Integrated Water Quality Assessment 

for Florida: 

2012 305(b) Report 

and 303(d) List Update

May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Tallahassee, Florida
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

ii

This page intentionally left blank. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

iii
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document was prepared by staff in the following bureaus of the Division of Environmental 

Assessment and Restoration, and the Division of Water Resource Management, within the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection:

• Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support:

o Standards and Assessment Section

o Watershed Assessment Section

o Watershed Monitoring Section

• Bureau of Watershed Restoration:

o Ground Water Management Section

o Nonpoint Source Management Section

o Watershed Evaluation and Total Management of Daily Loads (TMDL) Section

o Watershed Planning and Coordination Section

• Bureau of Laboratories: 

o Biology Section

• Bureau of Water Facilities Regulation: 

o Domestic Wastewater Section

o Drinking Water Section

o National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater 

Section

o Wastewater Compliance and Evaluation Section

Many thanks to staff at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for their 

valuable help in updating the section on cyanobacteria in Chapter 3. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................... XVI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ XXI

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1

Federal Assessment and Reporting Requirements............................................. 1

Integrating the Federal Requirements into Florida’s Watershed 

Management Approach .......................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................ 5

Overview.................................................................................................................. 5

Population ................................................................................................................................. 7

Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Surface Water and Ground Water Resources .................................................... 10

Streams and Rivers ................................................................................................................10

Lakes........................................................................................................................................11

Estuaries and Coastal Waters ...............................................................................................12

Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................12

Aquifers and Springs..............................................................................................................13

Hydrogeology........................................................................................................ 14

Surface Water..........................................................................................................................14

Ground Water..........................................................................................................................14

Surface Water–Ground Water Interactions ..........................................................................15

CHAPTER 3: ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST AND 

INITIATIVES.......................................................................................... 17

Issues of Environmental Interest ........................................................................ 17

Drinking Water ........................................................................................................................17

Healthy Beaches Program .....................................................................................................20

Deepwater Horizon (MC252) Oil Spill....................................................................................21

Bacterial and Mercury Contamination..................................................................................22

Harmful Algal Blooms ............................................................................................................23

Initiatives ............................................................................................................... 27

CHAPTER 4: FLORIDA’S APPROACH TO MONITORING SURFACE 

WATER AND GROUND WATER.......................................................... 34

Background........................................................................................................... 34

Florida’s Integrated Water Resources Monitoring Program ............................. 38

Element 1: Monitoring Objectives........................................................................................40

Element 2: Monitoring Strategy............................................................................................40

Element 5: Quality Assurance ..............................................................................................41
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

vi

Element 6: Data Management...............................................................................................42

Element 9: Program Evaluation............................................................................................42

Element 10: General Support and Infrastructure Planning ...............................................43

Evolving Approaches to Monitoring ................................................................... 43

CHAPTER 5: DESIGN FOR THE STATUS AND TREND NETWORKS ..................... 45

Background........................................................................................................... 45

Status Network Monitoring .................................................................................. 46

Water Resource Types ...........................................................................................................47

Geographic Design and Site Selection.................................................................................48

Sampling and Frequency .......................................................................................................48

Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators ............................................................49

Status Monitoring Network Design Changes.......................................................................52

Future Design and Reporting ................................................................................................52

Trend Network....................................................................................................... 53

Surface Water Trend Network ...............................................................................................55

Ground Water Trend Network................................................................................................55

Trend Network Core and Supplemental Indicators .............................................................58

Data Evaluation..................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF THE STATUS AND TREND NETWORK 

ASSESSMENTS FOR 2009–10 ............................................................ 59

Summary of Status Network Surface Water Results ......................................... 59

Introduction.............................................................................................................................59

Rivers, Streams, Large Lakes, and Small Lakes ................................................................. 61

Sediment Quality Evaluation ................................................................................................. 70

Summary of Status Network Ground Water Results ......................................... 76

Summary of Surface and Ground Water Trend Network Results..................... 82

Surface Water Trends.............................................................................................................82

Ground Water Trends.............................................................................................................94

CHAPTER 7: OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC MONITORING AND 

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR SURFACE WATER.............. 114

Historical Perspective on the Assessment Methodology ............................... 114

Assessment Methodology: The Impaired Surface Waters Rule .....................................114

Description of the Watershed Management Approach.....................................................115

Implementation of the TMDL Program under the Rotating Basin Approach..................115

Focus on Outcomes .............................................................................................................117

Assessment Periods for the Planning and Verified List Assessments ..........................118

Determination of Use Attainment...................................................................... 118

Sources of Data .................................................................................................. 121

IWR Strategic Monitoring.....................................................................................................125

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Criteria .......................................................................125

Rationales for Not Using Existing Data..............................................................................125
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

vii

CHAPTER 8: RESULTS FOR ATTAINMENT OF DESIGNATED USES IN 

SURFACE WATERS........................................................................... 130

Surface Waters Assessed.................................................................................. 130

303(d) Listed Waters........................................................................................... 131

Summary of Causes of Impairment................................................................... 132

Delisting............................................................................................................... 139

Biological Assessment....................................................................................... 141

Use and Interpretation of Biological Results.....................................................................141

Special Focus: Lakes ........................................................................................ 143

Lake Trends for Nutrients ....................................................................................................143

Approaches to Controlling Lake Pollution and Lake Water Quality................................145

Publicly Owned Lakes with Impaired Uses........................................................................145

Drinking Water Use Support.............................................................................. 145

Overlap of Source Water Areas and Impaired Surface Waters........................................146

CHAPTER 9: INTRODUCTION TO GROUND WATER MONITORING .................... 149

Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs ........................................... 149

FDEP-Maintained Ground Water and Springs Monitoring Programs..............................150

Potable Water Monitoring by FDOH/FDEP Water Supply Restoration Program............151

Public Water System Monitoring.........................................................................................151

Monitoring of Discharges to Ground Water.......................................................................152

CHAPTER 10: RESULTS OF THE GROUND WATER ASSESSMENTS................. 153

Overall Ground Water Quality............................................................................ 153

Ground Water Quality Issues and Contaminants of Concern, 

Including Potable Water Issues......................................................................... 156

Volatile Organic Compounds ..............................................................................................156

Synthetic Organic Chemicals/Pesticides ...........................................................................160

Nitrate.....................................................................................................................................160

Primary Metals ......................................................................................................................161

Saline Water ..........................................................................................................................162

Radionuclides .......................................................................................................................162

Trihalomethanes ...................................................................................................................163

Bacteria (Coliform)................................................................................................................163

Summary of Ground Water Contaminant Sources .......................................... 163

Petroleum Facilities..............................................................................................................164

Drycleaning Solvent Facilities.............................................................................................164

Federal and State Waste Cleanup and Monitoring Sites ..................................................164

Nonpoint Sources.................................................................................................................164

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction......................................................... 165

Setting and Pathways...........................................................................................................165

Ground Water Influence on Impaired Surface Waters ......................................................165

Springs and Spring-Related Issues ....................................................................................166
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

viii

Phosphorus ...........................................................................................................................168

CHAPTER 11: WATER PROTECTION AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS ........... 171

Florida’s Water Resource Management Programs .......................................... 171

Overview of Surface Water Monitoring Programs ........................................... 172

Watershed-Based Monitoring and Reporting ....................................................................172

Overview of Surface Water Protection Programs ............................................ 173

Water Quality Standards Program ......................................................................................173

Watershed Assessment Program .......................................................................................174

Public Participation ..............................................................................................................181

Surface Water Improvement and Management Program..................................................181

Point Source Control Program ............................................................................................182

Nonpoint Source Management Program............................................................................184

Land Acquisition...................................................................................................................191

Costs and Benefits of Implementing Florida’s Surface Water Protection 

Programs to Meet the CWA’s Objectives ...........................................................................191

Coordination with Other State, Tribal, and Local Agencies.............................................194

Wetlands Program ................................................................................................................196

Results of Florida’s Surface Water Protection Programs ................................................202

REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 204

APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 218

Appendix A: Discussion of Status Network Surface Water 

Indicators for Rivers, Streams, and Lakes, and Ground Water 

Indicators for Confined and Unconfined Aquifers........................................... 218

Surface Water Indicators for Rivers, Streams, and Lakes................................................218

Ground Water Indicators for Confined and Unconfined Aquifers ...................................220

Appendix B: Tables and Maps from the 2009–10 Status Network 

Assessment Results for Large Lakes, Small Lakes, Rivers, Streams, 

Confined Aquifers, and Unconfined Aquifers .................................................. 224

Appendix C. IWR Methodology for Evaluating Impairment............................ 238

Aquatic Life Based Use Attainment....................................................................................238

Primary Contact and Recreation Use Attainment .............................................................239

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Use Attainment .............................................................239

Drinking Water Use Attainment...........................................................................................240

Evaluation and Determination of Use Attainment .............................................................240

Appendix D: Impaired Lakes in Florida, Group 1–5 Basins ........................... 247
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

ix

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Florida Atlas ............................................................................................................ 6

Table 4.1a. FDEP's Tier I Monitoring Programs ...................................................................39

Table 4.1b. FDEP's Tier I and Tier II Blended Monitoring Programs ..................................39

Table 4.1c. FDEP's Tier II Monitoring Programs ..................................................................39

Table 4.1d. FDEP's Tier III Monitoring Programs ................................................................. 39

Table 5.1a. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Field 

Measurements....................................................................................................50

Table 5.1b. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for 

Biological and Microbiological Indicators........................................................50

Table 5.1c. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Organic 

and Nutrient Indicators ......................................................................................50

Table 5.1d. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Major Ion 

Indicators............................................................................................................51

Table 5.1e. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Metal 

Indicators............................................................................................................51

Table 5.1f. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Physical 

Property Indicators ............................................................................................51

Table 5.2a. Status Network Organic and Nutrient Indicators for Sediment 

Analysis in Lakes ...............................................................................................51

Table 5.2b. Status Network Metal Indicators for Sediment Analysis in Lakes...................52

Table 5.3a. Trend Network Field Measurement Indicators..................................................53

Table 5.3b. Trend Network Biological and Microbiological Indicators...............................54

Table 5.3c. Trend Network Organic and Nutrient Indicators...............................................54

Table 5.3d. Trend Network Major Ion Indicators ..................................................................54

Table 5.3e. Trend Network Metal Indicators.........................................................................55

Table 5.3f. Trend Network Physical Property Indicators.....................................................55

Table 6.1. Summary of Surface Water Resources Assessed by the Status 

Network’s Probabilistic Monitoring, 2009–10...................................................59

Table 6.2a. Status Network Physical/Other Indicators/Index for Aquatic Life 

Use with Water Quality Criteria/Thresholds .....................................................60

Table 6.2b. Status Network Microbiological Indicators/Index for 

Recreational Use with Water Quality Criteria/Thresholds...............................60

Table 6.2c. FDEP Freshwater Lake Sediment Contaminant Thresholds for 

Metals..................................................................................................................60

