a TMDL quantifies 

how much of a given pollutant a waterbody can receive 

and still meet its designated 

uses).

Waterbodies that are 

verified impaired due to 

specified pollutants, and 

therefore require a TMDL, 

are listed under Category 

5 in the Integrated Assessment Report; waterbodies 

with water quality impairments due to other causes, or 

unknown causes, are listed 

under Category 4c. Although 

TMDLs are not established 

for Category 4c waterbodies, these waterbodies still 

may be addressed through 

a watershed management 

program (for example, the 

Kissimmee River restoration).

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 53
Table 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 are 

present but not enough to determine if any designated use is 

attained

Future monitoring will be recommended to gather sufficient information 

and data to determine if designated uses are attained.

3c Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses may not be 

attained according to the Planning 

List methodology

A waterbody or segment is potentially impaired for one or more 

 designated uses. These waters will be prioritized for future monitoring 

to verify use attainment or impaired status.

3d Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses are not attained according to the Verified 

List methodology

A waterbody or segment exceeds Verified List evaluation criteria and 

may be listed as impaired at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. However, the data have not yet been fully evaluated and 

the waters have not been formally verified as impaired. Further monitoring and analysis may be necessary.

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 waterbodies 

or 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) than 

 Category 1 (attaining all uses), because monitoring programs can sometimes provide suffi cient data for partially determining whether a designated 

use in a particular waterbody is attained. 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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 55
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 segments 

within planning units. Each of these smaller, hydrologically based drainage areas within a planning unit is assigned a unique waterbody identifi cation number (WBID). Waterbody segments are assessment units (or 

geographic information system 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 each 

planning unit, information on land use and potential point sources of pollution, water quality assessments for individual waterbody segments, and 

summaries of ecological issues and watershed quality improvement plans 

and projects.

Appendix 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 Bay
Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Perdido River and Bay Basin

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 57
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 defi nes 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 one 

year. 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 Bay
Figure 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

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

Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria3

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for WBID6

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, 

Unionized 

Ammonia

3c

60 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay
Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria3

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for WBID6

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)

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 61
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 defi nition 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 petroleum 

cleanup 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.

2The state’s surface water classifications are as follows:

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies 

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

3d—Meets Verified List criteria and is 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. 4Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development. 6The 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 Marcus 

Water 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 discharges 

from 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 Landfi ll, 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 the 

sludge 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 landfi ll 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 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 63
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 is 

urban 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 present 

in 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 Bay
Environmental remediation 

activities cover a broad spectrum 

of cleanup programs. These 

include state-managed hazardous waste, dry cleaning, and 

petroleum cleanup programs; 

as well as the federal Superfund 

and Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act 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 two 

major 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 by 

ethylene dibromide, a soil fumigant that was historically used 

in 38 Florida counties to control 

nematodes in citrus groves and 

row crops. The program currently includes ground water 

contaminated by other pesticides, 

industrial solvents, and nutrients. However, the coverage of 

delineated areas in this program 

is not intended to include all 

sources of contaminated ground 

Rainfall generates stormwater 

runoff. As it flows over the land 

and through the ground, runoff 

may carry nonpoint source pollutants from many different sources 

to lakes, rivers, and estuaries in a 

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 agricultural 

lands, 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, the 

Department’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 assessing 

water quality and developing TMDLs. As part of this 

report, information is presented on point sources, 

including permitted facilities 

that discharge wastewater 

and landfills.

The National Priorities List 

(NPL) is a consolidated list of the 

uncontrolled hazardous waste 

sites that pose the greatest threat 

to public health or the environment. Sites are listed on the NPL 

upon the completion of a preliminary assessment, site inspection, 

and hazardous ranking system 

evaluation to determine their 

potential for adverse impacts and 

priority for corrective action. The 

EPA Superfund program administers the cleanup of NPL sites.

The Department’s statefunded cleanup program 

administers the cleanup of 

contaminated hazardous 

waste sites when enforcement action taken against a 

responsible party is unsuccessful or when no responsible party is identified.

water in Florida. The Delineation 

Program is designed to ensure 

the protection of public health 

when consuming potable ground 

water supplies and to minimize 

the potential for cross-contamination of adjacent ground water 

resources.

The Delineation Program’s 

primary responsibilities are as 

follows:

• Delineate areas of ground 

water contamination,

• Implement a water well 

construction 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 water 

wells found to be contaminated, are remediated by 

installing individual water 

treatment systems or by connecting the users to public 

water supply systems.

Noteworthy 65 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 collected 

by 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 plant 

before 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 the 

denial. 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 road 

problems. Countywide, 120 miles of dirt road were paved and best management practices (BMPs) for those newly paved dirt roads were instituted 

as 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 provided 

from the local option sales tax (Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2004). Watershed-specifi c Stormwater Management Master Plans have been completed 

for 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 its 

 quality. 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 the 

bay, 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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 67
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 (as 

delineated for assessment purposes) of Escambia County, Florida, and contains 41 waterbodies or segments with WBIDs. The prominent waterbody 

in 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 Verifi ed List, and potential pollution sources. Table 3.5 summarizes the water quality assessment status 

of 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 fi sh 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 Bay
Figure 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

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

Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria3

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for WBID6

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 Bay
Table 3.5 (continued)

Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria3

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for WBID6

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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 71
Table 3.5 (continued)

Data Evaluation under the IWR Criteria3

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type1 Class2

1998 303(d) 

List 

Parameters 

of Concern

Potentially 

Impaired (Cat. 

3c) for Listed 

 Parameters4

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters5

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters

EPA’s 303(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

 Category for WBID6

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.

2The state’s surface water classifications are as follows:

Class I: Potable water supplies

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies 

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 3The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;

3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained;

3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;

3d—Meets Verified List criteria and is 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. 4Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C. 5Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development. 6The 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. Boggy 

Creek, 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. The 

storage 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 3.4

 displays 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 succeeded 

through 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 sparging 

for 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 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 73
before the EPA completed and approved remediation. The site was listed in 

the 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 

in the basin, the sand and gravel aquifer (local surfi cial aquifer system), 

the intermediate aquifer system, and the Floridan aquifer system. The 

sand 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. 

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

Perdido Bay Planning Unit Perdido River Planning Unit # wells Median # wells Median

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 

as high chlorophyll a levels 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 water 

data 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 of 

the 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 

enrichment 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 

ambient 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 ed 

List, evaluates ground water fl ow, reviews pertinent geologic and soil information, and evaluates land use and anthropogenic sources.

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

River and Bay Basin

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

Bay Basin

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 79
Perdido Bay Planning Unit

Elevenmile Creek (WBID 489) is listed as impaired for DO, 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 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 basefl ow 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 the 

public 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 draft 

lists 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 Lists 

developed 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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 81
Identification of Impaired Waters

As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on the Verifi ed and Planning Lists 

must meet specifi c thresholds and data suffi ciency and data quality requirements in the IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). 

Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background 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 suffi cient data to be analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the IWR will remain on the 1998 303(d) 

list of impaired waters maintained by the EPA. These waters are not 

delisted, and they will be sampled during the next phases of the watershed 

management cycle so that their impairment status can be verifi ed.

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 future 

and 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 Bay
Table 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.

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

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed Using 

the Impaired 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

 Development2

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

 Development2

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 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.

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 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.

84 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay
Table 5.3 (continued)

WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed Using 

the Impaired 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

 Development2

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

 Development2

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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 85
WBID

Waterbody 

 Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

1998 303(d) 

Parameters 

of Concern

Parameters 

Assessed Using 

the Impaired 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

 Development2

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

 Development2

Comments

(# of Exceedances/

# of Samples)3

8999 Gulf Coast Coastal/

Estuary

IIIM Mercury 

in Fish

Low 2011 Data verified to be within 

the 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 originally 

low. In the case of mercury in fish, the priority remains low. Where a parameter was only identified as impaired under the IWR, 

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, 

27 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 Bay
Figure 5.1: Waters on the Verified List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 87
Table 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 Advisory1 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, the 

stream 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 DO 

exceedances. 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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 89
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 causing 

the impairment. If a waterbody segment is listed based on water quality criteria exceedances, then the list must provide the applicable criteria. However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or 

impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met, 

the Verifi ed List is required to specify the concentration of the pollutant 

relative to the water quality criteria and explain why the numeric criterion 

is not adequate.

For waters with exceedances of the DO criteria, the Department must 

identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list 

both the pollutant and DO in the Verifi ed List.

For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department is required to identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting nutrients, 

and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the Verifi ed List.

The Verifi ed List must also include the priority and schedule for 

TMDL development established for a waterbody segment and note any 

waters that are being removed from the current Planning List. In future 

watershed management cycles, the list must also note waters that are being 

removed from any previous Verifi ed List for the 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 ed 

List, the Department will prioritize impaired waterbody segments according to the severity of the impairment and each waterbody’s designated 

uses, taking into account the most serious water quality problems, 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 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 

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);

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 91
• 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 own 

evaluation methodology, until the Department has had the opportunity to investigate these waterbodies further.

All segments not designated high or low priority are medium priority, 

and are prioritized based on the following factors:

• The presence of Outstanding Florida Waters;

• 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 Bay
Table 6.1: Priorities for TMDL Development in the Perdido River and Bay Basin

Planning 

Unit WBID

Waterbody 

Segment

Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

Parameters 

Included on 

the 1998 

303(d) List

Parameters 

Assessed Using 

the Impaired 

Waters Rule

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development2

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development2

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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 93
Figure 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 most 

cases, this “assimilative” capacity will be determined using computer modeling (both hydrodynamic and water quality models) that predicts the fate 

and 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” (Section 

303[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 implicit 

MOS based on predictive model runs that incorporate a variety of conservative assumptions. (They examine worst-case ambient fl ow conditions 

and worst-case temperature, and assume that all permitted point sources 

discharge at their maximum permitted amount.)

It is important to note that TMDLs will be developed only for the 

actual pollutants causing the impairment in the listed waterbody. These 

are called the “pollutants of concern.” In Florida, the most commonly 

listed pollutants of concern are nutrients, sediments, and 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 

TMDL include the “establishment of reasonable and equitable allocations 

. . . among point and nonpoint sources . . . .” The Department refers to 

this as the “initial allocation,” which is adopted by rule. For the purposes 

of allocating the required pollutant loadings, the term “point sources” 

 primarily includes traditional sources such as domestic and industrial 

wastewater discharges.

Recent EPA guidance requires states to include as point sources those 

stormwater systems that are covered by a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit. However, NPDES-

 permitted stormwater discharges are not subject to the same types of effl uent limitations, cannot be centrally collected and treated, and typically have 

not invested in treatment controls to the same degree as traditional point 

sources. Nonpoint sources include intermittent, rainfall-driven, diffuse 

sources of pollutants associated with everyday human activities, including 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 95
runoff from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, and mining; 

 discharges from failing septic systems; and atmospheric deposition.

