# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# CHARLOTTE HARBOR & ESTERO BAY AQUATIC PRESERVES WATER QUALITY STATUS & TRENDS FOR 1998- -2005

Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Network 7 Year Results

Final Report Prepared By: Renee Duffey* Raymond E. Leary Judy Ott Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves 12301 Burnt Store Road Punta Gorda, FL 33955 *Currently at the Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center


# Submitted to: Catherine Corbett Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1926 Victoria Avenue

Ft. Myers, FL 33901 September 11, 2007 CHAPs Technical Report #2

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection i 

# Charlotte Harbor & Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves Water Quality Status & Trends for 1998 - 2005

Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Qualit y Monitoring Network 7 Year Results

Final Report September 11, 2007

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves Office Punta Gorda, FL

In Cooperation with: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center

Report Prepared by: Renee Duffey Raymond E. Leary Judy Ott

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection ii 

# The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program is a partnership of citizens, elected officials, resource managers and commercial and recreational resource users working to improve the water quality and ecological inte grity of the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed. A cooperative decision-making proce ss is used within the Program to address diverse resource management concerns in the 4,400 square mile study area. Many of these partners also financially support the Program, which, in turn, affords the Program opportunities to fund projects such as this. The entities that have financially supported the Program include the following: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Southwest Florida Water Management District South Florida Water Management District Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Coastal Zone Management Program Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Polk, Sarasota, Manatee, Lee, Ch arlotte, DeSoto, and Hardee Counties Cities of Sanibel, Cape Coral, Fort My ers, Punta Gorda, North Port, Venice, Fort Myers Beach, and Winter Haven and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The Southwest Florida Water Management Di strict, on behalf of the Peace River and Manasota Basin Boards, provided funding for this project.

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection iii 

# Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Network Partners Supporting Partners Charlotte Harbor & Estero Bay A quatic Preserves - Program Support Heather Stafford/Program Manager Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program - Grant & Technical Support Lisa Beever/Program Director Catherine Corbett/Senior Scientist Florida Department of Environm ental Protection Laboratories Jennifer Thera/South District Laboratory Chemist Dave Winkler/South District Laboratory Chemist FDEP Central District Laboratory 

# Program Coordinator Judith Ott/Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves


# Volunteer Coordinator Melynda Schneider/Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves 

# Regional Coordinators Bobbi Rodgers/Charlotte Harbor En vironmental Center - Lemon Bay Melynda Schneider/Charlotte Harbor Aquat ic Preserves - Charlotte Harbor Judy Ott/Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Pr eserves -Pine Island Sound & Matlacha Pass Stephanie Erickson/Estero Bay A quatic Preserves - Estero Bay


# Technical Assistance Terry Frohm, FDEP Jason Hale, CHEC

Joe Hand, FDEP Joy Linn /Citizen - Data Entry 

# Special Thanks Betty Staugler, Charlotte Count y Sea Grant - Program Support Katie Fuhr, City of Naples Natu ral Resources - Program Support

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection iv 

# Citizen Water Monitors Judy Abbott Julie Drevenkar Jim Hummell Jack & Sue Nichol Linda Soderquist Jan Alexander Rodney Duprey Jerry Jacobs A nnette Nielson Stephanie Somsky Brenda & Bruce Anderson Fran Dwyer Pat & Jack Jaquish Kyel Nolen Cathy Spencer Bob Anderson Matt Edmunds Jennifer Jerrett Terry Novak Sandy Spry Liz Armstrong A l Eleinko Steve Jess Judy & John Nyhus Bonnie & Harold St Marie Penny, Christian & John Aspiolea Stephanie Erickson Mary & Doug Kastner Todd Ogle Heather Stafford A nnie Bacon Dan England Wilma Katz Kate Ohnemus Betty & James Staugler Lind Ballen Josh Farnum A my Kelb Peter Ordway Celia & Priscilla Stearns Rick Bantz Karl Fedronas Martha & Ken Keller Judy Ott Carol & Doug Stewart Zoe Bass Joan Fischer Kathy Kelly Sandy & Bob Palmer Cynthia Stinnett Dave Bartlett Vicky & Joe Flemming Nancy Kilmartin Steve Park Rick Storsberg Jan Barrett Jane Flynn Chic Kennedy Rosita Parker Crystal Suhr Katie & Tom Bartholomew Trink Fletcher Gina Klotz Jerry Paul A nn & Howard Sunkin Marc Becton June & Norm Franklin Eric Knight Walter Pavlovich Don Taggart Sid and Paul Berger Greg Fretwell Brenda & Glenn Kraft Vicki Pettigrew Cecile & Bob Tatton

Charles Bettinson Norm & June Franklin Gene LaBelle Robin Petty Jack Taylor Janet Betz Linda Frost K. LaCivita Shirley Phillips A l Teitler Shirley Bluttaumueller Katie Fuhr Sherry LaFlamme Jim Pohmerr Marilyn Thompson

Brenda Bossman Sheri Funari Jay LaPore Tim Poole Sharon Traylor Deb & Harold Brunner Nedra Garber Jo Lapinski Debbie Preston Ray Trozzo Phil Buchanan Stephen Giguere Joy & Larry Linn Laura Pumis Frank Tuma Chris and Kelly Burke Joe & Travis Gilpin Tina & Joe Linzalone Thomas Quiggle Cathy & Frank Valenti Terry Cain BJ Givens Claudia & Richard Little J. Quigley Donna Venesky Chan Carlson Ezell Givens Clayton Long Mary Rasley Kelly Victory Cari Caudill Jim Glenn Jim Luccisano Chris Reed Faye Vidulich Dan Ceilley Norm Gowan Margaret & Lloyd Lueptow Lenny Renda Ian Vincent Barbara Chamberlin Christopher Gray Stephanie MacKenzie Harald Riehm A rlene Walters Ed Chapin Mary Green Rhonda Mackenzie Rodger Roberts Mike Ward Susan & Terry Clements Rita Greene Cindy & George Marks Rose & Glen Roberts Dick Wasserman Kristie Coleman Jason Hale Helen Marshall Bobbi Rodgers Mike Weinberg Marlyn Collom Robert Hamlin Lewis Matson Rodger Ruperts Margaret & Howard Wells Kelly Connelly Chris & Tom Hansbierger Michael May Mike Ruggiero Henry Welter

Bill Cook Rebecca Harris Mary McAuliffe Tom Ruscik Ron Wesorick Dan Corna Dan Harwell Mike McConnell Chuck Sayre Mark Westall Lois & Ed Corson Mike Heare John Mcentaffer Mindy Schneider Dale Whitacre

Brian Cotterill Linda Hendrickson Pauline McIntosh Skip Schwartz Mary Whiteside Sydney & Elizabeth Crampton Carol Hickler Glen McKee Mary Ann Scott Mary & Dave Wilcox Paul Crowley Peter Hicks Bill McSharry Jackie Seeds Dianna & Gordon Willman Michael Curran Debra Highsmith Carl Meyer Joan Sessions Dave Winkler Carol Cutrone Harvey Hill Mickey Miller Brian Sieloff Tom Winter Rusty Davidson Barbra Hiller Susan Mohr Jerri Silverman Sandy & Bill Workman

Bill Davis Rhonda Holtzclaw Charlotte Moore Ingrid & Pete Simke Jack Worthington Connie & Dave December Jocelyn Honan Randy Mote Ted Sliwinski Scott Wouk Jim Delzer Wyatt Hooks A l Moxon Logan & Gary Simmons Walt Wszolek John DiPinto Debbie & Dave Horner Sandy & Jim Navarre Dare Smith Tom Zinneman Barbara Dobbs Shirley, Cathy & Bud House Larry Newman Diane Smolen

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection v 

# Executive Summary This report presents water quality status and trends from the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Moni toring Network (CHEVWQMN) from 1998 through 2005 across the five Charlotte Har bor Aquatic Preserves (CHAPs) and the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve (EBAP). Elev en water quality paramet ers were measured across forty eight sites grouped into nine estuary regions characterized by homogenous hydrologic conditions. These water quality parameters reflect and a ffect the health and sustainability of the Charlo tte Harbor estuaries. The Charlotte Harbor est uaries region extends from Venice south to Bonita Springs, encompassing 708 km 2 

# (175,000 acres) of productive submerged habitats. The six designated Florida Aquatic Preser ves in the region include: Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor, Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and Estero Bay. These Aquatic Preserve s are managed by the Fl orida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), CHAPs, and EBAP offices in Punta Gorda and Fort Myers Beach, respectively. The CHEVWQMN was established in 1996 and is a partnership of the FDEP CHAPs, EBAP and South District Labor atory, Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center (CHEC), and the Charlotte Harbor National Es tuary Program (CHNEP). The goal of the CHEVWQMN is to obtain consistent, technica lly sound, monthly water quality data from defined sites in the Aquatic Preserves and to direct resource management activities towards the most critical parameters, locations and trends. The water quality parameters evaluated include: dissolved oxy gen, water clarity, salinity, nutrients, chlorophyll a , and fecal coliform bacteria. To characterize water quality as it rela tes to estuarine heal th, CHEVWQMN results were compared both within the region and to ot her estuaries across the state of Florida. Additional comparisons were made to numerical criteria to aid in the interpretation of water quality results. A s easonal, nonparametric trend test was used to detect trends in water quality from 1998 through 2005 for each estuary region. Analyses of the relationships among selected water quality par ameters were conducted to aid in the understanding of water quality conditions and trends across the region. Summaries of status and trend results for each paramet er and estuary regi on are presented. Across the Charlotte Harbor and Este ro Bay Aquatic Preserves, CHEVWMQN results indicated generally average condition s compared to other Florida estuaries, although results varied seasonally, spatially and over time. Dissolved oxygen was typically lower than average compared to Florida’s estuaries, with frequent exceedances below Florida Surface Water Criter ia of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L. However, these criteria are currently under ev aluation in order to take in to account shallow estuarine water bodies with naturally low dissolved oxygen. Chlorophyll a median values were average to lower than average co mpared to Florida estuaries. However, annual means above the 11 μ g/L Florida Impaired Waters Rule were observed at sites in Lemon Bay, Upper Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound. Salinity median values were lowest in Upper Charlotte Harbor, Matlacha Pass and U pper Lemon Bay, indicating the strongest freshwater influences in the region. UpperLemon Bay and Upper Charlotte Harbor also had the highest nutrient and bacteria concentr ations within the region. Significant decreasing trends in salinity, turbidity, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and an increasing trend in

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection vi 

# Executive Summary, cont. color were observed in many estuaries from 1998 through 2005. Significant relationships among light-limit ing factors and water clarity, nutrients and phytoplankton, were also observed, although results varied across the nine estuary regions. Status and trends results presented in this report convey the spatial and temporal variability of water quality conditions acro ss the Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves. CHEVWQMN results are used to characterize the relationships between water quality parameters and factor s affecting estuarine health, including changes in freshwater inflows and influences from watershed land uses. The primary use of the dataset is to set resource m anagement goals for the six Aquatic Preserves in order to preserve the health and sustainability of the sy stem. The CHEVWQMN is a critical and cost effective program for underst anding long term water quality trends and their causes within the region. Having a la rge volunteer program has the added benefit of promoting citizen support for the Aquatic Preserves resource management activities.

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection vii 

# Table of Contents Section Pa ge I. Introduc tion...................................................................................................... 2-4 II. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuar ies Regi on.................................5-6 III. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Ne twork (CHEVW QMN)....................................... 7-8 IV. Methods Used by the CHEVW QMN..............................................................9-24 A. Introduc tion ................................................................................................ 9 B. Study De sign .........................................................................................9-11 C. Quality Assu rance Me thods .................................................................... 12 D. Field Methods........................................................................................... 13 E. Laboratory Methods............................................................................ 14-15 F. Data Preparation and Ex ploratory Analysis .....................................16-17 G. Methods Used to Determine Water Quality Status........................... 18-20 1. Introduc tion........................................................................................ 18 2. Comparisons of Water Q uality within t he CHEVWQMN .................... 18 3. Comparison of CHEVWQMN Resu lts to Typical Florida Water Qualit y ..........................................................................................18-19 4. Comparison to Regul atory Criter ia ...............................................19-20 H. Trend Analysis Methods .....................................................................21-23 I. Methods in Determining Relati onships between Water Quality Parame ters ............................................................................................... 24 V. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the CHEVWQMN from 1998- 2005 ........ .....................................................................................................25 -80 A. Introducti on .........................................................................................25-27 B. Secchi de pth........................................................................................28-32 1. Backgr ound ....................................................................................... 28 2. Result s .........................................................................................28-29 3. Discuss ion ......................................................................................... 29 C. Temperat ure ........................................................................................30-36 1. Backgr ound ....................................................................................... 30 2. Resu lts .............................................................................................. 30 D. Dissolved Oxygen...............................................................................37-42 1. Backgr ound ....................................................................................... 37 2. Result s .........................................................................................37-38 3. Discussio n ....................................................................................38-39 E. pH... .....................................................................................................43 -47 1. Backgr ound ....................................................................................... 43 2. Result s .........................................................................................43-44 3. Discuss ion ......................................................................................... 44 F. Salinit y .................................................................................................48-52 1. Backgr ound ....................................................................................... 48 2. Result s .........................................................................................48-49 3. Discuss ion ......................................................................................... 49

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection viii 

# Table of Contents, cont. Section Pa ge G. Total Nitr ogen...................................................................................... 53-57 1. Backgr ound ....................................................................................... 53 2. Result s .........................................................................................53-54 3. Discussio n ....................................................................................54-55 H. Total Phos phorus................................................................................ 58-61 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 58 2. Result s .........................................................................................58-59 3. Discu ssion ......................................................................................... 59 I. Chlorophyll a .......................................................................................62-67 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 62 2. Result s .........................................................................................62-63 3. Discuss ion .................................................................................... 63-64 J. Fecal Colifo rm Bacteria ......................................................................68-69 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 68 2. Result s .........................................................................................68-69 3. Discu ssion ......................................................................................... 69 K. Turbidi ty...............................................................................................73-76 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 73 2. Resu lts .............................................................................................. 73 3. Discuss ion .................................................................................... 73-74 L. Colo r.....................................................................................................77 -80 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 77 2. Resu lts .............................................................................................. 77 3. Discuss ion .................................................................................... 77-78 VI. Results of Water Quality Relati onships within th e CHEVWQMN.............81-98 A. Intr oduction .............................................................................................. 81 B. Relationship between Rainfall and Selected Pa rameters................82-83 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 82 2. Resu lts .............................................................................................. 82 3. Discu ssion ......................................................................................... 83 C. Relationship between Salinity and Selected Pa rameters ................84-88 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 84 2. Result s .........................................................................................84-85 3. Discu ssion ......................................................................................... 85 D. Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationshi ps.........................................89 -92 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 89 2. Resu lts .............................................................................................. 89 3. Discuss ion .................................................................................... 89-90 E. Relationships between Light Limiting Para meters ..........................93-98 1. Backg round ....................................................................................... 93 2. Result s .........................................................................................93-94 3. Discu ssion ......................................................................................... 94

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection ix 

# Table of Contents, cont. Section Pa ge VII. Summaries of Status and Trends R esults for Each Aquatic Preserve .99-124 A. Intr oduction .............................................................................................. 99 B. Lemon Bay Aqua tic Preserve .........................................................100- 104 1. Backgr ound ..................................................................................... 100 2. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Upper Lemon Bay ........................................................................................... 100-101 3. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Lower Lemon Bay..... 101 4. Discuss ion ....................................................................................... 101 C. Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Ha rbor Aquatic Pr eserves...............105-111 1. Backgr ound .............................................................................. 105-106 2. Water Quality Status and Tr ends Results for Upper Charlotte Harbor ............................................................................................. 106 3. Water Quality Status and Tr ends Results for Lower Charlotte Harbor ......................................................................................106- 107 4. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Gasparilla/C ape Haze ..................................................................... 107 5. Discuss ion ....................................................................................... 107 D. Pine Island Sound and Matlac ha Pass Aquatic Preserves..........112-116 1. Backgr ound ..................................................................................... 112 2. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Pine Island Sound..... 113 3. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Matlacha Pass .......... 113 4. Discuss ion ....................................................................................... 114 E. San Carlos Bay................................................................................ 117-120 1. Backgr ound ..................................................................................... 117 2. Water Quality Status and Trends Resu lts................................. 117-118 3. Discuss ion ....................................................................................... 118 F. Estero Bay Aq uatic Preser ve .........................................................121- 124 1. Backgr ound ..................................................................................... 121 2. Water Quality Status and Trends Resu lts................................. 121-122 3. Discuss ion ....................................................................................... 122 VIII. Conclu sions ............................................................................................. 125-126 IX. Referenc es ...............................................................................................127-132

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection x 

# List of Figures and Tables in Text Section P age I. Introduction Figure 1.1 CHEVWQMN sites and Aquatic Preserves of the Charlotte Harbor Region .......................................................................................................... 2 II. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region Figure 2.1: Aquatic Preserves & wa tersheds for the Charlotte Harbor region ........................................................................................................... 4 Table 2.1: ..Florida Aquatic Preserves within the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region .......................................................................................................... 5 IV. Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN A. Introduction B. Study Design Figure 4.1: CHEVWQMN site map and estuary region delineation............ 10 Table 4.1: CHEVWQMN site descripti on and estuary region delineation... 11 D. Field Methods Table 4.2: Field Method Su mmary ............................................................. 13 E. Laboratory Methods Table 4.3: Laboratory Analysis Summary .................................................. 15 Table 4.4: Summary of values reported as the minimum detection limit (MDL) ......................................................................................................... 16 G. Methods Used to Determi ne Water Quality Status Table 4.5: Percentile distributions and sample sizes for 'Typical Florida Estuarine Water Quality' (Hand 2004) used to interpret CHEVWQMN status ......................................................................................................... 19 Table 4.6: Description of regulat ions used to determine water quality Status ......................................................................................................... 20 Table 4.7: Summary of values reported as the minimum detection limit (MDL) ........................................................................................................ 23 Table 4.8: Summary of depth and Secch i depth results for each aquatic Preserve..................................................................................................... 23 V. Water Quality Status and Trends Results from CHEVWQMN A. Introduction Table 5.1: Average annual rain fall (m) by wate rshed regi on ..................... 26 Figure 5.1: Average annual ra infall by wate rshed regi on .......................... 27 B. Secchi Depth Table 5.2: Summary and status of Secchi depth (m) results for each Estuar y....................................................................................................... 30 Figure 5.2: Secchi depth (m) boxplot results for each estuary region ........ 30 Figure 5.3: Seasonal Secchi depth (m ) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 5.4: Time series plot of Secchi depth (m) for 1998 through 2005.... 32

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection xi 

# List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont. Section P age Table 5.3: Secchi depth (m) trend re sults .................................................. 32 C. Temperature Table 5.4: Summary and status of tem perature (°C) result s for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 5.5: Temperature (°C) boxplot results for each estuary region........ 34 Figure 5.6: Seasonal temperature (°C) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 35 Figure 5.7: Time series plot of te mperature (°C) for 1998 through 2005.... 36 Table 5.5: Temperature (°C) trend results.................................................. 36 D. Dissolved Oxygen Table 5.6: Summary and status of di ssolved oxygen (mg/L) results for each estuar y ....................................................................................................... 39 Table 5.7: Number and % of dissol ved oxygen samples under 5 mg/L per Florida Surface Wate r Regulati ons ............................................................ 40 Table 5.8: Number and % of dissol ved oxygen samples under 4 mg/L per Florida Surface Wate r Regulati ons ............................................................ 40 Figure 5.8: Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) box plot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 5.9: Seasonal dissolved oxy gen (mg/L) boxplot re sults for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 41 Figure 5.10: Time series plot of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) for 1998 through 2005 .......................................................................................................... 42 Table 5.9: Dissolved oxyg en (mg/L) trend result s ...................................... 42 E. pH Table 5.10: Summary and status of pH results for each est uary................ 45 Figure 5.11: pH boxplot result s for each est uary regi on............................. 46 Figure 5.12: Seasonal pH boxplot re sults for each es tuary region............. 46 Figure 5.13: Time series plot of pH for 1998 through 2005 ........................ 47 Table 5.11: pH trend resu lts....................................................................... 47 F. Salinity Table 5.12: Summary and status of salinity (ppt) results for each estuar y ....................................................................................................... 50 Figure 5.14: Salinity (ppt) boxplot results for each es tuary region.............. 51 Figure 5.15: Seasonal salin ity (ppt) boxplot result s for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 51 Figure 5.16: Time series plot of salinity (ppt) for 1998 through 2005 ......... 52 Table 5.13: Salinity ( ppt) trend re sults........................................................ 52 G. Total Nitrogen Table 5.14: Percent of total nitr ogen in organic form plus ammonia (TKN) ......................................................................................................... 54 Table 5.15: Summary and status of to tal nitrogen (ppm) results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 55

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection xii 

# List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont. Section P age Figure 5.17: Total nitrogen (ppm) box plot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 56 Figure 5.18: Seasonal total nitrogen (pp m) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 56 Figure 5.19: Time series plot of total nitrogen (ppm) for 1998 through 2005 .......................................................................................................... 57 Table 5.16: Total nitrogen (ppm) trend re sults ........................................... 57 H. Phosphorus Table 5.17: Summary and status of phosphorus (ppm) results for each estuar y ....................................................................................................... 59 Figure 5.20: Phosphorus (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary region.... 60 Figure 5.21: Seasonal phos phorus (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 60 Figure 5.22: Time series plot ofphosphorus (ppm) for 1998 through 2005 .......................................................................................................... 61 Table 5.18: Phosphorus ( ppm) trend re sults .............................................. 61 I. Chlorophyll a Table 5.19: Summary and st atus of chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 64 Table 5.20: Chlorophyll a annual means greater than 11 μ g/l per Florida's Impaired Wate rs Ru le ................................................................................ 64 Figure 5.23: Chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) boxplot result s for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 65 Figure 5.24: Seasonal chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 65 Figure 5.25: Time series plot of chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) for 1998 through 2005 .......................................................................................................... 66 Table 5.21: Chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) trend re sults ............................................ 66 Table 5.22: Mann-Whitney between subjects results of chlorophyll afrom 1998-2001 compared to chloroph yll a from 2003-2005 .............................. 67 K. Fecal Coliform Bacteria Table 5.23: Summary and status of fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) results for each es tuary r egion ................................................................... 69 Table 5.24: Fecal coliform exceedances per Florida Surface Water regulations for each est uary....................................................................... 70 Figure 5.26: Fecal coliform bacteria (c fu/100mL) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 71 Figure 5.27: Seasonal fecal coliform bacte ria (cfu/100mL) boxplot results for each estuary region .................................................................................... 71 Figure 5.28: Time series plot of feca l coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) for 1998 through 2005.............................................................................................. 72 Table 5.25: Fecal coliform bacteri a (cfu/100mL) tr end result s ................... 72

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection xiii 

# List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont. Section P age L. Turbidity Table 5.26: Summary and status of turbidity (NTU) results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 74 Table 5.27: Sites with turbidity samples exceeding 29 NTU per Florida Surface Waters Criter ia.............................................................................. 74 Figure 5.29: Turbidity (NTU) boxplot results for each estuary region......... 75 Figure 5.30: Seasonal turbidity (NTU ) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 75 Figure 5.31: Time series plot of turbidity (NTU) for 1998 through 2005 ..... 76 Table 5.28: Turbidity (NTU) trend re sults................................................... 76 M. Color Table 5.29: Summary and status of co lor (PCU) results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 78 Figure 5.32: Color (PCU) boxplot re sults for each es tuary region.............. 79 Figure 5.33: Seasonal color (PCU) box plot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 79 Figure 5.34: Time series plot of color (PCU) for 1998 through 2005.......... 80 Table 5.30: Color (P CU) trend re sults........................................................ 80 VI. Water Quality Relationshi p Results from the CHEVWQMN A. Introduction B. Relationship between Rainfall and Selected Parameters C. Relationship between Salinit y and Selected Parameters Figure 6.1: Scatterplot results of color as predicted by salinity .................. 86 Figure 6.2: Scatterplot results of total phosphorus as predicted by salinit y ........................................................................................................ 86 Figure 6.3: Scatterplot results of tota l nitrogen as predict ed by salinity...... 87 Figure 6.4: Scatterplot results of tu rbidity as predict ed by salinity.............. 87 Figure 6.5: Scatterplot results of fe cal coliform bacteria as predicted by salinit y ........................................................................................................ 88 D. Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationships Figure 6.6: Scatterplot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total nitrogen ...................................................................................................... 91 Figure 6.7: Scatterplot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total phosphorus ................................................................................................ 91 Table 6.1: Stepwise regression results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total nitrogen and tota l phosphor us.................................................................... 92 E. Relationships between Light Limiting Parameters Figure 6.8: Scatterplot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by color ......... 95 Figure 6.9: Scatterplot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by turbidity..... 95 Figure 6.10: Scatterplot results of tu rbidity as predict ed by color............... 96 Figure 6.11: Scatterplot results of Se cchi depth as predicted by color....... 96 Figure 6.12: Scatterplot results of Secch i depth as predicted by turbidity.. 97

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection xiv 

# Figure 6.13: Scatterplot results of Secchi depth as predicted by chlorophyll a............................................................................................... 97 Table 6.2: Stepwise regression result s of Secchi as predicted by color, turbidity and chlorophyll a .......................................................................... 98

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection xv 

# List of Appendices Appendix A: Summary Statistics for Each Estuary and Site Appendix B: Water Quality Comparisons Appendix C: Comparison of Results to Nu merical Water Quality Criteria Appendix D: Water Quality Relationships Appendix E: Rainfall Relationships

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection xvi 

# List of Acronyms AMO: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation APHA: American Public Health Association CAMA: Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas CCHMN: Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network CFU: colony forming unit CHAPs: Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves CHEC: Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center CHEVWQMN : Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunt eer Water Quality Monitoring Network CHNEP: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program DO: Dissolved Oxygen EBAP: Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve ENSO: El Nino-Southern Oscillation FAC: Florida Administrative Code FDEP: Florida Department of Environmental Protection FGCU: Florida Gulf Coast University FWC: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service MDL: Minimum Detection Level NELAC: National Environmental Laborator y Accreditation Conference NOAA: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NOX: Nitrate plus nitrite NTU: Nephelometric units PCU: platinum cobalt units ppm: parts per million ppt: parts per thousand SFWMD: South Florida Water Management District SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences STORET: Storage and Retrieval database SWFWMD: Southwest Florida Water Management District TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load TN: Total Nitrogen TKN: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen TP: Total Phosphorus USACE: United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA: United States Environm ental Protection Agency USGS: United States Geological Survey

# Introduction CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 1 This page intentionally blank

# Introduction CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 2 Figure 1.1: CHEVWQMN sites and Aquatic Preserves of the Charlotte Harbor region. & < & < &

< & < & <

& < & < & <

& <

& < & < & < & <

& < & <
& <
& < & < & < & < & < & < & < & < & < & < & <
& <
&

< & <

& < & <
& < & < & < &

<

& < &

<

& <

& < & < & <

& <

& < & < & <

& < & < 

# Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve

Cape Haze Aquatic Preserve

Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve

Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve
0 6,100 12,200 18,300 24,400

3,050 Meters 

# $

& < 

# CHEVWQMN Site s

# Introduction CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 3 

# Charlotte Harbor & Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves Water Quality Status & Trends for 1998 - 2005 I. Introduction The purpose of this report is to descr ibe water quality conditions throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuaries region of southw est Florida. The C harlotte Harbor region includes six Florida Aquatic Preserves crossing eight interconnected estuary regions. Water quality data used in the analyses we re collected by the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Moni toring Network (CHEVWQMN) from 1998 through 2005. The Charlotte Harbor est uaries region extends from Venice south to Bonita Springs, encompassing over 700 km 2 

# (~175,000 acres) of diverse, productive submerged habitats (Fig. 1.1). North to south, the six designated Florida Aquatic Preserves include: Lemon Ba y, Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor, Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and Estero Bay. The legislative mission of the Aquatic Pr eserve Program is to preserve Florida's exceptional submerged resources in their natural condition for future generations to enjoy. The primary activities of the AquaticPreserve Program are resource monitoring, resource management in the estuarie s and watershed, and public education and outreach. The Aquatic Pr eserve Program is adminis tered through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA). The local Aquatic Pr eserve offices include the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves (CHAPs) and t he Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve (EBAP). The CHEVWQMN conducts water quality monitoring throughout the region each month. The CHEVWQMN was established in 1996 as a partnership of the FDEP, CHAPs, the Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center (CHEC), and local citizens. Since 1998, The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program ( CHNEP), EBAP, and FDEP South District Laboratory have been active partners in supporti ng the CHEVWQMN. The monitoring program is administered th rough the CHAPs office in Punta Gorda, Florida. The primary goal of the CHEVWQMN is to provide consistent, technically sound water quality data throughout the six Char lotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves each month within a synoptic time period. These water quality data are used to guide effective estuary resource management by identifying the most critical water quality parameters, locations and trends within and throughout the region. The most critical water quality parameter s are those that directly affect and reflect estuarine health, including: dissolved oxygen, water cl arity, salinity, nut rients, chlorophyll a , and fecal coliform bacteria. This report summarizes 1998 - 2005 wate r quality data throughout the Charlotte Harbor region and relates the fi ndings to the general health of the individual estuaries. The analyses display water quality relationshi ps both spatially and temporally as a means of highlighting regions and parameters of concern. The report comprises descriptions of the Charlotte Harbor estuaries regions (Section II), the CHEVWQMN

# Introduction CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 4 (Section III), and the methods used (Section IV). The eight-year trends for each parameter are given in Secti on V, followed by relationships between the parameters in Section VI. Summaries of water qualit y and management considerations for each estuary are given in Section VII, followed by c onclusions in Section VIII. Detailed tables of data analysis results are given in the appendices.

Figure 2.1: Aquatic Preserves & waters heds for the Charlotte Harbor region.

# Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 5 

# II. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region The Charlotte Harbor estuar ies region (Figure 1.1), locat ed in southwest Florida, is large, productive, complex and diverse. Th e Charlotte Harbor es tuaries extend from Venice south to Bonita Springs, cross manypolitical boundaries and encompass over 700 km 2 

# (~175,000 acres) of exceptional coasta l and estuarine habi tats. The greater Charlotte Harbor watershed is almost 10,000 km 2 

# (~4,000 mi 2 

# ) in size, ranking among the largest watersheds in Florida. The wa tershed, as defined by CHNEP, extends from the headwaters of the P eace River north of Bartow, Fl orida and the Franklin Locks on the Caloosahatchee River downstream to the C harlotte Harbor estuaries (Figure 2.1). The Charlotte Harbor es tuaries are located withi n the boundaries of many government agencies, research and educational institutions, non profit organizations and citizen groups. The estuaries cover parts of three counties, including Sarasota, Charlotte and Lee counties, as well as eigh t communities, including Englewood, Punta Gorda, Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Sanibel and Bonita Springs. The estuaries also include two Florida Department of Environmental Protection Districts (South and Southwest) and two Water Management Districts (South [SFWMD] and Southwest [SWFWMD]). There are six Florida Aquat ic Preserves designated withi n the region: Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor, Cape Haze , Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and Estero Bay. Additionally, the region is also part of the CHNEP and the National Wildlife Refuge System (Figure 1.1 and Table 2.1).

To ensure the long term sustainability of the estuary resources and water quality, the Charlotte Harbor estuaries are cooper atively managed by a number of regional governmental and natural resource agencies. A strong partner ship of organizations is critical to the long term management and su stainability of the natural resources and water quality of the Charlotte Harbor estuar ies. These partners include county agencies (Lee, Charlotte, Hardee, DeSoto, Manatee and Sarasota), federal agencies (CHNEP, United States Environmental Protection Ag ency [USEPA], United States Geographical Survey [USGS], Fish and Wildlife Se rvice [FWS], National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], United St ates Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]), and state agencies (FDEP, Florida Fish and W ildlife Conservation Commission [FWC], SFWMD, SWFWMD), along with research instit utions such as Mote Marine Laboratory, educational institutions, such as Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU), and non-profit organizations, such as the CHEC. Thes e partnerships support the long term water Table 2.1: Florida Aquatic Preserves within the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region Estuary Management Program Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve 1986 Sarasota,Charlotte 7,667 Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve 1975 Charlotte, Lee 79,168 Cape Haze Aquatic Preserve 1978 Charlotte 11,284 Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve 1970 Lee 54,176 Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve 1972 Lee 12,511 Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve. 1966 Lee 9,834 Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1995 Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee 173,000 Date Designated Estuary Location (counties) Estuary Area Managed (Acres)

# Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 6 quality monitoring of the CHEVWQMN. The CHEVWQMN is managed by the FDEP Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve offi ce in Punta Gorda, Florida. The Charlotte Harbor region (Figure 1.1) includes eight interconnected estuaries, including (from north to south): Lemon Ba y, Gasparilla Sound, Cape Haze, Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, S an Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. These estuaries are separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a chain of ten barrier islands from Manasota Key south to Little Hickory Island. Gulf of Mexico waters enter the estuarine complex through nine passes, fr om Stump Pass south to Bi g Hickory Pass. Estuary waters mix with freshwater inflows from three major rivers - Myakka, Peace and Caloosahatchee Rivers. In addition to the la rger rivers, there are over 15 smaller tributaries from Alligator Creek in northern Lemon Bay, to th e Imperial River in southern Estero Bay. The water exchange between t hese passes and tributaries creates a large variation in salinity and wa ter quality conditions around the region by season and year. The unique physical and hydrological charac teristics of each of these estuaries help sustain the complex habitats found throughout the region. Many of the diverse submerged habitats of the Charlotte Harbor estuaries region include mangroves, salt marshes, tidal fl ats, seagrasses, and unvegetated submerged areas. The complex habitats support a vast f ood web, including inve rtebrates, shellfish, finfish, sharks, reptiles, birds and aquat ic mammals. Endangered and threatened species also depend on the local estuary fo r food and shelter. The fragile balance between estuarine habitat and t he health of these species depends largely on the water quality and factors affecting estuarine water conditions, including human uses of the system and watershed influences. Humans interact with and influence the health of these coastal and estuarine habitats. Daily human interactions with estuarine species are important both commercially and recreationally. Commercial harvests of shrimp, clams, food fish and baitfish contribute significantly to the local economy. In 2004, nearly 4500 metric tons (~10 million lbs) of fish and shellfish were taken from the watershed (BEBR 2005). In addition, recreational fishing, boating, kayaking and nature watching are valuable pastimes that depend on the health of the estuary and its wate r quality. In 1993, 1.6 million tourists visited the th ree counties located along the es tuary (Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee) and spent more than $1.1 billion dollars (Martin et al 1996). Along with recreational and commercial us es of the estuary, water quality and quantity within the Charlotte Ha rbor estuaries depend on land uses and activities within the adjacent watersheds. The severity of the impacts of land use on water quality depends on both the intensity of the use as well as its proximity to su rface water. Land uses in the Charlotte Harbor watershed in clude: rangeland, ag riculture, mining, residential, commercial and industrial. The type and degree of land use and distance to the estuary vary for each sub-basin of t he greater Charlotte Harbor watershed - from residential use near the sma ll tributaries adjacent to Lemon and Estero Bays, to phosphate mining miles up the Peace River, to agricultu ral use in the upper watersheds. The watershed and rainfall/runoff conditions th roughout the region strongly influence the downstream biological conditions of each estuary.

# Description of the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 7 

# III. Description of Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Network The CHEVWQMN is a region-wide, fixed st ation, monthly water quality monitoring program. The CHEVWQMN is a partnership of the CH APs, EBAP, CHEC, CHNEP, and local citizens. The monitoring program was initiated in 1996 in response to aquatic preserve managers' needs for baseline resource information and citizens' concerns for the health of local estuaries. Originally, CHEC re ceived a grant from the SWFWMD to start sampling ten sites in northern Charlotte Har bor for ten field param eters. In 1997 and subsequent years, the CHAPs received add itional grants from the CHNEP to expand and maintain the monitoring program r egion-wide and increas e the number of parameters to include l aboratory analyses. The primary purpose of the CHEVWQMN is to collect consistent, technically sound water quality data throughout the Charlotte Ha rbor estuaries region. Prior to the development of the CHEVWQMN, much of the water qua lity monitoring within the Charlotte Harbor region was limited to program s that occurred infrequently, were shortterm or covered only partial areas of the estuaries. Data re sulting from these historical monitoring programs were challenging to int egrate, analyze and use to identify critical resource concerns. The CHEVWQMN was designed to characte rize baseline water quality conditions throughout the region. The original des ign was developed by the CHAPs, with assistance from CHEC, the Three Creek Watch citizen group in Lemon Bay and the USEPA. The details of CHEVWQMN meth ods are described in the Comprehensive Quality Assurance Project Plan for the CHEVWQMN (FDEP, 1997) and summarized in Section IV of this report. The projec t plan was approved by the FDEP, CHNEP and USEPA. The six specific objecti ves of the CHEVWQMN are: • Describe baseline water quality condition s throughout the six aquatic preserves • Identify the most critical, regional water quality locations, parameters and trends relative to estuarine health, fi sh and wildlife habitat, and human health • Complement other CHAP seagrass and regional water quality monitoring program results to define aquatic preserve resource management needs • Enhance community understanding and stew ardship of the aquatic preserves • Improve aquatic preserves managers’ understanding of community concerns regarding local estuaries • Encourage the development of a part nership of agencies to conduct uniform water monitoring throughout the region. To accomplish these objectives, t he CHEVWQMN program follows a rigorous monitoring design. The sampling frequency pr ovides a monthly synoptic snap-shot of water quality. CHEVWQMN citizen and agency wa ter monitors are highly trained in the classroom and field, have standard samplin g equipment and are generally assigned to work in pairs at a specific site. In additi on, water monitors are required to attend regionwide quality assurance sampling practice se ssions twice a year to receive updated supplies and equipment, validate techniques , and correct any problems that are identified. Each water moni tor contributes over 35 hours a year, plus automobile and

# Description of the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 8 boat gasoline to the success of the CHEVWQMN. Without their support, this long-term, region-wide, water quality data would not be available to guide estuary resource management in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries. Management and analysis of the CHEVWQMN data is c onducted using Microsoft Access and Excel and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) following specific data management criteria. The data are also entered into the federal water quality database (Storage and Retrieval database [S TORET]) to allow access by other scientists and resource managers. The on-going CHEVWQMN also provides baseline water quality data to other agencies, partners and citizen groups who request them. To date, the CHEVWQMN results have been used within the region to: • Identify Florida's impaired waters • Determine water quality and seagrass relationships • Establish resource based water quality targets • Establish resource management priorities and goals • Encourage and evaluate effectiveness of adaptive management practices; • Describe water quality conditions to the public • Evaluate the effects of bi ological and physical events, such as hurricanes and algal blooms, on estuary conditions • Allow citizens and agency staff to assess potential adv erse resource impacts from proposed development projects It is intended that the CHE VWQMN analyses of the data will be used to determine resource management objectives for each of the six Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves.

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 9 

# IV. Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN A. Introduction To provide consistent, technically sound water quality dat a, the CHEVWQMN follows rigorous monitoring protocols. The quality assurance, field and laboratory methods are described in detail in the Co mprehensive Quality Assurance Project Plan for the CHEVWQMN (FDEP 1997, Updated 1999) and summarized here. The Quality Assurance Project Plan was approved by the FDEP, CHNEP and the USEPA. In addition, the stringent data preparation and analysis guidelines used by the CHEVWQMN to evaluate data results are also described below. These strong project management methods link the scientific and citi zen monitoring communities by assuring the accuracy and precision of the data so t hey can be used confidently by resource managers and scientists. The approved methods also allow the CHEVWQMN data to be used to determine Florida Impaired Waters and to be entered into the federal STORET water quality data base, making them accessible nationwide. 

# B. Sampling Design Monthly sampling was made at 48 fixed si tes that are widely distributed throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuaries region (Fi gure 4.1 and Table 4.1). The sites were chosen to represent general water quality conditions throughout the region, as well as to be accessible in a safe and timely manner for samples to be collected and transported to the laboratory within holding times. The sampling locations emphasize shallower, near shore coastal areas, with limited samp ling in the deeper, open water portions of Charlotte Harbor. A result of this sampling bias of shallower waters is that water clarity values cannot be determined for shallow si tes and times when clarity exceeds water depth. At each site, during the monthly samp ling time, surface water samples are collected and field measurement s are made for ten physical and chemical parameters: wind speed and direction, wave height, tide stage, water depth, Secchi depth, water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and salinity . Water samples are collected for seven additional laboratory par ameters: chlorophyll a , turbidity, color, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate/ nitrite, and fecal coliform bacteri a. These are key water quality parameters needed to determine over all estuary health as it relates to seagrass, fish and wildlife needs. For quality assurance purposes, duplicate and blank laboratory parameters are collected each m onth at 10% of the sampling sites. Additional quality assurance measures are deta iled in the next section. To assist with interpreting the results and identifying resource conditions for each estuary, sampling sites were grouped into ni ne estuary regions with similar hydrologic conditions (Table 4.2). These nine regions are based on13 hydrologic regions (strata) established by the CHNEP for the interagen cy Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network (CCHMN). Four strata (Tidal Myak ka River, Tidal Peace River, West Wall of Charlotte Harbor and East Wall of Charlo tte Harbor), as defined by CCHMN, were grouped into the Upper Charlotte Harbor region for this st udy. The CCHMN strata were

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 10 designed to describe relatively homogeneous hydrologic regions based on the best available information and professional judgment of scientists throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuaries. Grouping the CHEVWQMN site s into the hydrologic strata allows the data to be compared to the CCHMN open wate r sampling results, the CHAPs seagrass monitoring results and to determine estuary specific resource management concerns and solutions.

Figure 4.1: CHEVWQMN site ma p and estuary region delineation & < & < &

< & < & <

& < & < & <

& <

& < & < & < & <

& < & < & <
& < & < & < & < & < & < & < & < & < & < & <
& <
&

< & <

& < & < & < & < & < &

<

& < &

<

& <
& < & < & <

& <

& < & < & <

& < & <

EBV006 

# Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay
Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

SCV002 SCV001 PIJIM1

PIV007

PIV006 PIV004 PIV002 PIV001

MPV004 MPV003 MPV002 MPV001 LBV007

LBV006 LBV005 LBV004 LBV003 LBV002

LBV001

LBOYS1 LBGOT2 LBFOR1

GSV005 GSV003 GSV002

EBERS2 EBV007 EBV006

EBV005 EBV004

EBV003 EBV001 CHV013

CHV012 CHV011 CHV010 CHV009 CHV008 CHV007 CHV006 CHV005 CHV004 CHV003 CHV002 CHV001

0 6,100 12,200 18,300 24,400

3,050 Meters & < 

# CHEVWQMN Site s

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 11 Table 4.1: CHEVWQMN site description and estuary region delineation

Estuary Region CHEVWQMN Site Station Name Start Date CCHMN Strata Aquatic Preserve # of Sites LBFOR1 Forked Creek Apr-00 Outside Strata Lemon Bay 5 LBGOT2 Gottfried Creek Nov-98 Outside Strata Lemon Bay LBV001 Alligator Creek Jul-98 Upper Lemon Bay Lemon Bay LBV002 Lemon Bay Jul-98 Upper Lemon Bay Lemon Bay LBV003 Lemon Bay Jul-98 Upper Lemon Bay Lemon Bay GSV002 Gasparilla S ound Nov-97 Lower Lemon Bay Lemon Bay 7 LBANG1 Ainger Creek Sep-99 Lower Lemon Bay Lemon Bay LBOYS1 Oyster Creek Feb-99 Lower Lemon Bay Lemon Bay LBV004 Lemon Bay Jul-98 Lower Lemon Bay Lemon Bay LBV005 Ski Alley Jul-98 Lower Lemon Bay Lemon Bay LBV006 Buck Creek Jan-99 Lower Lemon Bay Lemon Bay LBV007 Lemon Bay Sep-99 Lower Lemon Bay Lemon Bay CHV001 Sunrise Waterway Nov-96 Tidal Peace Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor 9 CHV002 Myakka River Nov-96 Tidal Myakka Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV003 Sam Knight Creek Nov-96 Tidal Myakka Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV004 Charlotte Harbor Nov-96 Tidal Peace Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV005 Peace River Nov-96 Tidal Peace Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV006 Charlotte Harbor Nov-96 Tidal Peace Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV007 Ponce de Leon Inlet Nov-96 West Wall Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV008 Alligator Creek Nov-96 Outside Strata Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV013 Peace River Jul-01 Tidal Peace Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV009 Burnt Store Entrance Feb-98 Lower Charlotte Harbor Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor 3 CHV010 Charlotte Harbor Feb-98 Lower Charlotte Harbor Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV011 Charlotte Harbor Feb-98 Lower Charlotte Harbor Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor CHV012 Bull Bay Jun-98 Cape Haze Cape Haze 4 GSV001 Coral Creek Nov-97 Cape Haze Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor GSV003 Gasparilla S ound Jan-98 Cape Haze Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor GSV004 Gasparilla S ound Jul-04 Cape Haze Gasp. Sound/Charlotte Harbor PIJIM1 Big Jim Creek Jan-01 Pine Island Sound Pine Island Sound 6 PIV001 Pelican Bay Sep-99 Pine Island Sound Pine Island Sound PIV002 Pine Island Sound Feb-98 Pine Island Sound Pine Island Sound PIV004 Redfish Pass Jan-00 Pine Island Sound Pine Island Sound PIV006 Pine Island Sound Feb-98 Pine Island Sound Pine Island Sound PIV007 Pine Island Sound Jan-99 Pine Island Sound Pine Island Sound MPV001 Matlacha Pass Feb-98 Matlacha Pass Matlacha Pass 3 MPV002 Matlacha Pass Feb-98 Matlacha Pass Matlacha Pass MPV003 Matlacha Pass Feb-98 Matlacha Pass Matlacha Pass EBV001 Matanzas Pass Mar-98 San Carlos Bay Estero Bay 4 MPV004 Matlacha Pass Feb-98 San Carlos Bay SCV001 San Carlos Bay Feb-98 San Carlos Bay SCV002 San Carlos Bay Feb-98 San Carlos Bay EBERS2 Estero River Sep-01 Outside Strata Estero Bay 6 EBV003 Estero Bay Jun-98 Estero Bay Estero Bay EBV004 Estero Bay Mar-98 Estero Bay Estero Bay EBV005 Estero Bay Mar-98 Estero Bay Estero Bay EBV006 Estero Bay Feb-00 Estero Bay Estero Bay EBV007 Estero Bay Sep-01 Estero Bay Estero Bay None GSV005 Coral Creek Jun-98 Lower Lemon Bay Lemon Bay 1 Estero Bay Gasparilla/ Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha

Pass
San Carlos Bay Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 12 

# C. Quality Assurance Methods
Consistent with the CH EVWQMN Quality Assurance Project Plan, extensive measures are taken to ensure the precis ion and accuracy of the CHEVWQMN data by guiding field sample collection, laborat ory analyses and data management. Specific quality assurance procedures include: • Classroom and field training are provided for each water monitor • Quality assurance practice sessions are required for all monitors • Uniform sampling equipment and up-to- date supplies are used at all sites • Sampling is conducted synoptically for a ll sites within one hourof sunrise on first Monday of each month • Specific water monitors and equi pment are assigned to each site • Written field procedures and data sheets are used by all water monitors • Duplicate dissolved oxygen tests ar e conducted at each site each month • Duplicate and blank field samples are collected for laboratory analyzed parameters at 10% of sites each month • Samples are transported to the labor atory within maximum sample holding times • Chain-of-custody procedures are used to track samples • Laboratory analyses are conducted by FDEP and National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (N ELAC) certified laboratories. Beginning in 2003, FDEP required NELAC certification and laboratories were given 18 months to comply. Prior to that date laboratory analyses were conducted following APHA Standard Methods which became the basis for NELAC protocols. • Replicate and blank la boratory analyses are conduc ted on 10% of samples each month • Data are reviewed by water monito rs and staff for trans cription errors

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 13 

# D. Field Methods In compliance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan, written field procedures are followed by the water monitors. The pr ocedures are described in detail in the CHEVWQMN Field Methods Manual (1998, updated 2005) and summarized in Table 4.3. During monthly sampling, field meas urements are made for ten parameters and water samples are collected for laborator y analyses of seven additional analytes from each of the 48 sites. CHE VWQMN field procedures us ed during monthly sampling events include: • Site specific equipment (cleaned accord ing to instructions), updated supplies and the CHEVWQMN field methods manual and data sheet are used • Monitoring activities are star ted within one hour of sunrise • Sampling start, stop and sunrise ti mes are recorded on the data sheet • Surface water "grab" samples are collected in clean, site specific sampling buckets • No bottom water samples are collected and no water column depth profiles are conducted • Weather and water conditions are recorded on the data sheet: wind speed and direction, cloud cover, wave height, and tide stage • Six physical and chemical parameters measured are in situ, including: water depth, water clarity (0.2 m Secchi and ca librated line), temper ature (calibrated thermometer), pH (colorimetri c test kit), dissolved oxyg en (Winkler titration test kit) and salinity (based on specific gravity using a hydrometer) • Surface water samples are collected in cl ean sample bottles (pre-acidified as needed) for laboratory analysis of seven par ameters, including: color, turbidity and chlorophyll a (brown polyethylene bottle), total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrate plus nitrite (white Nalgene 500 ml bottle), and fecal coliform bacteria (sterile whirl pack) • Water samples are stored on ice and trans ported to the laboratory within the maximum holding times
Table 4.2: Field Method Summary Depth (m) Secchi depth (m) Temperature (deg C) DO (mg/l) pH Salinity (ppt)

Method weighted line Secchi disk (LaMotte #0171) 0.20 m disc calibrated at 0.10 m intervals Armored thermometer (LaMotte #1066) Winkler Titration Test Kit (LaMotte #7414) Colorimetric test kit CresolRed (LaMotte #2111) HACH #2234-00, Hydrometer (LaMotte #30025)

Comments value missin g

when Secchi depth was equal to or greater than total depth immediate sample average of two determinations immediate sample determined by temperature and specific gravity

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 14 

# E. Laboratory Methods Water samples collected by CHEVWQMN m onitors require laboratory analysis for seven parameters using methods described in the Quality Assur ance Project Plan and summarized in Table 4.3. All laborator ies utilized by the CHEVWQMN are NELAC and state certified, except as noted in Section IV Part C, and use the following procedures to conduct the monthly analyses: • Duplicate and blank samples for laborator y parameters are colle cted in the field for 10% of the sites and analyzed in the laboratory. • Additional replicate and blank laborato ry analyses are conducted for 10% of the samples. • Apparent color is measured in plati num cobalt units (PCU) and determined by visual comparison without filtration us ing the platinum cobalt method (APHA 2120B and USEPA 110.2). • Turbidity is measured in Nephelometr ic units (NTU) using the Nephelometric method and is estimated by comparing the amount of light scattered through the sample to a reference standard underthe same conditions (APHA 2130 B and USEPA 180.1). • Chlorophyll a is measured in μg/L and determined spectrophotometrically without pheophytin correction (APHA SM 10200 H). Due to time and funding constraints, chlorophyll a analyses were not conducted from December 2001 through December 2002. • Total phosphorus samples are preserved with acid in the field, then measured in mg/l as the combination of orthophosphate, condensed phosphates and organically bound phosphates (USEP A 365.4 and APHA 4500 P-E). • Total Kjeldahl nitrogen samples are pr eserved with acid in the field, then measured in mg/L as the sum of organic nitrogen and ammonia (USEPA 351.2 and APHA 4500-N org 

# B). • Nitrate and nitrite samples are preserv ed in the field with acid, then measured collectively in mg/L (USEPA 353.2 and APHA 4500-NO 3 

# B ). 

# • Total nitrogen is calculated as the sum oftotal Kjeldahl nitroge n and nitrate plus nitrite values. • Fecal coliform bacteria value is measured as colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml and derived from counts of colonyforming units per 100 mL aliquot incubated for 24 hours in an elevated temperature envir onment (APHA 9222 D).Methods Used by the CHEVWQMNCHEVWQMN Report 2007Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection15Table 4.3: Laboratory Analysis SummaryLab* Method Lab* Method Lab* Method Lab* MethodTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ppm)DEP South1USEPA 351.2Cape Coral2APHA 4500-NOR(B)Tri-Tech3USEPA 351.2Dep Central4USEPA 351.2Nitrate plus Nitrite (ppm)DEP South1USEPA 353.2Cape Coral2APHA 4500-NO3(B)Tri-Tech3USEPA 353.2Dep Central4USEPA 353.2Phosphorus (ppm)DEP South1USEPA 365.4Cape Coral2APHA 4500 P-ETri-Tech3USEPA 365.4Dep Central4USEPA 365.4Chlorophylla(μg/l)DEP South1APHA 10-2000-HCape Coral2APHA 10-2000-HTri-Tech3APHA 10-2000-HDEP South1APHA 10-2000-Fecal Coliform (cfu/100ml)DEP South1APHA 9222 DCape Coral2APHA 9222 DTri-Tech3APHA 9222 DDEP South1APHA 9222 DTurbidity(NTU)DEP South1USEPA 180.1Cape Coral2APHA 2130 BTri-Tech3USEPA 180.1DEP South1USEPA 180.1Color (PCU)DEP South1APHA 2120 BCape Coral2APHA 2120 BTri-Tech3APHA 2120 BDEP South1USEPA 110.21Florida Department of Environmental Protection South District Laboratory, 28000 A-10 Airport Road Punta Gorda, FL 339822City of Cape Coral Laboratory, 3310 SW 20th Avenue Cape Coral, FL 339143Tri-Tech Laboratories, 7240 Old Cheney Hwy Orlando, FL 328074Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection Central District Laboratory, 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 323992/02-12/03 1/04-12/0511/98-9/01 11/01-12/02

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 16 

# F. Data Preparation and Exploratory Analysis After field sampling and laboratory anal yses have been completed according to quality assurance procedures, CHEVWQMN data are entered into a database. For this report, data were compiled for the eight -year period from 1998 to 2005 and for each designated rainy and dry season. The dry seasons were defined as the months of November through May and the rainy seasons were June through October (Montgomery 2005). Aver age annual rainfall data were colle cted for the region using DBHYDRO from SFWMD (2007) and from the USGS Drainag e Basin Total Summaries provided by SWFWMD (2007). Data pr eparation and exploratory analyses were conducted to: 1) screen for errors 2) determine the suitability for statistical applications and 3) group sites into estuary regions for fu rther analysis. Data preparation, storage and analysis of results were conducted usin g SPSS and Microsoft Access and Excel. Once the compiled dataset was screened for errors and outliers, results were deemed invalid and not used for analysis if they met at least one of two conditions: 1) were outside the minimum and ma ximum detection limits for l aboratory or field methods, 2) were values not possible to occur under natural conditions for each parameter and site. After the data were screened for outliers , accommodations were made for values reported as the minimum detection limits (MDLs) for each parameter. It is recognized that the true values fall somewhere between the MDL and 0. Therefore, to characterize values below laboratory detection limits for nutrients, chlorophyll a and turbidity, all values reported as the MDL for these parameters were di vided by 2 and the adjusted values were used in these analyses. Simila rly, apparent color values reported as the MDL were adjusted to 1 PCU and fecal colifo rm bacteria MDL values were adjusted to 1 cfu/100 mL. A summary of MDLs for each parameter an d laboratory for the study period are included in Table 4.4.

After the dataset was prepared, the dist ribution of the data was assessed to determine the need to use parametric or nonpar ametric statistical methods. Visual assessment of histograms and quantitative a ssessment of skewness were conducted. Similar to patterns found in other typical wa ter quality datasets, multiple sampling levels (by estuary region, season, y ear etc.) exhibited non-normal distributions. Because the data were not normally distributed and there were large outlying values, nonparametric statistics were used to make comparisons between groups, quantify relationships between variables, and estimate trends. In general, nonparamet ric tests are less affected by outlying values, normal distribut ion violations, and minimal censoring of laboratory results. Following adjustments to the MDLs and evaluation of data distribution, the CHEVWQMN sampling sites were grouped into nine estuary regions for data analysis. Parameter TKN (ppm) NOX (ppm) TP (ppm) ChlA (μ g/L) Coliform (cfu/100mL) Turbidity (NTU) Color (PCU) Minimum MDL 0.080 0.004 0.004 0.03 1 0.02 1 Maximum MDL 0.500 0.100 0.050 2.00 2 1.40 5 Table 4.4: Summary of values reported as the minimum detection limit (MDL)

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 17 The purpose of grouping the CHEVWQMN sites by estuary region was to facilitate interpretation of the water quality results so that estuary specific resource conditions and management needs could be determined. The nine estuary regions represent areas of relatively uniform hydrologic c onditions based upon the 13 hydrologic strata defined by the interagency CCHMN est ablished by the CHNEP. The CCHMN hydrologic strata were developed using t he best available information and professional judgment of scientists throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuarie s. In Northern Charlotte Harbor, four CCHMN strata (Tidal Myakka River, Tidal Peace River, West Wall of Charlotte Harbor and East Wall of Char lotte Harbor) were grouped together and are referred to in this report as the Upper Charlo tte Harbor estuary region. The nine estuary regions used for this report were chosen to most accurately represent spatial relationships between biological and physica l parameters and watershed influences for each estuary, as well as reflect resour ce management jurisdictions for each aquatic preserve. To characterize homogeneity of site c onditions within each estuary region and reinforce estuary region delineations, an exploratory k-means cluster analysis was conducted using SPSS. Sites in the UpperCharlotte Harbor region were grouped to maximize sample size and characterize vari ability in that region. The nine estuary regions include sites from six aquatic preserves as shown in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1.

