Perdido River and Bay

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Division of Water Resource Management 

NORTHWEST • GROUP 5 BASIN • 2006 

Water Quality Status Report 

Perdido River and Bay

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 


2006 

Water Quality Status Report 

Perdido River and Bay

Water Quality Status Report: Perdido River and Bay 

5 

Acknowledgments 

The Perdido River and Bay Water Quality Status 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 

Katrina Sanders, Watershed Assessment 

Tricia McClenahan, GIS Support 

Tom Seal, Monitoring Support 

Amanda Dorsett, STORET Assistance 

Barbara Ruth, Northwest District 

Shelley Alexander, Northwest District 

Cheryl Bunch, Northwest District 

Editorial and writing assistance provided by 

Linda Lord, Watershed Planning and Coordination 

Production assistance provided by 

Center for Information, Training, and Evaluation Services 

Florida State University 

210 Sliger Building 

2035 E. Dirac Dr. 

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800 

Map production assistance provided by 

Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center 

Florida State University 

University Center, C2200 


For additional information on the watershed management 

approach and potentially impaired waters in the Perdido 

Basin, contact 

Mary Paulic 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Planning and 

Coordination Section 

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 


mary.paulic@dep.state.fl.us 

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

Fax: (850) 245-8434

6 Water Quality Status Report: Perdido River and Bay 

Access to all data used in the development of this report can be 

obtained by contacting 

Richard Wieckowicz 


Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Assessment Section 



richard.wieckowicz@dep.state.fl.us 

Phone: (850) 245-8468; SunCom: 205-8468 

Fax: (850) 245-8536 

Web Sites 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Watershed Management 

TMDL Program 

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

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

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

STORET Program 

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

2004 305(b) Report 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2004_Integrated_Report.pdf 

Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications 

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

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/


7 

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 fit in a sidebar. 

• Definitions: Appear where scientific terms occur that may not 

be familiar to all readers. The word being defined 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 flow, types of natural communities, 

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

facilities.


9 

Executive Summary 

Perdido River and Bay 

The Water Quality Status Report for the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

is developed in the first phase 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 

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

designated uses is defined as impaired. The watershed approach, which is 

implemented using a cyclical management process, provides a framework 

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

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

of Florida). 

This Status Report provides a preliminary identification of impaired 

waters in the Perdido River and Bay Basin that may require the development 

and implementation of TMDLs, unless the impairment is documented 

to be a naturally occurring condition that cannot be abated by a 

TMDL, or unless a management plan that is already in place is expected 

to correct the problem. 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 to identify impaired waterbodies. A similar but 

independent process also occurs in Alabama to identify impaired waters 

requiring TMDLs. 

This preliminary assessment, based on readily available data, will be 

revised as additional data are evaluated. The report broadly characterizes 

the basin’s setting and its surface water and ground water resources, permitted 

discharges, land uses, and ecological status. It also identifies potential 

surface water quality concerns and water quality monitoring needs, and 

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

water quality. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 in Chapter 3 present the results of the 

water quality assessment for each waterbody. Table 5.1 in Chapter 5 

presents the current Planning List of potentially impaired waterbodies. The 

report also provides the results of a preliminary ground water quality assessment 

and 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. 

In the Perdido River and Bay Basin, state, federal, regional, local governments, 

and nongovernmental organizations are making progress towards 

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 the efforts of key 

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, further data collection and 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 on the participation of the water management district, local 

governments, businesses, and other stakeholders. The Department will 

work with these groups and individuals to undertake or continue reductions 

in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established TMDLs for 

impaired waterbodies. 

The information in this report is being used to identify waterbodies 

and parameters for which additional data are needed to verify water 

quality impairments. Data gathering and monitoring will then focus on 

these potentially impaired waters. Once these data are reevaluated and 

reassessed, in summer 2006, the Department will present a list of waters 

for which impairments have been verified and for which TMDLs will be 

developed. 

The Verifi ed List of impaired waters will be adopted by Secretarial 

Order in accordance with the FWRA. Once adopted, the list will be 

submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as the 

state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin. 

Summary of Surface Water Findings 

The following summarizes, by planning unit, potential 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 

through 3.4 (in Chapter 3) depict the results of this evaluation. 

Perdido Bay Planning Unit 

Of the 28 waterbody segments in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit, 

13 segments have sufficient data for assessment. Of these, 10 are potentially 

impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed based on the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule (IWR) methodology and 3 meet standards for at least 

1 designated use. One segment (waterbody identification number [WBID] 

725) did not have sufficient data for evaluation by the IWR, but is included 

as potentially impaired because it was listed on the 1998 303(d) list.


11 

The 11 potentially impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows: 

Direct Runoff to Gulf (WBID 1015) Conductance 

Elevenmile Creek (WBID 489) Biology, conductance, 

dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal 

coliforms, total coliforms, 

turbidity, unionized ammonia, 

nutrients, total suspended 

solids (TSS) 

Tenmile Creek (WBID 489A) Fecal coliforms, total coliforms 

Eightmile Creek (WBID 624) Biology, DO, fecal coliforms 

Marcus Creek (WBID 697) DO, fecal coliforms 

Unnamed Branch (WBID 725) Fecal coliforms 

Perdido Bay Gulf (WBID 8001) Mercury in fish 

Perdido Key State Park (WBID 8001A) Mercury in fish 

Johnson Beach (WBID 8001B) Mercury in fish 

Big Lagoon State Park (WBID 8001C) Mercury in fish 

Unnamed Stream (WBID 935) Conductance, DO 

Perdido River Planning Unit 

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

12 segments have sufficient data for assessment. Of these, 8 are potentially 

impaired for at least 1 parameter assessed based on the IWR methodology 

and 4 meet standards for at least 1 designated use. Jacks Branch 

(WBID 291) did not have sufficient data for evaluation using the IWR, but 

is listed as impaired solely based on its inclusion on the 1998 303(d) list. 

The nine potentially impaired segments in the planning unit, and the 

parameters of impairment, are as follows: 

McDavid Creek (WBID 149) 

Dry Creek (WBID 290) 

Jacks Branch (WBID 291) 

Reedy Branch (WBID 3) 

Brushy Creek (WBID 4) 

Perdido River (WBID 462A) 

Perdido River (WBID 462B) 

Perdido River (WBID 462C) 

Rest Area Run (WBID 542) 

Biology 

Biology 

DO, fecal coliforms, turbidity 

Biology 

Biology, fecal coliforms, total 

coliforms, DO, turbidity, TSS 

Fecal coliforms, DO, 

nutrients, mercury in fi sh 

Conductance 

Mercury in fish 

Biology, DO, fecal coliforms, 

total coliforms, turbidity 

Summary of Ground Water Findings 

This section summarizes the results of a preliminary assessment of the 

quality of ground water available for potable supply, the impact of ground 

water on surface water resources, and Phase 2 assessment priorities in the 

Perdido Basin. The assessment uses planning units consistent with the


surface water assessment and uses readily available data. The primary 

aquifer in this basin is the sand and gravel aquifer, which is unconfined and 

highly susceptible to contamination. This aquifer also has the potential to 

interact freely with surface waterbodies. 

Basinwide Observations of Elevated Parameter Concentrations 

From available data, basinwide median concentrations of phosphorus 

and several metals were higher than threshold levels. Nitrate, dissolved 

phosphorus, and orthophosphate in the unconfined sand and gravel aquifer 

were higher than the ground water–surface water relational assessment 

(SRA) thresholds for nitrate and phosphorus, which are based on surface 

water guidance levels. Medians for several metals, most notably iron, 

were higher than their respective SRA screening thresholds in the sand 

and gravel aquifer. Each of these evaluations is protective, in that the 

maximum parameter concentration per well is used. Before actual water 

quality issues related to these parameters are confirmed, however, further 

data evaluation and monitoring would be conducted. The likelihood of 

local ground water discharge to surface waterbodies will also be evaluated 

further. 

Ground Water Resource Issues 

Several instances of wells exceeding ground water resource indices 

based on ground water standards or guidance concentrations were noted 

in the basin, primarily in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit. These included 

metals (lead, mercury, arsenic, chromium, and cadmium), coliform bacteria, 

and nitrate. Also, although few were detected in available well data, 

organics may be a significant concern in the southern part of the basin, 

where numerous sources are present. 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Focus Areas 

The Perdido Bay Planning Unit has the greatest number of monitoring 

wells with water quality data. Evaluating the contribution of nutrients 

from ground water to potentially impaired surface waters may be important. 

Above-threshold concentrations of nitrate, phosphorus, and orthophosphate 

were detected in wells near surface waters in this area that are 

potentially impaired for nutrients and DO.


13 

Table of Contents 

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

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

Explanation of the Planning List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

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

Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Northwest District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

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

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

Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 

Physiographic and Soil Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

Surface Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

Outstanding Florida Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

Ground Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

Ground Water Quality Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

Watershed Management Activities and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

History of Watershed Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

Watershed Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

Wolf Bay Watershed Watch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

Friends of Perdido Bay/Perdido Bay Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Bream Fisherman’s Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Major Water Quality Improvement Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Stormwater Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Agricultural Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 

Land Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

Chapter 3: Preliminary Surface Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . 45 

Scope of the Preliminary Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 

Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

Attainment of Designated Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

Assessment by Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

Perdido Bay Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 

Perdido River Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 

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

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 

Ecological Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67


Chapter 4: Ground Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 

Scope of the Ground Water Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 

Ground Water Resource Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 

Ground Water Data Sources and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 

Ground Water Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

Ground Water as a Resource: Issues Related to the Ground Water 

Resource Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 

Use of Affected Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 

Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction: Issues Related to the Ground 

Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 

Ground Water to Surface Water Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 

Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 

Addressing Potential Ground Water Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 

Ground Water Resource Priorities and Proposed Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities and Proposed Actions . . . . . . . . 86 

Chapter 5: The Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters . . . . . . 87 

The Planning List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 

Relationship Between the Planning List and the 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 

Summary of Potential Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 

Waters with Insufficient Data To Determine Impairment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 

Chapter 6: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

Strategic Monitoring and Data Acquisition Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

Data Acquisition Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

Phase 2 Assessment: Data Collection and Database Management 

Leading to the Development of the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . 95 

Verified List Development and Public Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 

Tables 

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

Table 2.1: Outstanding Florida Waters within the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

Table 2.2: Area of Natural Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Table 2.3: Summary of Management Issues in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

Table 2.4: Summary of Organizations in the Perdido River and Bay Basin and Their Role in Total 

Table 3.1: 

Maximum Daily Load Development and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

Data Providers in the Perdido River and Bay Basin Including Number of Sample 

Tests by Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

Table 3.2: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

Table 3.3: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report . . . . 50 

Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit . . . . . 55 

Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Perdido River Planning Unit . . . . 64 

Table 4.1: Summary of Ground Water Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

Table 4.2: Ground Water Assessment Categories and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 

Table 4.3: Screening Thresholds and Basinwide Summary of Ground Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 

Table 4.4: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Quality and Potential Impacts to Potable Supply . . . 74 

Table 4.5: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Infl uence on Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 81


15 

Table 5.1: Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . 88 

Table 5.2: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . 90 

Table 6.1: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation Needed to Meet Impaired Waters Rule 

Sample Size Criteria for Verifi cation of Planning List Waters in the Perdido River and 

Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

Figures 

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

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

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

Figure 2.3: Physiographic Features of the Western Panhandle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

Figure 2.4: Topography of the Western Panhandle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

Figure 2.5: Location of Public Supply Wells and Known Areas of Ground Water Contamination . . . . 34 

Figure 3.1: Data Providers in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 

Figure 3.2: Locations and Boundaries of Planning Units in the Perdido River and Bay Basin . . . . . . . 52 

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

Figure 3.4: 

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 

Composite Map of the Perdido River Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) List 

and Planning List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 

Figure 4.1: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 

Figure 4.2: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 

Figure 4.3: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Organics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 

Figure 4.4: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 

Figure 4.5: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 

Figure 5.1: 

Perdido River and Bay Basin Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment, 

with Overlay of 1998 303(d) List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89


17 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Purposes and Content of the Status Report 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

is implementing a statewide watershed management approach for restoring 

and protecting water quality and addressing Total Maximum Daily Load 

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

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

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

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

and shellfish harvesting) and are thus defined as impaired. 

TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding reductions in pollutant 

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

rotates through the state’s 52 river basins over a 5-year cycle. Extensive 

public participation from diverse stakeholders in each of these basins is 

crucial in all phases of the cycle. 

This report presents a Planning List of potentially impaired waterbodies 

in the Perdido River and Bay Basin, identifies general surface water quality 

monitoring needs, and provides an overview of surface water quality 

restoration plans and projects. 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 Status Report, by chapter). The 

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. 

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 

to identify impaired waterbodies. A similar but independent process also 

occurs in Alabama to identify impaired waters requiring TMDLs. 

A description of the legislative and regulatory background for TMDL 

development and implementation through the watershed management 

approach, and a brief explanation of the TMDL Program, are available 

in Appendix A. Background information on the Department’s TMDL 

Program, the process of TMDL development and implementation, lists 

of impaired and potentially impaired waters, and assessments for other 

parts of the state are available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/ 

index.htm. 

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.


Explanation of the Planning List 

The Planning List is the preliminary list of potentially impaired 

surface waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Perdido River and Bay 

Basin. Under the FWRA, the Planning List is submitted to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for informational purposes only and is 

not used to administer or implement any regulatory program. 

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

sufficiency and data quality requirements in the state’s Identification of 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative 

Code [F.A.C.]). Developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory 

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

impaired waters (Appendix B). It addresses chemical parameters, interpretation 

of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption 

advisories, and ecological impairment. The complete text of the 

IWR is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm. 

Explanation of the Verified List 

The publication of the Status Report is followed by a period of monitoring 

and data gathering and, at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed 

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

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

provided in Subsection 403.067(2), Florida Statutes (F.S.). This Assessment 

Report also contains additional data gathered by the Department, 

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

evaluation of water quality and biological resources; and a designated use 

attainment assessment for basin waters. 

The Assessment Report follows the EPA’s guidance for meshing Clean 

Water Act requirements for Section 305(b) water quality reports and Section 

303(d) lists of impaired waters. This integrated assessment is used to 

identify the status of data sufficiency, the potential for impairment, and the 

need for TMDL development for each waterbody or waterbody segment in 

the basin. 

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

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

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

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

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

waters for the basin. 

The first 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. 

Tables 3.4 and 3.5 in Chapter 3 list these waters for each planning unit.


19 

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program 

Watershed Management Cycle 

Phase 1: 

Preliminary 

Evaluation 

Phase 2: 

Strategic Monitoring 

and Assessment 

Phase 3: 

Development and 

Adoption of TMDLs 

Phase 4: 

Development of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Phase 5: 

Implementation of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Nature of Stakeholder Involvement 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

Stakeholder Involvement 

The FWRA requires the Department to work closely with stake holders 

to develop and implement TMDLs. In addition, the Department’s Allocation 

Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) report, submitted to the 

legislature, recommends relying on stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder 

involvement in the TMDL process will vary with each phase of implementation 

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

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

Allocation.pdf. 

The Department will work cooperatively with a number of key stakeholders 

to develop, allocate, and implement TMDLs in the Perdido River 

and Bay Basin. These include Escambia County, Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management, Northwest Florida Water Management 

District, and International Paper.


The Watershed Management Cycle in 

the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Northwest District 

Figure 1.1 shows the order in which the Department’s Northwest 

District basin groups will be evaluated under the watershed management 

cycle. These groups are identified according to a U.S. Geological Survey 

classification system using hydrologic unit codes. 

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

district to undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000. A preliminary 

assessment for the Group 2 basin, Apalachicola–Chipola, was completed 

in 2001 and for the Group 3 basin, Choctawhatchee–St. Andrew, in 2002. 

The Group 4 preliminary assessment for the Pensacola Basin was carried 

out in 2003. The Group 5 basin, Perdido River and Bay Basin, is the 

subject of this report. In 2005, the cycle resumed with the Group 1 basin, 

Ochlockonee–St. Marks. 

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

Northwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5

Noteworthy 

Contents of This Report 

• Chapter 1: Introduction 

briefly characterizes the 

purpose and content of the 

Status Report, discusses 

stakeholder involvement, and 

describes how the watershed 

management cycle will be 

implemented in the Department’s 

Northwest District. 

• Chapter 2: Basin Overview 

characterizes the basin’s 

general setting, surface water 

and ground water resources, 

major water quality trends, 

and watershed management 

activities and processes. 

• Chapter 3: Preliminary 

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 Department’s principal 

ground water monitoring 

networks, the basin assessment 

methodology, the 

ground water assessment 

results, and resource priorities 

and proposed actions. 

• Chapter 5: The Planning 

List of Potentially Impaired 

Waters contains the Planning 

List of potentially impaired 

waterbodies. The chapter 

also describes the relationship 

between the Planning and 

Verified Lists, and summarizes 

water quality findings for the 

basin. 

• Chapter 6: Strategic Monitoring 

and Data Evaluation 

summarizes strategic monitoring 

and data evaluation 

priorities and objectives that 

are critical to the development 

of the Verified List of impaired 

waters during the next phase 

of the watershed management 

cycle. It includes a general 

inventory of monitoring and 

data-gathering activities by 

other groups and programs 

that could be incorporated into 

the assessment. 

Water Quality Status Report: 


21


23 

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 identification numbers (WBIDs), used by 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and 

includes a portion of marine nearshore waters off Florida’s coast. 

The 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 the western portion of Pensacola, 

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), including 

managed 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). 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. 

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 

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 (DCA).


Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Perdido River and Bay Basin


25 

than 45 inches to greater than 80 inches in a given year (U.S. Geological 

Survey [USGS] Web Site: Calendar Year Stream Flow 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 surficial 

geology, topography, and potential evapotranspiration of the basin are 

factors that contribute to the amount of surface runoff. 

This section delineates the basin’s hydrology, describes the movement 

and management of water in the basin, briefly describes the major characteristics 

of surface waters that influence water quality in the basin, and 

describes surface water classifications 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: the 

Perdido River and Perdido Bay. The headwaters of the Perdido River are 

near Bay Minette in Alabama. The river is formed by the confluence 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, 2005). River flow is 

rainfall driven and fluctuates greatly. Average discharge of the river at Barrineau 

Park, as a 62-year average, was 1,174 cubic feet per second (USGS, 

2006). Larger tributary watersheds are the River Styx, Blackwater River, 

and Dyas Creek in Alabama and Brushy Creek, Boggy Creek, McDavid 

Creek, and Jacks Branch in Florida. The River Styx and the Blackwater 

River are the largest tributary watersheds. They enter the Perdido River 

close to its mouth, and drainage from them provides substantial freshwater 

discharge to both Perdido River and Perdido Bay (Schropp et al., 1991). 

The Perdido River discharges into Perdido Bay about 15 miles west 

of Pensacola. The bay is about 17 miles long and from 2 to 4 miles wide 

(SARPC, 1993). The river and its tributaries are not the only sources of 

water for the 28-square-mile bay. Bayou Marcus and Elevenmile Creek 

in Florida and Soldier Creek and Palmetto Creek in Alabama along with 

several smaller creeks add additional discharge into the bay. 

Perdido Bay is a relatively shallow estuary, deeper on the Alabama 

side of the bay relative to the Florida side. 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 Perdido River and downstream of the U.S. 98 

Bridge (Grubbs and Pittman, 1997). 

The bay can be delineated into five 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


Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Perdido River and Bay Basin


27 

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 expense 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 fluctuation, and freshwater discharges 

from tributaries. Lowest streamflows occur during the fall and highest 

streamflows occur in winter and spring. Tides are typically diurnal though 

they can be semidiurnal (Grubbs and Pittman, 1997). NOAA tide tables 

estimate that the tidal range is 0.5 feet, but it was observed by the USGS 

during a 1994–95 water flow 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 feet change in water level ([Niedoroda, 1992] as referenced in Grubbs 

and Pittman, 1997). 

Physiographic and Soil Features 

The Perdido River and Bay Basin lays within the Western Highlands 

and Gulf Coastal Lowlands physiographic provinces (Figure 2.3). The 

Perdido River Basin has well-defined 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. This formation 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 inflows to the bay. Finer particles have settled in 

the deeper portions and more central areas of the bay resulting in accumulation 

of clayey silt and silty clay sediments. Coarser sands are deposited 

closer to the shoreline. Sediment grain size generally increases moving 

seaward (Schropp et al., 1991).


Figure 2.3: Physiographic Features of the Western Panhandle 

Figure 2.4: Topography of the Western Panhandle


29 

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 

beneficial 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 specific parameters, describe the 

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

classified using the following five designated use categories: 

Class I 

Class II 

Class III 

Class IV 

Class V 

Potable water supplies 

Shellfi sh propagation or harvesting 

Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, 

well-balanced population of fi sh and wildlife 

Agricultural water supplies 

Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state 

waters currently in this class) 

All waters within this basin are designated as Class III, suitable for 

recreation and propagation and maintenance of fish and wildlife. There 

are no class II, shellfish waters, designated within this basin. There are no 

open active shellfish 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 due to their natural attributes” 

(Section 403.061, F.S.) and have exceptional ecological or recreational 

value. 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 classification. Most 

OFWs are associated with managed areas in the state or federal park 

system, such as aquatic preserves, national seashores, or wildlife refuges. 

Waterbodies within the boundaries of Big Lagoon State Recreation Area, 

Gulf Island National Seashore, and Perdido Key State Recreation Area are 

designated as OFWs. Other OFWs may also be designated as “Special 

Waters” based on a finding that the waters are of exceptional recreational 

or ecological significance, and are identified as such in Rule 62-302, F.A.C. 

The Perdido River was designated an OFW as a special water. 

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


Biological Resources 

Various researchers have devised stream classification systems in an 

effort to define and describe the natural system and its biological potential 

to support various organisms. Classification schemes are generally derived 

based on combinations of physical, chemical, and biological factors. Variations 

in velocity of flow, substratum, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) 

levels, and water hardness are generally considered in the development of a 

classification scheme (Nordlie, 1991). 

Beck (as referenced in Nordlie, 1991) classified 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; examples are mayflies, caddisflies, 

and blackflies. The Perdido, like the Escambia and Blackwater Rivers, 

is in close connection with the sand and gravel aquifer with much of the 

river’s baseflow supplied from the aquifer. The chemical characteristics of 

the sand and gravel aquifer influence 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) classifies 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 floodplain (FNAI and 

DNR, 1990). 

Vegetation and land cover were mapped for the entire state by the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 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. 

Information for the Perdido River and Bay is summarized in Table 2.2. 

Descriptions of the natural communities are contained in Table C.1 in 

Appendix C. 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 identifies seepage slopes as one of the 

unique habitats found in this 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).


31 

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 

Tables C.2 through C.4 in Appendix C contain lists of rare and 

imperiled plants and animals in the basin. There are 17 animal and 

16 plant species that are listed at either the state and or federal level 

(FNAI, 2005a). 

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, 2005a). 

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, 2006c). 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 Island 

National Seashore, 2006b). 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 fresh 

water and brackish water portions of the bay. Comparison of acreage of


seagrasses 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 analysis completed in 2003 

found 300 acres of shoal grass in the bay (Gulf of Mexico Program Habitat 

Team, 2004). Seagrasses provide spawning, nursery, and adult habitat for 

many commercially and recreationally important species. 

The Perdido Basin provides habitat for several rare and imperiled fish 

species. Three rare fish species were historically noted from the Perdido 

River. These include the listed species of special concern saltmarsh topminnow 

(Fundulus jenkinsi), crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella), and goldstripe 

darter (Etheostoma parvipinne) (DNR, 1989). Bass, Hoehn, Couch, 

and Mcdonald (2004) confirmed the presence of the saltmarsh topminnow 

during field 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 surficial 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 inter mediate aquifer 

system and the sub-Floridan systems are composed primarily of lowpermeability 

sediments that act as regional confining 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 is comprised of interbedded unconsolidated quartz sand 

with some gravel, clay, and silt that range in age from the middle Miocene 

to Holocene (USGS, 1990). Ground water exists in this aquifer under 

unconfined to semiconfined 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 surficial zone, 

is primarily composed of fi ne sands and is usually under unconfined conditions 

(Paulic, 1999). Below the surficial zone is a low-permeability zone. 

As a semiconfining layer, it impedes the downward flow 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 

fine 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 flow of ground water in the aquifer is laterally toward 

surface waters and the coast (Richards, 1998; USGS, 1990) providing


33 

discharge or baseflow into streams, lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. Wells 

also indirectly discharge a small amount of water to surface waters. 

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 infiltrate into this aquifer. 

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

which acts as a thick confining 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, underlaying the intermediate system, 

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

a regionally extensive clay confining 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 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 identified 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, Richards, and Milla, 

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. Additional 

information on International Paper’s permit conditions is contained in the 

“Perdido Bay Planning Unit” section contained in Chapter 3. 

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 

confining unit, much of the recharge to the sand and gravel aquifer 

ends up as discharge to surface waters. Stream baseflow 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


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


35 

zone is discharged to the Pensacola Bay, Escambia River, Perdido River, and 

Gulf of Mexico (Ryan et al., 1998). 