Table 6.3a. Explanation of Terms Used in Tables 6.3b through 6.3e..................................61

Table 6.3b. Statewide Percentage of Rivers Meeting Threshold Values for 

Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design ........................63

Table 6.3c. Statewide Percentage of Streams Meeting Threshold Values for 

Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design ........................65
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

x

Table 6.3d. Statewide Percentage of Large Lakes Meeting Threshold 

Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design.................................................................................................................67

Table 6.3e. Statewide Percentage of Small Lakes Meeting Threshold Values 

for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design.................................................................................................................69

Table 6.4a. Statewide Percentage of Large Lakes Meeting Sediment 

Contaminant Threshold Values.........................................................................72

Table 6.4b. Statewide Percentage of Small Lakes Meeting Sediment 

Contaminant Threshold Values.........................................................................74

Table 6.5. Status Network Physical/Other Indicators/Index for Potable 

Water Supply for Ground Water with Water Quality 

Criteria/Thresholds ............................................................................................76

Table 6.6a. Legend for Terms Used in Tables 6.6b and 6.6c...............................................77

Table 6.6b. Statewide Percentage of Confined Aquifers Meeting Threshold 

Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design.................................................................................................................79

Table 6.6c. Statewide Percentage of Unconfined Aquifers Meeting 

Threshold Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic 

Monitoring Design..............................................................................................81

Table 6.7. Surface Water Trend Summary (1999–2010).......................................................83

Table 6.8a. Legend for the Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in Tables 

6.8b and 6.8c.......................................................................................................83

Table 6.8b. Trends for Specified Analytes for Surface Water Trend Network 

Stations that Are Associated with a USGS Gauging Station and 

Adjusted for River Flow .....................................................................................84

Table 6.8c. Trends for Specified Analytes for Surface Water Stations from 

the Trend Network and not Adjusted for River Flow .......................................85

Table 6.9. Ground Water Trend Summary (1999–2010) .......................................................94

Table 6.10a. Legend for the Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in Tables 

6.10b and 6.10c...................................................................................................95

Table 6.10b. Trends for Specified Analytes for Stations in the Ground 

Water Trend Monitoring Network, Confined Aquifers .....................................96

Table 6.10c. Trends for Specified Analytes for Stations in the Ground 

Water Trend Monitoring Network, Unconfined Aquifers ................................. 97

Table 7.1. Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management 

Cycle, by FDEP District....................................................................................115

Table 7.2. Phases of the Basin Management Cycle...........................................................116

Table 7.3. Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists for the 

Basin Rotation Cycles .....................................................................................118

Table 7.4. Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in 

Florida...............................................................................................................119

Table 7.5. Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2012 

Integrated Report .............................................................................................120
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xi

Table 7.6. Organizations Providing Data Used in the IWR Assessments ........................123

Table 7.7. Types of Data Excluded from IWR Assessments .............................................128

Table 8.1. Total Number of Waterbody Segments and Size of Assessed 

Waterbody Segments by Waterbody Type .....................................................131

Table 8.2a. Assessment Results for Pathogens by Waterbody Type and 

Assessment Category......................................................................................133

Table 8.2b. Assessment Results for Nutrients by Waterbody Type and 

Assessment Category......................................................................................134

Table 8.2c. Assessment Results for Mercury by Waterbody Type and 

Assessment Category......................................................................................134

Table 8.3a. Miles of Rivers/Streams Impaired by Cause ...................................................134

Table 8.3b. Square Miles of Lakes Impaired by Cause......................................................135

Table 8.3c. Square Miles of Estuaries Impaired by Cause ................................................135

Table 8.3d. Square Miles of Coastal Waters Impaired by Cause ......................................136

Table 8.4a. Distribution of Biological Results by Assessment Type and 

Aquatic Life Use Support.................................................................................142

Table 8.4b. Summary of Biological Results by Assessment Type and 

Aquatic Life Use Support.................................................................................143

Table 8.5. Total Miles of Rivers/Streams and Square Miles of 

Lakes/Reservoirs Designated for Drinking Water Use ..................................145

Table 8.6. Waterbodies Designated for Drinking Water Use by Assessment 

Category (Results for Assessments Including Criteria for All 

Use Support).....................................................................................................147

Table 8.7. Summary of Impaired River/Stream Miles and Lake/Reservoir 

Square Miles Overlapping Source Water Areas of Community 

Water Systems ................................................................................................. 148

Table 9.1a. Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs and Data 

Sources: FDEP-Maintained Monitoring Networks........................................149

Table 9.1b. Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs and Data 

Sources: Programs that Include Potable Ground Water 

Sampling: FDEP-Maintained Monitoring Networks......................................150

Table 10.1. Summary of Percent Ground Water Samples Achieving Primary 

Ground Water Standards for Selected Analytes by Basin ............................154

Table 10.2a. Summary of Recent Exceedances of Primary Ground Water 

Standards in Untreated Samples from Private Wells and 

Ground Water–Based Public Water Systems.................................................158

Table 10.2b. Summary of Recent Exceedances of Primary Ground Water 

Standards in Untreated Samples from Private Wells and 

Ground Water–Based Public Water Systems.................................................159

Table 10.3. Median Concentrations of Ground Water–Surface Water 

Constituents in Unconfined Aquifers (2000–11) ............................................167

Table 11.1. Status of Ongoing BMAP Efforts .....................................................................179

Table 11.2. Number of Enrolled Acres and NOIs as of June 30, 2011 ..............................186
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xii

Table 11.3. Florida Legislative Appropriations for Nonpoint Sources and 

TMDLs, 2000–11 ...............................................................................................192

Table 11.4. Results of the 2008 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey for Florida.................193

Table 11.5. Primary Coordination Mechanisms for Managing State, 

Regional, and Local Water Resources............................................................194

Table 11.6. Historical Estimates of Wetlands in Florida, 1780–1980 ................................197

Table 11.7. Open Mitigation Banks in Florida1 ...................................................................201

Table 11.8. Acreage of Affected Wetlands Regulated by FDEP and the 

WMDs (2010–11)...............................................................................................203

Table A.1. Status Monitoring Network Water Quality Standards for Surface 

Water.................................................................................................................218

Table A.2. Status Monitoring Network Water Quality Standards for Ground 

Water.................................................................................................................220

Table B.1. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Rivers Meeting Threshold Values 

for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design...............................................................................................................225

Table B.2. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Rivers Meeting Threshold Values 

for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design...............................................................................................................226

Table B.3. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Streams Meeting Threshold 

Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design...............................................................................................................227

Table B.4. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Streams Meeting Threshold 

Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design...............................................................................................................228

Table B.5. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Large Lakes Meeting Threshold 

Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design...............................................................................................................229

Table B.6. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Large Lakes Meeting Threshold 

Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design...............................................................................................................230

Table B.7. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Small Lakes Meeting Threshold 

Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design...............................................................................................................231

Table B.8. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Small Lakes Meeting Threshold 

Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring 

Design...............................................................................................................232

Table B.9. Status Monitoring Network Water Quality Criteria/Thresholds for 

Ground Water...................................................................................................233

Table B.10. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Confined Aquifers Meeting 

Threshold Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic 

Monitoring Design............................................................................................234

Table B.11. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Confined Aquifers Meeting 

Threshold Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic 

Monitoring Design............................................................................................235
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xiii

Table B.12. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Unconfined Aquifers Meeting 

Threshold Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic 

Monitoring Design............................................................................................236

Table B.13. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Unconfined Aquifers Meeting 

Threshold Values for Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic 

Monitoring Design............................................................................................237

Table C.1. Sample Counts for Analytes Having Numeric Criteria in the 

Florida Standards.............................................................................................240

Table C.2. SCI Metrics for the Northeast, Panhandle, and Peninsula 

Regions of Florida............................................................................................245

Table C.3. BioRecon Metrics for the Northeast, Panhandle, and Peninsula 

Regions of Florida............................................................................................245

Table C.4. BioRecon Sample Size and Index Range..........................................................246

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Florida’s Population Distribution, 2010 ............................................................... 8

Figure 2.2. Florida’s Average Annual Rainfall, 1981–2010.................................................... 9

Figure 2.3. Springs of Florida................................................................................................14

Figure 5.1. Status Monitoring Network Reporting Units......................................................46

Figure 5.2. Status Network Sampling Periods for 2009 and 2010.......................................48

Figure 5.3. Surface Water Trend Network Sites ...................................................................56

Figure 5.4. Ground Water Trend Network Sites with Sufficient Period of 

Record.................................................................................................................57

Figure 6.1. Statewide River Sample Locations ....................................................................62

Figure 6.2. Statewide Summary of River Results................................................................. 63

Figure 6.3. Statewide Stream Sample Locations ................................................................. 64

Figure 6.4. Statewide Summary of Stream Results .............................................................65

Figure 6.5. Statewide Large Lake Sample Locations...........................................................66

Figure 6.6. Statewide Summary of Large Lake Results.......................................................67

Figure 6.7. Statewide Small Lake Sample Locations...........................................................68

Figure 6.8. Statewide Summary of Small Lake Results.......................................................69

Figure 6.9. Statewide Summary of Large Lake Sediment Results......................................73

Figure 6.10. Statewide Summary of Small Lake Sediment Results ....................................75

Figure 6.11. Statewide Confined Aquifer Well Locations....................................................78

Figure 6.12. Statewide Summary of Confined Aquifer Results...........................................79

Figure 6.13. Statewide Unconfined Aquifer Well Locations................................................80

Figure 6.14. Statewide Summary of Unconfined Aquifer Results.......................................81

Figure 6.15. Surface Water Trends for Nitrate + Nitrite, 1999–2010....................................86

Figure 6.16. Surface Water Trends for TKN, 1999–2010......................................................87

Figure 6.17. Surface Water Trends for TP, 1999–2010.........................................................88
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xiv

Figure 6.18. Surface Water Trends for TOC, 1999–2010......................................................89

Figure 6.19. Surface Water Trends for Chlorophyll a, 1999–2010.......................................90

Figure 6.20. Surface Water Trends for Fecal Coliform Bacteria, 1999–2010......................91

Figure 6.21. Surface Water Trends for pH, 1999–2010 ........................................................92

Figure 6.22. Surface Water Trends for DO, 1999–2010........................................................93

Figure 6.23. Ground Water Trends for Temperature, 1999–2010........................................98

Figure 6.24. Ground Water Trends for Specific Conductance, 1999–2010.........................99

Figure 6.25. Ground Water Trends for pH, 1999–2010.......................................................100

Figure 6.26. Ground Water Trends for Depth to Water, 1999–2010 ..................................101

Figure 6.27. Ground Water Trends for Total Dissolved Solids, 1999–2010......................102

Figure 6.28. Ground Water Trends for Nitrate + Nitrite, 1999–2010..................................103

Figure 6.29. Ground Water Trends for Phosphorus, 1999–2010.......................................104

Figure 6.30. Ground Water Trends for Potassium, 1999–2010..........................................105

Figure 6.31. Ground Water Trends for Sulfate, 1999–2010................................................106