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 18 

# G. Methods Used to Determine Water Quality Status 1. Introduction The status of water qua lity parameters across the st udy region was evaluated to guide interpretation of water quality as it rela tes to estuary health. Water quality status was evaluated by comparing results betw een regions within the CHEVWQMN program as well as comparing results to additional estuarine baseline dat asets and regulatory criteria. Summary statistics are provided fo r each estuary region including sample size (N) minimum, maximum, m ean, standard error (SE) and m edian. Standard error is a measure of spread within the data and is t he standard deviation divided by the sample size. Estuary medians were also ranked in ascending order to demonstrate the relative relationships between estuaries for a given par ameter. Estuary resu lts are compared to water quality classifications as described belowand displayed in tables by parameter in the Results section. 2. Comparisons of Water Quality C onditions within the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries The first method, used to describe r egional water quality status based on CHEVWQMN results, quantified the relationship between r egions and seasons for each parameter. To estimate differences across a ll estuary regions with in the entire region the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. The Kru skal-Wallis test is a nonparametric one-way between-subjects analysis of variance (ANO VA) which compares differences between two or more groups. To quantify differences between individual estuaries, a post hoc comparison was conducted using the Mann-Wh itney U test. The Mann-Whitney U test is a nonparametric version of the between-subjects t-test which compares differences between medians of two groups. The Mann-Wh itney U test was also used to detect significant differences between the rainy an d dry season for each estuary region. Box plots are provided for a visual analysis of seasonal and regional comparisons. Each box represents the upper and lower quartiles with the median value given within each box. Box plot data tables are provided in the following sections with detailed results included in Appendix B. 3. Comparison of Water Quality Conditions in the Charlotte Harbor Region to Typical Florida Estuaries As a second guide to interpreting est uary health relative to water quality conditions, CHEVWQMN results were compar ed to estuaries across the state. To interpret CHEVWQMN results relative to Flor ida estuaries, results for each estuary and site were compared to baseline water quality conditions for over 20 estuaries around the state. The publication Typical Water Quality Values for Florida’s Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries (Hand 2004) was chosen as the sour ce of baseline comparison. The publication was chosen because of the large number of samples (over 20,000), consistent sampling period (1990 - 2003), and co mplete set of parameters. Because of its uniform, continuous and reliable dataset, Typical Water Quality Values for Florida’s Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries appears to be the most repres entative source of estuary

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 19 conditions across the state. However, it should be emphas ized that the data contained within Typical Water Quality values for Fl orida’s Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries represent two climactic regions and five biogeographic regions. See Table 4.5 for a brief description of the length of the dataset and sample sizes. To characterize the water quality in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, median values for each parameter were compared to percentile distributions compiled from Typical Water Quality Values for Florida’s Lakes, Streams, and Estuaries (Hand 2004). To facilitate the use of statewide, water qualit y values for estimating estuary health, the percentile distributions were grouped to represent above average, average and below average estuary health conditions. The per centiles were grouped based on values used in Florida’s Trophic State I ndices to describe general health categories for Florida’s lakes, streams and estuaries. For this r eport, the following percentile categories were used to interpret CHEVWQMN results: bel ow average =10 through 30, average = 31 through 69, and above average = 70 and greater. Resulting percentile categories for each estuary are included in tables in the Re sults section. Site specific results and percentiles are include d Appendix A.

4. Comparison to Regulatory Criteria The third method used to describe the st atus of Charlotte Harbor water quality conditions compared CHEVWQMN results to av ailable Florida water quality criteria and standards. Florida Surface Water R egulations (Chapter 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code [FAC]) and Impaired Wa ters Rule (Chapter 62-303.353, FAC) served as comparison sources fo r dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, turbidity, and fecal coliform bacteria. For some CHEVWQMN param eters, estuaries and sites, insufficient numbers of samples were available to allow for direct comparison of the results to a specific regulation. Where insufficient dat a were available, general comparisons were made to the numerical water quality criterion. Comparisons are included in the Results section of this report for eac h parameter. This analysis is a tool for quantifying water quality status and in no means represents met hods, findings or decisions resulting from the Florida’s Impaired Waters and Total Ma ximum Daily Load Programs. Regulatory criteria are summarized in Table 4.6. Table 4.5: Percentile dsitributions and sample sizes for 'Typical Florida Estuarine Water Quality' (Hand 2004) used to interpret CHEVWQMN status Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color

(m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) (cfu/100ml) (NTU) (PCU) 

# 10 0.0875 10.6 4 7.43 6.6 0.19 0.01 1.5 1 0.87 5 20 0.5 16.38 5.01 7.62 13.7 0.32 0.023 2.7 1 1.4 7 30 0.7 18.9 5.62 7.75 17.8 0.44 0.048 3.8 1 1.9 10 40 0.9 21 6.1 7.83 21.1 0.55 0.069 5 2 2.4 14 50 1 23 6.5 7.9 23.8 0.67 0.096 6.13 5 3.1 20 60 1.2 25.1 6.9 8 26.1 0.79 0.12 7.842 8 4.1 25 70 1.35 27.2 7.31 8.07 28.2 0.93 0.16 10.1 17 5.8 36 80 1.6 28.8 7.88 8.15 30.5 1.1 0.22 13.4 33 8.9 55 90 2.1 30 8.67 8.3 32.9 1.39 0.33 20.2 80 15.6 100 75,987 392,487 321,526 346,718 331,440 20,410 58,587 68,144 168,532 250,890 41,556 below avera g e (< 30) average (30<, > 60) above averag e (>60) # observations

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 20 Table 4.6: Description of regulations used to determine water quality status Source Description Parameter Criteria Summary Impaired Waters Rule 62-303.353 Chlorophyll a Annual mean must not exceed 11 ug/l or not have increased by more than 50% in two or more consecutive years Fecal Coliform Monthly average must not exceed 200 cfu/100ml 10% of samples must not exceed 400 cfu/100ml Must not exceed 800 cfu/100mL on any given day DO Daily average must be greater than 5 mg/l and never less than 4 mg/l Turbidity Must not exceed 29 NTU or above natural back ground conditions Florida Surface Water Re gulations 62-302.530 Class III Fresh and Marine

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 21 

# H. Analysis Methods Used to Determine Trends To quantify changes in water quality over time for each estuary, the seasonal Kendall trend test was used. The seasonal Kendall trend test is commonly used for trend analysis of water quality conditions to accommodate seasonal distribution of values. In addition, the nonparam etric test is used for its robustness to deviations from a normal distribution and outlying values. In addition, the test is somewhat robust to censored values and missing data within the seri es. The seasonal Kendall trend test is a modification of the Mann-K endall test that adjusts fo r seasonality across the time series. The test, developed by Hirsch, Slack and Smith in 1982, has evolved extensively over the years to account for seri al correlation, spatial variation across sites and various anomalies within the dataset (e .g. Hirsch, Slack and Smith 1982; Hirsch and Slack 1984; Hirsch, Alexander and Smit h 1991; Helsel and Hirsch 2002). The seasonal Kendall trend test ran ks the differences between seasonal data pairs to calculate the test statistic and variance which produces the correlation coefficient tau and respective significance value. For this report, a season was defined as one month. The test statistic (S) is t he sum of differences bet ween all months across the series, in which January is only compared to January, February to February, etc, for the study period. The test statistic is then standardized and divided by the standard deviation to estimate the correlation coeffi cient and two tailed significance value. When a significant trend (p<0.05) is detected, t he slope of the trend line is estimated. The trend slope is the median of all slopes of the monthly data pairs used to estimate the initial test statistic (S). . For trend analysis of the CHEVWQMN data, the seasonal Kendall trend test was conducted using the USGS, “Computer Program for the Kendall Family of Trend Tests”. The USGS program was created and interpreted by Dennis R. Helsel, David K. Mueller, and James R. Slack (2006). The package is a Microsoft DOS based program which produces the seasonal Kendall trend test stat istic, standard normal deviate, significance value and trend equation. For this report, a "water year" incl udes the months of October through September. Interpreting the results of the seasonal Ke ndall trend test is limited by the amount of censoring of laboratory results, study duration and underlying pa tterns in the data. These conditions may increase the possibility of Type I or Type II errors in the results. Prediction of the significance value of a trend depends on the absence of serial correlation in the time series (Helse l and Hirsch 2002). Serial correlation (or autocorrelation) is defined as the degree to which the previous result influences the subsequent result. Autocorrelation can ex ist both intra-annually as a seasonal type affect, and inter-annually as serial corre lation across the time series. When autocorrelation does exist, it is necessary to adjust the series for seasonal or interannual effects. To accurately determine aut ocorrelation, as a means to adjust the significance value of the trend, the dataset must contain at least ten years of data (Helsel and Hirsch 2002). Because only eight years (seven complete water years plus two incomplete water years) of CHEVW QMN data were analyzed in this study, autocorrelation could not be accurately quantif ied either seasonally or across the full time series. Therefore, it is important to note that autocorrelation may exist within the time series, affecting the overall trend signi ficance. Because some autocorrelation may

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 22 exist, the results are presented in this report as a preliminary indicator of possible water quality trends, which will be reeval uated following collection of th ree more years of data. Two additional considerations for inte rpreting trends in the CHEVWQMN results are the frequency of laboratory results reported as the MD L and the percent of Secchi depths observed as greater than total depth. The seasonal Kendall trend test is robust to censoring of data only if the MDLs do not change during the study. In this study, the MDL changed frequently for all laboratory par ameters, primarily as a function of changes in laboratories conducting the analyse s. Therefore, fo r trend analyses only, within this report all values reported as MD L were set equal to the highest MDL reported for each parameter during the eight-year st udy duration. In addition, trend analyses were not conducted on parameters where great er than 50% of the data as reported was the MDL. These conditions are summarized in Table 4.7. A similar method for qualifying Secchi depth for trend analysis was conducted. Frequent observations, in which Secchi depth exc eeds total depth, artificially influence trend results. As a result, trend analysi s was not conducted when Secchi depth was equal to or greater than bottom depth for over 50% of the samples for each estuary. See Table 4.8. Monthly results for each site were aggregated by estuary region to determine the median value by parameter for each month. All estuaries had a minimum of 60 samples over the complete time series for each par ameter. Trend outputs include: results summary table, time series plots per param eter over the complete time series and monthly box plots. The monthly box plots visually display seasonal relationships and the time series plots provide a visual refe rence for long-term trends within the series. The seasonal Kendall trend test was not conducted for chlorophyll a in response to 12 months of missing data in 2002 due to funding constraints and changes in lab methods. To estimate changes in chlorophyll a from 1998 through 2005 the MannWhitney U test was used. The Mann-Whitney U test is a nonparametric version of the between-subjects t-test which compares di fferences between medians of two groups. The collective chlorophyll a results from 1998 through 2001 were compared to the collective results from 2002 through 2005 for each estuary region. Table 4.7: Summary of values reported as equal to the maximum MDL % Reported as MDL** Minimum MDL Maximum MDL Trend Threshold Ttotal Nitrogen* (ppm) na na na na Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ppm) 22% 0.080 0.500 0.500 Nitrate + Nitrite (ppm) 93% 0.004 0.100 na Phosphorus (ppm) 22% 0.004 0.050 0.050 Chlorophyll a (μ g/l) 20% 0.030 2.000 2.000 Fecal Coliform (cfu/100ml) 34% 1 2 2 Turbidity (NTU) 15% 0.02 1.40 1.40 Color (PCU) 6.5 1 5 5 *Total nitrogen is the calculated sum of total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrate plus nitrite **Values in bold do not qualif y

for trend analy sis due to > 50% of values are reported as the MD L

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 23 Table 4.8: Summary of depth and secchi depth results for each aquatic preserve averag e sample depth (m) average secchi depth (m) total sample results total valid cases total greater than bottom % greater than bottom* Upper Lemon Bay 1.0 0.9 378 161 217 57% Lower Lemon Bay 1.4 1.3 525 230 295 56% Upper Charlotte 1.5 0.9 653 394 259 40% Lower Charlotte 2.1 1.8 248 105 143 58% Gasparilla/C ape Haze 1.6 1.5 195 86 109 56% Pine Island Sound 1.7 1.4 379 167 212 56% Matlacha Pass 3.2 1.6 257 202 55 21% San Carlos Bay 3.7 1.5 330 327 3 1% Estero Bay 1.2 1.2 348 177 171 49% A ll Sites 1.8 1.3 3313 1849 1464 44% **values in bold are greater than 50% and not used for trend analysis

# Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 24 

# I. Methods Used to Determine Relationships between Water Quality Parameters An additional analysis was conducted to describe the relations hips between water quality variables for each estuary collectiv ely and for each season. Relationships between water quality variables were quant ified using both the Spearman’s rho correlation test and stepwise linear regressi ons. Spearman’s rho is a nonparametric correlation analysis that characterizes relati onships using ordered ranking of results. Reported statistics include sample size, si gnificance value and Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Spearman’s rho correlation coeffi cient describes the strength and direction of the relationship ranging from -1 to 1, where -1 indicates a strong negative relationship, +1 indicates a strong positive relationship and 0 indicates no relationship. Evaluation of relationships was conducted on selected parameters for the entire study region and for each estuary. Results are included in tables and scatter plots in Section VI and Appendix D. As a means of describing estuarine health and water clarity for seagrass growth, forward stepwise regression analyses were conducted to quantify contributions of selected parameters to changes in Secchi depth and chlorophyll a values. A stepwise regression differs from a linear regression in that only paramet ers that contribute significantly to changes in the dependent va riable are added to the regression equation. Addition of parameters into the regressi on model was set at p<0.05 and parameters were removed from the regression when p>0.10. Statistics reported include: F, R, R 2 

# , R 2 

# adjusted, R 2 

# change, and SE. R 2 

# describes the percent of variability in the dependent variable that is described fo r the given parameter. R 2 

# values range from 0 to 1, with 1 meaning 100% of the variabi lity in the dependent variable is described by that parameter. The adjusted R 2 

# adjusts R 2 

# based on the number of independent variables added to the regression equation. The SE descr ibes the accuracy of the regression estimate, as SE increases the reliabilityof the regression results decreases.

# Secchi Depth Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 25 

# V. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the CHEVWQMN from 1998-2005 A. Introduction The following section describes the wate r quality status and trends results of the CHEVWQMN from 1998 - 2005. Thirteen parameters were analyzed for each estuary and are included in this section with the site specific results given in Appendix A. To characterize water quality status as it re lates to estuarine health, median values for each parameter were compared to typical Florida estuarine water quality values, as listed in Hand 2004, and available regulatory criteria. Summary statistics and status results are provided in tables included in th e sections for each parameter. Seasonal and spatial comparisons are included to describe significant differences between estuaries and seasons for each parameter. Comparison results are reported in box plots for visual reference with detailed results included in Appendix B. Trend analyses were conducted for each estuary and the re sults are shown in graphs and tables in each of the following parameter sections. To accurately interpre t CHEVWQMN water quality status and trends results, consideration should be given to watershed in fluences and hydrologic effects outside of the estuarine system. Specific ally, land uses in the adjacent watersheds affect water quality conditions and trends in each of the Char lotte Harbor estuary regions to varying degrees. The intensity of t he land use and proximity to surface water, as well as hydrologic conditions determines the magnit ude of water quality impacts. For example, excess fertilizer application, septic syst em leachate, stormwater runoff, and phosphate mining have the potential to contribute to increased turbidity, nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the estuaries, thereby affecting ce rtain response variables such as chlorophyll a , water clarity and dissolved oxygen. Altering hydrologic regimes, such as increases in channelization and impervious surfaces in the watershed, as well as changes to the Caloosahatchee River discharges and Peace Ri ver withdrawals, also affect water quality and estuarine health. In addition to watershed influences, when interpreting water quality results, it is also important to understand weather patte rns which occurred during the study period and their potential effects on water quality in the Charlotte Harbor estuary regions, such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In particular, for the study period from 1998 through 2005, the weather pattern known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) affected the southwest Florida area (E nfield et al. 2001). The AMO describes a cycle of warmer, drier weather patterns fo llowed by cooler periods with increased intensity and variability in rainfall. Historic ally, warmer phases included the time periods from 1860 -1880 and 1940 -1960, while cooler phases included 1905 -1925 and 1970- 1990. Since 1995, studies indicate that a wa rmer AMO phase is beginning, resulting in increased global temperatures and rainfall (Enfie ld et al. 2001). Increases in rainfall in southwest Florida associated with the warmerAMO phase could potentially increase the volume of freshwater entering surface tri butaries and discharging into the region. During the study period, an ENSO event was documented, as well. The result of which caused drought conditions for the entire st ate from 1998-2002 (Verdi et al 2006). The

# Secchi Depth Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 26 combined effect of these two large scale we ather patterns was to essentially split the study into two periods of differing hydrologi c conditions. The first period, 1998-2000, represented a period of decreasing precipitat ion, leading into drought conditions. The later period, 2001-2005, was represented by increasing rainfall, and subsequently increasing discharge to the estuaries. S ee Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 for annual average rainfall and Appendix E for correlations of rainfall and study parameters. In addition, impacts from Hurricane Char ley in August of 2004 have had serious immediate and long-term effects on water qualit y and estuarine health of the Charlotte Harbor region. Although the exact nature of these effects is still being examined, studies have indicated that specific impacts from Hurricane Charley on water quality in the Charlotte Harbor watershed include: imm ediate, short-term hypoxia in Charlotte Harbor and within the Peace River (Tom asko et al. 2006, Stevens et al. 2006), increased organic matter (Tomasko et al. 2006) and increased nutrients and fecal pollution (Mallin and Corbett 2006). Increases in the amount of freshwater inflow can potentially have various effects on water quality parameters, including increases in dissolved organic matter, nutrient, pollutant and sediment loads and decreases in pH and salinity. As a result, large scale temporal patterns in climate, and subseque ntly hydrological conditions, can have significant impacts upon the status and trends results presented within the report. Therefore, the reader should keep in mind the larger scale influences, particularly changes climate and precipitation, on wate r quality results presented here.

Table 5.1: Average annual rainfall (m) by watershed region.

Peace Lemon Bay Myakka Charlotte Harbor Tidal Caloosahatchee Estero Bay 1998 1.41 1.45 1.45 1.30 1.68 1.46 1999 1.22 1.30 1.42 1.05 1.32 1.46 2000 0.78 0.84 0.95 0.92 1.00 1.22 2001 1.23 1.20 1.35 1.24 1.46 1.53 2002 1.51 1.37 1.48 1.39 1.40 1.40 2003 1.34 1.55 1.61 1.47 1.70 1.75 2004 1.59 1.33 1.59 1.40 1.59 1.19 2005 1.59 1.55 1.72 1.68 1.86 1.56

# Secchi Depth Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 27 ? Peace > Lemon Bay & Myakka $ Charlotte Harbor H Tidal Caloosahatchee 5 Estero Bay 

## Watershed

1998 2000 2002 2004 

# Year 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75

A v e r a g e A n n u a l R a i n f a l l ( m )

?

?

? ? ?

? ? ?

>

>

> > > >

> >

& &

& & & & & &

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ H

H

H H H H

H H

5 5

5 5

5 5

5 5



# Figure 5.1: Average annual rainfall by watershed region.

# Secchi Depth Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 28 

# B. Secchi Depth

1. Background Secchi depth can be used to provide an estimate of water clarity in aquatic systems (Kirk 1983). Water clarity, as meas ured by Secchi depth, is a function of light absorption from seawater, dissolved or ganic and inorganic matter, suspended organic matter (i.e. plant biomass and phytoplankton abundance) and suspended inorganic matter (i.e. turbidity and total suspended solids; McPherson and Miller 1987). As water clarity decreases, Secchi depth decreases. Evaluating the status and trends of water clarity as measured by Secchi depth is a us eful tool in aquatic resource management. Studies in southwest Florida have shown that decreases in water clarity may result in decreased seagrass abundance (e.g. EPA 1993). CHEVWQMN Secchi depth values may be affected by shallow sample depths at some sites and tide stages, as well as the earlymorning, low sunlight sampling time. As a result, analysis of CHEV WQMN Secchi depth results was limited to sites and dates when water depth exceeded Secchi depth. For this report, when Secchi depth was greater than water depth, the value was co nsidered missing and not used for analysis. In addition, it is also important to remember that Secchi depth is a measure of image or visual attenuation and not a direct measure ofdiffuse light in the water column, nor does it take into account specific wavele ngths that may be required for seagrass photosynthesis (Kirk 1983). As a result, Se cchi depth should serve as an estimate of light available for photosynthetic growth. Re sults were not corrected for tidal stage or wind speed/direction. 2. Status and Trends Results Secchi depth summary statistics and st atus results from the CHEVWQMN for 1998 - 2005 throughout the Charlotte Harbor r egion are shown in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 and Figures 5.2-5.4. For the entire region and the study period, Secchi depth values ranged from less than 0.1 m to 4.5 m, with a median value of 0.9 m and a mean value of 1.3 m. Secchi depth varied significantly bet ween all estuary regions (p <0.05). The estuary region with the highest median Secchi depth value was Matlacha Pass at 1.6 m. The lowest estuary regional median values were found in Upper Charlotte Harbor and Upper Lemon Bay with median values of 0. 9 m. Compared to Typical Florida Water Quality Values (Hand 2004), higher than average median Secchi depth values, indicating above average water clarity conditions, were found in six of the estuary regions including: Lower Lemon Bay, LowerCharlotte Harbor, Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. Average Secchi depth values were found in three regions: Upper Lemon Bay, Upper C harlotte Harbor and Estero Bay. Because there is no water quality criteria for Secchi depth established in Florida, no regulatory comparisons were made. For site specific Secchi depth summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. Seasonally, Secchi depth varied significantly (p<0.05), with a region wide median value of 1.2 m in the dry season and 1.1 m in the rainy season. Dry season Secchi depth values were significantly higher (p<0.05) than rainy season values in five estuary

# Secchi Depth Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 29 regions: Upper Lemon Bay, Upper Charlotte Harbor, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. There were no si gnificant differences between rainy season and dry season Secchi values in four estuar y regions: Cape Haze, Estero Bay, Lower Lemon Bay and Pine Island Sound. For a vis ual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 5.3 with detailed statis tical results in Appendix B. Secchi depth trend analysis was only conducted for estuary regions when at least 50% of Secchi depth observations were less than water depth. See Section IV-H for an overview of censoring and criteria for trend analysis. Four estuary regions qualified for trend analyses: Upper Charlotte Harbor, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. Of these, only San Carlos and Estero Bays showed a significant (p<0.05) change in Secchi depth over the stud y period, increasing at approximately 0.07 and 0.05 m per year, respectively. For visual trend assessment time series plots are included in Figure 5.4, with detailed analysis results in Table 5.3. 3. Discussion Throughout the study region and period, water clarity, as measured by Secchi depth, varied greatly. Values ranged from higher than average to lower than average compared to typical Secchi depth values fo r Florida's estuaries. The highest Secchi depth values often occurred at deeper sites, fu rther offshore. Secchi depth values were typically lower in regions with strong freshwater flow, including Upper Charlotte Harbor and Upper Lemon Bay. Lowest Secchi depth va lues occurred at sites near the Tidal Peace River, Tidal Myakka River and smaller tributaries to Upper Lemon Bay. Also, because trend analysis was only conducted for estuaries where a minimum of 50% of Secchi depth samples resulted in measurable values, only estuaries with the greatest sample depths (Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay) or particularly low water clarity (Upper Charlotte Harbor) qualified for trend analysis. In the Charlotte Harbor region, changes in Secchi depth can be attributed to fluctuations in dissolved organic matter (i.e. color), phytoplankton and non-algal suspended matter (Kirk 1983, Dixon and Ki rkpatrick 1999, Ott et. al. 2006, McPherson and Miller 1994, McPherson and Miller 1987), as well as changes in the light field at the time of measurement (Corbett 2006, personal communication). As a result, increases in one or more of these constituents may re sult in decreased water clarity and Secchi depth. Color, chlorophyll a , and turbidity levels can be influenced by various changes in the estuarine environment and watershed, includ ing: 1) freshwater inputs from major rivers, such as the Peace, Myakka and Ca loosahatchee Rivers, as well as smaller tributaries (Doering and Chamberlain 1999, Doering et. al. 2006, McPherson and Miller 1990, McPherson et. al 1990); 2) resuspensi on of sediment or particulates from dredging and wave action; and 3) point and non-point source watershed runoff (Doering and Chamberlain 1999).

# Secchi Depth Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 30 Figure 5.2: Secchi depth Box plot resu lts for each estuary region. Outliers and extremes are not shown. Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

S e c c h i D e p t h ( m ) 

# Table 5.2: Summary and status of Secchi depth (m) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median A verage Depth of region ‡ Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 161 0.4 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.9 1.2 1 40 average Lower Lemon Bay 230 0.5 3.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.8 4 70 higher than average Upper Charlotte 394 0.1 2.7 0.9 0.0 0.9 2.5 1 40 average Lower Charlotte 105 0.5 4.5 1.8 0.1 1.5 3.0 7 80 higher than average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 86 0.0 3.2 1.5 0.1 1.5 1.3 7 80 higher than average Pine Island Sound 167 0.1 3.9 1.4 0.0 1.3 1.7 4 70 higher than average Matlacha Pass 202 0.4 3.8 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.9 9 80 higher than average San Carlos Bay 327 0.5 3.9 1.5 0.0 1.4 2.1 6 80 higher than average Estero Bay 177 0.3 2.9 1.2 0.0 1.1 1.1 3 60 average All Sites 1849 0.0 4.5 1.3 0.0 0.9 2.0 40 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***below average < 40, 40 < average < 70, above average > 70 ‡ Average depth calculated from bathymetry maps

# Secchi Depth Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 31 Figure 5.3: Seasonal Secchi depth Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

S e c c h i D e p t h ( m )

# Secchi Depth Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 32 .

Figure 5.4: Time series plot of Secchi (m) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 1.00 2.00 3.00

S e c c h i ( m )



### 1.00 2.00 3.00

S e c c h i ( m )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 1.00 2.00 3.00

S e c c h i ( m )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.3: Secchi depth (m) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay * * * * * Lower Lemon Bay * * * * * Upper Charlotte 96 53 1.887 0.158 0.0592 Lower Charlotte * * * * * Gasparilla/Cape Haze * * * * * Pine Island Sound * * * * * Matlacha Pass 95 7 0.2190 0.0210 0.8269 San Carlos Bay 94 80 2.9290 0.2480 0.0034 0.0683 1.1430 Estero Bay 85 52 2.14 0.195 0.0324 0.05 1.025 Bold values significant at the .05 level * does not meet data disposition requirments, See section IV-H

# Temperature Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 33 

# C. Temperature

1. Background Temperature is an important, controlling factor in a variety of biological and chemical processes in estuaries and may serve as a predictor of biological activity. For example, temperature plays a key role in seasonal seagrass and phytoplankton productivity and triggers life stage changes in many fishery and shellfish species. In estuaries in general, and in Charlotte Harbor s pecifically, temperature varies with depth, mixing by tidal currents and wind action, season, time of day and anthropogenic influences (EPA 1993). Seasonal temperatur e stratification occurs in the deeper areas of the Harbor, associated with summer salinit y stratification due to increased freshwater inflows. 2. Status and Trends Results Temperature summary statistics and st atus results from the CHEVWQMN for 1998 - 2005 throughout the Charlotte Harbor r egion are shown in Tables 5.4 and 5.5 and Figures 5.5-5.7. Throughout the study region and period, temperature ranged from 4 o 

# - 32 o 

# C, with a median value of 24 o 

# C and a mean value of 23.8 o 

# C. Temperature did not vary significantly between estuaries, with median values ranging from 24.0 o 

# - 25.0 o 

# C. Compared to Typical Florida Water Quality Values (Hand 2004), average median temperature values were found in all nine ofthe regions. In addition, since there are no temperature water quality criteria in t he Charlotte Harbor area, no regulatory comparisons were made. For site specifictemperature summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. Dry season temperature values were si gnificantly (p<0.05) lower than rainy season values in all nine estuary regions an d the region as a whole. For the entire region, the median dry season temperature was 21.0 o 

# C and the median rainy season value was 28 o 

# C. For a visual comparison of s easonal results, see Figure 5.6, with detailed statistical results in Appendix B. Adequate temperature sample sizes we re collected, throughout the study region and period to conduct trend analyses for each es tuary. Three regions (Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay, and Estero Bay) show ed significant (p<0.05) decreases in temperature, and ranged from -0.1 to -0 .2 degrees per year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Fi gure 5.7, with detailed analysis results in Table 5.5.

# Temperature Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 34 Figure 5.5: Temperature Box plot result s for each estuary region. Outliers and extremes are not shown. Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 10.00 20.00 30.00

T e m p e r a t u r e ( D e g r e e s C e l s i u s ) 

# Table 5.4: Summary and status of temperature (deg. C) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 381 12.0 32.0 23.7 0.2 24.5 3 60 average Lower Lemon Bay 525 10.0 32.0 23.6 0.2 24.0 1 60 average Upper Charlotte 657 4.0 31.5 23.6 0.2 24.0 1 60 average Lower Charlotte 252 13.0 31.5 23.9 0.3 24.5 3 60 average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 192 7.5 31.5 24.2 0.3 25.0 8 60 average Pine Island Sound 400 10.5 31.0 23.6 0.2 24.5 3 60 average Matlacha Pass 261 13.5 31.0 24.0 0.3 24.5 3 60 average San Carlos Bay 340 10.0 31.0 24.1 0.3 24.8 7 60 average Estero Bay 361 14.0 31.0 23.6 0.2 25.0 8 60 average All Sites 3369 4.0 32.0 23.8 0.1 24.0 60 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***lower t han average < 40, 40 < average < 70,higher than average > 70

# Temperature Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 35 Figure 5.6: Seasonal temperat ure Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 10.00 20.00 30.00

T e m p e r a t u r e ( D e g r e e s C e l s i u s )

# Temperature Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 36 Figure 5.7: Time series plot of temper ature (°C) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

T e m p e r a t u r e ( D e g r e e s C e l s i u s )



### 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

T e m p e r a t u r e ( D e g r e e s C e l s i u s )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

T e m p e r a t u r e ( D e g r e e s C e l s i u s )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.5: Temperature (deg. C) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 90 0 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 Lower Lemon Bay 96 -23 -0.8090 -0.0680 0.4184 Upper Charlotte 96 -48 -1.718 -0.143 0.0858 Lower Charlotte 94 -35 -1.2730 -0.1090 0.2029 Gasparilla/Cape Haze 93 -24 -0. 8770 -0.0760 0.3806 Pine Island Sound 95 -22 -0.7770 -0.0670 0.4374 Matlacha Pass 95 -55 -2.0010 -0.1670 0.0454 -0.125 25.06 San Carlos Bay 94 -67 -2.4470 -0.2080 0.0144 -0.1937 25.62 Estero Bay 94 -56 -2.0540 -0.1740 0.0400 -0.2 25.9 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Dissolved Oxygen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 37 

# D. Dissolved Oxygen 1. Background Dissolved oxygen (DO) is critical for sust aining most aquatic life. It is a measure of the amount of gaseous oxygen dissolved in the water column and is required for metabolism for all aerobic organisms, incl uding estuarine shellfish, crustaceans and fishes. In estuaries, DO is produced by photosynthesis of phytoplankton, seagrasses, macro algae, as well as other macrophytes, and may serve as an indicator of biotic productivity and estuarine health. In the water column, DO also enters from dissolution from the atmosphere (Stickney 1984) and thr ough wind and wave action. There is a maximum amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in the water (i.e. saturation; approximately 8 mg/L in south Florida est uaries), which depends on water temperature and salinity, though super saturation can occu r due to high rates of photosynthesis and surface mixing caused by wind and wave activi ty. The DO is utilized, and therefore reduced by respiration of aquatic organisms and decomposition of organic matter. Levels of DO vary on a daily cycle in respon se to higher mid-day photosynthesis rates, followed by night time respiration, resulti ng in lowest values immediately prior to sunrise. The magnitude of the diurnal cycle of DO indicates if the aquatic system is well balanced or over-productive due to elevat ed nutrient and phytoplankton levels (e.g. Stickney 1984). Stratification of DO can occur when bottom and surface water layers remain separated due to density differences associated with salinity or temperature variations (Camp et al. 1998). Once stratification is established, decreased oxygen in the lower layer occurs as a result ofbenthic respiration and decomposition of organic material. In Charlotte Harbor, low oxygen (hypoxia) co nditions occur in the deeper areas during summer stratification (Morrison, et al. 1998, Camp et. al. 1998). 2. Status and Trends Results The DO concentrations summary stat istics and status results from the CHEVWQMN for 1998 - 2005 throughout the Charlotte Harbor region are shown in Tables 5.6-5.9 and Figures 5.8-5.10. Throughout the study region and period, DO values ranged from 0.6 mg/L to 10.0 mg/L, with a median value of 5.2 mg/L and a mean value of 5.1 mg/L. The DO values varied si gnificantly (p<0.05), across the nine regions, with median values ranging from 5.9 mg/L in Pine Island Sound and San Carlos Bay to 3.9 mg/L in Upper Lemon Bay. Compared to Typical Florida Water Quality Values (Hand 2004), above-average median DO values were not found in any of the regions. Average median DO values were found in Pi ne Island Sound and San Carlos Bay, with below average values found in the other sev en estuary regions. For site specific DO summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. Throughout the region, dry season m edian DO values (5.7 mg/L) were significantly higher (p<0.05) than rainy seas on median values (4.3 mg/L). In addition, estuary median DO values were significantly higher in the dry season in all estuary regions. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 5.9, with detailed statistical results in Appendix B. To characterize the status of DO in the region, CHEVWQMN DO results were

# Dissolved Oxygen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 38 compared to Florida Surface Water Quality Standards for DO. For fresh and marine, fishable and swimmable waters (Class III), the DO standards are given in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-302.530 FAC as: “dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L for fresh waters, and shall not average less than 5.0 mg/L in a 24 hour period and shall never be less than 4.0 mg/L in marine waters, with maintenance of normal daily and seasonal fluctuations”. In estuarine waters, the use of fr esh or marine DO criteria is dependent on salinity. Due to the strong tidal and seasonal fluctuation of salinity in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, a generalized comparison to both standards of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L was made

. In addition, because of the monthly sa mpling frequency, daily DO averages could not be obtained. However, samples with median values less than 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L for each site and estuary were analyzed. During the study period, DO levels we re frequently observed below the state standards of 5.0 mg/L (45% of samples) an d 4.0 mg/L (24% of samples). The highest DO observations were reported at sites in San Carlos Bay with only 16% of samples less than 5.0 mg/L and 2% less than 4.0 mg/L. The most observations below state standards occurred in Upper Charlotte Harbor , Estero Bay, Gasparilla/Cape Haze and Lower and Upper Lemon Bay (in increasing orde r). The DO levels in Upper Lemon Bay were below 5.0 mg/L for 74% of samples and below 4.0 mg/L for 50% of samples. Seasonally, DO concentrations across all sites were lower than both the 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L standards nearly twice as often during the rainy season. Results comparing DO concentrations to regulatory criteria for each estuary are included in Tables 5.7 and 5.8, with site specific results in Appendix C. Six significant trends in DO were detec ted across the nine estuary regions. The DO concentrations significantly increased in Upper Charlotte Harbor, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay at a rate of increase ranging from less than 0.1 mg/L to approxim ately 0.2 mg/L per year. However, DO values significantly decreased in Gasparilla S ound/Cape Haze at a rate of -0.2 mg/L per year. For visual trend assessment, time seri es plots are included in Figure 5.10, with detailed analysis results in Table 5.9. 3. Discussion When interpreting the CHEVWQMN DO results, it is important to remember that all samples were taken at sunrise near t he water surface and are based on duplicate field measurements at each site. Additionally , many of the sites are located in shallow waters near shore. Because of this samplin g design, the results represent the lowest daily DO values found following night-tim e absence of photosynthesis combined with community respiration. In addition, shallo w, near shore DO results may exhibit low values as a result of consumption of oxygen via decomposition of organic materials from shoreline vegetation. In general, DO concentrations for the Charlotte Harbor region were below average compared to typical Florida estuarine water quality values and were frequently observed below the state standards of 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L. However, the DO standards are generally interpreted as the 24 hour diel average and not a single sampling event (Beever 2006, personal communi cation). Although collective results for the entire study duration indicate below av erage DO conditions, an increasing trend in

# Dissolved Oxygen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 39 DO concentrations were observed fo r many of the estuaries. In Charlotte Harbor, DO values lower t han other typical Florida estuaries may be due to the synergistic effects of high water temperature, high water color due to tannins, high dissolved organic substances and high amounts of decomposition of detritus in shallow near-shore waters and anthropogenic s ources of nutrients and other materials, as well as sampling design (Morrison et al. 1998, Camp et. al. 1998). Additional diurnal monitoring of DO to measure daily fluct uations would enhance the understanding of whether Charlotte Harbor's relatively low DO values reflect natural estuarine levels or adverse anthropogenic impacts which may be det rimental to overall estuarine health.

Table 5.6: Summary and status of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 373 1.0 8.8 4.1 0.1 3.9 1 10 lower than average Lower Lemon Bay 515 0.6 8.2 4.7 0.1 4.8 3 20 lower than average Upper Charlotte 650 0.6 9.9 5.2 0.1 5.2 5 30 lower than average Lower Charlotte 247 2.4 9.1 5.4 0.1 5.5 6 30 lower than average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 188 1.4 7.3 4.6 0.1 4.6 2 20 lower than average Pine Island Sound 392 0.6 9.0 5.7 0.1 5.9 8 40 average Matlacha Pass 252 2.0 9.0 5.5 0.1 5.5 6 30 lower than average San Carlos Bay 334 2.8 8.7 5.9 0.1 5.9 8 40 average Estero Bay 356 1.2 10.0 4.7 0.1 4.8 3 20 lower than average All Sites 3307 0.6 10.0 5.1 0.0 5.2 30 lower than average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***below average < 40, 40 < average < 70, above average > 70

# Dissolved Oxygen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 40 Table 5.8: Number and % of dissolved oxygen samples under 4 mg/L per Florida Surface Water Regulations Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % Upper Lemon 188 373 50% 66 218 30% 122 155 79% Lower Lemon 145 515 28% 55 312 18% 90 203 44% Upper Charlotte 132 650 20% 13 387 3% 119 263 45% Lower Charlotte 42 247 17% 10 141 7% 32 106 30% Gasparilla/Cape Haze 59 188 31% 25 109 23% 34 79 43% Pine Island 54 392 14% 25 232 11% 29 160 18% Matlacha Pass 32 252 13% 4 149 3% 28 103 27% San Carlos 6 334 2% 1 199 1% 5 135 4% Estero Bay 97 356 27% 22 210 10% 75 146 51% Total 755 3307 23% 221 1957 11% 534 1350 40% ALL DRY RAIN 

# Table 5.7: Number and % of dissolved oxygen samples under 5 mg/L per Florida Surface Water Regulations Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % Upper Lemon 277 373 74% 136 218 62% 141 155 91% Lower Lemon 274 515 53% 123 312 39% 151 203 74% Upper Charlotte 290 650 45% 82 387 21% 208 263 79% Lower Charlotte 88 247 36% 31 141 22% 57 106 54% Gasparilla/Cape Haze 108 188 57% 55 109 50% 53 79 67% Pine Island 100 392 26% 37 232 16% 63 160 39% Matlacha Pass 83 252 33% 22 149 15% 61 103 59% San Carlos 52 334 16% 10 199 5% 42 135 31% Estero Bay 202 356 57% 83 210 40% 119 146 82% Total 1474 3307 45% 579 1957 30% 895 1350 66% ALL DRY RAIN

# Dissolved Oxygen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 41 Figure 5.8: Dissolved oxygen Box plot resu lts for each estuary region. Outliers and extremes are not shown.

Figure 5.9: Seasonal dissolved oxygen Bo x plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

D i s s o l v e d O x y g e n ( m g / l )



## Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

D i s s o l v e d O x y g e n ( m g / l )

# Dissolved Oxygen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 42 Figure 5.10: Time series plot of disso lved oxygen (mg/L) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly median fr om all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

D i s s o l v e d O x y g e n ( m g / l )



### 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

D i s s ol v e d O x y g e n ( m g / l )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

D i s s ol v e d O x y ge n ( m g / l )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.9: Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 90 64 2.463 0.218 0.0138 0.1000 3.350 Lower Lemon Bay 96 -17 -0.577 -0.051 0.5638 Upper Charlotte 96 74 2.631 0.220 0.0085 0.0775 4.676 Lower Charlotte 92 60 2.243 0.195 0.0249 0.1000 4.850 Gasparilla/C ape Haze 93 -46 -1.679 -0.146 0.0931 Pine Island Sound 95 48 1.718 0.146 0.0858 Matlacha Pass 94 120 4.380 0.373 0.0000 0.1750 4.763 San Carlos Bay 94 55 1.995 0.171 0.0461 0.0375 5.831 Estero Bay 94 35 1.258 0.109 0.2086 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# pH Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 43 

# E. pH 1. Background An important component of estuarine wate r quality that affects many biological and chemical processes is pH (Stickney 1984 ). It is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of an aqueous solution. The scale for pH ranges from 0 (acidic) to neutral (7.0) to basic (14.0). The pH of natural surface waters is close to neutral and varies primarily with salinity, with fresh waters hav ing lower pH (7.0 - 7.5) than seawater (8.0- 8.6; EPA 1993). Because estuaries have wide ranges of salinities depending on the mixing of freshwater from rivers with salt water from oceans, pH varies spatially, daily and seasonally in estuaries, generally r anging from 7.5 - 8.8 (Day et al 1989, EPA 1993). The pH also fluctuates as a result of other natural and artificial events including: photosynthesis, bacterial activityand anthropogenic sources (EPA 1993). Photosynthesis strongly affects pH by removing carbon dioxide from the water and reducing carbonic acid levels within the water, which, in turn, raises the pH (Stickney 1984). Levels of primary productivity infl uence diurnal changes in pH and excess phytoplankton, and other organi sms that photo-respire, may dramatically increase pH (Stickney 1984). In addition, pH is influenced by the local geology and inflow from tributaries. Weathering of carbonate rocks increase pH (Boggs 2006), while the decomposition of organic matter will generally lower it (Stickney 1984). Water is naturally well buffered against chang es in acidity or alkalinity, with saltier water having greater buffering capacity than fr eshwater. The pH affects concentrations of a variety of biological and chemical s ubstances (Stickney 1984). Most aquatic organisms are adapted to narrow pH ranges, with optimal pH ranges for many fish being about 6.5-8.5 (NOAA 2005). Molluscs and other organisms with calcarious exoskeletons need a pH greater than 7.0 in or der to avoid calcium dissolution. Metals within the estuary may also be affected, as well - as pH decreases, metals re-dissolve from anoxic bottom sediments, but as pH incr eases, metal oxides precipitate out of the water column (Stickney 1984). In addition, ammonia toxicity to aquatic organisms increases as pH increases. Abnormal pH values have direct and indirect detrimental effects upon the estuarine ecosystem and changes in pH should be investigated (Day et al 1989). 2. Status and Trends Results The pH summary statistics and status results from the CHEVWQMN for 1998 - 2005 are shown in Tables 5.10 and 5.11 and Fi gures 5.11-5.13. Throughout the region and the study period, pH values ranged from 6. 4 to 9.0, with a median value of 7.8 and mean of 8.1. Between the nine regions, pH varied significantly (p<0.05). Pine Island Sound had the highest median pH value (8.4 ) and Upper Charlotte Harbor had the lowest median pH (7.8). Compared to Typi cal Florida Water Quality Values (Hand in press 2004), average pH values were found in two estuary regions, Upper Lemon Bay and Upper Charlotte Harbor. Higher than aver age pH values were found in the other seven estuary regions, with Pine Island Sound ranked in the top 100 th 

# percentile of Florida’s estuaries. For site-specific pH summary statistics and status results, see Appendix A.

# pH Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 44 The seasonal variation of pH for the region, as a whole, showed interesting results. The median dry and rainy season pH values, as well as the mean dry season value were each 8.2. However, the mean rainy season pH was 8.1, proving to be statistically significantly lower than the dry season. The pH was significantly higher (p<0.05) in the dry season for five es tuary regions: Upper Lemon Bay, Lower Lemon Bay, Upper Charlotte Harbor, Lower Charlotte Harbor, and Matlacha Pass. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 5.12, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. Florida Surface Water Quality Standards for pH state that:

“ 

# shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background conditions and not below 6.0 units or above 8.5 units for predominantly fresh waters, or more than two tenths of a unit above or below natural background conditions and not below 6.5 or above 8.5 units in open waters ” 

# Because natural background pH levels have not been quantified for the Charlotte Harbor estuarine region, a det ailed status analysis compar ed to pH regulatory criteria was not conducted. However, only two samp les were observed below 6.5 and less than 15% of samples were reported above 8.5. Significant pH trends were found in six ofthe Charlotte Harbor estuary regions. The pH decreased significantly in UpperLemon Bay, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Gasparilla/Cape Haze and Estero Bay, at ra tes less than 0.05 standard unit per year. However, pH increased significantly in Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass, at rates of less than 0.05 standard unit per year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 5.13, with detailed analysis results in Table 5.11. 3. Discussion Higher than average pH values were observed across the region. In general, estuaries with higher salinity and less freshwater influence had higher pH results. Sites with the lowest pH values were found closes t to freshwater sources, particularly near the Tidal Peace and Tidal Myakka Rivers and the tributary creeks to Upper and Lower Lemon Bay. Changes in pH in aquatic system s are strongly associated with variations in salinity and photosynthesis (Stickney 1984, Day et. al. 1989). As both salinity and photosynthesis increase, pH also increases. As a result, the higher pH results from the CHEVWQMN may be linked to above average salinities and/or chlorophyll a levels at specific sampling sites or times, or due to the carbonate bedrock found within southwest Florida. In addition, due to the strong re lationship between pH and salinity, the pH trends found over the study region and period could be a result of changes in salinity over the time period.

# pH Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 45 Table 5.10: Summary and status of pH results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 377 7.2 8.8 8.0 0.0 8.0 2 60 average Lower Lemon Bay 520 7.2 9.0 8.3 0.0 8.3 8 90 higher than average Upper Charlotte 657 6.4 8.6 7.7 0.0 7.8 1 40 average Lower Charlotte 249 7.4 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.2 3 90 higher than average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 194 7.2 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.2 3 90 higher than average Pine Island Sound 388 7.0 8.8 8.4 0.0 8.4 9 100 higher than average Matlacha Pass 250 7.4 8.6 8.2 0.0 8.2 3 90 higher than average San Carlos Bay 339 7.4 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.2 3 90 higher than average Estero Bay 357 7.2 8.8 8.1 0.0 8.2 3 90 higher than average All Sites 3331 6.4 9.0 8.1 0.0 7.8 40 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***lower than average < 40, 40 < average < 70, higher than average > 70

# pH Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 46 Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

p h



# Figure 5.11: pH Box plot results for each es tuary region. Outliers and extreme values are not shown

Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

p h



# Figure 5.12: Seasonal pH Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season

# pH Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 47 Figure 5.13: Time series plot of pH fo r 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 7.20 7.60 8.00 8.40

p H



### 7.20 7.60 8.00 8.40

p H

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 7.20 7.60 8.00 8.40

p H

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.11: pH trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 90 -99 -3.918 -0.337 0.0001 -0.0400 8.180 Lower Lemon Bay 96 -42 -1.553 -0.125 0.1205 Upper Charlotte 96 2 0.037 0.006 0.9704 Lower Charlotte 93 -59 -2.259 -0.187 0.0239 -0.0167 8.325 Gasparilla/Cape Haze 93 -82 -3.198 -0.260 0.0014 -0.0286 8.429 Pine Island Sound 94 62 2.340 0.193 0.0193 0.0113 8.349 Matlacha Pass 95 64 2.380 0.195 0.0173 0.0200 8.110 San Carlos Bay 94 -19 -0.686 -0.059 0.4927 Estero Bay 94 -67 -2.595 -0.208 0.0095 -0.0121 8.255 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Salinity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 48 

# F. Salinity 1. Background Salinity is the driving influence in many chemical, physical and biological processes in estuaries (Stickney 1984). Lar ge variations in salinity have shown to be characteristic of many estuaries (e.g. McPherson et al 1996). Open ocean salinity ranges between 33 and 37 parts per thousand (ppt; Colling 2004)), while estuaries typically vary from 0.6 to greater than 40 ppt (Stickney 1984). Salinities over 32 ppt often occur in areas with minimal freshw ater influence and increased evaporation. Sources of freshwater in estuaries include runoff from the surrounding watershed, direct freshwater inflows from rive rs, creeks or canals, and precip itation. During the summer rainy season within Charlotte Harbor, vertic al salinity stratification occurs due to density differences between marine waters and increas ed freshwater inflow s (Stoker 1992). In some parts of Charlotte Harbor, a difference of up to 20 parts per thousand may be observed between the fresher water remaini ng at the surface and the saltier water trapped below (Stoker 1992). Changes in salinity affect many bi ological, chemical and physical processes within the estuarine system. Many est uarine keystone species are adapted to particular salinity ranges including fish (Bortone et . al. 2006), seagrass (Greenawalt et. al. 2006; Corbett et. al 2005; Chamberla in and Doering 1998) and shellfish (Baker et al. 2002). Salinity may also influence concentrations of DO, pH and nutrients (Stickney 1984). Additionally, salinity patterns resulting from freshwater inflows may indicate sources of nutrients, dissolved organic matter and solids entering the estuarine system (Stickney 1984). 2. Status and Trends Results Salinity summary statistics and st atus results from 1998-2005 for the CHEVWQMN are given in Tables 5.12 and 5.13 and Figures 5.14-5.16. Throughout the study period and region, salinity ranged from less than 0.1 to 42.0 ppt, with a median value of 17.9 ppt and mean salinity of 26.1 ppt. Salinity was significantly different (p<0.05) between estuaries. Lower Lem on Bay had the highest median salinity (33.5 ppt), whereas Upper Charlotte Harbor had the lowest salinity (17.9 ppt). Upper Lemon Bay (25.3 ppt), Matlacha Pass (22.1 ppt) and Upper Charlotte Harbor (17.9 ppt) had the three lowest salinity median values and were average compared to typical Florida estuaries (Hand 2004). The remaining six estuaries had higher than average salinities compared to other Florida estuaries. Two estuaries regions ranked within the top 100% of samples for Florida’s estuaries, Lower Lemon Bay and Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze described in Hand, 2004. Variation in sa linity over the entire study duration was greatest in Upper and Lower Lemon Bay, UpperCharlotte Harbor and Estero Bay. Salinity variability from 1998 through 2005 was lowest in Lower Charlotte Harbor and Gasparilla/Cape Haze. For site specific su mmary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. Throughout the region, salinity duri ng the dry season (median 30.1 ppt) was significantly higher (p <0.05) than salinit y in the rainy season (median 25.9 ppt). Comment [REL2]: No unit or practical salinity unit (PSU) are now more accepted due to systems of measurement

# Salinity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 49 Between the estuaries, salinity was significant ly higher in the dry season in all of the nine estuaries. For a visual comparison ofseasonal results, see Figure 5.15, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. CHEVWQMN data were not compared to a regulatory standard, because there are no water quality criteria specific to salinity in Florida surface waters. From 1998 through 2005, salinity signific antly decreased in all estuary regions except Lower Lemon Bay. Rates of annual decrease during the study period ranged from approximately 0.3 ppt in Gasparilla/Ca pe Haze to approximately 1.3 ppt in Upper Lemon Bay. For visual trend assessment, ti me series plots are included in Figure 5.16, with detailed analysis results given in Table 5.13. 3. Discussion Salinity in the Charlotte Harbor region was generally above the average salinity range for Florida’s estuaries. However, a significant decrease in salinity was observed over the study duration for eight of the nine es tuary regions. Salinity was lowest at sites in or near the Tidal Peace and Tidal Myakka Rivers and the smaller tributaries to Lemon and Estero Bays. Seasonal fluctuation in salinity concentrations, characterized by significantly lower salinity during the rainy s eason, can be attributed to freshwater inflow to Charlotte Harbor (Stoker 1992). Sources of freshwater inflow to Charlotte Harbor include the Peace, Myakka and Caloosa hatchee Rivers (Stoker 1992, Hammet 1990, McPherson et. al. 1996). Freshwater enters the Estero Bay estuary primarily via the Caloosahatchee (Byrne and Flanigin 2005), Estero and Imperial Rivers, as well as Ten Mile Canal and Hendry Creek, among other s (Estero Bay Marine Laboratory 1996). In Lemon Bay, freshwater enters the bay thr ough smaller tributaries, including Forked Creek, Gottfried Creek, and Oyster Creek. In contrast, higher salinity concentrations are a function of tidal flow from the Gulf through passes and inlets throughout Charlotte Harbor (Stoker 1992). Salinity in estuaries varies as a result of freshwater inflow to the system which can be a function of a variety of natural and ar tificial factors. Natural factors causing increased freshwater flow to the estuaries is primarily the caused by variability and intensity of rainfall to region. Rainfa ll and subsequently flow can be heavily influenced by weather patterns and storm events within the region. Weather patterns such as the ENSO events or the AMO (Enfield et al. 2001) could account for increased rainfall to the Charlotte Harbor region during the study period. Impacts from major storms, particularly Hurricane Charley, could have increased rainfa ll and flow, ultimately impacting salinity variability over the study period, particularly in the Fall of 2004. Additional influences on salinity variability with the Charlotte Harbor estuaries include alterations in hydrologic regimes including changes in runoff due to increased watershed development, hydrologic alterations (Stoker 1992) and discharges from the Caloosahatchee River (Chamberlain and Doering 1998). Disruptions in natural salinity regimes pose a risk to the physical and chemical nature of the es tuarine system and biological communities that are narrowly adapted to specific sa linity ranges (Stoker 1992, Doering and Chamberlain 1998, Greenawalt et. al. 2006).

# Salinity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 50 Table 5.12: Summary and status of salinity (ppt) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 376 <0.1 40.7 22.4 0.6 25.3 3 60 average Lower Lemon Bay 518 2.1 40.7 31.7 0.3 33.5 9 100 higher than average Upper Charlotte 649 0.0 37.1 17.3 0.4 17.9 1 40 average Lower Charlotte 248 8.5 39.1 28.2 0.4 29.0 4 80 higher than average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 192 10.0 40.7 31.5 0.4 33.2 8 100 higher than average Pine Island Sound 399 4.5 42.0 32.2 0.2 32.9 7 90 higher than average Matlacha Pass 258 2.9 39.8 21.7 0.5 22.1 2 50 average San Carlos Bay 339 8.8 41.4 29.1 0.4 30.6 6 90 higher than average Estero Bay 357 0.2 39.8 27.5 0.5 30.4 5 80 higher than average All Sites 3336 <0.1 42.0 26.1 0.2 17.9 40 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***lower t han average < 40, 40 < average < 70, higher than average > 70

# Salinity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 51 Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

S a l i n i t y ( p p t )



# Figure 5.14: Salinity Box plot results for eac h estuary region. Outliers are not shown.

Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

S a l i n i t y ( p p t )



# Figure 5.15: Seasonal salinity Box plot result s for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season

# Salinity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 52 Figure 5.16: Time series plot of salinity(ppt) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

S a l i n i t y ( p p t )



### 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

S a l i ni t y ( p pt )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

S a l i ni t y ( p pt )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.13: Salinity (ppt) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 90 -91 -3.511 -0.310 0.0004 -1.258 31.06 Lower Lemon Bay 96 -42 -1.468 -0.125 0.1421 Upper Charlotte 96 -65 -2.287 -0.193 0.0222 -0.800 23.55 Lower Charlotte 94 -98 -3.566 -0.304 0.0004 -0.607 31.93 Gasparilla/C ape Haze 93 -87 -3.207 -0.276 0.0013 -0.425 34.81 Pine Island Sound 95 -93 -3.339 -0.283 0.0008 -0.450 34.93 Matlacha Pass 95 -76 -2.721 -0.231 0.0065 -0.950 25.58 San Carlos Bay 94 -65 -2.351 -0.202 0.0187 -0.467 32.85 Estero Bay 94 -107 -3.894 -0.332 0.0001 -0.823 34.40 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Total Nitrogen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 53 

# G. Nitrogen 1. Background Nutrients, including nitrogen and phos phorus, are critical components of estuarine health. Dissolved nitrogen exists in estuaries in one of two forms; organic and inorganic (Stickney 1984). The nitrogen cycle in estuaries is complex due to the quick uptake of inorganic nitrogen by photosynthetic organisms and constant remineralization within the water column. In estuaries, nitrogen primarily enters the system through freshwater inflow, the decomposition of organi c matter, or the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by cyanobacteria and some bacteria. When nitrogen is fixed, it is converted from gaseous nitrogen (N 2 

# ) to ammonia. The ammonia is then oxidized through nitrification to nitrite by Nitrosomonas spp., then to nitrate by Nitrobacter spp. (Stickney 1984). Under anoxic conditions, nitrate c an be reduced through denitrifiction back to nitrite, ammonia, nitrogen gas, or occasion ally nitrous oxide (Senga, et al 2006). Dissolved Nitrate is readily taken up byaquatic plants and phyt oplankton and converted to organic nitrogen. These plants and phyt oplankton are subsequently ingested by primary consumers. Inorganic nitrogen, in the form of ammonia, is then excreted as a waste product by some species and converted once again into nitrate by bacteria (Stickney 1984). Within the Charlotte Har bor watershed, the most common source of anthropogenic nitrogen is from fertilizers (Castro et al 2003). The concentration of dissolved nitrogen in estuaries is determined by other physical and chemical influences within the syst em, as well as the pr oximity of sources and sinks. For example, decreases in DO co ncentrations may inhibit the nitrification of ammonia and nitrite to organic nitrate by bacte ria, resulting in increased concentrations of nitrite and ammonia (EPA 1993). Nitrogen is also influenced by salinity concentrations, with observed decreases in ni trite and nitrate at salinities higher than 20 ppt (McPherson and Miller 1990). For this study, total nitrogen is the calculated sum of organic nitrogen (plus inorganic ammonia) measured as total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), plus inorganic nitrogen (minus ammonia) measured as nitrite plus nitrate. 2. Status and Trends Results The proportion of total nitrogen, in organic or inorganic forms, was assessed to help guide the interpretation of total nitrogen results. The percent of organic nitrogen plus ammonia, as measured byTKN, was fairly consistent across all estuaries ranging from approximately 90% to 95% of the total nitrogen throughout the region (Table 5.13). High levels of organic nitrogen may be a possible result of the short residence time of inorganic nitrogen within the water column due to quick uptake of by photosynthetic organisms (Stickney 1984).