These point and nonpoint defi nitions do not directly relate to whether 

a source is regulated. Some nonpoint sources such as stormwater systems 

are permitted under the regulatory programs of the Department or water 

management districts, while others, such as agricultural stormwater discharges, are not. This distinction is important because 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 implement 

a 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’s 

NPDES 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 by 

establishing 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 Approaches 

The FWRA designates the Department as the lead agency in coordinating the implementation of TMDLs. Existing programs and approaches 

through which TMDLs may be carried out include the following:

• 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 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). 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

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 97
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, applicable 

local ordinances, and other elements. In cases where stakeholder consensus could not be reached on detailed allocations and/or a B-MAP within a 

reasonable time, the Department 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. A 

report to the governor and the legislature on the allocation of total maximum daily loads in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of Watershed 

Management, Division of Water Resource Management.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 99
—. 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.htm.

—. Downloaded February 20, 2006b. Other beach and dune dwellers. 

Available: http://www.nps.gov/archive/guis/gothabitat/dwellers.htm.

—. Downloaded February 20, 2006c. Marine turtles. Available: 

http://www.nps.gov/guis/extended/FLA/Nature/Turtle.htm.

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 protocols 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 Communication. 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. Copeland (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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 101
Miller, L. July 1998. Perdido ecosystem management strategies. Prepared 

for 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 Tribe 

Water 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.

Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 103

Water Quality Assessment Report 2008

Perdido River and Bay Appendices 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed 

Management Approach and the Implementation of Total Maximum 

Daily Loads .................................................................................................................... 107

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and Total Maximum Daily Loads ...... 107

Determining Impairment Based on the State’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 for 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 Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms ............................. 123

Responsible Parties for Reasonable 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 Water 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 Reductions from Restoration Actions ..................................................... 127

New Sources/Growth .................................................................................................................. 127

Examples of Reasonable Progress ............................................................................................... 128

Long-Term Requirements ........................................................................................................... 128

Appendix D: Methodology for Determining 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 Categories 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 (Master 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 Stations Used in the Assessment 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 Discharges 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 ............... 184
Water 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 Surface 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 biological integrity of the nation’s waters” (33 

U.S.C. § 1251[a]). The ultimate goal of the act is to eliminate the “discharge of [all] 

pollutants into navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]). 

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on their water quality. The 305(b) assessment 

report provides information on the physical, chemical, biological, and cultural features of 

each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a common factual basis for 

identifying information sources and major issues, and for determining the future changes, 

strategies, and actions needed to preserve, protect, and/or restore water quality. 

Understanding the physical framework of each basin allows the development of a 

science-based methodology for assessing water quality and an accurate picture of the 

waters that are most impaired or vulnerable to contamination. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to submit to the EPA lists of 

surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and establish total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each of these waters on a schedule. A pollution limit 

is then allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin. 

A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can 

assimilate and meet all of its designated uses (see Noteworthy on Florida’s surface water 

quality classifications for a listing of these classifications). A waterbody that does not 

meet its designated use is defined as impaired. 

NOTEWORTHY: FLORIDA’S SURFACE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS 

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

management, designates the “present and future most beneficial uses” of the waters of the state 

(Subsection 403.061[10], 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 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) 
108 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

In 1998, the EPA settled a lawsuit with the environmental group Earthjustice over 

Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decree resulting from the lawsuit requires all 

TMDLs on the state’s 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed in 13 

years. If the state fails to develop the TMDLs, the EPA is required to do so. 

In response to concerns about the TMDL lawsuit and in recognition of the important 

role that TMDLs play in restoring state waters, the 1999 Florida legislature enacted the 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act 

clarified the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) statutory 

authority to establish TMDLs, required the Department to develop a methodology for 

identifying impaired waters, specified that the Department could develop TMDLs only 

for waters on a future state list of impaired waters developed using this new 

methodology, and directed the Department to establish an Allocation Technical Advisory 

Committee (ATAC) to address the allocation process for TMDLs. The act also declared 

Lake Okeechobee impaired and, as required under the TMDL Consent Decree, allowed 

the state to develop a TMDL for the lake (see Noteworthy for a description of the 

legislation’s major provisions). 

NOTEWORTHY: THE FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACT 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act contains the following major provisions: 

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

• Requires the Department to adopt 303(d) listing criteria (that is, the methodology used to 

define impaired waters) by rule. 

• Requires the Department to verify impairment and then establish a Verified List for each 

basin. The Department must also evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs are 

sufficient to meet water quality standards, list the specific pollutant(s) and concentration(s) 

causing impairment, and adopt the basin-specific 303(d) list by Secretarial Order. 

• Requires the Department’s Secretary to adopt TMDL allocations by rule. The legislation 

requires the Department to establish “reasonable and equitable” allocations of TMDLs, but 

does not mandate how allocations will be made among individual sources. 

• Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing treatment levels and management 

practices; the differing impacts that pollutant sources may have; the availability of treatment 

technologies, best management practices (BMPs), or other pollutant reduction measures; the 

feasibility, costs, and benefits of achieving the allocation; reasonable time frames for 

implementation; the potential applicability of moderating provisions; and the extent that 

nonattainment is caused by pollutants from outside Florida, discharges that have ceased, or 

alteration to a waterbody. 

• Required a report to the legislature by February 2001 addressing the allocation process. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 109

 

• Authorizes the Department to develop basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the 

water management districts, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(FDACS), the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, regulated parties, and environmental 

groups in assessing waterbodies for impairment, collecting data for TMDLs, developing 

TMDLs, and conducting at least one public meeting in the watershed. Implementation is 

voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs. 

• Authorizes the Department and FDACS to develop interim measures and BMPs to address 

nonpoint sources. While BMPs would be adopted by rule, they will be voluntary if not 

covered by regulatory programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department verifies their 

effectiveness, then implementation will provide a presumption of compliance with water 

quality standards. 

• Directs the Department to document the effectiveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary 

approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include 

participation rates and recommendations for statutory changes. 

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

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the FWRA describe impaired 

waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not meet applicable water 

quality standards. “Impairment” is a broad term that includes designated uses, water 

quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating provisions (see 

Noteworthy for explanations of these terms). 

The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, 

Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]) was developed in cooperation with a Technical 

Advisory Committee and adopted by the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission 

on April 26, 2001. It provides a science-based methodology for evaluating water quality 

data in order to identify impaired waters, and establishes specific criteria for impairment 

based on chemical parameters, the interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological 

impairment, fish consumption advisories, and ecological impairment. The complete text 

of the rule is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/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 statistical approach designed to provide greater 

confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. Waters that are 

identified as impaired through the 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 (that is, the benefits of the discharge to public 

health, safety, and welfare must outweigh any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or 

recreation). Further, the permittee must demonstrate that other disposal alternatives (for 

example, reuse) or pollution prevention are not economically and technologically reasonable 

alternatives to the surface water discharge. 

• Moderating provisions (provided in Subsection 62-302.300[10] and Rules 62-4 and 62-6, 

F.A.C., and described in Sections 62-302.300, 62-4.244, 62-302.800, 62-4.243, F.A.C., and 

Sections 403.201 and 373.414, F.S.) include mixing zones, zones of discharge, site-specific 

alternative criteria, exemptions, and variances. These provisions are intended to moderate 

the applicability of water quality standards where it has been determined that, under certain 

special circumstances, the social, economic, and environmental costs of such applicability 

outweigh the benefits. 

Determining impairment in individual waterbodies takes place in two phases. First, 

in each river basin the Department evaluates the existing water quality data, using the 

methodology prescribed in the IWR, to determine whether waters are potentially 

impaired. Waters found to be potentially impaired are included on a Planning List for 

further assessment under Subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. As required by Subsection 

403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List is not used to administer or implement any regulatory 

program. It is submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only. 

The second step is to assess waters on the Planning List under Subsection 

403.067(3), F.S., as part of the Department’s watershed management approach (described 

in the following section). The Department carries out additional data gathering and 

strategic monitoring, focusing on these potentially impaired waters, and determines—

using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.—if a waterbody is, in fact, 

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. 

A Water Quality Assessment Report is produced containing the results of this 

updated evaluation and a Verified List of impaired waters. The criteria for the Verified 

List are more stringent than those for the Planning List. The Department is required to 

develop TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A 

watershed management plan (called a Basin Management Action Plan, or BMAP) to 

reduce the amount of pollutants that cause impairments must also be produced and 

implemented. 

The Verified List is adopted by Secretarial Order in accordance with the FWRA. 

Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA for approval as the state’s Section 303(d) 

list of impaired waters for the basin. 
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 framework for implementing TMDLs as required 

by the federal and state governments. The approach does not focus on individual causes 

of pollution. Instead, each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic 

resources are evaluated from a basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative 

effects of human activities. Water resources are managed on the basis of natural 

boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. Federal, 

state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water 

or other natural resource goals and work cooperatively to focus resources and implement 

effective strategies to restore water quality. Extensive public participation in the 

decision-making process is crucial. 

The watershed management approach is not new, nor does it compete with or replace 

existing programs. Rather than relying on single solutions to water resource issues, it is 

intended to improve the health of surface water and ground water resources by 

strengthening coordination among such activities as monitoring, stormwater 

management, wastewater treatment, wetland restoration, land acquisition, and public 

involvement. 

By promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the 

cumulative effects of human activities on a watershed basis, this approach is intended to 

protect and enhance the ecological structure, function, and integrity of Florida’s 

watersheds. It provides a framework for setting priorities and focusing the Department’s 

resources on protecting and restoring water quality, and aims to increase cooperation 

among state, regional, local, and federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement, 

the approach encourages stewardship by all Floridians to preserve water resources for 

future generations. 

The watershed approach is intended to speed up projects by focusing funding and 

other resources on priority water quality problems, strengthening public support, 

establishing agreements, and funding multiagency projects. It avoids duplication by 

building on existing assessments and restoration activities and promotes cooperative 

monitoring programs. It encourages accountability for achieving water quality 

improvements through improved monitoring and the establishment of TMDLs. 

The Watershed Management Cycle 

As part of the Department’s watershed management approach, TMDLs will be 

developed, and the corresponding pollutant loadings allocated, as part of a watershed 

management cycle that rotates through the state’s 52 river basins over 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, ecological, and socioeconomic setting as well 

as historical, current, and proposed watershed management issues and activities. It 

also contains a preliminary evaluation of major water quality parameters, water 

quality issues by planning unit, ecological resources, and basinwide pollutant loading 

trends related to land uses. At the end of Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is 

developed. 

• Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected 

through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify 

whether potentially impaired waters in each basin are impaired and to calibrate and 

verify models for TMDL development. At the end of Phase 2, a Water Quality

Assessment Report is produced for each basin that contains a Verified List of 

impaired waters. The report also provides an updated and more thorough evaluation 

of water quality, associated biological resources, and current management plans. The 

Department will adopt the Verified List through a Secretarial Order and submit it to 

the EPA as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. 

• Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs. TMDLs for priority impaired 

waters in the basin will be developed and adopted by rule. Because TMDLs cannot 

be developed for all listed waters during a single watershed management cycle due to 

fiscal and technical limitations, waterbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in the 

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 pollutant loadings from point and nonpoint 

sources will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements. The 

plans will include regulatory and nonregulatory (i.e., voluntary) and structural and 

nonstructural strategies, and existing management plans will be used where feasible. 

The involvement and support of affected stakeholders in this phase will be especially 

critical. 

• Phase 5: Implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan. Implementation of 

the activities specified in the BMAP will begin. This includes carrying out rule 

development as needed, securing funding, informing stakeholders and the public, and 

monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan. 

To implement the watershed cycle, the state’s river basins have been divided into 

five groups within each of the Department’s six districts statewide, and each district will 

assess one basin each year. Table A.1 shows the basin groups for implementing the 

cycle in the Department’s districts, and Figure A.1 shows these groups and the rotating 

cycle in the districts. Table A.2, which lists the basin rotation schedule for TMDL 

development and implementation, shows that it will take nine years to complete one full 

cycle of the state. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 113

 

The watershed management cycle is an iterative, or repeated, process. One of its key 

components is that the effectiveness of management activities (TMDL implementation) 

will be monitored in successive cycles. Monitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent 

cycles will be targeted at evaluating whether water quality objectives are being met and 

whether individual waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the 

implementation of scheduled restoration activities, whether required or voluntary, to 

ensure continued progress towards meeting the TMDLs. 

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

District Office 

District Group 1 

Basins 

Group 2 

Basins 

Group 3 

Basins 

Group 4 

Basins 

Group 5 

Basins 

Northwest Ochlockonee– 

St. Marks Rivers 

Apalachicola–

Chipola Rivers 

Choctawhatchee 

River and Bay–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

Year 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 09 09 10

Group 1 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

Group 2 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

Group 3 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

Group 4 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

Group 5 PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

 1st Five-Year Cycle – High-Priority Waters 2nd Five-Year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters 

Note: Projected years for Phases 3, 4, and 5 may change due to accelerated local activities, length of plan 

development, legal challenges, etc. 
114 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts 
Water 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, organizations, and individuals who contribute to these 

discharges will be asked to share the responsibility of attaining TMDLs through load 

allocations (the amount of a specified pollutant allotted for discharge) that are based on 

an established TMDL. Table A.3 summarizes these potentially affected stakeholders, 

and the actions they may be asked to take to help achieve a TMDL. 

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

Potentially Affected Stakeholders Actions To Achieve TMDL 

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through 

stormwater retrofits, replacement of septic tanks 

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual 

homeowners 

Improve development design and construction, 

enhance 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 

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS

All point sources that discharge to surface waterbodies require an NPDES permit. 

These permits can be classified into two types: domestic or industrial wastewater 

discharge permits, and stormwater permits. NPDES-permitted point sources may be 

affected by the development and implementation of a TMDL. All NPDES permits 

include “reopener clauses” that allow the Department to incorporate new discharge limits 

when a TMDL is established. These new limitations may be incorporated into a permit 

when a TMDL is implemented or at the next permit renewal, depending on the timing of 

the permit renewal and workload. For NPDES municipal stormwater permits, the 

Department intends to insert the following statement once a BMAP is completed: 

“The permittee shall undertake those activities specified in the (Name of Waterbody) 

Basin Management Action Plan in accordance with the approved schedule set forth in the 

BMAP.” 
116 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMITS

In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters, 

Florida also regulates domestic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via 

land application. Since ground water and surface water are so intimately linked in much 

of the state, reductions in loadings from these facilities may be needed to meet TMDL 

limitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the 

BMAP, they would be implemented through modifications of the existing state permits. 

FLORIDA STORMWATER/ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS

With the implementation of the state’s stormwater treatment rule in 1982, Florida 

became the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new development. 

Today, except in the area served by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, 

new development projects receive an Environmental Resource Permit that combines 

stormwater flood protection, stormwater treatment, and wetland protection/mitigation 

into a single permit. These permits are designed to obtain 80 percent average annual load 

reduction of total suspended solids. This level of treatment may need to be increased, 

depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the 

St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basin-specific criteria for 

the Lake Apopka watershed that require the phosphorus loading from new development 

not to exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading. 

LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES 

Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of 

load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development 

often cause ecological impacts to aquatic systems, local land development codes that 

promote “low-impact development” are an important component of restoring impaired 

waters. Local codes may need to be reviewed to determine how to promote 

developments that minimize impervious surfaces (such as reduced street widths or the use 

of pervious pavements), promote the protection of vegetation, promote the protection and 

restoration of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the 

Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Typically, BMPs refer to a practice or combination of practices that, based on sound 

science and best professional judgment, are determined to be the most effective and 

practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollutant discharges and improving water 

quality. Both economic and technological considerations are included in the evaluation 

of what is practicable. BMPs may include structural controls (such as retention areas or 

detention ponds) or nonstructural controls (such as street sweeping or public education). 

Many BMPs have been developed for urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and 

peak flows. These BMPs accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type, 

slope, depth to ground water, and the 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 agricultural operations. Recognizing that the 

development and adoption of BMPs might take several years, the legislature authorized 

the use of Interim Measures (IMs) during the BMP development process for agricultural 

operations. In essence, IMs are a set of logical conservation practices designed to reduce 

agricultural nonpoint pollutant discharges based on current knowledge and best 

professional judgment. These practices will evolve into more formal BMPs as better 

scientific data on their effectiveness is obtained. 

Once FDACS adopts BMPs, the Department is charged with verifying their 

effectiveness in reducing agricultural nonpoint sources. Once verified, agricultural 

operations that have implemented BMPs will receive a waiver of liability and 

presumption of compliance similar to that granted a developer who obtains an 

Environmental Resource Permit. 

OTHER STRATEGIES

The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require 

variety, creativity, stakeholder commitment to watershed management, and personal 

stewardship. In addition to BMPs, other possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, 

restoring water quality, and preventing the further degradation of Florida’s watersheds 

include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land 

use design and development, and pollutant trading. The Department will assemble a 

Technical Advisory Committee to help develop a pollutant-trading rule, which must be 

reviewed by the legislature prior to its adoption. The Department will also continue to 

work with local stakeholders on TMDL allocation issues and implementation plans. 

Sources of Information 

For additional information on the Department’s Watershed Management Program 

and TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators: 

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

• 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, Suwannee Basin, and Ochlockonee–St. Marks 

Basin, Jennifer Gihring (850) 245-8418 

• Indian River Lagoon, Southeast Florida (except St. Lucie Basin), and Lower St. Johns 

Basin, Amy Tracy (850) 245-8506 

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

For information on establishing and implementing TMDLs, contact Jan MandrupPoulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional information is available on the Department’s Web 

site at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm. 
118 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

Appendix B: Supplementary Ecological Information for the Perdido River an

Table B.1: Types of Natural Communities 

Community Type Description of Community 

Coastal strand 

Coastal strand community occurs on well-drained sandy soils and typically includes the zoned vegetation 

of the upper beach, dunes, or coastal rock formations. This community forms along high-energy shorelines 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. 

Sand/beach Barren land with little or no vegetation. These areas are constantly affected by waves and tidal actions and dune sands or other bare areas of sand. Xeric oak scrub 

A xeric hardwood community composed of clumped patches of low-growing oaks interspersed with bare areas of sand. This community type occurs on deep, well-washed, sterile sands, and is also found as the 

understory 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. 

Sand pine scrub 

Sand pine scrub is found on extremely well drained, sorted, sterile sands deposited along ancient 

shorelines and islands of ancient seas. The overstory is dominated by sand pine, with a woody understory of myrtle oak, Chapman’s oak, sand-live oak, and scrub holly. This community is found almost exclusively 

within Florida. Fire is an important factor in the maintenance and survival of this type of community. 

Sandhill 

These communities are found in areas of rolling terrain on deep, well-drained, white to yellow, sterile 

sands. This community is dominated by an overstory of longleaf pine and an understory of turkey oak and 

bluejack oak. A diverse assemblage of herbaceous plants comprise the ground cover. Fire is an important factor in controlling the community. 

Mixed hardwood– pine forest 

Upland forest that contains a mixture of conifers and hardwoods as codominant overstory components. 

This community may include longleaf pine, slash pine, and loblolly pine in association with live oak, laurel oak, water oak, and other hardwood species. 

Hardwood hammock and forests 

Major upland hardwood associations occurring on fairly rich sandy soils. Species composition and local distributions are due in part to differences in soil moisture regimes, 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 on 

deep, well-drained soils where fire has been absent for long periods of time. Common xeric hammock 

species are live oak, sand-live oak, and pignut hickory. 

Pinelands 

This category includes both pine flatwoods and pine plantations. Pine flatwoods occur on flat sandy 

terrain where the overstory is characterized by longleaf pine, slash pine, or pond pine, depending on soil 

moisture and drainage at a given location. Scrubby flatwoods, another pineland type, is found on drier ridges and on or near old coastal dunes. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

Community Type Description of Community 

Freshwater marsh and wet prairie 

Wetland communities dominated by herbaceous plants growing on a variety of substrates in areas of variable water depth and inundation regimes. Generally, freshwater marshes occur in deeper water with more regular inundation and are characterized by tall emergent and floating-leaved species. Freshwater 

marshes can occur within flatwood depressions, along lakes and river shorelines, and as open areas within hardwood and cypress swamps. Wet prairies commonly occur as scattered, shallow depressions within 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 wet prairies. 

Shrub swamp 

Shrub swamps are wetland communities dominated by dense, low-growing, woody shrubs or small trees. They are usually characteristic of wetland areas that are experiencing environmental change and are early to midsuccessional in species composition and structure. Common species include willow, wax myrtle, primrose willow, buttonbush, and saplings of red maple, sweetbay, and other hydric trees. 

Bay swamp Hardwood swamps contain broadleaf, alternate leafed evergreen trees that grow in shallow, stagnant drainages or depressions. Overstory trees are dominated by sweetbay, swamp bay, and loblolly bay. Cypress swamp These communities are strongly dominated by either bald cypress or pond cypress. They occur as forested borders along streams and lakes, or in depressions as circular domes or linear strands. Mixed wetland forest This is a mixed wetland forest community in which neither hardwoods nor conifers achieves dominance. Hardwood swamp 

Wooded wetland communities composed of either pure stands of hardwoods or a mixture of hardwood 

and cypress where hardwoods achieve dominance. They occur on organic soils and form the forested floodplain of nonalluvial rivers, creeks, and broad lake basins. Tree species include black gum, water tupelo, bald cypress, dahoon holly, red maple, swamp ash, sweetbay, and cabbage palm. 

Salt marsh 

Herbaceous and shrubby wetland community found in low-energy estuarine shorelines. Salt marshes can be found interspersed within mangrove communities or as transitional zones between freshwater marshes and mangroves. Plant composition and distribution largely depend on the degree of tidal inundation. 