Figure 6.32. Ground Water Trends for Sodium, 1999–2010 ..............................................107

Figure 6.33. Ground Water Trends for Chloride, 1999–2010 .............................................108

Figure 6.34. Ground Water Trends for Calcium, 1999–2010..............................................109

Figure 6.35. Ground Water Trends for Magnesium, 1999–2010........................................110

Figure 6.36. Ground Water Trends for Alkalinity, 1999–2010............................................111

Figure 6.37. Ground Water Trends for Total Coliform, 1999–2010....................................112

Figure 6.38. Ground Water Trends for Fecal Coliform, 1999–2010...................................113

Figure 7.1. Period of Record Assessment Flow Chart.......................................................122

Figure 8.1a. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment: EPA 

Assessment Categories for Pathogens..........................................................137

Figure 8.1b. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment: EPA 

Assessment Categories for Nutrients.............................................................138

Figure 8.1c. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment: EPA 

Assessment Categories for Mercury ..............................................................139

Figure 8.2. Decision Tree for Delisting for Nutrient Impairment Based on 

Chlorophyll a (Chl-a)........................................................................................140

Figure 10.1. Statewide Summary of Primary MCL Exceedances Reported 

for Untreated Public Water Systems and Private Wells in a 

Recent Two-Year Period ..................................................................................157

Figure 10.2. Median Nitrate + Nitrite Concentrations in the Spring Network 

(2001–06)...........................................................................................................169

Figure 10.3. Median Orthophosphate Concentrations in the Spring 

Network, 2001–06 .............................................................................................170

Figure 11.1. Agencies Responsible for Water Resource Coordination and 

Management in Florida ....................................................................................196

Figure B.1. 2009 Statewide Summary of River Results .....................................................225

Figure B.2. 2010 Statewide Summary of River Results .....................................................226
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xv

Figure B.3. 2009 Statewide Summary of Stream Results..................................................227

Figure B.4. 2010 Statewide Summary of Stream Results..................................................228

Figure B.5. 2009 Statewide Summary of Large Lake Results ...........................................229

Figure B.6. 2010 Statewide Summary of Large Lake Results ...........................................230

Figure B.7. 2009 Statewide Summary of Small Lake Results ...........................................231

Figure B.8. 2010 Statewide Summary of Small Lake Results ...........................................232

Figure B.9. 2009 Statewide Summary of Confined Aquifer Results ................................. 234

Figure B.10. 2010 Statewide Summary of Confined Aquifer Results ...............................235

Figure B.11. 2009 Statewide Summary of Unconfined Aquifer Results ...........................236

Figure B.12. 2010 Statewide Summary of Unconfined Aquifer Results ...........................237
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xvi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND

ABBREVIATIONS

μg Microgram 

μg/L Micrograms per Liter

μS MicroSiemen 

μS/cm MicroSiemens per Centimeter 

ALK Alkalinity

As Arsenic 

ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

ATAC Allocation Technical Advisory Committee 

β-BHC Beta Benzenehexachloride

BGD Billion Gallons per Day 

BioRecon BioReconnaissance 

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand 

BRACE Bay Regional Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment 

Ca Calcium

CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate

CAMA Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

CARL Conservation and Recreation Lands 

CBI Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection 

CBIR Community Budget Initiative Request 

CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

CCUA Clay County Utility Authority

CEI Compliance Evaluation Inspection 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

cfs Cubic Feet per Second

CFU/100mL Colony-Forming Units per 100 Milliliters

Chl-a Chlorophyll a 

Cl Chloride

cm Centimeter

CSI Compliance Sampling Inspection 

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWNS Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 

CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

DEAR Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

DEP Department of Environmental Protection

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DOSS Dioctylsulfosuccinate-NA

DPBE Dipropylene Glycol Butyl Ether 

DSCP Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program 

DWMP District Water Management Plan 

EDB Ethylene Dibromide 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xvii

ELRA Environmental Litigation Reform Act 

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERP Environmental Resource Permit 

ESOCs Emerging Substances of Concern 

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code 

FC Fecal Coliform

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs 

FDEO Florida Department of Economic Opportunity

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FDER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 

FDOH Florida Department of Health 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FFL Florida-Friendly Landscaping

FGS Florida Geological Survey 

FL STORET Florida Storage and Retrieval (Database) 

FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute 

F.S. Florida Statutes 

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FWCI Florida Wetland Condition Index 

FWRA Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

FWRI Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

FWRMC Florida Water Resources Monitoring Council

FWVSS Foodborne, Waterborne, and Vectorborne Disease Surveillance System 

FY Fiscal Year 

FYI Fifth Year Inspection 

GIS Geographic Information System

GRTS Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified 

GWTV Ground Water Temporal Variability 

HAB Harmful Algal Bloom 

HAL Health Advisory Limit

HDG Human Disturbance Gradient

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IBI Impact Bioassessment 

IMAP Inshore Marine Monitoring and Assessment Program 

IMC International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation

IRL Indian River Lagoon

ISD Insufficient Data

IWR Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Monitoring

K Potassium

kg Kilogram

kg/yr Kilograms per Year

L Liter

LID Low-Impact Development

LVI Lake Vegetation Index 

LVS Linear Vegetation Survey 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MDL Method Detection Limit or Minimum Detection Limit

mg Milligram
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xviii

Mg Magnesium

MGD Million Gallons per Day 

mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram

mg/L Milligrams per Liter

mL Milliliter

MML Mote Marine Laboratory 

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System 

MSSW Management and Storage of Surface Water 

NOX Nitrate + Nitrite

N Nitrogen

Na Sodium

N/A Not Available or Not Applicable

NCRS Natural Conservation Resources Service

NEEPP Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program

NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference 

NEP National Estuary Program 

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOV Notice of Violation 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priorities List

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NSP Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning 

NSTP National Status and Trends Program 

NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District

OAWP Office of Agricultural Water Policy

OFW Outstanding Florida Water 

OSTDS Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems

P Phosphorus

P-2000 Preservation 2000 

PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PAI Performance Audit Inspection 

PAM Polyacrylamides

Pb Lead 

PBS Performance-Based Systems

PBS&J Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. 

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCE Tetrachloroethylene 

PCU Platinum Cobalt Unit

PEC Probable Effects Concentration 

PLRG Pollutant Load Reduction Goal 

ppb Parts per Billion

PQL Practical Quantification Limit

psu Practical Salinity Unit

PWS Public Water System 

PWS ID# Public Water System Identification Number 

QA Quality Assurance 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

QPS Qualitative Periphyton

RFA Restoration Focus Areas
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xix

rNHD Re-Leveled National Hydrography Dataset 

RPS Rapid Periphyton Survey

SO4 Sulfate

SB Senate Bill 

SC Specific Conductance

SCI Stream Condition Index 

SERCC Southeast Regional Climate Center

SERT State Emergency Response Team

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District

SK Seasonal Kendall 

SOCs Synthetic Organic Chemicals 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SOR Save Our Rivers 

SRF State Revolving Fund 

SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District

SSACs Site-Specific Alternative Criteria 

STA Stormwater Treatment Area 

STAG State and Tribal Assistance Grant 

STCM Storage Tank Contamination Monitoring

STORET Storage and Retrieval (Database)

SWAPP Source Water Assessment and Protection Program

SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management 

TAC Technical Advisory Committee 

TC Total Coliform

TCE Trichloroethylene 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TEC Threshold Effects Concentration 

Th-232 Thorium-232 

THMs Trihalomethanes 

TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TN Total Nitrogen

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TP Total Phosphorus

TSI Trophic State Index 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

TV Temporal Variability 

U-238 Uranium-238 

UF University of Florida 

UF-IFAS University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 

UIC Underground Injection Control

UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method 

USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. U.S. Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VISA Very Intense Study Area 

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds 

WBID Waterbody Identification Number 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xx

WHO World Health Organization 

WL Water Level 

WMD Water Management District

WMS Watershed Monitoring Section

WQBELs Water Quality–Based Effluent Limitations 

WQI Water Quality Inspection

WQS Water Quality Standard

WQX Water Quality Exchange

WRP Wetland Resource Permit

WSRP Water Supply Restoration Program 

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

XSI Toxic Sampling Inspection 

 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xxi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose and Contents

This report provides an overview of the status and overall condition of Florida’s surface and 

ground water quality addressing reporting requirements of Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the 

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 305(b) requires each state to report to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the condition of its surface waters, and Section 

303(d) requires each state to report on its impaired waterbodies (those not meeting water 

quality standards). Using the information from all the states, the EPA provides Congress with a 

national inventory of water quality conditions and develops priorities for future federal actions to 

protect and restore aquatic resources. 

In preparing this report, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) assessed 

an abundance of available water quality data, including data from FDEP’s Ambient Monitoring 

Networks (the “Status” and “Trend” monitoring networks), ambient data from data providers 

statewide, and data collected in support of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. 

There are tens of millions of data records maintained electronically and stored in the Florida 

Storage and Retrieval (STORET) database. These data are used to identify impaired waters, 

as well as for the development of numeric criteria and analysis of other water quality issues. In 

addition to surface water data, several programs track ground water data, which are becoming 

increasingly important to evaluate the many issues that affect ground water quality. 

Overall, there are approximately 54,836 miles of rivers and streams, 49,128 miles of canals and 

ditches, over 1,811,329 acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, and more than 1,000 springs in 

the state (Table 2.1). Additionally, there are thousands of wells that provide fresh water for 

potable and irrigation uses. Monitoring and characterizing these waters is a tremendous 

undertaking. The sheer extent of these waters requires several monitoring approaches (“tiers”) 

to appropriately and adequately report water quality conditions. The first of these tiers is a bigpicture, statewide statistical estimate of condition. The second critical tier is to identify those 

waterbodies and reaches that are impaired , thus requiring remediation. The next level of 

assessment is to carry out site-specific, cause-and-effect monitoring. Each of these tiers plays 

a critical role in a comprehensive report on water quality. 

Statewide Status and Trend Monitoring Results for Surface and 

Ground Water 

The Status Monitoring Network uses an EPA-designed probabilistic monitoring network to 

estimate with known confidence the water quality of 100% of the fresh waters in the state that 

can be sampled. These waters include rivers, streams, lakes, and ground water resources. 

Standard physical/chemical and biological metrics are collected, as applicable. The entire state 

is assessed each year. 

This report summarizes (in Chapter 6) the results of 2 statewide sampling events (cycles) 

conducted in 2009 and 2010. Of note, the state’s surface and ground water resources are 

predominantly in good condition based on the indicators assessed. This is the benefit of the 

probabilistic approach, as it allows assessment of all ambient waters as opposed to focusing on 

impaired reaches and lakes of the state. The results provide data indicating areas that may 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xxii

need further assessment, but also indicate areas that can be slated for protection rather than 

remediation.

For instance, several resources had multiple indicators below 80% attainment. Results from the 

streams resource indicated that fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen (DO) fall below 80% 

attainment throughout the state. Of note, many state streams naturally exceed the applicable 

DO and fecal coliform criteria. Results from large lakes indicate that the Trophic State Index 

(TSI) results fall below 80% attainment. Differences in the percentages of attainment

throughout the state may result from different land uses, alterations of the resource, geology, or 

other climatic conditions.