# Total Nitrogen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 54 Total nitrogen summary statistics and status results are given in Tables 5.15 and 5.16 and Figures 5.17-5.19. Total nitrogen varied significantly (p<0.05) across the study area, ranging from 0.032 to 4.6 parts per m illion (ppm). The total nitrogen median value of 0.98 ppm for all sites is higher than av erage compared to water quality results from selected Florida estuaries (Hand 2004). Me dian nitrogen concentrations were highest in Upper Lemon Bay and Upper Charlotte Harbor, ranking in the 80 th 

# percentile of Florida estuaries as described in Hand, 2004. For site specific summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. Total nitrogen varied seasonally throughout the region. Total nitrogen was significantly higher (p<0.05) during the rainy season for each estuary region. The difference between the rainy season (0. 95 ppm) median and the dry season median (0.78 ppm) was approximately 0.18 ppm. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 5.18, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. CHEVWQMN total nitrogen data were not compared to a regulatory standard, because there are no numerical criteria fo r nitrogen in Florida surface waters. Trend analysis was not conducted on total nitrogen because over 50% of nitrate plus nitrite values (a component of total nitrogen) were reported as equal to or lesser than the highest MDL (Table 5.8). As a resul t, trend analysis for nitrogen for this study was conducted on TKN only, however which cons titutes almost 95% of nitrogen within the system. The TKN significantly decreased in four of the nine estuary regions: Upper and Lower Lemon Bay, Lower Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound. Rates of decrease during the study period ranged from approximately 0.04 ppm in Lower Lemon Bay and Gasparilla/Cape Haze to 0.05 ppm in Upper Lemon Bay and Lower Charlotte Harbor. For visual trend assessment, time se ries plots are shown in Figure 5.19, with detailed analysis results given in Table 5.16. 3. Discussion In general, total nitrogen values from the CHEVWQMN data were average to higher than average compared to typical Flori da estuarine water quality. Significant seasonal variation was observed, as well as a decreasing trend in TKN over the study period. The distribution and quantity of nitr ogen in the region is largely the result of input from tidal flushing, recycling processe s, including large biogenic contributions from fish-kills, algal decay, vascular plant debris , and freshwater sources (Froelich et.al. 1985; McPherson and Miller, 1990). Nitrogen primarily enters Charlotte Harbor via freshwater inflow from major rivers incl uding the Peace (55%), Caloosahatchee (40%) and Myakka River (5%; Hammett 1990), with additional contributions from smaller tributaries and runoff. Sources of excess nitrogen in the Char lotte Harbor region may include point and nonpoint sources of urban runoff, fertilizer runoff from agricultural applications and Table 5.14: Percent of total nitrogen in organic form plus ammonia (TKN)

Upper Charlotte Harbor Lower Charlotte Harbor Cape Haze Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound Total 93.19% 94.11% 94.49% 92.10% 90.41% 93.72% 94.81% 93.46% 91.36% 92.92%

# Total Nitrogen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 55 atmospheric deposition (Castro et al. 2003) . Excess nitrogen could have serious impacts on the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, primarily due to increased photosynthetic production within the water column (Doeri ng et. al 2006, Montgomery et al. 1991, Jaworksi 1981), which may result in decreased water clarity due to increased suspended algal matter (Doering et. al 2006 ), and consequently lower the amount of light available for seagrass growth (Corbett 2005)
Table 5.15: Summary and status of total nitrogen (ppm) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 219 0.075 2.750 1.035 0.031 1.005 9 80 higher than average Lower Lemon Bay 265 0.075 2.560 0.790 0.025 0.767 5 60 average Upper Charlotte 505 0.032 4.602 1.040 0.022 0.975 8 80 higher than average Lower Charlotte 207 0.055 2.300 0.792 0.028 0.755 3 60 average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 141 0.075 2.526 0.906 0.042 0.806 6 70 higher than average Pine Island Sound 309 0.055 4.302 0.808 0.027 0.752 1 60 average Matlacha Pass 194 0.032 3.840 0.905 0.032 0.851 7 70 higher than average San Carlos Bay 249 0.055 2.930 0.755 0.025 0.753 2 60 average Estero Bay 276 0.053 4.046 0.790 0.027 0.762 4 60 average All Sites 2365 0.032 4.602 0.881 0.010 0.975 80 higher than average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average conditions < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average conditions > 70

# Total Nitrogen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 56 Figure 5.17: Total nitrogen Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown.

Figure 5.18: Seasonal total nitrogen Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Seas Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000

T o t a l N i t r o g e n ( p p m )



## Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000

T o t a l N i t r o g e n ( p p m )

# Total Nitrogen Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 57 Figure 5.19: Time series plot of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (ppm) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly medi an from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Lower Lemon

Upper Lemon Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 0.00 1.00 2.00

To t al Kj e l d a h l N i t r o g e n ( p pm )



### 0.00 1.00 2.00

To t a l Kj el da h l N i t r o ge n ( p p m )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0.00 1.00 2.00

T o t al K j e l d a h l N i t r o g e n ( p pm )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.16: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (ppm) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 80 -47 -2.095 -0.203 0.0362 -0.0535 1.2410 Lower Lemon Bay 81 -47 -2.065 -0.197 0.0389 -0.0380 0.9210 Upper Charlotte 83 -35 -1.484 -0.141 0.1378 Lower Charlotte 83 -69 -2.989 -0.277 0.0028 -0.0500 1.0050 Gasparilla/Cape Haze 81 -39 -1.711 -0.165 0.0870 Pine Island Sound 80 -44 -1.978 -0.190 0.0479 -0.0400 1.0250 Matlacha Pass 81 -42 -1.860 -0.178 0.0629 San Carlos Bay 81 -33 -1.461 -0.140 0.1440 Estero Bay 80 -32 -1.400 -0.136 0.1614 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Phosphorus Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 58 

# J. Phosphorus

1. Background Phosphorus, like nitrogen, is an essential nu trient for aquatic life yet, in excess, poses a threat to water quality and estuary health. All organisms require phosphorus for growth and energy transport, and phosphorus is considered to be the ultimate limiting nutrient over long (geological) time scales, due to its long residence time in the world’s oceans (Benitez-Nelson 2000). However, due to soil and bedrock chemistry within the Charlotte Harbor Watershed, Charlotte Harbor and the surrounding region are phosphorus enriched (Froelich et al 1985). The phosphorus cycle in aquatic environments is somewhat more complex t han that of nitrogen due to the constant remineralization. Phosphorus enters the aq uatic system mostly in the inorganic form (P 2 

# O 4 

# and PO 4 3- 

# ) from riverine sources due to the weathering of crustal materials and from anthropogenic sources such as deforestati on and fertilizer use. To a much lesser extent, inorganic phosphorus also enters the aquatic environment via atmospheric deposition. This inorganic phosphorus is then available for plant uptake and subsequently converted to its organic form within the plant tissue which may then be consumed by primary consum ers. Finally, organic waste products are once again converted to inorganic phosphorus by bacterial remineralization within the microbial food web and deposited in the sediment or re -suspended into the water column. This process can be extremely rapid and the phos phorus may be recycled from inorganic to organic numerous times prior to being buri al or flushed from the estuarine system (Benitez-Nelson 2000). For this study, phosphor us is the total concentration of organic and inorganic forms of phosphorus. Like nitrogen, phosphorus levels in est uaries are a function of physical processes that occur naturally within the aquatic envir onment. For example, when under low DO conditions, phosphorus that is bound to sedi ment particles is released back into the water column, resulting in excess of diss olved phosphorus (EPA 1993). In most aquatic systems, photosynthetic production is limited by the concentration of phosphorus in the water column. However, in the coastal Char lotte Harbor region, the availability of nitrogen, rather than phosphorus, limits photosynthetic production, although the relationship varies seasonally and spat ially (Montgomery et al 1991). Although phosphorus is not the primary nutrient lim iting photosynthetic growth, excess phosphorus in the system could pose seriou s risks in the Charlotte Harbor region (Martin and Kim 1977). 2. Status and Trends Results Phosphorus summary statistics and status results are given in Tables 5.17 and 5.18 and Figures 5.20-5.22. Total phosphorus (T P) varied significantly (p<0.05) across the study area ranging from 0.005 to 1.5 ppm . The median TP value (0.24 ppm) from all sites was higher than average, ranking in the top 90 th 

# percentile of Florida’s estuaries (Hand 2004). Upper Lemon Bay (0.18 ppm) and Upper Charlotte Harbor (0.24 ppm) had the highest TP median values compared to other Charlotte Harbor estuaries and were higher than average compared to typical Florida estuaries (Hand 2004). The TP values across the remaining estuary regions were average relative to values from

# Phosphorus Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 59 estuaries across the state of Florida (Hand 2004). For site specific summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. Region wide phosphorus varied seasonally across during the study period (p<0.05). The TP was significantly higher (p<0.05) during the rainy season in Upper Lemon Bay, Upper and Lower Charlotte Harbor and Matlacha Pass. Alternatively, TP was significantly higher during the dry season in Estero Bay. There were no significant seasonal differences in TP in Gasparilla/Cape Haze, San Carlos Bay, Lower Lemon Bay and Pine Island Sound. For a visual co mparison of seasonal results, see Figure 5.21, with detailed statistical re sults given in Appendix B. There are no numerical criteria for phos phorus for Florida’s estuaries, therefore CHEVWQMN TP results were not compared to any defined water quality standards. Only one significant trend in total phosphorus was detected across the nine estuary regions. The TP values significantlyincreased in Upper Charlotte Harbor at a rate of 0.01 ppm per year from 1998 throu gh 2005. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 5.22, with detailed analysis results given in Table 5.18. 3. Discussion The TP in the Charlotte Harbor region was generally average compared to typical Florida values, with higher than aver age phosphorus in Upper Lemon Bay and Upper Charlotte Harbor. The TP levels significantlyincreased in Upper Charlotte Harbor from 1998 through 2005. Sources of phosphorus in estuaries include fertilizers, agricultural and urban land uses, phosphate mini ng, waste water treatment and storm water runoff, as well as natural deposits within the Charlotte Harbor Watershed (EPA 1993, Fourqurean and Cai 2001). In the Charlotte Ha rbor region, freshwat er flow from major rivers is a source for phosphorus entering t he estuary (Morrison et al 1998). The Peace River watershed contributes about 85% of to tal phosphorus loads into the Charlotte Harbor estuaries (Hammett 1990). Table 5.17: Summary and status of total phosphorus (ppm) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 228 0.010 1.080 0.199 0.007 0.180 8 80 higher than average Lower Lemon Bay 275 0.010 0.420 0.084 0.003 0.070 4 50 average Upper Charlotte 532 0.010 1.500 0.305 0.009 0.240 9 90 higher than average Lower Charlotte 215 0.005 0.420 0.114 0.005 0.100 7 60 average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 150 0.005 0.350 0.093 0.005 0.080 6 50 average Pine Island Sound 330 0.005 0.900 0.073 0.004 0.060 1 40 average Matlacha Pass 212 0.010 0.290 0.084 0.003 0.076 5 50 average San Carlos Bay 263 0.005 0.270 0.069 0.002 0.060 1 40 average Estero Bay 297 0.005 0.500 0.070 0.003 0.060 1 40 average All Sites 2502 0.005 1.500 0.140 0.003 0.240 90 higher than average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average conditions < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average conditions > 70

# Phosphorus Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 60 Figure 5.20: Total phosphorus box plot resu lts for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown.

Figure 5.21: Seasonal total phosphorus bo x plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800

T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )



## Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800

T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )

# Phosphorus Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 61 Figure 5.22: Time series plot of total phosphorus (ppm) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the m onthly median from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600

T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )



### 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600

T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600

T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.18: Total phosphorus (ppm) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 81 19 0.824 0.081 0.4098 Lower Lemon Bay 81 -33 -1.497 -0.140 0.1344 Upper Charlotte 83 50 2.141 0.201 0.0323 0.01 0.225 Lower Charlotte 82 34 1.487 0.140 0.1371 Gasparilla/Cape Haze 80 -9 -0.369 -0.390 0.7120 Pine Island Sound 81 -19 -0.873 -0.080 0.3826 Matlacha Pass 82 15 0.634 0.061 0.5261 San Carlos Bay 82 -16 -0.693 -0.066 0.4884 Estero Bay 83 -27 -1.219 -0.114 0.2229 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Chlorophyll a Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 62 

# K. Chlorophyll a

1. Background Chlorophyll is a group of green pigments found in plants and is responsible for photosynthetic produc tion. Chlorophyll a concentrations within the water column are used to estimate the amount of phytoplankton within a water body, which is an indirect measure of primary production occurring with in the system. The amount of chlorophyll a in estuaries varies seasonally and spatially in response to temperature, nutrient levels and light availability. Increased levels of chlorophyll a generally bloom as a result of increased photosynthesis in the water column stimulated by excess nutrients, primarily nitrogen in the Charlotte Harbor estuar ies (Montgomery et al. 1991). Because photosynthetic production is limited by the availability of nutrients in the system, chlorophyll a concentrations are commonly used to estimate the degree of eutrophication, or nutrient enrichment, within the estuary (e.g., Doering et. al. 2006). For this study, chlorophyll a concentrations were estimated without correction for pheophytin. Pheophytin is a byproduct of chlorophyll a degradation that can be observed during analysis at the same absorption spectrum as chlorophyll a but is not used in photosynthesis. Subsequently chlorophyll a that is uncorrected for pheophytin may overestimate total chlorophyll a concentrations when the amount of pheophytin is substantial. It is also important to remember that, due to funding constraints, chlorophyll a levels were not analyzed from January 2002 through December of 2002. 2. Status and Trends Results Chlorophyll a concentration summary statistics and status results from the CHEVWQMN are given in Tables 5.19-5. 22 and Figures 5.23-5.25. Chlorophyll a levels were significantly different (p<0.05) acro ss the study region and period, ranging from 0.01 to 114.00 μ g/L. Chlorophyll a results were generally average to lower than average compared to typical Fl orida estuarine values (Hand 2004) with the median value (4.74 μ g/L) for all sites ranking in the 40 th 

# percentile of Florida estuaries. Upper Lemon Bay and Upper Charlotte Harbor had the highest chlorophyll a values of all nine estuary regions, with medi an values greater than 6.00 μ g/L. Chlorophyll a concentrations were lowest in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay, with median values lower than average compared to typical Florida estuaries (Hand 2004). For site specific su mmary statistics and status results, see Appendix A. Chlorophyll a varied seasonally across the study region. During the rainy season the chlorophyll a median value of 6.02 μ g/L was significantly higher (p<0.05) than the dry season median value of 3.97 μ g/L for all estuary regions combined. Surprisingly, chlorophyll a concentrations did not vary seasonally in Upper Charlotte Harbor. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Fi gure 5.24, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. Chlorophyll a results were compared to state regul atory criteria to characterize the status of CHEVWQMN results. The Impaired Waters Rule, 62-303.353 FAC states that waters shall are impaired if annual mean chlorophyll a levels exceed 11 μ g/L, or data indicate an increase of 50% or more from historical values for at least two

# Chlorophyll a Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 63 consecutive years. Annual mean excee dances, as well as frequency and percent exceedances over 11 μ g/L were analyzed for each site and estuary region. Chlorophyll a annual means exceeded 11 μ g/L at sites in Upper Lemon Bay, Lower Lemon Bay, Upper Charlotte Harbor, Pi ne Island Sound and Estero Bay. Annual means exceeded 11 μ g/L most frequently in 1998, wi th no exceedances in 2001 or 2003. For all sites, 15% of samples exceeded 11 μ g/L with exceedances occurring more frequently in the rainy season (19%) t han the dry season (13%). Sites in Upper Lemon Bay and Upper Charlotte Harbor most frequently exceeded chlorophyll a standards with 28% and 25% of samples exceeding 11 μ g/L, respectively. Exceedances occurred least frequently (l ess than 10%) at sites in Gasparilla/Cape Haze, Matlacha Pass, Estero Bay, San Carlos and Lower Lemon Bay. For annual means exceeding 11 μ g/L, see Table 5.20 for detaile d estuary and site specific exceedances, see Appendix C. Changes in chlorophyll a from 1998 through 2005 for each estuary region were estimated using the seasonal Kendall trend test and the Mann-Whitney U test. There were no significant trends in chlorophyll a throughout the study region. However, it should be noted that chlorophyll a results were not available for January 2002 to December 2002 because of financial constrai nts, which may decrease the ability to detect significant trends. Therefore, an additional analysis was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences between the collective results from 1998 to December 2001, with the collective results from January 2003 through December 2005. For all sites across the study area, chlorophyll a results from 1998 through 2001 were si gnificantly lower (p<0.05) than the collective results from 2003-2005. However, a post hoc analysis by estuary region revealed only two significant differences between the time period groups in Upper and Lower Charlotte Harbor. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in figure 5.25, with detailed analysis results given in Table 5.21. For Mann-Whitney results, see Table 5.22. 3. Discussion Chlorophyll a concentrations were generally below average compared to typical Florida estuaries (Hand, 2004), although concentrations were frequently observed above state regulator y criteria of 11 μ g/L. Upper Charlotte Harbor and Upper Lemon Bay had the highest median chlorophyll a concentrations and exceeded 11 μ g/L most often. No significant trends were detected dur ing the time period. However, for all sites collectively, chlorophyll a results during the first porti on of the study duration (1998- 2001) were significantly lower than the se cond part of the study period (2003-2005). Although these findings alone cannot indicate a significant trend, results indicate that a possible increase in chlorophyll a may have occurred from 1998 through 2005. In the Charlotte Harbor region, past st udies indicate that increased chlorophyll a concentrations are primarily due to increas ed inorganic nitrogen and vary in response to available light within the water column (M ontgomery et al. 1991, McPherson et al 1996, Doering et. al. 2006). Chlorophyll a concentrations in southwest Florida vary spatially and seasonally with nutrient concentrations, ti dal circulation, freshwater discharges and light attenuating constituents (Doering et al. 2006, Montgomery et al. 1991) affecting

# Chlorophyll a Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 64 other estuarine responses. Effects of increased chlorophyll a levels in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries include: 1) increased light attenuation due to increased phytoplankton within the water column (Doering et al 2006, Ott et. al. 2006) and 2) hypoxia due to increased utilization of DO for decomposition of photosynthetic material (Doering et al 2006).

Table 5.20: Chlorophyll a annual means greater than 11 μ g/L per Florida's Impaired Waters Rule
N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean LBFOR1 6 15.09 LBV001 4 13.81 LBV002 4 22.45 12 11.01 LBV003 5 23.75 11 14.48 9 11.61 LBV004 5 12.54 LBV005 4 23.67 CHV001 5 25.60 8 12.33 10 13.95 12 17.24 CHV002 5 13.39 11 11.54 CHV004 5 13.40 10 11.44 CHV005 5 19.04 11 20.71 11 19.27 CHV006 5 26.23 CHV007 5 11.05 CHV013 11 16.92 12 17.03 PIJIM1 8 11.91 PIV002 5 12.34 PIV004 1 39.70 Estero Bay EBERS2 12 13.13 GSV005 10 13.08 *chlorophyll a was not collected from January 2002 through December of 2002 2005

Lower Lemon Bay
Upper Charlotte

Pine Island Sound 2003 2004
Upper Lemon Bay 1998 1999 2000 2001*

Table 5.19: Summary and status of chlorophyll a (μ g/L) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 209 0.50 52.30 9.22 0.60 6.30 9 60 average Lower Lemon Bay 255 0.01 79.46 5.55 0.42 3.92 4 40 average Upper Charlotte 482 0.01 88.50 9.48 0.50 6.16 8 60 average Lower Charlotte 198 0.01 34.18 5.61 0.35 4.42 6 40 average Gasparilla/Cape Haze 145 0.50 18.20 4.49 0.31 3.58 3 30 lower t han average Pine Island Sound 298 0.01 39.70 6.52 0.34 4.98 7 40 average Matlacha Pass 187 0.25 72.50 5.42 0.52 3.50 2 30 lower than average San Carlos Bay 245 0.01 28.35 4.41 0.25 3.43 1 30 lower than average Estero Bay 263 0.01 114.00 5.75 0.50 4.39 5 40 average All Sites 2282 0.01 114.00 6.67 0.17 4.74 40 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average c onditions < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average conditions > 70

# Chlorophyll a Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 65 Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000

C h l o r o p h y l l a ( u g / l )



# Figure 5.23: Chlorophyll a Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown.

Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000

C h l o r o p h y l l a ( u g / l )



# Figure 5.24: Seasonal chlorophyll a Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season

# Chlorophyll a Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 66 Figure 5.25: Time series plots of chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the m onthly median from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Table 5.21: Chlorophyll a (μ g/L) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 79 -28 -1.257 -0.125 0.2087 Lower Lemon Bay 79 -30 -1.350 -0.134 0.1770 Upper Charlotte 79 16 0.698 0.071 0.4849 Lower Charlotte 79 -7 -0.280 -0.031 0.7797 Gasparilla/Cape Haze 79 -17 -0.751 -0.076 0.4525 Pine Island Sound 79 -3 -0.093 -0.013 0.9257 Matlacha Pass 79 -7 -0.283 -0.032 0.7772 San Carlos Bay 79 -11 -0.472 -0.050 0.6372 Estero Bay 79 -21 -0.943 -0.096 0.3456 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Chlorophyll a Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 67 Table 5.22: Mann Whitney between subjects results of chlorophyll a from 1998-2001 compared to chlorophyll a from 2003-2005 N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z p 1998-2001 1128 1098.58 1239198 602442 1239198 -4.01 0.0000 2003-2005 1182 1209.82 1430007 1998-2001 103 105.31 10847 5427 11098 -0.73 0.9420 2003-2005 106 104.7 11098 1998-2001 111 131.67 14615.5 7584.5 18024.5 -0.70 0.4850 2003-2005 144 125.17 18024.5 1998-2001 242 220.85 53445 24042 53445 -3.27 0.0010 2003-2005 240 262.33 62958 1998-2001 103 89.29 9196.5 3840.5 9196.5 -2.61 0.0090 2003-2005 95 110.57 10504.5 1998-2001 107 98.94 10586.5 4808.5 10586.5 -0.54 0.5920 2003-2005 94 103.35 9714.5 1998-2001 140 145.18 20325.5 10455.5 20325.5 -0.81 0.4150 2003-2005 158 153.33 24225.5 1998-2001 99 87.44 8657 3707 8657 -1.76 0.0790 2003-2005 88 101.38 8921 1998-2001 133 116.87 15544 6633 15544 -1.48 0.1400 2003-2005 112 130.28 14591 1998-2001 114 131.04 14939 8384 14939 -0.18 0.8580 2003-2005 149 132.73 19777 Bold values significant at the .05 level

All Sites Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte

San Carlos Bay Estero Bay

Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/C ape Haze Pine Island

Sound Matlacha

Pass

# Fecal Coliform Bacteria Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 68 

# L. Fecal Coliform Bacteria 1. Background Fecal coliform bacteria are microorganism s that live in the digestive track of humans and other warm blooded animals. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in the water column is an important predictor of fecal pollution and may indicate the presence of pathogens and viruses that pos e serious human health risks. The concentration of fecal coliform in coastal waters is controlled by a variety of physical, chemical and biological factors. The persi stence of coliform bacteria in the estuarine environment decreases as salinity and temperature increase (Rhode and Kator 1988). Additionally, increased sunlight light penet rating the water column reduces fecal coliform bacteria viability and decreased light mi tigates this affect (Fujioka et al 1981). Also, competition from other microbiologi cal communities may limit the presence and productivity of fecal coliforms in estuari ne waters (Rhode and Kator 1988). As a result, survival and presence of fecal coliforms ma y be greater in areas exhibiting lower light availability, salinity and temperature conditions. 2. Status and Trends Results Fecal coliform bacteria summary statistics and status results from 1998 - 2005 are given in Tables 5.23-5.25 and Figures 5.26-5.28. Fecal coliform counts varied significantly (p<0.05) across the studyregion and period, ranging from 1 to 1,156 cfu/100mL. Fecal coliform bacteria counts we re below minimum detection limits (1 to 2 cfu/100mL) for almost 30% of samples duri ng the study duration. The median coliform value, 24 cfu/100mL, of all sites was higher than average compared to Typical Florida estuaries (Hand 2004). Upper Lemon Bay and Upper Charlotte Harbor had the highest median coliform values of 35 and 24 cfu/100m L, respectively, ranking in the 90 th 

# and 80 th 

# percentiles, respectively. Pine Island Sound, San Carlos Bay and Lower Charlotte Harbor had the lowest fecal colifor m medians of 3 cfu/100mL or less. Across the study region, fecal coliform counts were not significantly different between rainy season and dry season. For a vi sual comparison of results, see Figure 5.27 with detailed seasonal comparisons in Appendix B. Additional analysis comparing results to state regulatory criteria was conducted to characterize the status of fecal coliform bacteria for each estuary region and site. Florida’s Surface Water Quality Standards st ate that fecal coliform bacteria counts per 100 mL:

“ 

# shall not exceed a monthly average of 200 nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples nor exceed 800 on any one day for Class III marine and fresh waters.” Because monthly averages could not be obtaine d at the site level, a general summary of exceedances over 200 cfu/100mL was pr ovided. A summary of fecal coliform bacteria status results for each site and estuary region, as it relates to Florida Surface Water Quality Standards, is provided in Table 5.24. Frequent exceedances of all bacteri a standards of 200, 400 and 800 cfu/100mL were observed over the duration of the study. A total of 3% of samples across all sites exceeded 200 cfu/100mL with 19% exceed ing 400 cfu/100mL and less than 1% of samples exceeding the 800 cfu/100mL standard. Sites in Upper Lemon Bay had the

# Fecal Coliform Bacteria Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 69 highest percent of samples exceeding 200, 400 and 800 cfu/100mL. Sites GSV005 (not within a defined estuary region) and LBV 001 in Upper Lemon Bay had the highest percent exceedances over 200 cfu/100mL of all sites. There was only one sample exceeding 200 cfu/100mL in Lower Charlotte Harbor and no exceedances in Matlacha Pass. Fecal coliform counts significant ly changed from 1998 through 2005 in one estuary region. Coliform counts signific antly decreased in Pine Island Sound at less that 1 cfu/100mL per year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 5.28, with detailed analys is results given in Table 5.25. 3. Discussion Fecal coliform bacteria were generally below detection limits for most sites across the Charlotte Harbor estuaries for t he study period. Individual fecal coliform bacteria counts exceeded average state st andards in Upper and Lower Lemon Bay, Upper Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay. No significant difference was observed between seasonal medians or seasonal exce edances of numerical criteria. Although one trend in fecal coliform was observed from 1998 through 2005, the rate of change was less than 1 cfu/100mL. In the Upper Lemon Bay estuary, faul ty septic systems and urban storm water outfalls located close to sampling sites, may be the source of above average fecal coliform concentrations and require future investigations. The relationship between sources of fecal pollution and the presence of fecal coliform bacteria within the estuarine environment are not well understo od in the Charlotte Harbor region. A thorough examination of these relationships is essential in assessing the effects of fecal pollution as it relates to estuarine and human health. Table 5.23: Summary and status of fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 252 1 1156 98 10 35 9 90 higher than average Lower Lemon Bay 302 1 800 41 5 8 6 60 average Upper Charlotte 587 1 800 48 4 24 8 80 higher than average Lower Charlotte 234 1 372 13 2 3 3 50 average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 169 1 280 20 3 6 5 60 average Pine Island Sound 383 1 352 13 2 2 1 40 average Matlacha Pass 234 1 106 9 1 4 4 50 average San Carlos Bay 310 1 364 12 2 2 1 40 average Estero Bay 331 1 800 44 5 10 7 70 higher than average All Sites 2802 1 1156 35 2 24 70 higher than average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average conditions < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average conditions > 70

# Fecal Coliform Bacteria Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 70 Table 5.24: Fecal coliform exceedances per Florida Surface Water Regulations for each estuary # over N % # over N % # over N % Rain 14 104 13% 4 104 4% 1 104 1% Dry 22 148 15% 9 148 6% 2 148 1% Total 36 252 14% 13 252 5% 3 252 1% Rain 6 120 5% 4 120 3% Dry 5 182 3% Total 11 302 4% 4 302 1% Rain 8 239 3% 4 239 2% Dry 12 348 3% 2 348 1% Total 20 587 3% 6 587 1% Rain 1 98 1% Dry Total 1 234 0% Rain 1 67 1% Dry 1 102 1% Total 2 169 1% Rain 2 158 1% Dry 2 225 1% Total 4 383 1% Rain 1 125 1% Dry 1 185 1% Total 2 310 1% Rain 3 137 2% Dry 10 194 5% 4 194 2% Total 13 331 4% 4 331 1% Rain 36 1143 3% 12 1143 1% 1 1143 < 1% Dry 53 1659 3% 15 1659 1% 2 1659 < 1% Total 89 2802 3% 27 2802 1% 3 2802 < 1% Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte

Lower Charlotte

Total Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island

Sound San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay Coliform > 200 cfu/100mL Coliform > 400 cfu/100mL Coliform > 800 cfu/100mL Upper Lemon Bay

# Fecal Coliform Bacteria Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 71 Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00

F e c a l C o l i f o r m B a c t e r i a ( c f u / 1 0 0 m l )



# Figure 5.26: Fecal coliform bacteria Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown.

Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00

F e c a l C o l i f o r m B a c t e r i a ( c f u / 1 0 0 m l )



# Figure 5.27: Seasonal fecal coliform bacteria Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season

# Fecal Coliform Bacteria Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 72 Figure 5.28: Time series plot of fecal coliform (cfu/100mL) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly medi an from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 0.00 200. 00 400. 00 600. 00

F e c al C o l i f o r m ( c f u / 10 0 m l )



### 0.00 200. 00 400. 00 600. 00

Fe c al C o l i f o r m ( c f u / 10 0 m l )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0.00 200. 00 400. 00 600. 00

Fe c al C o l i f o r m ( c f u / 10 0 m l )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.25: Fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 87 -25 -0.9840 -0.0910 0.3252 Lower Lemon Bay 86 21 0.8330 0.0780 0.4051 Upper Charlotte 87 -21 -0.827 -0.077 0.408 Lower Charlotte 87 -39 -1.5950 -0.1420 0.1107 Gasparilla/Cape Haze 87 42 1.7230 0.1530 0.0848 Pine Island Sound 87 -100 -4.3670 -0.3650 0.0000 -0.2500 3.1250 Matlacha Pass 87 -39 -1.6000 -0.1420 0.1097 San Carlos Bay 86 3 0.0870 0.0110 0.9303 Estero Bay 87 -7 -0.2470 -0.0260 0.8047 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Turbidity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 73 

# M. Turbidity 1. Background Turbidity measures the amount of sus pended particulate matter within the water column including both organic and inorganic material. Increased turbidity in estuaries can be a result of estuarine bottom sedim ents from wind and wave action, storm water runoff from the watershed, erosion and others. Excessive turbidity in estuaries has a variety of physical and biological effect s, including decreased light availability for seagrass (Kirk 1983, McPherson and Miller 1994, Ott et al 2006), as well as potentially decreasing productivity, growth and survival of shellfish (Volety and Encomio 2006). 2. Status and Trends Results Turbidity summary statistics and status re sults from the 1998-2005 CHEVWQMN are given in Tables 5.26-5.28 and Figures 5.29-5. 31. Turbidity levels varied significantly (p<0.05) over the study region and period and ranged from 0.1 to 120.00 NTU. The median value, 2.7 NTU, from all sites was average compared to typical Florida values (Hand, 2004). Estero Bay had the highes t median turbidity value of 4.2 NTU and ranked in the 70 th 

# percentile of Florida estuaries. Turbidity levels varied seasonally across the Charlotte Harbor region. For all sites, the median turbidity value of 2.7 NT U in the dry season was significantly higher (p<0.05) than the rainy season median of 2. 6 NTU. Although turbidity varied seasonally across the entire study region, post hoc comparisons revealed only Estero Bay and Matlacha Pass exhibited significant (p<0. 05) seasonal differences. For visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 5.30, with detailed seasonal comparisons in Appendix B. A generalized analysis comparing results to state regulatory criteria was conducted to characterize the status of turb idity for each site. Results are shown in Table 5.27. Florida Surface Water Quality Standards state that tu rbidity shall never exceed 29 NTU above natural background conditi ons. Due to the absence of defined background turbidity levels in the Charlotte Harbor region, a general comparison the median results for all sites plus 29 NTU (i.e. 31.7 NTU) was provided for the regulatory analyses. Only three samples across the study region exceeded the 31.7 NTU standard, at three different sites in Upper Lemon, San Carlos and Estero Bays. Turbidity trends varied significantly from 1998 through 2005 in six of the nine estuary regions. Significant decreases (p <0.05) were detected in Upper and Lower Lemon Bay, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Gasparilla/Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound and San Carlos Bay. Rates of annual decrease ranged from approximately 0.1 to 0.3 NTU. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 5.31, with detailed analysis results given in Table 5.28. 3. Discussion Suspended sediments within the water column come from a variety of sources including sediment loading from freshwater inflows, coastal erosion, resuspension from wave and boat action, tidal influences, and dr edging. The contribution of these factors

# Turbidity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 74 to turbidity levels varies temporally and spat ially. Freshwater inflows from the Peace, Myakka and Caloosahatchee Rivers are prim ary sources of sediment loading into Charlotte Harbor (Hammett 1990), with nonpoint sources contributing almost 97% of the total suspended solids load (Squires et. al. 1997). However, resuspension of sediments due to wind action may be the primary cause fo r increased turbidity in shallow estuaries (de Jorge and Beusekom 1995). The degree to which each of these contributes to the variability of turbidity within the system is largely determined by the water depth, sediment type, tidal influences and st ratification of the water column. Across the study region, turbidity values were generally average compared to other estuaries across the st ate of Florida. Turbidity was highest in Estero Bay, a shallow estuary, where wind and wave action may contribute to resuspension of bottom sediments. Although freshwater flow may carry sediments and solids into the estuary (Hammett 1990, Squires et al. 1997), results of this study indicate that dilution from inflow may be a large influence on turbidity concentrations within the study region. Table 5.26: Summary and status of turbidity (NTU) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 240 0.5 66.0 2.9 0.3 2.5 3 50 average Lower Lemon Bay 296 0.5 9.7 3.1 0.1 2.6 4 50 average Upper Charlotte 556 0.5 24.0 3.2 0.1 2.7 6 50 average Lower Charlotte 226 0.1 21.0 2.5 0.2 2.1 1 40 average Gasp./Cape Haze 162 0.6 30.0 3.3 0.2 2.7 6 50 average Pine Island Sound 368 0.3 28.0 3.7 0.2 2.6 4 50 average Matlacha Pass 221 0.1 10.5 2.5 0.1 2.1 1 40 average San Carlos Bay 294 0.5 120.0 4.2 0.4 3.2 8 60 average Estero Bay 319 0.1 52.0 5.6 0.3 4.2 9 70 higher than average All Sites 2682 0.1 120.0 3.5 0.1 2.7 50 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average conditions < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average conditions > 70
Table 5.27: Sites with turbidity samples exceeding median (2.7 NTU) plus 29 NTU per Florida Surface Waters Criteria Estuary Region Site # over value N % over Upper Lemon Bay LBV003 1 66 64 108.20% Estero Bay EBV005 1 52 65 64.04% San Carlos Bay EBV001 1 120 66 278.55%

# Turbidity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 75 Figure 5.29: Turbidity Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown.

Figure 5.30: Seasonal turbidity Box plot resu lts for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

T u r b i d i t y ( N T U )



## Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

T u r b i d i t y ( N T U )

# Turbidity Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 76 Figure 5.31: Time series plot of turbidity (NTU) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

Tu r b i di t y ( N TU )



### 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

Tu r b i di t y ( N TU )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.28: Turbidity (NTU) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept Upper Lemon Bay 81 -80 -3.591 -0.339 0.0003 -0.1850 3.3400 Lower Lemon Bay 82 -85 -3.753 -0.353 0.0002 -0.2917 4.0670 Upper Charlotte 82 -16 -0.671 -0.066 0.5023 Lower Charlotte 82 -62 -2.834 -0.264 0.0046 -0.1000 2.5900 Gasparilla/C ape Haze 82 -69 -3.032 -0.286 0.0024 -0.2971 3.9640 Pine Island Sound 82 -65 -2.880 -0.270 0.0040 -0.2250 3.8000 Matlacha Pass 82 -34 -1.485 -0.141 0.1376 San Carlos Bay 81 -63 -2.815 -0.268 0.0049 -0.2500 4.4000 Estero Bay 82 -42 -1.826 -0.174 0.0678 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Color Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 77 

# N. Apparent Color 1. Background Apparent color is a visual assessment of dissolved and suspended matter within the water column. Dissolved matter may include metal ions, humus or peat, plankton, aquatic vegetation, and industrial wastes (APHA 1998). Dissolved organic matter, as measured by apparent color, is largely the re sult of tannins leached from vegetation in upland and submerged habitats. In southwest Florida, mangroves and salt marshes are the primary contributors to tannins. This t annin-rich water, appearing brownish in color, enters the estuary primarily via freshwater in flow from major tributaries and rivers, as well as direct runoff from the adjacent waters hed. High color, occurring at low salinities, is a significant reducer of light available for photosynthetic growth, primarily seagrasses (Kirk 1983, McPherson and Miller 1994, Ott et al. 2006). For this reason, color is an indicator of salinity and freshwater inflow quantity as it relates to estuarine health. 2. Status and Trends Results Color summary statistics and status resu lts from the 1998 - 2005 CHEVWQMN are given in Tables 5.29 and 5.30 and Figures 5.32-5.34. Color varied significantly (p<0.05) across the nine estuary regions r anging from 1 to 400 PCU. The median color value (25 PCU) for all sites across the Charlotte Harbor study area was average and ranked in the 60 th 

# percentile compared to Florida est uaries. Upper Charlotte Harbor had the highest color median of 50 PCU. Co lor concentrations in Upper Lemon Bay, Matlacha Pass and Estero Bay were also higher than average with median values of 30 PCU. Lower Lemon Bay had the lowest color median value of 15 PCU, ranking in the 50 th 

# percentile of Florida’s estuaries. For all sites across the region, color concentrations were significantly higher during the rainy season with a median val ue of 40 PCU which is double the dry season median value of 20 PCU. Seasonal differenc es were observed for each estuary region, with differences between seasonal medians ranging from 10 PCU in Pine Island Sound, Lower Lemon Bay and San Carlos Bay to 30 PCU in Upper Charlotte Harbor. For visual assessment of seasonal differences, see Box pl ot results in Figure 5.33 and for detailed seasonal comparisons, see Appendix B. Color values varied significantly du ring the study period from 1998 through 2005 for seven of the nine estuary regions. Co lor concentrations significantly increased during this period in all estuary regions, except Upper Lemon Bay and Pine Island Sound. Rates of annual increase ranged fr om approximately 1 PCU in Lower Lemon Bay to 4 PCU in Upper Charlotte Harbor. Fo r visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 5.34 with detailed analysis results given in Table 5.30. 3. Discussion Apparent color across the study regi on was generally average with highest median values occurring in estuaries with great est freshwater influence, including Upper Charlotte Harbor, Upper Lemon Bay, Matlacha Pass and Estero Bay. Color values were highest in the tidal portions of t he Peace and Myakka Rivers and at sites near smaller freshwater tributaries. Significant seasonal differences in color concentrations

# Color Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 78 found in the CHEVWQMN result s reinforce previous studies documenting that color concentrations are driven by fr eshwater influences and vary te mporally as a result of increased flow from rainfall during the su mmer months (e.g. McPherson and Miller 1987; McPherson and Miller 1994; Dixon and Kirkpatrick 1999; Doering and Chamberlain 1999; Tomasko and Hall 1999). A dditionally, increasing trends in color from 1998 through 2005 correspond to decreasing salinity patterns and increased freshwater flow during study period. The in creases in flow correspond to increases in rainfall associated with weather patterns that have affected the Charlotte Harbor region during recent years. Above-average color conditions and incr easing color trends, play an important role in characterizing estuarine health within the Charlotte Harbor region, especially as this relates to salinity and freshwater input. Regionally color can serve as an indicator of freshwater influence and is a primary constituent in water quality components affecting light attenuation within the wate r column (Kirk 1983, McPherson and Miller 1987; McPherson and Miller 1994; Dixon and Kirkpatrick 1999; Doering and Chamberlain 1999; Tomasko and Hall 1999, Ott etal. 2006). In the Charlotte Harbor region, a better understanding is needed of the relationships between color in the estuaries and dissolved organic matter input from the adjacent watershed. Table 5.29: Summary and status of color (PCU) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries* Median compared to Typical FL

Estuary Percentiles** Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries*** Upper Lemon Bay 239 4 240 38 2 30 6 70 higher than average Lower Lemon Bay 296 1 240 25 2 15 1 50 average Upper Charlotte 557 4 400 70 3 50 9 80 higher than average Lower Charlotte 226 1 140 30 2 24 5 60 average Gasparilla/C ape Haze 162 3 120 24 1 20 3 50 average Pine Island Sound 369 1 200 25 1 18 2 50 average Matlacha Pass 221 1 160 37 2 30 6 70 higher than average San Carlos Bay 294 1 160 27 1 20 3 50 average Estero Bay 319 1 140 31 1 30 6 70 higher than average All Sites 2683 1 400 38 1 25 60 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***lower than aver age < 40, 40 < average < 70,higher than average > 70

# Color Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 79 Figure 5.32: Color Box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown.

Figure 5.33: Seasonal color Box plot result s for each estuary region. Outliers are not shown. Dry Season Rainy Season Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00

C o l o r ( P C U )



## Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Estuary Region 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00

C o l o r ( P C U )

# Color Status and Trends from 1998 through 2005 CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 80 Figure 5.34: Time series plot of colo r (PCU) for 1998 through 2005. Each line/point represents the monthly m edian from all sites in each aquatic preserve. Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Cape Haze

Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound 0.00 50.00 100. 00 150. 00 200. 00

C ol o r ( P C U )



### 0.00 50.00 100. 00 150. 00 200. 00

C ol o r ( P C U )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0.00 50.00 100. 00 150. 00 200. 00

C ol o r ( P C U )

0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date 0 5 - M A R - 1 9 9 9

2 7 - J A N - 2 0 0 1

2 3 - D E C - 2 0 0 2

1 6 - N O V - 2 0 0 4



## Date



# Table 5.30: Color (PCU) trends results Data Points

Read Kendall's Test Statistic z correlation coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept* Upper Lemon Bay 81 28 1.226 0.119 0.2204 Lower Lemon Bay 82 56 2.490 0.232 0.0128 1.250 10.00 Upper Charlotte 82 57 2.509 0.237 0.0121 4.000 34.00 Lower Charlotte 82 59 2.637 0.245 0.0084 2.000 15.50 Gasparilla/Cape Haze 82 87 3.876 0.361 0.0001 2.333 10.67 Pine Island Sound 82 42 1.853 0.174 0.0638 Matlacha Pass 82 72 3.223 0.299 0.0013 3.250 17.00 San Carlos Bay 81 64 2.870 0.272 0.0041 3.333 6.67 Estero Bay 82 68 3.033 0.282 0.0024 2.500 20.00 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Water Quality Relationships: Introduction CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 81 

# VI. Results of Water Quality Relationships within the CHEVWQMN A. Introduction Identifying relationships among water quality parameters is essential for understanding the dynamic biotic and abiotic interactions wit hin the estuarine system. These relationships differ both spatially an d seasonally, allowing for the characterization of both regional and temporal affects upon wa ter quality within the Charlotte Harbor estuary regions. Furthermore, the presence of significant trends and above or below state average conditions from the CH EVWQMN results emphasizes the need to investigate these relationships. Nonparamet ric correlation analyses were conducted to quantify relationships between parameters of in terest for both rainy and dry seasons for each estuary. Additional stepwise r egressions were conducted to quantify the contribution of nutrients to changes in phytoplankton production as well as the contribution of light limiti ng parameters to changes in wa ter clarity. A stepwise regression limits entry into the regression equation to par ameters that contribute significantly to changes in the dependent va riables, which are, for these analyses, salinity, chlorophyll a or Secchi depth. Spearman’s r ho correlation coefficients range from -1, strong negative relationship, to 1, strong positive relationship. R 2 

# values are also given to guide interpretati on of regression results. R 2 

# describes the amount of variability explained by the independent variables, the higher the R 2 

# the more variability is explained. Correlation and regression resu lts for specific water quality relationships are presented in tables throughout the tex t, with detailed results in Appendix D. Water quality relationships were a nalyzed for four major water quality interactions: 1) relationships between aver age annual rainfall and selected parameters, 2) the interactions between salinity and se lected parameters, 3) the relationships between nutrients and phytoplankton produc tivity represented by chlorophyll a concentrations, and 4) the relationships betw een light-limiting factors and water clarity represented by Secchi disk depths. Significant relationships were detected for many parameters for all estuaries collectively and for each individual estuary region in both the rainy and dry seasons. Although relati onships between many parameters were significant, the strength of these relati onships, as described by the correlation coefficient, varied and was often minimal. For this reason, w hen interpreting water quality correlations, attention should be given both to the significance of the relationship, as well as to the strength and dire ction of the relationship.

# Relationships Between Salinity and Selected Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 82 

# B. Relationship between Ra infall and Selected Parameters 1. Background Within aquatic systems, variations in ra infall quantities have the ability to alter many physical and chemical processes. Many ti mes this variation is the result of largescale weather patterns. During the early portion of the studyperiod, 1998-2002, southwest Florida experienced a drought due to the La Niña portion of an ENSO event. In addition, the region had entered the warmi ng phase of an AMO event. These factors combined created essentially two periods wit hin the study, with regard to regional hydrologic conditions. The first period, fr om 1998 to 2000, was typified by a decrease in precipitation. The later par t of the study, 2001- 2005, was characterized by an increase in rainfall. This alteration in the patterns of precipitation has t he potential to influence water quality parameters such as: salinity, pH , while increasing runoff, nutrients, fecal contaminants, and turbidity. Therefore it is important to understand these relationships in order to monitor th e health of an estuary. Correlation analyses were conducted to quantify the relationship between rainfall and salinity, pH, nutrients, fecal coliform bacte ria and factors affecting water clarity. These relationships create the foundation upon which the other correlations in the study are based. In addition, because rainfall, runoff, and land use are related, it is important to understand the relationships between rainfall and factors that affect water quality and how they may be related to land use. 2. Results Average annual rainfall was significantly and negatively correlated (correlation coefficient -0.86) to salinity throughout t he entire region. As the quantity of rain increased, freshwater inputs increased and salinity decreased. This was true of all estuary regions, with the except ion of Estero Bay. The pH within the Charlotte Harbor estuaries was also significantly negatively co rrelated (correlation coefficient -0.91). However, post hoc comparisons showed rainfall and pH to be significantly correlated in Lower Charlotte Harbor, Gasparilla/Cape Ha ze, Pine Island Sound and San Carlos Bay. See Appendix E for detailed results. Nutrients were not found to be significant ly correlated to rainfall within the region as a whole, based on the CHEVWQMN results. However, post hoc comparisons did show a significant correlation between total phosphorus and rainfall within Upper Charlotte Harbor (correlation coefficient 0.88) . No other significant relationships were found for nutrients and rainfall within the regi on, nor where there any relationships with fecal coliform bacteria. See Appendix E for detailed results. Within the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, no significant correlations were found for factors affecting water clarity and rainfall. However, post hoc comparisons did show color to be significantly correlated to ra infall for both Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass (correlation coefficients 0.80 and 0.71, re spectively). See Ap pendix E for detailed results.

# Relationships Between Salinity and Selected Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 83 3. Discussion Average annual rainfall was significantly and negatively correlated to changes in salinity and pH throughout the study period and region. Results varied spatially, particularly for pH for those estuary regions with direct connections to the Gulf of Mexico, i.e. Cape Haze/Gasparilla Sound, San Ca rlos Bay, etc. These results suggest that rainfall has a greater impact on pH for those estuary regions with limited influence from freshwater tributaries. Salinity decreased as rainfall increased for the entire region, with the exception of Estero Bay. In Estero Bay, with relatively small tributaries feeding into it, rainfall may exert less influence over salinity regimes. Upper Charlotte Harbor was the only estuary region to s how a positive correlation between TP and rainfall. This indicates that with increased rainfall, the runoff carri es the phosphate-rich soils within the watershed to the estuary re gion while flow resuspends the sediments, creating an increase in TP loads. In additi on, due to the relationship between color and freshwater flow, significant increases in color can be explained for both Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass by the increased ra infall from 2001 to 2005.

# Relationships Between Salinity and Selected Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 84 

# C. Relationship between Sa linity and Selected Parameters 1. Background As previously discussed, salinity has a major influence on many chemical, physical and biological estuarine processes. Natural variability in salinity occurs tidally, seasonally and as a function of increased flow from major tributaries and rivers, as well as from runoff and the degree of mixing within the water column. Artificial alterations of natural hydrologic regimes such as altering t he flow of major tribut aries can also have serious deleterious effects on water qualit y and the biological communities that are adapted to narrow salinity ranges. For t hese reasons, underst anding the potential effects of changes in salinity on other water q uality parameters is e ssential in describing the health of the Charlotte Harbor estuary regions. Correlation analyses were conducted to quantify the relationships between salinity and parameters that va ry as a result of changes in salinity, including color, nutrients, turbidity and fecal coliform bacteri a. Strong relationships between salinity and these variables help characterize the nature of these physical and chemical interactions within estuarine waters. Additionally, becau se decreases in salinity are related to increased flow from the wa tersheds, strong relationships between salinity and other parameters may link watershed uses and infl uences to the water quality within the estuaries. 2. Results Salinity was significantly negatively corre lated (correlation coefficient -0.71) to color across the Charlotte Harbor estuaries. As salinity decreased, color increased for both seasons and for all estuary regions. The negative correlation between color and salinity was strongest during the rainy season (correlation coefficient -0.72) and in estuaries with greater salinity variability, including U pper and Lower Lemon Bay, Upper Charlotte Harbor, and Estero Bay. See Figur e 6.1 with detailed resu lts in Appendix D. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were significantly correlated (p<0.05) to salinity, a factor which can influence nutrient concentrati ons. Concentrations of TP were also significantly and negatively co rrelated with salinity. Total nitrogen concentrations decreased along an increasi ng salinity gradient, although this relationship was weaker than for salinit y and phosphorus. The correlation between nitrogen and salinity was strongerduring the rainy season (-0.37) and in estuaries with strong freshwater influenc e including Upper Lemon Bay (-0.39) and Upper Charlotte Harbor (-0.44). See Figures 6.2 and 6. 3 and Appendix D for detailed results. Salinity was also significantly and negat ively correlated to turbidity (correlation coefficient 0.20), although the relationship wa s weaker compared to other significant salinity correlations. However, post hoc com parisons revealed that turbidity levels were not significantly correlated to salinity in regi ons with strong freshwater influence, such as Upper Charlotte Harbor and Matlacha Pass. See Figure 6.4 and Appendix D for detailed results.

# Relationships Between Salinity and Selected Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 85 Fecal coliform was significantly and negativ ely correlated with changes in salinity. As salinity increased, fecal coliform dec reased across the entire study region (correlation coefficient -0.34) and for both the rainy (correlation coeffi cient -0.40) and dry seasons (correlation coefficient -0.32). Ho wever, further analyses revealed that coliform was not significantly correlated to salinity in estuary regions with minimal occurrence of fecal bacteria, including Lower Charlotte Harbor, Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, and San Carlos Bay. See Figure 6.5 and Appendix D for detailed analyses. 3. Discussion Salinity was significantly and negatively correlated to changes in color, nutrients (including both nitrogen and phosphorus), turbid ity and fecal coliform bacteria. Results varied both seasonally and spatially as a po ssible result of increases in salinity variability during the rainy season. Results varied in some estuary regions as well, particularly Upper Lemon Bay, Upper Charlo tte Harbor and Matlacha Pass. These results indicate that increases in color ar e significantly related to salinity declines resulting from increases in tannin-rich freshw ater inflows to the es tuary. Similar to previous findings, significant decreases in nutrients and bacteria, along an increasing salinity gradient, may be an indicator of t he persistence of nutrients (e.g. Hammett 1990) and fecal coliform bacteria (e .g. Fujioka et al. 1981) in a tidally influenced system. In addition, due to the strong relationship between color, turbidity and salinity, a decreasing trend in turbidity, as well as an increasing color trend from 1998 through 2005, could be explained by a significantly dec reasing trend in salinity across the study region.