Both the Escambia River and the Perdido River form significant discharge 

boundaries for the sand and gravel aquifer. Because these discharge 

boundaries are relatively close together near Cantonment, essentially no 

ground water flows from the northern portion of the county to the southern 

portion. Ground water south of Cantonment is hydraulically isolated from 

the northern portion of the county and is derived from local recharge. 

Relatively thin and discontinuous layers of clay and silt occur within 

both the surficial zone and in the overlying unsaturated materials, creating 

a perched water table considerably higher than that of the true water table 

of the surficial zone commonly observed in the middle portion of Escambia 

County. For example, in the vicinity of the intersection of Interstate 10 and 

Highway 29, there is a continuous drainage of perched ground water into 

the interstate drainage system (Pratt et al., 1997). The land surface elevation 

at this site is approximately 120 feet above sea level. The underlying 

surficial zone potentiometric surface lies at an elevation of about 65 feet 

above sea level. 

The surficial 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 flow systems within 

the surficial 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 surficial zone occurs as 

discharge to the bays and bayous. 

Where baseflow predominates, the water quality of the aquifer can 

influence the quality of the surface waters. Water quality of the sand and 

gravel aquifer is characterized by low mineral content or low concentrations 

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

than 50 milligrams per liter, except near the coast (Miller, 1997). Average 

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

buffering capacity. 

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 identified as cleanup sites; dry cleaning solvent sites are sources 

of contamination that are being addressed by the Department’s Waste 

Management Division. In this basin, there are approximately 250 petroleum 

facilities and 8 dry cleaners that have reported contamination. Additionally, 

4 larger contaminated sites have been located in the basin. Waste 

sites are shown in Figure 2.5.


• Beulah Landfill—This landfill was operated by the Escambia 

County government 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, demolition debris, and municipal sludge. Benzene, 

naphthalene, and pentachlorophenol were found in ground water 

down gradient 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 officially 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 landfill 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 fill areas of this 

sand mine. This fi ll area also received metal plating sludge from 

the Pensacola Naval Air Station, as well as phenols and resin compounds 

from the Reichold Chemical Company. Several leachate 

streams existed at the base of the fill area. Environmental testing has 

revealed no off-site contamination. However, long-term remediation 

will be conducted until July 2011. This site was officially delisted 

from the NPL with Department concurrence in August 1999 

(Department, 2006b). 

• Dubose Oil Products—This site is located near Cantonment and 

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, 2006d). 

• 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. This 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. This stream leads to Cow Devil 

Creek and eventually to the Perdido River. Fisheries and sensitive 

environments are encountered within that surface water system. 

Storage of military surplus items and damaged metal drums, some 

containing hazardous materials, led to wide scale contamination


37 

of ground water and soil primarily with trichloroethylene. On-site 

investigations in 2004 found that a plume of contaminated ground 

water extended beyond the property boundary. A final Decision 

Memo recommending remedial cleanup actions is expected in 2006 

(Department, 2006c). 

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 this basin, engage and organize citizen involvement, create 

an advisory task force, and develop and implement a management plan. 

Studies characterizing the physical characteristics of the basin and land 

use were completed by the Department, ADEM, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS). Citizen monitoring groups were established. 

The role of the advisory task force was assumed by the Florida– 

Alabama Water Resources Coordinating Council (FAWRCC). This 

Council was created by resolutions of both the Florida and Alabama legislatures. 

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 collection and analysis of samples from the Perdido 

Bay area by the FWS for contaminants analysis in 1989. Testing by the 

FWS included chemical analysis of water, sediment, and biota; 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). Results of 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 did indicate reduced water quality at 

some locations. 

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 final component of the Perdido Bay Cooperative Management Project, 

the “Perdido Ecosystem Management Strategies” was prepared in 1998 

(Miller, 1998). The Perdido Ecosystem Restoration Group provided much 

of the content to the plan 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 

organizations interested in the protection and restoration of the Perdido 

River and Bay Basin. Updated and shortened summaries of management 

issues originally identified as part of the Perdido Bay Cooperative Management 

Project and Perdido Ecosystem Management Strategies plan are 

summarized in Table 2.3. 

Through a grant awarded to the Department’s Northwest District 

Regulatory Office from the Coastal Zone Management Program, a volunteer 

water quality monitoring initiative was undertaken in Perdido Bay 

from August 1999 to September 2000 (Department and Alabama 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 

Water Quality 

Nonpoint Source 

Runoff 

Watershed 

Management 

Problem 

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. Result is loss of benthic habitat and 

declines in water quality. 

Loss of seagrass acreage 

Stormwater runoff causes erosion of streambeds 

and water quality impacts 

Poor implementation of agriculture and forestry 

best management practices (BMP) to control runoff 

Lack of stormwater management plans 

Lack of interstate coordination between Florida and 

Alabama 

Watershed Partners 

A number of government 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 TMDLs and continued 

improvement of water quality will depend on the collaborative efforts of 

the Department’s local partners. The local agencies and organizations 

and their role in the basin are summarized in Table 2.4. The activities of 

nongovernmental organizations located in both Florida and Alabama are 

described in more detail in the following sections.


39 

Table 2.4: Summary of Organizations in the Perdido River and Bay Basin and Their Role in 

Total Maximum Daily Load Development and Implementation 

Organization 

Government Organizations 

Department 

Northwest Florida Water 

Management District (NWFWMD) 

Escambia County 

Florida Division of Forestry 

Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services 

Alabama Department of 


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

Role 

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 

NWFWMD assists Department with water quality data collection; land 

conservation 

Engineering Department—road paving and stormwater management 

Neighborhoods and Environmental Services Department—water quality 

monitoring support, land conservation 

Implementation of BMPs for silviculture 

Implementation of BMPs for agriculture 

TMDL development, NPDES permitting within Alabama 

Environmental testing, fish assessment, listing of endangered species 

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 

Wolf Bay Watershed Watch/Wolf 

Bay Watershed Project 

Group that implements watershed management solutions for TMDLs developed 

within Alabama 

Water quality monitoring; prepared watershed management plan for Wolf Bay 

Basin 

Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership 

The Coastal Alabama Clean Water Partnership is a coalition of 

Alabama government 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 

specifically 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. Project facilitation is provided by 

Auburn University Marine Extension and Research Center. A Steering 

Committee composed of environmental interests, government, and business 

interests directs the activities of the partnership by setting policy and 

providing oversight. 

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 advocacy group participated in 

the preparation of a nonpoint source pollution management guide called 

the “Wolf Bay Plan: A Stakeholders 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 (http://www 

.perdidobay.us/page/izuz/home). Activities of the foundation 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 

Several different regulatory, restoration, and protection initiatives have 

been initiated in this basin. 

Stormwater Management 

Urban nonpoint source runoff is regulated through the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System’s (NPDES’s) Municipal Separate 

Storm Sewer Systems (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 five-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 based on 

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). Drainage plans have either been


41 

completed or are underway for 13 individual drainage basins. Contained 

within each plan are descriptions of current stormwater structural controls 

and identified and recommended 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/department/engineering/documents; http://www 

.myescambia.com/departments/engineering/DrainageBasins.php). Additionally, 

as part of the drainage evaluation for each basin, a survey of 

resident concerns for drainage and water quality is conducted. 

Funding for stormwater retrofits is provided by a local option sales tax 

(LOST). The tax was approved by Escambia County voters in 1992. The 

intent of the tax is to help pay for capital improvement projects that address 

flooding, 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 expires on May 31, 2007, unless reapproved 

by voters. If approved, the third local option sales tax will be in 

effect until December 31, 2017 (Escambia County, 2006). 

Revenue generated by LOST has provided money to pave dirt roads 

and improve drainage and transportation. In total, 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 Florida Watershed Restoration Act authorizes the Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) to develop interim 

measures and agricultural BMPs. Additional authority for agricultural 

BMPs is provided in legislation on nitrates and ground water (Section 

576.045, F.S.), the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program (Section 

373.4595, F.S.), Agricultural Water Conservation (Section 570.085, F.S.), 

and Florida Right to Farm Act Amendments (Section 823.14, F.S.). While 

BMPs are often adopted by rule, they are voluntary if not covered by regulatory 

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

their effectiveness, then implementation provides a presumption of compliance 

with water quality standards. 

Over the last several years, DACS has worked with agriculturists, soil 

and water conservation entities, the University of Florida’s Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences, and other major interests to improve product 

marketability and operational efficiency by implementing agricultural 

BMPs, while at the same time promoting water quality and water conservation 

objectives. In addition, programs have been established and are being 

developed to create a network of state, local, federal, and private sources of 

funds for developing and implementing BMPs. 

Manuals and other Publications for Best Management Practices 

To encourage growers to use BMPs, manuals have been published for 

a number of Florida agricultural industries, including container-grown 

plants, blended fertilizer plants, agrichemical handling and farm equipment


maintenance, cow/calf operations, aquaculture, citrus, and landscaping. 

Many of these manuals can be downloaded at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ 

water or http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com. Manuals for row crops, 

equine or horse farms, and ornamental nurseries are currently being developed. 

The row crop BMP manual will be of particularly great importance 

for this basin. 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 sitespecific 

BMP assessment process be in place or that practices being used 

have been proven effective through research and demonstration. 

• Guide for Producing Container Grown Plants: This manual, 

published in 1995 by the Southern Nurserymen’s Association, 

includes irrigation and fertilization BMPs for the container cultivation 

of nursery plants. It was produced through a cooperative effort 

between the University of Florida, Auburn University, Tennessee 

Tech University, and Virginia Tech. Since the manual is not Florida 

specific, an effort is currently under way to use the document in 

developing a Florida-specific manual. 

• BMPs for 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 

offices, Soil and Water Conservation District offices, Department 

offices, the Florida Farm Bureau, and several trade organizations. 

• Water Quality BMPs 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 BMPs: As directed by the 1998 Florida legislature, 

DACS worked cooperatively with industry, state agencies, and the 

environmental community to develop a comprehensive BMP manual 

for aquaculture. Florida law requires that the Department adopt the 

manual by rule and provides regulatory exemptions under Chapters 

373 and 403, F.S., for growers who implement BMPs and are certified 

by DACS’ Division of Aquaculture. The manual, which was 

printed and distributed in 2000, has been adopted by rule.


43 

• Florida Green Industries BMPs for Protection of Water 

Resources in Florida (Industrias En Áreas Verdes De Florida 

Las Prácticas Más Adecuadas Para la Conservación del Agua en 

Florida): This manual, published in June 2002 and also printed in 

Spanish, was developed jointly by the Florida Green Industries, the 

Department, DACS, DCA, water management districts, and University 

of Florida. It provides information and guidance on turf grass 

and landscape management practices for the purpose of conserving 

and protecting Florida’s water resources. Practices cover establishment 

of new turf and landscapes and the care of existing turf and 

landscapes, including construction activities, irrigation, nutrient 

management, and pest management. A smaller summary book is 

also available on-line at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/ 

docs/nonpoint/Summary_BMP_book_final.pdf. 

Land Conservation 

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. Some of 

the basin’s conservation lands are depicted in Figure 2.2. 

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 

the Perdido River (FNAI, 2005b). 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 contributed funds toward its purchase. 

The Lower Perdido River Buffer was added to the Florida Forever 

acquisition list in 2002. Future purchase of this property will add an additional 

7,800 acres of conservation land along and near the Perdido River 

north of the Betty and Crawford Rainwater Perdido River Nature Preserve 

(Department, 2005 and FNAI, 2005b). 

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 

compliment the Nature Conservancy’s purchase of the Betty and Crawford 

Rainwater Perdido River Nature Preserve and 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 includes the following 

government, business, and environmental interests: Department of 

Defense, Department, Florida Division of Forestry, International Paper, 

Conecuh National Forest, Nokuse Plantation, NWFWMD, and the 

Nature Conservancy. The parties operate together under a 1996 Memorandum 

of Understanding for the management of about 1 million acres of 

northwest Florida and south Alabama. The partnership is directed by a 

Steering Committee composed of two representatives of each participating 

organization. 

The purpose of the Plains Ecosystem partnership is to provide a collaborative 

approach to the preservation and management of natural lands. 

Members of the partnership have agreed to a set of land management 

principles directed at ecosystem preservation through the use of prescribed 

burns, recovering listed species, and sharing and exchanging relevant information 

and technology on new land management techniques. Through 

collaboration and 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.


45 

Chapter 3: Preliminary Surface Water Quality 

Assessment 

Scope of the Preliminary Assessment 

This chapter presents the results of a preliminary assessment of surface 

water quality in the Perdido River and Bay Basin. The primary purpose of 

this assessment is to determine if waterbodies or waterbody segments are to 

be placed on the Planning List of potentially impaired waterbodies. The 

listing will be in accordance with evaluation thresholds and data 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 monitoring priorities 

in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle and help the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (Department) coordinate with regional 

and local monitoring activities. 

The chapter describes the planning units in the basin used as a basis 

for the preliminary assessment. A section on each planning unit contains 

a general description and summary of key water quality indicators (such 

as nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological 

parameters). Permitted discharges, land uses, ecological status, and water 

quality improvement plans and projects are summarized for each planning 

unit. The discussion notes where applicable surface water quality criteria 

have been exceeded and summarizes the report’s findings in maps, noting 

potentially impaired waterbodies in each planning unit. The chapter also 

contains background information on sources of data and on designated 

use attainment, and explains the state’s integrated water quality assessment 

process. 

While potentially impaired waters and their causative pollutants are 

identified, it is not within the scope of this report to identify discrete 

sources of potential impairments. Information on the sources of impairment 

will be developed in subsequent phases of the watershed management 

cycle, including total maximum daily load (TMDL) development and 

implementation. 

Appendix A contains a discussion of the legislative and regulatory 

background for TMDL development and implementation. The methodology 

used to develop the Planning List is provided in Appendix B. The 

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

tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf.


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. 

Department of Environmental Protection’s (EPA’s) Legacy and “new” 

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

(USGS), and the Florida Department of Health (DOH). The STORET 

databases contain water quality data from a variety of sources, including 

the Department, water management districts, local governments, and volunteer 

monitoring groups. Appendix B contains a detailed description of 

STORET and the methodology used to develop the Planning and Verified 

Lists, based on the IWR. 

Table 3.1 summarizes the main 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 Bream 

Fisherman’s Association has assisted the Department since the late 1970s. 

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

Organization 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 2003 2004 Total 

U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) 

148 5 10 20 25 15 8 20 251 

National Park Service 

(NPS) 

Alabama Department 

of Environmental 

Management (ADEM) 

Bream Fisherman’s 

Association 

State of Florida 

Department of Health 

(DOH) 

Florida Marine Research 

Institute (FMRI) 

Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWC) 

294 266 6 6 572 

360 313 139 45 857 

746 750 994 1,552 2,569 4,699 3,746 3,317 3,437 1,475 1,001 1,009 938 1,341 1,073 28,647 

33 80 115 158 124 510 

29 29 

258 258 

Florida LakeWatch 31 10 23 64 


Management District 

(NWFWMD) 

1,296 426 1,722 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection (Department) 

1,484 1,024 894 403 372 671 532 1,127 2,369 2,447 2,404 2,469 3,072 3,471 2,451 25,190


47 

Perdido River and Bay Data Providers 

Number of Samples 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

U.S. Geological Survey 

National Park Service 

Alabama Department of 


Bream Fisherman’s Assn. 

Florida Department of Health 

Florida Marine Research 

Institute 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

Florida LakeWatch 


Management District 

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Figure 3.1: Data Providers in the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

The Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) 

participates in the Department’s status and temporal variability monitoring 

programs. The water management district assists with sample collection for 

these programs. 

The DOH initiated the Healthy Beaches Program in 1998 as a pilot 

monitoring program with expansion 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 Identification of 

IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). For the Planning List assessment, the data 

evaluation period of record is 10 years, and for the Verified List, 7.5 years. 

Table B.2 in Appendix B shows the periods of record for the Group 1 

through 5 basins for the Verified and Planning Lists in the fi rst basin 

rotation cycle. Data collected between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 

2003, were evaluated to establish the Planning List for the Perdido River 

and Bay Basin using IWR Run 19.1 (Department, 2005). 

To support listing decisions, the evaluation of water quality in this 

basin also includes qualitative information drawn from data in technical 

reports and documents that are not yet included in the database. Some 

of these sources include historical water quality or ecological information 

that was not uploaded to the database because of its qualitative treatment 

of issues.


Attainment of Designated Use 

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using 

the surface water quality classification 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 defined 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 Shellfish Consumption Attainment 

Drinking Water Use Attainment 

Protection of Human Health 

Table 3.2 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various 

surface water classifications. 

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 

Class I, II, and III 


Class II 

Class I 


Integrated Report Categories and Assessment 

Overview 

The EPA has requested that the states merge their reporting requirements 

under the Clean Water Act for Section 305(b) surface water quality 

reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters into an Integrated Water 

Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Wayland, 2001). Following the 

publication of the Status Report and further data evaluation, the Department 

will produce an Assessment Report integrating the 303(d) list and the 

305(b) report for the basin. 

Following the EPA’s guidance, the Department delineated waterbodies 

or waterbody segments in each of the state’s river basins, assessed them for 

potential impairment based on individual parameters, and grouped them 

into one of five major assessment categories and subcategories. These categories 

provide information on a waterbody’s status based on water quality,


49 

sufficiency of data, and the need for TMDL development (Table 3.3). 

This Status Report contains a preliminary evaluation of waterbodies that 

fall into integrated report Categories 1 through 3 in the table. 

Not enough recent data on chemistry, biology, and fish consumption 

advisories have been collected; therefore, currently only a few waterbodies 

or waterbody segments statewide fall into Category 1 (attaining all uses). 

In particular, fish tissues in many waterbodies statewide have not been 

tested for mercury. None of the waterbodies in the Perdido River and Bay 

Basin are in Category 1. 

More waterbodies and segments statewide fall into Category 2 (attaining 

some uses but with insufficient data to assess completely) than Category 

1 (attaining all uses), because monitoring programs can sometimes 

provide sufficient data for partially determining whether a designated use in 

a particular waterbody is attained. Seven waterbody segments in the basin 

fall into Category 2. 

However, most waterbodies in the state fall into Category 3 (having 

insufficient data). The breakdown of waterbodies or segments in Category 

3 is as follows: 

• Category 3a—33 segments for which no data are available to determine 

their water quality status; 

• Category 3b—10 segments with some data but not sufficient data for 

making any determinations; 

• Category 3c—10 segments that are potentially impaired based on the 

Planning List criteria; and 

• Category 3d—8 segments that may be impaired based on the Verified 

List criteria, but require further evaluation. 

Numerous Category 3c or 3d waters either fail to meet water quality 

standards for DO or show signs of biological stress or nutrient impairment. 

According to the IWR, specific pollutants causing DO exceedances or 

biological stress, or an underlying nutrient imbalance creating an imbalance 

in flora or fauna, must be documented for a waterbody or segment to be 

listed as impaired on the Verified List. Sometimes these conditions cannot 

be linked to a causative pollutant, and sometimes they may reflect natural 

background conditions. 

Once the Verified List is developed, waterbodies will be further categorized 

into Categories 4 and 5. Category 4 includes those waterbodies/ 

segments that are impaired but do not require a TMDL for one of the 

following three reasons: 

• Category 4a—a TMDL has already been developed, 

• Category 4b—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—the impairment is not attributable to a pollutant or 

pollutants, but is due to natural conditions or physical/hydrologic 

alterations to the waterbody. 

Understanding the 

Terms “Pollutant” 

and “Pollution” 

For purposes of the TMDL 

Program, pollutants are 

chemical and biological 

constituents, introduced by 

humans into a waterbody, 

that may result in pollution 

(water quality impairment). 

There are other causes of 

pollution, such as physical 

alteration of a waterbody 

(for example, canals, dams, 

and ditches). However, 

TMDLs are established only 

for impairments caused by 

pollutants (a TMDL 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). Waterbodies 

with impairments attributed 

to natural conditions are 

listed under Category 4c.


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

Category Description Comments 

1 Attaining all designated uses If use attainment is verified for a waterbody or segment 

that was previously listed as impaired, the Department will 

propose that it be delisted. 

2 Attaining some designated uses 

and insufficient or no information 

or data are present to determine if 

remaining uses are attained 

3a 

3b 

3c 

3d 

4a 

4b 

4c 

No data and information are 

present to determine if any 

designated use is attained 

Some data and information are 

present but not enough to determine 

if any designated use is 

attained 

Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses may not be 

attained according to the Planning 

List methodology 

Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses are not attained 

according to the Verified List 

methodology 

Impaired for one or more designated 

uses but does not require TMDL 

development because a TMDL has 

already been completed 

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. 

Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if 

designated uses are attained. 

Future monitoring will be recommended to gather sufficient 

information and data to determine if designated uses are 

attained. 

This indicates a waterbody or segment is potentially impaired 

for one or more designated uses. These waters will 

be prioritized for future monitoring to verify use attainment 

or impaired status . 

This indicates that a waterbody or segment exceeds Verified 

List evaluation criteria and may be listed as impaired 

at the end of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. 

However, the data have not yet been fully evaluated and the 

waters have not been formally verified as impaired. Further 

monitoring and analysis may be necessary. 

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). 


uses but does not require TMDL water quality standards within a reasonable time frame are 

Pollutant control mechanisms designed to attain applicable 

development because the water will either proposed or in place. 

attain water quality standards due 

to existing or proposed measures 


uses but does not require TMDL 

development because impairment 

is not caused by a pollutant 

5 One or more designated uses are 

not attained and a TMDL is 

required 

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.”) 

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.


51 

Category 5 waterbodies are determined to be impaired and require 

TMDLs. These are included on the Verified List of impaired waters 

adopted by the Department’s Secretary. However, no waters are formally 

assigned to this category until the listing process has been completed, even 

though sufficient data may be available and a waterbody may meet the 

requirements for impairment under the IWR. 

Planning Units 

The Perdido River and Bay Basin encompasses approximately 1,219 

square miles, 399.6 square miles of which is within Florida. 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. Planning units in this basin were based on hydrological 

units. 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 identification 

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 identified 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 reflect the main waterbody conditions within a polygon. In 

some instances, however, the data from several waterbodies within the polygon 

have been aggregated. As the water quality assessments are refined in 

Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, individual waterbodies within 

these aggregations that have unique water quality concerns will be assigned 

unique WBIDs and evaluated individually. 

The Perdido River and Bay Basin contains two planning units: 

Perdido River and Perdido Bay. 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 defined by unique 

hydrologic unit (HUC) codes. 

The remainder of this chapter provides a general description of each 

planning unit, information on land use and potential point sources of pollution, 

water quality assessments for individual waterbody segments, and 

summaries of ecological issues and watershed quality improvement plans 

and projects. 

To determine the status of surface water quality in the Perdido River 

and Bay Basin, chemistry data, biological data, and, if available, fi sh 

consumption, bathing beach closures, and shellfish-harvesting advisories 

were evaluated to determine potential impairment. Appendix B contains


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


53 

a detailed description of the methodology used to determine potential 

impairment. Appendix D contains definitions and specific methods for 

the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. Appendix E includes 

summary information, by planning unit, for permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities and permitted landfill facilities in the basin. Appendix F, 

which provides a water quality summary by planning unit, contains a list of 

water quality monitoring stations and the integrated assessment summary. 

Appendix G provides detailed land use information, 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 28 segments or waterbodies with 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 traverses the western part of Perdido 

Bay. Major waterbodies include Perdido Bay, Big Lagoon, Tarkiln Bayou, 

Elevenmile Creek, Tenmile Creek, Marcus Creek, Turner Creek, and 

Eightmile Creek. 

The larger cities within the planning unit are western Pensacola and 

Warrington. Smaller communities include Gonzalez, Ensley, Bellview, 

Brent, and Myrtle Grove. 

Water Quality Summary 

Ten segments within this planning unit are listed as potentially 

impaired. Figure 3.3, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters 

on the 1998 303(d) list and the Planning List. 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 this planning unit. 

Monitoring data were collected from 3 coastal, 51 estuarine, 7 lake, and 

26 stream locations. 

Four streams are listed as potentially impaired because of low DO and 

two of those streams are also listed because of bacteria violations. Four 

coastal segments are potentially 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 fish (Florida Department of 

Health [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 3.5. This waterbody will be included on the Planning List. 

Additional data will be collected during Phase 2 of the watershed cycle. 

None of the waters in this planning unit are listed for nutrients. 