An analysis of data from the Trend Monitoring Network, which consists of 76 surface water 

stations (e.g., rivers and streams) and 48 ground water wells located throughout Florida, did not 

identify any general surface water trends (when present, they were indicator specific), but 

identified some ground water trends that imply changes in water sources, water levels, or matrix 

interactions. The ground water wells show increasing trends for saltwater encroachment 

indicators (calcium, sodium, chloride, and potassium) and for rock-matrix indicators (calcium, 

magnesium, potassium, and alkalinity) with an associated decreasing trend in pH. These 

ground water results corroborate those presented in FDEP’s Florida Geological Survey Special 

Bulletin No. 69 (Copeland et al. 2009) and are considered the primary concern for the state’s 

ground waters. 

Summary of Water Quality Standards Attainment for Assessed 

Rivers/Streams, Lakes, Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and Beaches

For the determination of use support (described in detail in Chapter 8), FDEP assessed 

14,454.2 miles of rivers and streams, 1,964.6 square miles of lakes, 5,473.1 square miles of 

estuaries, 6,486.9 square miles of coastal waters, and 104.3 miles of beaches using the 

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

Code [F.A.C.]) for the identification of impaired waters. The tables below list the assessment 

results for the most frequently cited causes of impairment by waterbody type (rivers/streams, 

lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and beaches) and EPA reporting category. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xxiii

Assessment Results for the Most Frequent Causes of Impairment

by Waterbody Type and Assessment Category

Each of the 3 tables below has 11 columns. Column 1 lists the waterbody type assessed, Columns 2 through 10 list 

the number of each waterbody type in each of the EPA reported categories, and Column 11 summarizes the total 

number of waterbody segments in each of the reporting categories.

Notes: There are no waters in EPA Category 1 (attaining all designated uses) because FDEP does not sample for all uses. 

Category 2 comprises waters attaining all the uses that are sampled for.

The EPA Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and a TMDL has been completed; 

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

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

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

pollutant; 

4d—No causative pollutant has been identified; 

4e—Impaired, but recently completed or ongoing restoration activities should restore the designated uses of the waterbody; 

and

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

- = Empty cell/no data

PATHOGENS

Waterbody 

Type

Cat. 

2

Cat. 

3B

Cat. 

3C

Cat. 

4A

Cat. 

4B

Cat. 

4C

Cat. 

4D

Cat. 

4E

Cat. 

5 Total

Beach 170 12 9 - - - - - 77 268

Coastal 91 13 - - - - - - 19 123

Estuary 213 44 11 4 - - - - 154 426

Lake 291 537 11 - - - - - 11 850

Stream 398 726 80 23 - - - - 343 1,570

Total 1,163 1,332 111 27 0 0 0 0 604 3,237

NUTRIENTS

Waterbody 

Type

Cat. 

2

Cat. 

3B

Cat. 

3C

Cat. 

4A

Cat. 

4B

Cat. 

4C

Cat. 

4D

Cat. 

4E

Cat. 

5 Total

Coastal 41 49 1 - - - - 1 1 93

Estuary 105 178 31 12 6 - - 1 111 444

Lake 214 744 52 22 - - 1 - 43 1,076

Stream 398 859 67 22 - - 3 10 206 1,565

Total 758 1,830 151 56 6 0 4 12 361 3,178

MERCURY

Waterbody 

Type

Cat. 

2

Cat. 

3B

Cat. 

3C

Cat. 

4A

Cat. 

4B

Cat. 

4C

Cat. 

4D

Cat. 

4E

Cat. 

5 Total

Coastal - - - - - - - - 221 221

Estuary - 1 1 - - - - - 504 506

Lake 3 1 43 - - - - - 127 174

Stream 16 1 32 - - - - - 249 298

Total 19 3 76 0 0 0 0 0 1,101 1,199
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xxiv

Ground Water Monitoring Results

Ground water, which provides more than 90% of Florida’s drinking water, is highly vulnerable to 

contamination in much of the state. Generally, the overall quality of the evaluated potable 

aquifers was good for the parameters that were evaluated by FDEP’s monitoring networks 

(Table 10.1). However, a number of ground water issues will require continued attention.

Ground water contaminants of concern were evaluated using recent sampling data from private 

wells and public water systems served by wells (in Chapter 10, Figure 10.1; Tables 10.2a and 

10.2b). Contamination by arsenic and the pesticide dieldrin are the contaminants of greatest 

concern based on recent private well sampling results. However, well contamination by nitrate 

and volatile organic compounds continues to be an issue for private well users. Fewer 

exceedances were detected in public water system samples, but data from a recent two-year 

period showed that radionuclides (a natural condition), metals (mainly arsenic), and salinity (as 

sodium) are the contaminants exceeding primary drinking water standards most often in 

untreated water (but not the water that is delivered to customers, which meets standards). 

Nitrate remains the greatest issue to surface waters that receive significant inputs of ground 

water since it can cause excessive growth of algae and can impair clear-water systems, 

particularly springs (Figure 10.2). 

Conclusion

Since the passage of the CWA, FDEP has made tremendous progress statewide in identifying 

and addressing surface and ground water contamination. However, much more work remains 

to be done, especially in the face of Florida’s continued population growth. 

In cooperation with other agencies and stakeholders, FDEP continues to implement numerous 

programs and activities to continue its goal of protecting, managing, and restoring the state’s 

surface water quality, aquatic habitats, and aquatic life, as well as potable water supplies (see 

Chapter 11). It has also identified a number of issues of environmental interest and initiatives

(see Chapter 3), including the following:

• The development of numeric criteria to address the nutrient impairment of 

surface waters caused by a variety of sources, including septic tanks, higher 

fertilizer use, and the increased number of residential landscapes accompanying 

the state’s growing population; 

• The continued development and implementation of best management practices 

(BMPs) to further reduce environmental effects from agricultural runoff; 

• The continued monitoring and investigation of increased nitrate concentrations in 

springs that can cause the overgrowth of aquatic plants—including blue-green 

algae, which can produce toxins that affect humans and wildlife; 

• Scientific studies to quantify the reductions needed to address the mercury 

impairment of surface waters statewide; 

• The creation of a multiagency, statewide working group to address increased 

saltwater intrusion and encroachment into freshwater supplies; 

• An ongoing study of the temporal variability of arsenic concentrations in selected 

wells that tap the Floridan aquifer system; 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

xxv

• The development of strategies for effectively addressing Emerging Substances 

of Concern (ESOCs), which are man-made chemicals in many consumer goods 

such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products that have been found in 

water, soils, and the air; 

• The revision of fecal coliform criteria and methods to assess human health 

issues at beaches and shellfish-harvesting areas more rapidly and accurately; 

and 

• The revision of dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria to more clearly define “natural 

conditions” and to better understand the natural variability of DO and nutrient 

levels in freshwater aquatic systems statewide.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

1

Contents

• Chapter 1 provides background information on the 

federal assessment and reporting requirements and 

how they are integrated into Florida’s watershed 

management approach. 

• Chapter 2 contains background information on the 

state’s population, surface water and ground water 

resources, climate, and hydrogeology. 

• Chapter 3 summarizes issues of environmental 

interest and initiatives.

• Chapter 4 discusses Florida’s general approach to 

monitoring surface water and ground water.

• Chapter 5 describes the statewide Status and Trend 

Monitoring Networks. These surface and ground 

water ambient monitoring programs allow estimates 

of the percentage of waters statewide that meet or 

do not meet water quality thresholds for their 

designated uses, or track changes in water quality 

over time.

• Chapter 6 summarizes the results of the Status 

Monitoring Network from 2009 through 2010, as well 

as long-term trends in surface and ground water 

quality.

• Chapter 7 describes the Strategic Monitoring design. 

• Chapter 8 summarizes the significant surface water 

quality findings for Strategic Monitoring and the 

attainment of designated uses for rivers and 

streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters.

• Chapter 9 discusses the state’s ground water

monitoring programs.

• Chapter 10 presents significant ground water quality 

findings, summarizes ground water contaminant 

sources, and characterizes ground water–surface 

water interactions. Evaluating ground water 

resources is particularly important because 90% of 

the state’s drinking water supplies come from ground 

water. 

• Chapter 11 describes Florida’s water resource 

management program to monitor and protect surface 

water resources.

• The Appendices provide background information and 

supporting data.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This report provides an overview 

of Florida’s surface water and 

ground water quality as of 2011. 

Referred to as the Integrated 

Report because it fulfills the 

reporting requirements under 

Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of 

the federal Clean Water Act 

(CWA), the report must be 

submitted to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) every two years. 

Federal Assessment 

and Reporting 

Requirements

Section 305(b) of the CWA 

requires states and other 

jurisdictions to submit biennial 

water quality reports to the EPA. 

These reports, referred to as 

305(b) reports, describe surface 

water and ground water quality 

and trends, the extent to which 

waters are attaining their 

designated uses (such as 

drinking water, recreation, and 

shellfish harvesting), and major 

impacts to surface water and 

ground water. Under Section 

303(d) of the CWA, states are 

also required to identify waters 

that are not attaining their 

designated uses, submit to the 

EPA a list of these impaired 

waters (referred to as the 303[d] 

list), and develop Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) for them. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2

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

and still meet its designated uses.

Water quality monitoring and data analysis are the foundation of water resource management 

decisions. The EPA and its state partners have worked together to develop an integrated 

305(b) and 303(d) assessment approach to address water quality monitoring strategies, data 

quality and data quantity needs, and data interpretation methodologies. This 2012 Integrated 

Report continues the consolidation and alignment of the 305(b) and 303(d) assessment and 

reporting requirements. It also includes Section 314 reporting on the status and trends of 

significant publicly owned lakes.

The Integrated Report allows states to document whether water quality standards are being 

attained, documents the availability of data and information for each waterbody segment, 

identifies trends in water quality conditions, and provides information to managers in setting 

priorities for future actions to protect and restore the health of Florida’s aquatic resources. This 

comprehensive approach to assessment enhances Florida’s ability to track important 

programmatic and environmental goals of the CWA and, ideally, speeds up the pace of 

achieving these goals.

Florida’s integrated approach to monitoring and assessment consists of three tiers: statewide 

ambient monitoring networks for status and trends, strategic monitoring for verification of 

impairment and identification of causative pollutants, and specialized, site-specific studies. 

The Status Network component of the ambient monitoring program is a probabilistic 

assessment that is used to develop statistical estimates of water quality across the entire state, 

based on a stratified random sample design. The use of probability assessments produces an 

unbiased picture of water quality conditions statewide and provides a cost-effective benchmark 

of the success of Florida’s water quality programs. The results can also provide information on 

whether it would be useful to target certain waters for further assessment, or if limited resources 

for water quality assessment can be used more effectively in other ways. The Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) also implements a Trend Monitoring Network 

consisting of 76 surface water and 48 ground water stations. Trend analyses for surface and 

ground water resources are used to examine changes in water quality over time. Florida’s 

statewide Status and Trend monitoring networks enable FDEP to satisfy some of the reporting 

requirements for Sections 106 and 305(b) of the CWA. 