Open water Freshwater lakes and streams and estuarine and coastal marine waters. Shrub and brushland 

Areas where natural upland communities have recently been disturbed through clear-cutting on commercial pine plantations, land clearing, or fire and are recovering by succession. Common species include wax myrtle, saltbrush, sumac, elderberry, saw palmetto, blackberry, gall berry, dog fennel, and 

broom sedge, together with hardwood and pine seedlings or saplings. 

Bare soil/clear-cut Areas of bare soil representing recent timber cutting, fire, natural areas of exposed soil, or soil exposure from clearing for unknown reasons. 

Source: 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 LT 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 121

 

Table B.4: Rare and Imperiled Plant and Animal 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 because 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 occurrences, or fewer than 3,000 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 rankings 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 subgroup. Numbers follow the same ranking in scarcity. 

G5T1 – Demonstrably secure globally as a species/ subspecies critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity. 

S2? – Imperiled in Florida because of rarity, but tentative state ranking. 

G5T3? – Demonstrably secure globally as a species/subspecies 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 species 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 Development of Documentation To Provide 

Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollution Control Mechanisms Will Result in 

the Restoration of Designated Uses in Impaired Waters 

The purpose of this memo is to describe the types of information that should be 

considered, and subsequently documented, when evaluating whether there is sufficient 

reasonable assurance that: 

• Proposed pollution control mechanisms (typically described in watershed 

management or restoration plans) addressing impaired waters will result in the 

attainment of applicable water quality standards (designated uses) at a clearly 

defined point in the future, and 

• Reasonable progress towards restoration of designated uses will be made by the 

time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is due to be submitted to the EPA. 

There are many site-specific issues related to determining whether reasonable 

assurance has been provided. Accordingly, this document describes the elements or 

issues that should be considered when evaluating a submittal or when documenting the 

basis for the Department’s decision, rather than attempting to establish specific criteria on 

what constitutes reasonable assurance. 

It should be noted that the term “reasonable assurance” is used throughout many 

Department programs and rules, and this guidance specifically addresses the issues 

related to the “reasonable assurance” provided by proposed pollution control 

mechanisms. This guidance should not be used to evaluate the meaning of reasonable 

assurance in other contexts, particularly in permitting decisions. 

Background 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR), Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (Identification of 

Impaired Surface Waters), establishes a formal mechanism for identifying surface waters 

in Florida that are impaired (do not meet applicable water quality standards) by 

pollutants. Most waters that are verified as being impaired by a pollutant will be listed on 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 123

 

the state’s 303(d) list pursuant to the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) and 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Once listed, Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) will be developed for the pollutants causing the impairment of the listed 

waters. However, as required by the FWRA, the Department will evaluate whether 

existing or proposed pollution control mechanisms will effectively address the 

impairment before placing a water on the state’s Verified List. If the Department can 

document there is reasonable assurance that the impairment will be effectively addressed 

by the control measure, then the water will not be listed on the final Verified List (other 

impaired waters that will not be listed include waters with TMDLs and waters impaired 

by pollution). 

Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms 

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

as follows: 

Section 62-303.600, Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms 

• Upon determining that a waterbody is impaired, the Department shall evaluate 

whether existing or proposed technology-based effluent limitations and other 

pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to 

result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards. 

• If, as a result of the factors set forth in (1), the waterbody segment is expected to 

attain water quality standards in the future and is expected to make reasonable 

progress towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list 

is scheduled to be submitted to EPA, the segment shall not be listed on the Verified 

List. The Department shall document the basis for its decision, noting any proposed 

pollution control mechanisms and expected improvements in water quality that 

provide reasonable assurance that the waterbody segment will attain applicable water 

quality standards. 

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration 

It is ultimately the Department’s responsibility to assure adequate documentation in 

the administrative record whenever the Department decides to not list an impaired 

waterbody segment for a given pollutant. This documentation will be very important 

because the Verified Lists will be adopted by Order of the Secretary and third parties will 

be provided an opportunity to challenge, via an administrative hearing, all listing 

decisions (both those listing a water and those to not list a water for a given pollutant). 

However, the Department expects that local stakeholders will often offer to prepare the 

necessary documentation to demonstrate reasonable assurance that proposed control 

mechanisms will restore a given waterbody. The Department will provide guidance to 

stakeholders on what information is needed and how it should be submitted. 
124 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

Time Frame for Development of Documentation 

The Department plans to prepare basin-specific Verified Lists as part of its 

watershed management cycle, which rotates through all of the state’s basins over a fiveyear, five-phased cycle1

. During the first phase of the cycle, the Department will assess 

water quality in the basin and prepare a draft Planning List of potentially impaired 

waters. The Department and interested parties will then have approximately one year 

(Phase 2) to monitor waters on the planning list and prepare documentation, as 

appropriate, to provide reasonable assurance that impaired waters will be restored. The 

Department will review submittals from interested parties during Phase 2, before 

adopting the Verified List for the basin containing the waterbody segment in question. 

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

Both the FWRA and the IWR require that the pollution control programs 

under consideration be “under local, state, or federal authority.” A pollution 

control program will be considered "under local, state, or federal authority" if the 

program is subject to or required by a local ordinance, state statute or rule, or 

federal statute or regulation. 

Programs will also be considered under local, state, or federal authority if they 

are subject to a written agreement, signed by both local stakeholders and at least 

one governmental entity, that includes measurable goals, performance criteria, 

benchmarks, and back-up corrective actions to assure the further progress of the 

program. It is important to note that these written agreements do not need to be 

enforceable for nonregulated nonpoint sources. 

Many nonpoint sources are currently outside of the regulatory programs of EPA, the 

Department, and the water management districts, and reductions at these nonpoint 

sources will be voluntary. In fact, pollution control mechanisms for these nonpoint 

sources would be voluntary even if a TMDL were developed. As such, these agreements 

may provide the same level of reasonable assurance that can be provided for a TMDL 

implementation plan as long as they maintain the Department’s enforcement capability 

over all point sources involved. 

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards 

The FWRA and the IWR do not establish a specific time limit by which waters must 

attain applicable water quality standards or designated uses. However, the pollution 

control mechanisms or watershed restoration plan must provide reasonable assurance that 

designated uses will be met at some time in the future. As such, the documentation 

submitted to the Department must provide a specific date by which time designated uses 

are expected to be restored. In cases where designated uses will not be met for many 

years, the documentation should also provide justification as to why the specified time is 

needed to restore designated uses. 

 

1

 Federal regulations currently call for state 303(d) lists every two years, but Florida plans to submit annual updates 

based on the basin-specific Verified Lists. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 125

 

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration 

For the Department not to place an impaired waterbody segment on the Verified List, 

reasonable assurance must be provided for each pollutant that has been documented to be 

causing impairment of the waterbody segment. However, some entities, including the 

Department, may want to provide reasonable assurance addressing only selected 

pollutants, which could result in the Department not listing the waterbody segment for 

those pollutants, but still listing it for others. In this event, TMDLs will only be 

developed for the remaining listed pollutants. 

Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable 

Assurance in the IWR 

To provide reasonable assurance that existing or proposed pollution control 

mechanisms will restore designated uses, the following information should be evaluated 

and documented for the Administrative Record: 

• A Description of the Impaired Water—name of the water listed on the Verified 

List, the location of the waterbody and watershed, the watershed/8-digit 

cataloging unit code, the NHD identifier (when they become available), the type 

(lake, stream, or estuary) of water, the water use classification, the designated use 

not being attained, the length (miles) or area (acres) of impaired area, the 

pollutant(s) of concern (those identified as causing or contributing to the 

impairment), and the suspected or documented source(s) of the pollutant(s) of 

concern. 

• A Description of the Water Quality or Aquatic Ecological Goals—a 

description of the water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals (both 

interim and final) that have been established for the pollutant(s) of concern, the 

averaging period for any numeric water quality goals, a discussion of how these 

goals will result in the restoration of the waterbody’s impaired designated uses, a 

schedule indicating when interim and final targets are expected to be met, and a 

description of procedures (with thresholds) to determine whether additional 

(backup) corrective actions are needed. 

• A Description of the Proposed Management Actions To Be Undertaken—

names of the responsible participating entities (government, private, others), a 

summary and list of existing or proposed management activities designed to 

restore water quality, the geographic scope of any proposed management 

activities, documentation of the estimated pollutant load reduction and other 

benefits anticipated from implementation of individual management actions, 

copies of written agreements committing participants to the management actions, 

a discussion on how future growth and new sources will be addressed, confirmed 

sources of funding, an implementation schedule (including interim milestones 
126 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

and the date by which designated uses will 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 monitoring program to be implemented 

(including station locations, parameters sampled, and sampling frequencies) to 

demonstrate reasonable progress; quality assurance/quality control elements that 

demonstrate the monitoring will comply with Rule 62-160, F.A.C.; procedures 

for entering all appropriate data into STORET; the responsible monitoring and 

reporting entity; the frequency and format for reporting results; the frequency and 

format for reporting on the implementation of all proposed management 

activities; and methods for evaluating progress towards goals. 

• A Description of Proposed Corrective Actions—a description of proposed 

corrective actions (and any supporting document[s]) that will be undertaken if 

water quality does not improve after implementation of the management actions 

or if management actions are not completed on schedule, and a process for 

notifying the Department that these corrective actions are being implemented. 

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals 

Some of the most important elements listed above are the requirements to provide 

water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals and a discussion on how resultant 

pollutant(s) reduction targets/goals will result in restoration of designated uses. Some 

people have expressed concern about these targets because they equate a water quality–

based restoration target with a TMDL (thus assuming a “Catch 22” that a TMDL is 

needed to make a demonstration that a TMDL is not needed). However, as is also the 

case for TMDLs, water quality–based targets can take many forms, and need not be a 

result of a complex hydrodynamic/water quality model. 

In some cases, there may be sufficient historical data (paleolimnological data, 

loadings from periods predating the impairment, or baseline data for Outstanding Florida 

Waters2

, for example) that could be used to determine an appropriate water quality target. 

In other cases, simplified modeling (including regression analysis) may allow for 

conservative estimates of the assimilative capacity that could then be used as the basis for 

restoration goals. And, finally, a water quality target may have been developed that 

would be scientifically equivalent to (or act as the basis for) a TMDL, but the target has 

not been administratively adopted as a TMDL. In each of these cases, a sound water 

quality target could be used to evaluate whether the proposed pollution control 

mechanisms will sufficiently reduce loadings to meet the assimilative capacity of the 

water in question and result in attainment of designated uses. 

 

2

 Baseline data would be data for the year prior to designation of the OFW. 
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 designated uses. Examples 

of such interim targets are provided in the last section of this document, but site-specific 

measures are also encouraged. 