Perdido Bay, Big Lagoon, Elevenmile Creek, and two segments that


Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Perdido Bay Planning Unit, Including the 1998 303(d) 

List and Planning List Waters


55 

Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Name 

Type 1 Class 2 of Concern 

1998 303(d) 

Waterbody List Parameters 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary IIIM Chlorophyll a, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

1014 Direct Runoff 

to Bay 


to Gulf 



489 Elevenmile 

Creek 

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 

Category 2 3 Category 3c 3 Category 3d 3 Category 4 

Overall 

Estuary IIIM 3b 

Stream IIIF Chlorophyll a, DO, 



Turbidity, Unionized 

Ammonia 

Conductance 3c 

Estuary IIIM 3a 

Stream IIIF BOD, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

TSS, Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 

Chlorophyll a, 

Fluoride, Fecal 

Coliforms, Histori - 

cal Chlorophyll, 


Turbidity 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream IIIF Conductance, DO, 


Ammonia 

Unionized 

Ammonia 


Total Coliforms 

Biology, 

Conductance, 

DO 

489B Coffee Creek Stream IIIF 3b 

624 Eightmile 

Creek 

Stream IIIF Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

Conductance, 



Ammonia 

Biology, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms 

681 Hurst Branch Stream IIIF 3a 

697 Marcus Creek Stream IIIF Fecal 

Coliforms 

Biology, Conductance, 

Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms 

697A Crescent Lake Lake IIIF 3b 

725 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF Fecal 

3a 

Coliforms 

730 Turner Creek Stream IIIF 3b 

763 Direct Runoff Stream IIIF 3a 


779 Bellshead Branch Stream IIIF 3a 



797 Perdido Bay Estuary IIIM DO, Nutrients Chlorophyll a, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, Historical 

Chlorophyll, 


Turbidity, pH 

2 

8001 Perdido Bay Gulf Coastal IIIM Mercury in Fish 3d 

2 

3d 

3c 

3c 

3d


Table 3.4 (continued) 

WBID 

8001A 

Waterbody 

Name 

Perdido Key 

State Park 


1998 303(d) 




Overall 

Coastal IIIM Fecal Coliforms Mercury in Fish 3d 

8001B Johnson Beach Coastal IIIM Fecal Coliforms Mercury in Fish 3d 

8001C Big Lagoon Coastal IIIM Fecal Coliforms Mercury in Fish 3d 

State Park 





872 Bridge Creek Estuary IIIM 3b 

935 Unnamed 

Stream 

Stream IIIF DO Fecal Coliforms, 



Ammonia 

Conductance, 

DO 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary IIIM 3b 

974 Perdido Bay Estuary IIIM 3a 



Notes: 

Estuary IIIM DO Chlorophyll a, DO, 



Turbidity, pH 

1 

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

2 

The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: 

Class I: Potable water supplies 

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

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

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies 

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 

3 

The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 

1— Attains all designated uses; 

2—Attains some designated uses; 

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

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

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

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant 

control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; and 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; 

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 

4 

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

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as 

Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

Category 5. 

BOD = Biological oxygen demand 

DO = Dissolved oxygen 

F = Fresh water 

M = Marine 

TSS = Total suspended solids 

3c 

2


57 

transmit runoff to Perdido Bay and the Gulf of Mexico met their designated 

use for nutrients and bacteria. With the exception of Elevenmile 

Creek these same four segments also met criteria for DO. Historically, 

fish kills occurred in the bay as a result of low DO levels (Department and 

Alabama Coastal Foundation, 2000). 

The erosion of dirt roads and subsequent deposition of dirt in streams 

is a problem in many of the freshwater stream segments in this planning 

unit. Hilly terrain and easily erodible soils contribute to the erosion 

problem. 

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses 

Point Sources. Figure 3.3 shows permitted wastewater treatment 

facilities, landfi lls, and hazardous waste sites in the planning unit (see 

Noteworthy for a definition of point sources and discussions of environmental 

remediation and delineated ground water contamination areas). 

Table E.1 in Appendix E lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface 

discharge facilities, along with their permitted amount of wastewater 

discharge. Table E.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 

waste water 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. There is a history of water quality problems and violations related 

to this facility 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, allowed a 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 waste water 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 E.2 in Appendix E. 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 contamination of ground water. 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 landfills remained open. 

There are two delisted National Priorities List (NPL) sites in this 

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 Landfill, 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 down gradient of 

the sludge pits and up gradient of Elevenmile Creek. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons, 

pesticides, PCP, and metals were found in soils and residual sludge 

on the site. A remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study completed in 

1993 found low levels of contaminants on site. Exceedances of maximum 

contaminant levels in ground water were limited to a single on-site well 

detection of benzene and off-site single well detections of naphthalene and 

PCP. Tributaries near the landfill were free of contamination. In 1993 the 

county’s Comprehensive Plan designated the old landfi ll acreage as conservation 

and prohibited any type of development on it. Though delisted in 

1998, ground water monitoring continues (Department, 2005a). 

The 20-acre Pioneer Sand Company site is located on Saufley 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. This 

fill area also received metal plating sludge from the Pensacola Naval Air 

Station, as well as phenols and resin compounds from the Reichold Chemical 

Company. Several leachate streams existed at the base of the fi ll area, 

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, grading and capping 

of the landfi ll, and installation of a leachate collection system. Longterm 

remediation will be conducted until July 2011. This site was officially 

delisted from the NPL with Department concurrence in August 1999 

(Department, 2005b). 

Nonpoint Sources. Based on land use information delineated from 

1995 aerial photography, the primary land use in this 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 of the area. 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 area of the planning unit. Upland pine 

forests cover 17.6 percent of the planning unit and wetlands cover another 

16.7 percent of the total area. Tables G3 and G.4 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 definition of nonpoint 

sources). Urban stormwater is managed through National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer

Noteworthy 

Water Quality Status Report: 


59 

Information on Point Sources in Planning Units 

Point sources discharging 

pollutants to surface water or 

ground water originate from 

discrete, well-defined areas such 

as a facility discharge from the 

end of a pipe, a disposal well, or 

a wastewater sprayfield. Point 

sources generally fall into two 

major types: domestic wastewater 

sources (which consist of 

sewage from homes, businesses, 

and institutions) and industrial 

wastewater sources (which 

Environmental Remediation 

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. 

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 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 thirty-eight 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 

include wastewater, runoff, and 

leachate from industrial or commercial 

storage, handling, or 

processing facilities). Landfills, 

hazardous waste sites, 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. 

the NPL upon the completion of 

a preliminary assessment, site 

inspection, and hazardous ranking 

system evaluation to determine 

their potential for adverse 

impacts and priority for corrective 

action. The EPA Superfund 

program administers the cleanup 

of NPL sites. 

The Department’s state-funded 

cleanup program administers the 

cleanup of contaminated hazardous 

waste sites when enforcement 

action taken against a 

responsible party is unsuccessful 

or when no responsible party is 

identified. 

Brownfields are abandoned, 

idled, or underused industrial 

and commercial facilities where 

Delineated Ground Water Contamination Areas 

Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses 

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 

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 

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. 

expansion or redevelopment 

is complicated by real 

or perceived environmental 

contamination. The EPA 

launched the Brownfields 

Economic Redevelopment 

Initiative in January 1995 to 

empower states, communities, 

and other stakeholders 

in economic redevelopment 

to work together in a timely 

manner to prevent, inventory, 

assess, safely clean 

up, and sustainably reuse 

Brownfields. The federal and 

state Brownfields program is 

funded through the Superfund 

taxing authority. 

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. 

runoff often include fertilizers, 

bacteria, metals, 

sediments, and petroleum 

compounds.


system (MS4) permits. Escambia County, Pensacola, and Florida Department 

of Transportation are copermittees under one MS4 permit. The 

permit only applies 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 et al. (2004) confi rmed the presence of the saltmarsh 

topminnow during field 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, snowy plover, and federally 

listed threatened piping plover nests along the sandy coastal beaches (Gulf 

Islands National Seashore, 2006a and Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

[FNAI], 2005a). Perdido Key is the home of the federally endangered 

Perdido Key mouse (Gulf Islands National Seashore, 2006b). Sea turtles 

use the planning unit’s sandy beaches as nesting habitat. Sea turtle species 

include the loggerhead, green, Ridley’s, and leatherback (Gulf Islands 

National Seashore, 2006c). 

Perdido Bay has three species of seagrasses: turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), 

shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), and widgeon grass (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.), redfish (Sciaenops 

sp.), and mullet (Mugil sp.). Eel grass (Vallisneria americana) is also present 

in fresh water and brackish water portions of the bay. Comparison 

of acreage of submerged vegetation between 1941 and 1992 revealed that 

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 acreage of seagrass (Miller, 

1998), but subsequently declined to 3.3 acres in 1992 (Kirschenfeld et al., 

2006). Seagrasses were not detected in the Middle Perdido Bay, and the 

Lower Perdido Bay declined to about 303.8 acres based on analysis of 1992 

data (Kirschenfeld et al., 2006). More recent data (2003) indicated about 

300 acres of shoal grass remained 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 (ADEM) 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 effects level


61 

guidelines. Concentrations below the threshold effects 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 and in some instances concentrations exceeded threshold effects 

levels and in a few instances exceeded possible effects levels developed as 

sediment quality guidelines for metals. Sediment quality guidelines consider 

possible effects levels to be the concentrations of specific trace metals 

that would most likely cause biological effects. Most exceedances of threshold 

effects and possible effects 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 is a 

Consent Order requiring corrective actions that will improve the treatment 

of the plant’s discharge. Improvements include the construction of 

treatment wetlands bordering Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. The 

discharge from the Kraft mill will be mixed with 5 mgd of wastewater from 

an Emerald Coast Utility Authority advanced wastewater treatment plant 

before discharge to the wetland (Department, 2005). 

In 1991, Escambia County had 282 miles of unpaved dirt roads. More 

than 100,000 cubic yards of fi ll material per year were used by the county 

to grade 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 best management 

practices (BMPs) for those newly paved dirt roads instituted as of the end 

of 2002. BMPs generally constitute creation of grass-lined 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-specific 

Stormwater Management Master Plans have been completed 

for Elevenmile Creek and Eightmile Creek watersheds and are in development 

for the Bayou Marcus, Millview, Herron Bayou, Garcon Swamp, and 

Southwest Side (north portion) watersheds. 

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 watershed (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


identified drainage as a problem and 26 residents identified 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, 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. 

• 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 this 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 stateline 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 confluence 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 this planning unit include Barrineau 

Park, McKinnon, and Walnut Hill. These communities are small and 

generally rural in character. 

Water Quality Summary 

Eight segments within this planning unit are listed as potentially 

impaired. Figure 3.4, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters 

on the 1998 303(d) list and the Planning List. 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 this planning unit. 

Monitoring data were collected from 7 estuarine and 24 stream locations. 

Jacks Branch (WBID 291) was listed on the 1998 303(d) list for DO, 

fecal coliform bacteria, and turbidity. There are no data available for this 

waterbody to make a preliminary assessment of impairment; thus, this 

waterbody is listed as Category 3a in Table 3.5. Additional data will be 

collected during Phase 2 of the watershed cycle before the Verified List is 

prepared. 

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


63 

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

Planning List Waters


Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Perdido River Planning Unit 

Waterbody 

WBID Name 

105 Freeman Springs 

Branch 

Waterbody 

Type 1 Class 2 1998 303(d) 

List Parameters 

of Concern 


Overall 


Stream IIIF 3b 

135 Boggy Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 

138 Rocky Creek Stream IIIF 3a 

14 Hubbard Creek Stream IIIF 3a 

148 Helverson Creek Stream IIIF 3a 

149 McDavid Creek Stream IIIF Biology 3c 

169 Buckeye Branch Stream IIIF 3a 

172 Reedy Branch Stream IIIF 3a 

182 West Fork Stream IIIF Biology 2 

197 Narrow Gap Stream IIIF 3a 

Branch 

208 McDade Creek Stream IIIF 3a 

228 Jackson Springs Stream IIIF 3a 

Branch 

243 Schoolhouse Stream IIIF 3a 

Branch 

245 Alligator Creek Stream IIIF Biology 2 

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, Fecal Coliforms, 

3a 

Turbidity 

297 Penasula Creek Stream IIIF 3a 

2F Perdido River Stream IIIF 3a 

3 Reedy Branch Stream IIIF Biology 3c 

311 Bowman Creek Stream IIIF 3b 

345 Cow Devil Creek Stream IIIF 3a 

357 Churchhouse 

Branch 

Stream IIIF 3a 

4 Brushy Creek Stream IIIF DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

TSS, Turbidity 

Chlorophyll a, 

Conductance, DO, 

Fluoride, Historical 

Chlorophyll, Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 

Biology 


Total 

Coliforms 

407 Farm Hill Run Stream IIIF 3a 

462A Perdido River Estuary IIIM DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Mercury in 

Fish, Nutrients 

DO, Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

Mercury in 

Fish 

3d 

Fecal Coliforms 3d


65 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


462B Perdido River Stream IIIF Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Mercury in 

Fish 

462C Perdido River Stream IIIF Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Mercury in 

Fish 



Overall 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 



Ammonia 

Biology, Conductance, 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity, 

Unionized Ammonia 

Mercury in Fish Conductance 3d 

Mercury in Fish 

494 Jacks Branch Stream IIIF 3a 

542 Rest Area Run Stream IIIF Conductance Biology, DO, 



Turbidity 

3c 

607 Claypit Branch Stream IIIF 3a 

616 Beulah Drain Stream IIIF 3a 

696 Black Lake Lake IIIF 3a 

696A Black Lake Drain Lake IIIF 3a 


to Stream 

72D 

72E 

72F 

Direct Runoff 

to Stream 


to Stream 


to Stream 

Stream IIIF Chlorophyll a, 

Conductance, DO, 

Fluoride, Fecal 

Coliforms, Historical 

Chlorophyll, Total 

Coliforms, Turbidity 

Stream IIIF 3b 



73 Unnamed Branch Stream IIIF 3a 

Notes: 

1 

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

2 

The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: 






3 

The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 

1— Attains all designated uses; 

2—Attains some designated uses; 

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

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

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

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 

3c 

2



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; and 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; 

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 

4 

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

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as 

Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

Category 5. 


F = Fresh water 

M = Marine 


Creek, West Fork, Alligator Creek, and the Perdido River passed bioassessments 

and are listed as meeting designated use for biology. 

All three segments of Perdido River are listed because of a fish consumption 

advisory recommending limited consumption due to high levels 

of mercury in fish. The advisory is directed at the consumption of largemouth 

bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, gar, and bowfin (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 segment number 462A was potentially impaired for 

bacteria while the remaining two segments of the Perdido River met their 

designated use for bacteria. 

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 E.1 in Appendix E lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface 

discharge facilities, along with their permitted amount of wastewater 

discharge. Table E.2 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 have surface water discharges. 

There are three landfi lls located in the Perdido River Planning Unit. 

The Perdido Landfill in Muskogee has permits for both Class 3 and Class 

1 facilities. The third landfill is a construction and demolition debris land 

fill. As of August 2005 all three landfills 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, 

2006d). The property is located near a tributary of Cow Devil Creek. 

Storage of military surplus items and damaged drums, some containing


67 

various hazardous materials, led to wide-scale contamination of ground 

water and soil with primarily trichlorethylene. The extent of ground 

water contamination is displayed in Figure 3.4. 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 Department anticipates 

finalizing a Decision Memo recommending remedial cleanup action and 

initiating design and construction of those recommended actions in 2006. 

Dubose Oil was first listed on the NPL in October 1984 (Department, 

2006c). The site was located in the headwaters of Jacks Branch and 

was used from 1979 to 1982 for storage of oil and hazardous waste. The 

site had contained varying degrees of contamination of soil, ground water, 

and surface water with volatile and semivolatile organics from oil and 

hazardous waste before remediation was completed and approved by EPA. 

The site was listed in the Federal Register for delisting by 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 this 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 of the planning unit area. Residential development 

accounts for 4.3 percent of the planning unit. Most residential development 

is a mix of medium and low density. Tables G.1 and G.2 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 permit. The permit only 

applies to publicly owned stormwater management systems. 

Ecological Summary 

The Perdido River provides important habitat for rare and imperiled 

fish species. Gravel and sand bars are evident on most of the river’s bends. 

Historic records indicate the use of the Perdido River by three rare fi sh 

species. These include the species of special concern saltmarsh topminnow, 

crystal darter, and goldstripe darter (DNR, 1989). Bass et al. (2004) 

confirmed the presence of the saltmarsh topminnow during field 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). 

Water Quality Improvement Plans and Projects 

In 1991 Escambia County had 282 miles of unpaved dirt roads. The 

county used more than 100,000 cubic yards of fi ll material each year 

to grade 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 instituted as of the end of 2002. Within 

the Perdido River Planning Unit, 34.5 miles of dirt roads were paved. 

BMPs generally constitute creation of grass-lined swales and a greater frequency 

of road grading. An additional 45.6 miles is proposed for paving in 

this 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).


Chapter 4: Ground Water Quality Assessment 

69 

Introduction 

Historically, Florida’s ground water monitoring activities focused 

almost entirely on protecting drinking water supplies. In addition to this 

focus, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) 

now also integrates ground water data into its watershed assessments to 

help in the evaluation of ground water impacts on surface water quality. 

This is especially important in Florida, where ground water discharges 

into streams, canals, lakes, and estuaries and can provide as much as 

80 percent of the total flow to some surface waters. Because of this ground 

water– surface water interaction, it is important to assess ground water 

quality, identify potential pollutants, establish whether they are likely to be 

discharged to surface water, and identify any potential impacts that may 

already be expressed as surface water impairments. 

The assessment presented in this chapter uses ground water data to 

evaluate water quality in the potable ground water resource, as well as the 

impact of ground water on surface water resources in the Perdido Basin. 

Although the data historically collected through ground water monitoring 

do not specifically serve this purpose, the Department is using the information 

that is currently available. 

Scope of the Ground Water Assessment 

This chapter presents the results of a preliminary ground water quality 

assessment in the Perdido Basin, in addition to resource priorities and proposed 

management actions. It includes an evaluation of the quality of the 

ground water resource used as a potable supply by residents of the basin, as 

well as an evaluation of potential ground water influences on water quality 

and ecological conditions in the basin’s surface waters. The ground water 

resource index assessment (GRI) is based on aquifer use and human healthrelated 

criteria. The ground water–surface water relational assessment 

(SRA) includes an evaluation of ground water quality in planning units 

where potentially impaired surface waters were identified, using threshold 

values derived from surface water quality standards or ecological guidelines. 

These newly developed screening tools provide an indication of potential 

issues that justify more detailed evaluations. 

While these preliminary results on the quality and availability of 

ground water do not have regulatory significance, they can assist in identifying 

priority ground water resource and surface water quality issues that 

should be further evaluated to protect human health and/or the ecological 

integrity of the basin’s surface waterbodies. In particular, they may be


instrumental in furthering the goals of the Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) Program by contributing to an understanding of the extent to 

which ground water may be a source of pollutants that impair surface 

waters or may lead to naturally occurring conditions that cause surface 

water to exceed water quality standards. For example, ground water data 

can be used to verify impairment, identify natural causes of impairment 

(such as the seepage of ground water low in dissolved oxygen (DO) or high 

in iron into surface waters), contribute to the knowledge of water budgets 

for lakes and rivers receiving ground water seepage or base flow, contribute 

to an understanding of the freshwater/saltwater balance in estuarine waters, 

provide documentation for calculating TMDLs, and determine the ground 

water quality component of individual TMDLs. Ground water data can 

also affect TMDL allocations. 

In the preliminary ground water assessment for the Perdido Basin, a 

number of significant issues were identified pertaining to the ground water 

resource and potential ground water impacts to surface water. These are 

listed below and discussed in this chapter. 

Ground Water Resource Priorities 

• Areas where organic contaminant plumes have the potential to affect 

potable water supplies, and 

• Primary metals that exceed primary ground water standards. 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities 

• Nutrients exceeding screening threshold limits in the sand and gravel 

aquifer in planning units where potential nutrient-related surface 

waterbody impairments have been identified. 

Ground Water Data Sources and Parameters 

The Department established a ground water quality monitoring 

network in 1984, under the authority and direction of the 1983 Water 

Quality Assurance Act. From 1984 to 1999, the Background Network was 

maintained to establish the background and baseline ground water quality 

of major aquifer systems in Florida. In 1999, the Department initiated a 

probabilistic sampling Status Network to assess the water quality over areas 

defined as reporting units. Since the Department initiated the watershed 

management approach, the state’s basin groups have become ground water 

quality assessment units. The Status and Background Networks, and the 

additional sources described in Table 4.1, were the data sources used in the 

ground water quality assessment for this report. 

This chapter contains parameter-specific evaluations of ground water 

data and findings. Evaluations conducted for the Perdido Basin were for 

nutrients, bacteria, metals, and organics. Table 4.2 summarizes the assessment 

categories and the specific analytes evaluated. Data were retrieved 

from several databases maintained by the Department using the Hydroport 

retrieval system maintained by the Ground Water Protection Section. 

Hydroport was also used to produce statistical summaries for the evaluations 

performed for this report.


71 

Table 4.1: Summary of Ground Water Data Sources 

Monitoring Network or Program Period Description 

Status Network 1999– 

ongoing 

Statewide probabilistic sampling network for surface water and 

ground water data. Sample locations are randomly selected 

from a list frame of wells. Each year includes approximately 30 

samples from unconfined aquifers and 30 from confined aquifers. 

Objective is to characterize water quality on a basinwide scale. 

Ground water parameters correspond with those targeted in 

surface water evaluation. 

Background Network 1985–99 Part of statewide network of 1,600 water wells and monitoring 

wells to spatially monitor general background water quality of 

local aquifers (surficial, intermediate, and Floridan). On average, 

each well was sampled once every 3 years for an extensive list of 

analytes. 

Very Intense Study Area 

(VISA) Network 

Florida Department of Health 

(DOH)/ Department Water 

Supply Restoration Program 

(WSRP) Private Well Sampling 

Program 

1989–99 Network monitored the effects of land uses on ground water 

quality in 23 selected areas of the state. Individual VISAs consisted 

of approximately 20 wells sampled 3 times over an 11-year 

period. Sampled for a targeted list of analytes. 

Ongoing 

Private well data collected in investigations of potential ground 

water contamination, maintained in a Department WSRP database. 

Parameter list is variable, depending on contaminants of 

concern. 

Table 4.2: Ground Water Assessment Categories and Parameters 

Evaluation Category 

Nutrients 

Bacteria 

Metals 

Organics 

Parameters Evaluated 

Nitrate, Phosphorus 

Total Coliforms, Fecal Coliforms 

Primary Metals (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, 

Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Thallium) 

Secondary Metals (Aluminum, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Silver, Strontium, Vanadium, 

Zinc) 

Volatile and Semivolatile Organics, Pesticides 

Ground Water Assessments 

This section includes basinwide and more detailed evaluations of 

ground water quality by parameter-category using the GRI thresholds and 

ground water–surface water interaction using the SRA thresholds; the 

evaluation incorporates a spatial analysis of the data. For reporting the 

data, this chapter uses planning units consistent with the surface water 

assessment. This approach allows the Department to conduct a preliminary 

assessment of large regional aquifer systems and multiple watersheds, 

rather than individual waterbody segments. The initial step in the ground 

water quality evaluation included a basinwide screening for wells in unconfined 

and confined aquifers. Table 4.3 summarizes the basinwide results of 

this evaluation for the Perdido Basin, and Appendix H contains statistical 

data by parameter.


Table 4.3: Screening Thresholds and Basinwide Summary of Ground Water Quality 

(Median concentrations that are higher than the GRI and/or SRA screening threshold in the Unconfined Aquifer and 

Confined Aquifer columns are shown in boldface type with gray highlighting.) 

Parameter Screening Thresholds Unconfined Aquifer Confined Aquifers 

GRI 1 SRA 2 Nutrients (mg/L) 

Wells Concentration Wells Concentration 

Number of Median Number of Median 

Nitrate + Nitrite (dissolved as N) 10 0.46 26 0.245 2 0.028 

Nitrate + Nitrite (total as N) 10 0.46 28 0.6 2 2 7.85 2 

Phosphorus (dissolved as P) — 0.025 26 0.03 2 2 0.165 2 

Orthophosphate (dissolved as P) — 0.025 28 0.095 2 2 0.735 2 

Bacteria (Colonies/100mL) 

Total Coliforms 4 1,000 — — — — 

Fecal Coliforms 4 400 29 0 2 0 

Metals (µg/L, total) 

Primary Metals: 

Antimony 6 14 — — — — 

Arsenic 50 10 30 1 2 2.25 

Barium 2,000 1,000 30 31.5 2 64 

Beryllium 4 0.0077 — — — — 

Cadmium 5 0.38 30 0.555 2 2 2.7 

Chromium 100 27.7 30 5 2 116.25 1,2 

Lead 15 0.54 30 8.6 2 2 9.5 2 

Mercury 2 0.012 30 0.2 2 2 0.075 2 

Nickel 100 8.3 30 5 2 24 2 

Selenium 50 5 30 BDL 2 BDL 

Thallium 2 1.7 — — — — 

Secondary Metals: 

Aluminum 200 1,500 22 330 1 2 995 1 

Copper 1,000 2.85 30 13 2 11.75 

Iron 300 300 30 1,150 1,2 2 3,900 1,2 

Manganese 20 100 30 43 1 — — 

Silver 100 100 30 BDL — — 

Strontium 4,200 — 22 10 — — 

Vanadium 49 — — — — — 

Zinc 5,000 37 30 44 2 41.5 

Organics 3 (µg/L) 

Benzene 1 — — BDL — BDL 

Xylenes 20 — — BDL — BDL 

Notes: 

1 

Median values in bold are higher than the GRI screening threshold; the threshold value is based on the potable 

ground water maximum contaminant level (MCL) or guidance level. 