A variety of basin- and waterbody-specific assessments are conducted as part of the second tier 

monitoring, or Strategic Monitoring. The primary focus of strategic monitoring is to collect 

sufficient data to verify whether waters that have limited data indicating they are potentially 

impaired are in fact impaired, and to the extent possible, determine the causative pollutant for 

waters listed for dissolved oxygen (DO) or bioassessment failures. However, FDEP also 

conducts other types of strategic monitoring to better evaluate specific water resources (springs, 

for example). 

Site-specific monitoring (the third tier) includes intensive surveys for TMDLs, monitoring for the 

development of water quality standards and site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC), and fifthyear inspections for permit renewals for facilities that discharge to surface waters. Special 

monitoring programs are used to address other program-specific needs, such as monitoring to 

develop predictive models, including the mercury TMDL being developed for Florida. Ground 

water arsenic studies address natural vs. anthropogenic sources of arsenic in aquifers, and 

restoration efforts are measured by project-specific studies.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

3

All readily available ambient water quality data, regardless of the monitoring tier, are considered 

part of the 303(d) assessment for the determination of impaired waters, and each result is 

placed into one of five assessment categories, based on available data. According to the EPA, 

this approach allows the states to document the attainment of applicable water quality standards 

and develop monitoring strategies that effectively respond to the needs identified in the 

assessment, while ensuring that the attainment status of each water quality standard applicable 

to a particular waterbody segment is addressed. The five broad categories are as follows:

• Category 1: All designated uses are supported; no use is threatened.

• Category 2: Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all, of 

the designated uses are supported.

• Category 3: There are insufficient available data and/or information to make a 

use support determination.

• Category 4: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one 

designated use is not being supported or is threatened, but a TMDL is not 

needed.

• Category 5: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one 

designated use is not being supported or is threatened, and a TMDL is needed.

In addition to using these broad categories, the EPA allows states to develop and use individual 

subcategories to fit unique or specialized sets of circumstances. These subcategories (see 

Chapter 7) must be consistent with the purpose of the more general category and be approved 

by the EPA during its review of each state’s methodology for developing lists of impaired waters.

Integrating the Federal Requirements into Florida’s 

Watershed Management Approach

For the 2012 Integrated Report, FDEP has continued to move towards a comprehensive 

assessment by integrating the federal assessment and reporting requirements into its 

watershed management approach. Federal requirements state that the following information 

should be provided: 

• The extent to which the water quality of the state’s waters provides for the 

protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife 

and allows for recreational activities in and on the water; 

• An estimate of the extent to which CWA control programs have improved or will 

improve water quality, and recommendations for future actions; 

• An estimate of the environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits 

needed to achieve CWA objectives and an estimate of the date for such 

achievements; 

• A description of the nature and extent of nonpoint source pollution and 

recommendations needed to control each category of nonpoint sources; and

• An assessment of the water quality of all publicly owned lakes, including lake 

trends, pollution control measures, and publicly owned lakes with impaired uses.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

4

The 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) directed FDEP to implement a 

comprehensive, integrated watershed approach for evaluating and managing cumulative 

impacts to the state’s waters. The act clarified the TMDL Program and directed FDEP to 

develop an assessment methodology that allows for the consideration of whether water quality 

standards are being exceeded based on credible data, studies, and reports. Those waters 

determined to not meet water quality standards should then be included on the state’s 303(d) 

list of impaired waters, or those waters needing a TMDL, and the appropriate TMDLs should be 

developed (see Chapter 11 for more information). These objectives are carried out through

coordination with the water management districts (WMDs), Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services (FDACS), Soil and Water Conservation Districts, environmental 

groups, regulated parties, and local stakeholders during all phases of the TMDL process. 

The implementation of the watershed management approach was initiated in 2000. Florida’s 52 

basins were divided into 29 groups that are distributed among FDEP’s 6 districts. There are 5 

basins each in the Northwest, Central, Southwest, South, and Southeast Districts, and 4 basins 

in the Northeast District. One basin is assessed in each district every year. Using a rotating 

basin management cycle, which ensures that each basin is assessed every 5 years, FDEP and 

local stakeholders assess individual basins, identify impaired waters requiring the development 

of TMDLs, and develop Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) (see Chapter 11 for more 

information) and Reasonable Assurance Plans to restore water quality. 

The assessment, consisting of multiple phases, has been completed in all of the state’s basins 

(the Group 1–5 basins) twice. As part of its watershed management approach, FDEP 

developed Verified Lists of impaired waters for the Group 1–5 basins in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 

and 2006, respectively. Cycle 2 of the rotating basin approach was initiated in 2007 with 

Verified Lists of impaired waters for the Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4 basins 

completed through 2010. Assessments and list development for Group 5 were completed in

January 2012. As required by Subsection 403.067(4), Florida Statutes (F.S.), the lists are

adopted by Secretarial Order. The resulting Verified Lists of impaired waters and waters to be 

delisted in those basins amend the 1998 303(d) list of impaired Florida waters maintained by the 

EPA. FDEP intends to continue to submit annual amendments to its 303(d) list as part of the 

watershed management approach.

The Status and Trend Monitoring results are a component of the CWA Section 106 monitoring 

work plan for FDEP. The results of these monitoring programs are reported internally through 

statewide assessments, published by the Watershed Monitoring Section (WMS) on FDEP’s

Watershed Monitoring website. In 2009, the monitoring shifted to an annual estimate of 

condition. This report presents the results for 2009 and 2010 statewide monitoring.

An additional requirement for CWA Section 106 is the submittal of the FDEP monitoring 

strategy, which addresses the suite of monitoring programs in this document, using the EPA’s 

March 2003 Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program guidance. As part 

of the report, the design document for the FDEP Watershed Monitoring Program is updated as 

any changes to the design of the monitoring program or strategy occur.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

5

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND 

INFORMATION

Overview

Florida's 65,758 square miles support abundant, diverse natural resources (Statistical Abstract 

of the United States 2010). Some of these resources—such as the Everglades—are found 

nowhere else. Florida also contains the only coral reef in the continental United States. The 

state has a total of 12,154 square miles of water, with 5,373 square miles of inland water area

(ranking third in the country in inland water area) and large supplies of fresh water in its 

underground aquifers. Florida depends on water resources in many ways—for example, for its 

$8.2 billion fishing and $62.7 billion tourism industries (Morris and Morris 2009; Visit Florida 

2012). 

The pressures of population growth, its accompanying development, and the 70 million tourist 

visitors a year are impacting the state’s freshwater, ground water, and saltwater resources. 

Although the state ranks 22nd in the country in total area, it currently ranks 4th in population, and 

that population continues to grow. Most Floridians live in coastal areas where less fresh water 

is available, and about three-fourths of new Florida residents choose coastal locations for their 

new homes. As development continues, different users vie for water resources. Major

challenges include maintaining overall water quality and supplies, protecting public health, 

satisfying competing and rapidly increasing demands for finite quantities of fresh water, 

minimizing damage to future water reserves, and ensuring healthy populations of fish and 

wildlife.

Despite the fact that water is plentiful in many areas, water quantity and quality are critical 

issues. In 1950, Florida’s population of 2.8 million used about 1.5 billion gallons per day (BGD) 

of fresh ground water and surface water. In 2005, that number had risen to 6.9 BGD (Marella 

2009), and consumption is projected to rise to 9.3 BGD by 2020 (Morris and Morris 2009). 

Surface water and ground water quality has been impacted by industrial, residential, and 

agricultural land uses in areas throughout the state. While many point sources of pollution such 

as sewage treatment plant discharges have been eliminated, addressing pollutant loading from 

widespread, diffuse nonpoint sources such as urban development and agriculture remains a 

challenge. 

This chapter provides background information about Florida’s population, water resources, 

climate, and physical features. Table 2.1 summarizes basic information on the state and its 

surface water resources.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

6

Table 2.1. Florida Atlas

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists individual statistics for the state, and Column 2 lists the numbers for 

Florida associated with those statistics.

Statistic Number

2010 estimated population (U.S. Census Bureau) 18,801,310 people

Ranking by population among 50 states 4th largest

% change, 2000–10 + 17.6%

Total surface area (as of 2008) 65,758 square miles

Ranking by total area among 50 states 22rd in size

Land surface area 53,603 square miles

Ranking by land area among 50 states 26th in size

Total water area (as of 2008) 12,154 square miles

Inland water area (as of 2008)1 5,373 square miles

Ranking by inland water area among 50 states 3rd largest

Coastal waters2 1,128 square miles

Territorial waters 5,653 square miles

Number of counties 67

Number of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic 

units (i.e., watersheds with hydrologic unit codes, or HUCs) 52

Total number of rivers and streams More than 1,700

Total number of river and stream miles 54,836 miles

Total river miles bordering other states 238 miles

Chattahoochee River 26 miles

Perdido River 63 miles

St. Marys River 139 miles

Longest river (entirely in Florida) St. Johns River (273 miles)

Largest discharge Apalachicola River (average flow of 

25,374 cubic feet per second [cfs])

Total number of ditch and canal miles 49,128 miles

Number of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds 12,288 (area greater than or equal to 10 acres)

Area of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds 1,811,329 acres

Area of largest lake Lake Okeechobee (423,680 acres)

Area of freshwater and tidal wetlands 16,812 square miles

Prominent wetland systems

Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp, Green Swamp, 

Okefenokee Swamp, Big Bend coastal marshes, St. 

Johns River marshes

Number of islands greater than 10 acres 4,510 islands

Area of islands greater than 10 acres 840,727 acres

Total coastline (measurement of general outline) 1,350 statute miles

Total tidal shoreline (includes bays, sounds, etc.) 8,426 statute miles

Number of known springs More than 1,000

Combined spring outflow 17, 017 cfs

Largest noncoastal spring Silver Springs (average discharge of 851 cfs)

Largest coastal spring Spring Creek Springs (average discharge 

of 2,000 cfs)

Number of first-magnitude springs 

(discharge greater than 100 cfs) 33

Number of state parks (as of 2009–10) 160

Total attendance at state parks, aquatic preserves, and 

greenways and trails (2009–10) 25,545,099

1 Inland water is defined as lakes, reservoirs, ponds and rivers, canals, estuaries, and bays from the point downstream at which they 

are narrower than 1 nautical mile to the point upstream where they appear as a single line feature on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

TIGER file.

2 Coastal waters are within embayments separated from territorial waters by 1 to 24 nautical miles. They exclude territorial waters 

(waters between the 3-mile limit and the shoreline).
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

7

Population

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012a), Florida’s population in 2010 was 18,801,310. 