# Relationships Between Salinity and Selected Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 86 @ 

# Rainy Season: -0.7217 > 

# Dry Season: -0.6957 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 

# Salinity (ppt) 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00

C o l o r ( P C U )

>
> > > > @ @

@ @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @ >
> > @ @ @

>

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @

>

> > > > >

> @ @ @

@ >> > > > > > @ @

@ @

@

> > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@

>

> > > >

> @ @

@

@ > > > > @ @ @ @

>
> > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@
@ @
> > >

> > > @ @ @

@

>

> > > > >

> @

@ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ >
> > >> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@

>
> > > > > > @ @ @
@ @ > > > > > @

@ @
> > > > > @ @ @

@

>

> > > >

> @ @

@

> > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @
>

> > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ >

> > > >

> > @ @ @ > >> > > > @ @ @

>

> > > > > @ @ @

@ @

> > > > > > @ @

@

@ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @

@

>

> >

> @ @

@

@
> >

> > > > > > @ @

@ @

@ > > > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

>
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @@ @ @

@

>

> > > > >

> @ @

@ > > > > > > >> @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

>

> > > > > > @

@

@ > > > >> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >> @ @ @ @ > > > > @
@ @

@
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >

> >> > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >> > > @ @ @

>

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @@ @ > > > @ @ @

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @ @

>
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ > > > @ @ @

>

> > > >
> > @ @ @

@ @ > > >

> > >

@ @

@ @ @

> > >

>

> > > @ @ @ @

@

>

> > > > >

> @ @ @

@

> >

>

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @
@ @
>
> > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >
> > > > > @ @
@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > >
> > @ @ @

@

> > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @@

@ >

> > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >> > @ @ @ @
> > > >> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @

@ > >

> > >

>> @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @@ @ @ > > >

> >@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @
> > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > > > > > @ @ @@ @> > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > >> > > > @ @

@ @ > > >
> > > @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ >
> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ > > > >> >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @

@ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @
@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @
> > > > > @

@

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ >

> > > > > > @

@

> > >

> @

@

@ @

> > @

@ @ > > > > @

@ @

@ > > >

> @

@

@ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @
@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > >> > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @
> > > > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >> > > > @ @

@

> > > > >> > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @
> > >> > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@
> > > > > >

> @ @ @
> > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @
@ > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > >
> > @ > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ @
> > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @
@ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > @ @

@

> > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > > > @

@ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

> > >> > @ @ @ @

>

> >> > > @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ >

> > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @

>

> > > > > @ @ @

@ > >

>
> > > > > @ @ @
@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @
> > > > > @ @

>

>

@ @ @ >

>
@ @ > >> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ >
> > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > >> @ @ @ @@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @
@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @@ @ @ > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @
@ @ @ >

> > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > >
> > > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > @ @

@ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ > > >
> > > > > @

@ @ @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @
@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

@ @

@ > > > > > @ @ >
> > > > @ @

@

>



# Figure 6.1: Scatter plot results of color as predicted by salinity.

@ 

# Rainy Season: -0.4890 > 

# Dry Season: -0.4121 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 

# Salinity (ppt) 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500

T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )

@ @ > > > > > > > @
@ @
> > > @ @ @ @

> > > @

> > > > > >

> @ @
@ > > > >>

> @

@ @

@ > > > > > > > @

@ @ @
> > >

> > >

> @ @ @ @

> > > @
@ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >
> > >

> @

@ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

> >

> >> > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @
@ @ @ > > >

> > > @
@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @@ > > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >
> >
> @ @

@ >

> > @

@ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ >

> > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ @

> > > >

> @

> > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ > > > >

> > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @

@ >
> > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >

> @ @ @ @ > >
> @ @ > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >
> > @ @
> > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @

@ >

> > > > > > @@ @ @
@ >
> > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ >> > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > @ @ @ @
@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ >

> > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @
@

> > > @ @ > > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ > > > > > > @ @@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @

> > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > >
> > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @

>

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > >
> > > >

@ @

@ @
@ >

> >

> > > > @ @ @ @

@ > >

> > >

> >

@ @ @ @ >

>
>

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @@ > >

> > > @ @@ > > > > >@ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @

@ > > >
> > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ >> > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @@ @ @ > > > >

> @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @
> > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @
@ @ >> > > @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @
@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

>

> > > > > > > > > > @

@ @@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > >

> > > > @ @ @ > > @

@ > > > > >
> > @ @ @ > >

> > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >
@ @

@ @

> > > > > @ @

> > > > > >

@ @ @

@ > > >
> > > > @ @ @ > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > @

@ @ > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @ @

> > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ @

> > >

> > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @
@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > @

@ @
> > > > > @ @ > > > @

> > > > >

> @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >
> > > > @

@ @ @ > > @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ @

> > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @

> > > > > > >

@

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > >

> @ @ @ > > > @ @ > >

> >
> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >> >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > > @ > > > > > @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > >
> > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ > > @

> > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ >
> > > > @ @ @ > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > >

> > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >
> > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ >

> @

@

@ >

> @ @ > > > > @

@ @ >> > > @ @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > >
> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ > > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ >> > > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > >@ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ > > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >

> > > @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

@ @ > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >
> > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > @ > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > >

> > > @ @ @

>



# Figure 6.2: Scatter plot results of total phosphorus as predicted by salinity.

# Relationships Between Salinity and Selected Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 87 @ 

# Rainy Season: -0.3671 > 

# Dry Season: -0.3188 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 

# Salinity (ppt) 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000

T o t a l N i t r o g e n ( p p m )

@ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >
> > @
@ > >

> >

> >
> > @ @ @ >

> >
> >

> @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > >

> @ @ @

@ >

> > @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @

@ @

@ >
> > > @

@ > > > > >

> > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @

@ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @
> > > > > > > @ @ @
@ >

> > @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > @ > > @

>

> > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@

> > > > > @ @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> >

> > @ @ > >

> @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @
> > >
>

> @
@ > > > >

>

> > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @

> > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @

> > > > > >
@ @ @ @ @ >
> >
> > @ @ > > @

> > >

>

> > > @ @ @ @ @ >
> > > > > @ @ @ @

@ >

> > > > > > @@ @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ >
> > @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ > > @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @
@ >

> > @ @ @
> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @
@ > > > @ > >

>

> > > @ @ @ @ @
> > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > @ @ @
> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >
>

> > >

@ @ > @ > > >

> > > @ @@

@ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @

@ @

>
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > @ @ @

> > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > >
> @ @ >
> > @ >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@

> > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >
> > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ >

> @ @ > > >

>

> >
@ @ @ @ >

> > @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > @

> > >

> >

> >

@ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > >

@

@ @ @ @

>

> >

>

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >
> >

> @ @ @ @ >

> > @ >

> > > > @ @

@ @ @

> >

> > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >

> > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @

@@ > > > > @ @ >
> > @
> >

>

>

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ @

@ > > >

> > @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >
> > @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

@

@ > @

> >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > @

@ @

@ > > > @ @ @ @ >

> @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >
> @
@ >

> >

> > @ @ @ @ >

> > >> > @

@@ @

@ > > > > @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

>

> > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >
@ > @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @

@ >

> > >> > @ @ @ @

@
> > > > > > > @ @ @

> > >
> > > @ @
@ > > > > @
> >

> > > > > > > >

> @ @ @@ @> > > > > @

@ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @
> > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > @ @ > > > > @ @
@ > > > @ @ > > > @ >

> >

> > @ @ @ > > >
> > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @

@

@ @ > > >

> > >

> @ @

@ >

> @

@ @ > > > > > > > @
@ @ @ > > > @

> >

> > >@ @ @
@ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @

@
> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @
> > > > > >

@ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @

@ @
@ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @

@ > > > >

> @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ >

> > > >

>> @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @

@ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> @ @ @

@ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

@ @ @

> >

> @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >
> > > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > >

> > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @
> > > > @ @ > > @

> >

> > >

> @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > @ > > > @ > >

>

> >

> > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @
@ > >

> @ @ @
> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> >
> @ @ > > @ > >

> > > >

@ @
@ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ > > > @ > >

> > > @ @ @ > @
> > > > >

> > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >> @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ >
> > > > > @ @
@ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >

> >

@ > > >

> >

> > @

@ @
> > > > @

@ @ @

@

> > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > >

> @ @ >

> > @ > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @ @ >
> > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > >

> @ @ > @ >

> > > > > @
@ @ @ @
> > >> > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @

@ @

@ > > > @ @ @ > >

> > > > @
@ @ > > > >

> @ @ > @ @ > >

>
> > >

@ @ @ @ @
> > > >> @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @
>
> > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @
@ @ @ > > > >

> @ > > @

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @

@ > > >

> > >

> > @

@ @
@ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > @ >

> @

@
@ >

> @ @

>

> > > @ > @ @ >

> >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> >

>

@ > > @ >

>

> >

> > @ @ @ @ @ >
> > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @

> @ > >

> > >
@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >

> > > @

> > > > >
> @

@ @ @ > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > >

> @ >

> >

> > @ @ @

@ @ >
> > > > > @ @ @ @

@
> > > >
> @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @
@ > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ >

> > > > @
@ @ @ @ >

> >> > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ > >
@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @
> > > > > > >

> @ @ > >

> > > > @ @
@ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @

@
> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ > > > @ > > >

> > @

@ @ >

> > > > >

> >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

>



# Figure 6.3: Scatter plot results of total nitrogen as predicted by salinity.

@ 

# Rainy Season: 0.1828 > 

# Dry Season: 0.2040 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 

# Salinity (ppt) 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

T u r b i d i t y ( N T U )



### > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > @

@ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @

@ @ @ > > >
> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >
> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @
@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >
> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @@ > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @

@ >
> > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > > > > @
@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @
@ @ > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ >
> > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @
@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > > > @

@ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @

> > > >

> > @
@ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > >

> > > @

@ @ @ > > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > @
@ @ > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >
@ @ @ @ >

> > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > > > >
> >

> @
@ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > >

> >

@

@ @ @

> > > >

> > >
@ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > >

> >

@ @

@ >

> > > > >
@ @ @ @ > > >
> >

> > > @ @ @ @
@ >

> > > >

@ @ @ @ > >
> >

> @ @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> @ @ @ @ > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > > @

@ @ @ @ > > >

> > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > >

>@ @ @ @ >
> > > > >
@ @ @ @ > > >

>

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ > > > > > >
>

@ @ @ @

> > > > >

>

> > @

@ @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @

@ > > >

> > >

@

@ @ @ > >

>
> >

> > @ @ @ @ @

@ > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > >

@ @

@ @ > > >

> >

> @ @ @ > >

> > > >

@

@ @
@ @

> >

> >

> > > >

> > >

> > @ @ @@ @ >

> > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> >

@ @ @ >
> > > > >
@ @ @ @ >

> >
> > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @

@ @ @ > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ > >

> >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >
> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @
@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @
> > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > >
> > @ @
@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @
@ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @
@ > > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @

> > @ @ > > >

> >

> @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

@
> > > > > > > @ > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >
> > > > > @ @ @
> > > > > @ @ @ > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > >

>> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @

@ @ @

>
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > @@ @ > > > > > @ @
>

> @ @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > > >
@ @ @ @
> > > > > @ @

@ @ >
> > >
> > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > >
> @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > >

> > @

@ @ @ >
> > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @

@ @ >

> > >> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @

> > > >

> @

@ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @
> > >
> > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > >
> >

> @ @

@ @ > > >
> > > >

@ @
@ @ @

> > >
> > @

@ @ @ > > >

> >

@ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @

> > > > >

@
@ @ @ >
> >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ >

> > > > > >

@ @

@ @
@ > > > >

> > @

@ @ @ >

> > >
> > @ @ @

@ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > >

> >
@ @ @ @ >

> > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @
> > > > >

@ @ @

>



# Figure 6.4: Scatter plot results ofturbidity as predicted by salinity.

# Relationships Between Salinity and Selected Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 88 @ 

# Rainy Season: -0.4033 > 

# Dry Season: -0.3157 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 

# Salinity (ppt) 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00

F e c a l C o l i f o r m B a c t e r i a ( c f u / 1 0 0 m L )

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > >>

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >> > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

>
> > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @

@ >

> >
> > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @
@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @@ > > > @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

>
> @ @ @
@ > > >

> > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @@ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > >> > > @

@ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @@ @ > >> @ @ @> > > @ @ @ @@ > > > > >> @ @ @ >> > > > @ @ @ @ > > >> > > > @ @ @ @ > > >@ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >> @ @ @ > > > > @ @ > >
> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @
> > > > >
> > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > >

>

> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

>

> > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @@ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @

> >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

>
> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @@ > >> @ @ > > > > > @ @ > >
>

>> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > >

> > > @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > @ > > > >> > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @

> >

> > > @ @
> > > >

> > @ @ @ @

> > > >

>

>> @ @ @ > >

> @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @

@ > >

> > >
> @ @ @ @

@ > >

>

>
> > > > @ @
@ @ > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > >
@ @ @

@ @ > > >

>

>

> > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ > >

@ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > @

@ @ @ > > >

> > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ > > > @ @ > > > >

> @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > > >@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >> > > @ @ @ @ @>> >> > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ > > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @
@ @
> >
@ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >> > > >@ @ > > > > > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >> > > > @ @ @> > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > >> > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > >> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ >> > > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >> @ @ >> > > >@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > >> @ @ @ @> > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >> @ @@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >> > > >> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ >

> @ @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @> > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > >> @

@ @ @ > > > > > >> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >> > > > @ @ @ @> > >> > @ @ > >> > > > >

@ @ @ @ >> > >

>@ @ @ @

> >
> >> @ @ @ @ @> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >> > @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @@ > >> @ @@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >> > @

@ @ @ > >

> >>@ @ @

@ >> > > >> @ @ @ @@ > > > > >@ @ @ >> > > > @ @ @ @ > >> > > > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ >> > > > @ @ @ @ > > >> > @ @ @ @@ > > > > > @ @ @ > > @ @ > > > > >> @ @ @ @ > > > > > >> @ @ @@ @ > >> > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > >> > @ @ @ @> > > > > > @@ @ @> > > > > @ @ @> > > @ @ > > > >> > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > >> @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > >> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > > @ @ @ >



# Figure 6.5: Scatter plot results of feca l coliform bacteria as predicted by salinity.

# Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationships CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 89 

# D. Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationships 1. Background In the Charlotte Harbor region, nitrogen and phosphorus loadings have been shown to significantly increase phytoplank ton production and harmful algal blooms, thereby affecting chlorophyll a concentrations, resulting in decreased water clarity. For these reasons, chlorophyll a is a useful tool in characterizing nutrient enrichment in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries (e.g. Doering et al 2006). Determining the effects of nutrients on chlorophyll a concentrations as an indicator of phytoplankton production is essential in managing the water quality of the nine estuary regions. Quantifying the contribution of nitrogen and/or phosphor us to changes in chlorophyll a may allow resource management efforts to target either nutrient as a means to reduce chlorophyll a levels. 2. Results The relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll a varied seasonally and spatially across the nine estuary regions duri ng the study period. It should be noted, however, that the strength of these relationships was minimal. Across the study area, chlorophyll a concentrations significantly increas ed as both total nitrogen and TP increased. For all sites, the relationship between TP and chlorophyll a (correlation coefficient 0.28) was slightly stronger than nitrogen correlations (correlation coefficient 0.23) and changes in phosphorus levels explained the most variability (R 2 

# ~10%) in chlorophyll a. However, during the rainy season, total nitrogen (~4%) contributed statistically to most of the changes in chlorophyll a , while phosphorus (~16%) statistically contributed the most in t he dry season. Total nitrogen was the only parameter maximizing explai ned variation in chlorophyll a concentrations in Upper and Lower Lemon Bay (4%), Pine Island Sound (~7% ) and Estero Bay (~3%). Alternately, in Upper Charlotte Harbor phosphorus conc entrations (~13%) statistically contributed most to changes in chlorophyll a . Neither nutrient contributed significantly to changes in chlorophyll a concentrations in Lower Charlotte Harbor, Cape Haze, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. For visual reference of nutrient relationships see Figures 6.6 and 6.7, with detailed results for each estuary r egions and season in Appendix D. For regression results, see Table 6.1. 3. Discussion Over the study region, phosphorus ma ximized the explained variability in chlorophyll a concentrations, although a detailed post hoc analysis revealed that nutrient relationships varied both seasonally and spatially. Montgomery et al (1991) stated that nitrogen is the known limiting nutrient in t he Charlotte Harbor estuaries, although relationships between nutrients and phytoplankton production vary spatially and over time. However, the results of this study fail to indicate conclusively that nitrogen is the primary nutri ent limiting chlorophyll a concentrations across the study region from 1998-2005. As a result, a stronger observed relationship between phosphorus and chlorophyll a may be more indicative of: 1) the seasonal, temporal and spatial variability of the relationship bet ween nutrients and phytoplankton production;

# Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationships CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 90 and 2) an inability to accurately quantify vola tile nitrogen compone nts within the water column. Therefore, management activities aimed at reducing phytoplankton, via nutrient reductions, should consider the vari ability of these relationships within the Charlotte Harbor estuaries.

# Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationships CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 91 @ 

# Rainy Season: 0.2537 > 

# Dry Season: 0.1040 Correlation Coefficients

0.000 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 

# Chlorophyll a (ug/L) 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000

T o t a l N i t r o g e n ( p p m )



### @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> >

@
@ > @ >

> >
>

> > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > >

> @ @ @

@ >

> > @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > > @

@ @

@ > > > > > > > @

@ @

@ >

> >

> @

@ > > >
> > > > @

@ @

@ >

> > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @
@ >

> > @ @ @

> >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > >

> @ > >

@

> > > > @ @

@

> > > > > @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @

@ >

> > @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ >

> >

> > @ @ > >

> @

>

> >

> > > > @ @ @ @
> > >

> > @ > > @

> >

> > > > @ @ @ @

@ > >

> >

> >

> @

@ @

> > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @

>
> >
>

> @ @ > >

@

> > > > > > @ @

@ @

@ >

>

> > > > > @ @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ >
> > @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ > >

@

> > > > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > >

@ @ @

@

> > > > > > > @ @
@ >

> > @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @
@ > > >

@ > >

> > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >

@ @ @
> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >
> > > >

@ @ > @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @

@ > >

> > >

> @ @

>
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > @ @ @

> > > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > >
> @ @ >
> > @ > > > > > @

@

@

> >

> > > > @ @

@

> > > > >

> > @ @

@ @ >
> > @ @

@ > >> > >

@ @ @

@ @ > >

> @ @ > > >

>

@ @

> > > > > > > @ @

@ >

> > @

> > >

> > > @

@ @ @

@

>

> >

>

> > @ @ @ @ > > > >
> >

> @ @ @ @ >

> > >

>

> > > @ @ @ @

@ > > >

> >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >

> > @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > @ @ >
> > @
> >

> > > > @

@ @ @

@ > > > > >

@ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >
> > @

@ > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > >

@

@ > @

> > > > @

@ @

@ > > > >

@ @ @ @ >

> @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ >> >
> @
@ >

> > > > @

@ @ @

@ > > > > @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @

>

> > @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >
@ > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@
> > > > > > > @ @

> > >
> > > @ @
@

> > > > @ >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > @

@ @

@ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > @ @

> > > > > @ @
@ > > > @ @ > > >

@ >

>
> > > @ @ @ @

@ >

> > > > > > @

@

@

@ > > >

> > >

> @ @

@ >

> @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @
@

@ @ > > > @ > > > > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > > >

@ @ @ @
> >

> > > >

@

@ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @

@ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @

> > > > > > @

@ >

> > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @

@ > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> >

> @ @

@

@ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> >

@ @ > >

> @ > >

>
> > >

@ @ @

@

@

> > > > >

> > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @
> > > > @

@ > > >
> > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @

@ @ >

> > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > @ @

@ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @

> > > >

@ > > > > >

> > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @
@ > >

> @ @ @
> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> >
> @ @ > >

@ >

> > > > @

@ @

@

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

> >

> > @ @

> > > @ > >

> > > @

@ @ > @
> > > @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >
> > > > > @ @
@ > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > >

@ > >

>

> > @

@ @ @

@

> > > > >

> @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > >
@

@ @ @ > >

> @ @

> > > >

> @

@ > >

>

> @ @ >

>

> @ > >

> >

> > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > >

@ @ >

> > > > > > @ @

@ > > > @ >

> > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > >

> @ > @ >
> > > > @ @ @ @

@

>

> > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @

@ @

@ > > > @ @ > >

> > > > @
@ @ > > >

> @ @ > @ > >

> > > > @

@

> > > > > > @

@
> > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > >

> @ >
> >

> > > @ @ @ @

@

> > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @

@ > > >

> > > > @ @ @

@

> > > > > @

> >

> @

@
@ >

> @

@

@

>

> >

> @

> @ >

> > > > @ @

@ > > > > > > @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ >

> > @

@ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ >

> >

>

@ > > >

> > >

> @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @
>

> @

> @ >

> > > > @ @ @

@ > > >

> > >
> > > > >
> @

@ @ @

> >

> @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > >

> @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @

@
> > > >
> @ @ > > > > > @ @ @
@ > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > >

>

> @ >

> > > @

@ @

@

@ > > >

> > @ @ @ >

>
@ @ > > > > > > > @ @

> > > > > > > > @
> >

>> > > @ @ @

@
> > > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@

> > > > > >

> > @

@ @ > > > >

> >

> >

> > > @

@

@ >

> > > > > @ >

> >

> > @ @ @

>



# Figure 6.6: Scatter plot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total nitrogen.

@ 

# Rainy Season: 0.2412 > 

# Dry Season: 0.3020 Correlation Coefficients

0.000 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 

# Chlorophyll a (ug/L) 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500

T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )



### @ @ > > > > > > > @
@ @ @
> > > @ @

@ @

> @

> > > >

> > @

@ @

@ > > > > > > > @

@ @
> > >

> > >

> @ @ @ @

> > > @
@ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > >

> @

@ @ @ >

> >

> @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @
@ @ @ >

> >> > > @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @

> > >

@ > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ > > >
> >
> @ @

@ >

> > @

@ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ >

> > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ @

> > >

> @

> >

> > > > @

@ @ > > > > >> > @ @

> > > @

> > > > > > @ @

@ @

@ >
>

>>

> > @

@

@ > > >

> @ @ @ @ > >
> @ @ > > > > >
> >

@ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @

@ @

>
> >

@ > > > > > > @ @

@ @

@ >

>

> > > > @ @ @
@ >
> > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @

@ @ @

> > >

@ > > > > @ @ @ @
@ > > > > > >

@ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @
@

> > >

@ @ > > > > > >
> @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> @ > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > >

> > >

> @ @

> > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @

@

> > >

> >

> > @ @

@ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > >

@ @

@ > > > >

@ @ > > >
> > > > @ @

@ > > > @ >

> > > > > @ @

@ @

@ >

> >

> > > > @ @ @

@ > >

> > >

> >

@ @ @ @ >

>
>

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >> >

@ @ > > >
> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @

@ > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > @

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @@ @ >

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @

> > > @ @

> > >

>

> > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > @
@ @ > > >

@ > > > > > > @@ @ @
@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > @ @

> > > > > >

@ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > >

@ > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @

@

> > >

> > > > @@

@ > > @ @

> > > >

>
> > @ @

@ > > > > @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

> > > > > >

@ @

@ > > >
> > > > @ @ @ > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > @

@ @ > > > >

@ @ @ @ >

> >

> @ @

@ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

>

@ @ @ > > >

> @ > > > >

> >

@ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > @

@ @
> > > >

> @

@ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >> > @ @ @ @ >

> >
> >

> > @

@ @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @

@ @

> > > > @ @ @ > >

> > @

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ > > >

> > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > >
> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

@ > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @

> > @ > > >> > @ @ > > @ @ > > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >
> > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @

@ @

> > > > > @ > >

@

> >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ >
> > > > @ @ @ > > > @

@ @ @ > >

> @ > > > >

>

> @

@ > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > >

> @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ > > >
> > > > @ @

@ > > > @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ >> > > > > @ @ > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > @ > > > > > > @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ > >

> @

@

@ >

> @ @ > > > > @ @@ > > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > >
> > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > @

@ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > >> @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @@ @ @ > > > @ > > >

@ @ @ > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ > > > > > @ @ @@ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > @ @

> > >

> @> > >

> @

@ @ @ > >

>

> > @ @ @ >

> @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > @

@ > > > @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > >
> > > @ @ @ @

> > > @ > > > > > @

@ @ >
> >

> @ @ > @ > >

> > @

@ @ >

> > > > > @ >

>

>

> > @ @ @

>



# Figure 6.7: Scatter plot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total phosphorus.Nutrient and ChlorophyllaRelationships CHEVWQMN Report 2007Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection92Table 6.1: Stepwise regression results of chlorophyllaas predicted by total nitrogen and total phosphorusModelOrder1Parameter F R R2R2Change Adjusted R2SE Regression Equation1 TP212.872 0.322 0.104 0.104 7.459 4.688 + 16.602*TP2 TP, TN181.843 0.345 0.119 0.015 0.118 7.398 2.754 + 13.326*TP + 2.528*TN1 TP227.979 0.405 0.164 0.163 6.900 3.577 + 21.029*TP2 TP, TN218.787 0.413 0.171 0.007 0.169 6.876 1.946 + 18.299*TP + 2.333*TN1 TN25.734 0.192 0.037 0.036 8.091 4.719 + 3.174*TN2 TN, TP15.501 0.227 0.051 0.015 0.049 8.036 4.669 + 2.245*TN + 6.792*TP1 TP58.945 0.362 0.131 0.129 9.436 4.841 + 15.950*TP2 TP, TN47.747 0.394 0.155 0.024 0.151 9.315 1.978 + 11.710*TP + 3.744*TN1Only parameters that contribute significantly (p<.05) are added to the regression equation*In Lower Charlotte Harbor, Gasparilla/Cape Haze, Matlacaha Pass and San Carlos Bay nitrogen or phosphorus did not contribute significantly to changes in chlorophyllaPine Island SoundEstero Bay0.0660.25816.383TN11Upper Charlotte HarborAllDry SeasonRainy SeasonUpper Lemon BayLower Lemon Bay0.0410.2027.441TN5.268 + 4.133*TN8.5000.03511 TN 9.546 0.206 0.043 0.038 7.083 2.681 + 3.725*TN3.239 + 4.060*TN5.9310.0620.028 8.556 2.697 + 4.025*TNTN 7.296 0.182 0.033

# Relationships Between Light Limiting Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 93 E. 

# Relationships between Li ght Limiting Parameters 1. Background In the Charlotte Harbor region, changes in water clarity can be attributed to fluctuations in dissolved organic ma tter and suspended particulates such as phytoplankton (Kirk 1983, McPherson and Mi ller 1987, McPherson and Miller 1994, Dixon and Kirkpatrick 1999, Ott et. al. 2006) . Increases in color, turbidity and chlorophyll a will result in increased light attenuat ion within the wate r column. Water clarity in estuarine systems is essential for submerged aquatic plant growth and depth distribution of seagrass beds (Tomasko and Ha ll 1999)., As a result, characterizing the relationships between light limiting paramet ers and water clarity is important for seagrass management within the Charlotte Ha rbor estuary regions as well as the implementation of numeric water quality targets for this region (Corbett and Hale 2006). The relationships between water clarity, as described by Secch i depth, and light limiting parameters includi ng apparent color, turbidity, and chlorophyll a, were examined. Correlation analyses were c onducted to describe the strength and significance of relationships between these li ght-limiting par ameters and clarity, as well as to characterize the relationships between these light-limiting fa ctors. Additional stepwise regression analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of light-limiting parameters on changes in water clarity. These analyses we re performed separately for each season and estuary to demonstrate the seasonal and spatial va riability of these relationships. Results are provided in bot h tables and figures throughout the text, with detailed results prov ided in Appendix D. 2. Results Initial analyses of the relationships bet ween light limiting factors were conducted to evaluate if covariance exists between chlorophyll a, turbidity and color, in addition to the cumulative contribution of these factors to changes in water clarity. However, it should be noted that chlorophyll a and turbidity are components of color. Chlorophyll a concentrations were positively and signifi cantly correlated to color (correlation coefficient 0.32) and turbidity (correlation c oefficient 0.19). The relationship between color and chlorophyll a was strongest during the dry season (correlation coefficient 0.34) but was not significant in Upper Lemon Bay or Estero Bay. Chlorophyll a was not significantly correlated with turbidity in Uppe r Charlotte Harbor or San Carlos Bay. Although color and turbidity were signific antly and positively correlated (correlation coefficient 0.04) for the entire study durat ion and across all sites, further analysis showed that the relationship was not signifi cant during the dry season and in Lower Lemon Bay, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Gasparilla/Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound, San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. For visual refe rence of relationships between light limiting factors, see Figures 6.8-6.10, with detailed results for each estuary region and season in Appendix D. Color was the primary fact or limiting water clarity across all sites and seasons (R 2 

# =0.21). The addition of chlorophyll a and turbidity maximized the total variability in the regression model, although increased explai ned variation was minimal (change in R 2 

# =0.02 and change in R 2 

# =0.03, respectively). In the rainy season, color and chlorophyll a (R 2 

# ~0.3) were the only parameters that cont ributed significantly to changes in Secchi

# Relationships Between Light Limiting Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 94 depth. Alternately, duri ng the dry season, color (R 2 

# =0.14), followed by the addition of turbidity, maximized the variation in Secchi depth. The primary constituent controlling changes in water clarity varied spatially across the region. Color explained the most variation in Secchi depth in Upper (28%) and Lower Charlotte Harbor ( 35%), Gasparilla/Cape Haze (5 %), San Carlos Bay (7%) and Matlacha Pass (32%). Turbidity was t he primary factor influencing changes in water clarity in Estero Bay (30%), Pine Island Sound (22%), Lower Lemon Bay (16%) and Upper Lemon Bay (10%). The addi tion of turbidity and chlorophyll a into the regression models for each varied across th e region although the additional explained variation in clarity was minimal. See Table 6.2 for detailed regression results and Figures 6.11-6.13 for visual comparison of water clarity as predicted by color, chlorophyll a, and turbidity, with detailed results in Appendix D. 3. Discussion Across the Charlotte Harbor region, wit h the exceptions of Estero Bay, Pine Island Sound and Upper and Lower Lemon Bay, and across the study period, color was the primary contributor in changes in water cl arity. The contributio ns of turbidity and chlorophyll a varied spatially and seasonally. Howe ver, these results indicate that turbidity is the primary com ponent of light attenuation in es tuary regions with 1) lower than average regional color conditions, a functi on of minimal freshwater influence in areas like Pine Island Sound and Lower Lem on Bay or 2) above average turbidity conditions in shallow estuaries such as Upper Lemon Bay and Estero Bay. These results indicate that management activities aimed at increasing light availability, primarily for s eagrass growth, should consider both the spatial and seasonal variability of these light -limiting factors. As previous ly discussed, a better understanding is needed of the relationships between clarity, color and the effects of dissolved organic matter from freshwater flow and watershed r unoff. Additional consideration should be given to the effects of watershed influences and estuarine processes affecting lightlimiting factors. Specifically, increas es in color, turbidity and chlorophyll a concentrations can result from: 1) freshwater inputs from major rive rs including the tidal Peace, Myakka and Caloosahatchee Rivers, as well as from smaller tributaries (McPherson and Miller 1987, McPherson and M iller 1990; Dixon and Kirkpatrick 1999; Doering and Chamberlain 1999, Tomasko and Hall 1999; Doering et. al. 2006); 2) resuspension of estuary bed sediments or particulates (McPherson and Miller 1987); and 3) increases in nutrient and sediment lo ads from point source and non-point source watershed runoff (Doering and Chamberlain 1999, Hammett 1990).

# Relationships Between Light Limiting Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 95 @ 

# Rainy Season: 0.1359 > 

# Dry Season: 0.3370 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 

# Color (PCU) 0.000 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000

C h l o r o p h y l l a ( u g / L )

>

> > > > @ @ @

@ @ >
> > > > @ @

@ @

> > @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @
@ > > > >

> >

> @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @

@

@ @ > > > > > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @
@ > > > >

> >@ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > > > @ @

@

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @
@

> > >

> > @ @ @ > > >>

> > @ @

@ > > >

> > @ @ @ >
> > >

> @ @

@ > > > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @

@ @

@ > >

> > > >

>

> > >

> @ @ @
@ > > > > > > > @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > >

> > @ @ @ > > >

> @ @ @
@ > > > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > >

>
>

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @
@ > > > > > >
> @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @
@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @

@ @ > > > >
> > @@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >>> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > >

>

> > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @
@ > > > @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @

> > >

>

> > > @ @ @
@ >
> > >

> >

>

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >
> > >

> @ @ @ @ >
> > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >
> > @ @ @ > > >

> > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @ > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > @ @ > > >
> @ @

@

@ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > @@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @

@ > >

> > > >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @

> > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@

@ @ > > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

> > >

> > @ @ @ @

@ > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ > @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > >

> @ @ @ @ >
> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ > >

> > @ @ @ >> > >
> > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > >

> > @

@
@

> > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > >

> > @ @
@ > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @
@ @ > > > >

> @ @

@ @ > > > >

> > > @ @

@ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @

@ @

@

> > > > @ > > > > > > @

@ @

> > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ > >

> > > > > > @

@ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >
> > @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @

> > @

@ >

> > > > @ @

> > > >

> > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > >

> > @ @

@> > > > @ @ @ @ @
> > > > > > > @
> >

@ @ @ > > > > > @
@ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > @ @ @ @
> > > > >
> > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ >

> > > @ @ @
> > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ >

> > > >

> @ @

@ > > > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @

@ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ @

@ > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @
>

> > > > > > @ @
@ @
> > > > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > @ @ > > >

>
> > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > @

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > @

@ @ >

> @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @
> > > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ @

> > >

> > @ @

> > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > @ @
> > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > @ > > > > >

> @ @

@ @ > > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @

@
> > > > @ @ @

> > > >
> @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @
@ @ >

> > > @ @ > > >

> @ @

@ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > @ @ @

> > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ > > > >
> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ >



# Figure 6.8: Scatter plot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by color.

@ 

# Rainy Season: 0.0680 > 

# Dry Season: 0.1870 Correlation Coefficients

0.000 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000 

# Chlorophyll a (ug/L) 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

T u r b i d i t y ( N T U )

> > > > > @

@ @ @ @ >

> > >

> @

@

@ @ > > @
@
> > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @
@ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @

@ @ @ > > >
> > > > > > > @

@ @ @

> > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @

> > > > > >

> @ @ @
@ > > > >
> > >

> @ @ @ @ @

> > > > >

> > @ @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @

@ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ > > > > > @

@ > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ @ > >

> >

> > > @

@

@ > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> >
> >

@ @ @ @ @

>
> > > >
> > @ @

@ @

@ > > >

>> @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > >

> > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > >

>
> @ @ @ > >
> > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @

@ @ > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @
@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > >

> > @
@ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @

@ > >

> > >

> @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > >

> > > @

@ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > @
@

@ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @

@ > > > > >

> > @ @

@ > > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @

@ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > >>

@ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > @ > >
> >

> > @ @ @
@

@ > > >

> > > > @ @
@ @ > > > > > > >
@ @ @ @ >

> >
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >
> >

> @
@ @ @

@ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> >

@

@ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @ >

> > > >

>
@ @ @ @ > > >
> >

> > > @ @

@ @
@ >

> > > >

@ @ @ @ >
> >

> @

@ > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > >> > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > >

> > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > >

> >

> @ @ @ >
> >

>

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @

> > > > > >
>

@ @ @ @

> > > > >

>

> > @

@ @ @ @ > >

> >

>

> > @ @ @

@

@ > >

> >

@

@ > >

> >

> >

@ @ @ @ > > >

> > > >

@ @ @ > > >

> >

> @ @ @

> >

> > > >

@

@ @
@ @ >

>

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> >

@ @ @ >
> > > > >
@ @

@ @ >

> >
> > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >

> > @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> >

> @ @

@ @ > >

> > > > >

@ @

@ >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > >

> > >

@ @ @ @ > >

> > >

> @ @

@ > > > >

> > >

@ @ @ @ > >

> > >

> @

> @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >> > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > @ @

@ @ > > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@

@ > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @

@ @ @

> > >

> > @

> > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >
> > @ @
@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @
@ > > >

> > > > @ @

> > > >

> > > @

@ @

> > @ @ > >

> >

> @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @

@ @

@
> > > > > > > @ > > > @ @

@ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > >
> > > > > @ @
> > > > > @ @ @ > > > @

@ @ @ > >

> > > > > >

> @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > >

> @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ >

> > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > > >@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > @

@ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ >
> > > > > @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > @ > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > >

> @

@ @ > > @

@ > > > > > > >

@ @ @@

> > > >

@ @

@ >
> > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > > @
@>

> > > > >
> @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > >

>> @

@ >
> > > >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @

> > > > @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > @ > > >
> >

>

@ @ @ @

> > > >

>
> >

> @ @

@ @ > > >
> > > >

@ @
@ @ @

> >
> > @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @@

> > > > >

@ @ @

@ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > >

> @
@>

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > @

@

@ >

> > > > > >

@ @

@ @

@ > > >

> > @

@ @ >

>

> >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > >
@

@ @

@ > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ @ > > >

> @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ >

> > > > > @ > > >

> >

@ @ @

>



# Figure 6.9: Scatter plot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by turbidity.

# Relationships Between Light Limiting Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 96 @ 

# Rainy Season: 0.0682 > 

# Dry Season: 0.0330 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 

# Color (PCU) 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

T u r b i d i t y ( N T U )

> > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ @

> > > @
@ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @

@ @ @ > > >
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >
> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @
@ > > > >
> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > >
> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @

@ >
> > > > > >

>

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > > > > @
@ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @
@ @ > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ @

> > > > >

> > @ @ @

@ > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ >
> > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @ @

@ @ > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @
@ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > > > @

@ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > >

> > @
@ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @

@ @ @ > > >

>

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > >

> > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > @
@ @ > > @@ @ @ @ > > >

>

> > @ @ @@ > > >

> > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @ @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > >

> > @ @ @
@ @

> > >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >
@ @ @ @ >

> > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >
> >

> @
@ @ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >

@

@ @ @

> > > > > > >
@ @

@ @ @ > > >

>

> >

@ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @ @ >

> > > >

>
@ @ @ @ > >

>
> >

> > > @ @ @ @
@ >

> > > > >

@ @ @ @ > >

> >

> @@ @ @

> > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> @ @

@ @ > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > >

> > > >

@ @ @ @

@ > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ >
> > > > >
@ @

@ @ @ > > >

>

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> >

@ > > > > > >
>

@ @ @ @

> > > > >

>

> > @

@ @ @ @ > >

> >

> > > @ @ @ @

@ > >

>

> > >

@

@ @ @ > >

>
> >

> > @ @ @ @ @

@ >

> >

>

> >

@ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > >

@ @

@ @ > > >

> >

> @ @ @ > >

> > > >

@

@ @
@ @

> >

> >

> > > >

> > >

> > @ @ @ @

@ >

> >

>

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> >

@ @ @ >
> > > >

>
@ @ @ @ >

>
> > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @

@ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ > >

> >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > >

> >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >> @ @ @ @ >
> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > >

> > @

@ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > >

> > > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > > @ @

@ @

@ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @

@ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >
> @

@ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @
> > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >
> > @

@
@ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@
@ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @
@> > > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @

@ @

> > @ @ >

> >

> >

> @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

@
> > > > > > > @ > > > > @ @ @

> > >

> > > > @ @

@ > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > >
> > > > >

@ @

@
> > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @

@

@ @ @ >

> > > > @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ >

> > > > >

> @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > >

> >

@ @ @ @

@ > >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

>
> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > @

@ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > >

> > > > > @

@ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > > >
@ @ @ @
> > > > > @ @

@ @ >
> > >
> > > @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > >
> @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @

> > > > > > @ @ @

@

> > > >

> > @

@ @ @ >
> > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> > @ @

@ @

>

> > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > > >

@ @ @ @

@

> > > > > @

@ @ > > >

> >@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > >

> > > > @

@
> > >
> >

>

@ @

@ @ > > > >

>
> >

> @ @

@ @ > > >
> > > >

@ @
@ @ @

> > >
> > @

@ @ @ > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > >

> > > @
@ @ @ >
> >

> > @ @ @

@ @ > > >

> > @ @

@ @ @ > >> > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @

@ @ @ >

> > > > > >

@ @

@ @
@ > > > >

> > @

@ @

@ >

> > >
> @ @ @

@ @ > > >

>

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > >

> >
@ @ @ @ > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @
> > > > >

@ @ @ >



# Figure 6.10: Scatter plot results of turbidity as predicted by color.

@ 

# Rainy Season: -0.5851 > 

# Dry Season: -0.2719 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 

# Secchi Depth (m) 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00

C o l o r ( P C U )

>
> > > > @

@ @ >

> > > > @ @ @

@ > > @ @ @ @

>

> > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > >

@ @ @ @

>

> > > > >

> @ @ @

@ > > > > > > >

@ @

@

@

@

> >

> > > > > > > > @ @ @ @

@

>

> >> > >

> @ @

@

@ > > @

> @ @

@ @ @
@ @

@

> @

@

> >@ @ @ @

@ >

> > > @

@ @ @ > > @ @

@

>

> > @ @
@ @

@ @ @ @

@

> @ @

@

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @
>

> > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ @

> > > >

> >

> > >

@ @ @

@ >

> @ > @ @

>

> > >

@ @ @

@ > > @

@

@ @

> @ @ @

@

>

> >

@ @

@

@ > >

> @ @

@ > @ @ @ > > @ @

>

> > @ @ @

@ @ > > @ @

@

> >

> @ @

@

> @

> @

@ @
@ @

@

@

@ @ @ @ > @ @ @ > > > @ @

@ @

> >

@ @ @ @ @ > > @ @ > > > @ @ > @

> @ @ >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @

@ @

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > @ @ @ > @

@ @ @ > > @ @

@ @ @ > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > @ @ @

> > > > > @ @

@ > > > @ @ @

>

> > >
> > @ @ @

@ > > >

>

> > @ @

@ @ @

> > >

>

> >> @

@ @ @

@

>

> > > > >

>

@ @ @

@>

>

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @

@ @
>
> > > > >

@ @ @ @

@ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ > >

> > > > > > > @ @
@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >
> > @ @

@

@

> > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ >

> > > > > @

@

@ @ > >

> @

@ @ > @ @ @ > @ @

> > @ > @

> @ @

@ @ > > @ @ @ > > > @ @

> > > > @ @ @ > @ @ > @ > > > @ @ @

@ @ @

> @

> >
>

> > @ > @ @

@ >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > @ @ @ @ > >

>> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ > > > > > @ > > > > > @ >

> @ @

> > > > @

@ >> > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ > @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ > > > @ @

@ @

> > > @

@

> > > >

> @ @

>

> > @ @

@

> > > @

@

@ @

@ > > > @

@ @

@ > > >

@ @ @

> > @ @ @

> @

@ @

@ @ @ > @
@ @ @ > > @ @

> @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > @

@ @ @ @ > @ @ > @

@

@ @ @ @ @

> > @

@

> > @ @ > @ @

@ > > > @ @ @ @ @
> @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @

@ > @ @ > > @ @ @
> @ @

@

> > @ @ @
>

@ @ > > > > > > @ @ > > > > >>> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > >> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > @

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > @

@

> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ @
> > > > > @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > > > @

@ @ >

> > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > @ @

> > @ @

>

> > @

> > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ >

> > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ > > >

> > > @ @ @ @

> > > > > @

@ @

>

> > > > > > @ @ @

@ > >

> @ >

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > >
> @ @ @

> > @

@ @ > > @ @ @ @ > @

@ @ @ @
@ > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ > > @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > @
@ @ >

> @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > @ @ @ > > @ @
> @ >

>

> @
> > >
@ > > > @ >

> > > > >

@ @

@ @ >

> > > > > > @ @@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @
> > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > >

> > @

@ @ @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @

@
@ > > > >> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @

@ > > > > @

@ >
> > > > @ @

@ >



# Figure 6.11: Scatter plot results of Secchi depth as predicted by color.

# Relationships Between Light Limiting Parameters CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 97 @ 

# Rainy Season: -0.2178 > 

# Dry Season: -0.4800 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 

# Secchi Depth (m) 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

T u r b i d i t y ( N T U )

> > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @

@ > > @
@ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> >

@ @

@

@ @ > >

>
> > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ >
> > @ > @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @

>

@ @ > >@ @ @ @

@ > > > > @

@ @

@ > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

@ > @ @ @ > > > > >
> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @ @

@ >
> > >

> >

> >

>

@ @ @ @ > >

@ > @ @ > > >

>

@ @ @
@ > >

@ @

@ @

> @ @ @

@ > > >

@ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > @ @ @ > >

@ @ > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > @ @

@ > >
> @ @ @ > > @ >
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ > @ @ @ > > > @
@

@ @ > >

@

@ @ @ @ >

> @ @ > > > @ @ > @ > @ @ > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @

@ @ > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @ @ @@ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > @ @ @ @ > >

@ @

@ @ @ > >

> @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @

@ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > >

>

> > > @

@ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @

@

> > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >
> @ @ @ > >

> > > >
> >

> @
@ @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >

@

@

@ @

> > > > > >

>
@ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

@ @ @ >

> > > > >
@

@ @ @ > >

>

@ @
@ > @ @ @ >

@ @

> > @ >

@ > @

@ @ @ @ > >
>

@ @ @ >
> >

@

@ > > > >
@ @ @ >

>

@ @ > > @ > >
>

@ @ @ @ @ > @

> >

>

>

> @ @

@ @

> > > >

@

@ @
@ @

> >

> >

> >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> >

@ @ @
> > > > >
@ @ @ @ >

> @
@ @ @ > >

> >

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > > @ > >

> >

> @ > > > > > @ >

> @ @ @ > > > >

@ @ > > >

> > >

@ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @

> @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > @ @

@ @

> > > @ @ > > > >

> @ @ @

@ > > >
> @ @

@ > > > @ @ @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @

@ > > > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ > @ @ @ @ @ @ > @ @ @ @ > >@
@ @ > @ @ @ @ > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > @

@ @

@ @ >@ @ > @ @ @ @ @ @ @

> > @ @
> > @ @ > @ @ @ > > > @ @
@ @ @ > @ @ @ @ > > @ @ @ @ > @
@ >

>
@ @ @ > @
@ @ > > > > @

@ @

>

@ @ > > >

> >

> @ @ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > @

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @ @

@ > > > >

> @

@ @ > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > >

>

> @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ > > > > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @

> > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > @ @ > > @ @

> > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ @

> > > > > > @ @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @
> > > > @ @

@ @ > > >
> > @ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ >

> @ @ @ > > @ @

@ @ @ > @

@ @ @

@ @ @ > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ @

> > > > >@

@ @ > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ > >

> @ @ > > > >

@ @ @ > > > @ @

@ > >

@ @
@ @ >
> > @

@ @ @ > > >

> >

@ @ @ @ > > @ @ > @

> >

>
@ > > > @
>
> > @ > > > > > > >

@

@ @ @ >

> > > > > >

@ @

@ @
@ > > > >

> > @

@ @ @ >

> >

>
>

> @ @ @

@ @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ > > > > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > >
@ @ @ @ >

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

> @

@ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @

@
> > > > >

@ @ @ >



# Figure 6.12: Scatter plot results of Secchi depth as predicted by turbidity.

@ 

# Rainy Season: -0.3050 > 

# Dry Season: -0.3270 Correlation Coefficients

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 

# Secchi Depth (m) 0.000 25.000 50.000 75.000 100.000

C h l o r o p h y l l a ( u g / L )

@ @

@ > >

> > > > > @ @

@ >
> > > > @ @

@

@
> @

@ > > > > > > @ @ @
@ > > > >

> > > @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @ @

@ > > >

@ @

@ > > > > >

@ @

@

@ @ > >

> > > > > >
> @ @ @ @ > > > >

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @
@ @

>
@ @
@ @

@ >

> @ @

@

@

@ > >

> @

@ @
@
> @ @ > @ @

@

@ @ >

@ @

@ > > @

@ @ >

> >

>

> >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > > >

> @ @

@ @

@ >

> >

>

> > @ @

@ > >

>

@ @ @
@ > > @ > @ > > > > @ @

@ @

> @ @ @ > > >

@ @ @
@ > > > @ @ @

@ @ > @ @ @ > > @ > @ @ @ > > @
@ > >
> @ @

@ > > @

> @ @ @ @ @ > @ @ @ > > > @

@

@ @ > @ > @ @ @ @ @ > > @ > @ @ > @ > @ @ >

@ @

> > > > @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @

@ @ > >

> @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > >

> @ @ @ > @ @ @ @ @ @ @ > > @ @

@ @ @ > >

> @ @ > > @ @ > > > > > @ @
@ > > > @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > >

>

> > > @

@ @
@ >
> > >

> >

>

@ @ @

@
> > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ >

>
> > >

> @ @ @ @ > >

> @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> >

> > > > @ @

@ > > >

> > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @ > >

> @ @ @ > @ @ @ > > >
@ @ > @ @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > @ > > @ > > >@ @ @ @ @ @

@ > @ >

> > @ @

> > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @
> @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > >

> > @ > > > > @ >

> @ @ @
> > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > > @ > @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > @ @ > > > >

> @ @

@ > > >

> @ @

@ > > > @ @ @ @ @ @ > > >

@ @ @

@ >
> @ @

@

@

@

@ > @

@ @ @ > @ @ @ @ > >

@ @ @ @ @ @

> > @ @

@ > > @ @ @ @

> > > @ @ > > @

@ @ @ > @ @

@ @ @ @
@ @ @

> > > @ @

@ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ @ @

> @ @ @ @ > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @

>

@

@ > > > > > > @ > > > >

> > @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > > > > @ @
@ @ >

> > > >
> > > > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @

@ > @ > > > > > > > @ @ @

@ @ > > > > > > >

@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > > >

>
@ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @
> > > > > > > @ @
@

@
> > > @ @

> > > > > > > @

@ @ > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ > > > @ @ > > @ > > @ @

@
> > > > > > @ @

@ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > >

@ > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ > > > > > > > @ @

@ @ > > > @ > @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ @ > > >

> > @ @ > > @ @ @ > @

@ @

> @ @

@ @ @

> @

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

@ @ @ >

> > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @ @ @ > > > @ @ > > > @ > > > > @ @ @ > > @ @ @
> > @ @ @ > > @ @ @ @

> > > @ @ @

> @ @ > @ > >

> @ > > > @
> >

@

@ > > > > > >

@ @

@ > > > > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @ @ > > > > > > @ @ @

> > > > > @ @ @ > > > > > > @

@ @ @ >

> > > > > @ @ @ @ @ > > > > @

@ > > >
> @ @ @ > > > > > @ > > > > > @ @ @ >



# Figure 6.13: Scatter plot results of Secchi depth as predicted by chlorophyll a.Relationships Between Light Limiting ParametersCHEVWQMN Report 2007Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection98Table 6.2: Stepwise regression results of secchi as predicted by color, turbidity and chlorophyll aModelOrder1Parameter F R R2R2Change Adjusted R2SE1 Color313.385 0.458 0.210 0.210 0.209 0.5242 Color, Chla37.218 0.484 0.234 0.024 0.233 0.5163 Color, Chla, Turbidity48.080 0.514 0.236 0.030 0.263 0.5061 Color105.842 0.376 0.142 0.142 0.140 0.5552 Color, Turbidity177.742 0.573 0.328 0.187 0.326 0.4921 Color199.351 0.521 0.271 0.271 0.270 0.4822 Color, Chla36.954 0.565 0.318 0.047 0.316 0.4661 Turbidity9.432 0.316 0.100 0.100 0.089 0.2052 Turbidity, Color7.305 0.415 0.172 0.072 0.152 0.1981 Turbidity24.127 0.393 0.155 0.155 0.148 0.3482 Turbidity, Color21.118 0.521 0.272 0.117 0.261 0.3241 Color122.718 0.531 0.282 0.282 0.279 0.3132 Color, Turbidity9.298 0.550 0.302 0.021 0.298 0.3091 Color39.417 0.595 0.354 0.354 0.345 0.7162 Color, Turbidity10.254 0.660 0.435 0.082 0.419 0.6743 Color, Turbidity, Chla6.242 0.694 0.482 0.046 0.459 0.6501Color 5.782 0.221 0.049 0.049 0.040 0.4462Color, Turbidity 4.810 0.296 0.088 0.039 0.072 0.4391 Turbidity43.271 0.473 0.224 0.224 0.219 0.5602 Turbidity, Color16.370 0.548 0.301 0.077 0.291 0.5331 Color78.572 0.563 0.317 0.317 0.313 0.4682 Color, Turbidity10.174 0.597 0.356 0.039 0.349 0.456San Carlos Bay 1 Color19.968 0.258 0.067 0.067 0.063 0.5101 Turbidity67.604 0.549 0.301 0.301 0.297 0.3482 Turbidity, Color0.971 0.553 0.305 0.004 0.296 0.3481Only parameters that contribute significantly (p<.05) are added to the regression equationEstero Bay1.570 - 0.058*turbidity1.740 - 0.064*turbidity - 0.003*colorMatlacha Pass2.216 - 0.011*color2.340 - 0.009*color - 0.113*turbidity1.713 - 0.006*colorGasparilla/ CapeHaze1.652 - 0.005*color1.952 - 0.007*color - 0.065*turbidityPine Island Sound1.719 - 0.061*turbidity1.995 - 0.070*turbidity - 0.008*colorUpper CharlotteHarbor1.266 - 0.003*color1.339 - 0.003*color - 0.024*turbidityLower CharlotteHarbor2.531 - 0.017*color2.805 - 0.017 color - 0.095*turbidity2.923 - 0.015*color - 0.086*turbidity - 0.036*chlaUpper Lemon Bay1.029 - 0.039*turbidity1.164 - 0.053*turbidity - 0.001*colorLower Lemon Bay1.588 - 0.063*turbidity1.740 - 0.074*turbidity - 0.004*colorDry1.650 - 0.006*color1.667 - 0.006*color - 0.005*turbidityRainy1.560 - 0.005*color1.669 - 0.005*color - 0.015*chlaRegression EquationAll1.600 - 0.005*color1.658 - 0.005*color - 0.010* chla1.673 - 0.005*color - 0.010*chla- 0.004*turbidity

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 99 

# VII. Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary A. Introduction Water quality status and trends were char acterized for eleven parameters from 1998 through 2005 across the Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves. Across the region, 48 sampling sites we re grouped into nine estuary regions and analyzed in this report. This section char acterizes water quality conditions for each estuary region based on CHEVWQM N results. An additional summary of influences from the adjacent watersheds is provided ba sed on the land uses and vegetative cover as described by the CHNEP’s Synthesis ofExisting Information (1999). Management considerations are also provided based on the unique hydrologic conditions and interactions within each estuary. For this summary, the nine estuar y regions are grouped based on Aquatic Preserve boundaries and watershed influences into five Aquatic Preserve management areas, including: Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harborand Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve includes both the Upper and LowerLemon Bay estuary regions. Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve includes the Gasparilla/Cape Haze, Upper Charlotte Harbor and Lower Charlotte Har bor estuary regions. Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass were grouped because both are affected by the same watershed basin. A summary of the San Carlos Bay estuary re gion is also included even though the sites and waterbody are not within t he Aquatic Preserves.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 100 

# B. Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve Including: Upper Lemon Bay and Lower Lemon Bay Estuary Regions 1. Background Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve extends from Alligator Creek in south Sarasota County to the Boca Grande Bridge. The Bay is separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a series of barrier islands. There are sev en tributaries (Alligat or, Forked, Gottfried, Ainger, Oyster, Buck and Lemon Creeks), two Gulf passe s (Stump Pass and Little Gasparilla) and connections to the Gulf of Mexico through the Venice Bypass Canal to the north and Placida Harbor to the south. The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high waterline of the Bay and the tribut aries upstream to SR 776/SR 775. Lemon Bay is approximately 24 km (~15 mi) long and averages 1 km (~3/4 mile) wide, with an area of 31 km 2 

# (7,667 acres). The Bay is narro w and shallow, averaging 1.8 m deep at mean high water. Within the estuary, the largest submerged habitat is seagrass, comprising over 11 km 2 

# (2,700 acres) growing to approximately 1.7 m deep. The Aquatic Preserve includes two counties (S arasota and Charlotte) and the urban areas of South Venice, Englewood and Placida. The watershed for Lemon Bay extends do wnstream from the headwaters of the seven tributaries in Sarasota and Char lotte Counties and is approximately 184 km 2 

# (45,500 acres) in size. The 1990 and 2010 proj ected land uses in the watershed are shown in Table 7.1.The ratio of waters hed land area to open water estuary area is approximately 6:1. Based on the 1990 data, the largest land use in the watershed is urban (26%), followed by r angeland (24%) and upland forest (20%), with very little agriculture (2%). Of the urban area, the majority is in resi dential use located adjacent to the estuary and tributaries. T he most significant projected change in future land use is a very large increase (>240%) in resident ial acres. There are approximately 37 domestic wastewater discharges, five industr ial wastewater discharges, three public water supplies and several industrial water supplies permitted within the Lemon Bay watershed. There is also a high dem and for golf course and landscape irrigation (CHNEP 1999). 2. Water Quality Status and Tr ends Results in Upper Lemon Bay In the Upper Lemon Bay region, CHEVWQM N results indicated generally below average water quality conditions and rank ed below average compared to other estuaries in the Charlotte Ha rbor region as well as other estuaries across the state. Upper Lemon Bay ranked in the 70 th 

# , or greater, percentile of Florida estuaries for all nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria, in addition to ranking in the bottom 10 th 

# percentile for DO. Results showed frequent exceedances of Florida Surface Water Standards for DO, chlorophyll a , fecal coliform bacteria and turbidit y. Trends in the Upper Lemon Bay region indicate a decrease in TKN, turbid ity, salinity and pH, and an increase in DO. The primary factors contributing to light attenuation are turbidity and color. Water quality status and trends results for U pper Lemon Bay are shown in Table 7.2 Sampling site LBV001 exhibited the most degraded water quality in Upper Lemon Bay possibly affecting the collective re sults for the region. The site had one of

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 101 the greatest percentages of DO values that were less than 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L, as well as the only site to have fecal coliform bacte ria exceedances greater than both 400 and 800 cfu/100mL. The site is located near a smalle r tributary and is the northernmost site in Upper Lemon Bay. Site LBV003 was the only site within the region to have turbidity (greater than 31.7 NTU) excee dances. Site LBGOT2, a site located about 3 km (2 mi) upstream in Gottfried Creek, al so exhibited above average co lor, fecal coliform bacteria and total phosphorus values. Site specific water quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 3. Water Quality Status and Tr ends Results for Lower Lemon Bay Water quality in Lower Lemon Bay ranged from above average to below average depending on the parameter of interest. The pH and salin ity within the region were relatively high with median values of 8.3 and 33.5, respectively, ranking in the top 90 th 

# and 100 th 

# percentiles, respectively, of Flor ida estuaries. Secchi depth was above average in Lower Lemon Bay ranking in the 70 th 

# percentile of Florida estuaries. DO concentrations were typically low in Lower Lemon Bay, ranking in the 20 th 

# percentile of all Florida estuaries and frequently below Fl orida Surface Water Standards of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L. Significant trends include decreasing TKN and turb idity and increasing color. As in Upper Lemon Bay, turbidity and color ar e the primary light a ttenuating parameters. Water quality status and trends results for Lower Lemon Bay are shown in Table 7.3 Site LBV006 had the lowest water quality status in general of all sites in Lower Lemon Bay. LBV006, located in Buck Creek, had frequent exceedances of regulatory criteria including dissolv ed oxygen, chlorophyll a , and fecal coliform bacteria. Fecal coliform bacteria levels for sites LBV006 a nd LBANG1 were above the typical Florida estuarine water quality average, ranking in the 100 th 

# percentile of Florida estuaries. Site LBV007 generally exhibited the highest wate r quality, with frequent status rankings below the 50 th 

# percentile of Florida estuaries and wit h the smallest percent of regulatory exceedances. Site specific water quality st atus results are shown in Appendix A. 4. Discussion CHEVWQMN results indicate below-ave rage water quality across the Lemon Bay region, particularly in tributaries locat ed in Upper Lemon Bay. Below average DO conditions that frequently exceeded Florida Surface Water Criteria are of one of the most critical water quality issues across Lem on Bay. Regulatory exceedances of fecal coliform bacteria in the region, particularly near tributaries, ar e additional concerns. Results, however, indicate that fecal colif orm bacteria exceedance events were isolated, indicating that causes of increased bacteria are site- and event-specific. In the Lemon Bay estuary, turbidity explained the mo st variability in water clarity. Effective resource management goals fo r Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve should focus on improving DO, fecal co liform, turbidity and chlorophyll a levels in the estuary. Reducing turbidity levels would contribute to improving water clarity, thereby enhancing seagrass growth. Potential natural and ant hropogenic sources of turbidity, such as wind-driven, boating-related, and storm-wat er velocity, should be investigated and quantified. Additionally, elevated nutrient and fecal coliform bacteria levels associated