2 

Median values in bold are higher than the SRA screening threshold; the threshold value is based on the surface water 

standard or guidance level based on adverse effects on aquatic life.


73 


3 

The organic compounds listed were found in ground water at levels that exceed MCLs and/or guidance levels. 

Organics data were obtained from the VISA Network and the WSRP private drinking water well sampling. Information 

on the total number of samples, aquifer, etc., was not available for some wells and is not reported in this table. 

4 

Drawing basinwide conclusions is not possible due to the small number of wells. 

— = Not applicable. In the case of water quality data, the threshold is not applicable to this analyte. 

BDL—Median is below detection limit for this analyte. Basinwide median concentrations are derived from the 

maximum value for each well. 

Table 4.3 shows that the basinwide median concentrations of several 

analytes are higher than the GRI and/or SRA screening threshold levels. 

These exceedances may reflect natural conditions (in the case of phosphorus 

or some metals) or may be caused by anthropogenic sources (in the case 

of nitrate). In wells monitoring unconfined zones of the sand and gravel 

aquifer, median concentrations of several secondary metals (aluminum, 

iron, and manganese) are higher than the GRI thresholds, which are based 

on secondary ground water standards. Basinwide median concentrations of 

iron, plus other metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury), are higher than the 

SRA thresholds, which were established based on surface water criteria or 

guidance levels and are an issue only when ground water has the potential 

to affect surface waterbodies. Median concentrations of nutrients (nitrate 

and phosphorus) are also higher than the SRA thresholds in unconfi ned 

aquifer wells. Table 4.3 provides ground water summary information 

for confined zones of the sand and gravel aquifer, but there were only two 

wells in this category and drawing basinwide conclusions from them is not 

possible. 

The following sections describe more detailed steps in the evaluation. 

These are based on data from all sources currently in the Department’s 

ground water database. Most data are from the Status Network, the Background 

Network, or the Very Intense Study Area Network. The Florida 

Department of Health (DOH)/Department’s Water Supply Restoration 

Program (WSRP) private well sampling data were also used in the GRI 

evaluation. Other sources of data were not available for the detailed 

evaluation but were considered. 

Ground Water as a Resource: Issues Related to the Ground 

Water Resource Index 

The GRI screening identified parameters that could be significant 

because they exceed ground water standards or guidance concentrations. 

For a specific parameter, this index is based on the percentage of well 

samples that exceed the applicable ground water maximum contaminant 

level (MCL), or Risk Indicator (in the absence of an MCL or when an 

MCL cannot be directly related to the data). To be protective, the maximum 

parameter concentration detected in each well is used, no minimum 

number of samples is required, and data used are not restricted to a specific 

period of record for this screening. This evaluation is performed by aquifer 

category (i.e., confined or unconfined). Typically, if more than 10 percent 

of the ground water samples in a category were to exceed a particular GRI


threshold, this would warrant a more intensive evaluation. Table 4.3 provides 

the thresholds that are pertinent to this report. 

Table 4.4 provides a detailed summary of the findings of the evaluation 

to identify potential concerns for ground water used for potable supply. 

The significance of potential problems was evaluated using available 

ground water data for each planning unit. The table identifies waterbody 

segments that may be affected by ground water for which further evaluation 

is required. This information may be relevant to assessing waters that 

are identified as impaired. 

Table 4.4: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Quality and Potential Impacts to Potable Supply 

(Samples above threshold are shown in boldface type with gray highlighting.) 

. 

Nutrients 

(# samples 

exceeding the 

GRI threshold for 

nitrate)¹ 

Bacteria 

(# samples exceeding 

the GRI threshold for 

total coliforms and/or 

fecal coliforms)¹ 

Data Evaluation 

Primary Metals 



primary metals)¹ 

Organics 



an organic compound, 

or other significant 

evidence) 1,2 

Planning Unit 

Unconfined sand and 

gravel aquifer zones 

Confined sand and 














Use of 

Affected 

Aquifer(s) 

Priority 

for Further 

Evaluation 

Perdido 

Bay 

NO 3 

-3 

Total 

Coliforms- 

2, Fecal 

Coliforms-1 

Fe-17, Al-7, 

Mn-8, Cd-1, 

Hg-2, Cr-1, 

As-2, Pb-4 

Al-2, 

Cr-1, 

Fe-2 

Benzene-1 

Other 


River 

— Total 

Coliforms- 

3, Fecal 

Coliforms-1 

— Al-5, Fe-5, 

Mn-6, Pb-2, 

Cd-1 

Xylenes-1 

Other 

— Potable 

supply (sand 

and gravel 

aquifer); 

Floridan 

aquifer not 

used 

High 

(organics, 

primary metals, 

nutrients, and 

bacteria in 

sand and gravel 

aquifer) 

Notes: 

1 

Value indicates number of well samples exceeding the MCL or Risk Indicator threshold. 

2 

Assessment includes Department and DOH/Department WSRP private well sampling data, information on delineated contamination 

areas, and known sources. 

NO 3 

= Nitrate; Cr = Chromium; Pb = Lead; As = Arsenic; Hg = Mercury; Cd = Cadmium; Fe = Iron; AI = Aluminum; Mn = 

Manganese; Other = Planning unit includes one or more significant areas of contamination based on other information. 

— = Not applicable; no evidence of ground water criteria exceedance. 

Significance: 

Low— No samples above the MCL or Risk Indicator, and issue does not need further evaluation at this time. 

Medium—Samples above the MCL and/or Risk Indicator, but affected aquifer is not a significant potable water source; issue is 

a medium priority for further evaluation. 

High—Samples above the MCL and/or Risk Indicator, and affected aquifer is a significant potable water source; issue justifies 

further evaluation in this cycle.


75 

Use of Affected Aquifers 

Unconfined aquifer data are from wells representing both the unconfined 

and semiconfined systems of the sand and gravel aquifer. These wells 

are distributed throughout the basin in a zone that is used as a potable 

water source. Confined aquifer data are from two wells in the southern 

portion of the basin that are established in what is called the main producing 

zone (Pratt et al., 1996) of the sand and gravel aquifer. This zone 

is composed of very permeable coarse sand and gravel beds interspersed 

in places with fine sand and clayey-sand beds. Public water supplies 

in Escambia County withdraw water from this zone. Findings of GRI 

threshold exceedances in aquifers used for potable supply are of the greatest 

significance. 

Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment 

Data insufficiency for the evaluation of ground water used as a potable 

supply is a significant concern. Nearly all wells with available data are 

located in the southern part of the basin, with only three sample sites in the 

northern part of the basin. There were only two wells monitoring confined 

aquifer zones, and these were also located in the southern part of the basin. 

Using the available data, the potential for ground water to be adversely 

affected was evaluated for nutrients, bacteria, metals, and organics. 

The sections below discuss data fi ndings and potential issues of concern 

in the Perdido Basin. Table 4.4 presents the data discussed in this section, 

by planning unit. 

Nitrate 

Although the evaluation included 28 wells in both the Perdido Bay 

and Perdido River Planning Units, there were only 3 unconfined aquifer 

wells with nitrate levels higher than the GRI screening threshold. All 

3 elevated nitrate levels were found in samples located in the Perdido Bay 

Planning Unit. The presence of these 3 wells does not suggest that there is 

a basinwide problem with nitrate contamination. Neither of the 2 confined 

aquifer wells in Perdido Bay had nitrate levels above the threshold. The 

data suggest that nitrate could be of concern in localized areas near specific 

sources. 

Bacteria 

Bacteria were found in six unconfined aquifer wells at levels that were 

higher than the GRI screening threshold for either total coliforms or fecal 

coliforms (or both). Figure 4.1 shows wells sampled for bacteria and 

above-GRI threshold detections. The data suggest that bacteria could be of 

concern in localized areas near specific sources. 

Metals 

Elevated metals were found in samples from wells throughout the 

basin, but most wells associated with elevated metals are located in the 

Perdido Bay Planning Unit because of the distribution of wells with data. 

Figure 4.2 shows wells sampled for metals and wells with primary metals 

detections in the basin. Lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium 

were detected in one or more well samples at levels higher than their GRI


Figure 4.1: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Bacteria


77 

Figure 4.2: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Metals


thresholds, which are based on primary ground water standards. It must 

be assumed that all of these samples were from aquifers that may be used as 

a potable supply. 

The data from locations where primary metals may be an issue should 

be further evaluated, and a review of the quality assurance data and possible 

follow-up sampling may be appropriate. Metals concentrations may 

be related to well construction, sampling technique, and natural occurrences, 

as well as contamination sources. 

Basinwide median concentrations of aluminum, iron, and manganese 

are higher than their respective GRI thresholds, which are based on secondary 

ground water standards related to taste, odor, and other nuisances. 

Their abundance often reflects background conditions that are not attributable 

to contaminant sources. For this reason, secondary metals are considered 

less significant in terms of protecting the drinking water resource. 

Metals samples used in the evaluation were from Background Network 

monitoring wells, which are supposed to represent ambient conditions. 

For that reason, concentrations of metals may be attributed to the 

soil and aquifer matrix material through which the ground water flows. 

However, elevated metals concentrations may also be associated with well 

construction, turbid samples, sampling/analytical biases, or ground water 

contaminant sources. 

Organics 

A broad suite of organic compounds was sampled for, but only two 

compounds, benzene and xylene, were found above GRI thresholds in any 

of the Department’s ambient monitoring network wells. These two compounds 

were also found in private wells sampled by the WSRP. Figure 4.3 

shows benzene and xylene detections in the basin. From these data and 

from other information, it appears that organics are present in ground 

water at scattered locations throughout the basin. Figure 2.5 in Chapter 

2 shows the distribution of point sources of volatile organic compounds 

such as petroleum storage and dry cleaning solvent facilities throughout 

the basin; these are mainly concentrated in the most urbanized areas. State 

waste cleanup sites and federal Superfund sites are known to be significant 

sources of organics in ground water (Figure 4.3). 

Ground water contamination by volatile organics is a priority issue 

for further evaluation, because of their distribution and occurrence in an 

aquifer that is widely used as a drinking water source. 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction: Issues Related to 

the Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment 

The SRA methodology was applied to identify wells in subregional 

areas where ground water contributions to surface water could adversely 

affect surface waterbodies. In an initial SRA screening, ground water 

concentrations that exceed surface water “adverse impact” thresholds are 

identified. The SRA thresholds are based on surface water standards or 

targets related to maintaining healthy aquatic communities. 

In this evaluation, the results of the SRA and lists of potentially 

impaired surface waterbodies are reviewed together. Where similar


79 

Figure 4.3: Ground Water Resource Index Assessment for Organics


pollutants or analytes occur, the potential for discharge from ground water 

to surface water is assessed. This evaluation is also conservative. As with 

the GRI screening, the maximum value measured for each well is used in 

the analysis, and there are no minimum sample population restrictions or 

specified periods of record for ground water data. In addition, the threshold 

values selected are intentionally protective. If more than 10 percent 

of the wells in a basin were to exceed the SRA screening threshold for a 

particular parameter, further assessment might be warranted. Table 4.3 

provides the SRA thresholds used in this evaluation. 

Table 4.5 summarizes the findings of the evaluation for each parameter 

category for unconfined and confined aquifers, and identifies (also for 

each parameter category) individual waterbody segments in each planning 

unit where ground water could adversely affect surface water quality. The 

two right-hand columns in the table, which list the ground water to surface 

water pathways and the priority for further evaluation, provide information 

that can be used in making the final determination of impairment and 

should be considered in developing TMDLs for verified impaired waters. 

The significance and likelihood of potential ground water to surface 

water impacts were evaluated by considering the coincidence of elevated 

concentrations in ground water with impaired or potentially impaired surface 

waterbodies in the same planning unit. Next, the presence or absence 

of pathways between the aquifer and impaired/potentially impaired surface 

waterbodies was considered. Finally, the type of pathway and its potential 

for transporting pollutants over distances was considered. Where evidence 

exists that the pathway is present and a surface waterbody is possibly 

affected, the significance of the ground water issue increases. Following 

this logic, the need for further evaluation in the planning unit is based on 

the following: 

• Sufficient data for a planning unit showing that ground water 

exceeds the SRA threshold value for a specific parameter; 

• The identification of that specific parameter as causing the potential 

impairment of one or more surface waterbodies in the planning unit; 

• Evidence that a potential pathway exists between the affected aquifer 

and the impaired or potentially impaired waterbody; 

• Reason to believe that the pathway would have an effect over a 

significant subregional area, such as a springshed; and 

• The 1998 303(d) listing status of the potentially impaired surface 

water and schedule for TMDL development, if any. 

Ground Water to Surface Water Pathways 

The potential for constituents in ground water to affect surface 

water quality and ecological health adversely depends on the proximity 

and available pathway by which ground water to surface water discharge 

would occur. In the Perdido Basin, all lakes, rivers, and streams depend 

on recharge from ground water, particularly during periods of low rainfall 

when runoff does not occur.


81 

Table 4.5: Evaluation Summary: Ground Water Influence on Surface Water Quality 

(Samples above the SRA screening thresholds are shown in boldface type with gray highlighting.) 

Data Evaluation 

Nutrients (ground water samples 

exceeding SRA threshold 

for nitrate and/or phosphorus; 

planning unit includes surface 

waters potentially impaired 

by nutrients [based on TSI, 

chlorophyll a, DO, or biology]) 1 Bacteria (ground water 

samples exceeding SRA 

threshold for total and/or 

fecal coliforms; planning Metals (ground water samples exceeding 

unit includes surface SRA threshold for one or more metals; 

waters potentially impaired planning unit includes surface waters 

by bacteria) 1 

samples exceeding SRA threshold 

for specific conductance; 

planning unit includes surface 

waters potentially impaired 

by metals) 1 

potentially impaired by metals) 1 Saline Water (ground water 

Planning 

Unit 

Ground Water to 

Surface Water 

Pathways 

Priority 

for Further 

Evaluation 

Unconfined surficial aquifer 

Confined intermediate or 

Floridan aquifer 

Potentially impaired surface 

waters (WBIDs) 


















NO 3 

-16, 

P-19 

NO3-2, 

P-2 

WBIDs 489, 

542, 624, 

697, 797, 

935 

— — WBIDs 489, 

489A, 624, 

679 

Cd-9, Cu-14, 

Fe-17, Pb-20, 

Zn-12, Al-3, 

Mn-5, Hg-8, 

Cr-2, As-2, 

Ni-3 

Cd-2, Fe-2, 

Al-1, Hg-1, 

Cr-1, Pb-2, 

Cu-1, Ni-1 

— — Seepage from 

surficial aquifer, 

possible upwelling 

or pumpage 

from Floridan 

aquifer 



Notes: 

NO 3 

-6, 

P-9 

— WBIDs 3, 4, 

160, 341 

— — WBIDs 149, 

290, 3, 4, 

462A, 542 

Al-2, Zn-7, 

Hg-4, Cr-2, 

Cd-4, Cu-5, 

Fe-5, Mn-2, 

Ni-2, Pb-7, 

As-1 

— — Seepage 

from surficial 

zone 

of sand 

and gravel 

aquifer; no 

pathway 

from main 

producing 

zone 

Medium 

(nutrients 

in unconfined 

zones of 

sand and 

gravel 

aquifer) 

— Seepage from 

surficial aquifer, 

possible upwelling 

or pumpage 

from Floridan 

aquifer 

1 Value next to parameter indicates number of wells exceeding SRA threshold(s). 

— = Not applicable; no evidence of ground water threshold exceedance for ground water columns or potential impairment for surface water columns. 

NO 3 

= Nitrate As = Arsenic Cr = Chromium 

P = Phosphorus Cd = Cadmium Ni = Nickel 

Cu = Copper Hg = Mercury Al = Aluminum 

Pb = Lead Fe = Iron Mn = Manganese 

Zn = Zinc TSI = Total suspended solids WBID = Waterbody Identification Number 

High 

(Nutrients) 

High 

(Nutrients, 

Cu, Fe, Zn)



Priority for further evaluation: 

Low—No potentially impaired surface waters, or potentially impaired surface 

waters, but no ground water samples above the SRA threshold for the 

listed category and no need for further evaluation at this time. 

Medium—Potentially impaired surface waters and corresponding ground 

water samples above the SRA threshold for the listed category; ground 

water seepage from unconfined aquifers is the only pathway; issue is a 

medium priority for further evaluation. 

High—Potentially impaired surface waters and corresponding ground water 

samples above the SRA threshold for listed category; unconfined ground 

water seepage and springs discharge from confined aquifers identified as 

pathways; issue justifies further evaluation in this cycle. 

In the Perdido Basin, ground water to surface water interaction occurs 

via small springs and seepage. Ground water from the surficial zone of 

the sand and gravel aquifer sustains lake levels and stream baseflow, and 

discharges fresh water to estuaries and the Gulf of Mexico. Seepage and 

discharge from small springs from the sand and gravel aquifer occur 

through granular material such as sand, silt, and clay at a relatively slow 

rate but can account for very significant volumes of water over time. In the 

Perdido Basin, the potential influence of substances being discharged by 

ground water depends on many factors that extend beyond the information 

available for this preliminary evaluation. 

Data Evaluation and Priorities for Further Assessment 

Data insufficiency ranks as a high concern for the evaluation of ground 

water to surface water influences in the basin. The reviewed data included 

only two wells from the main producing zone (confined) of the sand and 

gravel aquifer. Using the available data, the potential for ground water to 

affect surface water quality adversely was evaluated for nutrients, bacteria, 

and metals. SRA threshold criteria have not yet been developed to evaluate 

the potential adverse effects of organics that may be introduced via 

ground water. Table 4.4 presents the data discussed in this section, by 

planning unit. 

With only three sample sites in the northern portion of the basin, the 

geographic distribution of the data is skewed to the southernmost portion 

of the basin. Consequently, fewer conclusions can be reached regarding the 

status of the northern portions of the basin. For confi ned aquifers, only 

two wells were sampled in the basin, and no basinwide conclusions can be 

deduced because of the lack of data. 

Nutrients 

Acknowledging the lack of data for the Perdido River Planning Unit, 

it appears that nutrients are clearly the most significant concern for ground 

water to surface water discharge. The nutrient category having the greatest 

number of samples exceeding the SRA threshold criteria is phosphorus. 

Phosphorus levels (measured as dissolved phosphorus and orthophosphate) 

were higher than the SRA screening threshold of 0.025 milligrams per liter 

in more than 65 percent of the unconfined aquifer wells and 100 percent 

of the 2 confined aquifer wells. Nitrate concentrations were also elevated,


83 

with 68 percent of the 28 unconfi ned aquifer wells exceeding the SRA 

threshold of 0.045 mg/L. Nutrients have caused potential impairment of 

13 waterbodies or waterbody segments in the basin. In particular, in the 

vicinity of 3 potentially impaired streams (Elevenmile Creek [waterbody 

identification number (WBID 489)], Eightmile Creek [WBID 624], 

and Marcus Creek [WBID 697]), there are wells with elevated nutrients. 

Figure 4.4 shows the ground water results for nutrients and potentially 

impaired waterbodies associated with nutrients in the basin. 

Bacteria 

The SRA thresholds for total and fecal coliforms were not exceeded 

in any of the well samples. However, 10 surface waters are potentially 

impaired by bacteria. 

Metals 

Metals are abundant throughout the Perdido Basin at levels that exceed 

SRA threshold criteria, and pathways exist to transport metals to surface 

waterbodies. SRA thresholds for many metals—including cadmium, chromium, 

lead, mercury, aluminum, and nickel—were exceeded in samples 

from both confined and unconfined aquifers. Metals samples used in the 

evaluation were from Background Network monitoring wells, which are 

supposed to represent ambient conditions. For that reason, the concentrations 

of these metals are considered to be largely attributed to the soil 

and aquifer matrix material through which the ground water flows. The 

incidence of metals exceeding SRA threshold criteria is summarized by the 

planning units listed in Table 4.5 and shown in aggregate in Figure 4.5. 

There are currently no surface waterbodies on the Verified or Planning 

Lists for metals in the basin. In the future, it may be important to consider 

metals from ground water as more monitoring of surface waters occurs in 

the next watershed management cycle. 

Addressing Potential Ground Water Issues 

Beginning in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, the Department 

will address the higher priority potential issues identified in the GRI 

and SRA screening evaluations. The following describes the high- and 

medium-priority issues identified in these evaluations and proposed actions 

to better understand and verify conditions. These are organized by GRI 

and SRA, respectively. 

Ground Water Resource Priorities and Proposed Actions 

• Issue: Organic contaminant plumes. 

• Actions: Although multiple waste cleanup sites were located in the 

basin, only limited basinwide sampling for organic contaminants 

has been carried out. Continued coordination must occur between 

agencies to review existing delineated areas. Examine other areas in 

the basin where the potential exists for organic contaminant plumes


Figure 4.4: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for Nutrients


85 

Figure 4.5: Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment for Metals


to affect potable water supplies, including a review of assessments 

conducted by the Department’s Division of Waste Management and 

the Source Water Assessment and Protection Program. 

• Issue: Metals that exceed primary ground water standards. 

• Actions: Review and verify the presence of elevated metals concentrations 

in ground water; follow up by resampling critical wells. 

Identify wells with elevated concentrations that may be in service 

for potable supply and work with DOH/WSRP to minimize 

health risks. 

• Issue: Bacteria and nutrients that exceed primary ground water 

standards. 

• Actions: Review and verify the presence of bacteria in ground 

water; follow up by resampling wells used for potable supply. 

Identify wells with elevated concentrations that may be in service 

for potable supply and work with DOH/WSRP to minimize 

health risks. 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction Priorities and 

Proposed Actions 

• Issue: Nutrients exceeding screening threshold limits in the surficial 

aquifer in planning units where verified and potential nutrientrelated 

surface waterbody impairments have been identified. 

• Actions: Refine nutrient evaluation to identify where ground water 

contributions to these waterbodies are likely to be significant and 

where they are not. Prioritize based on surface waterbody listing 

status and evidence of ground water interaction, and conduct intensive 

surveys where necessary.


87 

Chapter 5: The Planning List of Potentially 

Impaired Waters 

The Planning List 

The Planning List (Table 5.1) includes all waterbody segments (waterbody 

identification numbers) in the Perdido River and Bay Basin that are 

identified as potentially impaired. The table also indicates the parameters 

of concern. 

Figure 5.1 shows waterbody segments on the Planning List. In this 

figure, the entire watersheds for listed waterbody segments are highlighted. 

Often, however, only the main waterbody in the assessment unit has been 

assessed. Other waters in the assessment unit may not be impaired, or data 

may not be available. 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) methodology used to 

develop the Planning List follows the tenet of “independent applicability,” 

which means that a waterbody will be listed if any of its designated uses are 

potentially impaired. Waterbody segments on the Planning List must meet 

specific thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality requirements in the 

IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code). Appendix A describes 

the legislative and regulatory background for the development of the Planning 

and Verified Lists. The methodology in Appendix B describes the 

criteria and thresholds required for both lists under the IWR. 

Relationship Between the Planning List and 

the 303(d) List 

The state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the Perdido River 

and Bay Basin is updated in two stages. The Planning List represents the 

first stage of this process (see sidebar for a discussion of the significance of 

the Planning List). 

Potentially impaired waters identified in this report will be further 

assessed in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle to verify their 

impairment. In addition to evaluating more thoroughly the data used to 

place these waters on the Planning List (including the verification of quality 

assurance and data sufficiency), the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (Department) working with local stakeholders, will identify 

other existing data and collect additional data as needed to complete the 

assessment. 

Once the additional monitoring is completed, the data will be assessed 

and the Department will develop a Verified List of impaired waters. 

Appendix B describes the criteria for data evaluation used to verify 

impaired waterbodies and produce the Verified List. The Verified List will 

be adopted by Secretarial Order by October 2006 and then submitted to 

Significance of the 

Planning List 

Under the Florida Watershed 

Restoration Act, 

Planning Lists of potentially 

impaired waters are submitted 

to the EPA for informational 

purposes only and are 

not used in administering or 

implementing any regulatory 

programs. The Planning List 

is important, as it is used 

to guide monitoring in the 

basin and is the precursor to 

the Verified List of impaired 

waters. As such, stakeholders 

are encouraged to review 

the Planning List carefully, 

including the data used by 

the Department to produce 

the list. If reviewers identify 

and have access to pertinent 

data that were not used, they 

should enter the data into 

STORET or submit the data to 

the Department so that it can 

be used in evaluating waterbodies 

to be included on the 

Verified List.