Population growth has slowed during the current economic downturn, and is expected to reach 

only 0.85% from 2011–14 (Florida Legislature Bureau of Economic and Demographic Research 

2011). However, Florida is still projected to become the third most populated state sometime 

before 2016, behind California and Texas. Within the next two decades, the state’s total 

population is expected to increase by 9.9 million people (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b). Florida is 

also expected to gain 1.8 million people through international migration between 1995 and 

2025, the third largest net gain in the country (Campbell 1997). 

As the baby-boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) reaches retirement age, the 

number of residents aged 65 and over will accelerate rapidly in all states. In Florida, the 

proportion of people over 65 was 17.42% as of 2009, and this number is projected to grow to 

19.5% in 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

The state has a number of large, expanding population centers, including southeastern Florida 

(Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties), Jacksonville, Tampa–St. Petersburg, southwest 

Florida (from Sarasota to Naples), and Orlando (Figure 2.1). In contrast, other relatively large 

areas of Florida are sparsely populated.

Climate

The state’s climate ranges from a transitional zone between temperate and subtropical in the 

north and northwest, to tropical in the Florida Keys. Summers are long, with periods of very 

warm, humid air. Maximum temperatures average about 90°F, although temperatures of 100°F 

or greater can occur in some areas. Winters are generally mild, except when cold fronts move 

across the state. Frosts and freezes are possible, but typically, temperatures do not remain low 

during the day, and cold weather usually lasts no more than two or three days at a time.

Rainfall across the state varies with location and season. On average, more than 60 inches per 

year falls in the far northwest and southeast, while the Florida Keys receive about 40 inches 

annually (Figure 2.2). The heaviest rainfall occurs in northwestern Florida and in a strip 10 to 

15 miles inland along the southeast coast. Variability in rainfall, both spatially and temporally, 

can contribute to local water shortages. Historically, Florida has had periods of high rainfall 

along with periods of low rainfall (e.g., drought). Precipitation data are available for rain gauges 

across the state for a period of record from 1895 to the present. Based on these data, 2006 and 

2007 were the driest back-to-back calendar years Florida has experienced in 50 years 

(Southeast Regional Climate Center [SERCC] 2011). 

Except for the northwestern part of the state, most of Florida has a rainy season and a relatively 

long dry season. In the peninsula, half of the average annual rainfall usually falls between June 

and September. In northwestern Florida, a secondary rainy season occurs in late winter to early 

spring. The lowest rainfall for most of the state occurs in fall (October and November) and 

spring (April and May). The varying patterns of rainfall create differences in the timing of high 

and low discharges from surface waters.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

8

Figure 2.1. Florida’s Population Distribution, 2010
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

9

Figure 2.2. Florida’s Average Annual Rainfall, 1981–2010
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

10

An approximate diagonal line drawn from the mouth of the St. Johns River at the Atlantic Ocean 

to the boundary of Levy and Dixie Counties on the Gulf of Mexico depicts a climatic river basin 

divide. North and northwest of the divide, streams have high discharges in spring and late 

winter (March and April) and low discharges in the fall and early winter (October and 

November). A second low-water period occurs from May to June. South of the climatic divide, 

high stream discharges occur in September and October, and low discharges occur from May to 

June.

Surface Water and Ground Water Resources 

Even though Florida has many water sources, it is critical to the state’s well-being that both 

water quality and quantity be protected. The state has 54,836 miles of streams and rivers and 

49,128 miles of ditches and canals. It has more than 12,288 lakes greater than 10 acres in size, 

with a total surface area of 1,811,329 acres. Florida also has 16,812 square miles of freshwater 

and tidal wetlands, and a coastline ranking second in length only to Alaska. A line running from 

the northeast corner of the state to Key West and back up to the northwest corner along the 

Gulf Coast would extend 1,350 statute miles (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b). If the distance 

around barrier islands and estuaries (tidal shoreline) were included, the line would stretch 8,426 

statute miles (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b). Several sources of high-quality ground water 

underlie virtually all of Florida. Ninety percent of the state’s population relies on these ground 

water resources for their drinking water. Springs, another ground water resource, are very 

prominent throughout the state. 

Streams and Rivers

The state has more than 1,700 streams and rivers. Differences in climate, hydrogeology, and 

location all affect their water quality. The longest river entirely in the state is the St. Johns, 

which flows north as a recognizable stream about 273 miles from the St. Johns Marsh in 

northern St. Lucie County, to its mouth at Jacksonville. The river drains a land area equal to 

about one-sixth of Florida's surface. The Apalachicola River, in the Florida Panhandle, has the 

largest discharge flow, averaging more than 25,374 cfs from 1977 to 1992. Its basin, draining 

about 19,600 square miles within Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (Northwest Florida Water 

Management District [NWFWMD] 2012), extends to north Georgia’s southern Appalachian 

Mountains. In the Panhandle, spring discharges give rise to rivers, where the ground water 

base flow comprises 80% of river flows. 

The state has several types of natural river systems, including blackwater streams, spring runs, 

and estuarine or tidal streams, and these systems can be perennial or intermittent. Most of 

Florida’s rivers exhibit characteristics of more than one type of river system, either at different 

places along their length or at different times of the year. The links between surface water and 

ground water can also affect natural systems. For example, the Suwannee River, which 

originates in the Okefenokee Swamp as a blackwater stream, becomes spring fed south of 

Ellaville. During periods of high flow, it carries sand and sediments, behaving like a true alluvial 

stream (sediment carrying). During low flow, however, the river’s base flow comes from multiple 

springs, including several first-magnitude springs. These variations in flow affect the 

downstream stretches of the river and the receiving estuary. Ground water in the region has 

elevated nitrate concentrations that can affect animals and plants downstream (Suwannee River 

Water Management District 2010).

In north and northwest Florida, many rivers are alluvial. The Choctawhatchee, Apalachicola, 

and Escambia Rivers best represent this type of river. Common features include a well-
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11

developed floodplain, levees, terraces, oxbows, and remnant channels (sloughs) that parallel 

the active riverbed. Typically, because flows fluctuate more than with other types of rivers, 

habitats are more diverse.

Florida contains many blackwater streams and rivers. Blackwater rivers usually have acidic, 

highly colored, slowly moving waters containing few suspended sediments. These systems 

typically drain acidic flatwoods or swamps. The upper Suwannee River and north New River 

are examples of this type of river system.

Many major river systems that originate as springs are found in central and north Florida, the 

Big Bend area of the Gulf Coast, and the southern portion of the Tallahassee Hills. Chemically, 

these rivers are clear, alkaline, and well buffered. They have little temperature variation, 

relatively constant flows, and little sediment. Their clear water encourages the growth of 

submerged plants that provide habitat for diverse animal species. Many spring-fed rivers flow 

directly into estuaries, and the constant temperatures offer protection from temperature 

extremes to a number of species, including estuarine fish such as spotted seatrout and red 

drum, as well as marine mammals, such as manatees.

Major dams have been built on the Apalachicola, Ocklawaha, Ochlockonee, Hillsborough, and 

Withlacoochee (Citrus County) Rivers. The most extreme alterations were damming the 

Ocklawaha to create the Cross-Florida Barge Canal and channelizing the Kissimmee River. 

The hydrology of the southern third of Florida's peninsula has been significantly altered, and few 

naturally flowing streams and rivers remain. Most fresh waterbodies in south Florida are canals.

Several efforts are under way to reverse some of the alterations, thus restoring natural flows 

and function to waterbodies. Significant work on the Kissimmee River since the 1990s has 

successfully restored flow in portions of the historical river channel, leading to improved habitat, 

fisheries, and water quality. Additional information on the Kissimmee restoration is available on 

the South Florida Water Management District Kissimmee River website. 

Lakes

Florida's lakes provide important habitats for plant and animal species and are a valuable 

recreational resource. The state has more than 12,288 lakes, which occupy approximately 4% 

of its surface area. The largest, Lake Okeechobee (covering 423,680 acres), is the 9th largest 

lake in surface area in the United States and the second largest freshwater lake wholly within 

the conterminous United States (Fernald and Purdum 1998). Most of the state’s lakes are 

shallow, averaging 7 to 20 feet deep, although many sinkhole lakes and parts of other lakes can 

be much deeper.

Florida’s lakes are physically, chemically, and biologically diverse. Some lakes are spring fed; 

others are seepage lakes fed by ground water, and still others are drainage lakes fed by surface 

water sources. Most Florida lakes are seepage lakes—nearly 70% of the lakes in Florida have 

no surface water streams flowing into or out of them (Palmer 1984). Florida lakes are classified 

according to water pH, water color, and the ecoregion of the lake basin. FDEP identified 47 

different lake regions as part of its Lake Bioassessment/Regionalization Initiative. 

Within each lake region, the lakes have similar geology, soils, chemistry, hydrology, and 

biology, and lakes in one region may differ significantly from those in another region. For 

example, most lakes in the New Hope Ridge/Greenhead Slope lake region in northwestern 

Florida (Washington, Bay, Calhoun, and Jackson Counties) have lower total nitrogen (TN), 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

12

lower total phosphorus (TP), lower chlorophyll concentrations, and higher clarity compared with 

other Florida lakes. In contrast, lakes in the Lakeland/Bone Valley Upland lake region in central 

Florida (Polk and Hillsborough Counties) have higher TN, higher TP, higher chlorophyll 

concentrations, and lower clarity. Additional information on Florida lake regions and the ecology 

of Florida’s lakes is available from the LAKEWATCH website and the EPA Ecoregions of Florida 

website. 

Estuaries and Coastal Waters 

With more than 8,400 coastal miles, Florida is second only to Alaska in amount of coastline. 

The state’s west coast alone contains almost 22% of the Gulf Coast estuarine acreage in the 

United States. Florida's estuaries are some of the nation's most diverse and productive. They 

include embayments, low- and high-energy tidal salt marshes, lagoons or sounds behind barrier 

islands, mangrove swamps, coral reefs, oyster bars, and tidal segments of large river mouths. 

Florida has more Estuaries of National Significance (Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Charlotte 

Harbor, and Indian River Lagoon), designated by EPA, than any other state in the nation. 

The Atlantic coast of Florida from the mouth of the St. Marys River to Biscayne Bay is a highenergy shoreline bordered by long stretches of barrier islands, behind which lie highly saline 

lagoons. This 350-mile stretch of coast contains only 18 river mouths and inlets. Biscayne Bay 

spans the transition from high- to low-energy shorelines.

At the southern end of the state lie Florida Bay and the Ten Thousand Islands, both of which are 

dominated by mangrove islands fronting expansive freshwater marshes on the mainland. Many 

tidal creeks and natural passes connect the islands and marshes. Historically, the area’s fresh 

water came mainly from sheet flow across the Everglades.

Florida's west coast has low relief, and the continental shelf extends seaward for many miles. 

Unlike the east coast, numerous rivers, creeks, and springs contribute to estuarine habitats. 

Generally, the west coast’s estuaries are well-mixed systems with broad variations in salinity. 