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 102 with growing urban land uses, such as sept ic systems and stormwater runoff, should be identified, quantifi ed, prioritized and remediated. Table 7.1: Land uses in the Lemon Bay watershed Projected Land Use 1, 2, 3, 4 

# acres % acres % Change Urban Residential 10,428 23% 38,051 84% Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 1,313 3% 2,304 5% SubTotal 11,741 26% 40,355 89% 244% Mining 286 1% 0 0% -100% Agriculture Row Crops/Groves/Nursery 186 0% Pasture/Feedlot 749 2% Sub Total 935 2% 529 1% -43% Open Land, Wetlands, Water Forest/Range/Barren/Preserve 20,461 45% 4,614 10% Wetlands 4,641 10% Open Water 7,434 16% Sub Total 32,536 71% 4,614 10% -86% TOTAL 45,498 100% 45,498 100% 1 

# Includes Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve. 2 

# Includes Upper Lemon Bay and Lower Lemon Bay Estuary Regions. 3 

# Includes Lemon Bay Watershed. 4 

# From "Synthesis of Existing Information", Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1999. Based on SWFWMD, SFWMD and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council data. 1990 2010 Projected

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 103 Table 7.2: Status and Trends Summary for Upper Lemon Bay

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 161 0.4 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.9 1 40 average Temp (deg. C) 381 12.0 32.0 23.7 0.2 24.5 3 50 average DO (mg/L) 373 1.0 8.8 4.1 0.1 3.9 1 10 lower than average 

# ↑ pH 377 7.2 8.8 8.0 0.0 8.0 2 60 average 

# ↓ Salinity (ppt) 376 0.0 40.7 22.4 0.6 25.3 3 50 average 

# ↓ TN (ppm) 219 0.075 2.750 1.035 0.031 1.0 9 70 higher than average 

# ↓ 4 

# TP (ppm) 228 0.010 1.080 0.199 0.007 0.2 8 70 higher than average Chl a (ug/L) 209 0.50 52.30 9.20 0.60 6.3 9 50 average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 252 1 1156 98 10 35.0 9 80 higher than average Turbidity (NTU) 240 0.5 66.0 2.9 0.1 2.5 3 40 average 

# ↓ Color (PCU) 239 4 240 38 2 30.0 6 60 average
1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 4 

# Trend results of total Kjeldahl nitrogen

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 104 Table 7.3: Status and Trends Summary for Lower Lemon Bay

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 230 0.5 3.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 4 60 average Temp (deg. C) 525 10.0 32.0 23.6 0.2 24.0 1 50 average DO (mg/L) 515 0.6 8.2 4.7 0.1 4.8 3 10 lower than average pH 520 7.2 9.0 8.3 0.0 8.3 8 100 higher than average Salinity (ppt) 518 2.1 40.7 31.7 0.3 33.5 9 100 higher than average TN (ppm) 265 0.075 2.560 0.790 0.025 0.767 5 50 average 

# ↓ 4 

# TP (ppm) 275 0.010 0.420 0.084 0.003 0.070 4 40 average Chl a (ug/L) 259 0.01 79.46 5.55 0.42 3.92 4 30 lower than average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 302 1 800 41 5 8 6 60 average Turbidity (NTU) 296 0.5 9.7 3.1 0.1 2.6 4 40 average 

# ↓ Color (PCU) 296 1 240 25 2 15 1 40 average 

# ↑
1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 4 

# Trend results of total Kjeldahl nitrogen

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 105 

# C. Gasparilla Sound–Charlotte Ha rbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves Including Gasparilla/Cape Haze, Upper Ch arlotte Harbor and Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary Regions 1. Background The Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harborand Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves are discussed together in the following secti on because the two aquatic preserves share a common estuary and watershed. Together, the two aquatic pr eserves extend from the Myakka and Peace River mouths southwest to Boca Grande Pass. The boundary of the aquatic preserves follows the mean high water line of the Harbor and tributaries upstream to tidal influence. Additionally , the aquatic preserves are bounded in Punta Gorda by the US 41 S Bridge, in El Jobean by the SR776 Bridge, in Placida by the Boca Grande causeway, and in the sout h by the north tips of Cayo Costa and Pine Island. Charlotte Harbor is approxim ately 26 km (16 mi) long and 19 km (12 mi) wide at its maximum extents, covering over 368 km 2 

# (91,052 acres) of submerged waters. Charlotte Harbor proper is the largest and deepes t of the local estuaries, exceeding 6 m deep in the central depressions and 15 m deep at Boca Grande Pass. The two major tributaries are the Myakka and Peace Rivers, along with several smaller tributaries, including Alligator, Catfish and Whidden Cree ks and Yucca Pen. Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves are located in Charlotte and Lee Counties, adjacent to the communities of Punta Gorda, Po rt Charlotte, Placida and Boca Grande. Seagrass is a critical submerged habita t within the Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves, occurring along the shallow shoreline areas, comprising over 63 km 2 

# (15,678 acres). Throughout the estuary, the average deep edge of seagrass growth varies from 0.8 m near the Myakka River, to 1.4 m along the east and west shores of the Harbor, to 1. 9 m in Cape Haze. The maximum depth of seagrass growth increases with proximit y towards Boca Grande Pass and Gulf of Mexico Waters (CHNEP 2006). The watershed for Gasparilla Sound-Char lotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves begins for the Peace River at Lake Hancock in Polk County and for the Myakka River at Flatford Swamp in SarasotaCounty. Including the seven tributaries and rivers, the watershed area is approximately 8008 km 2 

# (1,978,800 acres) in size. The land to water ratio is 22:1. T he 1990 and 2010 projected land uses in the watershed are shown in Table 7.4. The land uses vary greatly throughout the ten subbasins, but watershed-wide, the largest land uses are pasture (27%), rangeland (16%) and upland forest (12%). Urban land use and mining comprise 7% and 6% of the watershed, respectively. A large percent of the estuary shore line is preserved and managed as the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. Urban areas are centered adjacent to the estuary at Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte , along the Peace River at Arcadia and Bartow, and near Lake Hancock. The most critical changes in predicted future land uses are a >125% increase in mining and nearly a 300% increase in residential areas. There are over 181 domestic wastewater point source discharges, 202 industrial wastewater discharges, 22 public water supplies and 26 industrial/mining

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 106 water uses permitted in the watershed, as well as high agricultural demand (CHNEP 1999). 2. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Upper Charlotte Harbor Water quality in Upper Charlotte Har bor was generally below average compared to other estuaries in the region and across the state of Florida. Upper Charlotte Harbor was tied with Upper Lemon Bay for the lowe st median Secchi value and had the highest median total phosphorus and color of all estuar y regions. The TP in Upper Charlotte Harbor had significantly increased over the study period and the median value for all years was higher than average compared to Florida’s estuaries, ranking in the 70 th 

# percentile or above. Fecal coliform bacteri a levels were also high in the area and frequently exceeded Florida Surface Waters Criteria at 200, 400 and 800 cfu/100mL. Salinity in Upper Charlotte Harbor signifi cantly decreased over the study duration and was the lowest recorded median value acro ss all estuary regions. Decreasing salinity levels may correspond to an increasing trend in color concentrations that was also detected in the region. Additional significant trends included an increase of DO at a rate of approximately 0.1 mg/L. Status and trends results for Upper Charlotte Harbor are shown in Table 7.5. Site-specific water quality varied throughout the Upper Charlotte Harbor estuary region. Sites CHV005 and CHV013 ranked am ong the sites having the lowest salinity and highest nutrients and chlorophyll a . Both sites had higher than average status results for total phosphorus compared to typi cal Florida estuarine water quality. Fecal coliform was high at both sites, particul arly in the rainy season, with frequent exceedances of state standar ds. Sites CHV005 and CHV013 are the most upstream sites in the Tidal Peace River. Site-specificwater quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 3. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Lower Charlotte Harbor Lower Charlotte Harbor had fair to good water quality for all water quality parameters. Turbidity values in Lower Char lotte Harbor significantly decreased during the study period, and were tied with Matl acha Pass for the lowest median value observed across all estuary regions. The median Secchi depth value was above average in comparison to typical values for Florida estuaries. Salinity significantly decreased in the region, possibly correspondi ng to a significant decrease in pH and an increase in color concentrations. Additional significant trends include an increase in DO and a decrease in TKN. Stat us and trends results for Low er Charlotte Harbor are shown in Table 7.6 Site CHV011 exhibited above average wate r quality compared to other sites in the CHEVWQMN and across Florida estuaries. This open water site is located in the center of Lower Charlotte Harbor and had the deepest average depth of all the sites (3.8 m). Site CHV011 had the highest median Secchi value (2.3 m) for all sites in the CHEVWQMN and was the only site that ranked in the 100 th 

# percentile of all Florida estuaries. The site had the lowest median to tal nitrogen and turbidity across all sites in the CHEWVQMN, and fecal coliform bacteria wa s tied for the lowest. Site CHV011 also

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 107 had the lowest percent regul atory exceedances of DO le ss than 5.0 mg/L within the region. Site specific water quality st atus results are s hown in Appendix A. 4. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze Water quality in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Ha ze had many parameters falling within the 40 th 

# to 60 th 

# percentiles of Florida’s estuarie s and moderate rankings within the CHEVWMQN. Secchi depth was relatively hi gh, with a median value of 1.5 m, which fell within the 70 th 

# percentile of Florida’s estuaries. Chlorophyll a concentrations were very low in the region, with few regulatory exceedances. The DO levels were generally low, with frequent regulatory ex ceedances of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L . Cape Haze was the only estuary region in which DO appeared to be significantly decreasing. Other significant observed trends included a signific ant increase in color concentrations, as well as decreases in salinity, pH and turb idity values. Status and trends results for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze are shown in Table 7.7 Water quality was relatively consistent across the four sites located in Cape Haze, ranging from below to above average depending on the parameterof interest. Sites GSV001 and GSV004 had the most DO samp les below state regul atory criteria of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L. Median values for G SV001 and GSV004 were also below the 4.0 mg/L standard, at 4.0 and 3.6 mg/L, respec tively. Additionally, GSV001 had the lowest chlorophyll a median value (2.16 μg/L) across a ll sites in the CHEVWQMN. Site GSV003 had the lowest color value of all sites in the CHEVWQMN, with a median value of 10 PCU and ranking in the 30 th 

# percentile of Florida’s estuar ies. Site specific water quality status results ar e shown in Appendix A. 5. Discussion CHEVWQMN results indicated that overall water quality in the Gasparilla Sound, Cape Haze and Charlotte Harbor AquaticPreserves was average based upon the parameter and region of intere st. Water clarity was aver age to higher than average in the Upper Charlotte region, with color c oncentrations being t he primary parameter contributing most to light att enuation across the region, followed by turbidity. Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, were higher than average, particularly in the Upper Charlotte Harbor region. Below-average DO values, as well as frequent observations below state standards of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L, are also caus e for concern across these preserves. Due to the complex nature of the Gas parilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves and their watershed, effective resource management goals should be multi-faceted, focusing on: a) identifying and reduc ing sources of high nutrients to minimize chlorophyll acontributions to attenuation of seagrass growth; b) restoring and maintaining natural surface and ground water hydrology, to sustain the complex interconnectedness of life stages of finfish and shellfish throughout the Harbor; c) identifying, quantifying, minimizing and remediating water quantity and quality impacts from current and future mining and agriculture activities; and d) developing a better understanding of the role and natural variability of color in the estuary.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 108 Table 7.4: Land use types in the Charlotte Harbor, Gasparilla Sound and Cape Haze watershed Projected Land Use 1,2,3,4 

# acres % acres % Change Urban Residential 103,196 5% 470,864 24% Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 31,816 2% 65,003 3% Sub Total 135,012 7% 535,867 27% 297% Mining 126,746 6% 286,484 14% 126% Agriculture Row Crops/Groves/Nursery 201,960 10% 0 0% Pasture/Feedlot 539,534 27% 0 0% Sub Total 741,494 37% 939,044 47% 27% Open Land, Wetlands, Water Forest/Range/Barren/Preserve 552,607 28% 182,110 9% Wetlands 359,606 18% 35,302 2% Open Water 63,341 3% 0 0% Sub Total 975,554 49% 217,411 11% -78% TOTAL 1,978,806 100% 1,978,806 100% 1 

# Includes Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves. 2 

# Includes Upper Charlotte Harbor, Lower Charlotte Harbor and Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze Estuary Regi o 3 

# Includes Upper Myakka R, Lower Myakka R, Peace R/Bartow, Peace R/Zolfo Springs, Peace R/Arcadia, Peace R/Lower, Payne Cr, Charlie Cr, Horse Cr, Joshua Cr, Shell Cr and Charlotte Harbor Sub-Watersh e 4 

# From "Synthesis of Existing Information", Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1999. Based on SWFWMD, SFWMD and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council data. 1990 2010

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 109 Table 7.5: Status and Trends Summary for Upper Charlotte Harbor

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 394 0.1 2.7 0.9 0.0 0.9 1 40 average Temp (deg. C) 657 4.0 31.5 23.6 0.2 24.0 1 50 average DO (mg/L) 650 0.6 9.9 5.2 0.1 5.2 5 20 lower than average 

# ↑ pH 657 6.4 8.6 7.7 0.0 7.8 1 30 lower than average Salinity (ppt) 649 0.0 37.1 17.3 0.4 17.9 1 30 lower than average 

# ↓ TN (ppm) 505 0.032 4.602 1.040 0.022 0.975 8 70 higher than average TP (ppm) 532 0.010 1.500 0.305 0.009 0.240 9 80 higher than average 

# ↑ Chl a (ug/L) 482 0.01 88.50 9.48 0.50 6.16 8 50 average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 587 1 800 48 4 24 8 70 higher than average Turbidity (NTU) 556 0.5 24.0 3.2 0.1 2.7 6 40 average Color (PCU) 557 4 400 70 3 50 9 70 higher than average 

# ↑
1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 110 Table 7.6: Status and Trends Summary for Lower Charlotte Harbor

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 105 0.5 4.5 1.8 0.1 1.5 7 70 higher than average Temp (deg. C) 252 13.0 31.5 23.9 0.3 24.5 3 50 average DO (mg/L) 247 2.4 9.1 5.4 0.1 5.5 6 20 lower than average 

# ↑ pH 249 7.4 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.2 3 80 higher than average 

# ↓ Salinity (ppt) 248 8.5 39.1 28.2 0.4 29.0 4 70 higher than average 

# ↓ TN (ppm) 207 0.055 2.300 0.792 0.028 0.755 3 50 average 

# ↓ 4 

# TP (ppm) 215 0.005 0.420 0.114 0.005 0.100 7 50 average Chl a (ug/L) 198 0.01 34.18 5.88 0.35 4.42 6 30 lower than average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 234 1 372 13 2 3 3 40 average Turbidity (NTU) 226 0.1 21.0 2.5 0.2 2.1 1 30 lower than average 

# ↓ Color (PCU) 226 1 140 30 2 24 5 50 average 

# ↑
1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 4 

# Trend results of total Kjeldahl nitrogen

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 111 Table 7.7: Status and Trends Summary for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 86 0.0 3.2 1.5 0.1 1.5 7 70 higher than average Temp (deg. C) 192 7.5 31.5 24.2 0.3 25.0 8 60 average DO (mg/L) 188 1.4 7.3 4.6 0.1 4.6 2 10 lower than average 

# ↓ pH 194 7.2 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.2 3 80 higher than average 

# ↓ Salinity (ppt) 192 10.0 40.7 31.5 0.4 33.2 8 100 higher than average 

# ↓ TN (ppm) 141 0.075 2.526 0.906 0.042 0.806 6 60 average TP (ppm) 150 0.005 0.350 0.093 0.005 0.080 6 40 average Chl a (ug/L) 145 0.50 18.20 4.49 0.31 3.58 3 20 lower than average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 169 1 280 20 3 6 5 50 average Turbidity (NTU) 162 0.6 30.0 3.3 0.2 2.7 6 40 average 

# ↓ Color (PCU) 162 3 120 24 1 20 3 50 average 

# ↑
1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 112 

# D. Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserves Including Pine Island Sound and Ma tlacha Pass Estuary Regions 1. Background Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass surround Pine Island from north to south and are bordered by barriers islands and Pine Is land to the west. Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve extends from Boca Grande Pass south to Sanibel, between Pine Island and four barrier islands. There is one primary tributary (Caloosahatchee River) and four Gulf passes (Boca Grande, Captiv a, Red Fish and Blind). The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high water line of the Sound. Pine Island Sound is approximately 29 km (18 mi) long and 8 km (5 mi) wide, with an area of approximately 219 km 2 

# (54,176 acres). It is the second lar gest and second deepest of the estuaries in the region. The aquatic preserves are locat ed in Lee County and the City of Sanibel is the only incorporated area on the Sound. Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve is loca ted between Pine Island and Cape Coral, extending north-south along the length of the island. The primary tributary is the Caloosahatchee River, as well as overland flow from preserve lands to the east. The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high waterline of the Pass, with the exclusion of a small area to the south. Matlacha Pass is approximately 21 km (13 mi) long and 5 km (3 mi) wide, wit h an area of approximately 50 km 2 

# (12,511 acres). It is the most sinuous of the estuaries in the region. The aquatic preserve is located in Lee County and the primary adjacent urban area is C ape Coral (CHNEP 1999). Within both estuaries, the largest submerged habita t is seagrass, comprising approximately 142 km 2 

# (35,170 acres) of the estuari ne area. The average deep edge of seagrass growth is approximately 1.9 m in Pine Island Sound and 1.5 m in Matlacha pass (CHNEP 1999). The Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass watershed includes the coastal areas of northern Lee and so uthern Charlotte Counties, Pine Island and the lower Caloosahatchee River drainage area. The watershed is approximately 355 km 2 

# (87,850 acres) in size. The ratio of watershed l and area to open water estuary area is slightly over 1:1. The 1990 and 2010 pr ojected land uses in the watershed are shown in Table 7.8. Based on the 1990 data, the largest land use in t he watershed is rangeland (33%) and upland forest (16%). Urban uses make up a relatively small percent (14%) of the overall watershed, but it is concentrated in the City of Cape Co ral to the east of Matlacha Pass. A large percent of the es tuary shoreline is m anaged for preservation under the Charlotte Harbor Preserves State Park, "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge and the nonprofit Calusa Land Trust. The most significant projected change in future land use is the very large increase (almost 350%) in urban uses. The urban areas are concentrated on the east side of Matlacha Pass in Cape Coral, but are increasing rapidly on Sanibel and Pine Island. There ar e 57 domestic wastewater discharges, seven industrial wastewater discharges and three public water supplies permitted in the watershed, along with signifi cant demand for landscape and golf course irrigation (CHNEP 2006).

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 113 2. Water Quality Status and Tr ends Results for Pine Island Sound Results from the CHEVWQMN indicated t hat water quality in Pine Island Sound ranged from below average to above average co mpared to the typical water quality of Florida’s estuaries and ranked very well co mpared to other estuary regions in the Charlotte Harbor area. The median Se cchi depth value of 1.3 m was average compared to Florida’s estuaries (Hand 20 04). Pine Island Sound had the lowest median nutrient levels across the nine es tuary regions. The TKN significantly decreased over the study duration. Additional significan t trends included an increase in pH and decreases in salinity, fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity values. For water quality status and trends results in Pine Island Sound, see Table 7.9. Water quality was relatively uniform across most sites in Pine Island Sound. Site PIJIM1 exhibited the lowest wa ter quality across all sites. The site is located near Big Jim Creek on the northwestern side of Pine Is land. It had the shallowest average depth of all sites, with high fecal coliform bacteria, low water clarity and DO values. The site had the lowest Secchi depth and DO median va lues of all sites in the CHEVWQMN, ranking in or below the lower 20 th 

# percentile of Florida’s estuar ies. The site is located near Big Jim Creek on the northwestern si de of Pine Island and had the shallowest average depth of all sites. Sites PIV004 and PIV006 had the best relative water quality in comparison to sites within the Pine Isla nd Sound region and across all sites in the region. These are both open water sites on the eastern side of Captiva and Sanibel Islands. Both sites had the highest DO le vels across all sites, and Secchi depth at PIV004 was the second highest of all sites in the CHEVWQMN. Site specific water quality status results ar e shown in Appendix A. 3. Water Quality Status and Tr ends Results for Matlacha Pass Water quality in Matlacha Pass ranked moderately compared to other estuary regions in the Charlotte Harbor estuarine co mplex. Secchi depth was high in the region with a median value of 1.6 m, ranking highest among CH EVWQMN regions and in the 80 th 

# percentile of Florida estuaries. Salin ity varied seasonally in the region, was generally lower than other est uary regions and was average compared to salinity values for Florida’s estuaries. Matlac ha had the second lowest chlorophyll a median value across all estuary regions and ha d no annual means exceeding 11 μ g/L per Florida’s Impaired Waters Rule. Matlacha Pass was t he only estuary region in the study area which had no site demonstrating exceedances of Florida’s Surface Water Standards for fecal coliform bacteria at 200, 400 and 800 cf u/100mL. Color concentrations were average and significantly increased over the study duration. Other significant trends include an increase in DO and pH, and decreas es in salinity and temperature. For water quality status and trends results in Matlacha Pass, see Table 7.10. Water quality results were fairly uni form across the three sites located in Matlacha Pass. All sites were located in open water with a minimum average sample depth of 2 m. Site MPV003 had t he second lowest median chlorophyll a value across all sites. Site MPV003 tied with PIV004 for the second highest Secchi depth across all sites in the CHEVWQMN. Site-specific wa ter quality status results are shown in Appendix A.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 114 4. Discussion Water quality in Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass was average to above average compared to ot her regions within Charlotte Ha rbor and estuaries across the state. Color concentrations were higher than average in Matlacha Pass and was the primary factor contributing to decreases in water clarity. Secchi depth was average in Pine Island Sound with turbidity as the primar y parameter causing light attenuation. Below average DO and nitrogen within Matlac ha Pass are key water quality issues affecting this region. To maintain the relatively good water qua lity conditions throughout Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass, resource m anagement goals should focus on reducing nutrient runoff from the incr easing urban and nursery areas on the islands. Due to the close proximity of both surface and ground wa ter to upland activities on the islands, additional design considerations should be incorporated in storm water management measures. Additionally, natural and anthr opogenic sources of turbidity in Pine Island Sound should be identified and quantified, and remediated as needed.
Table 7.8: Land uses in the Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass watershed 

# 2010 Projected Projected Land Use 1, 2, 3, 4 

# acres % acres % Change Urban Residential 7,228 8% 45,477 52% Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 5,196 6% 10,355 12% 

# Sub Total 12,424 14% 55,812 64% 349% Mining 167 0% 0 0% -100% Agriculture Row Crops/Groves/Nursery 704 1% Pasture/Feedlot 2,009 2% 

# Sub Total 2,713 3% 0 0% -100% Open Land, Wetlands, Water Forest/Range/Barren/Preserve 44,868 51% 32,036 36% Wetlands 23,174 26% Open Water 4,502 5% 

# Sub Total 72,544 83% 32,036 36% -56% TOTAL 87,848 100% 87,848 100% 1 

# Includes Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserves. 2 

# Includes Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass Estuary Regions. 3 

# Includes Pine Island Sound/Matlacha Pass Watershed. 4 

# From "Synthesis of Existing Information", Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1999. Based on SWFWMD, SFWMD and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council data. 

# 1990

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 115 Table 7.9: Status and Trends Summary for Pine Island Sound

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 167 0.1 3.9 1.4 0.0 1.3 4 70 higher than average Temp (deg. C) 400 10.5 31.0 23.6 0.2 24.5 3 60 average DO (mg/L) 392 0.6 9.0 5.7 0.1 5.9 8 30 lower than average pH 388 7.0 8.8 8.4 0.0 8.4 9 100 higher than average 

# ↑ Salinity (ppt) 399 4.5 42.0 32.2 0.2 32.9 7 90 higher than average 

# ↓ TN (ppm) 309 0.055 4.302 0.808 0.027 0.752 1 50 average 

# ↓ 4 

# TP (ppm) 330 0.005 0.900 0.073 0.004 0.060 1 30 lower than average Chl a (ug/L) 298 0.01 39.70 6.52 0.34 4.98 7 40 average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 383 1 352 13 2 2 1 40 average 

# ↓ Turbidity (NTU) 368 0.3 28.0 3.7 0.2 2.6 4 40 average 

# ↓ Color (PCU) 369 1 200 25 1 18 2 40 average 1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 4 

# Trend results of total Kjeldahl nitrogen

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 116 Table 7.10: Status and Trends Summary for Matlacha Pass

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 202 0.4 3.8 1.6 0.0 1.6 9 80 higher than average Temp (deg. C) 261 13.5 31.0 24.0 0.3 24.5 3 50 average 

# ↓ DO (mg/L) 252 2.0 9.0 5.5 0.1 5.5 6 30 lower than average 

# ↑ pH 250 7.4 8.6 8.2 0.0 8.2 3 80 higher than average 

# ↑ Salinity (ppt) 258 2.9 39.8 21.7 0.5 22.1 2 40 average 

# ↓ TN (ppm) 194 0.032 3.840 0.905 0.032 0.851 7 60 average TP (ppm) 212 0.010 0.290 0.084 0.003 0.076 5 40 average Chl a (ug/L) 187 0.25 72.50 5.42 0.52 3.50 2 20 lower than average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 234 1 106 9 1 4 4 40 average Turbidity (NTU) 221 0.1 10.5 2.5 0.1 2.1 1 30 lower than average Color (PCU) 221 1 160 37 2 30 6 60 average 

# ↑
1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 117 

# E. San Carlos Bay Including San Carlos Bay Estuary Region 1. Background San Carlos Bay, while not designated as an aquatic preserve itself, connects three adjacent aquatic preserves: Matlac ha Pass, Pine Island Sound and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves. It is located at the mouth of the Caloosahat chee River, its primary tributary. San Carlos Bay is approximately 6 km (4 mi) long and 5 km (3 mi) wide. It is located in Lee County and adjacent urban areas include Cape Coral, Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach. Within the estuary, seagrasses are an important submerged habitat compromising approximately 20 km 2 

# (5,000 acres), growing to approximately 2.0 m deep, though the conditions vary annually, seas onally and with changes in hydrologic flows from the Caloosa hatchee River (CHNEP2006). The San Carlos Bay watershed includes the lower drainage area of the Caloosahatchee River and is approximately 937 km 2 

# (231,638 acres) in size. The 1990 and 2010 projected land uses in the watershed are shown in Table 7.11. Based on the 1990 data, the largest land use in the waters hed is urban (33%), followed by pasture (21%). The most significant projected changes in future land uses are a large increase (80%) in urban area and a large decrease (74% ) in wetland areas. A small portion of the estuary shoreline is in preserve us e managed by the Charlotte Harbor Preserves State Park, "Ding" Darling Na tional Wildlife Ref uge and the nonprofit Calusa Land Trust. There are 76 domestic wastewater discharges , seven industrial wastewater discharges, five public water uses and an undetermined num ber of industrial uses permitted in the watershed, along with high demand for land scape and golf course irrigation (CHNEP 1999). 2. Water Quality Status and Trends Results San Carlos Bay had above average water quality and ranked as having the highest water quality of all estuary regions in the CHEVWQMN study area. San Carlos and Estero Bays were the only estuaries ex hibiting a significant increase in Secchi depth over the eight-year study duration, with the median value for all years ranking in the top 70 th 

# percentile of Florida’s estuaries. Total nitrogen was average compared to Florida’s estuaries, with total nitrogen and TKN median values ranking second across all estuaries within the Charlotte Har bor region. The median chlorophyll a value was lower than the average value for Florida’s est uaries and was the lowest concentration of all estuary regions in the CHE VWQMN. No site within S an Carlos Bay demonstrated chlorophyll a annual means exceeding t he state criteria of 11 μ g/L. San Carlos Bay tied for the lowest median fecal coliform bacteria concentrations across all estuary regions in the Charlotte Harbor study ar ea. The DO and color values significantly increased over the study duration, while salinity, temper ature and turbidity levels significantly decreased. For water quality status and trends results in San Carlos Bay see, Table 7.12. Site-specific water quality results were generally uniform in San Carlos Bay. Sites SCV001 and SCV002 had the highest medi an DO values within the region, with

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 118 only four samples at each site under 5.0 mg/Lper Florida’s Surface Water Standards. San Carlos had the second deepest average depth of 3.7 m, with site depths ranging from 2.5 to 4.5 m. All sites in San Carlos Bay are located offshore, generally outside or bordering Aquatic Preserves boundaries. Site s pecific water quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 3. Discussion CHEVWQMN results in San Carlos Bay indicate generally above average water quality conditions. Water quality conditions of concern include salinity variability, lower than average DO results and increases in color concentrations throughout the study duration. In San Carlos Bay, color was the primary parameter contributing most to changes in water clarity. In addition to thes e findings, previous studies have shown that artificially induced salinity variability and nut rient enrichment are important water quality issues in the San Carlos estuary (Doering and Chamberlain 1999; Doering et al. 2005, Greenawalt-Boswell et al. 2006). San Carlos Bay is located at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, which, during high di scharge, is a major contributor of freshwater flow and nutrients to the entire Charlotte Harborestuarine complex (Doering et al. 2005). Water quality conditions in the San Carlos Bay estuary are strongly influenced by variability in freshwater flow via the Ca loosahatchee River and subsequently changes within the Caloosahatchee watershed. A bette r understanding of the effects of changes in hydrologic regimes and watershed land uses is essential for sustaining and restoring the productive submerged habitats of San Ca rlos Bay, including seagrass meadows, shellfish communities and fisheries populations.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 119 Table 7.11: Land uses in the San Carlos Bay watershed 

# Projected Land Use 1, 2, 3, 4 

# total % total % Change Urban Residential 67,351 29% 118,689 51% Comm/Indust/Institutional 8,432 4% 17,397 8% 

# Sub Total 75,783 33% 136,086 59% 80% Mining 1,629 1% 0 0% -100% Agriculture Row Crops/Groves/Nursery 3,170 1% 0 0% Pasture/Feedlot 49,074 21% 0 0% 

# Sub Total 52,244 23% 68,921 30% 32% Open Land, Wetlands, Water Forest/Barren/Range/Preserve 61,628 27% 26,631 11% Wetlands 38,615 17% 0 0% Open Water 1,739 1% 0 0% 

# Sub Total 101,982 44% 26,631 11% -74% TOTAL 231,638 100% 231,638 100% 1 

# Includes San Carlos Bay, which is not an Aquatic Preserve. 2 

# Includes San Carlos Bay Estuary Region. 3 

# Includes Lower Caloosahatchee, Telegraph Swamp and Orange River Watersheds. 4 

# From "Synthesis of Existing Information", Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1999. Based on SWFWMD, SFWMD and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council data. 

# 1999 2010

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 120 Table 7.12: Status and Trends Summary for San Carlos Bay

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 327 0.5 3.9 1.5 0.0 1.4 6 70 higher than average 

# ↑ Temp (deg. C) 340 10.0 31.0 24.1 0.3 24.8 7 50 average 

# ↓ DO (mg/L) 334 2.8 8.7 5.9 0.1 5.9 8 30 lower than average 

# ↑ pH 339 7.4 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.2 3 80 higher than average Salinity (ppt) 339 8.8 41.4 29.1 0.4 30.6 6 80 higher than average 

# ↓ TN (ppm) 249 0.055 2.930 0.755 0.025 0.753 2 50 average TP (ppm) 263 0.005 0.270 0.069 0.002 0.060 1 30 lower than average Chl a (ug/L) 245 0.01 28.35 4.41 0.25 3.43 1 20 lower than average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 310 1 364 12 2 2 1 40 average Turbidity (NTU) 294 0.5 120.0 4.2 0.4 3.2 8 50 average 

# ↓ Color (PCU) 294 1 160 27 1 20 3 50 average 

# ↑
1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 121 

# F. Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve Including Estero Bay Estuary Region 1. Background Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve includes Es tero Bay from Fort Myers Beach south to Bonita Springs. There are six tri butaries (Hendry, Mullo ck, and Spring Creeks, Caloosahatchee, Estero and Imperial Rivers) and four Gulf Passes (Matanzas, Big Carlos, New and Big Hickory). The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high waterline of the Bay and the tributaries up-st ream to tidal influence. Estero Bay is approximately 14 km (9 mi) long and 3 km (2 mi) wide, with an ar ea of approximately 40 km 2 

# (9,834 acres). It is the second smallest and shallowest of t he estuaries in the region. The aquatic preserve is locat ed in Lee County and is adjacent to the urban areas of Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach and Bonita Springs. Seagrass is a critical submerged habitat in Estero Bay, comprising over 14 km 2 

# (3,400 acres), growing to an average depth of 1.0 m. Seagrass acreage in Estero Bay appears to have declined over the past decade (CHNEP 2006). The Estero Bay watershed extends to the headwaters of the creeks and the lower drainage area of the Caloosahat chee River and is approximately 754 km 2 

# (186,200 acres) in size. The 1990 and 2010 pr ojected land uses in the Estero Bay watershed are shown in Table 7.13. The ratio of watershed land area to open water estuary area is approximately 19:1. Based on the 1990 data, the largest land use in the watershed is forested and non-forested wetl ands (37%), followed by forest and rangeland (24%) and pasture (18%). The most significant projected change in future land use is a large increase (253%) in urban area and a lar ge decrease in wetlands and preserve lands. There is also a projected increase in the of acquisition public lands for preservation. The shoreline of the estuar y is predominately urban use. There are 113 domestic wastewater discharges , fourteen industrial wastewat er discharges, six public water uses and an undetermined number of industrial uses permitted in the watershed. In addition, there is a large demand for irri gation for golf courses, landscaping and some agriculture (CHNEP 1999). 2. Water Quality Status and Tr ends Results for Estero Bay Water quality in Estero Bay ranked moderately compared to other estuary regions in the CHEVWQMN st udy region, with median val ues ranging from below to above typical Florida estuarine water quality values (Hand 2004). Estero Bay had the highest turbidity levels in the region, with a median value of 4.2 NTU, ranking in the 60 th 

# percentile of Florida’s estuar ies. The DO value was belo w average compared to typical Florida estuaries and was frequently observ ed below the Florida Surface Waters Standards of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L. The pH, temperature and sali nity levels significantly decreased over the study period, with significant increases in Secchi depth and color concentrations over the eight-year period. Fo r water quality status and trends results in Estero Bay, see Table 7.14. Sites EBV006, EBV004 and EBV005 had the highest median turbidity values of all sites in the CHEVWQMN. Turbidit y at these sites ranked in the top 70 th 

# and 80 th

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 122 percentiles of Florida’s estuarie s, resulting in an overall bel ow average status rating. Site EBERS2, located at the mouth of the Estero River, had DO results that were below Florida’s estuarine average and had the lowest median DO value (4.0 mg/L) in the estuary. Salinity and turbidity levels were al so lowest at EBERS2. Site specific water quality status results ar e shown in Appendix A. 3. Discussion Water quality conditions in Estero Bay were generally average. The CHEVWQMN results indicate that issues of concern in the region include: turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria and below-average DO c oncentrations. Estero Bay is a shallow wind-driven estuary in which turbid conditions are the primary result of resuspension of sediments within and from the Gulf of Mexico (Tapping et al . 2005). In addition, turbidity was the primary factor leading to light attenuation in Estero Bay. Regulatory exceedances of fecal coliform bacteria were s patially and temporally isolated indicating that causes of increased bacteria are site- and event-specific. Lower than average DO concentrations near the Estero River indicate that inflow from the river may be a source of degraded water quality wit hin the estuary. The most effective resource managem ent goals for Estero Bay should address high turbidity levels, differentiating bet ween natural and ant hropogenic sources. Reductions in turbidity, along with restor ation of natural sa linity regimes would contribute to reestablishing seagrasses wit hin the Bay. Cont inued acquisition and management of preserve lands in the waters hed will help offset the rapidly increasing urbanization.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 123 Table 7.13: Land uses in the Estero Bay watershed 

# Projected Land Use 1, 2, 3, 4 

# acres % acres % Change Urban Residential 19,417 10% 69,458 37% Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 6,359 3% 21,454 12% 

# Sub Total 25,776 14% 90,912 49% 253% Mining 1,889 1% 0 0% -100% Agriculture Row Crops/Groves/Nursery 11,500 6% Pasture/Feedlot 31,795 18% 

# Sub Total 43,295 24% 52,721 28% 22% Open Land, Wetlands, Water Forest/Range/Barren/Preserve 43,883 24% 42,528 23% Wetlands 69,259 37% Open Water 2,059 1% 

# Sub Total 115,201 62% 42,528 23% -63% TOTAL 186,161 100% 186,161 100% 1 

# Includes Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve. 2 

# Includes Estero Bay Estuary Region. 3 

# Includes Estero Bay Watershed. 4 

# From "Synthesis of Existing Information", Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1999. Based on SWFWMD, SFWMD and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council data. 

# 1990 2010 Projected

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 124 Table 7.14: Status and Trends Summary for Estero Bay

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte Harbor Esturaries 1 

# Median compared to Typical FL Estuary Percentiles 2 

# Status Relative to Typical FL Estuaries Trend Results 3 

# Secchi (m) 177 0.3 2.9 1.2 0.0 1.1 3 50 average 

# ↑ Temp (deg. C) 361 14.0 31.0 23.6 0.2 25.0 8 50 average 

# ↓ DO (mg/L) 356 1.2 10.0 4.7 0.1 4.8 3 10 lower than average pH 357 7.2 8.8 8.1 0.0 8.2 3 80 higher than average 

# ↓ Salinity (ppt) 357 0.2 39.8 27.5 0.5 30.4 5 70 higher than average 

# ↓ TN (ppm) 276 0.053 4.046 0.790 0.027 0.763 4 50 average TP (ppm) 297 0.005 0.500 0.070 0.003 0.060 1 30 lower than average Chl a (ug/L) 263 0.01 114.00 5.75 0.50 4.39 5 30 lower than average Coliform (cfu/100mL) 331 1 800 44 5 10 7 60 average Turbidity (NTU) 319 0.1 52.0 5.6 0.3 4.2 9 60 average Color (PCU) 319 1 140 31 1 30 6 60 average 

# ↑
1 

# Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN 2 

# Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand in press 2004) 3 

# ↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 3

# ↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level

# Conclusions CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 125 

# VIII. Conclusions This report presents water quality st atus and trends results from the CHEVWQMN from 1998 through 2005 across the si x Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves. Seventeen water qua lity parameters were measured across 48 sampling sites grouped into nine estuary re gions characterized by relatively homogenous hydrologic conditions. These wa ter quality parameters reflect and affect the habitat health of the estuaries, including fa ctors limiting light ava ilability for seagrass growth and parameters potent ially limiting the health and sustainability of fish and shellfish populations. Such factors include DO, turbidit y and fecal coliform bacteria. To characterize water quality as it relates to estuari ne health, CHEVWQMN results were compared within the region and to other estuaries across the state of Florida. Median values ranking in the 31s t to 60th percentiles of typical water quality values for Florida estuaries resulted in average water quality status. Additional comparisons were made to numerical criteria to aid in interpretation of water quality results. A seasonal, nonparam etric trend test was used to detect trends in water quality from 1998 through 2005 for eac h estuary region. When interpreting results, consideration is given to the shallow nearshore sampling site locations and sunrise sampling time, especially as it affects Se cchi depth observations and may represent the lowest natural DO conditions. Across the region, CHEVWMQ N results indicated genera lly average conditions compared to Florida’s estuaries although results varied by parameter seasonally, spatially and over time. The DO concentra tions were typically below average compared to typical Florida estuaries values with frequent exceedances below Florida Surface Water Criteria of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L. Signific ant decreasing trends in salinity, turbidity, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and incr eases in color concentrations were observed for many estuaries from 1998 through 2005. Significa nt relationships between light-limiting factors and clarity were observed. However, the percent contribut ion of each parameter varied across the region and between the rain y and dry seasons. Strong relationships between salinity and many other par ameters including color, nu trients and bacteria were also observed and quantified. Across the nine estuary regions analyzed in this report, water quality in Upper Lemon Bay and Upper Charlotte Harbor was bel ow average compared to other estuary regions within the Charlotte Harbor area and ac ross the state of Florida. Lower water clarity and DO, as well as higher color, nut rients and bacteria values were observed in these regions. A significant increase in TP was also observed in Upper Charlotte Harbor from 1998 through 2005. In Estero Bay, elevated color, turbidity and bacteria conditions were observed. The CHEVWQMN successfully meets its intended goal of providing consistent, technically sound baseline water quality info rmation throughout the six Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves, which fa cilitates data analysis. A rigorous quality assurance plan and extensive monitori ng design allows for the accurate characterization of spatial and temporal wate r quality conditions across the region. The cost effective monitoring design includes synoptic sampling, representative fixed stations, a wide variety of fi eld and lab parameters and a consistent, ongoing sampling duration.

# Conclusions CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 126 The CHEVWQMN results are used to set resource management goals for the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves. Results from the CHE VWQMN also further resource managers’ understanding of water qua lity conditions as a means to identify priority pollutants, potentia l impacts from proposed permitting activities and locating impaired waters within the Charlotte Harborestuaries. The CH EVWQMN data is also used by partnering organizations includ ing the CHNEP, CHEC, Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation and Mote Marine L aboratory for research and to guide resource management activities. In the future, CHEVWQMN water quality data will be used to evaluate future water quality trends, as well as to compar e with monthly CCHMN m onthly sampling and continuous monitoring datasondes managed by the Aquatic Preserves. Additionally, the water quality results will be compared to seagrass health, tributary in-flows and watershed influences throughout the region as a means to assess habitat responses to management practices and land use changes. Additional needs for the CHEVWQMN include: 1) increasing the number of sites to include deeper locations and fill spatial gaps, such as the west wall of Charlotte Harbor; 2) ensuring consistent laboratory support; 3) establishing numerical water qual ity criteria for the Charlotte Harbor estuaries; 4) developing estuary trophic state indices; and 5) continuing the program in order to promote continuity of data. The CHEVWQMN is made possible through the support of partnering agencies, staff and the invaluable c ontribution from citizen water moni tors over the past ten years. The Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves would like to thank the many partnering agencies and volunteers as t he CHEVWQMN celebrat es its ten year anniversary in the fall of 2006.

# References CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 127 

# IX. References American Public Health Association (APH A). 1998, 20 ed. Standar d Methods for the Examination of Wate r and Wastewater. Anderson, I. C., M. W. Rodes, and H. I. Kator. 1979. Sublethal stress in Escherichia coli: a function of salinity. Applied En vironmental Microbiology 38:1147-1152 Baker, S., D. Heuberger , E. Phlips and L. Sturmer. April 2002. Water quality and its role in clam production. University of Flor ida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension Service Technical Bulletin. Benitez-Nelson, C. R. 2000. The biogeochemical cycling of phosphorus in marine systems. Earth-Scienc e Reviews 51: 109-135 Boggs, S. Jr. 2006. Principles ofSedimentology and Stratigraphy. 4 th 

# Edition. Prentice Hall, NJ. 662 p. Bortone, S.A., A.J. Martignette and J.P. Spi nelli. 2006. Spotted seatrout (Faminly Sciaenidae) growth as an indicator of es tuarine conditions in San Carlos Bay, Florida. Florida Scientist 69 (supp. 2): 127
‐ 139. Bureau of Economic and Busi ness Research (BEBR). 2005. Florida County Rankings. 12 th 

# Edition. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida

. 

# Byrne, M.J. and J.N. Flanigin. 2005. Surface water salinit y mapping of Estero Bay and San Carlos Bay, Lee County Florida. US GS: Proceedings of Florida Integrated Science Center Meetin g. Orlando, Florida. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. 1998. The st udy of seasonal and spatial patterns of hypoxia in Upper Charlotte Harbor. Final Report to: Surface Water Improvement and Management Section, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL. Castro, M. S, C.T. Driscoll, T. E. Jordan, W. G. Reay, a nd W.R. Boynton. 2003. Sources of nitrogen to estuaries in the Unit ed States. Estuaries 26 (3): 803-814. Chamberlain, R.H. and Doering, P.H. 1998. Preliminary estimate of optimum freshwater inflow to the Caloosahatchee Estuary: A resource-based approach. Proceedings of the Charlotte Harbor Public Confer ence and Technical Symposium. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Technical Report No. 98-02, 274. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP). 1999. Synthesis of technical information Volume 1. Technical Report No. 99-02.

# References CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 128 Colling, A. 2006. Seaw ater: Its Composition, Properties and Behavior. 2 nd 

# Edition. Butterworth – Heinemann. Oxford, England. 168 p. Corbett, C.A., P.H. Doering, K. A. Madl ey, J. A. Ott, and D. A. Tomasko. 2005. In Estuarine Indicators. Ed. S. A. Bortone. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Corbett, C.A. and J.A. Hale. 2006. Development of Water Quality Targets for Charlotte Harbor, Florida using Seagrass Light Requirements. Corbett, C. A , Peter H. Doering and Ernest Estevez (Guest Editors). Florida Scientist, Vol. 69(00S2), p. 36-50. Day, J., C. Hall, W. M. Kemp, and A.Y. Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. USA. de Jorge, V. N., J. E. E. van Beusekom . 1995. Wind- and tide-induced resuspension of sediment and microphytobenthos from tidal flats in the Ems estuary. Limnology Oceanography. 40 (4): 766-778. Dixon, L. K. and G. J. Kirk patrick. 1999. Causes of light attenuation with respect to seagrasses in Upper and lower Charlotte Harbor. Final Report. Submitted to: Southwest Florida Water Management Dis trict, Surface Water Improvement and Management Program. 7601 US Hwy 301 North, Tampa, Florida. Doering, P.H. and R. H. C hamberlain. 1999. Water quality and source of freshwater discharge to the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 35 (4): 793-806. Doering, P.H., R.H. Chamberlain, and K.M. Haunert. 2005. Spatial variability in the response of chlorophyll a to nutrient loading and freshwater discharge in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Charlotte Ha rbor Watershed Summit. February 2005, Punta Gorda, FL. Doering, P. H., R. H. Chamberlain , and K. M. Haunert. 2006. Chlorophyll a and its use as a indicator of eutrophication in the Ca loosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Florida Scientist 69: 51-72. Enfield, D.B., A.M. Mestas -Nunez and P.J. Trimbl e. 2001. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its relation to rainfall and river flows in the continental U.S.. Geophysical Research Letters 28:10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA, Oceans and Coasta l Protection Division, Washington, DC.

# References CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 129 Estero Bay Marine Laboratory. 1996. Estero Bay, Lee County Southwestern Florida 1995-1996 Hydrological, Biologic al and Geological Studies. Fort Myers Beach, FL. Fourqurean, J.W. and Y. Ca i. 2001. Arsenic and phosphorus in seagrass leaves from the Gulf of Mexico. Aquat ic Botany. 71: 247-258. Froelich, P.N., Kaul, L.W. Byrd, J. T. Andreae, M.O, and Roe, K.K. 1985 Arsenic, barium, germamium, tin, dimethylsulfide and nutrient biogeochemistry in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. A phosphorus enriched estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 20. in McPherson et.al. 1996. Fujioka, R. S., H. H. Hashimot o, E. B. Siwak, and R. H. Young. 1981. Effect of sunlight on survival of indicator bacteria in seaw ater. Applied Environm ental Microbiology 41:690-696. Greenawalt-Boswell, J.M, J.A. Hale, K.S. Fuhr, J. A. Ott. 2006. Seagrass species composition and distribution in relation to sa linity fluctuations in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Florida Scientist: 69: 24-35. Hammett, K.M. 1990. Land use, wa ter use, streamflow charac teristics, and water-quality characteristics of the Charlo tte Harbor inflow area, Florida. USGS Survey Water Supply Paper 2359-A. Hand, J. 2004 In Press . Typical water quality values for Florida’s lakes, streams and estuaries, Florida Department of Environmental Protecti on, Bureau of Watershed Management. Available from Florida Depar tment of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. Helsel, D. R. and R. M. Hir sch. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. D epartment of Interior. Helsel, D.R., D.K. Mueller and J.R. Slack. 2006. The Computer Program for the Kendall Family of Trend Tests. United Stat es Geological Survey (USGS). Hirsch, R.M., and Slack, J.R. , 1984, A nonparametric trend test for seasonal data with serial dependence. Water Resour ces Research 20(6): 727-732. Hirsch, R. M., J. R. Slack, and R. A. Smith. 1982. Tech niques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data. Water Resource Research 18:107-121. Hirsch, R.M., R.B. Alexander , and R.A. Smith. 1991 Selection of Methods for the Detection and Estimation of Trends in Wa ter Quality. Water Resources Research 27 (5): 803-813.

# References CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 130 Jaworksi, N.A. 1981. Sources of nutrients and the scale of eutrophication problems in estuaries, in Neilson, B.J., and Cronin, L.E., eds ., Estuaries and nutrients: New Jersey, Humana Press, p. 83-110 Kirk, J.T.O. 1983. Light and Photosynthesis in Aquatic Systems. Cambridge University Press. Mallin, M. A. and C.A. Corbett. 2006. How Hu rricane Attributes Dete rmine the Extent of Environmental Impacts: Multiple Hurri canes and Different Coastal Systems. Estuaries and Coasts 29(S):In press. Martin, D.F. and Kim, Y.S. 1977. Long Term Peace River Characteristics as a Measure of Phosphate Slime Spill Impact. Water Resources Research. 11: 963-970. Martin, D.M., Morton, T., Dobrzynski, T., and Valentine, B. 1996. Estuaries on the Edge: The Vital Link Between Land and Sea. American Oceans Campaign report. Washington, D.C. 297 p. Taken from World Wide Web 7 Oct. 2006. http://riverwoods.ces.fau.edu/Education/EstuaryFacts.pdf. McPherson, B. F and R. L. Miller. 1987. The ve rtical attenuation of light in Charlotte Harbor, a shallow, subtropical estuary, s outhwestern Florida. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 25: 721-737. McPherson, B.F and R.L. M iller, 1990. Nutrient distribut ion and variability in the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, Florida: Water Resources Bulletin. 26 (1): 67- 80. McPherson, B. F. and R. L. Miller. 1994. Causes of light attenuation in Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor, Southwestern Flori da. Water Resources Bulletin 30: 43–53. McPherson, B.F, R.L. Miller, and Y.E. Stoker. 1996 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of the Charlotte Ha rbor Basin and Estuarine System in Southwestern Florida–A Summary of the 1982-89 U.S. G eological Survey Charlotte Harbor Assessment and Other Studies. United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2486. McPherson, B. F., R. T. Montgomery, and E. E. Emmons. 1990. Phytoplankton productivity and biomass in the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 26: 787–800

. 

# Montgomery, R.T, B.F. McPherson and E. E. Emmons. 1991. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus addition on phytoplankton productivity and chlorophyll a in a subtropical estuary, Charlo tte Harbor, Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4077.

# References CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 131 Morrison, G., R.T. Montgomery, A. Squires, R. Starks, E. DeHaven and J. A. Ott. 1998. Nutrient, chlorophyll and dissolved oxy gen concentrations in Charlotte Harbor: Existing conditions and long term trends. Proceedings of the Charlotte Harbor Public Conference and Tec hnical Symposium: Charlott e Harbor National Estuary Program Technical Repor t No. 98-02: 201-218. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admi nistration (NOAA). NERR SWMP fact sheet. 2005 Ott, J.A., R. M. Duffey, S. E. Erickson, K. S. Fuhr, B. A. Rodgers and M. A. Schneider. 2006. Comparison of light limiting water quality factors in six Florida aquatic preserves. Florida Scientist: 69: 73-91. Rhode, M.W., and H. Kator. 1988. Survival of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. in estuarine environments. Applied Environmenta Senga, Y., K. Mochida, R. Fukumori, N. Okamoto, and Y. Seike. 2006. N 2 

# accumulation in estuarine and coasta l sediments: the influence of H 2 

# S on dissimilatory nitrate reduction. Estuar ine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 67: 231- 238. South Florida Water Management District (S FWMD). 2007. DBHYDRO Browser. http://glades.sfwmd.gov/ pls/dbhydro_pro_plsql/. Take n from the World Wide Web 26 July, 2007. Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 2007. Hydrologic Data. http://www.swfwmd.state.fl .us/data/wmdbweb/picktype. htm. Taken from the World Wide Web 25 May, 2007. Squires, A.P., H. Zarbock, and S. Janicki. Proceedings of the Charlotte Harbor Public Conference and Technical Symposium. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. March 15-17, 1997 Punta Gorda, FL. Stevens, P.W., D.A. Blewett, and J.P. Casey. 2006. Short-term effects of a low dissolved oxygen event on estuarine fish assemblages following the passage of Hurricane Charley. Estuaries and Coasts 29(6A): 997-1003. Stickney, R.R. 1984. Estuarine Ecology of t he Southwestern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press. Stoker, Y.E. 1992. Salinity distribution and va riation with freshwaterinflow and tide, and potential changes in salinity due to altered freshwater inflow in the Charlotte Harbor Estuarine System, Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 92-4062.

# References CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 132 Tapping, H.J., T.C. Winter, and J.C. Mallon. Sediment pa rticle flux and grain-size analysis in Estero Bay, Southwestern Florida. Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit. February 2005, Punta Gorda, FL. Tomasko, D.A and M. O. HA LL. 1999 Productivity and biomass of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum along a gradient of freshwat er influence in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Estuar. 22(3A): 592-602. Tomasko D.A, D.L. Bristol and J.A. Ott. 2001. Assessment of Present and Future Nitrogen Loads, Water Quality, and Seagrass ( Thalassia testudinum) Depth Distribution in Lemon Bay, Flor ida. Estuaries 24: 6a. Tomasko, D.A., C. Anastasiou, and C. Ko vach. 2006. Dissolved oxygen dynamics in Charlotte Harbor and its contributing watershed, in response to Hurricanes Charley and Frances and Jeanne – Impacts and Recovery. Estuaries and Coasts 29(S): In press. Verdi, R.J., S.A. Tomlins on, and R.L. Marella. 2006. The Drought of 1998-2002: Impacts on Florida’s Hydrology and Landsc ape. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1295, 34 p. Volety, A. K., and V. G. Encomio. 2006. Biol ogical effects of suspended sediments on shellfish in the Charlotte Harbor Waters hed –implications for water releases and dredging activities. Final Repo rt Submitted to Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program

.