Table 5.1: Planning List of Potentially Impaired Waters in the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

WBID 

Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody 

Type 1 

1998 303(d) List Parameters 

of Concern 

Perdido Bay Planning Unit 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream Conductance 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream BOD, DO, Fecal Coliforms, 

Unionized Ammonia, 

Nutrients, TSS, Turbidity 

Causes of Potential Waterbody 

Impairment Identified under the IWR 

Biology, Conductance, DO, 

Fecal Coliforms, Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms, Total Coliforms 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms, Turbidity Biology, DO, Fecal Coliforms 

697 Marcus Creek Stream Fecal Coliforms DO, Fecal Coliforms 

725 Unnamed Branch Stream Fecal Coliforms 

8001 Perdido Bay Gulf Coastal Mercury in Fish 

8001A Perdido Key Coastal 


State Park 

8001B Johnson Beach Coastal Mercury in Fish 

8001C Big Lagoon Coastal 


State Park 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream DO Conductance, DO 

Perdido River Planning Unit 

4 Brushy Creek Stream DO, Fecal Coliforms, TSS, 

Turbidity 

Biology, Fecal Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms 

3 Reedy Branch Stream Biology 

462A Perdido River Estuary DO, Fecal Coliforms, Fecal Coliforms 

Mercury in Fish, Nutrients 

462B Perdido River Stream Fecal Coliforms, Mercury 

in Fish 

Conductance 

462C Perdido River Stream Mercury in Fish 

542 Rest Area Run Stream Biology, DO, Fecal Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, Turbidity 

149 McDavid Creek Stream Biology 

290 Dry Creek Biology 

291 Jacks Branch Stream DO, Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

Notes: 

1 

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

marshes. 



TSS = Total suspended solids


89 

Figure 5.1: Perdido River and Bay Basin Planning List for All Causes of Potential Impairment, with 

Overlay of 1998 303(d) List


the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an update to Florida’s 

current 303(d) list. Subsequently, the Department will develop total maximum 

daily loads for 303(d)-listed waterbodies. 

Summary of Potential Impairments 

The Perdido River and Bay Basin contains a total of 71 waterbody 

segments. Of these, 20 are on the Planning List as potentially impaired 

based on the IWR evaluation criteria and/or the 1998 303(d) list criteria. 

Table 5.2 summarizes the major parameters for which potential impairments 

were identified. 

Table 5.2 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 conducted 

to differentiate between pollutant-related and other causes of low 

DO before the Verified List for the basin is developed. 

Six streams were listed because of biological impairment measured as at 

least one failed bioassessment. To be listed on the Verified List the stream 

must fail a second bioassessment. Additionally, a causative pollutant for 

the biological impairment must be determined before the water is verified 

impaired. 

Bacteria are another common source of impairment in streams. Nine 

streams were identified for exceedances of bacteriological criteria, either 

fecal or total coliforms 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 Perdido River are listed as 

potentially impaired because either they were on the 1998 303(d) or in the 

Table 5.2: Parameters Causing Potential Impairments in the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

Parameter 

Included Only 

on the 1998 

303(d) List 

Potential Waterbody Segment Impairments 

Identified Only 

by the IWR 

Evaluation 

Identified on Both 

the 1998 303(d) 

List and by the IWR 

Evaluation 

Total 

Potential 

Impairments 

Dissolved Oxygen 3 3 2 8 

Nutrients (General, 

3 — 3 

Chlorophyll a, Other Data) 

Coliforms (General, Total, 

Fecal) 

3 3 3 9 

Biology 7 7 

Conductance 4 4 

Suspended Solids/Turbidity 3 1 1 5 

Fish Advisory 2 5 7 

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


91 

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 fish consumption advisory for several marine 

fish species. The concentration of mercury in fi sh exceeds the health 

threshold of 0.5 milligrams. 

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

data for these parameters will be reevaluated to verify the condition of the 

waterbody segments being monitored. Chapter 6 provides more information 

about the Phase 2 monitoring activities. 

Waters with Insufficient Data To Determine 

Impairment 

Any waters that do not have sufficient data to be analyzed in accordance 

with the requirements of the IWR, but that were included on the 

1998 303(d) list, will remain on the 303(d) list maintained by EPA. They 

will also be included on the Planning List until sufficient data are available 

to evaluate their condition. The Department intends to collect data on 

these waters in Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle to verify their 

condition. 

Many waterbodies in the Perdido River and Bay Basin are not identified 

on the 1998 303(d) list and do not have sufficient (or any) data to be 

assessed under the IWR methodology. Because of resource limitations, it 

may not be possible for the Department to monitor all of these waterbodies 

during the first five-year watershed management cycle. The priority during 

Phase 2 of the cycle is to conduct monitoring and other data gathering to 

address potentially impaired waters identified on the Planning List. 

While the Department plans to monitor waters without enough data 

to determine potential impairment during subsequent watershed cycles, 

available data gathered by others will also be used for this purpose. It is 

important that the Department and stakeholders in the basin coordinate 

their monitoring plans to collect data most efficiently for these waterbodies. 

Chapter 6 discusses monitoring and data evaluation priorities 

and objectives, database management issues, and the development of the 

Verified List.


93 

Chapter 6: Strategic Monitoring and Data 

Evaluation 

Strategic Monitoring and Data Acquisition 

Priorities 

Waters on the Planning List must meet specific thresholds and data 

sufficiency and data quality requirements in the Impaired Surface Waters 

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

Planning List includes waterbody segments that were previously on the 

1998 303(d) list, but for which the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (Department) had insufficient data for assessment under the 

IWR. Additional data that are collected will be used to verify the status of 

waters listed as potentially impaired, assess those with insufficient data, and 

support modeling efforts to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) 

for impaired waterbodies. 

Due to resource limitations, the Department alone is not capable of 

addressing all of the strategic monitoring objectives within the first fiveyear 

cycle for the six Group 5 basins. The Department’s monitoring focus 

during the months prior to submitting the Verified List of impaired waters 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to obtain data necessary 

to verify the status of potentially impaired waters. 

Priority for data acquisition has been given to Planning List waterbody 

segments that are also on the 1998 303(d) list and the potentially impaired 

waterbodies that did not have sufficient data to verify their condition at the 

time the Planning List was generated. Data from other monitoring organizations 

will be included in the evaluation to help verify the condition of 

potentially impaired waterbodies and provide data by which other waterbodies 

can be evaluated. 

Data Acquisition Objectives 

Currently, 22 waterbody segments on the Planning List in this basin 

are targeted for additional monitoring. As discussed, the Department’s 

focus prior to producing the Verified List is to collect and assemble sufficient 

data to evaluate waterbodies that are potentially impaired for parameters 

that do not have sufficient data to meet the Verified List evaluation 

criteria (Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.). The priority is to collect data for 

waterbodies on the 1998 303(d) list. An additional monitoring priority is 

to develop data that may be needed to identify pollutants causing dissolved 

oxygen (DO) exceedances or biological impairments. As mentioned in 

Chapter 3, these conditions are at times not attributable to pollutants. 

Table 6.1 summarizes the objectives of data gathering and evaluation 

to verify the condition of waterbody segments on the Planning List.


Table 6.1: Strategic Monitoring and Data Evaluation Needed to Meet Impaired Waters Rule Sample 

Size Criteria for Verification of Planning List Waters in the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

WBID 


Monitoring and Data Evaluation Objectives To Address Planning List Waterbody Segments 

Samples needed to verify Potential 

Impairment (parameters exceeding 

Planning List evaluation criteria [3c] 

and/or included on the 1998 303[d] list) 

Samples needed to confirm 

Impairment ( parameters 

exceeding Verified List 

evaluation criteria [3d]) 

3 Reedy Branch 1 SCI 

4 Brushy Creek 1 SCI, 12 TSS 10 fecal coliforms, 10 

total coliforms collected 

in 3 seasons 

149 McDavid Creek 1 SCI, 22 alkalinity, 12 chlorophyll a, 

12 conductance, 12 DO, 12 fecal coliforms, 

12 total coliforms, 12 turbidity, 

12 ammonia 

245 Alligator Creek 1 SCI 

290 Dry Creek 1 SCI 

291 Jacks Branch 12 total and fecal coliforms, 12 DO, 12 

turbidity 

357 Churchhouse Branch 1 SCI 

489 Elevenmile Creek 12 nitrogen and phosphorus, 4 fecal 

coliforms, 4 total coliforms, 4 turbidity, 

12 ammonia, 12 chlorophyll a, 22 

TSS 

542 Rest Area Run 1 SCI, 22 DO, 22 fecal coliforms, 22 

total coliforms, 22 turbidity, 12 alkalinity, 

12 chlorophyll a, 12 ammonia 

624 Eightmile Creek 1 SCI, 10 DO, 10 nitrogen, 10 phosphorus, 

10 chlorophyll a, 12 ammonia, 

12 turbidity, 12 total coliforms, 10 

fecal coliforms 

697 Marcus Creek 22 alkalinity, 10 nitrogen, 10 

phosphorus, 1 SCI 

797 Perdido Bay Chlorophyll a 

725 Unnamed (Marcus 

Creek Arm) 

20 BOD, 12 fecal coliforms 

872 Bridge Creek 12 chlorophyll a, 12 DO, 12 fecal 

coliforms, 12 fluoride, 12 turbidity 

935 Unnamed stream 4 conductance, 10 total nitrogen, 10 

total phosphorus, 4 DO, 4 fecal coliforms, 

4 total coliforms, 4 turbidity 

945 Tarkiln Bayou 12 chlorophyll a, 12 DO, 12 fecal coliforms, 

12 total coliforms, 12 turbidity 

1 SCI, 12 conductance, 

12 DO, 

22 DO, 4 fecal coliforms, 

4 total coliforms 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf 20 conductance 

462A Perdido River 5 fecal coliforms, 12 chlorophyll a, 12 

nitrogen, 12 phosphorus 

462B Perdido River 12 chlorophyll a 5 conductance 

Samples needed 

to Identify/Verify 

Causative Pollutant(s) 

12 BOD 

22 BOD 

10 BOD


95 


WBID 


Monitoring and Data Evaluation Objectives To Address Planning List Waterbody Segments 

Samples needed to verify Potential 

Impairment (parameters exceeding 

Planning List evaluation criteria [3c] 

and/or included on the 1998 303[d] list) 

462C Perdido River 12 chlorophyll a, 2 conductance, 10 

DO, 12 fecal coliforms 

489A Tenmile Creek 11 total coliforms, 11 fecal coliforms, 

1 SCI, 12 chlorophyll a 



SCI = Stream Condition Index 


Samples needed to confirm 

Impairment ( parameters 

exceeding Verified List 

evaluation criteria [3d]) 

Samples needed 

to Identify/Verify 

Causative Pollutant(s) 

Phase 2 Assessment: Data Collection and 

Database Management Leading to the 

Development of the 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters 

The Department has been working to update the database that will be 

used in the Phase 2 assessment, collecting its own data as well as working 

with the other key data providers to obtain the most current and comprehensive 

water quality data. The data to be used in evaluating waterbodies 

to be included on the Verified List include the following: 

• Existing data in the database that were not collected during the 

Planning List period of record, 

• Existing data that had not been imported into the IWR Database at 

the time of the Planning List evaluation, and 

• Monitoring data that had not been collected or reported. 

The database now includes monitoring data collected before and after 

the Planning List period of record that were not evaluated for the Planning 

List. The 10-year period of record for the data used to produce the 

Planning List for the Perdido River and Bay Basin extends from January 1, 

1994, to December 31, 2003. The 7.5-year period of record for the Verified 

List evaluation, from January 1, 1999, to June 30, 2006, will capture more 

recent data. 

The IWR contains data that were uploaded since the Planning List 

evaluation was conducted. Over the past year, the Department has provided 

support to organizations that are interested in uploading their water 

quality data to the national STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database. 

Data uploaded since the Planning List evaluation will be included in the 

database. 

Based on preliminary data reviewed for the production of this Water 

Quality Status Report, the Department developed a plan to address


potential data gaps. The Water Quality Section of the Department’s 

Northwest District began a strategic monitoring program in 2005 to 

address TMDL Program data needs. The focus of this program is to 

collect additional data to verify conditions in many of the potentially 

impaired waterbody segments. 

Verified List Development and Public 

Comment 

The Verified List of impaired waters for the Perdido River and Bay 

Basin will be produced by the Department in summer 2006, and will be 

adopted by the Secretary of the Department and submitted to the EPA 

later that year. Prior to the Secretary’s action, the Department will distribute 

the draft Verified List to the public. As part of the review process, 

public workshops will be advertised and held in each basin to help explain 

the process for developing the Verified List, exchange information, and 

encourage public involvement. 

If additional information or data is provided during the public comment 

period or before, the Department will consider it before submitting 

the proposed list to the Secretary and EPA.


97 

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. Edited by Dr. Bill Deutsch. 

Alabama Water Watch Coastal Series. 

Bass, G., T. Hoehn, J. Couch, and K. Mcdonald. November 16, 2004. 

Florida Imperiled Fish Species Investigation. Final Report to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 

Blackwater Fisheries Research and Development Center, Holt, FL. 

Brim, M. 1993. Toxics Characterization Report for Perdido Bay, Alabama, 

and Florida. Publication Number PCFO-EC-93-04. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office, Panama City, FL. 

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, FL: 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. Office of Environmental 

Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 

Tallahassee, FL. 

Escambia County. January 17, 2006. History of Escambia County’s Local 

Option Sales Tax. Available: http://www.co.escambia.fl.us/ 

departments/public_info_commun/documents/Timeline_000.pdf. 

Escambia County Engineering Department Web Site. Available: 

http://www.co.escambia.fl.us/departments/engineering/NPDES4.php. 

Federal Clean Water Act. Section 303(d). 

Fernald, E. A., and E. D. Purdum, Eds. 1998. Water Resources Atlas of 

Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Institute of Science and Public Affairs, 

Florida State University. 

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-302. Surface Water Quality 

Standards. 

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-303. Identifi cation of Impaired 

Waters Rule. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. January 5, 2006a. 

Available: http://www.floridadep.com/waste/quick_topics/ 

publications/wc/sites/summary/082.pdf. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of 

Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. January 5, 2006b. 



Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management.


Florida Department of Environmental Protection. January 23, 2006c. 



Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management: 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. January 5, 2006(d). 



Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. November 12, 2003. 

Perdido Pitcher Plant Prairie Parcel Acquired. Press Release. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. “Lower Perdido 

River Buffer” pp. 293–295. The 2005 Interim Report of the Florida 

Forever Program is prepared for the Board of Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. Division of State 

Lands. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. June 6, 2005. Impaired 

Waters Rule Database Run 19.1. 

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, FL: Bureau of Watershed 

Management, Division of Water Resource Management. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. December 2001b. 

Seagrass Management Plan for Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound. 

Ecosystem Restoration Section, Northwest District. 

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 Environmental Protection. April 12, 2005. Intent 

to Issue Permit noticed by Northwest District. 

Florida Department of Health. 2005. Your Guide to Eating Fish Caught in 

Florida. Prepared in cooperation with 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, 2005b. Florida Forever 

Board of Trustees Projects GIS Layer. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. December 2005a. 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. 

GECI and Associates, Inc. Survey conducted between October 22 and 

December 15, 2004. Final Report Public Involvement Study of North ½ 

Southwest Side Drainage Basin Study. Prepared for Escambia County 

Engineering Department.


99 

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. 


20, 2006b. Marine Turtles. Available: http://www.nps.gov/guis/ 

extended/FLA/Nature/Turtle.htm. 


20, 2006c. Other Beach and Dune Dwellers. 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. U.S. Geological Survey and The Gulf of Mexico 

Program. Publication Number 855-R-04-001. 

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, FL: 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, FL. 

Hatch Mott MacDonald. January 2004. LOST—Funding for Stormwater 

Management Flooding and Water Quality Enhancement Program 

Escambia County, Florida. Prepared for Escambia County Engineering 

Department, FL. 

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 Geology of Florida (A. F. 

Randazzo and D. S. Jones, Eds.). Tallahassee, FL: University Press 

of Florida.

100 


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 Ecosystems of 

Florida, edited by R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel, 398-401. Orlando: 

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, FL: 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, 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, FL: 

Northwest Florida Water Management District. 

Pratt, T., C. Richards, and K. Milla. 1997. Wellhead Protection Area 

Delineation in Southern Escambia County, Florida. Water Resources 

Special Report 97-4. Havana, FL: 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, FL. 

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 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. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. Tallahassee, FL.


101 

Timber Mart-South Market Newsletter. 4th Quarter 2003. “Timberland 

Transactions.” Volume 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. 

U.S. Geological Survey Web Site: Calendar Year Streamflow Statistics for 

Alabama. Available: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/al/nwis/annual/ 

calendar_year. 

U.S. Geological Survey. January 10, 2006. Available: http://waterdata 

.usgs.gov/al/nwis. USGS Water Resources of Alabama. 

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 

Guide to Protecting the Watershed.

Water Quality Status Report 2006 

Perdido River and Bay Appendices 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed Management 

Approach and the Implementation of TMDLs ...................................................................... 105 

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and TMDLs .....................................................105 

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule........................................107 

Implementing TMDLs ..............................................................................................................................109 

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

District Office...................................................................................................................111 

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation..........................111 

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts ...............................112 

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs ................................113 

Appendix B: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based on the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule................................................................................................................. 116 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule...........................................................................................................116 

Attainment of Designated Use(s)..............................................................................................................116 

Table B.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida...........................117 

Sources of Data.........................................................................................................................................117 

Table B.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle .118 

Methodology.............................................................................................................................................118 

Appendix C: Supplementary Ecological Information for the Perdido River and 

Bay Basin ................................................................................................................................... 124 

Table C.1: Types of Natural Communities ........................................................................................124 

Table C.2: Rare and Imperiled Animal Species in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit..........................126 

Table C.3: Rare and Imperiled Plant Species in the Perdido Bay Planning Unit.............................127 

Table C.4: Rare and Imperiled Plants and Animals in the Perdido River Planning Unit.................128 

Appendix D: Bioassessment Methodology............................................................................. 129 

Methodology.............................................................................................................................................129 

Metric Definitions.....................................................................................................................................130 

References.................................................................................................................................................131 

Table D.1: Stream Condition Index (SCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet.................................132 

Table D.2: Lake Condition Index (LCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet for Clear Florida 

Lakes.................................................................................................................................133 

Appendix E: Permitted Discharge Facilities and Landfills in the Perdido River and 

Bay Basin ................................................................................................................................... 134 

Table E.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, by 

Planning Unit. ..................................................................................................................134 

Table E.2: Permitted Landfill Facilities............................................................................................135


Appendix F: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Perdido River and Bay 

Basin by Parameter and Monitoring Stations........................................................................ 137 

Table F.1: Integrated Assessment (Master List)................................................................................137 

Table F.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations, by Planning Unit ....................................................150 

Appendix G: 2000 Land Use by Planning Unit..................................................................... 156 

Table G.1: Land Use for the Perdido River Planning Unit...............................................................156 

Table G2: Detailed Land Use Analysis for the Perdido River Planning Unit....................................157 

Table G.3: Land Use for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit .................................................................159 

Table G4: Detailed Land Use Analysis for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit ......................................159 

Appendix H: Statistical Summary Sheets for Ground Water Evaluations........................ 161

Water Quality Status Report: Perdido River and Bay 105 

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the 

Watershed Management Approach and the Implementation of TMDLs 

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and TMDLs 

Clean Water Act 

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 with the goal of restoring and maintaining 

the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a]). 

The ultimate goal of the act is to eliminate the “discharge of [all] pollutants into navigable 

waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]). 

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially to the EPA on 

their water quality. The 305(b) report provides information on the physical, chemical, 

biological, and cultural features of each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a 

common factual basis for identifying information sources and major issues, and for determining 

the future changes, strategies, and actions needed to preserve, protect, and/or restore water 

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

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

are most impaired or vulnerable to contamination. 

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

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

loads (TMDLs) for each of these waters on a schedule. A pollution limit is then allocated to 

each pollutant source in an individual river basin. 

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

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

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

designated use is defined as impaired. 

NOTEWORTHY: FLORIDA’S SURFACE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS 

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

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

(Subsection 403.061[10], F.S.). Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specific 

parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain these uses for surface water and ground 

water. Florida’s surface water is protected for five designated use classifications, as follows: 

Class I 

Class II 

Class III 

Class IV 

Class V 

Potable water supplies 

Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population 

of fish and wildlife 

Agricultural water supplies 

Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this 

class)


Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

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

TMDL Program. The Consent Decree resulting from the lawsuit requires all TMDLs on the 

state’s 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed in thirteen years. If the state 

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

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

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

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

Department’s statutory authority to establish TMDLs, required the Department to develop a 

methodology for identifying impaired waters, specified that the Department could develop 

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

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

Committee to address the allocation process for TMDLs. The act also declared Lake 

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

develop a TMDL for the lake (see Noteworthy for a description of the legislation’s major 

provisions). 

NOTEWORTHY: THE FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACT 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act contains the following major provisions: 

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

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

impaired waters) by rule. 

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

Department must also evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs are sufficient to meet 

water quality standards, list the specific pollutant(s) and concentration(s) causing impairment, and 

adopt the basin-specific 303(d) list by Secretarial Order. 

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

Department to establish “reasonable and equitable” allocations of TMDLs, but does not mandate how 

allocations will be made among individual sources. 

• Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing treatment levels and management practices; the 

differing impacts that pollutant sources may have; the availability of treatment technologies, best 

management practices (BMPs), or other pollutant reduction measures; the feasibility, costs, and 

benefits of achieving the allocation; reasonable time frames for implementation; the potential 

applicability of moderating provisions; and the extent that nonattainment is caused by pollutants from 

outside Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alteration to a waterbody. 

• Required a report to the legislature by February 2001 addressing the allocation process.


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

management districts, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), 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 DACS to develop interim measures and BMPs to address nonpoint 

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

programs. If they are adopted by rule and the Department verifies their effectiveness, then 

implementation will provide a presumption of compliance with water quality standards. 

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

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

recommendations for statutory changes. 

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

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

describe impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not meet 

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

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

Noteworthy for explanations of these terms). 

The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.) was 

developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory Committee and adopted by the Florida 

Environmental Regulation Commission on April 26, 2001. It provides a science-based 

methodology for evaluating water quality data in order to identify impaired waters, and it 

establishes specific criteria for impairment based on chemical parameters, the interpretation of 

narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption advisories, and ecological 

impairment. The complete text of the rule is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/ 

docs/AmendedIWR.pdf. 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule also establishes thresholds for data sufficiency and data 

quality, including the minimum sample size required and the number of exceedances of the 

applicable water quality standard for a given sample size that identify a waterbody as impaired. 

The number of exceedances is based on a statistical approach designed to provide greater 

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

identified as impaired through the Impaired Surface Waters Rule are prioritized for 

TMDL development and implementation. 

NOTEWORTHY: EXPLANATION OF TERMS 

• Designated uses, discussed in an earlier sidebar, comprise the five classifications applied to each of 

the state’s surface waterbodies. 

• Water quality criteria comprise numeric or narrative limits of pollutants.


• The Florida Antidegradation Policy (Sections 62-302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C.) recognizes that 

pollution that causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to the continuation 

of existing violations is harmful to the waters of the state. Under this policy, the permitting of new or 

previously unpermitted existing discharges is prohibited where the discharge is expected to reduce 

the quality of a receiving water below the classification established for it. Any lowering of water 

quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to surface waters must be in the public interest (that 

is, the benefits of the discharge to public health, safety, and welfare must outweigh any adverse 

impacts on fish and wildlife or recreation). Further, the permittee must demonstrate that other 

disposal alternatives (for example, reuse) or pollution prevention are not economically and 

technologically reasonable alternatives to the surface water discharge. 

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

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

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

exemptions, and variances. These provisions are intended to moderate the applicability of water 

quality standards where it has been determined that, under certain special circumstances, the social, 

economic, and environmental costs of such applicability outweigh the benefits. 

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

river basin the Department evaluates the existing water quality data, using the methodology 

prescribed in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule, to determine whether waters are potentially 

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

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

F.S., the Planning List is not used to administer or implement any regulatory program. It is 

submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only. 

The second step is to assess waters on the Planning List under Subsection 403.067(3), F.S., 

as part of the Department’s watershed management approach (described in the following 

section). The Department carries out additional data gathering and strategic monitoring, 

focusing on these potentially impaired waters, and determines—using the methodology in Part 

III, Section 62-303.400, F.A.C.—if a waterbody is, in fact, impaired and if the impairment is 

caused by pollutant discharges. 

An Assessment Report is produced containing the results of this updated evaluation and a 

Verified List of impaired waters. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those 

for the Planning List. The Department is required to develop TMDLs for waters on the Verified 

List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A watershed management plan (called a Basin 

Management Action Plan) to reduce the amount of pollutants that cause impairments must also 

be produced and implemented. 

The Verified List is adopted by Secretarial Order in accordance with the Florida Watershed 

Restoration Act. Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA for approval as the state’s 

Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin.


Implementing TMDLs 

The Watershed Management Approach 

The Department's statewide approach to water resource management, called the watershed 

management approach, is the framework for implementing TMDLs as required by the federal 

and state governments. The approach does not focus on individual causes of pollution. Instead, 

each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic resources are evaluated from a 

basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative effects of human activities. Water resources 

are managed on the basis of natural boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or 

regulatory boundaries. Federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds 

not meeting clean water or other natural resource goals and work cooperatively to focus 

resources and implement effective strategies to restore water quality. Extensive public 

participation in the decision-making process is crucial. 