They often lie behind low-energy barrier islands or at the mouths of rivers that discharge into 

salt marshes or mangrove-fringed bays. The Big Bend coast from the Anclote Keys north to 

Apalachee Bay is low-energy marsh shoreline. While it does not conform to the classical 

definition of an estuary, its flora and fauna are typically estuarine. Many freshwater rivers and

streams feeding the shoreline here are either spring runs or receive significant quantities of 

spring water. The Florida Panhandle from Apalachee Bay west to Pensacola Bay comprises 

high-energy barrier islands, with sand beaches fronting the Gulf of Mexico. 

Major coastal and estuarine habitats vary from northern to southern Florida. Salt marshes 

dominate from Apalachicola Bay to Tampa Bay and from the Indian River Lagoon north to the 

Georgia state line, while there are few salt marshes west of Apalachicola Bay. Mangrove 

swamps dominate the southwestern Florida coast and are found along the southeastern coast. 

There are about 6,000 coral reefs between the city of Stuart on the Atlantic Coast south and 

west to the Dry Tortugas. Seagrasses are most abundant in the Big Bend region, from Tarpon 

Springs to Charlotte Harbor, and from Florida Bay to Biscayne Bay (Hale et al. 2004). 

Wetlands

Because of its low elevation and peninsular nature, Florida has many varied types of wetlands, 

including estuarine Spartina and mangrove salt marshes, as well as freshwater sawgrass 

marshes, cypress swamps, and floodplain marshes. Wetlands comprise almost one-third of the 

state. The largest and most important are as follows: 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

13

• The Everglades and the adjacent Big Cypress Swamp. Including the Water 

Conservation Areas (diked portions of the original Everglades system) and 

excluding the developed coastal ridge, this system extends from about 20 miles 

south of Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay.

• The Green Swamp in the state’s central plateau.

• The Big Bend coast from the St. Marks River to the (south) Withlacoochee River.

• Vast expanses of Spartina salt marsh between the Nassau and St. Mary’s 

Rivers.

• The system of the St. Johns River marshes. Before alteration by humans, all but 

the northernmost one-fifth of the river basin was an extensive freshwater system 

of swamps, marshes and lakes (Kushlan 1990). Even today, half of the length of 

the St. Johns River is actually marsh, and in many respects it functions like a 

northern-flowing Everglades. 

• The headwaters and floodplains of many rivers throughout the state, especially 

the Apalachicola, Suwannee, St. Johns, Ocklawaha, Kissimmee, and Peace 

Rivers.

In the past, many wetlands were drained for agriculture and urban development, and numerous 

rivers were channelized for navigation. The modifications were most intense in south Florida, 

where, beginning in the 1920s, canals and levees were built to control flooding and to drain 

wetlands. These modifications resulted in the loss of much of the original Everglades wetlands 

from Lake Okeechobee south. The Everglades restoration under way is intended to improve 

water quality. There are preliminary successes; however, restoration is a long-term effort 

involving many agencies working to revitalize the heavily altered system. 

Aquifers and Springs

Florida lies atop aquifer systems that provide potable water to most of the state’s population. 

Ground water naturally discharges into streams, lakes, wetlands, coastal waters, and springs. 

Florida has more than 1,000 known springs (FDEP 2011), which discharge a total of about 

17,017 cfs; the state may contain the largest concentration of freshwater springs on Earth. The 

largest coastal spring by discharge is Spring Creek Springs, with an average discharge of 2,000 

cfs; the largest noncoastal spring, Silver Springs, has an average discharge of 851 cfs. Florida 

also contains 33 of the 78 first-magnitude springs (defined as springs that discharge on average 

at least 100 cfs) in the United States (Figure 2.3). Several river systems in the state originate 

as or are largely supported by spring discharges.

Archaeological evidence indicates that humans have been attracted to Florida’s life-giving 

springs for thousands of years. Fourteen of Florida’s state parks named for springs attract 

millions of visitors each year, and private spring attractions and parks are a multimillion-dollar 

tourist industry.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

14

Figure 2.3. Springs of Florida

Hydrogeology

Surface Water

Most of Florida is relatively flat. At 345 feet, Britton Hill (near Lakewood, in Walton County) has 

the highest elevation in the state (americasroof.com website 2010). The longest river, the St. 

Johns on Florida’s east coast, only falls about a tenth of a foot per mile from the headwaters to 

the mouth. Surface drainage and topographic relief are greatest in the streams and rivers 

entering north and northwest Florida from Alabama and Georgia. Most of these streams are 

alluvial, or sediment carrying. As the land flattens farther south, surface drainage becomes less 

distinct, and the rivers and streams are typically slower moving, meandering, and nonalluvial.

Many of Florida’s rivers have their headwaters in wetlands. In its natural setting, the Green 

Swamp in central Florida is the headwater for five major river systems: Withlacoochee (South), 

Ocklawaha, Peace, Kissimmee, and Hillsborough. In north Florida, the Suwannee and St. 

Marys Rivers originate in the Okefenokee Swamp. Throughout the state, smaller streams often 

disappear into wetlands and later re-emerge as channeled flows.

Ground Water

Florida is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, which is blanketed by surficial sands and 

underlain by a thick sequence of bedded limestone and dolomite. Together the surficial sands, 

limestone, and dolomites form enormous reservoirs that provide proportionally larger quantities 

of ground water than is found in any other state.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

15

These sources of high-quality, potable ground water underlying virtually all of Florida supported 

average withdrawals of more than 4,247 million gallons per day (MGD) in 2005 (Marella 2009). 

This remarkable resource supplies more than 90% of the drinking water for more than 18 million 

residents. In addition, ground water resources supply over 50% of all water needs, including 

agricultural, industrial, mining, and electric power generation.

Florida primarily relies on the following four aquifer systems as drinking water sources:

• The Floridan aquifer system, one of the most productive sources of ground water 

in the United States, extends beneath all of Florida, southern Georgia, and 

adjoining parts of Alabama and South Carolina. Many public water systems—

including those of Jacksonville, Orlando, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and 

Tallahassee—tap into the Floridan. It is also a major supplier of water for 

industrial, irrigation, and rural use. This aquifer provides 60% (4,124 MGD) of 

Florida’s potable water supplies.

• Unnamed surficial and intermediate aquifers, which are present over much of the 

state, are used when the deeper aquifers contain nonpotable water. They 

supply water needs for about 10% of the population, especially in rural locations. 

These aquifers provide 20% (1,375 MGD) of the state’s potable water supplies.

• In southeast Florida, the Biscayne aquifer supplies virtually all the water needs 

for over 4 million residents in densely populated Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, 

and Monroe Counties. This aquifer provides 18% (1,237 MGD) of Florida’s 

potable water supplies. The EPA has designated the Biscayne aquifer as a sole 

source drinking water aquifer.

• The sand and gravel aquifer, the major source of water supply in the western 

part of the Florida Panhandle, provides 2% (137 MGD) of Florida’s potable 

water. 

Surface Water–Ground Water Interactions

Florida’s low relief, coupled with its geologic history, has created unique hydrogeologic features. 

Large areas are characterized by karst topography, which forms when ground water dissolves 

limestone. Landforms in these areas include streams that disappear underground, springs and 

seeps where ground water rises to the surface, sinkholes, and caves. Surface water commonly 

drains underground and later reappears, sometimes in a completely different surface water 

basin from where it entered the ground. For example, drainage from a large karst area in 

Marion County provides water for Silver Springs and Rainbow River, which discharges to the 

Ocklawaha River and then to the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean. Karst areas in 

western Marion County provide water for Rainbow Springs, which discharges to the 

Withlacoochee River and then to the Gulf of Mexico. The entire Suwannee River drainage 

basin depends on ground water discharge via springs to support base flow to rivers.

Florida's porous and sandy soils, high average rainfall, and shallow water table promote close 

and extensive interactions between ground water and surface water. By the same mechanisms, 

surface waters recharge underlying aquifers. The fact that Florida contains more than one-third 

of the first-magnitude springs in the United States is an indication of significant ground water 

and surface water interchange in the extensive areas of the state dominated by karst terrain. 

Most lakes and streams receive water from and discharge water to ground water. In general, 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

16

ground water base flow can be 40% to 60% of the total stream flow, and in karst areas where 

springs discharge, it can provide 70% to 80% of the flow to streams. 

Although there are many surface water–ground water interactions, a hydrologic divide exists 

that interrupts the movement of Florida’s water resources. The divide is represented by an 

approximate line extending from near Cedar Key on the Gulf Coast to New Smyrna Beach on 

the Atlantic Coast. Except for the St. Johns and Ocklawaha Rivers, little, if any, surface water 

or ground water flows south across this barrier. Most major rivers north of the line receive part 

of their discharges from outside Florida, in addition to rain. South of the divide, rain is the sole 

fresh water source. Hydrologically, the half of Florida lying south of the divide is isolated. About 

75% of the state’s population lives in this area in peninsular Florida.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

17

CHAPTER 3: ISSUES OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST AND 

INITIATIVES

This chapter describes the major water quality issues of environmental interest and initiatives 

being undertaken by the state. It is important to note that Florida has well-established 

programs, including the permitting and TMDL programs, that address these issues, and that 

Florida has made great progress in reducing pollutant discharges to state waters and restoring 

impaired waters. Chapter 11 describes these programs in detail, as well as specific initiatives 

designed to address emerging concerns. Specific examples of the progress that Florida has 

made towards reducing nutrient pollution in the Indian River Lagoon, Lake Apopka, Sarasota 

Bay, and Tampa Bay are available on the EPA’s Watershed Improvement Summaries website. 

In addition to these programs and initiatives, FDEP has launched the Florida Water Resources 

Monitoring Council (FWRMC), in order to facilitate discussion and communication among 

monitoring stakeholders throughout the state. The council comprises federal, state, local, and 

volunteer monitoring organizations, and is chaired by FDEP. It is implementing action items in a 

plan developed by an earlier iteration of the FWRMC.

Until the advent of the FWRMC, there had been no single venue to determine whether entities 

were monitoring the same waterbody, or at the same station. The group will undertake the 

development of a statewide monitoring atlas to display the locations of monitoring stations and 

the entities responsible for monitoring these sites. Metadata associated with the sites will be 

made available via this platform to better facilitate the monitoring programs’ design and 

specifics. 

Other initiatives will include developing regional councils, establishing a salinity-monitoring 

network based on existing monitoring stations, establishing better coordination and liaison 

between freshwater and marine monitoring efforts, and providing a mechanism for data 

providers throughout the state to offer input for developing a STORET-style data repository that 

manages Florida’s monitoring data before they are submitted to the EPA’s Water Quality 

Exchange (WQX) database.

Issues of Environmental Interest 

Drinking Water 

FDEP has the primary role of regulating public water systems in Florida, under Chapter 403, 

Part IV, F.S., and by delegation of the federal program from the EPA. The section entitled 

Overview of Ground Water Protection Programs in Chapter 11 describes FDEP’s ongoing 

efforts to protect drinking water supplies.