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets 

While the averaging period for water quality–based targets should be consistent with 

how the underlying standard is expressed, they can often be expressed in a variety of 

ways and need not be expressed as “daily loads.” Annual averages or medians are often 

appropriate for some parameters, but shorter-term (seasonal, for example) averages may 

be necessary if the impairment is limited to specific seasons or parts of the year. Multiyear averages may be appropriate in limited circumstances where there is naturally high 

variation of the water quality target. 

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions 

It will often be difficult to estimate precisely the pollutant reductions that will result 

from specific restoration activities. This is particularly true for the implementation of 

best management practices (BMPs). However, to provide reasonable assurance that a 

BMP or other restoration action will reduce loadings of the pollutant of concern to a level 

that will restore the water’s designated uses, documentation should address how the 

reductions were calculated, including providing documented values from the scientific 

literature for reductions attributed to similar management actions. If the expected 

reductions are expressed as a range, the midpoint of the range should be used as the basis 

for estimating reductions, unless documentation is provided supporting the use of 

different removal efficiencies in this specific application. 

New Sources/Growth 

Another key element is the discussion on how future growth and new sources will be 

addressed. Restoration goals must address possible increased loadings of the pollutant of 

concern that are anticipated due to population growth or land use changes in contributing 

watersheds, both from point and nonpoint sources. This will be particularly important for 

waters impaired by nutrients, given that so many Florida watersheds are faced with 

continuing urban, residential, and agricultural development that results in increased 

nutrient loading from stormwater, septic tanks, and wastewater discharges. 
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 progress towards restoration of the designated 

uses of the impaired water. Possible examples of reasonable progress include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

• A written commitment to implement controls reducing loadings within a specified 

time frame from watershed stakeholders representing at least 50 percent of the 

anthropogenic load of the pollutant(s) of concern; 

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent reduction (or alternatively, a percent reduction 

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in annual 

anthropogenic loading of the pollutant(s) of concern; 

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent decrease (or alternatively, a percent decrease 

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in the annual 

average concentration of the pollutant(s) of concern in the water; 

• Bioassessment results showing there has been an improvement in the health of the 

biological community of the water, as measured by bioassessment procedures similar 

to those used to determine impairment and conducted in similar conditions; or 

• Adoption of a local ordinance that specifically provides water quality goals, restricts 

growth or loads tied to the pollutant(s) of concern, and provides an enforcement 

option if the proposed management measure(s) are not implemented as required. 

Reasonable progress must be made by the time the next 303(d) list is due to be 

submitted to EPA, which is currently every two years. EPA has contemplated changing 

the listing cycle to every four or five years, and the IWR was specifically worded to 

allow a longer time frame for requiring reasonable progress in the event that the listing 

cycle changes. 

Long-Term Requirements

If at any time the Department determines that reasonable assurance and reasonable 

progress are not being met, the order adopting the Verified List will be amended to 

include the waterbody on the Verified List for the pollutant(s) in question. Additional 

reasonable progress must be made each time a waterbody is considered for listing under 

Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (every five years). 

If you have any questions about this guidance memo, contact Daryll Joyner of the 

Department’s Bureau of Watershed Management in Tallahassee at 850-245-8431. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 129

 

Appendix D: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river basins, the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (Department) evaluates water quality data using 

the science-based methodology in the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

(IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The rule establishes 

specific criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data 

quality requirements. The methodology described in the rule is based on a statistical 

approach designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality 

assessment is correct. The complete text of the IWR is available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-303/62-303.pdf. 

As part of the watershed management approach, for each river basin in the state the 

Department will follow the methodology in Section 62-303.300, F.A.C., to develop a 

Planning List of potentially impaired waters to be assessed under Subsections 403.067(2) 

and (3), 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 Planning List. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), 

F.S., the Planning List will not be used to administer or implement any regulatory 

program, and is submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

informational purposes only. 

After further assessment, using the methodology in Part III, Section 62-303.400, 

F.A.C., the Department will determine if waters on the Planning List are, in fact, 

impaired and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. These waters are 

placed on a Verified List. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those 

for the Planning List. Data older than 7.5 years should not be used to verify impairment. 

The Verified List will be adopted by Secretarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for 

approval as Florida’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Department will 

develop TMDLs for these waters under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. 

Attainment of Designated Use(s) 

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the surface 

water quality classification system described previously, it is important to note that the 

EPA uses slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because the 

Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report 

and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology 

when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision 

processes for listing impaired waters that are defined in Florida’s 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 assigned 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 quality for each basin statewide includes an 

analysis of quantitative data from a variety of sources, many of which are readily 

available to the public. These sources include the EPA’s Legacy and Modernized 

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) Databases, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 

Department, the Florida Department of Health (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 data collected and uploaded by numerous 

organizations through 1999. The Legacy STORET Database can be accessed at 

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

In 2000, the EPA created a modernized version of STORET that included new 

features designed to address data quality assurance/quality control concerns (see the new 

STORET Web site at http://www.epa.gov/storet/. However, because of software 

difficulties associated with batch uploading of data to Modernized STORET, the data 

being uploaded to the national repository decreased dramatically, and lingering problems 

have temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses 

only about 5 percent of the statewide IWR Database. 

Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the IWR assessment was provided by 

individual organizations that for various reasons, such as time constraints or resource 

limitations, were not able to enter their data into the national database. The organizations 

providing the largest datasets include the South Florida, Southwest Florida, and St. Johns 

River Water Management Districts; the USGS; and the University of Florida LakeWatch 

volunteer monitoring group. Several of these databases are readily available to the public 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 131

 

via the Internet: the South Florida Water Management District at 

http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/, the USGS at http://water.usgs.gov/, and LakeWatch at 

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/. 

The Department created the 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 Verified List assessment, the window is 7.5 years 

(for the IWR Database), and the Planning List assessment window is 10 years. Table 

D.2 shows the periods of record for the Verified 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 Planning 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 quality in individual river basins in Florida, 

three categories of data—chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption 

advisories—were evaluated to determine potential impairments for the four designated 

use attainment categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, 

fish and shellfish consumption, drinking water use, and protection of human health. 

Aquatic Life Based Attainment 

The IWR follows the principle of independent applicability. A waterbody is listed 

for potential impairment of aquatic life use support based on exceedances of any one of 

four types of water quality indicators (numeric water quality criteria, nutrient thresholds, 

biological thresholds, and toxicity data). 
132 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

EXCEEDANCES OF NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

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. Water quality information from point sources 

or wells was excluded. Monitoring stations were classified as one of five waterbody 

types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria described in the 

latest 305(b) report. The assessments included the following parameters: 

Metals Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III, 

copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, 

thallium, and zinc 

Nutrients Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State 

Index (TSI) (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total 

phosphorus) for lakes 

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

unionized ammonia 

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List included a minimum of 10 

temporally independent samples from the 10-year period of record shown in Table D.2,

unless there were 3 exceedances of water quality or 1 exceedance of an acute toxicity 

criterion in a 3-year period. The screening methodology for the Verified List requires at 

least 20 samples from the last 5 years preceding the Planning List assessment. An 

exceedance, meaning that water quality criteria or standards are not met, is recorded any 

time the criterion is exceeded by any amount. An exceedance for DO, however, means 

that a waterbody does not meet the 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 computer program written to assess the data, based 

on criteria established in the IWR, with two exceptions. First, unionized ammonia data 

were not analyzed by the program, but rather with an Excel spreadsheet. Second, 

because the full complexity of the pH criterion could not be programmed, the incomplete 

listings for pH are not included. They will be further examined while additional data are 

collected during Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. Data analysis and 

statistical summaries of waterbody identification numbers (WBIDs), waterbody types, 

and parameters obtained from the STORET Database were conducted using Access, SAS 

statistical software, and ArcView geographic information system (GIS) applications 

The data for metals and conventional parameters were compared with the state 

surface water quality criteria in Section 62-302.530, F.A.C. (IWR). The rule contains a 

table of sample numbers versus exceedances. A waterbody was placed on the Planning 

List if there was at least 80 percent confidence that the actual criteria exceedance rate was 

greater than or equal to 10 percent. To be placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 

percent confidence rate was required. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 133

 

EXCEEDANCES OF NUTRIENT THRESHOLDS

The state currently has a narrative nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for 

nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient 

concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural 

populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The IWR provides an interpretation of the 

narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the TSI and the annual mean chlorophyll a values 

are the primary means for assessing whether a waterbody should be assessed further for 

nutrient impairment. 

The rule also considers other information that might indicate an imbalance in flora or 

fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a 

decrease in the distribution (either in density or aerial coverage) of seagrasses or other 

submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel 

oxygen swings. 

Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual mean chlorophyll 

a values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, the TSI was 

calculated using chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen measurements. Direct 

evidence of imbalances of flora and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the 

evaluation of nutrient impairments. 

In estuarine areas, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean 

chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 micrograms per liter (μg/L), or if annual mean 

chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least 

two consecutive years. For streams, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the 

annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 μg/L, or if the annual mean 

increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive 

years. 

A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units (PCUs) was 

considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean 

color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean 

TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a lake was considered nutrient enriched if there was an 

increase in TSI over the 1989 to 2000 period, or if TSI measurements were 10 units 

higher than historical values. 

EXCEEDANCES OF BIOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS

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 the generation and analysis of bioassessment 

data. These are referenced in the individual bioassessment data tables contained in the 

Status Reports. The purpose behind using a bioassessment methodology in surface water 

characterizations is that biological components of the environment manifest long-term 

water quality conditions and thus provide a better indication of a waterbody’s true health 

than discrete chemical or physical measurements alone. Similar to water quality criteria, 

bioassessment methods involve the identification of a biological reference condition, 

based on data from unimpaired or least impacted waters in a given region. 
134 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

For the Planning and Verified List assessments, the reference condition data were 

used to establish expected scores, ranging from best to worst, for various measures of 

community structure and function, such as numbers or percentages of particular species 

or feeding groups. Data on community structure and function from waters of unknown 

quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of 

metrics to evaluate their biological integrity. 

Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Diptera, percent filter feeders) were used 

independently and as an aggregated group called an index. Indices have advantages over 

individual metrics in that they can integrate several related metrics into one score that 

reflects a wider range of biological variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and 

indices exist for assessing populations of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms 

(e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankton), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, 

crayfish, snails, and mussels). 

Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in 

the bioassessments analyzed for the Planning and Verified Lists. The data included sites 

designated as test and background sites for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) fifth-year inspections, but excluded data from effluent outfalls from 

discharging facilities, or data from monitoring sites not clearly established to collect 

ambient water quality data. Because site-specific habitat and physicochemical 

assessment information (e.g., percent suitable macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities, 

extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian [Definition: Of, on, or relating to the 

banks of a natural course of water.] buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of 

reporting, it was not included. However, this information is instrumental in pinpointing 

the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and will be included in future reporting. 

The data used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists were obtained from the 

Department’s Biological Database (SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality 

Database, where it could be substantiated that the data were generated in compliance with 

the bioassessment standard operating procedures referenced in the IWR (Section 62-

303.330, F.A.C.). 