# Appendix Table of Contents CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# I 

# Appendix Table of Contents Page Appendix A: Summary Statistics for Each Estuary and Site Table A.1: Seasonal summarystatistics for all sites

______________________ IV Table A.2: Annual summary statistics for all sites________________________ V Table A.3: Summary statistics for all sites in Upper Lemon Bay ____________ VI Table A.4: Summary statistics fo r all sites in Lower Lemon Bay ___________ VII Table A.5: Summary statistics for a ll sites in Upper Charlotte Harbor _______ VIII Table A.6: Summary statistics for all sites in Lower Charlotte Harbor ________ IX Table A.7: Summary statistics for all sites in Gasparilla/Cape Haze _________ X Table A.8: Summary statistics for all sites in Pine Island Sound ____________ XI Table A.9: Summary statistics for all sites in Matlacha Pass ______________ XII Table A.10: Summary statistics for all sites in San Carlos Bay ____________ XIII Table A.11: Summary statistics fo r all sites in Estero Bay ________________ XIV Table A.12: Secchi depth (m) summary and status results for each site _____ XV Table A.13: Temperature (°C) summaryand status results for each site_____ XVI Table A.14: Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) summary and status results for each Site ____________________________________________________ XVII Table A.15: pH summary and status results for each site

_______________ XVIII Table A.16: Salinity (ppt) summary and status results for each site ________ XIX Table A.17: Total nitrogen (ppm) summary and status results for each site___ XX Table A.18: Total phosphorus (ppm) summary and status results for each site _____________________________________________________ XXI Table A.19: Chlorophyll a (μg/L) summaryand status result s for each site __ XXII Table A.20: Fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) summary and status results for each site _____________________________________________________ XXIII Table A.21: Turbidity (NTU) summaryand status results for each site ____ XXIV Table A.22: Color (PCU) summary and status results for each site ________ XXV Appendix B: Water Quality Comparisons Table B.1: Non parametric ANOVA (Kruskal- Wallis) results between aquatic preserves for the entire study duration ________________________________ XXVII Table B.2: Non parametric t-test (Mann-Wh itney) results between the rainy and dry season ___________________________________________ XXVIII-XXIX Table B.3: Aquatic Preserve non param etric t-test (Mann-Whitney) post hoc comparisons______________________________________ XXX-XXXVIII Appendix C: Comparison of Results to Numerical Water Quality Criteria Table C.1: Site exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations

__________________________________ XL Table C.2: Site exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations

__________________________________ XLI Table C.3: Exceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region _______________________________________ XLII Table C.4: Site exceedances of chlorophyll a over 11 μ g/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations ________________________________________ XLIII

# Appendix Table of Contents CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# II Table C.5: Site specific exceedances of fecal coliform bacteria per Florida Surface Water Regulations ________________________________________XLIV Appendix D: Water Quality Relationships Table D.1: Spearman's rho correlation for se lected variables for the entire study region and duration _____________________________________________ XLVI Table D.2: Spearman's rho correlation for sele cted variables in the rainy season for the entire study region _______________________________________ XLVII Table D.3: Spearman's rho correlation fo r selected variables in Upper Lemon Bay ___________________________________________________ XLVIII Table D.4: Spearman's rho correlation fo r selected variables in Lower Lemon Bay ____________________________________________________ XLIX Table D.5: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Upper Charlotte Harbor_____________________________________________ L Table D.6: Spearman's rho correlati on for selected variables in Lower Charlotte Harbor____________________________________________ LI Table D.7: Spearman's rho correla tion for selected variables in Gasparilla/Cape Haze _______________________________________ LII Table D.8: Spearman's rho correlation fo r selected variables in Pine Island Sound___________________________________________________ LIII Table D.9: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Matlacha Pass ____________________________________________________ LIV Table D.10: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in San Carlos Bay _____________________________________________________ LV Table D.11: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Estero Bay _ LVI Appendix E: Rainfall Relationships Table D.1: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables for the entire study region and duration _______________________________________ LVIII

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# III 

# Appendix A: Summary Statistics for Each Estuary and Site Page Table A.1: Seasonal summarystatistics for all sites

______________________ IV Table A.2: Annual summary statistics for all sites________________________ V Table A.3: Summary statistics for all sites in Upper Lemon Bay ____________ VI Table A.4: Summary statistics fo r all sites in Lower Lemon Bay ___________ VII Table A.5: Summary statistics for a ll sites in Upper Charlotte Harbor _______ VIII Table A.6: Summary statistics for all sites in Lower Charlotte Harbor ________ IX Table A.7: Summary statistics for all sites in Gasparilla/Cape Haze _________ X Table A.8: Summary statistics for all sites in Pine Island Sound ____________ XI Table A.9: Summary statistics for all sites in Matlacha Pass ______________ XII Table A.10: Summary statistics for all sites in San Carlos Bay ____________ XIII Table A.11: Summary statistics fo r all sites in Estero Bay ________________ XIV Table A.12: Secchi depth (m) summary and status results for each site _____ XV Table A.13: Temperature (°C) summaryand status results for each site_____ XVI Table A.14: Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) summary and status results for each site ____________________________________________________ XVII Table A.15: pH summary and status results for each site

_______________ XVIII Table A.16: Salinity (ppt) summary and status results for each site_________ XIX Table A.17: Total nitrogen (ppm) summary and status results for each site___ XX Table A.18: Total phosphorus (ppm) summary and status results for each site _____________________________________________________ XXI Table A.19: Chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) summary and status results for each site __ XXII Table A.20: Fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) summary and status results for each site________________________________________________ XXIII Table A.21: Turbidity (NTU) summaryand status results for each site ____ XXIV Table A.22: Color (PCU) summary and status results for each site _________ XV

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# IV Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 1903 3438 3374 3400 3404 2402 2540 2310 2839 2720 2721 Min 0.0 4.0 0.6 5.8 0.0 0.032 0.005 0.01 1 0.1 1 Max 4.5 32.0 10.0 9.0 42.0 4.602 1.500 114.00 1720 120.0 400 Median 1.2 24.5 5.1 8.2 28.9 0.827 0.090 4.79 8 2.7 26 Mean 1.3 23.7 5.0 8.1 25.9 0.887 0.142 6.70 38 3.5 39 SE 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.010 0.003 0.16 2 0.1 1 Rainy N 925 1404 1374 1390 1390 956 1009 898 1156 1082 1083 Min 0.0 20.0 0.6 6.7 0.0 0.032 0.005 0.01 1 0.1 1 Max 3.9 32.0 8.9 9.0 41.6 4.302 1.000 82.10 1720 120.0 400 Median 1.1 28.0 4.3 8.2 25.9 0.952 0.092 6.02 8 2.6 40 Mean 1.2 27.9 4.2 8.1 23.6 1.019 0.159 8.02 38 3.3 54 SE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.017 0.005 0.27 3 0.1 2 Dry N 978 2034 2000 2010 2014 1446 1531 1412 1683 1638 1638 Min 0.1 4.0 0.6 5.8 0.0 0.053 0.005 0.01 1 0.1 1 Max 4.5 30.0 10.0 9.0 42.0 4.602 1.500 114.00 1100 66.0 250 Median 1.2 21.0 5.7 8.2 30.1 0.775 0.085 3.97 8 2.7 20 Mean 1.3 20.9 5.6 8.2 27.6 0.800 0.131 5.87 37 3.6 28 SE 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.011 0.004 0.20 2 0.1 1 Table A.1: Seasonal summary statistics for all sites

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# V Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

# 1998 N 190 289 282 283 284 136 117 137 149 31 31 Med 1.0 25.5 4.9 8.2 24.7 1.06 0.08 7.75 10 3.4 25 Min 0.4 15.5 1.2 7.0 0.0 0.67 0.01 0.50 1 0.8 10 Max 3.0 31.0 8.8 8.6 40.2 1.91 0.67 82.10 480 9.2 110 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.02 0.01 0.94 5 0.4 4 1999 N 240 413 398 404 403 359 322 361 357 363 362 Med 1.2 24.5 5.1 8.2 29.4 1.00 0.11 4.91 8 3.3 25 Min 0.3 7.5 0.6 7.2 0.0 0.35 0.02 0.50 1 0.3 1 Max 3.2 31.5 7.8 8.7 40.3 3.84 0.72 73.10 1156 52.0 280 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.02 0.01 0.46 6 0.2 2 2000 N 264 451 443 447 447 136 298 339 371 353 354 Med 1.3 24.0 5.1 8.3 32.8 0.88 0.07 4.65 4 3.6 15 Min 0.3 10.0 1.0 6.4 0.8 0.11 0.01 0.50 1 0.1 1 Max 3.3 32.0 9.0 8.7 41.0 2.00 0.75 79.46 776 24.0 250 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.03 0.01 0.43 3 0.2 1 2001 N 257 431 426 427 426 149 164 291 330 334 334 Med 1.0 22.0 5.0 8.2 32.5 0.92 0.08 2.50 12 3.2 25 Min 0.4 12.0 1.4 5.8 0.0 0.08 0.01 0.25 1 0.6 3 Max 3.9 32.0 8.7 8.6 42.0 2.42 0.78 88.50 880 30.0 220 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.04 0.01 0.40 5 0.2 2 2002 N 242 473 467 467 471 416 420 416 419 419 Med 1.3 25.5 5.0 8.2 30.0 0.52 0.09 8 1.6 13 Min 0.2 11.0 1.1 7.0 0.3 0.05 0.01 1 0.1 1 Max 3.3 32.0 8.7 8.8 41.6 2.40 1.08 800 18.1 132 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.02 0.01 7 0.1 1 2003 N 230 467 459 461 464 374 375 374 375 375 376 Med 1.3 25.0 5.1 8.2 26.9 0.55 0.06 6.20 4 1.9 30 Min 0.4 4.0 0.6 7.0 0.0 0.06 0.00 0.01 1 0.1 1 Max 3.8 30.0 9.9 8.7 39.4 2.96 0.90 34.18 240 120.0 360 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.03 0.01 0.30 2 0.4 2 2004 N 218 431 426 426 427 371 382 346 381 383 383 Med 1.3 25.0 5.1 8.2 27.7 0.81 0.11 3.72 10 2.9 30 Min 0.1 13.0 0.7 6.8 0.0 0.37 0.03 0.50 1 0.7 10 Max 3.5 31.5 10.0 8.8 40.7 4.60 1.50 53.70 1720 26.0 400 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.02 0.01 0.32 6 0.1 3 2005 N 262 483 473 485 482 461 462 462 460 462 462 Med 1.1 23.5 5.4 8.0 23.8 0.92 0.11 4.61 8 2.3 50 Min 0.0 14.5 1.0 6.7 0.0 0.03 0.01 0.58 1 0.7 10 Max 4.5 31.0 9.1 9.0 37.2 4.30 1.30 114.00 1100 28.0 240 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.02 0.01 0.40 4 0.1 2 Table A.2: Annual summary statistics for all sites

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# VI Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 161 381 373 377 376 219 228 209 252 240 239 Mean 0.9 23.7 4.1 8.0 22.4 1.035 0.199 9.22 98 2.9 38 Median 0.9 24.5 3.9 8.0 25.3 1.005 0.180 6.30 35 2.5 30 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.031 0.007 0.60 10 0.3 2 Rain N 104 160 155 158 157 90 92 81 104 95 94 Mean 0.8 27.6 3.2 7.9 20.0 1.226 0.227 12.63 94 2.9 55 Median 0.9 28.0 3.0 8.0 22.9 1.205 0.210 9.28 40 2.6 40 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.054 0.010 1.23 16 0.1 5 Dry N 57 221 218 219 219 129 136 128 148 145 145 Mean 0.9 20.9 4.7 8.0 24.2 0.901 0.181 7.06 101 3.0 27 Median 0.9 21.0 4.5 8.0 27.0 0.905 0.165 5.73 32 2.5 20 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.032 0.010 0.51 13 0.4 2 1998 N 10 19 19 19 18 13 12 13 13 3 3 Mean 0.6 25.6 3.2 8.2 21.4 1.264 0.193 20.30 95 5.5 35 Median 0.6 26.5 3.1 8.2 25.5 1.250 0.170 16.40 28 4.2 30 SE 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.039 0.020 2.89 37 1.9 8 1999 N 19 48 46 48 48 35 29 34 34 32 31 Mean 0.9 23.3 3.8 8.0 23.6 1.208 0.214 11.26 160 3.5 36 Median 0.9 24.0 3.6 8.0 26.3 1.205 0.200 8.35 69 3.5 30 SE 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.035 0.012 1.69 42 0.2 3 2000 N 20 53 52 53 52 12 25 28 32 29 29 Mean 1.0 23.2 4.2 8.2 27.4 1.037 0.145 8.82 61 3.2 25 Median 1.0 24.0 3.9 8.2 31.2 1.017 0.140 6.16 23 2.7 20 SE 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.071 0.010 2.11 16 0.2 3 2001 N 26 52 51 52 50 16 18 28 30 32 32 Mean 0.7 23.3 3.9 8.0 25.3 1.173 0.209 6.27 116 3.0 38 Median 0.7 22.8 3.5 8.0 27.4 1.028 0.180 4.00 60 2.6 30 SE 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.086 0.023 1.23 36 0.2 6 2002 N 20 51 51 49 51 34 34 34 34 34 Mean 0.9 24.5 4.0 8.0 24.2 0.673 0.221 107 1.7 15 Median 0.9 26.0 3.6 8.0 28.5 0.589 0.190 20 1.4 11 SE 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 1.4 0.084 0.032 34 0.1 2 2003 N 24 54 51 53 54 30 30 30 30 30 30 Mean 0.9 24.0 4.3 7.9 19.7 1.007 0.149 9.10 71 4.2 31 Median 0.9 25.8 4.2 8.0 21.7 0.605 0.125 7.11 46 2.4 24 SE 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.153 0.021 0.99 13 2.1 3 2004 N 13 48 48 48 48 32 33 29 33 33 33 Mean 0.9 24.1 4.0 8.0 22.0 0.957 0.194 6.49 96 3.1 37 Median 0.9 26.0 4.0 8.0 25.0 0.883 0.180 5.17 21 2.7 30 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.060 0.010 0.92 32 0.2 3 2005 N 29 56 55 55 55 47 47 47 46 47 47 Mean 1.0 22.9 4.6 7.9 16.0 1.126 0.236 9.09 79 2.2 68 Median 1.0 23.0 4.3 7.8 14.9 1.113 0.210 6.34 29 2.1 50 SE 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.037 0.016 1.10 14 0.1 8 Table A.3: Summary statistics for all sites in Upper Lemon Bay

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# VII Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 230 525 515 520 518 265 275 255 302 296 296 Mean 1.3 23.6 4.7 8.3 31.7 0.790 0.084 5.55 41 3.1 25 Median 1.3 24.0 4.8 8.3 33.5 0.767 0.070 3.92 8 2.6 15 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.025 0.003 0.42 5 0.1 2 Rain N 116 209 203 206 207 109 108 101 120 118 118 Mean 1.3 28.0 3.9 8.2 29.9 0.930 0.083 7.30 54 2.9 38 Median 1.3 28.0 4.1 8.2 32.1 0.892 0.080 5.83 12 2.5 25 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.044 0.004 0.88 11 0.1 3 Dry N 114 316 312 314 311 156 167 154 182 178 178 Mean 1.3 20.7 5.1 8.3 32.9 0.692 0.084 4.40 32 3.2 16 Median 1.3 20.3 5.2 8.4 33.8 0.725 0.070 3.20 8 2.7 15 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.027 0.004 0.37 4 0.1 1 1998 N 21 23 23 22 22 13 11 14 14 3 3 Mean 1.3 25.5 5.1 8.4 33.1 0.955 0.077 8.14 9 3.8 12 Median 1.4 25.0 5.4 8.4 33.8 0.905 0.080 7.12 5 3.4 10 SE 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.042 0.007 1.55 4 0.4 2 1999 N 37 60 56 58 57 40 34 39 37 39 39 Mean 1.4 24.3 4.5 8.2 33.0 1.003 0.093 5.79 42 4.4 21 Median 1.3 24.8 4.8 8.2 33.9 0.970 0.075 3.92 8 3.8 15 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.044 0.008 1.03 18 0.4 3 2000 N 35 67 65 66 67 10 26 30 29 31 31 Mean 1.3 23.0 4.7 8.3 34.6 0.963 0.070 8.21 40 3.9 16 Median 1.3 23.5 5.1 8.4 35.0 0.845 0.070 5.21 8 3.7 10 SE 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.122 0.005 2.54 11 0.3 2 2001 N 38 67 66 67 67 12 13 28 31 31 31 Mean 1.1 22.7 4.7 8.2 32.2 0.897 0.091 4.82 40 3.4 32 Median 1.0 22.0 4.7 8.2 35.0 0.783 0.080 2.75 12 2.8 19 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.093 0.014 1.31 11 0.4 6 2002 N 28 79 76 78 79 43 44 43 44 44 Mean 1.5 24.0 4.5 8.3 31.1 0.437 0.080 63 2.3 10 Median 1.5 25.0 4.5 8.3 32.1 0.425 0.070 8 1.8 9 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.057 0.010 26 0.3 1 2003 N 28 79 79 79 79 43 43 43 43 43 43 Mean 1.4 23.9 4.7 8.2 31.3 0.767 0.059 6.98 26 2.8 21 Median 1.3 26.0 4.7 8.2 33.2 0.550 0.060 5.56 3 2.4 17 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.092 0.006 0.78 7 0.3 2 2004 N 25 75 75 74 73 41 41 38 42 42 42 Mean 1.4 23.5 4.5 8.2 31.7 0.697 0.094 2.89 35 3.2 24 Median 1.4 26.0 4.5 8.2 33.5 0.614 0.087 2.18 11 2.9 20 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.035 0.005 0.36 8 0.2 3 2005 N 18 75 75 76 74 63 63 63 63 63 63 Mean 1.3 22.8 4.8 8.3 28.1 0.891 0.097 4.67 48 2.4 42 Median 1.2 23.0 5.1 8.4 31.4 0.805 0.081 3.87 16 2.1 30 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.042 0.007 0.41 8 0.1 5 Table A.4: Summary statistics for all sites in Lower Lemon Bay

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# VIII Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 394 657 650 657 649 505 532 482 587 556 557 Mean 0.9 23.6 5.2 7.7 17.3 1.040 0.305 9.48 48 3.2 70 Median 0.9 24.0 5.2 7.8 17.9 0.975 0.240 6.16 24 2.7 50 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.022 0.009 0.50 4 0.1 3 Rain N 189 263 263 262 261 200 207 187 239 221 222 Mean 0.9 27.7 4.1 7.6 13.7 1.202 0.363 9.68 51 3.1 104 Median 0.8 28.0 4.0 7.6 12.4 1.206 0.320 6.73 28 2.6 80 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.035 0.014 0.76 6 0.2 5 Dry N 205 394 387 395 388 305 325 295 348 335 335 Mean 1.0 20.9 6.0 7.8 19.7 0.934 0.269 9.35 46 3.2 49 Median 1.0 21.0 6.0 7.8 21.6 0.895 0.200 5.89 22 2.8 40 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.027 0.012 0.67 4 0.1 2 1998 N 63 83 81 83 81 31 23 34 34 7 7 Mean 0.9 24.6 5.0 7.6 11.6 1.295 0.257 16.57 53 4.0 56 Median 0.8 24.5 4.8 7.6 10.9 1.135 0.240 14.30 35 4.7 50 SE 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.054 0.031 2.80 11 0.5 9 1999 N 51 81 78 78 78 82 71 81 81 78 78 Mean 1.0 24.1 4.9 7.8 18.0 1.331 0.278 9.65 48 3.4 80 Median 0.9 24.0 5.1 7.8 20.1 1.310 0.250 5.97 20 2.8 55 SE 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.034 0.019 1.34 10 0.2 7 2000 N 48 79 79 79 79 33 72 67 73 70 70 Mean 1.0 23.2 5.1 7.8 23.4 0.997 0.198 8.45 37 3.7 48 Median 1.0 24.0 5.1 7.8 26.4 0.935 0.140 5.61 16 3.5 35 SE 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.048 0.017 1.30 11 0.2 5 2001 N 42 79 80 79 78 31 36 60 70 71 71 Mean 0.8 23.0 5.0 7.8 21.5 1.073 0.254 7.36 69 3.3 56 Median 0.8 22.5 5.0 7.8 24.5 1.020 0.190 3.77 41 3.1 33 SE 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.077 0.029 1.66 9 0.2 6 2002 N 39 80 81 81 79 81 81 80 81 81 Mean 0.9 23.9 5.1 7.8 19.0 0.556 0.335 79 2.0 32 Median 0.9 25.8 5.1 7.8 20.9 0.525 0.270 29 1.6 23 SE 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.043 0.023 16 0.1 3 2003 N 42 78 77 79 78 71 71 70 71 71 72 Mean 1.0 23.4 5.3 7.7 14.8 0.956 0.277 8.69 30 2.4 67 Median 0.9 25.0 5.1 7.6 16.1 0.790 0.210 7.67 20 1.9 51 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.069 0.025 0.76 4 0.2 6 2004 N 51 88 88 88 87 87 88 80 88 88 88 Mean 1.0 23.5 5.5 7.8 17.6 1.134 0.363 8.67 50 4.1 96 Median 0.9 25.0 5.8 7.8 19.6 0.942 0.305 5.51 24 3.1 60 SE 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.062 0.027 0.97 10 0.4 8 2005 N 58 89 86 90 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 Mean 1.0 23.3 5.7 7.7 13.1 1.103 0.386 11.11 25 3.4 105 Median 0.9 23.0 5.6 7.8 13.3 1.001 0.325 7.78 15 3.0 80 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.043 0.026 1.15 3 0.2 6 Table A.5: Summary statistics for all sites in Upper Charlotte Harbor

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# IX Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 105 252 247 249 248 207 215 198 234 226 226 Mean 1.8 23.9 5.4 8.3 28.2 0.792 0.114 5.61 13 2.5 30 Median 1.5 24.5 5.5 8.2 29.0 0.755 0.100 4.42 3 2.1 24 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.028 0.005 0.35 2 0.2 2 Rain N 60 109 106 106 107 84 85 80 98 92 92 Mean 1.6 28.1 4.7 8.2 26.1 0.939 0.128 6.25 12 2.6 42 Median 1.4 28.0 4.7 8.2 26.4 0.910 0.110 5.73 2 2.1 35 SE 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.048 0.008 0.47 4 0.3 3 Dry N 45 143 141 143 141 123 130 118 136 134 134 Mean 2.0 20.8 5.8 8.3 29.9 0.692 0.104 5.17 13 2.5 21 Median 1.8 21.0 5.9 8.4 29.8 0.735 0.094 3.49 4 2.0 19 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.030 0.005 0.49 2 0.2 1 1998 N 8 22 20 22 22 15 12 15 15 3 3 Mean 1.4 26.8 4.8 8.3 25.5 1.020 0.084 9.20 25 1.2 22 Median 1.1 28.3 5.0 8.2 27.6 1.005 0.080 7.80 4 1.0 20 SE 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.060 0.008 1.61 11 0.3 4 1999 N 11 34 32 34 31 32 30 33 30 34 34 Mean 2.1 24.3 5.2 8.4 27.6 1.049 0.122 4.61 23 3.4 28 Median 2.1 24.0 5.1 8.4 29.2 1.005 0.110 3.98 4 2.4 25 SE 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.048 0.010 0.59 12 0.6 2 2000 N 11 33 33 32 32 16 27 30 32 31 31 Mean 2.2 23.3 5.4 8.5 32.7 0.890 0.066 3.63 9 3.0 16 Median 2.3 24.0 5.7 8.6 33.5 0.870 0.060 3.45 2 2.6 15 SE 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.080 0.005 0.49 2 0.4 2 2001 N 16 31 29 29 31 14 15 25 27 27 27 Mean 1.5 22.9 4.8 8.2 31.4 0.826 0.092 4.54 18 3.8 31 Median 1.2 22.5 5.1 8.2 33.8 0.815 0.080 4.30 4 3.2 20 SE 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.092 0.010 0.64 6 0.6 5 2002 N 14 32 32 33 32 33 33 33 33 33 Mean 1.6 24.7 5.4 8.4 30.0 0.490 0.126 14 1.8 15 Median 1.4 27.0 5.5 8.4 30.4 0.525 0.120 4 1.1 14 SE 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.071 0.010 5 0.2 2 2003 N 20 34 34 33 34 30 31 31 31 31 31 Mean 1.5 23.2 5.5 8.3 26.7 0.707 0.078 8.08 5 1.9 33 Median 1.4 24.5 5.8 8.3 27.5 0.550 0.070 7.31 2 1.7 30 SE 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.104 0.008 1.29 1 0.2 3 2004 N 11 30 31 30 30 31 31 28 30 31 31 Mean 1.8 24.0 5.5 8.2 27.1 0.796 0.143 5.63 10 2.2 43 Median 1.4 25.8 5.6 8.2 28.2 0.746 0.095 3.90 3 2.2 30 SE 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.058 0.017 0.85 3 0.2 7 2005 N 14 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Mean 2.1 23.4 5.9 8.1 24.5 0.756 0.156 6.02 6 1.9 42 Median 1.7 23.5 6.0 8.2 24.5 0.741 0.135 4.51 1 1.6 30 SE 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.046 0.013 0.78 2 0.2 4 Table A.6: Summary statistics for all sites in Lower Charlotte Harbor

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# X Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 86 192 188 194 192 141 150 145 169 162 162 Mean 1.5 24.2 4.6 8.3 31.5 0.906 0.093 4.49 20 3.3 24 Median 1.5 25.0 4.6 8.2 33.2 0.806 0.080 3.58 6 2.7 20 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.042 0.005 0.31 3 0.2 1 Rain N 44 82 79 83 82 58 60 57 67 65 65 Mean 1.4 28.4 4.1 8.2 29.9 0.984 0.104 5.64 19 3.0 32 Median 1.5 28.3 4.4 8.2 31.7 0.849 0.080 4.74 4 2.7 30 SE 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.061 0.010 0.51 5 0.2 3 Dry N 42 110 109 111 110 83 90 88 102 97 97 Mean 1.6 21.1 5.0 8.3 32.7 0.851 0.085 3.74 21 3.5 19 Median 1.4 21.0 4.9 8.2 33.8 0.775 0.070 3.02 6 2.7 15 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.057 0.006 0.36 4 0.3 1 1998 N 9 21 21 21 21 11 10 12 12 3 3 Mean 1.4 26.6 4.1 8.3 32.1 1.017 0.075 6.39 10 3.3 18 Median 1.3 28.0 4.2 8.2 32.5 0.895 0.075 5.43 4 3.7 15 SE 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.103 0.009 1.25 4 0.6 6 1999 N 16 32 31 33 32 26 28 29 30 30 30 Mean 1.9 24.2 5.3 8.3 33.1 0.864 0.099 5.14 13 4.0 20 Median 1.7 25.0 5.9 8.4 33.9 0.855 0.095 3.87 4 3.8 15 SE 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.035 0.009 0.78 3 0.4 3 2000 N 12 25 25 26 25 9 17 22 24 23 23 Mean 1.3 24.3 4.7 8.4 35.5 0.779 0.058 4.13 14 4.4 13 Median 1.2 24.0 4.6 8.4 36.3 0.775 0.050 3.10 3 3.5 10 SE 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.064 0.007 0.67 7 0.6 1 2001 N 12 24 23 24 24 9 10 19 20 21 21 Mean 1.3 23.0 4.5 8.2 32.0 1.239 0.082 3.79 17 4.4 23 Median 1.2 21.8 4.5 8.2 34.4 0.955 0.080 2.40 5 3.0 20 SE 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 1.5 0.223 0.013 0.84 6 1.3 3 2002 N 7 20 21 20 20 19 20 18 20 20 Mean 1.3 24.4 4.5 8.3 30.8 0.571 0.093 49 1.5 13 Median 1.4 26.5 4.5 8.3 32.3 0.625 0.065 16 1.1 11 SE 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.077 0.018 17 0.1 2 2003 N 3 14 14 14 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 Mean 1.1 23.0 4.9 8.2 30.6 0.828 0.051 6.68 11 2.4 20 Median 1.0 24.5 4.5 8.2 31.7 0.550 0.050 6.40 9 2.4 18 SE 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.1 1.6 0.193 0.010 1.24 3 0.3 2 2004 N 10 22 21 22 22 24 22 20 22 22 22 Mean 1.5 25.3 4.3 8.2 31.8 0.967 0.112 3.48 39 3.3 34 Median 1.5 26.3 3.9 8.2 32.2 0.744 0.087 3.34 13 3.4 30 SE 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.109 0.017 0.62 13 0.2 4 2005 N 17 34 32 34 34 31 31 31 31 31 31 Mean 1.5 23.3 4.5 8.2 26.9 1.030 0.117 4.19 12 2.6 38 Median 1.6 24.0 4.6 8.2 28.2 0.806 0.095 3.59 4 2.2 30 SE 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.110 0.013 0.63 2 0.2 4 Table A.7: Summary statistics for all sites in Gasparilla/Cape Haze

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XI Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 167 400 392 388 399 309 330 298 383 368 369 Mean 1.4 23.6 5.7 8.4 32.2 0.808 0.073 6.52 13 3.7 25 Median 1.3 24.5 5.9 8.4 32.9 0.752 0.060 4.98 2 2.6 18 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.027 0.004 0.34 2 0.2 1 Rain N 87 164 160 160 163 121 132 118 158 148 149 Mean 1.5 27.8 5.1 8.4 30.6 0.904 0.079 8.87 11 3.5 31 Median 1.3 28.0 5.2 8.4 30.8 0.805 0.060 7.07 2 2.4 25 SE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.050 0.008 0.58 3 0.3 2 Dry N 80 236 232 228 236 188 198 180 225 220 220 Mean 1.3 20.7 6.1 8.4 33.2 0.747 0.068 4.98 13 3.8 20 Median 1.3 20.5 6.4 8.4 33.7 0.717 0.060 3.57 2 2.7 15 SE 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.029 0.003 0.38 2 0.2 2 1998 N 9 21 21 19 21 14 11 12 14 2 2 Mean 1.0 24.6 5.6 8.4 31.2 1.242 0.058 11.81 25 3.2 20 Median 1.1 24.5 5.7 8.3 30.4 1.175 0.060 6.82 8 3.2 20 SE 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.070 0.009 3.33 10 2.2 5 1999 N 14 37 37 33 37 36 33 37 37 38 38 Mean 1.3 24.0 5.6 8.4 32.8 0.995 0.074 7.40 13 4.1 21 Median 1.2 24.5 5.5 8.4 32.9 0.935 0.070 6.17 4 3.5 20 SE 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.044 0.006 0.90 5 0.4 2 2000 N 28 57 57 57 57 13 35 50 56 52 53 Mean 1.4 23.3 5.8 8.5 35.4 0.853 0.066 6.59 5 5.3 12 Median 1.3 23.5 5.8 8.4 35.8 0.845 0.060 4.86 2 4.0 10 SE 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.087 0.005 0.74 1 0.5 1 2001 N 32 52 52 50 52 21 22 41 48 47 47 Mean 1.1 22.7 6.1 8.4 34.4 0.948 0.057 5.03 17 6.2 23 Median 1.1 22.0 6.2 8.4 35.9 0.915 0.050 3.10 2 4.4 20 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.092 0.005 0.92 5 0.7 2 2002 N 32 68 63 66 68 67 67 67 67 67 Mean 1.5 23.8 5.5 8.3 33.0 0.483 0.065 22 3.0 14 Median 1.4 25.0 6.1 8.5 33.7 0.480 0.050 2 1.7 7 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.036 0.005 7 0.4 2 2003 N 15 65 62 62 64 60 60 60 60 60 60 Mean 1.9 23.4 5.5 8.4 30.2 0.668 0.052 7.77 8 1.9 29 Median 1.8 25.0 5.8 8.6 31.1 0.550 0.035 5.83 1 1.7 20 SE 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.067 0.006 0.73 3 0.2 2 2004 N 12 40 41 41 40 37 41 37 40 41 41 Mean 1.8 23.5 5.5 8.3 31.6 0.787 0.084 4.19 6 3.1 34 Median 1.8 25.0 5.7 8.4 33.1 0.762 0.072 3.20 1 2.7 20 SE 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.050 0.007 0.64 2 0.3 5 2005 N 25 60 59 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 Mean 1.3 24.0 5.8 8.3 28.6 1.049 0.105 6.89 12 3.1 40 Median 1.3 25.0 6.1 8.4 30.2 0.940 0.068 4.90 1 2.2 30 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.072 0.017 0.81 5 0.5 5 Table A.8: Summary statistics for all sites in Pine Island Sound

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XII Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 202 261 252 250 258 194 212 187 234 221 221 Mean 1.6 24.0 5.5 8.2 21.7 0.905 0.084 5.42 9 2.5 37 Median 1.6 24.5 5.5 8.2 22.1 0.851 0.076 3.50 4 2.1 30 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.032 0.003 0.52 1 0.1 2 Rain N 84 106 103 104 105 76 86 71 95 85 85 Mean 1.4 28.2 4.6 8.1 18.7 1.021 0.094 7.89 11 3.0 51 Median 1.3 28.0 4.8 8.1 17.3 0.975 0.090 5.31 3 2.5 45 SE 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.051 0.005 1.16 2 0.2 4 Dry N 118 155 149 146 153 118 126 116 139 136 136 Mean 1.8 21.1 6.1 8.2 23.7 0.831 0.076 3.90 8 2.1 28 Median 1.9 21.0 6.1 8.2 24.2 0.793 0.070 3.00 4 2.0 25 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.041 0.004 0.38 1 0.1 2 1998 N 24 32 30 31 32 12 11 11 15 3 3 Mean 1.3 25.5 4.9 8.1 18.1 1.089 0.073 7.33 9 2.2 42 Median 1.4 25.3 4.9 8.0 19.3 1.105 0.070 5.31 8 2.1 40 SE 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.033 0.006 1.84 2 0.2 2 1999 N 28 32 31 31 31 30 29 31 30 32 32 Mean 1.7 23.9 5.2 8.1 21.7 1.224 0.099 6.91 10 2.9 42 Median 1.7 23.5 5.6 8.1 20.4 1.167 0.080 3.10 4 2.5 30 SE 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.103 0.009 2.33 3 0.3 5 2000 N 31 35 35 34 35 15 31 30 34 32 32 Mean 1.7 24.0 5.3 8.3 26.2 1.018 0.062 4.50 9 2.7 20 Median 1.7 24.0 5.1 8.2 26.8 0.905 0.053 3.20 2 2.4 20 SE 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.072 0.005 0.54 3 0.2 2 2001 N 24 32 32 32 31 14 14 27 28 28 28 Mean 1.6 23.4 5.4 8.1 27.5 0.952 0.076 3.75 14 3.1 29 Median 1.6 22.3 5.3 8.2 31.1 0.923 0.070 2.30 6 2.6 24 SE 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 1.7 0.110 0.008 0.87 3 0.3 3 2002 N 26 34 34 32 34 34 35 35 34 34 Mean 1.7 24.7 5.4 8.1 23.6 0.532 0.093 10 1.6 19 Median 1.6 26.5 5.3 8.2 26.5 0.525 0.080 3 1.1 14 SE 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.040 0.009 3 0.2 2 2003 N 26 34 34 32 34 30 30 30 30 30 30 Mean 1.8 23.5 6.1 8.2 18.4 0.848 0.059 7.64 5 1.9 39 Median 1.8 24.8 6.0 8.2 20.0 0.550 0.045 5.58 1 1.6 33 SE 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.120 0.008 1.09 3 0.2 4 2004 N 24 32 27 29 31 29 32 28 32 32 32 Mean 1.6 24.2 5.6 8.3 21.3 0.856 0.094 4.11 10 2.6 50 Median 1.8 25.0 5.8 8.4 21.8 0.793 0.085 3.38 2 2.3 40 SE 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.048 0.006 0.63 3 0.3 6 2005 N 19 30 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Mean 1.4 22.7 6.4 8.1 16.3 0.963 0.102 5.05 5 2.7 60 Median 1.4 23.0 6.5 8.1 15.3 0.967 0.086 2.65 4 2.2 50 SE 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.049 0.010 1.22 1 0.2 6 Table A.9: Summary statistics for all sites in Matlacha Pass

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XIII Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 327 340 334 339 339 249 263 245 310 294 294 Mean 1.5 24.1 5.9 8.3 29.1 0.755 0.069 4.41 12 4.2 27 Median 1.4 24.8 5.9 8.2 30.6 0.753 0.060 3.43 2 3.2 20 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.025 0.002 0.25 2 0.4 1 Rain N 135 138 135 139 137 93 104 94 125 117 117 Mean 1.4 28.4 5.3 8.3 27.4 0.869 0.069 5.58 12 4.5 36 Median 1.3 28.5 5.3 8.2 28.9 0.845 0.061 4.89 2 3.2 26 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.046 0.003 0.43 3 1.0 3 Dry N 192 202 199 200 202 156 159 151 185 177 177 Mean 1.5 21.2 6.3 8.3 30.2 0.688 0.069 3.68 11 4.1 21 Median 1.5 22.0 6.2 8.2 31.5 0.676 0.060 2.91 3 3.2 16 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.028 0.003 0.28 2 0.2 1 1998 N 35 39 39 39 39 13 14 15 18 4 4 Mean 1.1 26.2 5.8 8.3 27.2 0.957 0.054 6.00 28 4.2 19 Median 1.1 26.0 5.8 8.2 27.7 0.915 0.050 5.90 2 3.3 18 SE 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.061 0.004 0.86 20 1.1 2 1999 N 42 45 45 45 45 43 37 42 44 45 45 Mean 1.4 24.4 5.7 8.3 29.1 0.983 0.095 5.07 13 4.5 31 Median 1.4 24.5 5.7 8.2 30.8 0.880 0.080 3.68 4 4.1 25 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.055 0.007 0.82 3 0.3 4 2000 N 47 48 44 47 47 14 31 43 47 44 44 Mean 1.6 24.1 6.0 8.4 32.5 0.899 0.057 3.44 7 4.8 12 Median 1.5 24.5 6.1 8.4 32.8 0.890 0.050 3.20 2 4.2 10 SE 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.051 0.004 0.29 1 0.4 1 2001 N 43 44 44 44 44 20 20 33 40 40 40 Mean 1.2 23.4 5.8 8.3 32.6 0.823 0.064 3.22 16 6.0 25 Median 1.1 22.8 5.8 8.2 34.5 0.835 0.057 2.50 4 5.2 20 SE 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.075 0.006 0.44 7 0.6 3 2002 N 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 Mean 1.4 24.4 5.7 8.3 30.1 0.385 0.066 15 2.3 13 Median 1.4 25.8 5.6 8.4 31.4 0.370 0.060 2 2.0 10 SE 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.039 0.005 5 0.2 2 2003 N 40 43 42 43 42 39 39 39 39 39 39 Mean 1.8 23.7 6.2 8.3 27.1 0.739 0.048 6.75 10 5.1 29 Median 1.7 25.5 6.2 8.2 27.7 0.550 0.030 5.65 2 1.9 23 SE 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.094 0.007 0.80 4 3.0 3 2004 N 35 37 36 35 37 33 35 31 35 35 35 Mean 1.9 23.6 5.8 8.3 29.7 0.656 0.070 2.95 9 3.4 33 Median 1.9 25.0 5.9 8.2 30.6 0.617 0.064 2.23 2 3.0 30 SE 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.036 0.004 0.54 2 0.3 5 2005 N 42 40 40 42 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 Mean 1.4 23.4 6.2 8.1 23.6 0.870 0.084 4.22 5 3.6 50 Median 1.4 24.0 6.0 8.0 24.3 0.862 0.070 3.28 2 3.0 50 SE 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.037 0.009 0.41 1 0.3 4 Table A.10: Summary statistics for all sites in San Carlos Bay

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XIV Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidit y Color (m) (C ) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) ( μ g/L) cfu/100mL (NTU) (PCU) 

# All N 177 361 356 357 357 276 297 263 331 319 319 Mean 1.2 23.6 4.7 8.1 27.5 0.790 0.070 5.75 44 5.6 31 Median 1.1 25.0 4.8 8.2 30.4 0.762 0.060 4.39 10 4.2 30 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.027 0.003 0.50 5 0.3 1 Rain N 82 148 146 147 147 113 122 101 137 128 128 Mean 1.2 27.5 3.9 8.1 24.9 0.894 0.064 5.95 32 3.8 42 Median 1.2 27.5 3.9 8.1 27.7 0.897 0.056 5.53 8 3.3 33 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.049 0.003 0.42 5 0.2 2 Dry N 95 213 210 210 210 163 175 162 194 191 191 Mean 1.2 20.9 5.3 8.2 29.4 0.718 0.074 5.63 52 6.7 25 Median 1.1 21.0 5.2 8.2 32.0 0.707 0.061 3.90 14 5.1 20 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.028 0.004 0.78 8 0.4 1 1998 N 9 26 25 24 26 14 13 11 14 3 3 Mean 1.0 26.2 4.0 8.2 30.0 1.068 0.062 7.74 29 6.5 20 Median 1.0 28.0 4.3 8.2 31.9 0.982 0.050 7.69 20 6.1 15 SE 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.068 0.006 0.86 8 0.9 5 1999 N 15 35 34 35 35 35 31 35 34 35 35 Mean 1.0 24.2 4.6 8.1 29.3 0.963 0.096 6.32 43 7.4 35 Median 1.0 25.0 4.8 8.2 31.5 0.965 0.080 4.97 10 5.2 30 SE 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.029 0.009 0.88 14 1.4 5 2000 N 24 44 43 43 43 14 34 39 44 41 41 Mean 1.0 23.2 4.9 8.3 32.7 0.961 0.071 5.25 14 7.7 19 Median 1.0 23.3 4.9 8.2 34.6 0.925 0.065 4.65 4 6.6 15 SE 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.119 0.005 0.82 3 0.7 2 2001 N 17 42 42 42 41 11 15 29 35 36 36 Mean 0.9 22.6 4.6 8.1 29.5 0.977 0.053 4.07 65 7.4 35 Median 0.8 22.0 4.7 8.2 31.6 0.735 0.060 3.20 16 5.3 30 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.193 0.004 0.70 18 0.9 4 2002 N 25 55 55 54 54 51 52 52 52 52 Mean 1.2 24.2 4.5 8.1 28.4 0.441 0.074 69 3.1 14 Median 1.2 25.5 4.4 8.2 30.6 0.425 0.065 11 2.7 12 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.049 0.006 22 0.3 1 2003 N 28 59 59 59 58 53 53 53 53 53 53 Mean 1.5 23.8 4.8 8.1 25.6 0.723 0.040 6.70 25 3.7 27 Median 1.6 25.0 4.6 8.2 28.5 0.550 0.030 5.74 8 2.2 22 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.069 0.004 0.78 5 0.6 2 2004 N 28 48 48 48 48 47 48 45 48 48 48 Mean 1.4 23.1 4.9 8.1 25.8 0.811 0.085 4.65 44 5.9 41 Median 1.5 24.5 4.9 8.1 28.3 0.730 0.075 3.05 14 4.6 35 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.032 0.010 0.75 10 0.7 3 2005 N 31 52 50 52 52 51 51 51 51 51 51 Mean 1.3 22.7 5.1 8.0 22.2 0.905 0.071 6.83 53 5.4 50 Median 1.2 23.0 5.0 8.0 25.3 0.882 0.050 4.20 7 4.4 50 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.072 0.009 2.17 16 0.6 3 Table A.11: Summary statistics for all sites in Estero Bay

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XV Table A.12: Secchi depth (m) summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 45 0.5 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.9 11 40 average LBGOT2 27 0.5 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.8 5 40 average LBV001 37 0.5 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.9 11 40 average LBV002 33 0.4 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.8 5 40 average LBV003 19 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.8 5 40 average GSV002 53 0.6 2.0 1.4 0.0 1.5 37 80 higher than average LBANG1 25 0.6 1.5 1.1 0.0 1.2 27 60 average LBOYS1 16 0.7 3.3 1.3 0.1 1.2 27 60 average LBV004 37 0.7 2.1 1.1 0.1 1.2 27 60 average LBV005 59 0.5 2.2 1.4 0.1 1.4 33 80 higher than average LBV006 7 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.1 0.9 11 40 average LBV007 33 1.0 1.9 1.4 0.0 1.4 34 80 higher than average CHV001 83 0.6 2.3 1.3 0.0 1.2 27 60 average CHV002 50 0.4 2.3 1.0 0.1 0.9 11 40 average CHV003 15 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.7 3 30 lower than average CHV004 49 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.9 11 40 average CHV005 42 0.4 1.8 0.9 0.1 0.8 5 40 average CHV006 53 0.1 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 5 40 average CHV007 42 0.4 1.6 1.0 0.0 1.1 22 60 average CHV008 8 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.8 5 40 average CHV013 52 0.4 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 3 30 lower than average CHV009 20 0.7 1.5 1.1 0.1 1.1 22 60 average CHV010 26 0.5 2.1 1.2 0.1 1.1 22 60 average CHV011 59 0.7 4.5 2.3 0.1 2.3 48 100 hi gher than averag e CHV012 46 0.2 2.5 1.4 0.1 1.5 37 80 higher than average GSV001 6 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.2 1.0 18 50 average GSV003 23 1.1 3.2 1.7 0.1 1.4 33 80 higher than average GSV004 11 1.0 1.8 1.5 0.1 1.5 37 80 higher than average PIJIM1 2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 1 20 lower than average PIV001 40 0.8 2.3 1.4 0.1 1.4 33 80 higher than average PIV002 28 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.0 1.0 18 50 average PIV004 45 0.5 3.9 1.9 0.1 1.8 46 90 higher than average PIV006 46 0.4 2.0 1.2 0.1 1.2 27 60 average PIV007 6 0.8 1.5 1.1 0.1 1.0 18 50 average MPV001 52 0.8 2.7 1.6 0.1 1.6 42 80 higher than average MPV002 92 0.7 3.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 42 80 higher than average MPV003 58 0.4 3.8 1.7 0.1 1.8 46 90 higher than average EBV001 86 0.5 3.3 1.2 0.0 1.1 22 60 average MPV004 85 0.6 2.7 1.6 0.1 1.6 42 80 higher than average SCV001 89 0.7 3.5 1.5 0.1 1.5 37 80 higher than average SCV002 67 0.5 3.9 1.7 0.1 1.6 42 80 higher than average EBERS2 51 1.0 1.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 37 80 higher than average EBV003 16 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.9 11 40 average EBV004 45 0.4 1.8 1.0 0.0 1.0 18 50 average EBV005 20 0.3 1.6 0.8 0.1 0.9 11 40 average EBV006 15 0.6 1.7 1.0 0.1 1.1 22 60 average EBV007 30 0.5 2.9 1.4 0.1 1.3 32 80 higher than average Outside of estuar y GSV005 54 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.6 2 30 lower than average All sites 1903 0.0 4.5 1.3 0.0 1.2 60 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***below average < 40, 40 < average < 70, above average > 70

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

San Carlos Bay Lower Charlotte Harbor

Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XVI Table A.13: Temperature ( ° C) summar y

and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 53 15.0 32.0 24.5 0.7 26.0 46 70 higher than average LBGOT2 71 13.5 30.0 23.3 0.5 25.0 30 60 average LBV001 85 15.5 30.0 24.1 0.5 24.5 19 60 average LBV002 87 13.5 30.0 23.4 0.5 24.5 19 60 average LBV003 85 12.0 32.0 23.3 0.5 24.0 4 60 average GSV002 77 14.0 31.0 23.7 0.6 24.0 4 60 average LBANG1 76 13.0 30.0 23.3 0.5 24.0 4 60 average LBOYS1 75 13.0 32.0 23.7 0.6 25.0 30 60 average LBV004 86 12.0 30.0 22.9 0.5 23.5 2 60 average LBV005 75 14.0 30.0 23.7 0.5 24.0 4 60 average LBV006 66 10.0 31.0 23.3 0.6 23.8 3 60 average LBV007 70 14.0 31.5 24.5 0.6 25.3 45 70 higher than average CHV001 86 11.0 31.0 23.9 0.5 24.0 4 60 average CHV002 49 14.0 30.0 23.5 0.6 24.0 4 60 average CHV003 64 13.0 29.0 23.4 0.5 25.0 30 60 average CHV004 88 4.0 30.0 23.4 0.5 24.8 28 60 average CHV005 42 14.0 31.5 24.1 0.7 24.3 16 60 average CHV006 88 9.0 30.5 23.4 0.5 24.0 4 60 average CHV007 96 14.0 31.0 23.4 0.5 24.0 4 60 average CHV008 90 15.0 31.5 24.1 0.5 24.5 19 60 average CHV013 54 14.0 29.5 23.4 0.6 24.5 19 60 average CHV009 85 13.5 31.0 23.8 0.5 25.0 30 60 average CHV010 87 13.0 31.5 23.6 0.5 24.0 4 60 average CHV011 80 13.5 31.5 24.5 0.5 25.0 30 60 averag e CHV012 65 14.5 30.0 24.3 0.6 25.0 30 60 average GSV001 85 7.5 31.5 24.1 0.6 25.0 30 60 average GSV003 25 19.0 31.0 24.7 0.8 25.0 30 60 average GSV004 17 16.0 30.0 23.7 1.1 26.0 46 70 higher than average PIJIM1 35 13.0 30.0 23.0 0.8 25.0 30 60 average PIV001 65 14.0 30.0 23.4 0.6 24.5 19 60 average PIV002 93 14.0 31.0 23.5 0.5 24.5 19 60 average PIV004 61 15.0 30.5 24.0 0.6 24.0 4 60 average PIV006 83 14.0 30.5 24.1 0.5 24.5 19 60 average PIV007 63 10.5 31.0 23.1 0.6 25.0 30 60 average MPV001 88 14.5 30.5 23.7 0.5 24.3 16 60 average MPV002 94 13.5 31.0 24.1 0.5 24.8 28 60 average MPV003 79 14.0 31.0 24.1 0.5 25.0 30 60 average EBV001 89 13.0 31.0 24.3 0.5 25.0 30 60 average MPV004 88 14.0 31.0 24.1 0.5 24.3 16 60 average SCV001 87 10.0 31.0 23.3 0.5 24.5 19 60 average SCV002 76 14.5 31.0 24.9 0.5 25.0 30 60 average EBERS2 51 15.5 28.0 23.6 0.5 25.0 30 60 average EBV003 61 15.0 29.0 24.8 0.5 26.0 46 70 higher than average EBV004 87 14.0 30.5 23.3 0.5 24.0 4 60 average EBV005 92 14.5 31.0 23.2 0.5 24.0 4 60 average EBV006 23 14.5 28.5 21.9 1.0 23.0 1 50 average EBV007 47 14.5 31.0 24.1 0.7 25.0 30 60 average Outside of estuar y GSV005 69 14.0 31.0 23.2 0.5 24.5 19 60 average All sites 3438 4.0 32.0 23.8 0.1 24.5 60 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***lower average < 40, 40 < average < 70, higher than average > 70

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Estero Bay Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XVII Table A.14: Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 53 2.2 8.8 4.6 0.2 4.3 12 20 lower than average LBGOT2 67 1.0 8.6 3.6 0.2 3.4 5 10 lower than average LBV001 85 1.1 6.9 3.2 0.1 3.0 4 10 lower than average LBV002 85 2.2 8.3 4.9 0.2 4.9 18 20 lower than average LBV003 83 1.9 7.6 4.2 0.2 3.9 7 10 lower than average GSV002 73 1.5 7.7 5.2 0.1 5.2 28 30 lower than average LBANG1 75 1.0 8.2 4.2 0.2 3.9 7 10 lower than average LBOYS1 75 1.7 8.2 4.3 0.1 4.1 11 20 lower than average LBV004 85 2.7 7.8 4.9 0.1 4.9 18 20 lower than average LBV005 72 2.8 7.7 5.5 0.1 5.6 35 30 lower than average LBV006 63 0.6 5.3 2.8 0.2 2.3 2 10 lower than average LBV007 72 3.4 7.5 5.5 0.1 5.5 33 30 lower than average CHV001 84 2.3 8.6 5.1 0.1 5.0 24 20 lower than average CHV002 50 2.6 9.5 6.1 0.2 6.1 43 40 average CHV003 64 0.6 8.4 4.8 0.2 4.7 15 20 lower than average CHV004 86 2.5 8.7 5.4 0.1 5.3 29 30 lower than average CHV005 42 2.6 8.8 5.3 0.2 5.1 27 30 lower than average CHV006 89 2.8 8.6 5.7 0.1 5.8 39 40 average CHV007 93 2.7 7.8 5.0 0.1 4.9 18 20 lower than average CHV008 90 2.0 7.4 4.5 0.1 4.4 13 20 lower than average CHV013 52 1.4 9.9 5.1 0.2 4.9 18 20 lower than average CHV009 83 2.5 7.9 5.0 0.1 5.0 24 20 lower than average CHV010 86 2.4 7.9 4.8 0.1 4.9 18 20 lower than average CHV011 78 4.2 9.1 6.3 0.1 6.3 45 50 averag e CHV012 63 2.0 7.2 5.4 0.1 5.6 35 30 lower than average GSV001 85 1.4 6.9 4.0 0.1 4.0 9 20 lower than average GSV003 23 3.4 7.3 5.5 0.2 5.4 32 30 lower than average GSV004 17 2.7 5.2 3.8 0.2 3.6 6 10 lower than average PIJIM1 32 0.6 5.9 2.1 0.2 1.7 1 10 lower than average PIV001 63 2.3 8.2 5.9 0.1 5.8 39 40 average PIV002 93 3.2 9.0 5.9 0.1 5.9 42 40 average PIV004 61 4.1 8.7 6.8 0.1 7.0 48 70 higher than average PIV006 82 3.8 8.9 6.5 0.1 6.6 47 60 average PIV007 61 2.5 7.3 4.7 0.1 4.8 16 20 lower than average MPV001 84 2.0 8.6 5.8 0.1 5.8 39 40 average MPV002 91 2.3 9.0 5.0 0.1 5.0 24 20 lower than average MPV003 77 3.4 8.6 5.9 0.1 5.6 35 30 lower than average EBV001 86 3.3 8.7 5.6 0.1 5.5 33 30 lower than average MPV004 87 2.8 8.3 5.6 0.1 5.6 35 30 lower than average SCV001 87 4.2 8.1 6.1 0.1 6.1 43 40 average SCV002 74 3.0 8.2 6.3 0.1 6.3 45 50 average EBERS2 51 1.5 7.0 4.0 0.2 4.0 9 10 lower than average EBV003 61 2.1 7.9 4.5 0.2 4.6 14 20 lower than average EBV004 86 1.2 7.5 4.9 0.1 4.9 18 20 lower than average EBV005 90 2.0 7.5 4.6 0.1 4.8 16 20 lower than average EBV006 22 4.2 10.0 5.7 0.3 5.3 29 30 lower than average EBV007 46 3.6 7.6 5.3 0.2 5.3 29 30 lower than average Outside of estuar y GSV005 67 1.2 8.1 3.2 0.2 2.9 3 10 lower than average All sites 3374 0.6 10.0 5.0 0.0 5.1 30 lower than average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***below average < 40, 40 < average < 70, above average > 70 Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XVIII Table A.15: pH summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 51 7.2 8.3 8.0 0.0 8.0 13 60 average LBGOT2 70 7.2 8.0 7.6 0.0 7.6 3 20 lower than average LBV001 85 7.2 8.2 7.8 0.0 7.8 8 50 average LBV002 86 7.3 8.8 8.3 0.0 8.3 33 90 higher than average LBV003 85 7.8 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.2 21 80 higher than average GSV002 72 7.8 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.4 34 100 higher than average LBANG1 76 7.2 8.6 8.1 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average LBOYS1 74 7.4 8.6 8.0 0.0 8.0 13 60 average LBV004 86 7.8 8.6 8.4 0.0 8.4 34 100 higher than average LBV005 75 8.1 8.6 8.5 0.0 8.6 46 100 higher than average LBV006 65 7.2 8.6 7.9 0.0 8.0 13 60 average LBV007 72 8.2 9.0 8.5 0.0 8.5 42 100 higher than average CHV001 86 7.0 8.0 7.7 0.0 7.8 8 40 average CHV002 50 7.2 8.6 7.9 0.1 8.0 13 60 average CHV003 64 7.2 8.0 7.6 0.0 7.6 3 20 lower than average CHV004 89 5.8 8.6 7.8 0.0 7.8 8 40 average CHV005 40 7.2 8.0 7.4 0.0 7.4 2 10 lower than average CHV006 88 6.4 8.6 7.9 0.0 8.0 13 60 average CHV007 96 7.2 8.6 7.9 0.0 7.9 12 50 average CHV008 90 7.0 8.3 7.8 0.0 7.8 8 40 average CHV013 54 6.7 8.1 7.4 0.0 7.3 1 10 lower than average CHV009 85 7.4 8.6 8.1 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average CHV010 85 8.0 8.6 8.4 0.0 8.4 34 100 higher than average CHV011 79 7.8 8.6 8.4 0.0 8.4 34 100 hi gher than averag e CHV012 65 7.4 8.6 8.2 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average GSV001 87 7.2 8.6 8.2 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average GSV003 25 7.2 8.6 8.5 0.1 8.6 46 100 higher than average GSV004 17 7.6 8.6 8.2 0.1 8.2 21 90 higher than average PIJIM1 35 7.0 8.4 7.7 0.1 7.6 3 20 lower than average PIV001 66 7.9 8.7 8.5 0.0 8.5 42 100 higher than average PIV002 90 8.0 8.7 8.4 0.0 8.4 34 100 higher than average PIV004 60 7.4 8.7 8.4 0.0 8.5 42 100 higher than average PIV006 76 7.4 8.8 8.4 0.0 8.5 42 100 higher than average PIV007 61 8.0 8.7 8.5 0.0 8.6 46 100 higher than average MPV001 84 7.5 8.6 8.2 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average MPV002 89 7.4 8.6 8.1 0.0 8.1 20 80 higher than average MPV003 77 7.8 8.6 8.2 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average EBV001 89 7.8 8.6 8.2 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average MPV004 87 7.4 8.6 8.2 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average SCV001 89 8.0 8.6 8.4 0.0 8.4 34 100 higher than average SCV002 74 7.5 8.6 8.3 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average EBERS2 51 7.2 8.2 7.6 0.0 7.6 3 20 lower than average EBV003 57 7.6 8.4 8.0 0.0 8.0 13 70 average EBV004 87 8.0 8.8 8.4 0.0 8.4 34 100 higher than average EBV005 92 7.6 8.4 8.1 0.0 8.0 13 70 average EBV006 23 8.2 8.6 8.4 0.0 8.4 34 100 higher than average EBV007 47 8.0 8.7 8.3 0.0 8.2 21 90 higher than average Outside of estuar y GSV005 69 7.2 8.4 7.6 0.0 7.6 3 20 lower than average All sites 3400 5.8 9.0 8.1 0.0 8.2 90 higher than average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***lower average < 40, 40 < average < 70, higher than average > 70 Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XIX Table A.16: Salinity (ppt) summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 53 1.0 35.5 22.9 1.4 26.5 18 70 higher than average LBGOT2 67 0.0 35.5 11.0 1.1 9.3 3 20 lower than average LBV001 85 1.4 33.0 16.5 0.9 17.9 8 40 average LBV002 87 6.4 38.1 28.1 0.7 29.6 21 70 higher than average LBV003 84 22.0 40.7 31.4 0.5 31.9 32 80 higher than average GSV002 77 20.6 38.9 33.6 0.4 34.5 44 100 higher than average LBANG1 76 3.1 39.3 29.6 0.8 32.2 33 80 higher than average LBOYS1 73 7.5 39.8 30.5 0.7 32.2 33 80 higher than average LBV004 85 15.8 39.8 32.5 0.4 33.4 39 100 higher than average LBV005 72 24.4 38.2 33.6 0.4 34.8 48 100 higher than average LBV006 65 2.1 40.7 27.5 1.2 30.0 25 70 higher than average LBV007 70 7.0 38.8 33.9 0.5 34.5 44 100 higher than average CHV001 85 2.4 33.0 18.0 0.8 18.7 9 40 average CHV002 49 1.1 28.5 13.8 1.1 13.4 5 20 lower than average CHV003 64 2.1 30.5 14.6 1.0 16.1 7 30 lower than average CHV004 86 2.1 36.3 19.8 1.0 20.8 11 40 average CHV005 42 0.0 24.4 6.9 1.1 4.2 2 10 lower than average CHV006 86 2.9 36.7 19.6 1.0 21.6 12 50 average CHV007 95 4.5 35.5 22.8 0.7 24.3 15 60 average CHV008 88 2.5 37.1 22.6 0.9 24.3 15 60 average CHV013 54 0.0 17.3 4.7 0.7 2.0 1 10 lower than average CHV009 83 8.5 38.3 26.0 0.8 26.9 19 70 higher than average CHV010 87 17.5 39.1 29.6 0.5 29.6 21 80 higher than average CHV011 78 9.7 38.4 29.1 0.7 30.4 27 80 hi gher than averag e CHV012 65 16.2 38.9 29.6 0.6 29.8 24 80 higher than average GSV001 85 10.0 40.7 32.1 0.7 34.1 43 100 higher than average GSV003 25 32.2 40.2 35.1 0.4 34.5 44 100 higher than average GSV004 17 10.7 35.2 30.6 1.5 32.9 38 90 higher than average PIJIM1 34 4.5 41.6 28.7 1.3 29.6 21 80 higher than average PIV001 65 19.6 41.2 32.9 0.5 33.4 39 100 higher than average PIV002 93 22.5 41.1 32.4 0.4 32.5 36 90 higher than average PIV004 61 23.3 39.7 33.5 0.4 33.5 41 100 higher than average PIV006 83 16.6 40.1 30.6 0.6 31.3 31 90 higher than average PIV007 63 6.6 42.0 33.7 0.7 34.6 47 100 higher than average MPV001 85 7.2 39.8 22.8 0.8 23.3 14 50 average MPV002 94 2.9 35.8 20.1 0.8 20.1 10 40 average MPV003 79 4.9 37.5 22.4 0.9 22.9 13 50 average EBV001 89 18.3 41.4 32.0 0.5 32.2 33 90 higher than average MPV004 88 8.8 37.5 24.8 0.8 26.1 17 60 average SCV001 88 15.8 38.0 29.6 0.6 31.0 29 90 higher than average SCV002 74 16.2 38.9 30.1 0.6 31.0 29 90 higher than average EBERS2 51 0.2 33.2 12.3 1.4 10.9 4 20 lower than average EBV003 59 9.6 39.8 29.2 1.0 30.9 28 90 higher than average EBV004 85 21.2 39.3 32.9 0.4 33.7 42 100 higher than average EBV005 92 2.5 38.0 28.1 0.8 30.1 26 80 higher than average EBV006 23 26.9 37.8 32.7 0.7 32.6 37 90 higher than average EBV007 47 19.3 38.2 28.7 0.6 28.5 20 80 higher than average Outside of estuar y GSV005 68 0.8 39.3 15.8 1.4 13.9 6 30 lower than average All sites 3404 0.0 42.0 25.9 0.2 28.9 80 higher than average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***lower average < 40, 40 < average < 70, higher than average > 70 Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XX Table A.17: Total nitrogen (ppm) summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 6 0.905 1.724 1.230 0.122 1.163 45 90 hi g her than averag e LBGOT2 8 1.214 1.525 1.365 0.043 1.324 47 90 hi g her than averag e LBV001 70 0.180 2.690 1.102 0.050 1.137 44 90 hi g her than averag e LBV002 67 0.075 2.650 0.996 0.061 0.942 37 80 hi g her than averag e LBV003 68 0.075 2.750 0.946 0.057 0.887 34 70 hi g her than averag e GSV002 61 0.075 2.532 0.799 0.051 0.767 15 60 average LBANG1 7 0.712 1.305 0.941 0.078 0.868 28 70 hi g her than averag e LBOYS1 8 0.627 1.328 0.871 0.076 0.838 26 70 hi g her than averag e LBV004 68 0.075 2.130 0.731 0.046 0.726 9 60 average LBV005 62 0.075 1.850 0.641 0.046 0.590 2 50 average LBV006 51 0.075 2.560 1.004 0.071 0.975 39 80 hi g her than averag e LBV007 8 0.552 1.202 0.806 0.069 0.794 20 70 hi g her than averag e CHV001 67 0.075 2.550 1.027 0.056 1.005 40 80 hi g her than averag e CHV002 42 0.032 1.885 1.120 0.059 1.066 41 80 hi g her than averag e CHV003 50 0.075 2.230 0.933 0.057 0.871 31 70 hi g her than averag e CHV004 64 0.075 2.218 0.954 0.055 0.957 38 80 hi g her than averag e CHV005 25 0.297 2.440 1.400 0.081 1.460 48 100 hi g her than averag e CHV006 68 0.125 2.370 1.174 0.065 1.113 42 90 hi g her than averag e CHV007 73 0.053 2.400 0.878 0.055 0.812 22 70 hi g her than averag e CHV008 67 0.075 1.970 0.853 0.048 0.810 21 70 hi g her than averag e CHV013 49 0.075 4.602 1.337 0.099 1.310 46 90 hi g her than averag e CHV009 74 0.075 1.990 0.928 0.049 0.913 35 70 hi g her than averag e CHV010 67 0.075 2.300 0.806 0.049 0.762 14 60 average CHV011 66 0.055 1.710 0.625 0.037 0.561 1 50 averag e CHV012 48 0.075 1.950 0.843 0.054 0.813 23 70 hi g her than averag e GSV001 62 0.075 2.526 1.041 0.081 0.868 28 70 hi g her than averag e GSV003 15 0.555 1.202 0.743 0.043 0.725 8 60 average GSV004 16 0.526 1.202 0.723 0.047 0.644 6 50 average PIJIM1 34 0.075 4.302 1.038 0.138 0.825 24 70 hi g her than averag e PIV001 51 0.075 1.975 0.697 0.052 0.602 4 50 average PIV002 68 0.075 1.970 0.760 0.041 0.739 11 60 average PIV004 49 0.070 1.845 0.772 0.071 0.771 18 60 average PIV006 61 0.065 2.510 0.875 0.059 0.935 36 80 hi g her than averag e PIV007 46 0.055 1.530 0.784 0.047 0.782 19 60 average MPV001 66 0.210 1.900 0.904 0.043 0.865 27 70 hi g her than averag e MPV002 70 0.032 2.470 0.914 0.050 0.872 32 70 hi g her than averag e MPV003 58 0.070 3.840 0.896 0.076 0.767 15 60 average EBV001 68 0.075 1.980 0.740 0.044 0.747 12 60 average MPV004 65 0.055 2.930 0.834 0.054 0.830 25 70 hi g her than averag e SCV001 65 0.075 1.930 0.744 0.042 0.738 10 60 average SCV002 51 0.075 2.815 0.690 0.062 0.630 5 50 average EBERS2 47 0.075 2.370 0.919 0.066 0.870 30 70 hi g her than averag e EBV003 46 0.075 2.005 0.839 0.066 0.876 33 70 hi g her than averag e EBV004 62 0.053 4.046 0.787 0.071 0.770 17 60 average EBV005 67 0.065 2.060 0.783 0.045 0.750 13 60 average EBV006 14 0.085 1.102 0.691 0.082 0.719 7 60 average EBV007 40 0.075 1.550 0.631 0.051 0.597 3 50 average Outside of estuar y GSV005 37 0.380 2.960 1.240 0.094 1.125 43 90 hi g her than averag e All sites 2402 0.032 4.602 0.887 0.010 0.827 70 hi g her than averag e *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average > 70

Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXI Table A.18: Total phosphorus (ppm) summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 6 0.160 0.700 0.297 0.083 0.220 40 80 hi g her than averag e LBGOT2 8 0.200 0.480 0.332 0.034 0.330 46 90 hi g her than averag e LBV001 74 0.010 0.610 0.207 0.011 0.205 39 80 hi g her than averag e LBV002 68 0.015 1.080 0.191 0.017 0.170 35 80 hi g her than averag e LBV003 72 0.025 0.380 0.176 0.009 0.170 36 80 hi g her than averag e GSV002 64 0.010 0.220 0.072 0.005 0.065 18 40 average LBANG1 7 0.078 0.180 0.107 0.014 0.090 28 50 average LBOYS1 8 0.049 0.120 0.078 0.008 0.077 23 50 average LBV004 70 0.025 0.270 0.086 0.005 0.080 25 50 average LBV005 65 0.010 0.420 0.070 0.007 0.060 8 40 average LBV006 53 0.015 0.270 0.113 0.008 0.100 30 60 average LBV007 8 0.038 0.086 0.058 0.007 0.055 5 40 average CHV001 70 0.090 0.790 0.289 0.016 0.260 43 90 hi g her than averag e CHV002 41 0.010 0.430 0.239 0.017 0.240 42 90 hi g her than averag e CHV003 53 0.060 0.500 0.187 0.013 0.180 37 80 hi g her than averag e CHV004 68 0.080 0.650 0.267 0.016 0.235 41 90 hi g her than averag e CHV005 29 0.230 0.750 0.509 0.025 0.510 47 100 hi g her than averag e CHV006 70 0.080 0.810 0.335 0.021 0.290 45 90 hi g her than averag e CHV007 78 0.040 0.900 0.226 0.016 0.200 38 80 hi g her than averag e CHV008 72 0.015 0.590 0.157 0.011 0.130 34 70 hi g her than averag e CHV013 51 0.250 1.500 0.731 0.034 0.680 48 100 hi g her than averag e CHV009 77 0.013 0.350 0.134 0.008 0.120 32 60 average CHV010 71 0.010 0.340 0.102 0.007 0.090 29 50 average CHV011 67 0.005 0.420 0.103 0.008 0.080 26 50 averag e CHV012 49 0.025 0.350 0.131 0.010 0.120 33 60 average GSV001 68 0.005 0.310 0.072 0.006 0.064 16 40 average GSV003 17 0.030 0.130 0.070 0.008 0.060 9 40 average GSV004 16 0.025 0.240 0.086 0.012 0.083 27 50 average PIJIM1 35 0.015 0.900 0.158 0.028 0.100 31 60 average PIV001 57 0.025 0.250 0.082 0.006 0.070 20 50 average PIV002 70 0.005 0.230 0.068 0.005 0.060 10 40 average PIV004 52 0.010 0.100 0.050 0.003 0.050 3 40 average PIV006 65 0.010 0.170 0.061 0.004 0.058 6 40 average PIV007 51 0.005 0.220 0.048 0.005 0.040 1 30 lower than average MPV001 74 0.010 0.290 0.087 0.006 0.078 24 50 average MPV002 76 0.010 0.260 0.083 0.005 0.073 21 50 average MPV003 62 0.010 0.180 0.080 0.005 0.076 22 50 average EBV001 72 0.030 0.270 0.071 0.004 0.065 17 40 average MPV004 69 0.010 0.260 0.073 0.005 0.063 15 40 average SCV001 68 0.010 0.220 0.063 0.004 0.060 7 40 average SCV002 54 0.005 0.250 0.068 0.007 0.050 4 40 average EBERS2 48 0.008 0.140 0.051 0.004 0.045 2 30 lower than average EBV003 49 0.020 0.130 0.067 0.003 0.060 11 40 average EBV004 68 0.010 0.500 0.074 0.008 0.060 12 40 average EBV005 73 0.005 0.360 0.076 0.006 0.060 13 40 average EBV006 19 0.015 0.250 0.077 0.013 0.060 14 40 average EBV007 40 0.010 0.270 0.075 0.008 0.065 19 40 average Outside of estuar y GSV005 38 0.080 0.530 0.286 0.017 0.270 44 90 hi g her than averag e All sites 2540 0.005 1.500 0.141 0.003 0.090 50 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average > 70

Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXII Table A.19: Chloroph y ll a (μ g /L

) summar y

and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 6 9.06 23.90 15.09 2.41 13.00 48 80 higher than average LBGOT2 8 1.38 14.50 5.21 1.52 4.13 20 40 average LBV001 65 0.50 48.73 8.43 1.02 6.00 36 50 average LBV002 66 0.50 30.30 8.48 0.83 6.88 42 60 average LBV003 64 1.40 52.30 10.75 1.35 6.32 37 60 average GSV002 56 0.01 18.73 3.88 0.43 3.10 6 30 lower than average LBANG1 7 0.71 9.54 5.73 1.10 5.94 35 50 average LBOYS1 8 0.71 7.03 3.38 0.81 2.91 3 30 lower than average LBV004 69 0.25 23.20 5.51 0.54 4.83 26 40 average LBV005 56 0.50 79.46 6.73 1.57 3.60 11 30 lower than average LBV006 51 0.25 34.60 6.54 0.79 5.51 32 50 average LBV007 8 0.71 11.00 4.97 1.24 3.82 13 40 average CHV001 62 0.01 65.60 12.69 1.56 8.83 44 70 higher than average CHV002 42 1.46 42.10 9.33 1.16 6.95 43 60 average CHV003 44 0.72 17.39 6.07 0.66 4.95 29 40 average CHV004 64 0.50 36.50 9.32 1.02 6.52 39 60 average CHV005 32 1.60 88.50 20.55 3.96 10.92 47 80 higher than average CHV006 63 0.50 82.10 9.37 1.56 6.73 40 60 average CHV007 72 0.01 28.68 6.91 0.68 5.14 30 50 average CHV008 66 0.50 15.89 4.22 0.39 3.30 8 30 lower than average CHV013 37 0.01 53.70 13.60 2.17 9.82 46 70 higher than average CHV009 66 0.01 24.12 7.09 0.58 6.34 38 60 average CHV010 68 0.01 21.20 5.19 0.51 4.01 18 40 average CHV011 64 0.01 34.18 4.52 0.69 3.06 5 30 lower than avera g e CHV012 49 0.50 17.70 5.95 0.54 4.91 28 40 average GSV001 61 0.50 16.65 3.31 0.42 2.16 1 20 lower than average GSV003 20 0.50 15.20 4.38 0.77 3.87 14 40 average GSV004 15 1.67 18.20 4.63 1.02 3.59 10 30 lower than average PIJIM1 23 0.88 34.30 8.93 1.55 6.79 41 60 average PIV001 53 0.50 27.87 4.92 0.62 4.00 17 40 average PIV002 68 0.50 26.70 7.48 0.82 5.36 31 50 average PIV004 46 0.25 39.70 5.36 0.93 4.16 22 40 average PIV006 62 0.01 25.64 6.66 0.70 5.69 33 50 average PIV007 46 0.50 26.00 6.70 0.71 5.86 34 50 average MPV001 63 0.50 34.10 5.56 0.64 4.37 23 40 average MPV002 70 0.25 25.43 5.62 0.66 3.62 12 30 lower than average MPV003 54 0.50 72.50 4.78 1.40 2.57 2 20 lower than average EBV001 66 0.25 28.35 5.13 0.50 4.15 21 40 average MPV004 63 0.25 18.80 3.76 0.44 3.04 4 30 lower than average SCV001 63 0.01 22.30 4.47 0.51 3.87 14 40 average SCV002 53 0.25 24.80 4.20 0.53 3.34 9 30 lower than average EBERS2 35 0.01 114.00 7.80 3.19 3.10 6 30 lower than average EBV003 46 0.50 26.67 4.85 0.68 3.98 16 40 average EBV004 66 0.01 11.92 5.21 0.36 4.81 25 40 average EBV005 65 0.01 33.00 6.06 0.80 4.07 19 40 average EBV006 19 0.50 15.20 5.22 0.82 4.65 24 40 average EBV007 32 0.01 23.56 5.61 0.88 4.89 27 40 average Outside of estuar y GSV005 28 0.01 29.70 9.56 1.35 9.14 45 70 higher than average All sites 2310 0.01 114.00 6.70 0.16 4.79 40 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average > 70 Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXIII Table A.20: Fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 6 8 120 78 22 106 44 100 higher than average LBGOT2 8 5 170 87 21 110 45 100 higher than average LBV001 80 1 1156 219 26 132 47 100 higher than average LBV002 80 1 240 35 6 12 25 70 higher than average LBV003 78 1 480 40 8 18 32 80 higher than average GSV002 67 1 130 18 3 10 24 70 higher than average LBANG1 7 12 180 97 22 120 46 100 higher than average LBOYS1 8 12 228 86 27 50 40 90 higher than average LBV004 79 1 232 16 4 4 15 50 average LBV005 70 1 58 7 1 3 14 50 average LBV006 63 1 800 128 20 84 42 100 higher than average LBV007 8 1 35 8 4 2 6 40 average CHV001 76 1 220 43 6 26 36 80 higher than average CHV002 43 1 48 9 2 4 15 50 average CHV003 57 1 288 54 8 36 38 90 higher than average CHV004 77 1 296 33 6 18 32 80 higher than average CHV005 34 2 776 104 24 60 41 90 higher than average CHV006 79 1 180 29 4 14 28 70 higher than average CHV007 87 1 288 42 5 30 37 80 higher than average CHV008 82 1 800 62 15 24 35 80 higher than average CHV013 52 1 800 89 19 49 39 90 higher than average CHV009 78 1 152 22 4 9 23 70 higher than average CHV010 82 1 98 10 2 4 15 50 average CHV011 74 1 372 7 5 1 1 10 lower than avera g e CHV012 60 1 162 8 3 2 6 40 average GSV001 72 1 248 30 5 16 31 70 higher than average GSV003 21 1 79 7 4 2 6 40 average GSV004 16 2 280 38 18 12 25 70 higher than average PIJIM1 34 1 352 44 12 18 34 80 higher than average PIV001 66 1 224 21 5 7 20 60 average PIV002 84 1 122 6 2 1 1 10 lower than average PIV004 63 1 144 9 4 1 1 10 lower than average PIV006 76 1 260 8 4 1 1 10 lower than average PIV007 60 1 68 4 1 1 1 10 lower than average MPV001 79 1 60 5 1 2 6 40 average MPV002 87 1 106 15 2 8 22 60 average MPV003 68 1 94 6 2 2 6 40 average EBV001 81 1 274 27 5 14 28 70 higher than average MPV004 81 1 364 11 5 4 15 50 average SCV001 80 1 98 4 1 2 6 40 average SCV002 68 1 16 3 0 2 6 40 average EBERS2 49 4 800 160 26 104 43 100 higher than average EBV003 58 1 186 32 6 12 25 70 higher than average EBV004 80 1 70 11 1 4 15 50 average EBV005 83 1 384 39 8 14 28 70 higher than average EBV006 21 1 34 7 2 2 6 40 average EBV007 40 1 120 13 3 7 20 60 average Outside of estuar y GSV005 37 1 1720 278 61 148 48 100 higher than average All sites 2839 1 1720 38 2 8 60 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average > 70

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXIV Table A.21: Turbidity (NTU) summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 6 2.0 3.6 2.7 0.2 2.7 28 50 average LBGOT2 8 1.1 3.0 1.7 0.2 1.6 2 30 lower than average LBV001 77 1.0 5.8 2.6 0.1 2.5 20 50 average LBV002 76 0.5 9.2 2.7 0.2 2.5 19 50 average LBV003 73 0.6 66.0 3.7 0.9 2.7 29 50 average GSV002 66 0.5 9.7 3.6 0.3 3.2 37 60 average LBANG1 7 1.4 3.6 2.4 0.3 2.2 11 40 average LBOYS1 8 1.8 3.6 2.4 0.2 2.2 12 40 average LBV004 77 0.5 9.0 3.0 0.2 2.9 30 50 average LBV005 68 0.5 8.9 3.3 0.3 2.6 24 50 average LBV006 62 1.0 9.7 2.7 0.2 2.3 13 40 average LBV007 8 1.3 2.7 1.8 0.2 1.7 3 30 lower than average CHV001 71 1.0 7.9 2.9 0.2 2.6 27 50 average CHV002 38 1.3 8.1 3.8 0.3 3.5 38 60 average CHV003 59 1.0 5.4 2.4 0.1 2.1 10 40 average CHV004 73 0.5 23.0 3.2 0.3 3.0 32 50 average CHV005 28 2.0 13.9 4.5 0.5 3.9 40 60 average CHV006 75 1.0 18.0 3.6 0.3 3.0 33 50 average CHV007 82 0.5 17.4 2.9 0.2 2.6 22 50 average CHV008 78 0.5 7.8 2.3 0.2 2.0 6 40 average CHV013 52 1.4 24.0 4.7 0.5 4.1 41 60 average CHV009 77 0.5 6.5 2.3 0.1 2.1 9 40 average CHV010 78 0.5 18.6 3.1 0.3 2.4 15 40 average CHV011 71 0.1 21.0 2.2 0.3 1.6 1 30 lower than avera g e CHV012 56 0.6 7.3 2.8 0.2 2.4 18 40 average GSV001 71 0.9 30.0 3.1 0.4 2.6 25 50 average GSV003 19 1.0 13.8 5.4 0.7 4.9 45 70 higher than average GSV004 16 1.6 6.4 3.3 0.3 3.2 36 60 average PIJIM1 35 1.0 6.0 1.9 0.2 1.7 4 30 lower than average PIV001 64 0.5 9.7 3.2 0.3 2.5 21 50 average PIV002 79 0.3 10.2 3.0 0.3 2.3 14 40 average PIV004 59 0.5 28.0 4.9 0.7 2.9 31 50 average PIV006 71 0.5 26.0 5.4 0.6 3.8 39 60 average PIV007 60 0.5 8.7 2.9 0.2 2.6 23 50 average MPV001 74 0.3 6.6 2.3 0.1 2.0 5 40 average MPV002 81 0.7 6.8 2.7 0.1 2.4 16 40 average MPV003 66 0.1 10.5 2.4 0.2 2.0 8 40 average EBV001 77 0.7 120.0 6.4 1.5 4.5 44 70 higher than average MPV004 78 0.5 8.8 3.0 0.2 2.6 26 50 average SCV001 75 0.5 14.7 3.9 0.3 3.1 35 50 average SCV002 64 0.4 13.3 3.5 0.3 3.0 34 50 average EBERS2 49 0.5 4.4 2.1 0.1 2.0 7 40 average EBV003 55 1.0 16.9 4.9 0.4 4.4 43 70 higher than average EBV004 75 1.0 24.0 6.2 0.5 5.2 47 70 higher than average EBV005 79 0.1 52.0 7.2 0.8 5.0 46 70 higher than average EBV006 21 1.0 26.0 8.9 1.4 6.7 48 80 higher than average EBV007 40 0.5 11.3 4.7 0.4 4.2 42 70 higher than average Outside of estuar y GSV005 38 1.0 7.3 2.6 0.2 2.4 17 40 average All sites 2720 0.1 120.0 3.5 0.1 2.7 50 average *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***above average < 40, 40 < average < 70, below average > 70

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

# Appendix A CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXV Table A.22: Color (PCU) summary and status results for each site Site N Min Max Mean SE Median Rank* FL Estuaries** Status*** LBFOR1 6 30 240 78 33 50 37 80 hi gher than averag e LBGOT2 8 80 200 123 14 110 48 100 hi gher than averag e LBV001 77 10 120 47 3 45 35 80 hi gher than averag e LBV002 75 5 200 30 3 23 21 60 average LBV003 73 4 120 24 2 20 12 50 average GSV002 66 3 100 16 2 15 3 50 average LBANG1 7 20 240 77 29 50 37 80 hi gher than averag e LBOYS1 8 20 160 58 17 30 24 70 hi gher than averag e LBV004 77 3 120 21 3 15 3 50 average LBV005 68 1 60 15 1 12 2 40 average LBV006 62 3 100 39 3 30 24 70 hi gher than averag e LBV007 8 10 40 23 4 20 12 50 average CHV001 71 5 240 59 5 50 37 80 hi gher than averag e CHV002 38 25 320 103 12 75 45 90 hi gher than averag e CHV003 59 15 210 71 7 50 37 80 hi gher than averag e CHV004 73 10 245 62 6 50 37 80 hi gher than averag e CHV005 29 15 280 110 16 70 44 90 hi gher than averag e CHV006 75 10 320 72 7 50 37 80 hi gher than averag e CHV007 82 10 265 52 5 34 33 70 hi gher than averag e CHV008 78 4 200 44 4 34 33 70 hi gher than averag e CHV013 52 20 400 118 11 90 47 90 hi gher than averag e CHV009 77 10 120 39 3 30 24 70 hi gher than averag e CHV010 78 3 120 27 2 20 12 50 average CHV011 71 1 140 23 3 15 3 50 averag e CHV012 56 3 100 26 3 20 12 50 average GSV001 71 5 70 24 2 20 12 50 average GSV003 19 5 15 9 1 10 1 30 lower than average GSV004 16 15 120 34 6 30 24 70 hi gher than averag e PIJIM1 35 19 200 71 8 54 43 80 hi gher than averag e PIV001 64 1 100 21 2 17 9 50 average PIV002 80 3 60 20 1 17 9 50 average PIV004 59 3 50 15 1 15 3 50 average PIV006 71 3 70 23 2 20 12 50 average PIV007 60 3 60 18 2 15 3 50 average MPV001 74 1 160 34 3 30 24 70 hi gher than averag e MPV002 81 6 120 39 3 33 32 70 hi gher than averag e MPV003 66 3 160 37 4 29 23 70 hi gher than averag e EBV001 77 3 120 26 2 20 12 50 average MPV004 78 2 160 35 4 25 22 60 average SCV001 75 3 140 26 3 20 12 50 average SCV002 64 1 95 21 2 15 3 50 average EBERS2 49 1 120 50 4 47 36 80 hi gher than averag e EBV003 55 5 110 32 3 30 24 70 hi gher than averag e EBV004 75 1 140 22 2 18 11 50 average EBV005 79 1 130 32 3 30 24 70 hi gher than averag e EBV006 21 1 40 20 2 20 12 50 average EBV007 40 1 100 30 3 30 24 70 hi gher than averag e Outside of estuar y GSV005 38 17 360 96 11 80 46 90 hi gher than averag e All sites 2721 1 400 39 1 26 70 hi gher than averag e *Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN **Median value compared to typcial Florida estuarine water quality percentile distributions (Hand 2004) ***lower average < 40, 40 < average < 70, higher than average > 70

Upper Lemon Bay

Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

Estero Bay Gasparilla/Cape Haze

Pine Island

Sound

Matlacha Pass
San Carlos Bay

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXVI 

# Appendix B: Water Quality Comparisons Page Table B.1: Non parametric ANOVA (Kruska l-Wallis) results between aquatic preserves for the entire study duration ________________________________ XXVII Table B.2: Non parametric t-test (Mann- Whitney) results between the rainy and dry season ___________________________________________ XXVIII-XXIX Table B.3: Aquatic Preserve non par ametric t-test (Mann-Whitney) post hoc comparisons _____________________________________ XXX-XXXVIII

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXVII Table B.1: Non parametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis) results between aquatic preserves for the entire study duration Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Chi-Square 497 11 464 1109 1125 159 1198 157 630 209 518 df 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 p (2 tailed) 0.0000 0.2210 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Bold values significant at the .05 level

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXVIII Table B.2: Non parametric t-test (Mann Whitney) results between the rainy and dry season Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Rain 74.3 289.6 121.3 174.1 167.6 135.52 139.70 127.5 127 129.5 155 Dry 93.2 119.6 233.7 199.8 203.5 92.19 97.46 90.8 126 114.6 97 Rain 7727.0 46333.5 18801.0 27502.5 26313.5 12197.00 12852.00 10324.5 13196 12302.5 14566 Dry 5314.0 26437.5 50950.0 43750.5 44562.5 11893.00 13254.00 11620.5 18682 16617.5 14114 Mann Whitney U 2267.0 1906.5 6711.0 14941.5 13910.5 3508.0 3938.0 3364.5 7656.0 6032.5 3529.0 Z -2.493 -14.886 -9.927 -2.280 -3.157 -4.979 -4.749 -4.272 -0.070 -1.626 -6.316 p (2 tailed)* 0.0130 0.0000 0.0000 0.0226 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.9440 0.1040 0.0000 Rain 112.3 411.0 185.2 244.3 233.6 159.22 141.13 157.7 155 144.0 192 Dry 118.7 165.1 305.4 271.1 276.7 114.68 135.97 108.5 149 151.5 120 Rain 13031.0 85904.0 37600.0 50332.0 48352.5 17355.00 15242.50 15925.5 18626 16988.0 22611 Dry 13534.0 52171.0 95270.0 85128.0 86068.5 17890.00 22707.50 16714.5 27128 26968.0 21346 Mann Whitney U 6245.0 2085.0 16894.0 29011.0 26824.5 5644.0 8679.5 4779.5 10474.5 9967.0 5414.5 Z -0.731 -18.212 -8.956 -2.024 -3.215 -4.656 -0.526 -5.204 -0.602 -0.742 -7.099 p (2 tailed)* 0.4649 0.0000 0.0000 0.0430 0.0013 0.0000 0.5986 0.0000 0.5470 0.4580 0.0000 Rain 171.4 512.2 175.3 246.9 255.4 302.77 321.20 253.1 301 265.2 369 Dry 221.6 206.7 427.6 383.4 371.9 220.37 231.66 234.1 289 287.3 219 Rain 32390.0 134707.0 46099.5 64699.5 66646.0 60553.00 66488.00 47337.0 71999 58605.0 81893 Dry 45425.0 81446.0 165475.5 151453.5 144279.0 67212.00 75290.00 69066.0 100580 96241.0 73510 Mann Whitney U 14435.0 3631.0 11383.5 30246.5 32455.0 20547.0 22315.0 25406.0 39853.5 34074.0 17230.0 Z -4.390 -20.247 -16.817 -9.142 -7.762 -6.206 -6.552 -1.461 -0.859 -1.588 -10.744 p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1440 0.3905 0.1123 0.0000 Rain 46.8 193.4 89.6 111.0 103.0 122.72 120.85 113.4 113 113.0 146 Dry 61.3 75.5 149.9 135.4 140.8 91.22 99.60 90.1 121 113.8 91 Rain 2807.5 21079.0 9495.5 11760.5 11018.0 10308.50 10272.50 9071.5 11094 10395.5 13422 Dry 2757.5 10799.0 21132.5 19364.5 19858.0 11219.50 12947.50 10629.5 16401 15255.5 12230 Mann Whitney U 977.5 503.0 3824.5 6089.5 5240.0 3593.5 4432.5 3608.5 6243.0 6117.5 3184.5 Z -2.415 -12.740 -6.567 -2.707 -4.117 -3.716 -2.454 -2.810 -0.841 -0.096 -6.192 p (2 tailed)* 0.0158 0.0000 0.0000 0.0068 0.0000 0.0002 0.0141 0.0050 0.4005 0.9232 0.0000 Rain 41.2 148.8 75.1 92.2 86.3 79.72 82.23 88.3 81 81.4 101 Dry 45.9 57.5 108.6 101.4 104.1 64.90 71.02 63.1 87 81.5 69 Rain 1813.0 12203.5 5929.5 7655.5 7080.0 4624.00 4933.50 5030.0 5459 5293.5 6556 Dry 1928.0 6324.5 11836.5 11259.5 11448.0 5387.00 6391.50 5555.0 8907 7909.5 6647 Mann Whitney U 823.0 219.5 2769.5 4169.5 3677.0 1901.0 2296.5 1639.0 3180.5 3148.5 1894.0 Z -0.875 -11.286 -4.172 -1.162 -2.187 -2.120 -1.550 -3.521 -0.765 -0.014 -4.337 p ( 2 tailed ) * 0.3815 0.0000 0.0000 0.2452 0.0287 0.0343 0.1210 0.0000 0.4440 0.9891 0.0000 *Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Mean Rank

Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Sum of Ranks

Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Lower Lemon

Bay Upper Lemon

Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor

Gasparilla/

Cape Haze

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXIX Table B.2, cont. Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Rain 86.4 309.1 145.4 189.9 166.2 170.38 167.47 195.8 189 178.1 223 Dry 81.4 125.0 231.7 197.8 223.3 145.10 164.19 119.2 194 188.8 159 Rain 7513.5 50697.0 23262.5 30375.5 27093.5 20616.00 22105.50 23101.5 29805 26354.0 33186 Dry 6514.5 29503.0 53765.5 45090.5 52706.5 27279.00 32509.50 21449.5 43732 41542.0 35080 Mann Whitney U 3274.5 1537.0 10382.5 17495.5 13727.5 9513.0 12808.5 5159.5 17243.5 15328.0 10769.5 Z -0.660 -15.693 -7.419 -0.697 -4.863 -2.428 -0.306 -7.036 -0.526 -0.952 -5.625 p (2 tailed)* 0.5092 0.0000 0.0000 0.4856 0.0000 0.0151 0.7594 0.0000 0.5991 0.3413 0.0000 Rain 73.0 204.0 77.6 105.5 101.3 113.30 123.94 117.5 118 133.2 143 Dry 121.8 81.1 160.3 139.7 148.8 87.32 94.60 79.7 117 97.1 91 Rain 6135.5 21618.5 7991.0 10976.0 10639.5 8611.00 10658.50 8339.0 11241 11326.0 12172 Dry 14367.5 12572.5 23887.0 20399.0 22771.5 10304.00 11919.50 9239.0 16254 13205.0 12360 Mann Whitney U 2565.5 482.5 2635.0 5516.0 5074.5 3283.0 3918.5 2453.0 6524.0 3889.0 3043.5 Z -5.848 -12.931 -8.861 -3.780 -5.024 -3.147 -3.426 -4.062 -0.157 -4.091 -5.936 p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0016 0.0006 0.0000 0.8749 0.0000 0.0000 Rain 149.3 266.2 108.3 160.0 146.9 145.78 137.77 152.0 157 138.9 176 Dry 174.3 105.1 207.7 176.9 185.7 112.61 128.23 104.9 154 153.2 129 Rain 20157.5 36742.0 14616.5 22245.0 20120.0 13557.50 14328.00 14288.5 19678 16250.0 20541 Dry 33470.5 21228.0 41328.5 35385.0 37510.0 17567.50 20388.00 15846.5 28528 27115.0 22824 Mann Whitney U 10977.5 725.0 5436.5 12515.0 10667.0 5321.5 7668.0 4370.5 11322.5 9347.0 7071.0 Z -2.360 -14.863 -9.239 -1.614 -3.580 -3.515 -0.998 -4.687 -0.317 -1.412 -4.618 p (2 tailed)* 0.0183 0.0000 0.0000 0.1066 0.0003 0.0004 0.3185 0.0000 0.7516 0.1579 0.0000 Rain 90.3 279.8 114.1 167.3 147.4 157.23 137.21 152.6 155 125.1 197 Dry 87.9 112.3 223.3 187.2 201.2 125.51 157.22 119.2 174 183.4 135 Rain 7406.0 41411.5 16657.0 24591.0 21661.5 17768.00 16740.00 15410.5 21253 16012.5 25254 Dry 8347.0 23929.5 46889.0 39312.0 42241.5 20458.00 27513.00 19305.5 33694 35027.5 25787 Mann Whitney U 3787.0 1138.5 5926.0 13713.0 10783.5 7092.0 9237.0 6102.5 11799.5 7756.5 7450.5 Z -0.319 -15.023 -9.850 -1.830 -4.847 -3.248 -1.980 -3.465 -1.742 -5.533 -5.933 p (2 tailed)* 0.7500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0672 0.0000 0.0012 0.0477 0.0010 0.0814 0.0000 0.0000 Rain 870 2664 1173 1578 1496 1392 1333 1354 1405 1325 1671 Dry 1029 1068 2041 1785 1845 1075 1229 1029 1430 1384 1156 Rain 804897 3739879 1612162 2193928 2078909 1330995 1345419 1216037 1623964 1433380 1810166 Dry 1006760 2171763 4081463 3587772 3716402 1555009 1881652 1453169 2407417 2267180 1893115 Mann Whitney U 376622 102168 667537 1227183 1112164 508828 708906 4555906 955218 847477 550774 Z -6.331 -46.406 -25.417 -6.090 -10.203 -10.961 -3.512 -11.417 -0.823 -1.930 -16.801 p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.4104 0.0482 0.0000 *Bold values significant at the .05 level A ll Aquatic Preserves San Carlos

Bay Matlacha

Pass

Sum of Ranks

Estero

Bay Sum of Ranks Sum of Ranks Pine Island Sound

Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Mean Rank Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Mean Rank Mean Rank

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXX Table B.3: Aquatic Preserve non parametric t-test (Mann Whitney) post hoc comparisons Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Secchi 217.15 373.26 85558.00 39192.00 7743 -9.886 0.0000 Temp 449.09 470.40 295055.00 118540.00 78902 -1.097 0.2727 DO 440.40 471.63 286260.00 116493.00 74685 -1.613 0.1067 pH 353.83 716.49 232465.00 178406.00 16312 -18.764 0.0000 Salinity 369.23 657.76 239629.00 163124.00 28704 -14.918 0.0000 TN 388.66 278.04 196273.00 57555.00 36027 -5.063 0.0000 TP 450.00 185.95 239398.50 39979.50 16760 -15.147 0.0000 Chl a 364.61 281.82 175740.00 55800.00 36099 -4.869 0.0000 Coliform 478.38 241.97 280810.50 56620.50 29126 -12.920 0.0000 Turbidity 423.91 311.77 235692.50 70460.50 44810 -6.294 0.0000 Color 452.82 242.11 252219.50 54716.50 29066 -11.827 0.0000 Upper Charlotte Gasp/Cape Haze Upper Charlotte Gasp/Cape Haze Secchi 213.24 365.38 84017.00 31423.00 6202 -9.243 0.0000 Temp 416.28 454.84 273495.50 87329.50 57343 -1.920 0.0549 DO 438.86 352.56 285260.50 66280.50 48515 -4.307 0.0000 pH 350.65 681.16 230380.00 132146.00 14227 -16.595 0.0000 Salinity 343.60 682.63 222995.50 131065.50 12071 -16.989 0.0000 TN 338.60 269.43 170991.50 37989.50 27979 -3.891 0.0001 TP 400.82 131.10 213238.00 19665.00 8340 -14.812 0.0000 Chl a 340.54 225.77 164142.00 32736.00 22151 -6.690 0.0000 Coliform 413.56 256.73 242758.00 43388.00 29023 -8.235 0.0000 Turbidity 358.61 362.56 199386.00 58735.00 44540 -0.214 0.8309 Color 413.17 177.19 230134.50 28705.50 15503 -12.745 0.0000 Upper Charlotte Estero Bay Upper Charlotte Estero Bay Secchi 253.78 357.72 99989.50 63316.50 22175 -6.985 0.0000 Temp 511.21 506.39 335862.50 182808.50 117468 -0.250 0.8024 DO 536.25 443.70 348563.00 157958.00 94412 -4.832 0.0000 pH 401.34 702.87 263679.00 250926.00 47526 -15.811 0.0000 Salinity 397.71 695.82 258111.50 248409.50 47187 -15.572 0.0000 TN 435.31 309.92 219832.50 85538.50 47313 -7.425 0.0000 TP 547.60 177.49 291321.00 52714.00 8461 -21.345 0.0000 Chl a 407.83 309.16 196575.50 81309.50 46594 -5.981 0.0000 Coliform 496.08 394.62 291201.50 130619.50 75674 -5.573 0.0000 Turbidity 382.43 534.86 212629.50 170620.50 57784 -8.588 0.0000 Color 517.62 300.36 288312.00 95814.00 44774 -12.247 0.0000 Upper Charlotte San Carlos Bay Upper Charlotte San Carlos Bay Secchi 260.86 481.66 102779.00 157502.00 24964 -14.201 0.0000 Temp 485.61 524.88 319042.50 178460.50 102890 -2.045 0.0409 DO 440.32 594.05 286206.00 198414.00 74631 -8.037 0.0000 pH 358.44 769.94 235498.00 261008.00 19345 -21.564 0.0000 Salinity 377.98 717.58 245308.00 243258.00 34383 -17.759 0.0000 TN 422.94 285.35 213583.00 71052.00 39927 -8.158 0.0000 TP 515.91 159.49 274464.00 41946.00 7230 -20.596 0.0000 Chl a 411.21 271.11 198205.00 66423.00 36288 -8.503 0.0000 Coliform 541.68 273.50 317968.00 84785.00 36580 -14.782 0.0000 Turbidity 402.51 468.98 223794.50 137880.50 68949 -3.755 0.0002 Color 512.95 261.27 285713.00 76813.00 33448 -14.219 0.0000 * Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXI Table B.3, cont. Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * Upper Charlotte Lower Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Lemon Bay Secchi 248.21 422.64 97793.50 97206.50 19979 -11.693 0.0000 Temp 592.09 590.76 389002.50 310150.50 172076 -0.066 0.9470 DO 629.81 523.92 409377.50 269817.50 136948 -5.337 0.0000 pH 397.29 831.21 261022.00 432231.00 44869 -21.914 0.0000 Salinity 373.22 848.09 242218.00 439310.00 31293 -23.915 0.0000 TN 427.90 304.69 216092.00 80743.00 45498 -7.303 0.0000 TP 519.86 179.87 276564.50 49463.50 11514 -19.643 0.0000 Chl a 405.84 299.36 195616.00 76337.00 43697 -6.792 0.0000 Coliform 482.82 371.49 283415.50 112189.50 66437 -6.129 0.0000 Turbidity 431.37 417.34 239844.00 123534.00 79578 -0.792 0.4281 Color 523.53 245.35 291607.50 72623.50 28668 -15.716 0.0000 Upper Charlotte Upper Lemon Bay Upper Charlotte Upper Lemon Bay Secchi 282.01 268.19 111111.50 43178.50 30138 -0.926 0.3540 Temp 518.54 521.16 340679.00 198562.00 124526 -0.136 0.8918 DO 590.93 374.45 384106.50 139669.50 69919 -11.282 0.0000 pH 444.59 644.55 292098.00 242997.00 75945 -10.470 0.0000 Salinity 455.78 611.77 295798.00 230027.00 84873 -8.131 0.0000 TN 362.14 363.33 182880.00 79570.00 55115 -0.071 0.9437 TP 414.60 300.93 220568.00 68612.00 42506 -6.544 0.0000 Chl a 341.89 355.49 164789.50 74296.50 48387 -0.823 0.4110 Coliform 398.92 469.10 234167.50 118212.50 61590 -3.847 0.0001 Turbidity 412.39 366.32 229289.50 87916.50 58997 -2.595 0.0090 Color 447.79 283.64 249416.50 67789.50 39110 -9.246 0.0000 Upper Charlotte Matlacha Pass Upper Charlotte Matlacha Pass Secchi 228.32 435.39 89956.50 87949.50 12142 -13.926 0.0000 Temp 452.99 475.89 297612.50 124208.50 81460 -1.183 0.2369 DO 434.63 495.01 282511.00 124742.00 70936 -3.124 0.0018 pH 366.13 684.91 240550.50 171227.50 24398 -16.536 0.0000 Salinity 421.97 534.57 273858.50 137919.50 62934 -5.840 0.0000 TN 367.07 305.57 185370.00 59280.00 40365 -3.606 0.0000 TP 462.12 147.60 245848.50 31291.50 8714 -18.023 0.0000 Chl a 366.56 253.66 176680.50 47434.50 29857 -6.781 0.0000 Coliform 482.30 232.13 283112.50 54318.50 26824 -13.673 0.0000 Turbidity 415.66 321.92 231108.00 71145.00 46614 -5.253 0.0000 Color 434.11 277.06 241800.50 61230.50 36700 -8.802 0.0000 Upper Charlotte Pine Island Sound Upper Charlotte Pine Island Sound Secchi 238.88 380.37 94118.50 63522.50 16304 -9.481 0.0000 Temp 528.95 529.08 347520.50 211632.50 131368 -0.007 0.9946 DO 477.70 594.12 310506.50 232896.50 98932 -6.051 0.0000 pH 363.09 793.77 238550.50 307984.50 22398 -22.404 0.0000 Salinity 355.99 798.59 231039.00 318637.00 20114 -22.986 0.0000 TN 453.90 331.67 229219.00 102486.00 54591 -7.198 0.0000 TP 576.38 197.93 306636.00 65317.00 10702 -21.698 0.0000 Chl a 415.07 350.76 200064.00 104526.00 59975 -3.874 0.0001 Coliform 608.50 296.98 357191.00 113744.00 40208 -17.027 0.0000 Turbidity 466.47 456.50 259359.50 167990.50 100095 -0.556 0.5779 Color 584.82 280.37 325746.00 103455.00 35190 -16.983 0.0000 * Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXII Table B.3, cont. Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * Lower Charlotte Gasp/Cape Haze Lower Charlotte Gasp/Cape Haze Secchi 101.03 89.85 10608.50 7727.50 3987 -1.392 0.1638 Temp 218.28 228.04 55006.00 43784.00 23128 -0.796 0.4262 DO 244.67 182.95 60434.50 34395.50 16630 -5.074 0.0000 pH 225.52 217.48 56154.50 42191.50 23277 -0.671 0.5021 Salinity 186.68 264.18 46297.00 50723.00 15421 -6.341 0.0000 TN 166.05 186.90 34372.50 26353.50 12845 -1.898 0.0576 TP 201.89 155.93 43406.00 23389.00 12064 -4.100 0.0000 Chl a 181.12 159.54 35862.50 23133.50 12549 -1.992 0.0460 Coliform 185.96 224.21 43514.50 37891.50 16020 -3.296 0.0010 Turbidity 170.54 227.92 38542.50 36923.50 12892 -4.972 0.0000 Color 205.96 178.51 46547.50 28918.50 15716 -2.390 0.0168 Lower Charlotte Estero Bay Lower Charlotte Estero Bay Secchi 174.68 121.82 18341.50 21561.50 5809 -5.273 0.0000 Temp 317.77 299.48 80078.00 108113.00 42772 -1.260 0.2077 DO 349.59 268.98 86349.00 95757.00 32211 -5.589 0.0000 pH 359.57 264.39 89533.50 94387.50 30485 -6.704 0.0000 Salinity 292.11 310.57 72443.00 110872.00 41567 -1.277 0.2014 TN 242.28 241.79 50151.50 66734.50 28509 -0.038 0.9700 TP 332.51 201.48 71489.00 59839.00 15586 -9.906 0.0000 Chl a 232.38 229.96 46010.50 60480.50 25765 -0.192 0.8470 Coliform 225.26 323.82 52712.00 107183.00 25217 -7.119 0.0000 Turbidity 187.19 333.80 42304.00 106481.00 16653 -10.709 0.0000 Color 263.56 279.69 59563.50 89221.50 33913 -1.183 0.2370 Lower Charlotte San Carlos Bay Lower Charlotte San Carlos Bay Secchi 237.51 209.75 24939.00 68589.00 14961 -1.986 0.0471 Temp 290.81 300.72 73283.50 102244.50 41406 -0.698 0.4852 DO 250.80 320.73 61948.00 107123.00 31320 -4.966 0.0000 pH 302.98 288.27 75441.00 97725.00 40095 -1.064 0.2875 Salinity 276.46 306.83 68562.00 104016.00 37686 -2.143 0.0321 TN 234.15 223.80 48470.00 55726.00 24601 -0.836 0.4034 TP 305.43 185.60 65668.00 48813.00 14097 -9.450 0.0000 Chl a 238.96 208.29 47314.50 51031.50 20897 -2.507 0.0120 Coliform 274.63 270.89 64264.00 83976.00 35771 -0.281 0.7790 Turbidity 202.60 305.01 45788.00 89672.00 20137 -7.706 0.0000 Color 276.51 248.19 62492.00 72968.00 29603 -2.138 0.0325 Lower Charlotte Lower Lemon Bay Lower Charlotte Lower Lemon Bay Secchi 196.10 155.17 20590.50 35689.50 9125 -3.598 0.0003 Temp 401.55 382.98 101190.00 201063.00 62988 -1.081 0.2795 DO 448.60 349.32 110804.50 179898.50 47029 -5.829 0.0000 pH 396.69 379.40 98776.00 197289.00 61829 -1.029 0.3037 Salinity 283.11 431.56 70212.50 223548.50 39337 -8.689 0.0000 TN 236.67 236.37 48990.00 62638.00 27393 -0.023 0.9810 TP 290.11 210.62 62374.50 57920.50 19971 -6.175 0.0000 Chl a 232.44 222.77 46024.00 56807.00 24167 -0.780 0.4350 Coliform 221.27 305.10 51777.00 92139.00 24282 -6.267 0.0000 Turbidity 223.89 290.22 50598.50 85904.50 24948 -4.980 0.0000 Color 293.05 237.41 66230.00 70273.00 26317 -4.194 0.0000 * Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXIII Table B.3, cont. Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * Lower Charlotte Upper Lemon Bay Lower Charlotte Upper Lemon Bay Secchi 189.20 97.17 19866.00 15645.00 2604 -9.580 0.0000 Temp 325.19 311.58 81949.00 118712.00 45941 -0.918 0.3586 DO 401.90 249.97 99269.50 93240.50 23490 -10.341 0.0000 pH 402.29 254.86 100169.00 96082.00 24829 -10.076 0.0000 Salinity 366.26 277.04 90831.50 104168.50 33293 -6.050 0.0000 TN 176.89 248.10 36616.50 54334.50 15089 -5.967 0.0000 TP 153.36 286.73 32971.50 65374.50 9752 -10.967 0.0000 Chl a 174.18 232.25 34487.50 48540.50 14787 -4.978 0.0000 Coliform 163.36 317.91 38226.50 80114.50 10732 -12.170 0.0000 Turbidity 208.36 257.17 47090.00 61721.00 21439 -3.911 0.0001 Color 216.26 248.83 48874.50 59470.50 23224 -2.621 0.0088 Lower Charlotte Matlacha Pass Lower Charlotte Matlacha Pass Secchi 155.13 153.41 16288.50 30989.50 10487 -0.161 0.8722 Temp 256.46 257.52 64627.50 67213.50 32750 -0.081 0.9351 DO 242.29 257.56 59845.50 64904.50 29218 -1.183 0.2368 pH 287.42 212.73 71567.50 53182.50 21808 -5.901 0.0000 Salinity 316.03 193.39 78376.50 49894.50 16484 -9.433 0.0000 TN 185.31 217.74 38358.50 42242.50 16831 -2.801 0.0051 TP 246.77 180.77 53054.50 38323.50 15746 -5.533 0.0000 Chl a 201.83 183.66 39961.50 34343.50 16766 -1.602 0.1090 Coliform 235.80 233.20 55176.50 54569.50 27075 -0.212 0.8324 Turbidity 216.77 231.39 48990.50 51137.50 23340 -1.197 0.2314 Color 204.12 244.33 46130.50 53997.50 20480 -3.301 0.0010 Lower Charlotte Pine Island Sound Lower Charlotte Pine Island Sound Secchi 154.91 124.92 16266.00 20862.00 6834 -3.067 0.0022 Temp 335.70 320.71 84596.00 128282.00 48082 -0.991 0.3215 DO 286.92 340.84 70869.50 133610.50 40242 -3.596 0.0003 pH 269.15 350.99 67018.00 136185.00 35893 -5.570 0.0000 Salinity 245.09 373.04 60783.50 148844.50 29908 -8.466 0.0000 TN 258.55 258.47 53520.00 79866.00 31971 -0.006 0.9950 TP 355.97 218.94 76533.50 72251.50 17637 -9.941 0.0000 Chl a 236.28 256.62 46783.50 76472.50 27083 -1.548 0.1220 Coliform 338.11 291.21 79118.50 111534.50 37999 -3.292 0.0010 Turbidity 257.88 321.83 58281.50 118433.50 32631 -4.410 0.0000 Color 334.33 275.75 75558.00 101752.00 33487 -4.053 0.0001 Gasp/Cape Haze Estero Bay Gasp/Cape Haze Estero Bay Secchi 162.29 117.28 13957.00 20759.00 5006 -4.513 0.0000 Temp 295.41 267.21 56718.50 96462.50 31122 -1.979 0.0478 DO 267.70 275.04 50327.50 97912.50 32562 -0.518 0.6046 pH 326.87 248.36 63412.00 88664.00 24761 -5.645 0.0000 Salinity 321.34 250.08 61697.00 89278.00 25375 -5.020 0.0000 TN 224.34 201.16 31631.50 55521.50 17296 -1.857 0.0630 TP 261.84 204.89 39276.00 60852.00 16599 -4.409 0.0000 Chl a 187.51 213.87 27188.50 56247.50 16604 -2.162 0.0310 Coliform 221.63 265.24 37455.00 87795.00 23090 -3.206 0.0013 Turbidity 186.62 268.61 30233.00 85688.00 17030 -6.115 0.0000 Color 208.59 257.46 33791.50 82129.50 20589 -3.661 0.0003 * Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXIV Table B.3, cont. Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * Gasp/Cape Haze San Carlos Bay Gasp/Cape Haze San Carlos Bay Secchi 208.41 206.63 17923.00 67568.00 13940 -0.123 0.9020 Temp 268.25 265.51 51503.50 90274.50 32305 -0.197 0.8436 DO 171.55 312.13 32251.50 104251.50 14486 -10.226 0.0000 pH 268.92 265.90 52170.00 90141.00 32511 -0.224 0.8226 Salinity 309.43 241.40 59410.00 81836.00 24206 -4.909 0.0000 TN 216.04 183.87 30461.50 45783.50 14659 -2.708 0.0068 TP 238.11 189.26 35716.50 49774.50 15059 -4.009 0.0001 Chl a 196.60 194.85 28506.50 47738.50 17604 -0.148 0.8820 Coliform 272.27 222.41 46013.50 68946.50 20742 -3.822 0.0001 Turbidity 206.77 240.47 33497.00 70699.00 20294 -2.614 0.0089 Color 226.18 229.78 36641.00 67555.00 23438 -0.281 0.7791 Gasp/Cape Haze Lower Lemon Bay Gasp/Cape Haze Lower Lemon Bay Secchi 180.35 150.33 15510.00 34576.00 8011 -2.609 0.0091 Temp 382.48 350.41 73436.50 183966.50 45892 -1.839 0.0659 DO 347.16 353.77 65265.50 182190.50 47500 -0.382 0.7024 pH 357.80 357.39 69414.00 185841.00 50381 -0.025 0.9804 Salinity 343.95 359.78 66037.50 186367.50 47510 -0.914 0.3607 TN 219.19 195.15 30906.00 51715.00 16470 -1.966 0.0489 TP 219.90 209.24 32985.00 57540.00 19590 -0.857 0.3917 Chl a 188.80 207.15 27376.00 52824.00 16791 -1.527 0.1270 Coliform 214.76 247.88 36295.00 74861.00 21930 -2.545 0.0109 Turbidity 235.94 225.97 38223.00 66888.00 22932 -0.771 0.4407 Color 244.15 221.48 39552.50 65558.50 21603 -1.763 0.0778 Gasp/Cape Haze Upper Lemon Bay Gasp/Cape Haze Upper Lemon Bay Secchi 185.56 91.12 15958.00 14670.00 1629 -9.945 0.0000 Temp 303.21 278.83 58217.00 106234.00 33463 -1.666 0.0956 DO 328.97 256.82 61847.00 95794.00 26043 -4.978 0.0000 pH 369.26 243.16 71635.50 91670.50 20418 -8.740 0.0000 Salinity 387.72 231.79 74441.50 87154.50 16279 -10.712 0.0000 TN 153.65 197.79 21664.50 43315.50 11654 -3.928 0.0000 TP 108.84 242.57 16326.00 55305.00 5001 -11.648 0.0000 Chl a 134.12 207.59 19448.00 43387.00 8863 -6.643 0.0000 Coliform 147.47 253.60 24923.00 63908.00 10558 -8.785 0.0000 Turbidity 216.42 191.43 35059.50 45943.50 17024 -2.115 0.0340 Color 167.73 223.55 27171.50 53429.50 13969 -4.756 0.0000 Gasp/Cape Haze Matlacha Pass Gasp/Cape Haze Matlacha Pass Secchi 127.14 151.89 10934.00 30682.00 7193 -2.312 0.0208 Temp 232.07 223.27 44558.00 58273.00 24082 -0.709 0.4786 DO 176.68 253.19 33216.00 63804.00 15450 -6.245 0.0000 pH 256.55 196.08 49770.50 49019.50 17645 -5.047 0.0000 Salinity 314.87 158.99 60454.50 41020.50 7610 -12.576 0.0000 TN 162.51 171.99 22914.50 33365.50 12904 -0.884 0.3768 TP 184.67 179.26 27700.50 38002.50 15425 -0.486 0.6272 Chl a 164.21 168.27 23811.00 31467.00 13226 -0.382 0.7020 Coliform 226.40 184.38 38261.50 43144.50 15650 -3.620 0.0003 Turbidity 219.40 171.92 35542.50 37993.50 13463 -4.148 0.0000 Color 155.55 218.72 25198.50 48337.50 11996 -5.542 0.0000 * Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXV Table B.3, cont. Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * Gasp/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Gasp/Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Secchi 140.04 120.28 12043.50 20087.50 6060 -2.039 0.0415 Temp 314.42 287.90 60368.00 115160.00 34960 -1.769 0.0769 DO 208.37 329.89 39174.00 129316.00 21408 -8.176 0.0000 pH 231.70 321.40 44949.00 124704.00 26034 -6.168 0.0000 Salinity 291.07 298.37 55884.50 119051.50 37357 -0.487 0.6259 TN 243.95 217.08 34397.00 67078.00 19183 -2.033 0.0418 TP 284.26 220.61 42639.00 72801.00 18186 -4.668 0.0000 Chl a 190.66 237.25 27645.50 70700.50 17061 -3.595 0.0000 Coliform 338.84 248.99 57264.00 95364.00 21828 -6.291 0.0000 Turbidity 271.20 262.99 43934.00 96781.00 28885 -0.568 0.5698 Color 279.58 260.04 45292.50 95953.50 27689 -1.361 0.1737 Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Estero Bay San Carlos Bay Secchi 200.51 280.64 35489.50 91770.50 19737 -5.909 0.0000 Temp 336.15 366.77 121349.50 124701.50 56009 -2.003 0.0451 DO 255.67 441.25 91017.50 147377.50 27472 -12.226 0.0000 pH 297.26 402.46 106121.00 136435.00 42218 -7.070 0.0000 Salinity 343.73 353.53 122711.00 119845.00 58808 -0.643 0.5205 TN 268.86 353.53 122711.00 119845.00 32744 -0.932 0.3510 TP 278.29 283.00 82652.00 74428.00 38399 -0.344 0.7306 Chl a 272.26 235.43 71604.50 57681.50 27547 -2.826 0.0050 Coliform 377.67 260.50 125007.50 80753.50 32549 -8.073 0.0000 Turbidity 336.94 274.51 107484.50 80706.50 37342 -4.361 0.0000 Color 330.46 281.55 105416.00 82775.00 39410 -3.427 0.0006 Estero Bay Lower Lemon Bay Estero Bay Lower Lemon Bay Secchi 181.93 220.98 32202.00 50826.00 16449 -3.331 0.0009 Temp 441.54 444.85 159395.50 233545.50 94055 -0.189 0.8497 DO 436.30 435.79 155323.50 224432.50 91563 -0.029 0.9765 pH 371.28 485.49 132546.50 252456.50 68644 -6.671 0.0000 Salinity 360.97 491.09 128867.00 254383.00 64964 -7.485 0.0000 TN 271.19 270.80 74848.50 71762.50 36518 -0.029 0.9770 TP 255.60 319.88 75912.00 87966.00 31659 -4.656 0.0000 Chl a 265.01 253.82 69698.00 64723.00 32083 -0.851 0.3950 Coliform 321.70 311.85 106482.00 94179.00 48426 -0.679 0.4972 Turbidity 362.08 249.72 115504.00 73916.00 29960 -7.837 0.0000 Color 346.24 266.79 110449.00 78971.00 35015 -5.560 0.0000 Estero Bay Upper Lemon Bay Estero Bay Upper Lemon Bay Secchi 207.22 128.03 36677.50 20613.50 7573 -7.476 0.0000 Temp 368.60 374.25 133063.00 142590.00 67722 -0.360 0.7190 DO 418.85 313.61 149110.00 116975.00 47224 -6.746 0.0000 pH 405.11 331.89 144624.00 125121.00 53868 -4.732 0.0000 Salinity 423.90 312.97 151333.50 117677.50 46802 -7.090 0.0000 TN 209.64 296.34 57861.00 64899.00 19635 -6.698 0.0000 TP 167.00 388.06 49598.00 88477.00 5345 -16.561 0.0000 Chl a 204.08 277.29 53673.50 57954.50 18958 -5.793 0.0000 Coliform 249.48 347.85 82579.00 87657.00 27633 -6.994 0.0000 Turbidity 332.86 209.74 106183.50 50336.50 21417 -8.932 0.0000 Color 269.67 292.62 86025.00 69936.00 34985 -1.670 0.0950 * Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXVI Table B.3, cont. Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * Estero Bay Matlacha Pass Estero Bay Matlacha Pass Secchi 143.58 230.67 25414.00 46596.00 9661 -7.736 0.0000 Temp 303.53 322.53 109573.00 84180.00 44232 -1.304 0.1924 DO 262.43 363.93 93424.50 91711.50 29879 -7.021 0.0000 pH 297.17 313.75 106090.50 78437.50 42188 -1.172 0.2414 Salinity 365.64 228.25 130532.50 58887.50 25477 -9.463 0.0000 TN 218.95 259.05 60430.00 50255.00 22204 -3.151 0.0020 TP 228.21 292.53 67778.00 62017.00 23525 -4.874 0.0000 Chl a 235.74 211.10 62000.00 39475.00 21897 -1.981 0.0480 Coliform 326.28 221.77 108000.00 51895.00 24400 -7.550 0.0000 Turbidity 327.55 188.15 104488.50 41581.50 17051 -10.209 0.0000 Color 257.15 289.77 82031.50 64038.50 30992 -2.396 0.0166 Estero Bay Pine Island Sound Estero Bay Pine Island Sound Secchi 157.98 187.89 27963.00 31377.00 12210 -2.795 0.0052 Temp 379.23 382.60 136901.50 153039.50 71561 -0.212 0.8325 DO 294.59 447.07 104875.00 175251.00 41329 -9.641 0.0000 pH 273.49 464.56 97636.00 180249.00 33733 -12.243 0.0000 Salinity 320.46 430.43 114402.50 171743.50 50500 -6.913 0.0000 TN 292.63 293.33 80767.00 90638.00 42541 -0.049 0.9610 TP 319.31 309.22 94835.00 102043.00 47428 -0.698 0.4853 Chl a 266.54 293.33 70100.00 87541.00 35384 -1.985 0.0470 Coliform 445.45 281.49 147445.00 107810.00 34274 -10.775 0.0000 Turbidity 402.48 293.31 128391.00 107937.00 40041 -7.191 0.0000 Color 390.11 305.07 124443.50 112572.50 44308 -5.619 0.0000 San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay San Carlos Bay Lower Lemon Bay Secchi 297.97 252.03 97437.00 57966.00 31401 -3.326 0.0009 Temp 453.21 419.91 154091.50 220453.50 82379 -1.917 0.0552 DO 557.17 339.28 186094.00 174731.00 41861 -12.651 0.0000 pH 427.73 431.48 145000.50 224369.50 87371 -0.221 0.8249 Salinity 352.18 479.27 119389.00 248264.00 61759 -7.350 0.0000 TN 251.70 262.95 62673.00 69682.00 31548 -0.858 0.3910 TP 240.28 297.45 63192.50 81798.50 28477 -4.273 0.0000 Chl a 237.92 262.58 58291.50 66958.50 28157 -1.908 0.0560 Coliform 256.70 357.62 79577.50 108000.50 31373 -7.128 0.0000 Turbidity 322.37 268.81 94777.50 79567.50 35612 -3.817 0.0001 Color 310.10 281.00 91170.00 83175.00 39219 -2.083 0.0373 San Carlos Bay Upper Lemon Bay San Carlos Bay Upper Lemon Bay Secchi 302.78 126.14 99007.50 20308.50 7268 -13.043 0.0000 Temp 374.25 349.18 127245.00 133036.00 60265 -1.615 0.1062 DO 482.99 238.50 161317.00 88961.00 19210 -15.894 0.0000 pH 446.46 279.41 151349.50 105336.50 34084 -10.937 0.0000 Salinity 425.92 296.76 144388.50 111581.50 40706 -8.350 0.0000 TN 191.33 283.59 47640.50 62105.50 16516 -7.364 0.0000 TP 149.80 356.97 39397.50 81388.50 4682 -16.147 0.0000 Chl a 182.61 280.12 44739.50 58545.50 14605 -7.894 0.0000 Coliform 199.25 382.68 61768.50 96434.50 13564 -13.390 0.0000 Turbidity 299.36 228.47 88012.50 54832.50 25913 -5.282 0.0000 Color 238.70 301.81 70178.00 72133.00 26813 -4.719 0.0000 * Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXVII Table B.3, cont. Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * San Carlos Bay Matlacha Pass San Carlos Bay Matlacha Pass Secchi 248.10 292.36 81128.50 59056.50 27501 -3.241 0.0012 Temp 304.84 295.99 103647.00 77254.00 43063 -0.620 0.5351 DO 316.36 263.20 105664.50 66326.50 34449 -3.765 0.0002 pH 331.18 245.94 112269.50 61485.50 30111 -6.181 0.0000 Salinity 368.45 207.74 124905.50 53597.50 20187 -11.278 0.0000 TN 201.06 248.88 50063.50 48282.50 18939 -3.901 0.0000 TP 212.69 269.40 55938.00 57112.00 21222 -4.486 0.0000 Chl a 214.12 219.62 52459.00 41069.00 22324 -0.454 0.6500 Coliform 272.12 273.00 84357.00 63883.00 36152 -0.066 0.9471 Turbidity 298.15 204.58 87657.00 45213.00 20682 -7.064 0.0000 Color 227.55 298.51 66899.00 65971.00 23534 -5.371 0.0000 San Carlos Bay Pine Island Sound San Carlos Bay Pine Island Sound Secchi 258.76 225.46 84613.00 37652.00 23624 -2.457 0.0140 Temp 386.06 357.28 131259.00 142911.00 62711 -1.828 0.0676 DO 368.54 359.20 123093.50 140807.50 63780 -0.598 0.5496 pH 297.06 422.48 100705.00 163923.00 43075 -8.163 0.0000 Salinity 311.71 418.60 105670.50 167020.50 48041 -6.788 0.0000 TN 272.26 285.33 67792.50 88168.50 36668 -0.952 0.3410 TP 305.88 289.92 80447.00 95674.00 41059 -1.130 0.2586 Chl a 238.47 299.57 58425.50 89270.50 28291 -4.516 0.0000 Coliform 374.00 325.15 115938.50 124532.50 50997 -3.310 0.0009 Turbidity 358.41 310.00 105374.00 114079.00 46183 -3.237 0.0012 Color 346.70 320.28 101931.00 118185.00 49920 -1.773 0.0762 Lower Lemon Bay Upper Lemon Bay Lower Lemon Bay Upper Lemon Bay Secchi 253.07 114.47 58206.50 18429.50 5389 -11.979 0.0000 Temp 452.16 455.34 237386.00 173485.00 99311 -0.181 0.8566 DO 493.43 376.95 254115.50 140600.50 70850 -6.681 0.0000 pH 526.66 341.89 273861.00 128892.00 57639 -10.655 0.0000 Salinity 555.24 299.07 287615.50 112449.50 41574 -14.644 0.0000 TN 204.48 288.50 54188.50 63181.50 18944 -6.578 0.0000 TP 163.23 359.07 44889.00 81867.00 6939 -15.052 0.0000 Chl a 197.06 275.73 50251.50 57628.50 17612 -6.288 0.0000 Coliform 232.07 331.95 70084.50 83650.50 24332 -7.323 0.0000 Turbidity 277.21 257.76 82054.00 61862.00 32942 -1.446 0.1480 Color 228.09 317.43 67515.00 75865.00 23559 -6.669 0.0000 Lower Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Lower Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Secchi 182.15 255.61 41895.00 51633.00 15330 -6.116 0.0000 Temp 386.89 406.79 203119.00 106172.00 65044 -1.159 0.2466 DO 343.65 466.46 176980.00 117548.00 44110 -7.212 0.0000 pH 415.67 322.74 216149.00 80686.00 49311 -5.524 0.0000 Salinity 480.00 204.78 248642.50 52833.50 19423 -16.114 0.0000 TN 213.60 252.40 56603.50 48966.50 21359 -3.096 0.0020 TP 241.33 247.46 66366.00 52462.00 28416 -0.477 0.6330 Chl a 227.72 213.02 58069.00 39834.00 22256 -1.196 0.2320 Coliform 307.35 218.36 92819.50 51096.50 23602 -6.652 0.0000 Turbidity 281.64 228.67 83366.00 50537.00 26006 -3.989 0.0001 Color 218.20 313.64 64588.50 69314.50 20633 -7.210 0.0000 * Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix B CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXVIII Table B.3, cont. Mann-Whitney U Z p( 2-tailed) * Lower Lemon Bay Pine Island Sound Lower Lemon Bay Pine Island Sound Secchi 199.59 198.19 45905.50 33097.50 19070 -0.120 0.9041 Temp 462.79 463.27 242966.50 185308.50 104892 -0.027 0.9785 DO 376.46 555.88 193874.50 217903.50 61005 -10.220 0.0000 pH 398.19 529.97 207059.00 205627.00 71599 -7.605 0.0000 Salinity 463.20 453.54 239940.00 180963.00 101163 -0.548 0.5838 TN 286.90 288.01 76028.50 88996.50 40784 -0.080 0.9360 TP 342.29 270.25 94131.00 89184.00 34569 -5.056 0.0000 Chl a 258.06 293.20 65806.50 87374.50 33167 -2.578 0.0100 Coliform 424.99 278.35 128347.00 106608.00 33072 -9.821 0.0000 Turbidity 332.44 332.54 98403.50 122376.50 54448 -0.007 0.9946 Color 328.24 336.82 97160.00 124285.00 53204 -0.575 0.5651 Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Upper Lemon Bay Matlacha Pass Secchi 102.60 245.28 16518.50 49547.50 3478 -12.909 0.0000 Temp 315.88 329.71 120349.50 86053.50 47579 -0.929 0.3528 DO 244.71 414.09 91275.00 104350.00 21524 -11.506 0.0000 pH 279.89 365.44 105518.50 91359.50 34266 -5.861 0.0000 Salinity 331.26 297.45 124552.00 76743.00 43332 -2.283 0.0224 TN 225.99 185.56 49491.50 35999.50 17085 -3.435 0.0010 TP 303.70 131.02 69244.50 27775.50 5198 -14.242 0.0000 Chl a 233.98 158.85 48901.50 29704.50 12127 -6.522 0.0000 Coliform 321.26 159.75 80958.50 37382.50 9888 -12.719 0.0000 Turbidity 248.55 211.94 59651.50 46839.50 22309 -2.948 0.0030 Color 226.44 234.89 54119.50 51910.50 25440 -0.683 0.4945 Upper Lemon Bay Pine Island Sound Upper Lemon Bay Pine Island Sound Secchi 112.97 214.18 18188.00 35768.00 5147 -9.708 0.0000 Temp 392.10 389.95 149391.50 155979.50 75780 -0.134 0.8937 DO 273.67 487.03 102080.00 190915.00 32329 -13.350 0.0000 pH 265.99 496.70 100277.00 192718.00 29024 -14.536 0.0000 Salinity 272.15 497.17 102328.00 198372.00 31452 -13.986 0.0000 TN 314.49 229.07 68873.00 70783.00 22888 -6.339 0.0000 TP 414.78 186.03 94570.00 61391.00 6776 -16.486 0.0000 Chl a 284.80 232.40 59523.00 69255.00 24704 -3.965 0.0000 Coliform 450.93 230.54 113635.00 88295.00 14759 -15.028 0.0000 Turbidity 293.55 311.64 70453.00 114683.00 41533 -1.241 0.2150 Color 364.14 265.87 87030.50 98105.50 29841 -6.766 0.0000 Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound Secchi 208.09 157.07 42034.50 26230.50 12203 -4.582 0.0000 Temp 341.02 324.46 89005.50 129785.50 49586 -1.091 0.2752 DO 300.26 336.80 75664.50 132025.50 43787 -2.433 0.0150 pH 216.76 385.70 54189.00 149652.00 22814 -11.428 0.0000 Salinity 180.99 424.71 46694.50 169458.50 13284 -16.074 0.0000 TN 276.40 236.68 53621.50 73134.50 25240 -2.984 0.0029 TP 315.26 243.39 66834.50 80318.50 25704 -5.224 0.0000 Chl a 216.23 259.80 40435.00 77420.00 22857 -3.333 0.0010 Coliform 337.23 291.75 78911.00 111742.00 38206 -3.191 0.0014 Turbidity 264.02 313.60 58349.50 115405.50 33819 -3.424 0.0006 Color 362.64 255.29 80144.00 94201.00 25936 -7.434 0.0000 Bold values significant at the .05 level Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