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

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

to improve the health of surface water and ground water resources by strengthening coordination 

among such activities as monitoring, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, wetland 

restoration, land acquisition, and public involvement. 

By promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the cumulative 

effects of human activities on a watershed basis, this approach is intended to protect and enhance 

the ecological structure, function, and integrity of Florida’s watersheds. It provides a framework 

for setting priorities and focusing the Department’s resources on protecting and restoring water 

quality, and aims to increase cooperation among state, regional, local, and federal interests. By 

emphasizing public involvement, the approach encourages stewardship by all Floridians to 

preserve water resources for future generations. 

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

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

agreements, and funding multiagency projects. It avoids duplication by building on existing 

assessments and restoration activities and promotes cooperative monitoring programs. It 

encourages accountability for achieving water quality improvements through improved 

monitoring and the establishment of TMDLs. 

The Watershed Management Cycle 

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

and the corresponding pollutant loadings allocated, as part of a watershed management cycle that 

rotates through the state’s fifty-two river basins over a nine-year period. The cycle’s five phases 

are as follows: 

• Phase 1: Preliminary Watershed Evaluation. For each river basin, a Basin Status 

Report is developed, containing a Planning List of potentially impaired waters that may 

require the establishment of TMDLs. The report characterizes each basin’s hydrologic, 

ecological, and socioeconomic setting as well as historical, current, and proposed 

watershed management issues and activities. It also contains a preliminary evaluation of


major water quality parameters, water quality issues by planning unit, ecological 

resources, and basinwide pollutant loading trends related to land uses. At the end of 

Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is developed. 

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

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

potentially impaired waters in each basin are impaired and to calibrate and verify models 

for TMDL development. At the end of Phase 2, an Assessment Report is produced for 

each basin that contains a Verified List of impaired waters. The report also provides an 

updated and more thorough evaluation of water quality, associated biological resources, 

and current management plans. The Department will adopt the Verified List through a 

Secretarial Order and submit it to the EPA as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired 

waters. 

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

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

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

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

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

• Phase 4: Development of a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP). A BMAP will 

be developed for each basin to specify how pollutant loadings from point and nonpoint 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evaluating the implementation of the plan. 

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

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

basin each year. Table A.1 shows the basin groups for implementing the cycle in the 

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

Table A.2, which lists the basin rotation schedule for TMDL development and implementation, 

shows that it will take nine years to complete one full cycle of the state. 

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

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

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

targeted at evaluating whether water quality objectives are being met and whether individual 

waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the implementation of scheduled 

restoration activities, whether required or voluntary, to ensure continued progress towards 

meeting the TMDLs.


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

District 

Group 1 

Group 2 

Group 3 

Group 4 

Group 5 

Basins 

Basins 

Basins 

Basins 

Basins 

Northwest 

Choctawhatchee 

Ochlockonee–- Apalachicola– 

Perdido River and 

River and Bay and Pensacola Bay 

St. Marks Rivers Chipola Rivers 


St. Andrews Bay 

Northeast 

Central 

Southwest 

South 

Southeast 

Suwannee River 

Ocklawaha River 

Tampa Bay 

Everglades West 

Coast 

Lake Okeechobee 

Lower St. Johns 


Middle St. Johns 


Tampa Bay 

Tributaries 

Charlotte Harbor 

St.Lucie– 

Loxahatchee 

Rivers 

Upper St. Johns 


Sarasota Bay and 

Peace–Myakka 


Caloosahatchee 


Lake Worth 

Lagoon/Palm 

Beach Coast 

St. Marys–Nassau 


Kissimmee River 

Withlacoochee 


Fisheating Creek 

Southeast Urban 

Coast 

Northeast Coast 

Lagoons 

Indian River 

Lagoon 

Springs Coast 

Florida Keys 

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 PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE 

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 

Group 2 

PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE 

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

Group 3 

PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE 

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 

Group 4 

PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE 

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 

Group 5 

PHASE 

1 

PHASE 

2 

PHASE 

3 

PHASE 

4 

PHASE 

5 

PHASE 

1 

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

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

development, legal challenges, etc.


Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts


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 

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs 

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual 

homeowners 

Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment 

facilities, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitted facilities 

Farming and silviculture operations 

Federal, regional, state agencies; regional and 

local water quality coalitions 

Actions To Achieve TMDL 

Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through 

stormwater retrofits, replacement of septic tanks 

Improve development design and construction, 

enhance best management practices, replace septic 

tanks 

Reduce pollutant loadings from permitted 

discharges 

Reduce and treat runoff through best management 

practices 

Carry out waterbody restoration projects 

Permitting and Other Approaches 

NPDES PERMITS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”


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 Basin that require the phosphorus loading from new development not to 

exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading. 

LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES 

Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of 

load reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) 

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

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

practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollutant discharges and improving water 

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

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

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

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

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

slope, depth to groundwater, and the designation of receiving waters.


The passage of the Florida Watershed Restoration Act increased the emphasis on 

implementing BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollutant discharges from agricultural 

operations. Recognizing that the development and adoption of BMPs might take several 

years, the legislature authorized the use of Interim Measures (IMs) during the BMP 

development process for agricultural operations. In essence, IMs are a set of logical 

conservation practices designed to reduce agricultural nonpoint pollutant discharges 

based on current knowledge and best professional judgment. These practices will evolve 

into more formal BMPs as better scientific data on their effectiveness is obtained. 

Once the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services adopts BMPs, 

the Department is charged with verifying their effectiveness in reducing agricultural 

nonpoint sources. Once verified, agricultural operations that have implemented BMPs 

will receive a waiver of liability and presumption of compliance similar to that granted a 

developer who obtains an Environmental Resource Permit. 

OTHER STRATEGIES 

The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources of Information 

For additional information on the Department’s Watershed Management Program 

and TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators: 

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

• Southeast Florida and Ochlockonee-St. Marks Basins, Kevin O’Donnell (850) 

245-7607 

• Northwest and Central Florida, Mary Paulic, (850) 245-8560 

• Northeast Florida and Suwannee Basin, Jennifer Gihring (850) 245-8418 

• West Central Florida and Tampa Bay Region, Tom Singleton (850) 245-8561 

For information on establishing and implementing TMDLs, contact Jan Mandrup- 

Poulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional information is available on the Department’s Web 

site at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm.


Appendix B: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

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

evaluates water quality data using the science-based methodology in the Identification of 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). The rule establishes specific 

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

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

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

is correct. The complete text of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule is available at 

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

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

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

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

and (3), F.S. The methodology for developing the Planning List includes an evaluation 

of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use support, fish and 

shellfish consumption use support, drinking water use support, and protection of human 

health. Data older than ten years cannot be used to evaluate water quality criteria 

exceedances for the Planning List. As required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the 

Planning List will not be used to administer or implement any regulatory program, and is 

submitted to the EPA for informational purposes only. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attainment of Designated Use(s) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

processes for listing impaired waters that are defined in Florida’s Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule are based on the following designated use attainment categories:







Table B.1 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various surface 

water classifications. 

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

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in Applicable Florida Surface Water Classification 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule Evaluation 






Class II 


Class I 



Sources of Data 

The Department’s assessment of water quality for each basin statewide includes an 

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

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

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

Department, the Florida Department of Health (DOH), the water management districts, 

local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. 

Historically, the Department carried out statewide water quality assessments using 

data available in the EPA’s Legacy STORET Database; STORET makes up 

approximately 60 percent of the statewide data used in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

assessment. The Legacy STORET Database is a repository of data collected and 

uploaded by numerous organizations through 1999. The Legacy STORET Database can 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

only about 5 percent of the statewide Impaired Surface Waters Rule Database. 

Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the assessment under the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule was provided by individual organizations that for various reasons, 

such as time constraints or resource limitations, were not able to enter their data into the 

national database. The organizations providing the largest datasets include the South 

Florida, Southwest Florida, and St. Johns River Water Management Districts; the USGS; 

and the University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring group. Several of these


databases are readily available to the public via the Internet: the South Florida Water 

Management District at http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/, the USGS at 

http://water.usgs.gov/, and LakeWatch at http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/. 

The Department created the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Database in 2002 to 

evaluate data simultaneously in accordance with the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

methodology for every basin in the state, based on the appropriate data “window.” For 

the Verified List assessment, the window is 7.5 years (for the Impaired Surface Waters 

Rule Database), and the Planning List assessment window is 10 years. Table B.2 shows 

the periods of record for the Verified and Planning Lists for the five basin groups. 

The evaluation of water quality in the state’s basins also includes some qualitative 

information. These sources are described in the Basin Status Reports and Assessment 

Reports for each basin. 

Table B.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle 

Basin Group Reporting 

Period of Data Record Used in Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule Evaluation 

Group 1 Planning List January 1, 1989 – December 31, 1998 

Verified List January 1, 1995 – June 30, 2002 









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, and drinking water use and protection of human health. 

Aquatic Life Based Attainment 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule follows the principle of independent applicability. 

A waterbody is listed for potential impairment of aquatic life use support based on 

exceedances of any one of four types of water quality indicators (numeric water quality 

criteria, nutrient thresholds, biological thresholds, and toxicity data).


EXCEEDANCES OF NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 

The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for 

preparing the state’s 2000 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations 

were included in the assessment of impairment. Water quality information from point 

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

waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or blackwater—based on criteria 

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

Metals 

Nutrients 

Conventionals 

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

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

thallium, and zinc 

Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State 

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

phosphorus) for lakes 

Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms, total coliforms, 

pH, un-ionized ammonia 

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

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

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

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

at least 20 samples from the last five years preceding the Planning List assessment. For 

most parameters, an exceedance is recorded any time the measured value is higher than 

the applicable water quality criterion by any amount. However, for the DO criterion, 

which is expressed as a minimum numeric value, an "exceedance" is recorded whenever 

the measured value is lower than the applicable DO criterion. 

To determine if a water should be placed on the Planning List for each parameter, the 

chemical data were analyzed using a computer program written to assess the data, based 

on criteria established in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule, with two exceptions. First, 

un-ionized ammonia data were not analyzed by the program, but rather with an Excel 

spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criterion could not be 

programmed, the incomplete listings for pH are not included. They will be further 

examined while additional data are collected during Phase 2 of the watershed 

management cycle. Data analysis and statistical summaries of WBIDs, waterbody types, 

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

statistical software, and ArcView GIS applications. 

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

surface water quality criteria in Section 62-302.530, F.A.C. (Identification of Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule). The rule contains a table of sample numbers versus exceedances. 

A waterbody was placed on the Planning List if there was at least 80 percent confidence 

that the actual criteria exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10 percent. To be 

placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 percent confidence rate was required.


EXCEEDANCES OF NUTRIENT THRESHOLDS 

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

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

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

populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The Impaired Surface Waters Rule provides an 

interpretation of the narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the Trophic State Index (TSI) 

and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whether a 

waterbody should be assessed further for nutrient impairment. 

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

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

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

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

oxygen swings. 

Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual mean chlorophyll 

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

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

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

evaluation of nutrient impairments. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

years. 

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

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

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

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

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

than historical values. 

EXCEEDANCES OF BIOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS 

Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and rivers using the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule as guidance and following the Department’s standard 

operating procedures, which provide definitions and specific methods for the generation 

and analysis of bioassessment data. These are referenced in the individual bioassessment 

data tables contained in the Basin Status Reports. The purpose behind using a 

bioassessment methodology in surface water characterizations is that biological 

components of the environment manifest long-term water quality conditions and thus 

provide a better indication of a waterbody’s true health than discrete chemical or physical 

measurements alone. Similar to water quality criteria, bioassessment methods involve 

the identification of a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpaired or 

least impacted waters in a given region.


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

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

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

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

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

metrics to evaluate their biological integrity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

crayfish, snails, and mussels). 

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

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

designated as test and background sites for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the bioassessment standard operating procedures referenced in the Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule (Section 62-303.330, F.A.C.). 

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

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

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

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

although conditions can vary in the state as a whole. 

LAKE CONDITION INDEX 

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

percent Diptera, was performed according to the following formula: 

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

value


For percent Diptera, the following formula was used: 

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 platinum cobalt units [PCUs]). 

As macroinvertebrate-based indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in 

Florida accurately (> 20 PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A poor 

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

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

STREAM CONDITION INDEX 

A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of 

the seven metrics in the method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to 

the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent Chironomid 

taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and Florida Index. A 

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

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. The Basin Status Reports contain definitions and 

specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. 

BIORECON 

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used: 

the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three 

metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY STANDARD 

Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester-Dendy artificial substrate 

samplers, were used to calculate Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index scores for paired 

background and test sites, as specified in the Biological Integrity Standard, Subsection 

62-302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the standard meant that a waterbody segment was 

listed as potentially impaired. 

EVALUATION OF TOXICITY DATA 

Although the Impaired Surface Waters Rule describes the use of toxicity data for the 

assessment of aquatic life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity data are available for 

assessment and this metric was not used.



For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if the following 

criteria were met: 

• The waterbody segment did not meet the applicable water quality criteria for 

bacteriological quality, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed by a local health 

department or county government for more than one week or more than once 

during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area for which a local health 

department or county government issued closures, advisories, or warnings totaling 

twenty-one days or more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed or had advisories 

or warnings for more than twelve weeks during a calendar year based on previous 

bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria levels and 

rainfall or flow. 


For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet 

the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, or if a fish 

consumption advisory had been issued. Fish consumption advisories were based on the 

Florida Department of Health’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories 

for surface waters because of high levels of mercury in fish tissue. In addition, for Class 

II waters, waterbody segments that had been approved for shellfish harvesting but were 

downgraded to a more restrictive classification were listed as potentially impaired. 

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health 

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the 

applicable Class I water quality criteria.


Appendix C: Supplementary Ecological Information for the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

Table C.1: Types of Natural Communities 

Community Type Description of Community Acreage Square 

Miles 

Coastal Strand Coastal strand community occurs on well-drained sandy soils and typically includes the zoned vegetation 379.2 0.6 

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

and is strongly affected by wind, waves, and salt spray. Vegetation typically consists of low growing 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. Areas constantly affected by waves and tidal actions and dune 1146.2 1.8 

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 147.45 0.23 

areas of sand. 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 281.8 0.44 

shorelines and islands of ancient seas. 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. Community is dominated by an overstory of long leaf 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. 

93.85 0.15 

mixed hardwoodpine 

forest 

hardwood hammock 

and forests 

pinelands 

Upland forest that contain a mixture of conifers and hardwoods as co-dominant 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. 

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. 

This category includes both pine flatwoods and pine plantations. Pine flatwood 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 is another pineland type that is found on drier ridges 

and on or near old coastal dunes. 

12,801 20 

5,911.9 9.2 

87154.5 136.2


Community Type Description of Community Acreage Square 

Miles 

freshwater marsh Wetland communities dominated by herbaceous plants growing on a variety of substrates in areas of 1,105.1 1.7 

and wet prairie 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. 133.9 .21 

They are usually characteristic of wetland areas that are experiencing environmental change and are early 

to mid-successional 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 5,968.4 9.3 

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 709.4 1.1 

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 achieve dominance. 14,213.2 22.2 

hardwood swamp Wooded wetland communities composed of either pure stands of hardwoods or occur as a mixture of 14,046.8 21.95 

hardwood and cypress where hardwoods achieve dominance. Occur on organic soils and form the 

forested floodplain of non-alluvial 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 267.1 0.4 

be found interspersed within mangrove communities or as transition zones between freshwater marshes 

and mangroves. Plant composition and distribution is largely dependent on the degree of tidal inundation. 

open water Freshwater lakes and streams and estuarine and coastal marine waters. 36,795.1 57.5 

shrub and brushland Areas where natural upland communities have recently been disturbed through clear-cutting on 

8,147.8 12.7 

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, broom 

sedge together with hardwood and pine seedlings or saplings. 

bare soil/clearcut Areas of bare soil representing recent timber cutting, fire, natural areas of exposed soil, or soil exposure 3,337.0 5.2 

from clearing for unknown reasons. 

Information Source: Terry Gilbert and Beth Stys, March 17, 2004. Descriptions of Vegetation and Land Cover Types Mapped Using Landsat Imagery. Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.


Table C.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 T(S/A) LS 

ARDEA ALBA GREAT EGRET G5 S4 N N 

CHARADRIUS ALEXANDRINUS SNOWY PLOVER G4 S2 (PS) LT 

FUNDULUS JENKINSI SALTMARSH TOPMINNOW G2 S2 C LS 

MACROCLEMYS TEMMINCKII ALLIGATOR SNAPPING G3G4 S3 N LS 

TURTLE 

NERODIA CLARKII CLARKII GULF SALT MARSH SNAKE G4T3 S3 N N 

RALLUS LONGIROSTRIS FLORIDA CLAPPER RAIL G5T3 S3 N N 

SCOTTII 

RYNCHOPS NIGER BLACK SKIMMER G5 S3 N LS 

STERNA ANTILLARUM LEAST TERN G4 S3 (PS) LT 

STERNA MAXIMA ROYAL TERN G5 S3 N N 

STERNA SANDVICENSIS SANDWICH TERN G5 S2 N N 

CHARADRIUS MELODUS PIPING PLOVER G3 S2 (LE-LT) LT 

PANDION HALIAETUS OSPREY G5 S3S4 N LS* 

ALLIGATOR MISSISSIPPIENSIS AMERICAN ALLIGATOR G5 S4 T(S/A) LS 

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 

GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS GOPHER TORTOISE G3 S3 (PS) LS 

MACROCLEMYS TEMMINCKII ALLIGATOR SNAPPING G3G4 S3 N LS 

TURTLE 

NERODIA CLARKII CLARKII GULF SALT MARSH SNAKE G4T3 S3 N N 

PANDION HALIAETUS OSPREY G5 S3S4 N LS* 

PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTUS 

TRISSYLLEPSIS 

PERDIDO KEY BEACH 

MOUSE 

G5T1 S1 LE LE 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle G3 S3 Lt LT 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle G3 S2 LE/LT LE 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle G1 S1 LE LE 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle G2 S2 LE LE


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


Rank 

State 

Rank 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

XYRIS SCABRIFOLIA 

HARPER'S YELLOW-EYED G3 S3 N LT 

GRASS 

AGRIMONIA INCISA INCISED GROOVE-BUR G3 S2 N LE 

DROSERA INTERMEDIA SPOON-LEAVED SUNDEW G5 S3 N LT 

LACHNOCAULON DIGYNUM BOG BUTTON G3 S2 N LT 

LILAEOPSIS CAROLINENSIS CAROLINA LILAEOPSIS G3 S3 N N 

CHRYSOPSIS GODFREYI GODFREY'S GOLDEN G2 S2 N LE 

ASTER 


LILAEOPSIS CAROLINENSIS CAROLINA LILAEOPSIS G3 S3 N N 

POLYGONELLA 

LARGE-LEAVED 

G2 S2 N LT 

MACROPHYLLA 

JOINTWEED 

SARRACENIA LEUCOPHYLLA WHITE-TOP 

G3 S3 N LE 

PITCHERPLANT 

SARRACENIA RUBRA SWEET PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 (PS) LT 

CALYCANTHUS FLORIDUS SWEET-SHRUB G5 S2 N LE 

CHRYSOPSIS GODFREYI GODFREY'S GOLDEN G2 S2 N LE 

ASTER 


PINGUICULA PRIMULIFLORA PRIMROSE-FLOWERED G3G4 S3 N LE 

BUTTERWORT 

PLATANTHERA NIVEA SNOWY ORCHID G5 S3S4 N LT 

POLYGONELLA 

LARGE-LEAVED 

G2 S2 N LT 

MACROPHYLLA 

JOINTWEED 

RHYNCHOSPORA 

NARROW-LEAVED 

G4 S2S3 N LT 

STENOPHYLLA 

BEAKRUSH 

XYRIS DRUMMONDII 

DRUMMOND'S YELLOW- 

EYED GRASS 

G3 S3 N N


Table C.4: Rare and Imperiled Plants and Animals in the Perdido River Planning Unit 


Rank 

State 

Rank 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status 

CROTALUS ADAMANTEUS EASTERN DIAMONDBACK G4 S3 N N 

RATTLESNAKE 

DRYMARCHON CORAIS 

EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE G4T3 S3 LT LT 

COUPERI 

LACHNOCAULON DIGYNUM BOG BUTTON G3 S2 N LT 

XYRIS LOUISIANICA KRAL'S YELLOW-EYED GRASS G3 S1 N LE 

SARRACENIA LEUCOPHYLLA WHITE-TOP PITCHERPLANT G3 S3 N LE 

STEWARTIA MALACODENDRON SILKY CAMELLIA G4 S3 N LE 

Notes for Tables C.2, C.3, and C4: 

Global Rank /StateRank 

G1/S1:Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 

individuals or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction 

G2/S2: Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less thann 3000 individuals) or 

because of vulnerability to extinction 

G3/S3: Either very rare and local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences or less 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. 

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 same ranking 

in scarcity. 

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 

State Status: 

N: Not listed 

LT: Threatened 

LE: Endangered 

LS*: Listed for part of the specie’s range in Florida Department of Environmental Protection


Methodology 

Appendix D: Bioassessment Methodology 

An increasingly accepted tool for evaluating the biological integrity of surface water 

is bioassessment. The premise behind using bioassessment methodology in surface water 

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

water quality conditions and can presumably give a better indication of the true health of 

the waters involved than discrete chemical or physical measurements alone. 

Similar to water quality criteria, bioassessment methods involve the identification of 

a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpaired or least impacted waters 

in a given region. The reference condition data are used to establish expected scores, 

ranging from best to worst, for various measures of community structure and function, 

such as numbers or percentages of particular species or feeding groups. Data on 

community structure and function from waters of unknown quality in the same region as 

reference waters are compared with the expected scores of metrics to evaluate their 

biological integrities. Metrics may be used independently or as an aggregated group 

called an index. Indices have advantages over individual metrics in that they can 

integrate several related metrics into one score that reflects a wider range of biological 

variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and indices exist for assessing populations 

of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms, and macroinvertebrates. 

Only macroinvertebrate data are included in the following bioassessments. Because 

site-specific habitat and physicochemical assessment information (e.g., percent suitable 

macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities, extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian 

buffer zone widths) was not available at the time of reporting, it is not included here. 

However, habitat and physicochemical assessment information is instrumental in 

pinpointing the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and should be included in future 

reporting. 

Data used in this report were obtained from the Department’s Biological Database 

(SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality Database, where it could be substantiated 

that such data were generated in compliance with the bioassessment standard operating 

procedures referenced in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Section 62-303.330, F.A.C.). 

Bioassessments are provided from streams, canals, and rivers, with data generated 

according to Department standard operating procedures FS-7420 and FS-7430 and 

analyzed according to the Stream Condition Index (SCI) for Florida (Barbour et al., 1996; 

FDEP SOP #LT-7200) and/or Subsection 62-302.530(11), F.A.C. (Biological Integrity 

Standard). Table D.1 lists the metrics used for assessment of streams. Bioassessments for 

clear lakes (< = 20 platinum cobalt units) evaluated according to Department standard 

operating procedure FS-6460 and analyzed according to the Lake Condition Index (LCI) 

for Florida (Gerritsen et al., 2000; FDEP SOP #LT-7300). Table D.2 lists the metrics 

used in the LCI. Since macroinvertebrate-based indices have not been shown to assess 

colored lakes in Florida accurately (>20 platinum cobalt units), they have been excluded 

from analysis for this report. 

Only ambient data from state surface waters were used in bioassessments, excluding 

data from effluent outfalls from discharging facilities or data from monitoring sites not


clearly established to collect ambient water quality data. Data were used from the 

databases noted above without regard to the randomness of sample site selection. For the 

purposes of this report, the seasons are defined as follows: winter (1/1-3/31), spring (4/1- 

6/30), summer (7/1-9/30), and fall (10/1-12/31). Wet seasons are generally spring and 

summer and dry seasons are fall and winter, although conditions can vary within the state 

as a whole. 

Metric Definitions 

# of Taxa—This metric is otherwise known as taxa richness. In this report, it 

indicates the total number of macroinvertebrate taxa found in a sample of stream or lake 

bottom, other in-water substrate such as fallen branches or roots, or artificial surface in 

the waterbody for invertebrate colonization. A taxon (singular) is a group of organisms 

with common traits and characteristics, such as dragonflies (taxon Odonata). As the 

environment is stressed, the number of taxa generally decreases. 

# of Chironomid Taxa—Chironomids are larval flies that are prevalent in many 

surface waters. This metric is also a measure of taxa richness. 

# of EPT or EOT Taxa—Particular organisms or groups of organisms in a given 

surface water habitat are more sensitive to changes in the environment than others, 

making them good indicators of environmental stress. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera), 

stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and dragonflies and damselflies 

(Odonata) are four such taxa. 

% Diptera—Dipterans are larval flies, many of which are tolerant of poor water 

quality conditions. This metric represents the fraction of the total number of dipteran 

organisms in a sample. A large fraction indicates an invertebrate community that is 

predominantly tolerant of low water quality. 