The data from these databases are used without regard to the randomness of sample 

site selection. For the purposes of the Status Reports, the seasons are defined as follows: 

winter (1/1–3/31), spring (4/1–6/30), summer (7/1–9/30), and fall (10/1–12/31). Wet 

seasons are generally spring and summer, and dry seasons are fall and winter, although 

conditions can vary in the state as a whole. 

LAKE CONDITION INDEX

The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except 

percent Diptera, was performed according to the following formula: 

100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = observed 

value 
Water 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 percentile of the reference population and B 

= observed value 

An average LCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the six metrics in 

the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders 

Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; 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 bioassessments. A poor or very poor rating based 

on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR. 

STREAM CONDITION INDEX

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; percent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A 

poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed bioassessment, based 

on the IWR. The Water Quality Status Reports contain definitions and specific methods 

for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. 

BIORECON

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used: 

the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three 

metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the IWR. 

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY STANDARD 

Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester–Dendy artificial substrate 

samplers, were used to calculate Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index scores for paired 

background and test sites, as specified in the Biological Integrity Standard of Subsection 

62-302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the standard meant that a waterbody segment was 

listed as potentially impaired. 

EVALUATION OF TOXICITY DATA

Although the IWR describes the use of toxicity data for the assessment of aquatic 

life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity data are available for assessment and this 

metric was not used. 
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 bacteriological data, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area for which a local health department 

or county government issued closures, advisories, 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 during a calendar year based on previous 

bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or 

flow. 

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment 

For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet 

the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, or if a fish 

consumption advisory had been issued. Fish consumption advisories were based on the 

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 approved for shellfish harvesting but were 

downgraded to a more restrictive classification were listed as potentially impaired. 

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health 

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the 

applicable Class I water quality criteria. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 137

 

Appendix E: Integrated Assessment (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 subsequent to the update of the 303(d) list, 

some waterbody segments were further subdivided to produce separate segments for 

lakes versus their surrounding watersheds. Therefore, Table E.1 shows the waterbody 

identification numbers (WBIDs) under which these segments were designated in the 1998 

303(d) list, as well as the new or currently recognized WBIDs for them. 

Information in this appendix was obtained from an inventory of the Legacy and 

Modernized STORET Databases, as well as data contributed directly to the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (Department) by individual data providers. 

Table E.2 includes only stations with data from the planning and verified assessment 

periods. 
138 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

Table E.1: Integrated Water Quality Report (Master List) for the Perdido River and Bay Basin, by Planning Unit 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C N489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 High 2006 P

1(2em(2ue(>

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Dioxin PL 3C P

s

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 High 2006 P

vTpmwvAV

(<5= 

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 High 2006 P489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Fluoride NI 2 P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll NI 2 High 2006 H

1om(2am(fH(2(2(2thth

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

PL 3C Low 2011 P

Lremv

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 High 2006 B

2v= 

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia VL 5 High 2006 P
140 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM BOD 5-Day (mg/l) VL 5 High 2007 P

7mdmwdmv

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM Total Suspended 

Solids (TSS) 

NI 2 High 2006 D

intu

624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C N624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

aa 2

624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C P

vthdmww

624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 Low 2011 P624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B V624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 Low 2011 B

ppV

624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P681 HURST BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P681 HURST BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C N697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

aa u= 

697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C P

thbdmwwd(<

697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2011 P697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B V697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P
142 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 P

foNbBtato bpnNde

697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Unionized Ammonia PL 3C P725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P

li2

725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B V725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B Low 2011 P725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Turbidity PL 3C V

hb

730 TURNER CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P730 TURNER CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P730 TURNER CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P763 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P763 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P779 BELLSHEAD BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

779 BELLSHEAD BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

= m

784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 P784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B V784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Fluoride NI 2 V784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Turbidity NI 2 P

nv

797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll VL 5 Low 2012 P

((26ma(26umv

797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Dioxin PL 3C P

s

797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 Low 2011 P

L2

797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 P797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Fluoride ID 3B V
144 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll NI 2 Low 2011 H

foc7(2amoH(6ueu

797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 P

bpnNdeTis thNbn

848 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P848 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P871 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P871 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 P

ma

872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Fecal Coliform ID 3B P872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Fluoride ID 3B P872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

dm
146 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY Turbidity ID 3B P

cv

935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

ma

935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C Low 2011 P

thbdmww

935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 P935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Turbidity NI 2 P

nv

935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Fecal Coliform ID 3B P945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY Turbidity ID 3B P

cv

974 PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll ND 3A P974 PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P974 PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Color In

th
148 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C P

thbdRwv2m

987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 P987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Mercury (in fish 

tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2012 D

ya0Sc

987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 P991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 P

5Nu(2Nu

991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 Low 2011 P991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll NI 2 H

2om2hthmueu

991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 P

nv

1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 P

fo1

1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 P1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 P1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d
150 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 P

nv

1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

(ed

1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 P1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 P1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Turbidity NI 2 P

cv

1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P1018 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll ND 3A P1018 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P1018 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL Chlorophyll ND 3A P8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL Fecal Coliform NI 2 P1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY Bacteria NI 2 B

2

489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

mNu

489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 P
152 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 High 2007 P

nit (da

489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B V489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 P

fo3 bBtato bpnNde

489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

hb
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

489B COFFEE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Fecal Coliform ID 3B P697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Fluoride ID 3B P697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Historic TSI ID 3B P

d

697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE TSI ID 3B P

d

697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Turbidity ID 3B P

cv

697A CRESCENT LAKE LAKE Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 P

= mIn

797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Dioxin PL 3C P

s

797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 V797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Fecal Coliform ID 3B V797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Fluoride ID 3B V797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc
154 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 V

hb

8001A PERDIDO KEY STATE 

PARK 

COASTAL Chlorophyll ND 3A P

8001A PERDIDO KEY STATE 

PARK 

COASTAL Fecal Coliform NI 2 P

8001A PERDIDO KEY STATE 

PARK 

COASTAL Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P

8001A PERDIDO KEY STATE 

PARK 

COASTAL Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

8001B JOHNSON BEACH COASTAL Chlorophyll ND 3A P8001B JOHNSON BEACH COASTAL Fecal Coliform NI 2 P8001B JOHNSON BEACH COASTAL Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P8001B JOHNSON BEACH COASTAL Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

8001C BIG LAGOON STATE PARK COASTAL Chlorophyll ND 3A P8001C BIG LAGOON STATE PARK COASTAL Fecal Coliform NI 2 P8001C BIG LAGOON STATE PARK COASTAL Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

8001C BIG LAGOON STATE PARK COASTAL Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

3 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Biology PL 3C N3 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P3 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C N4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

1(2em(23m

4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 Low 2011 P4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2012 P4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Fluoride NI 2 P
156 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll NI 2 H

1om(2moH(2u(2thth

4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Turbidity NI 2 Low 2011 B

2vP

4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM Total Suspended 

Solids (TSS) 

NI 2 Low 2011 D

intu

14 HUBBARD CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P14 HUBBARD CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

(2ama(21c

72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 P72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 P72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Fluoride NI 2 P72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll NI 2 H

2om(2moH(2amo

72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

yho
158 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Turbidity NI 2 P

fo1bBtato bpnNde

72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Conductance NI 2 P73 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P73 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P105 FREEMAN SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P

105 FREEMAN SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

105 FREEMAN SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P

105 FREEMAN SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P

105 FREEMAN SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Fluoride ID 3B P

105 FREEMAN SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

105 FREEMAN SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

cv

135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Biology ID 3B N135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

hb

135 BOGGY CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P138 ROCKY CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P138 ROCKY CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P148 HELVERSON CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P148 HELVERSON CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C N149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

mNu

149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d
160 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

WNbBtato bpnNde

149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P169 BUCKEYE BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P169 BUCKEYE BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P172 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P172 REEDY BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P182 WEST FORK STREAM Biology NI 2 N182 WEST FORK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P182 WEST FORK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P182 WEST FORK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P182 WEST FORK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P182 WEST FORK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

hb

182 WEST FORK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P197 NARROW GAP BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P197 NARROW GAP BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

208 MCDADE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P208 MCDADE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P228 JACKSON SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P

228 JACKSON SPRINGS 

BRANCH 

STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P

243 SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P243 SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P245 ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM Biology NI 2 N245 ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P245 ALLIGATOR CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P252 STILL BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P252 STILL BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P259 POND BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P259 POND BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B P278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

cv

290 DRY CREEK STREAM Biology PL 3C N290 DRY CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d
162 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

290 DRY CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P290 DRY CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P290 DRY CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P290 DRY CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

WNbBtato 

290 DRY CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C Low 2011 V291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Fecal Coliform PL 3C Low 2011 V291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Turbidity PL 3C Low 2011 P

bpnNde

297 PENASULA CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P297 PENASULA CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Fluoride ID 3B P311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

cv

345 COWDEVIL CREEK STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P345 COWDEVIL CREEK STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Fluoride ID 3B V357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P407 FARM HILL RUN STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P407 FARM HILL RUN STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B V494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B V494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM Turbidity ID 3B V

hb

542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Biology PL 3C N542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

mNu

542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Dissolved Oxygen PL 3C P
164 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Fecal Coliform PL 3C P542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Turbidity VL 5 Low 2012 A 

NlompthN

542 REST AREA RUN STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P607 CLAYPIT BRANCH STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P607 CLAYPIT BRANCH STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P616 BEULAH DRAIN STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P616 BEULAH DRAIN STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P696 BLACK LAKE LAKE Historic TSI ND 3A P696 BLACK LAKE LAKE TSI ND 3A P2F PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P2F PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P2F PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

yho

462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Chlorophyll NI 2 Low 2011 P

m5m

462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 Low 2011 P
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Fecal Coliform NI 2 Low 2011 P462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B Low 2011 P462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

ya0Sc

462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY Turbidity NI 2 P

WNbBtato bpnNde

462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

m2e

462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 P462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Fecal Coliform VL 5 Low 2011 P462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d
166 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

yho

462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Turbidity NI 2 P

WNbBtato bpnNde

462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Biology NI 2 N462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Chlorophyll NI 2 P

m2e

462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Dissolved Oxygen NI 2 P462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Fecal Coliform NI 2 Low 2011 P462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

yho

462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Turbidity NI 2 P

WNbBtato bpnNde

462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM Unionized Ammonia NI 2 P696A BLACK LAKE DRAIN STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P696A BLACK LAKE DRAIN STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Unionized Ammonia ID 3B P72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d

72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Dissolved Oxygen ID 3B P72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Fecal Coliform ID 3B P72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Fluoride ID 3B P72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ID 3B P

d
168 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody Type1

Parameters Assessed 

1998 303(d) List 

EPA’s 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development 

Projected 

Year for 

TMDL 

Development C

Proposed Status: 