# Appendix C CHEVWQMN Repot 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XXXIX 

# Appendix C: Comparison of Results to Numerical Water Quality Criteria Page Table C.1: Site exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations

__________________________________ XL Table C.2: Site exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations

__________________________________ XLI Table C.3: Exceedances of 11 μg/L chlorophyll a per Florida Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region _______________________________________ XLII Table C.4: Site exceedances of chlorophyll a under 11 μg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations ________________________________________ XLIII Table C.5: Site specific exceedances of fecal coliform bacteria per Florida Surface Water Regulations ________________________________________XLIV

# Appendix C CHEVWQMN Repot 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XL Table C.1: Site exceedances of dissolved ox yg

en under 4 m g

/L per site per Florida Surface Water Re gulations * Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % PIJIM1 28 32 88 16 20 80 12 12 100 LBV001 63 85 74 27 49 55 36 36 100 LBV006 45 63 71 22 40 55 23 23 100 GSV005 47 67 70 24 43 56 23 24 96 LBGOT2 40 67 60 17 42 40 23 25 92 GSV004 10 17 59 3 9 33 7 8 88 LBANG1 38 75 51 13 45 29 25 30 83 LBV003 42 83 51 12 50 24 30 33 91 EBERS2 25 51 49 7 30 23 18 21 86 GSV001 41 85 48 16 50 32 25 35 71 CHV008 38 90 42 6 54 11 32 36 89 LBFOR1 19 53 36 4 28 14 15 25 60 LBOYS1 26 75 35 6 44 14 20 31 65 EBV005 31 90 34 9 53 17 22 37 59 CHV003 22 64 34 3 36 8 19 28 68 EBV003 19 61 31 3 32 9 16 29 55 PIV007 18 61 30 7 33 21 11 28 39 LBV002 24 85 28 6 49 12 18 36 50 CHV009 22 83 27 5 48 10 17 35 49 MPV002 23 91 25 4 54 7 19 37 51 CHV013 13 52 25 0 30 0 13 22 59 CHV007 23 93 25 2 54 4 21 39 54 CHV010 20 86 23 5 50 10 15 36 42 LBV004 19 85 22 5 51 10 14 34 41 CHV005 8 42 19 26 0 8 16 50 EBV004 15 86 17 1 51 2 14 35 40 EBV007 7 46 15 2 27 7 5 19 26 GSV003 3 23 13 3 15 20 0 8 0 GSV002 9 73 12 6 46 13 3 27 11 CHV001 10 84 12 1 52 2 9 32 28 CHV006 10 89 11 1 54 2 9 35 26 LBV005 7 72 10 2 43 5 5 29 17 MPV001 7 84 8 0 51 0 7 33 21 CHV012 5 63 8 3 35 9 2 28 7 CHV004 6 86 7 0 50 0 6 36 17 PIV002 4 93 4 1 55 2 3 38 8 CHV002 2 50 4 0 31 0 2 19 11 EBV001 3 86 3 0 50 0 3 36 8 PIV001 2 63 3 0 40 0 2 23 9 MPV003 2 77 3 0 44 0 2 33 6 PIV006 2 82 2 1 48 2 1 34 3 MPV004 2 87 2 1 52 2 1 35 3 LBV007 1 72 1 1 43 2 0 29 0 SCV002 1 74 1 0 44 0 1 30 3 CHV011 0 78 0 0 43 0 0 35 0 PIV004 0 61 0 0 36 0 0 25 0 SCV001 0 87 0 0 53 0 0 34 0 EBV006 0 22 0 0 17 0 0 5 0 Total 802 3374 24% 245 2000 12% 557 1374 41% *ranked in descending order by total % exceedances All Dry Season Rainy Season

# Appendix C CHEVWQMN Repot 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLI Table C.2: Site exceedances of dissolved ox yg

en under 5 m g

/L per site per Florida Surface Water Re gulations * Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % PIJIM1 31 32 97 19 20 95 12 12 100 GSV004 16 17 94 9 9 100 7 8 88 LBV001 79 85 93 43 49 88 36 36 100 LBV006 56 63 89 33 40 83 23 23 100 GSV005 59 67 88 35 43 81 24 24 100 LBGOT2 57 67 85 33 42 79 24 25 96 GSV001 69 85 81 36 50 72 33 35 94 LBOYS1 58 75 77 27 44 61 31 31 100 LBV003 62 83 75 31 50 62 31 33 94 EBERS2 38 51 75 17 30 57 21 21 100 EBV003 42 61 69 16 32 50 26 29 90 LBANG1 50 75 67 20 45 44 30 30 100 CHV008 58 90 64 22 54 41 36 36 100 LBFOR1 33 53 62 11 28 39 22 25 88 PIV007 34 61 56 13 33 39 21 28 75 CHV003 35 64 55 8 36 22 27 28 96 LBV002 46 85 54 18 49 37 28 36 78 EBV004 46 86 53 17 51 33 29 35 83 EBV005 47 90 52 21 53 40 26 37 70 CHV013 27 52 52 7 30 23 20 22 91 LBV004 44 85 52 16 51 31 28 34 82 CHV010 44 86 51 18 50 36 26 36 72 CHV007 47 93 51 12 54 22 35 39 90 CHV009 41 83 49 13 48 27 28 35 80 CHV001 41 84 49 16 52 31 25 32 78 MPV002 44 91 48 17 54 31 27 37 73 EBV007 22 46 48 7 27 26 15 19 79 CHV005 18 42 43 4 26 15 14 16 88 GSV002 30 73 41 13 46 28 17 27 63 CHV004 28 86 33 7 50 14 21 36 58 EBV006 7 22 32 5 17 29 2 5 40 CHV006 28 89 31 4 54 7 24 35 69 MPV004 25 87 29 6 52 12 19 35 54 CHV012 17 63 27 5 35 14 12 28 43 LBV005 19 72 26 7 43 16 12 29 41 GSV003 6 23 26 5 15 33 1 8 13 MPV001 21 84 25 4 51 8 17 33 52 LBV007 17 72 24 7 43 16 10 29 34 MPV003 18 77 23 1 44 2 17 33 52 EBV001 19 86 22 4 50 8 15 36 42 PIV001 12 63 19 2 40 5 10 23 43 CHV002 8 50 16 2 31 6 6 19 32 PIV002 13 93 14 2 55 4 11 38 29 PIV006 7 82 9 1 48 2 6 34 18 SCV002 4 74 5 0 44 0 4 30 13 PIV004 3 61 5 0 36 0 3 25 12 SCV001 4 87 5 0 53 0 4 34 12 CHV011 3 78 4 0 43 0 3 35 9 Total 1533 3374 45% 614 2000 31% 919 1374 67% *ranked in descending order by total % exceedances All Dry Season Rainy Season

# Appendix C CHEVWQMN Repot 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLII Table C.3: Exceedances of 11 u g

/L chloroph y ll a per Florida Impaired Waters Rule for each estuar y

re gion Upper Lemon

Bay Lower Lemon

Bay Upper Charlotte Lower Charlotte Gasparilla/ Cape Haze Pine Island Sound Matlacha Pass San Carlos

Bay Estero Bay Total All Over 60 21 125 28 10 47 18 13 22 344 Total 209 255 482 198 145 298 187 245 263 2282

% 29 8 26 14 7 16 10 5 8 15 Rain Over 36 10 54 12 6 27 13 7 5 170 Total 81 101 187 80 57 118 71 94 101 890

% 44 10 29 15 11 23 18 7 5 19 Dry Over 24 11 71 16 4 20 5 6 17 174 Total 128 154 295 118 88 180 116 151 162 1392

% 19 7 24 14 5 11 4 4 10 13 1998 Over 11 3 19 6 2 4 2 2 1 50 Total 13 14 34 15 12 12 11 15 11 137

% 85 21 56 40 17 33 18 13 9 36 1999 Over 10 4 21 4 3 6 4 3 3 58 Total 34 39 81 33 29 37 31 42 35 361

% 29 10 26 12 10 16 13 7 9 16 2000 Over 6 2 10 0 0 8 0 0 1 27 Total 28 30 67 30 22 50 30 43 39 339

% 21 7 15 0 0 16 0 0 3 8 2001 Over 5 2 71 1 6 2 0 3 27 Total 28 28 60 25 19 41 27 33 29 290

% 18 7 12 4 5 15 7 0 10 9 2003 Over 9 8 18 8 2 12 6 6 9 78 Total 30 43 70 31 12 60 30 39 53 368

% 30 19 26 26 17 20 20 15 17 21 2004 Over 5 0 20 4 0 221 3 37 Total 29 38 80 28 20 37 28 31 45 336

% 17 0 25 14 0 5 7 3 7 11 2005 Over 14 2 30 5 2 9 2 1 2 67 Total 47 63 90 36 31 61 30 42 51 451

% 30 3 33 14 6 15 7 2 4 15 Total Over 58 20 121 26 9 45 15 13 22 344 Total 207 254 478 196 144 296 184 245 263 2267

% 28 8 25 13 6 15 8 5 8 15

# Appendix C CHEVWQMN Repot 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLIII Table C.4: Site exceedances of chloroph y ll a over 11 μ g /L per site per Florida Surface Water Re gulations * Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % LBFOR1 4 6 67 2 3 67 2 3 67 CHV005 15 32 47 9 20 45 6 12 50 CHV013 16 38 42 13 24 54 3 14 21 CHV001 25 62 40 13 37 35 12 25 48 LBV003 21 64 33 7 42 17 14 22 64 GSV005 9 28 32 6 20 30 3 8 38 CHV002 13 42 31 8 26 31 5 16 31 PIV002 19 69 28 5 42 12 14 27 52 CHV004 17 63 27 7 39 18 10 24 42 LBV002 18 66 27 6 40 15 12 26 46 PIJIM1 6 24 25 4 15 27 2 9 22 CHV009 16 66 24 10 39 26 6 27 22 LBV001 16 66 24 8 40 20 8 26 31 CHV006 14 63 22 9 40 23 5 23 22 CHV007 13 73 18 6 44 14 7 29 24 CHV003 8 45 18 4 27 15 4 18 22 PIV006 10 62 16 3 36 8 7 26 27 MPV002 9 70 13 3 43 7 6 27 22 LBV005 7 56 13 2 35 6 5 21 24 PIV007 6 47 13 4 28 14 2 19 11 LBGOT2 1 8 13 1 4 25 0 4 0 CHV012 6 49 12 2 29 7 4 20 20 EBV005 8 66 12 5 41 12 3 25 12 LBV006 6 52 12 4 33 12 2 19 11 EBERS2 4 36 11 4 23 17 0 13 0 PIV004 4 46 9 2 28 7 2 18 11 CHV010 6 68 9 2 41 5 4 27 15 CHV011 6 64 9 4 38 11 2 26 8 EBV007 3 32 9 3 20 15 0 12 0 EBV003 4 46 9 2 25 8 2 21 10 LBV004 6 70 9 3 44 7 3 26 12 MPV001 5 63 8 0 39 0 5 24 21 MPV003 4 54 7 2 34 6 2 20 10 GSV004 1 15 7 1 8 13 0 7 0 MPV004 4 64 6 1 39 3 3 25 12 SCV001 4 64 6 2 40 5 2 24 8 CHV008 3 66 5 1 40 3 2 26 8 EBV006 1 19 5 1 14 7 0 5 0 GSV003 1 20 5 0 14 0 1 6 17 EBV001 3 67 4 2 41 5 1 26 4 PIV001 2 53 4 2 34 6 0 19 0 SCV002 2 54 4 1 35 0 1 19 0 GSV002 2 57 4 2 34 6 0 23 0 GSV001 2 61 3 1 37 3 1 24 4 EBV004 2 67 3 2 42 5 0 25 0 LBANG1 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 LBOYS1 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 LBV007 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 4 0

Total 352 2326 15% 179 1428 13% 173 898 19% *ranked in descending order by total % exceedances All Rainy Season Dry Season

# Appendix C CHEVWQMN Repot 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLIV Table C.5: Site specific exceedances of fecal coliform bacteria per Florida Surface Water Regulations # over N % # over N % # over N % LBV001* 31 80 39% 12 80 15% 3 80 4% LBV002 3 80 4% LBV003 2 78 3% 1 78 1% LBOYS1 1 8 13% LBV004 1 79 1% LBV006 9 63 14% 4 63 6% CHV001 2 76 3% CHV003 3 57 5% CHV004 2 77 3% CHV005 4 34 12% 1 34 3% CHV007 1 87 1% CHV008 5 82 6% 3 82 4% CHV013 3 52 6% 2 52 4% Lower Charlotte Harbor CHV011 1 74 1% GSV001 1 72 1% GSV004 1 16 6% PIJIM1 2 34 6% PIV001 1 66 2% PIV006 1 76 1% EBV001 1 81 1% MPV004 1 81 1% EBERS2 9 49 18% 4 49 8% EBV005 4 83 5% GSV005* 14 37 38% 8 37 22% 2 37 5% Total 103 2839 4% 35 2839 1% 5 2839 < 1% *greater than 10% of samples exceeding 400 cfu/100mL Coliform > 200 cfu/100mL Coliform > 400 cfu/100mL Coliform > 800 cfu/100mL
Upper Lemon Bay

San Carlos Bay Estero Bay Lower Lemon Bay

Upper Charlotte Harbor

Gasparilla/Cape Haze
Pine Island Sound

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLV 

# Appendix D: Water Quality Relationships Page Table D.1: Spearman's rho correlation for se lected variables for the entire study region and duration _____________________________________________ XLVI Table D.2: Spearman's rho correlation for sele cted variables in the rainy season for the entire study region _______________________________________ XLVII Table D.3: Spearman's rho correlation fo r selected variables in Upper Lemon Bay__ ___________________

______________________________ XLVIII Table D.4: Spearman's rho correlation fo r selected variables in Lower Lemon Bay__ ________________________

__________________________ XLIX Table D.5: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Upper Charlotte Harbor_____________________________________________ L Table D.6: Spearman's rho correlati on for selected variables in Lower Charlotte Harbor____________________________________________ LI Table D.7: Spearman's rho correla tion for selected variables in Gasparilla/Cape Haze _______________________________________LII Table D.8: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Pine Island Sound _____________________________________________ LIII Table D.9: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Matlacha Pass ____________________________________________________ LIV Table D.10: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in San Carlos Bay _____________________________________________________ LV Table D.11: Spearman's rho correlation fo r selected variables in Estero Bay _ LVI

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLVI Table D.1: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables for the entire study region and duration Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.300 0.344 -0.375 -0.505 -0.349 -0.340 -0.343 -0.451 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 1903 1858 1879 1295 1368 1270 1575 1497 1497 DO Coefficient 0.300 0.100 -0.196 -0.170 -0.177 -0.282 0.027 -0.260 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.165 0.000 N 1858 3374 3329 2334 2477 2249 2768 2652 2652 Salinity Coefficient 0.344 0.100 -0.370 -0.445 -0.233 -0.336 0.198 -0.711 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 1879 3329 3404 2354 2495 2270 2792 2675 2675 TN Coefficient -0.375 -0.196 -0.370 0.355 0.227 0.263 0.197 0.514 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 1295 2334 2354 2402 2320 1908 2366 2281 2280 TP Coefficient -0.505 -0.170 -0.445 0.355 0.281 0.341 0.095 0.484 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 1368 2477 2495 2320 2540 2020 2508 2406 2406 ChlA Coefficient -0.349 -0.177 -0.233 0.227 0.281 0.089 0.187 0.323 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 1270 2249 2270 1908 2010 2310 2273 2170 2170 Coliform Coefficient -0.340 -0.282 -0.336 0.263 0.341 0.089 0.043 0.312 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 N 1575 2768 2792 2366 2508 2273 2839 2674 2674 Turbidity Coefficient -0.343 0.027 0.198 0.197 0.095 0.187 0.043 0.041 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.033 N 1497 2652 2675 2281 2406 2170 2674 2720 2719 Color Coefficient -0.451 -0.260 -0.711 0.514 0.484 0.323 0.312 0.041 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 N 1497 2652 2675 2280 2406 2170 2674 2719 2721 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLVII Table D.2: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in the dr y verus the rain y season for the entire stud y re

gion Secchi DO Salinit y TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidit y Colo r Secchi Coefficient 0.322 0.479 -0.421 -0.585 -0.305 -0.400 -0.218 -0.585 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 978 904 913 611 649 597 757 703 703 DO Coefficient 0.219 0.129 -0.220 -0.247 0.020 -0.431 0.021 -0.217 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.552 0.000 0.488 0.000 N 954 2000 1358 926 983 870 1124 1052 1052 Salinit y Coefficient 0.164 -0.041 -0.367 -0.489 -0.134 -0.403 0.183 -0.722 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 966 1971 2014 937 990 882 1136 1064 1064 TN Coefficient -0.262 -0.042 -0.319 0.368 0.254 0.282 0.201 0.550 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 684 1408 1417 1446 911 713 938 869 868 TP Coefficient -0.408 -0.100 -0.412 0.339 0.241 0.395 0.142 0.560 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 719 1494 1505 1409 1531 759 995 936 936 Chl A Coefficient -0.327 -0.124 -0.226 0.104 0.302 0.101 0.230 0.136 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 N 673 1379 1388 1195 1251 1412 881 818 818 Coliform Coefficient -0.265 -0.248 -0.316 0.263 0.306 0.085 0.098 0.439 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 N 818 1644 1656 1428 1513 1392 1683 1059 1059 Turbidit y Coefficient -0.481 0.000 0.204 0.213 0.067 0.187 0.008 0.068 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.991 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.759 0.025 N 794 1600 1611 1412 1470 1384 1615 1638 1081 Colo r Coefficient -0.272 -0.083 -0.696 0.430 0.430 0.337 0.271 0.033 p (

2-tailed ) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.181 N 794 1600 1611 1412 1470 1352 1615 1638 1638 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level Rain y season

Dry Season

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLVIII Table D.3: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Upper Lemon Bay Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.1794 0.0891 -0.1403 -0.1708 -0.2634 -0.0053 -0.2528 -0.1304 p (2-tailed) 0.0241 0.2658 0.2004 0.1226 0.0215 0.9594 0.0175 0.2287 N 161 158 158 85 83 76 96 88 87 DO Coefficient 0.1794 0.2109 -0.2522 -0.3575 -0.1140 -0.2121 -0.0160 -0.3463 p (2-tailed) 0.0241 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.1040 0.0007 0.8060 0.0000 N 158 373 369 216 225 206 250 237 236 Salinity Coefficient 0.0891 0.2109 -0.3894 -0.3615 -0.0650 -0.5709 0.1350 -0.6865 p (2-tailed) 0.2658 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3540 0.0000 0.0360 0.0000 N 158 369 376 218 227 208 251 239 238 TN Coefficient -0.1403 -0.2522 -0.3894 0.4211 0.2470 0.2661 0.2970 0.5788 p (2-tailed) 0.2004 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 N 85 216 218 219 212 177 215 206 205 TP Coefficient -0.1708 -0.3575 -0.3615 0.4211 0.1270 0.2894 0.1480 0.4892 p (2-tailed) 0.1226 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0870 0.0000 0.0310 0.0000 N 83 225 227 212 228 183 224 213 213 Chl a Coefficient -0.2634 -0.1140 -0.0650 0.2470 0.1270 0.0720 0.3880 0.1400 p (2-tailed) 0.0215 0.1040 0.3520 0.0010 0.0870 0.3030 0.0000 0.0530 N 76 206 208 177 183 209 204 193 192 Coliform Coefficient -0.0053 -0.2121 -0.5709 0.2661 0.2894 0.0720 0.0480 0.4395 p (2-tailed) 0.9594 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.3030 0.4590 0.0000 N 96 250 251 215 224 204 252 236 235 Turbidity Coefficient -0.2528 -0.0160 0.1350 0.2970 0.1480 0.3880 0.0480 0.2200 p (2-tailed) 0.0175 0.8060 0.0360 0.0000 0.0310 0.0000 0.4590 0.0010 N 88 237 239 206 213 193 236 240 239 Color Coefficient -0.1304 -0.3463 -0.6865 0.5788 0.4892 0.1400 0.4395 0.2200 p (2-tailed) 0.2287 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 0.0010 N 87 236 238 205 213 192 235 239 239 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# XLIX Table D.4: Spearman's rho correlation fo r selected variables in Lower Lemon Bay Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.2380 0.1317 -0.2108 -0.2463 -0.2710 -0.2163 -0.3913 -0.2351 p (2-tailed) 0.0003 0.0481 0.0220 0.0067 0.0030 0.0103 0.0000 0.0062 N 230 224 226 118 120 118 140 134 134 DO Coefficient 0.2380 0.2010 -0.2328 -0.2072 -0.2230 -0.4253 0.1029 -0.4576 p (2-tailed) 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0834 0.0000 N 224 515 508 256 267 245 291 284 284 Salinity Coefficient 0.1317 0.2010 -0.2180 -0.3063 -0.2360 -0.3316 0.1848 -0.4521 p (2-tailed) 0.0481 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0016 0.0000 N 226 508 518 260 270 249 297 290 290 TN Coefficient -0.2108 -0.2328 -0.2180 0.3052 0.2740 0.2615 0.0767 0.5015 p (2-tailed) 0.0220 0.0002 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2234 0.0000 N 118 256 260 265 257 217 259 254 254 TP Coefficient -0.2463 -0.2072 -0.3063 0.3052 0.2550 0.3244 0.1974 0.3759 p (2-tailed) 0.0067 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0013 0.0000 N 120 267 270 257 275 223 267 263 263 Chl a Coefficient -0.2710 -0.2230 -0.2360 0.2740 0.2550 0.1910 0.1410 0.4180 p (2-tailed) 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0030 0.0300 0.0000 N 118 245 249 217 223 255 247 240 240 Coliform Coefficient -0.2163 -0.4253 -0.3316 0.2615 0.3244 0.1910 0.0455 0.3982 p (2-tailed) 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0030 0.4433 0.0000 N 140 291 297 259 267 247 302 286 286 Turbidity Coefficient -0.3913 0.1029 0.1848 0.0767 0.1974 0.1410 0.0455 -0.0121 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0834 0.0016 0.2234 0.0013 0.0300 0.4433 0.8355 N 134 284 290 254 263 244 286 296 296 Color Coefficient -0.2351 -0.4576 -0.4521 0.5015 0.3759 0.4180 0.3982 -0.0121 p (2-tailed) 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8355 N 134 284 290 254 263 240 286 296 296 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# L Table D.5: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Upper Charlotte Harbor Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.1742 0.5457 -0.4034 -0.4700 -0.0258 -0.2263 -0.2544 -0.5517 p (2-tailed) 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6653 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N 394 387 387 291 305 283 336 315 315 DO Coefficient 0.1742 0.1667 -0.1395 -0.1219 0.0360 -0.0690 0.0925 -0.2799 p (2-tailed) 0.0006 0.0000 0.0019 0.0053 0.4318 0.0977 0.0307 0.0000 N 387 650 638 494 522 479 577 546 546 Salinity Coefficient 0.5457 0.1667 -0.4394 -0.5787 -0.2954 -0.2179 -0.0606 -0.7445 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1585 0.0000 N 387 638 649 491 519 479 575 543 543 TN Coefficient -0.4034 -0.1395 -0.4394 0.4150 0.2349 0.1396 0.3917 0.5741 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000 N 291 494 491 505 484 419 500 476 476 TP Coefficient -0.4700 -0.1219 -0.5787 0.4150 0.3602 0.0906 0.3163 0.5686 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0053 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0378 0.0000 0.0000 N 305 522 519 484 532 436 526 504 504 Chl a Coefficient -0.0258 0.0360 -0.2954 0.2349 0.3602 -0.0205 0.3724 0.2433 p (2-tailed) 0.6653 0.4318 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6529 0.0000 0.0000 N 283 479 479 419 436 489 485 453 453 Coliform Coefficient -0.2263 -0.0690 -0.2179 0.1396 0.0906 -0.0205 0.0294 0.0723 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0977 0.0000 0.0018 0.0378 0.6529 0.4929 0.0907 N 336 577 575 500 526 485 587 548 548 Turbidity Coefficient -0.2544 0.0925 -0.0606 0.3917 0.3163 0.3724 0.0294 0.2101 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0307 0.1585 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4929 0.0000 N 315 546 543 476 504 453 548 556 556 Color Coefficient -0.5517 -0.2799 -0.7445 0.5741 0.5686 0.2433 0.0723 0.2101 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0907 0.0000 N 315 546 543 476 504 453 548 556 557 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# LI Table D.6: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Lower Charlotte Harbor Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.4226 0.5633 -0.3260 -0.3642 -0.5760 -0.5032 -0.2659 -0.5814 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0104 0.0000 N 105 101 102 81 83 79 96 92 92 DO Coefficient 0.4226 -0.0467 -0.3340 -0.0830 -0.2140 -0.2384 -0.1348 -0.1889 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.4694 0.0000 0.2285 0.0030 0.0003 0.0452 0.0048 N 101 247 242 202 212 193 229 221 221 Salinity Coefficient 0.5633 -0.0467 -0.3290 -0.4297 -0.2560 -0.1188 0.1900 -0.7352 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.4694 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0734 0.0047 0.0000 N 102 242 248 201 209 192 228 220 220 TN Coefficient -0.3260 -0.3340 -0.3290 0.2520 0.2220 0.2960 0.1790 0.4372 p (2-tailed) 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0120 0.0000 N 81 202 201 207 200 170 201 195 195 TP Coefficient -0.3642 -0.0830 -0.4297 0.2520 0.2330 0.1014 -0.0223 0.5099 p (2-tailed) 0.0007 0.2285 0.0000 0.0000 0.0020 0.1420 0.7512 0.0000 N 83 212 209 200 215 176 211 204 204 Chl a Coefficient -0.5756 -0.1948 -0.2297 0.2220 0.2222 0.1528 0.2697 0.3337 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0064 0.0013 0.0040 0.0029 0.0330 0.0002 0.0000 N 79 195 194 170 178 198 195 187 187 Coliform Coefficient -0.5032 -0.2384 -0.1188 0.2960 0.1014 0.1240 0.1753 0.1667 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0003 0.0734 0.0000 0.1420 0.0850 0.0092 0.0133 N 96 229 228 201 211 193 234 220 220 Turbidity Coefficient -0.2659 -0.1348 0.1900 0.1790 -0.0223 0.2020 0.1753 0.0435 p (2-tailed) 0.0104 0.0452 0.0047 0.0120 0.7512 0.0060 0.0092 0.5154 N 92 221 220 195 204 185 220 226 226 Color Coefficient -0.5814 -0.1889 -0.7352 0.4372 0.5099 0.3980 0.1667 0.0435 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0133 0.5154 N 92 221 220 195 204 185 220 226 226 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# LII Table D.7: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Gasparilla/Cape Haze Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.1842 0.0355 -0.2860 -0.1644 -0.1760 0.0837 0.2325 -0.1934 p (

2-tailed ) 0.0998 0.7455 0.0270 0.1941 0.1480 0.4722 0.0462 0.0988 N 86 81 86 60 64 69 76 74 74 DO Coefficient 0.1842 -0.1229 -0.0960 0.1414 0.0510 -0.2269 0.0198 -0.2226 p (

2-tailed ) 0.0998 0.0957 0.2680 0.0910 0.5500 0.0036 0.8066 0.0052 N 81 188 185 134 144 140 163 156 156 Salinit y Coefficient 0.0355 -0.1229 -0.1531 -0.4247 -0.2080 -0.0005 0.3341 -0.5491 p (

2-tailed ) 0.7455 0.0957 0.0752 0.0000 0.0130 0.9953 0.0000 0.0000 N 86 185 192 136 147 143 166 159 159 TN Coefficient -0.2860 -0.0960 -0.1531 0.2062 -0.0300 -0.0430 -0.0640 0.3240 p (

2-tailed ) 0.0270 0.2680 0.0752 0.0157 0.7480 0.6170 0.4710 0.0000 N 60 134 136 141 137 117 136 131 131 TP Coefficient -0.1644 0.1414 -0.4247 0.2062 0.2120 -0.1839 0.0245 0.3418 p (

2-tailed ) 0.1941 0.0910 0.0000 0.0157 0.0180 0.0257 0.7723 0.0000 N 64 144 147 137 150 124 147 142 142 Chl a Coefficient -0.1760 0.0510 -0.2080 -0.0300 0.2120 -0.1030 0.1800 0.2230 p (

2-tailed ) 0.1480 0.5500 0.0130 0.7480 0.0180 0.2240 0.0360 0.0090 N 69 140 143 117 124 145 142 136 137 Coliform Coefficient 0.0837 -0.2269 -0.0005 -0.0430 -0.1839 -0.1030 -0.0545 0.0498 p (

2-tailed ) 0.4722 0.0036 0.9953 0.6170 0.0257 0.2240 0.4978 0.5358 N 76 163 166 136 147 142 169 157 157 Turbidit y Coefficient -0.2325 0.0198 0.3341 -0.0640 0.0245 0.1800 -0.0545 -0.0451 p (

2-tailed ) 0.0462 0.8066 0.0000 0.4710 0.7723 0.0360 0.4978 0.5685 N 74 156 159 131 142 136 157 162 162 Color Coefficient -0.1934 -0.2226 -0.5491 0.3240 0.3418 0.2230 0.0498 -0.0451 p (

2-tailed ) 0.0988 0.0052 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0090 0.5358 0.5685 N 74 156 159 131 142 136 157 162 162 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# LIII Table D.8: Spearman's rho correlation fo r selected variables in Pine Island Sound Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.1479 0.0432 -0.1887 -0.3218 -0.2870 -0.0022 -0.5720 -0.1609 p (2-tailed) 0.0587 0.5794 0.0425 0.0002 0.0010 0.9780 0.0000 0.0469 N 167 164 167 116 126 121 160 152 153 DO Coefficient 0.1479 0.0151 -0.1717 -0.1762 -0.4020 -0.1943 0.1488 -0.3338 p (2-tailed) 0.0587 0.7668 0.0031 0.0016 0.0000 0.0002 0.0048 0.0000 N 164 392 390 294 317 291 368 357 358 Salinity Coefficient 0.0432 0.0151 -0.2228 -0.1254 -0.2190 -0.0310 0.2771 -0.4968 p (2-tailed) 0.5794 0.7668 0.0001 0.0240 0.0000 0.5498 0.0000 0.0000 N 167 390 399 301 324 293 375 364 365 TN Coefficient -0.1887 -0.1717 -0.2228 0.2459 0.1780 0.2077 0.1911 0.4128 p (2-tailed) 0.0425 0.0031 0.0001 0.0000 0.0070 0.0002 0.0010 0.0000 N 116 294 301 309 299 232 307 295 295 TP Coefficient -0.3218 -0.1762 -0.1254 0.2459 0.1520 0.2394 0.1608 0.3560 p (2-tailed) 0.0002 0.0016 0.0240 0.0000 0.0160 0.0000 0.0043 0.0000 N 126 317 324 299 330 250 329 313 313 Chl a Coefficient -0.2870 -0.4020 -0.2190 0.1780 0.1520 -0.0480 0.2040 0.3590 p (2-tailed) 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0070 0.0160 0.4150 0.0010 0.0000 N 121 291 293 232 250 298 295 283 284 Coliform Coefficient -0.0022 -0.1943 -0.0310 0.2077 0.2394 -0.0480 0.0215 0.1160 p (2-tailed) 0.9780 0.0002 0.5498 0.0002 0.0000 0.4150 0.6824 0.0266 N 160 368 375 307 329 295 383 364 365 Turbidity Coefficient -0.5720 0.1488 0.2771 0.1911 0.1608 0.2040 0.0215 -0.0581 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0048 0.0000 0.0010 0.0043 0.0010 0.6824 0.2667 N 152 357 364 295 313 283 364 368 368 Color Coefficient -0.1609 -0.3338 -0.4968 0.4128 0.3560 0.3590 0.1160 -0.0581 p (2-tailed) 0.0469 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0266 0.2667 N 153 358 365 295 313 284 365 368 369 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# LIV Table D.9: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Matlacha Pass Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.2769 0.5274 -0.3613 -0.3855 -0.3210 0.0323 -0.4121 -0.5237 p (2-tailed) 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6665 0.0000 0.0000 N 202 195 199 147 160 141 180 171 171 DO Coefficient 0.2769 0.0670 -0.0883 -0.2256 -0.2500 -0.1036 -0.3778 -0.1723 p (2-tailed) 0.0001 0.2921 0.2295 0.0012 0.0010 0.1203 0.0000 0.0116 N 195 252 249 187 203 179 226 214 214 Salinity Coefficient 0.5274 0.0670 -0.3255 -0.2146 -0.3050 -0.0792 -0.1227 -0.7282 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.2921 0.0000 0.0019 0.0000 0.2317 0.0712 0.0000 N 199 249 258 192 208 183 230 217 217 TN Coefficient -0.3613 -0.0883 -0.3255 0.2701 0.0680 0.2605 0.4056 0.5094 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.2295 0.0000 0.0002 0.4100 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 N 147 187 192 194 187 149 191 184 184 TP Coefficient -0.3855 -0.2256 -0.2146 0.2701 0.0490 0.0704 0.2516 0.3566 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0012 0.0019 0.0002 0.5340 0.3111 0.0004 0.0000 N 160 203 208 187 212 161 209 197 197 Chl a Coefficient -0.3210 -0.2500 -0.3050 0.0680 0.0490 -0.2020 0.2640 0.2170 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 0.4100 0.5340 0.0060 0.0000 0.0040 N 141 179 183 149 161 187 182 176 176 Coliform Coefficient 0.0323 -0.1036 -0.0792 0.2605 0.0704 -0.2020 0.1830 0.1561 p (2-tailed) 0.6665 0.1203 0.2317 0.0003 0.3111 0.0060 0.0069 0.0215 N 180 226 230 191 209 182 234 217 217 Turbidity Coefficient -0.4121 -0.3778 -0.1227 0.4056 0.2516 0.2640 0.1830 0.3932 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0712 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0069 0.0000 N 171 214 217 184 197 176 217 221 221 Color Coefficient -0.5237 -0.1723 -0.7282 0.5094 0.3566 0.2170 0.1561 0.3932 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0116 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0040 0.0215 0.0000 N 171 214 217 184 197 176 217 221 221 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# LV Table D.10: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in San Carlos Bay Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient 0.2182 0.0361 -0.1929 -0.2389 -0.1680 -0.2603 -0.4491 -0.2170 p (2-tailed) 0.0001 0.5162 0.0029 0.0001 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 N 327 319 325 237 251 234 297 282 282 DO Coefficient 0.2182 0.0146 -0.0906 -0.1990 -0.0580 -0.0799 -0.0783 -0.1640 p (2-tailed) 0.0001 0.7917 0.1581 0.0013 0.3710 0.1670 0.1875 0.0055 N 319 334 331 244 257 237 301 285 285 Salinity Coefficient 0.0361 0.0146 -0.3314 -0.0186 -0.1040 -0.0432 0.4109 -0.6108 p (2-tailed) 0.5162 0.7917 0.0000 0.7661 0.1080 0.4515 0.0000 0.0000 N 325 331 339 246 259 242 306 290 290 TN Coefficient -0.1929 -0.0906 -0.3314 0.2252 0.0440 0.1549 0.2260 0.4702 p (2-tailed) 0.0029 0.1581 0.0000 0.0005 0.5480 0.0146 0.0004 0.0000 N 237 244 246 249 237 191 248 240 240 TP Coefficient -0.2389 -0.1990 -0.0186 0.2252 -0.0890 0.1266 0.1769 0.1278 p (2-tailed) 0.0001 0.0013 0.7661 0.0005 0.2090 0.0406 0.0052 0.0444 N 251 257 259 237 263 202 262 248 248 Chl a Coefficient -0.1680 -0.5800 -0.1040 0.0440 -0.0890 0.0690 0.0310 0.2740 p (2-tailed) 0.0100 0.3710 0.1080 0.5480 0.2090 0.2840 0.6430 0.0000 N 234 237 242 191 202 245 243 231 231 Coliform Coefficient -0.2603 -0.0799 -0.0432 0.1549 0.1266 0.0690 0.1744 0.1168 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.1670 0.4515 0.0146 0.0406 0.2840 0.0028 0.0462 N 297 301 306 248 262 243 310 292 292 Turbidity Coefficient -0.4491 -0.0783 0.4109 0.2260 0.1769 0.0310 0.1744 -0.0128 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.1875 0.0000 0.0004 0.0052 0.6430 0.0028 0.8275 N 282 285 290 240 248 231 292 294 294 Color Coefficient -0.2170 -0.1640 -0.6108 0.4702 0.1278 0.2740 0.1168 -0.0128 p (2-tailed) 0.0002 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0444 0.0000 0.0462 0.8275 N 282 285 290 240 248 231 292 294 294 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix D CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# LVI Table D.11: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Estero Bay Secchi DO Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Secchi Coefficient -0.0978 -0.3888 -0.0133 -0.3604 -0.2570 0.4268 -0.6045 0.1251 p (2-tailed) 0.1953 0.0000 0.8799 0.0000 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000 0.1162 N 177 177 176 131 146 130 165 159 159 DO Coefficient -0.0978 0.0793 -0.1539 0.0372 -0.2290 -0.0639 0.2583 -0.2236 p (2-tailed) 0.1953 0.1382 0.0113 0.5265 0.0000 0.2497 0.0000 0.0001 N 177 356 351 270 292 258 326 314 314 Salinity Coefficient -0.3888 0.0793 -0.2331 0.2954 -0.0220 -0.4179 0.4613 -0.6134 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.1382 0.0001 0.0000 0.7260 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N 176 351 357 272 294 260 327 315 315 TN Coefficient -0.0133 -0.1539 -0.2331 0.1748 0.1400 0.1974 0.1216 0.4567 p (2-tailed) 0.8799 0.0113 0.0001 0.0040 0.0390 0.0010 0.0488 0.0000 N 131 270 272 276 270 216 273 263 263 TP Coefficient -0.3604 0.0372 0.2954 0.1748 0.0900 -0.0386 0.4315 -0.0650 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.5265 0.0000 0.0040 0.1690 0.5078 0.0000 0.2749 N 146 292 294 270 297 234 296 284 284 Chl a Coefficient -0.2570 -0.2290 -0.0220 0.1400 0.0900 -0.0770 0.1240 0.0410 p (2-tailed) 0.0030 0.0000 0.7260 0.0390 0.1690 0.2120 0.0490 0.5130 N 130 258 260 216 234 263 262 252 252 Coliform Coefficient 0.4268 -0.0639 -0.4179 0.1974 -0.0386 -0.0770 -0.1772 0.2752 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.2497 0.0000 0.0010 0.5078 0.2120 0.0015 0.0000 N 165 326 327 273 296 262 331 317 317 Turbidity Coefficient -0.6045 0.2583 0.4613 0.1216 0.4315 0.1240 -0.1772 -0.1084 p (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0488 0.0000 0.0490 0.0015 0.0530 N 159 314 315 263 284 252 317 319 319 Color Coefficient 0.1251 -0.2236 -0.6134 0.4567 -0.0650 0.0410 0.2752 -0.1084 p (2-tailed) 0.1162 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.2749 0.5130 0.0000 0.0530 N 159 314 315 263 284 252 317 319 319 Bold values significant at the 0.05 level

# Appendix E CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# LVII 

# Appendix E: Rainfall Relationships Page Table E.1: Spearman's rho correlation for sele cted variables for the entire study region and duration _____________________________________________ LVIII

# Appendix E CHEVWQMN Report 2007

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection 

# LVIII Table E.1: Spearman's rho correlation for rainfall for the ent ire region and individual regions for the duration of the study Secchi pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color Entire Region Coefficient -0.038 -0.911 -0.858 -0.116 0.493 0.276 0.182 -64.000 0.588 p (2-tailed) 0.929 0.002 0.006 0.785 0.214 0.549 0.665 0.087 0.125 N 888887888 Lower Lemon Bay Coefficient 0.221 -0.228 -0.717 -0.506 0.079 -0.236 -0.172 -0.533 0.242 p (2-tailed) 0.598 0.587 0.045 0.200 0.853 0.610 0.683 0.174 0.564 N 888887888 Upper Lemon Bay Coefficient -0.072 -0.634 -0.861 0.190 0.406 0.272 0.084 0.146 0.413 p (2-tailed) 0.865 0.092 0.006 0.965 0.318 0.555 0.844 0.731 0.310 N 888887888 Lower Charlotte Harbor* Coefficient -0.383 -0 .749 -0.769 -0.427 0.689 0.540 -0.211 -0.589 0.624 p (2-tailed) 0.349 0.032 0.026 0.292 0.059 0.211 0.615 0.125 0.098 N 888887888 Upper Charlotte Harbor* Coefficient -0.217 -0 .575 -0.719 -0.089 0.878 0.249 -0.075 -0.217 0.509 p (2-tailed) 0.605 0.136 0.044 0.834 0.004 0.591 0.860 0.606 0.198 N 888887888 Gasparilla/Cape Haze* Coefficient -0.041 -0.728 -0.902 0.139 0.557 0.131 0.260 -0.697 0.668 p (2-tailed) 0.924 0.041 0.002 0.742 0.151 0.780 0.534 0.055 0.070 N 888887888 Pine Island Sound** Coefficient 0.222 -0.838 -0.909 0.084 0.390 0.123 0.203 -0.655 0.801 p (2-tailed) 0.598 0.009 0.002 0.844 0.340 0.793 0.629 0.078 0.017 N 888887888 Matlacha Pass** Coefficient -0.417 -0.139 -0 .762 -0.270 0.299 0.181 -0.467 -0.281 0.709 p (2-tailed) 0.304 0.743 0.028 0.518 0.472 0.697 0.244 0.500 0.049 N 888887888 San Carlos Bay*** Coefficient -0.134 -0. 797 -0.822 -0.034 0.008 0.375 0.121 -0.163 0.693 p (2-tailed) 0.751 0.018 0.012 0.937 0.984 0.408 0.775 0.700 0.057 N 888887888 Estero Bay Coefficient 0.188 -0.366 -0.428 -0.055 -0.644 0.328 0.093 -0.385 0.139 p (2-tailed) 0.655 0.372 0.291 0.898 0.085 0.472 0.826 0.347 0.742 N 888887888 * Average annual rainfall for Charlotte Harbor + Myakka + Peace ** Average annual rainfall for Charlotte Harbor + Tidal Caloosahatchee *** Average annual rainfall for Tidal Caloosahatchee Bold values significant at the 0.05 level