Florida Index—The Florida Index is a weighted measurement of the numbers of 

Class I and Class II macroinvertebrate species known in Florida. It assigns points to 

stream-dwelling macroinvertebrates based on their sensitivities to pollution. It is an 

index in itself, but the results can be incorporated into other indices as measurements of 

biological integrity. 

% Filter Feeders—Filter-feeding organisms indicate the flow regime in a 

waterbody. The larger the fraction of the total community consisting of filter feeders, the 

more likely it is that the waterbody has a good flow regime. 

% Dominant Taxon—In all waterbodies, the taxon that exists in greater number 

than all others is known as the dominant taxon. A high percentage of the dominant taxon 

in a sample indicates lower diversity and poorer water quality. 

Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index—This is a measurement of macroinvertebrate 

community health, which is specified in Rule 62-302, F.A.C. It incorporates level of taxa 

richness (how many taxa are present) within the distribution of individuals among taxa 

present (how evenly they are distributed). Like the Florida Index, it is an index in itself. 

However, the result is often included in other indices of biological integrity. Low 

diversity scores are indicative of conditions where only a few species are present to the 

exclusion of other taxa.


Hulbert Index—This index is also a weighted measurement of the numbers of Class 

A and Class B species of macroinvertebrates known in Florida lakes. It is also an index 

in itself, but the result is included in the calculation of the LCI as a separate metric value. 

References 

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerrisen, and J.S. White. 1996. Development of the Stream Condition 

Index (SCI) for Florida. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. Owings Mills, Maryland: Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Gerritsen, J., B. Jessup, E. Leppo, and J. White. 2000. Development of Lake Condition 

Indexes (LCI) for Florida. Owings Mills, Maryland: Tetra Tech, Inc.


Table D.1: Stream Condition Index (SCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet 

Summer Index Period (May-October): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI) 

Macroinvertebrate Dipnet (20 

sweeps of most productive Value Panhandle Peninsula Northeast 

substrates) 

5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 

Total Number of Taxa ≥ 31 30-16 < 16 ≥ 26 25-14 < 14 ≥ 22 21-12 < 12 

EPT Index ≥ 7 6-4 < 4 ≥ 4 3-2 < 2 --- ≥ 2 < 2 

# Chironomid Taxa ≥ 9 8-5 < 5 ≥ 7 6-4 < 4 ≥ 7 6-4 < 4 

% Contribution of Dominant 

Taxon 

≤ 22 23-61 > 61 ≤ 29 30-64 > 64 ≤ 31 32-66 > 66 

% Diptera --- ≤ 50 > 50 --- ≤ 37 > 37 --- ≤ 47 > 47 

Florida Index ≥ 16 15-8 < 8 ≥ 7 6-4 < 4 ≥ 8 7-5 < 5 

% Suspension Feeders/Filterers ≥ 12 11-6 < 6 --- ≥ 7 < 7 --- ≥ 7 < 7 

Total Score 

Evaluation Excellent 27-33 Excellent 26-31 Excellent 25-29 

Good 21-26 Good 20-25 Good 19-24 

Poor 14-20 Poor 13-19 Poor 13-18 

Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 7-12 Very Poor 7-12 

Winter Index Period (November-April): Stream Condition Index for Florida (SCI) 

Macroinvertebrate Dipnet (20 

sweeps of most productive Value Panhandle Peninsula Northeast 

substrates) 

5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 5 3 1 Score 

Total Number of Taxa ≥ 27 26-14 < 14 ≥ 27 26-14 < 14 ≥ 18 17-9 < 9 

EPT Index ≥ 6 5-3 < 3 ≥ 4 3-2 < 2 --- ≥ 3 < 3 

# Chironomid Taxa ≥ 9 8-5 < 5 ≥ 9 8-5 < 5 ≥ 4 3-2 < 2 

% Contribution of Dominant 

Taxon 

≤ 25 26-62 > 62 ≤ 30 31-65 > 65 ≤ 37 38-69 > 69 

% Diptera --- ≤ 60 > 60 --- ≤ 52 > 52 --- ≤ 67 > 67 

Florida Index ≥ 13 12-7 < 7 ≥ 10 9-5 < 5 ≥ 6 5-3 < 3 

% Suspension Feeders/Filterers ≥ 13 12-7 < 7 ≥ 15 14-8 < 8 ≥ 25 25-13 < 13 

Total Score 

Evaluation Excellent 27-33 Excellent 27-33 Excellent 26-31 

Good 21-26 Good 21-26 Good 20-25 

Poor 14-20 Poor 14-20 Poor 14-19 

Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 7-13 Very Poor 7-13


Table D.2: Lake Condition Index (LCI) Scoring and Evaluation Worksheet for Clear Florida Lakes 

(< 20 platinum cobalt units) 

Macroinvertebrate 12-benthic grab composite A B 100(B/A) 

95th Percentile 

of Reference Population 

Total Number of Taxa 30.5 

Observed 

Values 

Metric 

Score 

Total Number of EOT Taxa 5.2 

% EOT Taxa 34.4 

Shannon-Wiener Index 4.39 

Hulbert Index 17.4 

A B 100(100-B)/(100-A) 

95th Percentile 

of Reference Population 

% Dipteran Individuals 13.6 

Observed 

Values 

Metric 

Score 

Total of Metric Scores 

LCI Score (average metric score) 

Acid (pH < 6.5) Alkaline (pH > 6.5) Evaluation 

Ecoregion 65 Ecoregion 75 

> 55 > 44 > 50 Very Good 

> 35 > 30 > 35 Good 

> 18 > 15 > 18 Poor 

> 18 > 15 > 18 Very Poor


Appendix E: Permitted Discharge Facilities and Landfills in the Perdido River and Bay Basin 

Table E.1: Permitted Facilities with Discharges to Surface Water and Ground Water, by Planning Unit. Permit Numbers in bold and italic typeface are 

located within the Perdido River Planning Unit. 

Permit 

Number 

Facility Name City Where Located Facility Type STATUS NPDES 

Permit 

Faciltiy Design 

Capacity (mgd) 

FLA016856 CLARK SITE CONTRACTORS - WINGFOOT WAY PENSACOLA IW A N 0 

FLA010030 ERNEST WARD MIDDLE SCHOOL WALNUT HILL DW A N 0.0140 

FLA016534 OUTPOST EQUIPMENT RENTAL PENSACOLA IW A N 0 

FLA016675 CLARK SAND COMPANY - EAST FENCE PENSACOLA IW A N 0 

FLA183881 PENSACOLA TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT, INC CANTONMENT IW A N 0 

FLA181862 MILKAWAY DAIRY #3 WALNUT HILL AFO N N 0 

FLA016166 EVERGREEN TRANSPORTATION CANTONMENT IW A N 0 

FLG911000 HAPPY STORE #521 CANTONMENT PET A Y 0 

FL0184624 CLARK/SAND & DIRT ROLLING HILLS PIT PENSACOLA IW A Y 2.3 

FLA184551 MCDIRT INDUSTRIES PENSACOLA IW A N 0 

FLA185094 NATIONS RENT-PENSACOLA PENSACOLA IW A N 0 

FLA016808 GULF-ATLANTIC CONSTRUCTORS PENSACOLA IW A N 0 

FLA016910 GREENS FILL DIRT - BLOSSOM TRAIL MINE PENSACOLA IW X N 0 

FLA017366 ESCAMBIA COUNTY NORTH ROAD CAMP CENTURY IW A N 0 

FL0031801 BAYOU MARCUS WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PENSACOLA DW A Y 8.2 

FLA010053 COWIN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC PENSACOLA IW A N 0.0144 

FLA010055 COUCH READY MIX - PENSACOLA PENSACOLA IW N N 0.0011 

FLA010058 INNERARITY ISLAND PENSACOLA DW A N 0.09 

FLA016989 CARPENTERS CAMPERS INC PENSACOLA IW A N 0 

FLA416274 ZACHARJC SEPTAGE RECOVERY AND PROCESS CANTONMENT RES A N 0.037 

FL0002526 INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY CANTONMENT IW A Y 28 

FLR04E058 NAVAL AIR STATION PENSACOLA MS2 A Y 0


Table E.2: Permitted Landfill Facilities 

Facility ID Facility Name Address City Status Facility Type 

Number 

3029 D. H. GRIFFIN WRECKING CO. C&D IN BEULAH, ON TOWER RIDGE 

RD. 

CANTONMENT A Construction and 

Demolition Debris 

3026 HEATON BROS. CONSTR. CO. C&D 

DEBRIS 

5805 SAUFLEY FIELD RD. PENSACOLA I Construction and 


3066 SAUFLEY LF(MORTON C.A. C & C 

FACILITY) 

4512 TRICE ST MILTON A Construction and 


3351 FAIRGROUNDS PIT N OF GODWIN LN, W OF 

MOBILE HW 

PENSACOLA J Construction and 


1744 MOBILE HIGHWAY LF 3100 MOBILE HIGHWAY PENSACOLA K Class 3 Landfill 

3116 CERNY RD C&D MILFORD RD, NEAR CERNY 

BLVD 

PENSACOLA A Construction and 


3079 GULF COAST PAVING & 

GRADING,INC. #1 

7320 HAYWARD ST. PENSACOLA A Construction and 


4056 GREEN FILL DIRT NORTH WINGFOOT WAY PENSACOLA A Construction and 


3133 ROLLING HILLS RD C&D DISPOSAL 200FT SOUTH OF KEMP RD PENSACOLA A Construction and 


2984 GILLEY'S DOZER SERVICE, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 728 LILLIAN A Construction and 


3154 AUTO SHRED INDUSTRIAL 

BEDFORD AVENUE PENSACOLA K Class 3 Landfill 

LANDFILL 

3459 LANEY E. STRANGE 6640 FRANK REEDER ROAD PENSACOLA J Construction and 


3032 SURREY PIT (PANHANDLE 

GRADING & PAVING 8 MILE) 

8 MILE CREEK RD - NEAR I-10 PENSACOLA A Construction and 


3770 BANKHEAD C&D SITE BANKHEAD ROAD PENSACOLA A Construction and 


3400 COVE AVENUE C & D-RAPID 

MANAGEMENT COMPANY 

10350 COVE AVE - COVE 

AVE;+/- 1 MI N OF 9 MI RD 



3027 SAUFLEY PIT (CLARK SAND CO) E. FENCE RD.-NEXT TO 

SAUF.FLD. 



3040 GULF-ATLANTIC CONST.,INC. (H- 

WOOD) 

HOLLYWOOD @ FAIRFIELD PENSACOLA J Construction and 


3031 ESCAMBIA DISTRICT SCHOOL BD. 

C&D 

2400 LONGLEAF DR PENSACOLA J Construction and 


3060 CLARK SAND CO. 395 N EHRMANN STREET PENSACOLA K Construction and 

Demolition Debris


Facility ID Facility Name Address City Status Facility Type 

Number 

1690 KLONDIKE SLF 7219 MOBILE HWY PENSACOLA K Class 1 Landfill 

3345 UNITED SOUTHCO, INC 9235 PINE FOREST ROAD PENSACOLA J Construction and 


3005 LANGFORD & MILLS HOME 

BUILDERS,INC. 

CORNER LEPLEY & ASHLAND 

STRTS. 



3157 PANHANDLE PAVING & GRADING 

(LONG LF) 

2390 LONGLEAF DR. PENSACOLA J Construction and 


1688 PERDIDO LANDFILL BEULAH-MUSKOGEE RD MUSCOGEE A Class 1 Landfill 

3051 G.F.D. CONSTR. CO., INC. C&D 

DEBRIS 

END OF BLOSSOM TRAIL PENSACOLA K Construction and 


3028 BEDFORD PIT OFF GODWIN - N. END OF 

BEDFORD 



3030 GULF-ATLANTIC CONST. 

INC.(GODWIN) 

OFF GODWIN-E OF PINE 

FOREST RD 



1688 PERDIDO LANDFILL BEULAH-MUSKOGEE RD MUSCOGEE A Class 3 Landfill 

91106 CLARK SITE CONTRACTORS, INC. 3131 NAVY BLVD. PENSACOLA O Construction and 


3037 ENGLISH BROTHERS DEMOLITION 

C&D 

OFF OF HWY.297-A (PINE 

FOREST) 



2997 LANGFORD C & D DISPOSAL OFF OF PINE FOREST RD. 

(7500 PINE FOREST RD) 



4034 FAIRGROUNDS LAND CLEARING 

DEBRIS 

.4M W MOBILE HWY ON 

BELLVIEW A 


Demolition Debris


Appendix F: Integrated Assessment (Master List) for the Perdido River and Bay Basin by 

Parameter and Monitoring Stations 

Table F.1: Integrated Assessment (Master List) 

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody 

Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 

Included on the 

1998 303(d) List 

Parameters Identified Under 

the Impaired Waters Rule 

Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 

Proposed Integrated 

Report Category 

Description 

696 Black Lake Lake 3F N/A 3A No Data 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M Chlorophyll 2 Not Impaired 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M Conductance 3A No Data 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M Dissolved Oxygen 2 Not Impaired 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M pH 2 Not Impaired 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M Unionized Ammonia 3A No Data 

1014 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

1014 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M pH 3B Insufficient Data 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream 3F Chlorophyll 2 Not Impaired 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream 3F Conductance 3C Planning List 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 2 Not Impaired 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream 3F pH 2 Not Impaired 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream 3F Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream 3F Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

1015 Direct Runoff to Gulf Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 2 Not Impaired 

1018 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M N/A 3A No Data 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F Dissolved Solids 3A No Data



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F Fluoride 3B Insufficient Data 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

105 Freeman Springs Branch Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Alkalinity 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Biology 2 Not Impaired 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 3B Insufficient Data 

138 Rocky Creek Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

14 Hubbard Creek Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

148 Helverson Creek Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Alkalinity 3C Planning List 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Biology 3C Planning List 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F pH 3C Planning List 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 3B Insufficient Data



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

169 Buckeye Branch Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

172 Reedy Branch Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Alkalinity 3B Insufficient Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Biology 2 Not Impaired 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Total Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

182 West Fork Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 3B Insufficient Data 

197 NARROW GAP BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

208 MCDADE CREEK Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

228 JACKSON SPRINGS BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

243 SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

245 ALLIGATOR CREEK Stream 3F Biology 2 Not Impaired 

252 STILL BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

259 POND BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Solids 3A No Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F Fluoride 3B Insufficient Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Alkalinity 3B Insufficient Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Biology 3C Planning List 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 3B Insufficient Data 

291 JACKS BRANCH Stream 3F Turbidity Turbidity 3A No Data 

291 JACKS BRANCH Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 3A No Data 

291 JACKS BRANCH Stream 3F Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 3A No Data 

297 PENASULA CREEK Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

2F Perdido River Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

3 REEDY BRANCH Stream 3F Biology 3C Planning List 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Solids 3A No Data 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F Fluoride 3B Insufficient Data 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

345 COWDEVIL CREEK Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

357 CHURCHHOUSE BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Biology 3C Planning List



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 2 Not Impaired 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Conductance 2 Not Impaired 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 2 Proposed Delist 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Solids 3A No Data 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 3D Impaired 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Fluoride 2 Not Impaired 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Historic Chlorophyll 2 Not Impaired 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F pH 3D Impaired 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 3D Impaired 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Turbidity Turbidity 2 Proposed Delist 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 2 Not Impaired 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F Total Suspended Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 3A No Data 

Solids (TSS) 

407 FARM HILL RUN Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Chloride 3A No Data 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Nutrients Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Conductance 3A No Data 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 2 Proposed Delist 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 3C Planning List 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M pH 3D Impaired 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Unionized Ammonia 3A No Data 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M Fish Mercury (in Fish Tissue) 3A No Data 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Conductance 3D Impaired 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 2 Not Impaired



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 2 Proposed Delist 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F pH 3D Impaired 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 2 Not Impaired 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F Fish Mercury (in Fish Tissue) 3A No Data 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Biology 2 Not Impaired 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Conductance 2 Not Impaired 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 2 Not Impaired 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 2 Proposed Delist 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F pH 3C Planning List 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 2 Not Impaired 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F Fish Mercury (in Fish Tissue) 3A No Data 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Biology 3D Impaired 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Nutrients Chlorophyll 2 Proposed Delist 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Conductance 3D Impaired 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 3D Impaired 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Solids 3A No Data 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 2 Proposed Delist 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Fluoride 2 Not Impaired 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Nutrients Historic Chlorophyll 2 Proposed Delist 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F pH 2 Not Impaired 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Turbidity Turbidity 2 Proposed Delist



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 3C Planning List 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Total Suspended Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 3A No Data 

Solids (TSS) 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F Un-ionized 

Unionized Ammonia 3A No Data 

Ammonia 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F BOD 5Day BOD 5Day 3A No Data 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F Conductance 2 Not Impaired 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 2 Not Impaired 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3C Planning List 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F pH 3C Planning List 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 3C Planning List 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 2 Not Impaired 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 3B Insufficient Data 

494 JACKS BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Alkalinity 3B Insufficient Data 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Biology 3C Planning List 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Conductance 2 Not Impaired 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3C Planning List



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3C Planning List 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F pH 3C Planning List 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Total Coliform 3C Planning List 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Turbidity 3C Planning List 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 3B Insufficient Data 

607 CLAYPIT BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

616 BEULAH DRAIN Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Biology 3C Planning List 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Conductance 2 Not Impaired 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3C Planning List 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 3C Planning List 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F pH 3C Planning List 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Turbidity Turbidity 2 Proposed Delist 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 2 Not Impaired 

681 HURST BRANCH Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

696A BLACK Lake DRAIN Lake 3F N/A 3A No Data 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Alkalinity 3C Planning List 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Biology 2 Not Impaired 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Conductance 2 Not Impaired 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3D Impaired 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 3D Impaired 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F pH 3D Impaired 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 3D Impaired 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Turbidity 2 Not Impaired



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 2 Not Impaired 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Alkalinity 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Dissolved Solids 3A No Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Fluoride 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Total Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F TSI 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

697A Cressent Lake Lake 3F Unionized Ammonia 3B Insufficient Data 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Chlorophyll 2 Not Impaired 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Conductance 2 Not Impaired 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 2 Not Impaired 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Dissolved Solids 3A No Data 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Fluoride 2 Not Impaired 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Historic Chlorophyll 2 Not Impaired 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F pH 3D Impaired 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

725 Unnamed Branch Stream 3F Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform 3A No Data 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Conductance 3B Insufficient Data 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Dissolved Solids 3A No Data 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Fluoride 3B Insufficient Data 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F pH 3B Insufficient Data 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

72E Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

72F Direct Runoff to Stream Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

73 Unnamed Branch Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

730 Turner Creek Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

730 Turner Creek Stream 3F Total Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

763 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

779 Bellshead Branch Stream 3F N/A 3A No Data 

784 Direct Runoff to Bay Stream 3F Non-Point Source N/A 3A No Data 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Alkalinity 3A No Data 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Chloride 3A No Data 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Nurtients Chlorophyll 2 Proposed Delist 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Conductance 3A No Data 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 2 Proposed Delist 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Nurtients Historic Chlorophyll 2 Proposed Delist 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M pH 2 Not Impaired 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M Unionized Ammonia 3A No Data 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M N/A 3A No Data 

8001 Perdido Bay Gulf Coastal 3M Mercury (in fish tissue) 3D Impaired 

8001A Perdido Key State Park Coastal 3M Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

8001A Perdido Key State Park Coastal 3M Mercury (in fish tissue) 3D Impaired 

8001B Johnson Beach Coastal 3M Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

8001B Johnson Beach Coastal 3M Mercury (in fish tissue) 3D Impaired 

8001C Big Lagoon State Park Coastal 3M Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

8001C Big Lagoon State Park Coastal 3M Mercury (in fish tissue) 3D Impaired 



872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M Chloride 3A No Data 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M Conductance 3A No Data 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M Dissolved Solids 3A No Data 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M Fluoride 3B Insufficient Data 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M pH 3B Insufficient Data 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F Alkalinity 3B Insufficient Data 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F Chloride 3A No Data 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F Conductance 3C Planning List 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 3C Planning List 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F pH 3C Planning List 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

935 Unnamed Stream Stream 3F Unionized Ammonia 2 Not Impaired 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M Chlorophyll 3B Insufficient Data 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M Conductance 3A No Data 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M Dissolved Oxygen 3B Insufficient Data 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M Fecal Coliform 3B Insufficient Data 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M pH 3B Insufficient Data 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M Total Coliform 3B Insufficient Data



Type 

Waterbody 

Class 1 

Parameters 


1998 303(d) List 



Proposed 

Integrated 

Report 

Category2 



Description 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M Turbidity 3B Insufficient Data 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M Unionized Ammonia 3A No Data 

974 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M N/A 3A No Data 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Alkalinity 3A No Data 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Chloride 3A No Data 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Chlorophyll 2 Not Impaired 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Conductance 3A No Data 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen 2 Proposed Delist 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Fecal Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M pH 2 Not Impaired 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Total Coliform 2 Not Impaired 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Turbidity 2 Not Impaired 

991 Direct Runoff to Bay Estuary 3M Unionized Ammonia 3A No Data 

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

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






3 The waterbody’s proposed status is as follows: 

NI — Not impaired — Parameter has sufficient data to assess and is not impaired under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

ND — No data — No data have been reported to the agency for this parameter or WBID. 

ID — Insufficient data — Some data have been reported to the agency; however, they are insufficient to assess the parameter fully under the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule. 

PL — Planning List — Enough data exist to assess the parameter during the planning period, and the parameter meets the requirements set forth in the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule to be placed on the Planning List 

VL — Verified List — Enough data exist to assess the parameter during the verified period, and the parameter meets the requirements set forth in the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule to be placed on the Verified List. 

4 The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 

1 – Attains all designated uses; 

2 – Attains some designated uses;


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

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

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

4a – Is impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 

4b – Is impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or proposed pollutant control mechanism provides 

reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; 

4c – Is 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. 

5 The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. The hierarchy for assigning these 

categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3C, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual 

parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single 

assessment call for the WBID is Category 5. 

F = Fresh water M = Marine - = Not applicable, i.e., there are no parameters listed.