NI = Not Impaired; VL = 

Verified List; PL = Planning 

List; RA = Reasonable 

Assurance; NP = No 

Pollutant; ID = Insufficient 

Data; ND = No Data; NA = Not 

Applicable 

72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

yho

72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Turbidity ID 3B P

cv

72E DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P72E DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P72E DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

yho

72F DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Chlorophyll ND 3A P72F DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Historic Chlorophyll ND 3A P72F DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM Mercury (in Fish 

Tissue) 

VL 5 Low 2011 D

yho

1 The designation "stream" includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes. 2 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 re

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. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

Table E.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations Used in the Assessment for the Perdido River and Bay Basin, by Planning Unit 

WBID Waterbody Names 

Waterbody Type Class Station Numbers Station Name 

Perdido Bay 

1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010H91 ICW MARKER 35 EAST OLD RIVER 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M32 

BIG LAGOON 500FT OFFSHORE N JOHNSON BCHRDCULDESA 

1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M29 BIG LAGOON WEST END ICW MARKER 18 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M15 BIG LAGOON TWEEN REDFISH/SPANISH PTS 100YD 151004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M13 BIG LAGOON BETWEEN TROUT PT AND REDFISH PT 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M10 BIG LAGOON 500FT SOUTH OF SEAGLADES PIER 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330200M7 BIG LAGOON FT MCREE LNDING SOUTH CUT MID CHA1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M33 SEQUIENZA COVE SR 292 "BRENTS DITCH 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330200M3 BIG LAGOON 500FT SOUTH ROD AND REEL MARINA P1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M12G Langley Point at Big Lagoon (GNIS) - Seagrass 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M20G Big Lagoon State Park-Seagrass Station 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M16G Spanish Cove within Big Lagoon - Seagrass 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M13G Redfish Point within Big Lagoon (GINS) - Seagrass 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33020M9G Grande Lagoon at Seaglades (Big Lagoon)-Seagrass 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33020M4G East of Trout Point within Big Lagoon - Seagrass 1004 BIG LAGOON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3302M30G Big Lagoon Near Johnson Beach (GNIS)-Seagrass 1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLGBO1P09PB0312 Pensacola Bay P09PB0312 1014 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLGBO1P09PB0311 Pensacola Bay P09PB0311 1015 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010H21 OLD RIVER AT FLORIDA/ALABAMA LINE 

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17373 NWD-SL-1015 UNNAMED LAKE 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010093 Eleven Mile Creek @ Hwy 186 Cantonment STP (removed) 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBRA 489-A 489 - Elevenmile Creek - at 297A and 97A junction 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330148921 Tributary to Eleven Mile Creek @ Turtle Pond 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330148917 Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-17 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010041 Eleven Mile Creek 1700 Yards above Mouth 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330148916 Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-16 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330148915 Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-15 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBRA 489-B 489 - Elevenmile Creek - At Kingsfield 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBRA 489-D 489 - Elevenmile Creek - at US-90 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17366 NWD-SL-1006 UNNAMED LAKE 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33014895 Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-5 
170 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Names 

Waterbody Type Class Station Numbers Station Name 

489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 3565 ELEVENMILE CREEK NEAR WEST PENSACOLA 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010040 Elevenmile Creek 500 Yards from Mouth 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010105 Eleven Mile Creek--WBID 489-10 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010013 Eleven Mile Creek at Highway 90 Bridge 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010012 Eleven Mile Creek at Hwy 90A 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010011 11 MILE CREEK at SR 297A Bridge 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 112WRD 02376115 ELEVENMILE CREEK NEAR PENSACOLA, FL. 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBRA 489-C 489 - Elevenmile Creek - at US-90A 489 ELEVENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010011 11 MILE CREEK AT SR 297A BR 

489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010080 Ten Mile Creek at Hwy 297 (also BFA) 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301489A4 Ten Mile Creek at Amanda Lane and Sunday Road 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010134 Ten Mile Creek at Roberts Road 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010080 TEN MILE CREEK AT HWY 297 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010125 Ten Mile Cr abv Stephani Rd aka Sr489 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010125 Ten Mile Cr abv Stephani Rd aka Sr489 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010109 TENMILE CREEK 50M N OF GALLOWS RD. 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010104 TEN MILE CR. AT GULF POWER EASEMENT 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010103 TEN MILE CR. N OF CITATION AT BONANZA AT STORM 489A TENMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301489A5 Ten Mile Creek at Greenhills Road (East Fork tributary) 

624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010113 EIGHTMILE CREEK ABOVE KLONDIKE ROAD 624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010015 8 MI CR SR 297 BR 624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010128 Eight Mile Creek @ Cove Ave. 624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010016 8 MI CR HWY 90 BRIDGE 624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010016 8 Mile Creek at Hwy 90 Bridge 624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33016245 Tributary to Eight Mile Creek (TMDL wbid 624-5) 624 EIGHTMILE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010122 Eightmile Creek--WBID 624-2 697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010036 MARCUS CR ABOVE AVONDALE STP 697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 330100C9 Marcus Creek--WBID 697-1 697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010021 Marcus Creek at Longleaf Drive 697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010030 MARCUS CREEK HWY 90 BR 697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010021 Marcus Creek at West arm of Longleaf Road 697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010075 MARCUS CREEK 100 Yards above Mo. of Perdido Bay 697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010038 Marcus Creek 100 yards above mouth of Bayou Marcus 697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010036 Marcus Creek - 150 Ft. above Avondale STP at Millview Ro
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Names 

Waterbody Type Class Station Numbers Station Name 

697 MARCUS CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010030 MARCUS CREEK at Highway 90 Bridge 

697A CRESSENT LAKE LAKE 3F 21FLGW 19172 NWD-LL-1011 CRESCENT LAKE 697A CRESSENT LAKE LAKE 3F 21FLGW 19167 NWD-LL-1006 CRESCENT LAKE 697A CRESSENT LAKE LAKE 3F 21FLGW 19169 NWD-LL-1008 CRESCENT LAKE 

725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33017251 Marcus Creek @ Marcus Point Bridge (Upper East Branch) 725 UNNAMED BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33017252 Marcus Creek, Upper Arm off Rolling Hills Road 784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7843 Tee Lake--WBID 784-3 784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7841 Tee Lake--WBID 784-1 784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7845 Tee Lake--WBID 784-5 784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7842 Tee Lake--WBID 784-2 784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7848 Wicker Lakes-Upper End (TMDL wbid 784-8) 784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7844 Tee Lake--WBID 784-4 784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7846 Wicker Lakes--WBID 784-6 784 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301A7847 Wicker Lakes--WBID 784-7 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330100C6 PERDIDO BAY PNS 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330100E2 PERDIDO BAY BETWEEN INERARITY PT AND RED BLU797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010D16 PERDIDO BAY CENTER OFF DU PONT POINT 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100A5 PERDIDO B 100 YDS OFFSHORE 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100C6 PERDIDO BAY SEC C BACKGROUND STA 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 330100A3 PERDIDO BAY 100YDS OFF MOUTH OF ELEVENMILE C797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100D4 PERDIDO BAY AT PARADISE BEACH 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010G10 LOWER PERDIDO BAY OFF PALE MOON DR NR PAPAG797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100A1 PERDIDO BAY MO PERDIDO R 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010C14 PERDIDO BAY ESCAMBIA COUNTY 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010A10 PERDIDO BAY SEC A BACKGROUND STA 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301D79712 Perdido Bay @ Lillian Bridge (TMDL wbid 797-12) 797 UPPER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301D79713 Perdido Bay off Bronson Field (TMDL wbid 797-13) 

797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010D16 PERDIDO BAY CENT BAY 797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301462C5 Perdido River @ Ruby's Landing on Hwy 90 (TMDL wbid 46797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010I22 PERDIDO B MID CHAN DUPONT PO 797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010F16 LOWER PERDIDO BAY N OF INERARITY ISLAND 797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100F4 PERDIDO BAY CENTER OF BAY WEST O 797A LOWER PERDIDO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 330100E4 PERDIDO BAY SEC E BACKGROUND STA 
172 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Names 

Waterbody Type Class Station Numbers Station Name 

8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL 3M 

21FLDOH ESCAMBIA94 FL524842 

8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL 3M 

21FLDOH ESCAMBIA92 FL785378 

8001 PERDIDO BAY GULF COASTAL 3M 

21FLDOH ESCAMBIA93 FL988248 

872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010C19 PERDIDO BAY BRIDGE CR 872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010078 BRIDGE CR HWY98 HERON BAYOU LILLIAN HWY ESC 872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLGW 17887 NWD-SS-1031 BRIDGE CREEK 872 BRIDGE CREEK ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010126 Bridge Creek at Dogtrack Road 935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010G4W WEEKLY BAYOU 935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301G9351 Weekly Bayou-lower portion (TMDL wbid 935-1) 935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301G9352 Weekly Bayou-upper portion (TMDL wbid 935-2) 935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301G9353 Weekly Bayou-Middle Portion (TMDLwbid 935-3) 935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301G9354 Weekly Bayou-Upper portion (TMDL wbid 935-4) 935 UNNAMED STREAM STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010082 WEEKLY BAYOU CREEK CO RD 293 ESC.CO. 945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010G4T TARKLIN BAYOU 945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010G4T Tarklin Bayou 945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9453 Tarklin Bayou- Mid to Lower Portion (TMDL wbid 945-3) 945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9451 Tarklin Bayou - Upper Portion (TMDL wbid 945-1) 945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9454 Tarklin Bayou-Lower Portion near Mouth (TMDL-wbid 945-4945 TARKILN BAYOU ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9452 Tarklin Bayou-Mid to Upper Portion (TMDL wbid 945-2) 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRIPEN200326 Pensacola - Bayou Garcon 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9874 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-4 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9871 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-1 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9873 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-3 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9875 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-5 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9877 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-7 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9878 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-8 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301G9872 Bayou Garcon--WBID 987-2 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33010FA9 BAYOU GARCON AT HWY 292 987 BAYOU GARCON ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010FA7 BAYOU GARCON 1.3 MI E 292-293 IN 991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33020M31 BIG LAGOON HWY. 292 ICW BRIDGE ESC.CO. 991 DIRECT RUNOFF TO BAY ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 33020M20 Big Lagoon State Park West Beach 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

WBID Waterbody Names 

Waterbody Type Class Station Numbers Station Name 

Perdido River 

105 

FREEMAN SPRINGS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17876 NWD-SS-1019 FREEMAN SPRINGS BRANCH 

149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010118 MCDAVID CR @ TUNG OIL ROAD 149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010054 MCDAVID CREEK AT SR99 149 MC DAVID CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010127 McDavid Creek @ SR99 278 COWHIDE CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17866 NWD-SS-1006 UNNAMED STREAM 291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010131 Jacks Branch @ SR196 291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010130 Jacks Branch@SR196 East of Hwy29 291 JACKS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010132 Jacks Branch @ Hwy 29 311 BOWMAN CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17391 NWD-SL-1038 UNNAMED LAKE 357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010069 CHURCHHOUSE BR. SR97 NW OF CANTONMENT South 

4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010055 BRUSHY CREEK AT COUNTY RD 4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010119 BRUSHY CR @ O C PHILLIPS ROAD 4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLGW 3550 BRUSHY CREEK AT NAKOMIS RD 4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010055 BRUSHY CREEK AT COUNTY RD 4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010060 BRUSHY CREEK AT HWY 31 4 BRUSHY CREEK STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010063 BRUSHY CREEK AT NAKOMIS RD. ALSO BFA STATION 

462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010004 PERDIDO RIVER AT HWY 90 BRIDGE 462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301A462A2 Lower Perdido River above Hurst Landing 462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLBFA 33010006 PERDIDO R PERDIDO BAY MIDSTREAM 462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLPNS 3301462A3 Lower Perdido River TMDL site wbid 462A-3 462A PERDIDO RIVER ESTUARY 3M 21FLFMRISTR200201 StateNonTrend - Perdido River 462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462B1 Perdido River at Blackwater River (AL) Confluence 462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010002 PERDIDO R BARRINEAU PARK BR 462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010092 BLACKWATER RIVER CR91 WAYBURN RD ALA 462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462B3 Perdido River, Below Styx River near Brown's Landing 462B PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462B2 Perdido River, 250 Meters above Blackwater (AL) Confluen462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLBFA 33010001 PERDIDO R ABOVE JUNC BRUSHY CR 462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462C4 Slew off Perdido River-(TMDL-462C-4) 462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462C3 Perdido River-Mid to Upper (TMDL-wbid 462C-3) 462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462C1 Perdido River, 400 Meters above Mouth of Styx River 462C PERDIDO RIVER STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 3301462C2 Perdido River at Power Easement 

494 JACKS BRANCH STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010057 JACKS BRANCH AT SR 97 
174 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

WBID Waterbody Names 

Waterbody Type Class Station Numbers Station Name 

542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33015424 Beaver Pond Creek @ the Perdido Landing (TMDL wbid 54542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33015421 Beaver Pond Creek below Perdido Landfill on N side of I-10 542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33015425 Tributary East of Perdido Landfill, North of I-10 542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010077 E. TRIB TO I10 REST STOP CR E OF PERDIDO FILL 542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010065 Rest Area Run Creek blw I 10 ECO REG 75A 542 REST AREA RUN STREAM 3F 21FLPNS 33010066 BEAVER POND CREEK I10 ECO REG 75A 

72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 19253 NWD-LR-1016 PERDIDO RIVER 72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 17872 NWD-SS-1015 UNNAMED STREAM 72 DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 3542 PERDIDO RIVER AT BARRINEAU PARK BRIDGE 

72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 19262 NWD-LR-1025 PERDIDO RIVER 72D DIRECT RUNOFF TO STM STREAM 3F 21FLGW 19267 NWD-LR-1030 PERDIDO RIVER 

1 F – Fresh water; M – Marine. 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

Appendix F: Permitted Discharge Facilities and Landfills in the Perdido River a

Table F.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water Permit numbers in bold and italic typeface are located within the Perdido River Planning Unit. 

Permit Number Facility Name City Where Located Facility Type1 Status2 

FLA016856 Clark Site Contractors 

–Wingfoot Way Pensacola IW A 

FLA010030 Ernest Ward Middle School Walnut Hill DW A

FLA016534 Outpost Equipment Rental Pensacola IW A FLA016675 Clark Sand Company – East Fence Pensacola IW A FLA183881 Pensacola Tractor & Equipment, Inc Cantonment IW A 

FLA181862 Milkawa

y Dairy #3 Walnut Hill AFO

N

FLA016166 Evergreen Transportation Cantonment IW A 

FLG911000 Happy Store #521 Cantonment PET A 

FL0184624 Clark/Sand & Dirt Rolling Hills Pit Pensacola IW A 

FLA184551 McDirt Industries Pensacola IW A FLA185094 Nations Rent - Pensacola Pensacola IW A FLA016808 Gulf-Atlantic Constructors Pensacola IW A FLA016910 Greens Fill Dirt - Blossom Trail Mine Pensacola IW X 

FLA01736

6 Escambia County North Road Camp Century IW A

FL0031801 Bayou Marcus Water Reclamation Facility Pensacola DW A 

FLA010053 Cowin Equipment Company, Inc Pensacola IW A FLA010055 Couch Ready Mix - Pensacola Pensacola IW N FLA010058 Innerarity Island Pensacola DW A FLA016989 Carpenters Campers Inc Pensacola IW A FLA416274 Zacharjc Septage Recovery and Process Cantonment RES A 

FL0002526 International Paper Company Cantonment IW A 

FlR05A334 Beullah Landfill Cantonment SW N 

FLR04E058 Naval Air Station Pensacola MS2 A 

1 Facility Type: IW – Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant; DW – Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant, AFO – Animal feeding operation; PET – Petro

longterm; RES –Residuals/septage Management Facility; MS2 –Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) phase II permit. 2 Status: A – Active; N – Active, permit not required; X – Active unpermitted discharge. 3 NPDES Permit: Y – Yes; N – No. 
176 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

Table F.2: Permitted Landfill Facilities 

Facility ID 

Number Facility Name Address City Status1 

3029 D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. C&D In Beulah, on Tower Ridge Rd. Cantonment A 3026 

Heaton Bros Construction Co. C&D 

Debris 5805 Saufley Field Rd. Pensacola I 

3066 Saufley LF (Morton C.A. C & C Facility) 4512 Trice St. Milton A 3351 Fairgrounds Pit N of Godwin Ln., W of Mobile Hwy. Pensacola J 1744 Mobile Highway LF 3100 Mobile Highway Pensacola K 3116 Cerny Rd. C&D Milford Rd, near Cerny Blvd. Pensacola A 3079 Gulf Coast Paving & Grading, Inc. #1 7320 Hayward St. Pensacola A 4056 Green Fill Dirt North Wingfoot Way Pensacola A 3133 Rolling Hills Rd C&D Disposal 200FT South of Kemp Rd. Pensacola A 2984 Gilley’s Dozer Service, Inc. Post Office Box 728 Lillian A 3154 Auto Shred Industrial Landfill Bedford Avenue Pensacola K 3459 Laney E. Strange 6640 Frank Reeder Road Pensacola J 3032 Surrey Pit (Panhandle Grading & 

Paving 8 Mile) 

8 Mile Creek Rd - near I-10 Pensacola A 

3770 Bankhead C&D Site Bankhead Road Pensacola A 3400 Cove Avenue C&D – Rapid 

Management Company 

10350 Cove Ave. – Cove Ave +/- 1 Mi 

N of 9 Mi Rd. 

Pensacola A 

3027 Saufley Pit (Clark Sand Co.) E. Fence Rd. – Next to Sauf. Fld. Pensacola A 3040 Gulf-Atlantic Construction, Inc. 

(H-Wood) Hollywood @ Fairfield Pensacola J 

3031 Escambia District School Bd. C&D 2400 Longleaf Dr. Pensacola J 3060 Clark Sand Co. 395 N Ehrmann Street Pensacola K 1690 Klondike SLF 7219 Mobile Hwy. Pensacola K 3345 United Southco, Inc. 9235 Pine Forest Road Pensacola J 3005 Langford & Mills Home Builders, Inc. Corner Lepley & Ashland Sts. Pensacola J 
Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido Rive

Facility ID 

Number Facility Name Address City Status1 

3157 Panhandle Paving & Grading (Long LF) 2390 Longleaf Dr. Pensacola J 1688 Perdido Landfill Beulah-Muskogee Rd. Muscogee A 3051 G.F.D. Construction Co., Inc. C&D 

Debris 

End of Blossom Trail Pensacola K 

3028 Bedford Pit Off Godwin – N End of Bedford Pensacola A 3030 

Gulf-Atlantic Construction Inc. 

(Godwin) 

OFF Godwin –E of Pine Forest Rd. Pensacola A 

1688 Perdido Landfill Beulah-Muskogee Rd. Pensacola A 

91106 Clark Site Contractors, Inc. 3131 Navy Blvd. Pensacola O 

3037 English Brothers Demolition C&D OFF HWY.297-A (Pine Forest ) Pensacola J 2997 Langford C&D Disposal OFF Pine Forest Rd. (7500 Pine Forest Rd.) Pensacola J 4034 Fairgrounds Land Clearing Debris .4M W Mobile Hwy. on Belleview A Pensacola A 

Notes:1 Status: A – Active; I – Inactive; J – Closed; K – Closed with ground water monitoring; O – Never operated, permit never used. 2 Class I landfills receive an average of 20 tons or more of solid waste per day, while Class II landfills receive an average of less than 20 tons of solid was

Class III landfills are those that receive only yard trash, construction and demolition debris, waste tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, 

appliances, or other materials approved by the Department that are not expected to produce leachate that poses a threat to public health or the environmputrescible household waste. 

3 C&D – Construction and demolition debris. 
178 Water Quality Assessment Report: Perdido River and Bay 

Appendix G: 2000 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 100 
Water 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 Density 2,321.67 3.63 3.47 

1120 Mobile Home Units 50.93 0.08 0.08 

1200 Residential, Medium Density 11,603.96 18.13 17.37 

1220 Mobile Home Units, Medium Density 58.70 0.09 0.09 

1300 Residential, High Density 4,412.82 6.90 6.60 

1320 Mobile Home Units, High 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 Facilities 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 Pastureland 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 Forests 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 Wetlands 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 Vegetation 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 Transmission 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 100 
Water 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 Density 2,102.88 3.29 1.37 

1200 Residential, Medium Density 3,750.87 5.86 2.45 

1220 Mobile Home Units, Medium Density 6.92 0.01 0.00 

1300 Residential, High Density 773.96 1.21 0.51 

1320 Mobile Home Units, High 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 Facilities 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 Pastureland 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 (Rural) 130.95 0.20 0.09 

3200 Shrub and Brushland 871.09 1.36 0.57 

4100 Upland Coniferous Forests 43,892.81 68.58 28.68 

4200 Upland Hardwood Forests 192.78 0.30 0.13 

4340 Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood 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 0.01 
Water 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 Swamps 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 Vegetation 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 Transmission 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 Provided 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 said 

Don RayKen- what are we doing with Alabama 
Water 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 provide 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. Elevenmile Creek permit up, if permit changes, won’t 

worry about pollutant 

+ Addressed changes to Verified list today i.e. 797 Upper Perdido Bay for Nutrients by “other info...like 

algal mats” 

+ Listings are segment-specific, BUT TMDLs go upstream to sources 

 -storm water runoff 

+ Listings are parameter specific (can Delist 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 2nd 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 waters? 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 regional 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 samples BOD5 carbonaceous and sometimes longtime BOD; 

we can’t control everyone else, storm water don’t; Lakes 2-2.9 range 
Water 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 always 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 TMDL 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 list 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 for 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 nutrients, 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 does 
Water 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 sharing 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 data 

Florida 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