Table F.2: Water Quality Monitoring Stations, by Planning Unit 

WBID Waterbody Name Waterbody 

Type 

Class Station Number Station Name Start 

Year 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLA 330100H5 PERDIDO B SEC H STA BUOY 65 1996 1996 24 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLA 330200M3 Big Lagoon 500FT SOUTH ROD AND 1994 1996 20 

REEL MARINA PIER 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLA 33020M15 Big Lagoon TWEEN REDFISH 

1994 1994 25 

SPANISH PTS 100YD 15DPT 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33010H91 ICW MARKER 35 EAST OLD RIVER 1994 1999 464 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 330200M3 Big Lagoon 500FT SOUTH ROD AND 1994 1999 491 

REEL MARINA PIER 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 330200M7 Big Lagoon FT MCREE LNDING 

1994 1999 492 

SOUTH CUT MID CHANNEL 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33020M10 Big Lagoon 500FT SOUTH OF 

1994 1999 465 

SEAGLADES PIER 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33020M13 Big Lagoon BETWEEN TROUT PT AND 1994 1999 488 

REDFISH PT 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33020M15 Big Lagoon TWEEN 

1994 1999 474 

REDFISH/SPANISH PTS 100YD 15DEP 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33020M29 Big Lagoon WEST END ICW MARKER 1994 1999 476 

18 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33020M32 Big Lagoon 500FT OFFSHORE N 1994 1999 471 

JOHNSON BCHRDCULDESA 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33020M33 SEQUIENZA COVE SR 292 "BRENTS 1994 2003 472 

DITCH 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLKWATESC-ESC4-835 Escambia-ESC4-835 2000 2001 6 








End 

Year 

NOBS



Type 


Year 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 33020M4G East of Trout Point within Big Lagoon - 1999 1999 29 

Seagrass 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 33020M9G Grande Lagoon at Seaglades (Big 1999 1999 29 

Lagoon)-Seagrass 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 3302M12G Langley Point at Big Lagoon (GNIS) - 1999 1999 29 

Seagrass 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 3302M13G Redfish Point within Big Lagoon (GINS) - 1999 1999 30 

Seagrass 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 3302M16G Spanish Cove within Big Lagoon - 

1999 1999 29 

Seagrass 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 3302M20G Big Lagoon State Park-Seagrass Station 1999 1999 39 

1004 Big Lagoon Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 3302M30G Big Lagoon Near Johnson Beach 

1999 1999 30 

(GNIS)-Seagrass 

1014 DIRECT RUNOFF 

TO BAY 

Estuary 3M 11NPSWRDGUIS_WI_083 PERDIDO KEY POND 6 1994 1994 6 

1015 DIRECT RUNOFF 

TO GULF 

Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010H21 OLD RIVER AT FLORIDA/ALABAMA 

LINE 

End 

Year 

NOBS 

1994 1999 479 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 112WRD 02376115 Elevenmile Creek NEAR PENSACOLA, 1995 2002 90 

FL. 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010010 11 MILE CREEK SR 186 ST REGIS EF 1995 1996 62 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010011 11 MILE CREEK AT SR 297A BR 1995 1996 120 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010013 11 MILE CR AT HWY 90 BR 1995 1995 11 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010018 TRIB TO 11MILE CR AT 297A S OF 1996 1996 5 

ESC.CO RD PRISON 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010043 11 MILE CREEK 800 YDS ABOVE 1994 1994 53 

MOUT 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010045 11 MILE CR 300 YDS N. HWY 186 1996 1996 5 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010046 11 MILE CREEK 15 YARDS N OF SR18 1995 1996 39 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010011 11 MILE CREEK AT SR 297A BR 1994 2003 1092 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010014 11 MI CR 1/2 MI BELO SAUFLEY FLD 1994 1997 308 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLGW 17366 NWD-SL-1006 2003 2003 30 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLGW 17373 NWD-SL-1015 2003 2003 26



Type 


Year 

489 Elevenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLGW 3565 S145 1998 2003 1738 

489A Tenmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010080 TEN MILE CREEK AT HWY 297 1994 2003 643 

489B Coffee Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010068 COFFE CREEK N OF JAMESVILLE RD. 1995 1996 34 

624 Eightmile Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010016 8 MI CR HWY 90 BRIDGE 1994 2003 704 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010021 MARCUS CR W ARM LONGLEAF RD 1997 1997 9 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010030 Marcus Creek HWY 90 BR 1995 1997 15 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010021 Marcus Creek at Longleaf Drive 1999 2003 296 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010030 Marcus Creek HWY 90 BR 1994 2003 1044 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010036 MARCUS CR ABOVE AVONDALE STP 1994 2003 781 

697 Marcus Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010039 MARCUS CR E ARM ABOVE 

1994 1998 432 

CRESENT LK 

697A Cressent Lake LAKE 3F 21FLA 33010064 CRESCENT LAKE 1997 1997 30 

697A Cressent Lake LAKE 3F 21FLGW 19167 NWD-LL-1006 2003 2003 30 



697A Cressent Lake LAKE 3F 21FLKWATESC- 

Escambia-Crescent-1 1998 1998 10 

CRESCENT-1 



CRESCENT-2 



CRESCENT-3 

730 Turner Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010032 MARCUS CR W ARM HWY 90 1995 1995 2 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 112WRD 302417087255100 Perdido Bay AT SR 298 NR 

1995 1995 72 

PENSACOLA, FL 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLA 330100A5 PERDIDO B 100 YDS OFFSHORE 1995 1995 20 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLA 330100C6 Perdido Bay SEC C BACKGROUND 1994 1995 135 

STA 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLA 330100D3 Perdido Bay SEC D BACKGROUND 1994 1996 45 

STA 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLA 330100D4 Perdido Bay AT PARADISE BEACH 1996 1996 8 

End 

Year 

NOBS



Type 


Year 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLA 33010C14 Perdido Bay ESCAMBIA COUNTY 1996 1998 676 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLA 33010D15 Perdido Bay 75YDS OFF BRONSON 1996 1996 8 

FIELD ESC. CO. 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLA 33010F16 LOWER Perdido Bay N OF INERARITY 1996 1996 24 

ISLAND 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLA 33010G10 LOWER Perdido Bay OFF PALE MOON 1998 1998 328 

DR NR PAPAGO RD 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 330100A3 Perdido Bay 100YDS OFF MOUTH OF 1997 1999 167 

Elevenmile Creek 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 330100C6 Perdido Bay PNS 1997 1999 169 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 330100E2 Perdido Bay BETWEEN INERARITY PT 1997 1999 204 

AND RED BLUFF 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33010D16 Perdido Bay CENTER OFF DU PONT 1997 1999 198 

POINT 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 33010C14 Perdido Bay ESCAMBIA COUNTY 1997 2003 3002 

797 Perdido Bay Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 33010G10 LOWER Perdido Bay OFF PALE MOON 1998 2003 2743 

DR NR PAPAGO RD 

8001A Perdido Key State Coastal 3M 21FLDOH ESCAMBIA92 PERDIDO KEY STATE PARK 2000 2003 128 

Park 

8001B Johnson Beach Coastal 3M 21FLDOH ESCAMBIA94 JOHNSON BEACH 2000 2003 128 

8001C Big Lagoon State Coastal 3M 21FLDOH ESCAMBIA93 Big Lagoon STATE PARK 2000 2003 130 

Park 

872 Brdige Creek Estuary 3M 21FLA 33010078 BRIDGE CR HWY98 HERON BAYOU 1996 1996 11 

LILLIAN HWY ESC CO. 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M 21FLA 33010C19 Perdido Bay BRIDGE CR 1996 1996 8 

872 Bridge Creek Estuary 3M 21FLGW 17887 NWD-SS-1031 2003 2003 26 

935 UNNAMED Stream Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010082 WEEKLY BAYOU CREEK CO RD 293 1994 2003 689 

ESC.CO. 

935 UNNAMED Stream Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010G4W WEEKLY BAYOU 1997 1999 161 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33010G4T TARKILN BAYOU 1997 1999 119 

945 Tarkiln Bayou Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 33010G4T Tarkiln Bayou 2002 2002 12 

End 

Year 

NOBS



Type 

991 Direct Runoff to 






105 Freeman Springs 


Year 

Estuary 3M 21FLA 33020M19 Big Lagoon STATE PARK BOAT RAMP 

ICW 

Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33020M31 Big Lagoon HWY. 292 ICW BRIDGE 

ESC.CO. 

End 

Year 

NOBS 

1996 1998 926 

1994 2003 661 

Estuary 3M 21FLPNS 33020M20 Big Lagoon State Park West Beach 2002 2003 918 

Stream 3F 21FLGW 17876 NWD-SS-1019 2003 2003 26 

Branch 

135 Boggy Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010056 BOGGY CREEK AT SR 97A 1998 1998 23 

149 McDavid Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010054 MCDAVID CREEK AT SR99 1994 1998 140 

182 West Fork Stream 3F 21FLA 33010120 WEST FORK BOGGY CREEK C97A 1998 1998 24 

BELOW DAM 

278 Cowhide Creek Stream 3F 21FLGW 17866 NWD-SS-1006 2003 2003 26 

290 Dry Creek Stream 3F 21FLA 33010086 DRY CREEK 20M.E OF HWY29 SOUTH 1995 1996 42 

OF CR182 

311 Bowman Creek Stream 3F 21FLGW 17391 NWD-SL-1038 2003 2003 30 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010055 Brushy Creek AT COUNTY RD 1994 2003 751 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010060 Brushy Creek AT HWY 31 1994 2003 729 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010063 Brushy Creek AT NAKOMIS RD. ALSO 1995 1996 307 

FDEP STATION 

4 Brushy Creek Stream 3F 21FLGW 3550 S380 1998 2003 1740 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M 21FLA 33010008 PERDIDO R ABOVE MO 

1994 1994 13 

BLACKWATER R 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33010004 Perdido River AT HWY 90 BRIDGE 1994 2003 755 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33010005 PERDIDO R S BLACKWATER R JUNCT 1994 1997 260 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33010006 PERDIDO R Perdido Bay MIDStream 1994 1999 431 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33010007 PERDIDO RIV BELOW MOUTH STYX 1994 1997 266 

RIV 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M 21FLBFA 33010008 PERDIDO R ABOVE MO 

1994 1997 267 

BLACKWATER R 

462A Perdido River Estuary 3M 21FLFMRISTR200201 StateNonTrend - Perdido River 2002 2002 23 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010002 PERDIDO R BARRINEAU PARK BR 1994 2003 1007



Type 


Year 

462B Perdido River Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010092 BLACKWATER RIVER CR91 

1997 2003 449 

WAYBURN RD ALA 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F 21FLA 33010003 PERDIDO R HWY 184 BR MUSGOGEE 1994 1994 22 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010001 PERDIDO R ABOVE JUNC BRUSHY 1994 2003 1052 

CR 

462C Perdido River Stream 3F 21FLBFA 33010003 PERDIDO R HWY 184 BR MUSGOGEE 1994 1997 304 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F 21FLA 33010065 I10 REST STOP CREEK(UNNAMED) 1995 1996 87 

ECO REG 75A 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F 21FLA 33010066 BEAVER POND CREEK I10 ECO REG 1995 1996 89 

75A 

542 Rest Area Run Stream 3F 21FLA 33010077 E. TRIB TO I10 REST STOP CR E OF 1995 1996 46 

PERDIDO FILL 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream 3F 21FLGW 17872 NWD-SS-1015 2003 2003 26 

Stream 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream 3F 21FLGW 19253 NWD-LR-1016 2003 2003 30 

Stream 

72 Direct Runoff to Stream 3F 21FLGW 3542 S250 1998 2003 1799 

Stream 

72D Direct Runoff to Stream 3F 21FLGW 19262 NWD-LR-1025 2003 2003 30 

Stream 

72D Direct Runoff to 

Stream 

Stream 3F 21FLGW 19267 NWD-LR-1030 2003 2003 30 

End 

Year 

NOBS


Appendix G: 2000 Land Use by Planning Unit 

Table G.1: Land Use for the Perdido River Planning Unit 

FLUC 

Code 

Description Acres Square Miles Percentage 

of Basin 

0 Outside Study Area 25.25 0.04 0.02 

1000 Urban and Built Up 7577.95 11.84 4.95 

2000 Agriculture 29429.09 45.98 19.23 

3000 Rangeland 871.09 1.36 0.57 

4000 Upland Forests 90128.44 140.83 58.88 

5000 Water 1052.74 1.64 0.69 

6000 Wetlands 22474.34 35.12 14.68 

7000 Barren Land 573.02 0.90 0.37 

8000 Transportation, Communication 

and Utilities 

929.25 1.45 0.61


Table G2: Detailed Land Use Analysis for the Perdido River Planning Unit 

FLUC 

Code 

Description Acres Square 

Miles 

Percentage 



1100 Residential, low density 2102.88 3.29 1.37 

1200 Residential, medium density 3750.87 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 28910.41 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 43892.81 68.58 28.68 

4200 Upland Hardwood Forests 192.78 0.30 0.13 

4340 Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood 7474.53 11.68 4.88 

4400 Tree Plantations 6.72 0.01 0.00 

4410 Coniferous Plantations 32339.77 50.53 21.13 

4430 Forest Regeneration Areas 6221.81 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 

6100 Wetland Hardwood Forests 14865.90 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 3339.19 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


FLUC 

Code 


Miles 

Percentage 


6300 Wetland Forested Mixed 2232.28 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 Non-Vegetated 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 

95.05 0.15 0.06 

Lines 

8320 Electrical Power Transmission 

458.75 0.72 0.30 

Lines 

8350 Solid Waste Disposal 120.28 0.19 0.08


Table G.3: Land Use for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit 

FLUC 

Code 


Miles 

Percentage 



1000 Urban and Built Up 24448.80 38.20 36.59 

2000 Agriculture 3604.96 5.63 5.40 

3000 Rangeland 3198.56 5.00 4.79 

4000 Upland Forests 20321.53 31.75 30.42 

5000 Water 795.95 1.24 1.19 

6000 Wetlands 11174.52 17.46 16.72 

7000 Barren Land 815.87 1.27 1.22 

8000 Transportation, Communication and 

Utilities 

2428.11 3.79 3.63 

Table G4: Detailed Land Use Analysis for the Perdido Bay Planning Unit 

FLUC 

Code 


Miles 

Percentage 



1100 Residential, low density 2321.67 3.63 3.47 

1120 Mobile home units 50.93 0.08 0.08 

1200 Residential, medium density 11603.96 18.13 17.37 

1220 Mobile home units, medium density 58.70 0.09 0.09 

1300 Residential, high density 4412.82 6.90 6.60 

1320 Mobile home units, high density 194.21 0.30 0.29 

1400 Commercial and Services 1629.45 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 3293.90 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 1811.25 2.83 2.71 

3220 Coastal Scrub 1387.32 2.17 2.08


FLUC 

Code 


Miles 

Percentage 


4100 Upland Coniferous Forests 11729.61 18.33 17.56 

4200 Upland Hardwood Forests 253.53 0.40 0.38 

4340 Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood 4397.13 6.87 6.58 

4400 Tree Plantations 69.72 0.11 0.10 

4410 Coniferous Plantations 3337.84 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 

5300 Reservoirs 534.99 0.84 0.80 

5420 Embayments < Gulf 4.99 0.01 0.01 

6100 Wetland Hardwood Forests 1506.50 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 5250.24 8.20 7.86 

6400 Vegetated Non-Forested 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 2451.74 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


Appendix H: Statistical Summary Sheets for Ground Water 

Evaluations 

All Networks—PERDIDO—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—NUTRIENTS 

Parameter Name 

Nitrate+Nitrite, 

Dissolved (as 

N) 

Nitrate, Total 

(as N) 

Orthophosphate, 

Total (as P) 

Phosphorus, 

Dissolved (as 

P) 

Parameter Code 631 620 70507 666 

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 

Total Wells 26 28 28 26 

Number BDLs 5 0 5 2 

Number MCL/GCL 

Exceedances 

- 2 - - 

Percent MCL/GCL 

Exceedances 

- 7.14% - - 

Minimum 0.009 0.061 0.005 0.002 

1st Quartile 0.023 0.185 0.06 0.02 

Median 0.245 0.6 0.095 0.03 

3rd Quartile 1.9 1.425 0.213 0.06 

Maximum 19 28 0.6 0.16 

Interquartile Range 1.878 1.24 0.153 0.04 

Mean 1.9 2.48 0.16 0.05 

Standard Deviation 4.04 5.73 0.15 0.04 

Relative Standard 

Deviation 

212.30% 231.30% 91.10% 84.60% 

Standard Error 0.79 1.08 0.03 0.01 

Variance 16.28 32.86 0.02 0 

Coefficient of Skewness 1352.442 1192.609 2642.23 2788.07 

Number Risk Indicators - - - - 

Percent Risk Indicators 3.85% - - - 

Number SRA Indicators 12 19 24 18 

Percent SRA Indicators 46.15% 67.86% 85.71% 69.23% 

BDL – Median is below detection limit for this analyte. 

MCL – Maximum contaminant level. 

GCL – Guidance concentration level. 

- – Not applicable. 

SRA – Ground Water–Surface Water Relational Assessment.


All Networks—PERDIDO—CONFINED AQUIFER—NUTRIENTS 


Nitrate+Nitrite, 

Dissolved (as 

N) 

Nitrate, Total 

(as N) 

Orthophosphate, 

Total (as P) 

Phosphorus, 

Dissolved 

(as P) 

Parameter Code 631 620 70507 666 

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 

Total Wells 2 2 2 2 

Number BDLs 1 0 0 0 


Exceedances 


Exceedances 

- 0 - - 

- 0.00% - - 

Minimum 0.021 6.5 0.27 0.16 

1st Quartile 0.025 7.175 0.503 0.163 

Median 0.028 7.85 0.735 0.165 

3rd Quartile 0.032 8.525 0.968 0.168 

Maximum 0.035 9.2 1.2 0.17 

Interquartile Range 0.007 1.35 0.465 0.005 

Mean 0.03 7.85 0.74 0.17 

Standard Deviation 0.01 1.91 0.66 0.01 


Deviation 

35.40% 24.30% 89.50% 4.30% 

Standard Error 0.01 1.35 0.46 0 

Variance 0 3.65 0.43 0 

Coefficient of 

Skewness 

5656.854 8223.39 2235.37 46669.048 

Number Risk 

Indicators 

0 - - - 

Percent Risk Indicators 0.00% - - - 

Number SRA 

Indicators 

0 2 2 2 

Percent SRA 

0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 

Indicators 







All Networks—PERDIDO— 

UNCONFINED AQUIFER—BIOLOGICALS 


Coliform, Fecal (MF) 

Parameter Code 31616 

Units 

#/100mL 

Total Wells 29 

Number BDLs 25 


Exceedances 


Exceedances 

- 

- 

Minimum 0 

1st Quartile 0 

Median 0 

3rd Quartile 1 

Maximum 80 

Interquartile Range 1 

Mean 3.59 

Standard Deviation 14.92 


Deviation 

416.20% 

Standard Error 2.77 

Variance 222.75 

Coefficient of Skewness 720.853 

Number Risk Indicators 2 

Percent Risk Indicators 6.90% 

Number SRA Indicators 0 

Percent SRA Indicators 0.00% 







All Networks—PERDIDO— 

CONFINED AQUIFER—BIOLOGICALS 


Coliform, Fecal (MF) 

Parameter Code 31616 

Units 

#/100mL 

Total Wells 2 

Number BDLs 2 


Exceedances 

- 


Exceedances 

Minimum 0 

1st Quartile 0 

Median 0 

3rd Quartile 0 

Maximum 0 

Interquartile Range 0 

Mean 0 

Standard Deviation 0 

- 


Deviation 

0.00% 

Standard Error 0 

Variance 0 

Coefficient of Skewness 0 

Number Risk Indicators 0 

Percent Risk Indicators 0.00% 

Number SRA Indicators 0 

Percent SRA Indicators 

0.00% 








Arsenic, 

Total 

All Networks—PERDIDO—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Barium, 

Total 

Cadmium, 

Total 

Chromium, 

Total 

Lead, 

Total 

Mercury, 

Total 

Nickel, 

Total 

Selenium, 

Total 

Parameter Code 1002 1007 1027 1034 1051 71900 1067 1147 

Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 

Total Wells 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 

Number BDLs 18 2 18 16 3 19 25 30 


Exceedances 


Exceedances 

1 0 2 2 7 2 0 0 

3.33% 0.00% 6.67% 6.67% 23.33% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 

Minimum 0.5 2.5 0.25 2.5 0.5 0.05 5 0.5 

1st Quartile 0.5 17.5 0.25 3.125 5 0.05 5 0.5 

Median 1 31.5 0.555 5 8.6 0.2 5 0.5 

3rd Quartile 1.925 43.5 2.075 12.25 12.75 0.363 5 1 

Maximum 1,400.00 230 10 170 50 4 23 1 

Interquartile Range 1.425 26 1.825 9.125 7.75 0.313 0 0.5 

Mean 48.59 37.82 1.66 17.57 10.36 0.59 6.57 0.67 

Standard Deviation 255.26 41.08 2.46 34.91 9.79 0.98 4.17 0.24 


Deviation 

525.40% 108.60% 148.80% 198.70% 94.40% 167.40% 63.60% 36.00% 

Standard Error 46.6 7.5 0.45 6.37 1.79 0.18 0.76 0.04 

Variance 65156.45 1687.97 6.07 1218.67 95.79 0.97 17.43 0.06 


Skewness 

567.113 1994.647 1790.9 1366.393 2297.94 1588.176 3521.381 6256.996 

Number Risk 

Indicators 

2 - - - - - - - 

Percent Risk 

Indicators 

6.67% - - - - - - - 

Number SRA 

Indicators 

1 0 13 4 27 12 5 0 

Percent SRA 

Indicators 

3.33% 0.00% 43.33% 13.33% 90.00% 40.00% 16.67% 0.00% 








Arsenic, 

Total 

All Networks—PERDIDO—CONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Barium, 

Total 

Cadmium, 

Total 

Chromium, 

Total 

Lead, 

Total 

Mercury, 

Total 

Nickel, 

Total 

Selenium, 

Total 

Parameter Code 1002 1007 1027 1034 1051 71900 1067 1147 

Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 

Total Wells 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Number BDLs 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 


Exceedances 

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 


Exceedances 

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Minimum 0.5 28 2.2 2.5 6 0.05 5 0.5 

1st Quartile 1.375 46 2.45 59.375 7.75 0.063 14.5 0.5 

Median 2.25 64 2.7 116.25 9.5 0.075 24 0.5 

3rd Quartile 3.125 82 2.95 173.125 11.25 0.088 33.5 0.5 

Maximum 4 100 3.2 230 13 0.1 43 0.5 

Interquartile Range 1.75 36 0.5 113.75 3.5 0.025 19 0 

Mean 2.25 64 2.7 116.25 9.5 0.08 24 0.5 

Standard Deviation 2.47 50.91 0.71 160.87 4.95 0.04 26.87 0 


Deviation 

110.00% 79.50% 26.20% 138.40% 52.10% 47.10% 112.00% 0.00% 

Standard Error 1.75 36 0.5 113.75 3.5 0.03 19 0 

Variance 6.13 2592 0.5 25878.13 24.5 0 722 0 


Skewness 

Number Risk 

Indicators 

Percent Risk 

Indicators 

1818.275 2514.157 7636.753 1445.295 3838.58 4242.641 1786.375 0 

0 - - - - - - - 

0.00% - - - - - - - 

Number SRA 

0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 

Indicators 

Percent SRA 

0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 

Indicators 








All Networks—PERDIDO—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 

Aluminum, 

Total 

Copper, 

Total 

Iron, 

Total 

Manganese, 

Total 

Silver, 

Total 

Strontium, 

Total 

Parameter Code 1105 1042 1045 1055 1077 1082 1092 

Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 

Total Wells 22 30 30 30 30 22 30 

Number BDLs 1 11 0 1 30 0 0 

Zinc, 

Total 


Exceedances 

12 0 22 14 0 0 0 


Exceedances 

54.55% 0.00% 73.33% 46.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Minimum 10 0.5 30 2 0.5 2 10 

1st Quartile 52.75 5 250 20 0.5 6.625 30 

Median 330 13 1,150.00 43 0.5 10 44 

3rd Quartile 1,225.00 20 4,675.00 89.5 5 30 102 

Maximum 12,000.00 380 15,000.00 350 5 360 1,000.00 

Interquartile Range 1,172.25 15 4,425.00 69.5 4.5 23.375 72 

Mean 1,614.27 26.63 3,389.67 68.67 1.85 49.81 157.5 

Standard Deviation 2900.75 67.97 4074.11 75.2 2.1 93.59 266.83 


Deviation 

179.70% 255.20% 120.20% 109.50% 113.40% 187.90% 169.40% 

Standard Error 618.44 12.41 743.83 13.73 0.38 19.95 48.72 

Variance 8414330.3 4619.65 16598403 5655.06 4.4 8758.8 71199.09 

Coefficient of Skewness 1555.744 984.286 2213.733 2167.55 2407.729 1489.791 1605.882 

Number Risk Indicators - - - - - - - 

Percent Risk Indicators - - - - - - - 

Number SRA Indicators 5 18 22 7 0 - 20 

Percent SRA Indicators 22.73% 60.00% 73.33% 23.33% 0.00% - 66.67% 







All Networks—PERDIDO—CONFINED AQUIFER—METALS 


Aluminum, 

Total 

Copper, 

Total 

Iron, 

Total 

Manganese, 

Total 

Silver, 

Total 

Strontium, 

Total 

Zinc, 

Total 

Parameter Code 1105 1042 1045 1055 1077 1082 1092 

Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L 

Total Wells 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Number BDLs 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 


Exceedances 


Exceedances 

2 0 2 0 0 0 0 

100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 

Minimum 390 0.5 3,100.00 26 0.5 11 38 

1st Quartile 692.5 6.125 3,500.00 29.5 0.5 16 39.75 

Median 995 11.75 3,900.00 33 0.5 21 41.5 

3rd Quartile 1,297.50 17.375 4,300.00 36.5 0.5 26 43.25 

Maximum 1,600.00 23 4,700.00 40 0.5 31 45 

Interquartile 

Range 

605 11.25 800 7 0 10 3.5 

Mean 995 11.75 3,900.00 33 0.5 21 41.5 

Standard 

Deviation 

855.6 15.91 1131.37 9.9 0 14.14 4.95 


Deviation 

86.00% 135.40% 29.00% 30.00% 0.00% 67.30% 11.90% 

Standard Error 605 11.25 800 7 0 10 3.5 

Variance 732050 253.13 1280000 98 0 200 24.5 


Skewness 

Number Risk 

Indicators 

Percent Risk 

Indicators 

Number SRA 

Indicators 

Percent SRA 

Indicators 

2325.855 1477.067 6894.291 6667.007 0 2969.848 16768.532 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

1 1 2 0 0 N/A 2 

50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% N/A 100.00% 







All Networks—PERDIDO—UNCONFINED AQUIFER—ORGANICS 

Parameter Name Benzene Xylenes 

Parameter Code 78124 81551 

Units ug/L ug/L 

Total Wells 30 24 

Number BDLs 30 24 


Exceedances 


Exceedances 

3 1 

10.00% 4.17% 

Minimum 0.5 0.25 

1st Quartile 0.5 0.25 

Median 0.5 0.25 

3rd Quartile 0.5 0.5 

Maximum 27 80 

Interquartile Range 0 0.25 

Mean 2.19 3.67 

Standard Deviation 6.12 16.26 


Deviation 

279.40% 443.50% 

Standard Error 1.12 3.32 

Variance 37.45 264.38 

Coefficient of Skewness 991.862 661.136 

Number Risk Indicators - - 

Percent Risk Indicators - - 

Number SRA Indicators - - 

Percent SRA Indicators - - 








Bureau of Watershed Management 


Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 

(850) 245-8561 

www.dep.state.fl.us/water

Perdido River and Bay - Florida Department of Environmental ...

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Perdido River and Bay - Florida Department of Environmental ...

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?