A public water system (PWS) is one that provides water to 25 or more people for at least 60 

days each year or serves 15 or more service connections. These public water systems may be 

publicly or privately owned and operated. There are more than 5,500 PWSs in Florida serving 

over 19 million residents. Community water systems regularly test for over 80 contaminants, 

including bacteria, metals, organic and synthetic chemicals, and radiological parameters. 

Florida’s compliance rate is one of the nation’s highest and ranges from 91% to 96% annually. 

The contaminants of greatest occurrence and concern are total coliform bacteria and the 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

18

disinfection byproducts of trihalomethane and haloacetic acid. Systems that do have a violation 

of standards must inform the public and take corrective action to fix the problem, install 

additional treatment, or modify their operations. Additional information is available on the FDEP 

Drinking Water Program website. 

The Florida Department of Health (FDOH) and the county health departments regulate very 

small water systems that provide water for public consumption, but that do not fall under the 

definition of public water systems. Additional information is available on the FDOH Bureau of 

Water Programs website. The WMDs regulate the construction of water wells, both public and 

private, and the quantities of water that may be extracted. The use of drinking water from 

private wells is not regulated, but FDEP and FDOH have a program to monitor water quality 

from private wells in areas where ground water contamination is suspected and to assist well 

owners with water treatment or alternative drinking water sources.

Arsenic

Arsenic has been detected in ground water samples from potable water wells and monitoring 

wells throughout Florida. Regions with high arsenic ground water exceedance levels include 

the Springs Coast, Lower St. Johns, Ocklawaha, Suwannee, Withlacoochee, and Tampa Bay 

Tributaries Basins. To date, samples from more than 1,400 private wells in Florida have been 

found to exceed the 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L) drinking water standard for arsenic (Rule 

62.550, F.A.C.). The largest numbers of arsenic-contaminated wells have been found in 

Hernando, Dixie, Pasco, and Hillsborough Counties. 

Arsenic in ground water may occur naturally, may be introduced as a contaminant, or may be 

released from the geologic material into ground water because of human activities. Throughout 

Florida, arsenic is a stable element often found in association with pyrite, a minor mineral found 

in most of Florida’s aquifer systems. Also, a recent unpublished study suggests that arsenic 

may occur in association with the mineral powellite, although much less is known about its 

distribution in Florida rocks. 

Potential anthropogenic arsenic sources include arsenic-based pesticides applied to cotton 

fields and citrus groves; road, railroad, and power line rights-of-way; golf courses; and cattledipping vats (which were reportedly used until the 1960s). As of 2012, the use of arsenical 

pesticides is restricted only to cotton fields. However, residues from past use, when bound to 

soil particles, do not readily dissipate. Higher numbers of reported exceedances may also be 

an artifact of the change in the EPA arsenic standard for ground water, which was reduced from 

50 to 10 μg/L in 2001, and was fully implemented in 2006. 

Recent studies indicate human disturbance that introduces water or oxygen into arsenic-bearing 

limestone can lead to the release of soluble arsenic from the rock matrix. Activities such as 

mining, well drilling, Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) projects (Arthur et al. 2002; Price and 

Pichler 2006), or overpumping have all been shown to release previously stable arsenic into 

ground water. In addition, drought can lower the water table, allowing oxygen to permeate and 

leach arsenic compounds from sediments.

Nitrate

Contamination of wells by nitrate remains one of Florida’s most significant ground water quality 

concerns. This occurs mainly in rural areas where the population is served by private wells and 

where agriculture is the dominant land use. However, it can also be a problem in localized 

settings where domestic onsite waste treatment and disposal systems (septic systems) are 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

19

clustered. From 1999 to the present, more than 2,700 private drinking water wells have been 

found to be contaminated by nitrate at concentrations greater than the 10 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L) drinking water standard. Most of these have been found in areas where farming occurs 

on well-drained sandy soils and the aquifer is vulnerable, but a smaller percentage have been 

found in areas where septic tanks could have been the source. 

The largest numbers of wells found contaminated by nitrate are in counties that lie within the 

ridge citrus-growing region (Highlands, Polk, Lake, and Orange Counties). Soil in this area is 

sandy, low in fertility, and tends to leach fertilizer, and the underlying ground water resource 

used for water supply is highly vulnerable to contamination. Citrus growers need to fertilize 

frequently and at higher rates, and private wells near the groves can become contaminated. 

Other counties with extensive agriculture and similar soil and ground water conditions that have 

led to a significant number of nitrate-contaminated wells include Hillsborough, Hardee, 

Suwannee, and Jackson. 

Ground water contamination by nitrate remains an ongoing problem and a challenge to water 

resource managers. One effort to reduce fertilizer leaching into wells is the implementation of 

agricultural best management practices (BMPs) by farmers. Another aspect that may be 

reducing contamination is the land use transition from agricultural to residential, resulting in less 

fertilizer use in some agricultural areas. Also, in some of these transitioning areas, public water 

supplies have become available to homeowners who were previously on individual wells. 

These factors may be partially responsible for the decrease in the number of wells found to be 

contaminated in recent years. 

Dieldrin

The insecticide dieldrin was widely used in Florida from the 1950s until 1974, when it was 

banned by the EPA for all uses except termite control. Its use as a termiticide was banned in 

1987. Until the 1974 ban, this pesticide was widely used for insect control for corn, cotton, and 

citrus. In 2005, FDOH issued a new health advisory limit (HAL) of 0.002 μg/L for dieldrin in 

drinking water. This new advisory limit is lower than the previous HAL that was used in Florida 

by 2 orders of magnitude. There is currently no regulatory standard for dieldrin in drinking 

water.

Despite dieldrin’s low mobility in the soil, it is very persistent and has found its way to ground 

water throughout the state. Since the new HAL was issued, samples from more than 400 

private wells have exceeded the Florida HAL. The counties with the largest number of private 

well exceedances to date include Dade, Volusia, Jackson, and Lake Counties. The detections 

of dieldrin in the ground water are not limited to agricultural areas because it was also widely 

used for termite control beneath buildings in urban areas. The counties with the largest 

numbers of detections all have sandy soils and vulnerable aquifer systems. 

FDEP is currently working with FDOH and the Volusia County Health Department to determine 

the source of dieldrin contamination in a large subdivision near the city of Deland. This 

contaminated area, as of October 28, 2011, was found to have 113 residential wells with dieldrin 

detections above the HAL. This is the largest cluster of dieldrin-impacted residential wells 

identified in Florida to date. These sample results are relatively recent and are not part of the 

ground water assessments provided in Chapter 10 of this report.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

20

Healthy Beaches Program

As part of Florida’s Healthy Beaches Program, which began in 1998, FDOH monitors the state’s 

coastal beaches for elevated levels of bacteria. In August 2000, the beach water sampling 

program was extended to all 34 of Florida's coastal counties through state legislation (Senate 

Bill [SB] 1412 and House Bill 2145) and funding. With additional funding from the EPA in 2002, 

the program was expanded to include weekly sampling for fecal coliform and enterococci 

bacteria at 304 beach locations throughout Florida.

The program has undergone changes in 2011 to reflect the current budget situation. These 

changes have led to a statewide baseline program that consists of biweekly sampling for 

enterococci bacteria and the discontinuation of fecal coliform sampling. Also, year-round 

sampling will continue only in 15 counties, which include Volusia County, those counties south 

of Pasco County on the west coast, and those counties south of Brevard County on the east 

coast. In the remaining counties, biweekly sampling will occur from March 1 through October 

31. In addition, the geometric mean will no longer be used as a water quality indicator in this 

monitoring program. If local funding is available, some counties may still sample weekly for 

enterococci and maintain fecal coliform testing and the geometric mean as a standard.

In a healthy environment, an array of bacteria is normally found in the soil, on plants, on and in 

ourselves, our pets and other animals, and in water. When concentrations of bacteria are too 

high, they can present problems, or they can be an indicator of other organisms that can cause 

problems to humans. Enterococci is one of the two bacteria types that normally inhabit the 

intestinal tract of humans and animals, and is used as an indicator of fecal pollution. 

The presence of elevated levels of these bacteria in water is an indication of possible pollution 

that may come from stormwater runoff, pets, wildlife, or human sewage. While not necessarily 

pathogenic, their presence in high concentrations in recreational waters indicates that 

pathogens may be present. If waste pathogens are present and they are ingested while 

swimming, or if they enter the skin through a cut or sore, the bacteria may cause illness. The 

most commonly reported ailments are gastrointestinal distress and skin rashes. The rationale 

for selecting enterococci for analysis and the implications of the sampling results are described 

in more detail on the FDOH Florida Healthy Beaches Program website. 

When a sample exceeds the single sample maximum of 104 colony-forming units per 100 

milliliters of water (CFU/100mL) of enterococci, a resample to confirm the exceedance may be 

taken immediately; upon confirmation of the exceedance a public health advisory will be issued. 

If a resample is not collected, a public health advisory will be issued immediately. Local media 

will be alerted and the public will be notified by way of the media, the Healthy Beaches Program 

website, and signs posted at the particular beach under advisory.

Florida has a history of very good water quality at most beach locations. Only about 4% of all 

samples collected for the Healthy Beaches Program return poor results. This is one of the 

lowest rates in the nation. Of the 100,000 total beach days (every day that an individual beach 

is open counts as a beach day) in 2011, only about 2,600 beach days included swimming 

advisories. 

The most recent sampling results and information on beach advisories are available on the 

Healthy Beaches Program website. On the same website is a program overview with the 

sampling history of the original counties included (1998–2000) and the counties that were 

added.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

21

Deepwater Horizon (MC252) Oil Spill

On April 20, 2010, an explosion occurred onboard the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig off the 

coast of Louisiana. The explosion was the result of a wellhead blowout that ultimately 

discharged an estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico by the time it was 

finally capped on July 15, 2010. 

Preimpact Sampling

Baseline water and sediment samples were collected by FDEP staff from the Division of 

Environmental Assessment and Restoration (DEAR) and the Office of Coastal and Aquatic 

Managed Areas (CAMA) starting in Escambia County on April 30, 2010, and concluding in 

Nassau County on the east coast on July 15, 2010 (see the Florida State Emergency Response 

Team [SERT] Natural Resource Damage Assessment website for sample locations). The data 

collected during the baseline sampling were used later as part of the Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment. 

Postimpact Sampling

DEAR established routine beach water quality monitoring for polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs) on June 1, 2010, for the seven westernmost Florida Gulf Coast counties. 

Samples for a constituent of the Corexit oil dispersants commonly called DOSS 

(Dioctylsulfosuccinate-NA) were also collected several times throughout the summer. This 

monitoring was established to provide FDOH with data that it could compare with human health 

screening levels for petroleum contaminants in order to make decisions regarding beach 

advisories. 

The sampling method used and the media sampled depended on the intended use of the 

results: 

• Routine Beach Water Quality Monitoring – Routine beach quality samples 

were collected when there was no significant oil contamination in the water to 

sample. These general water samples were collected weekly at wadable 

depths. The purpose of this sampling was to monitor beach water quality by 

county, even if significant oil contamination was not present.

• Targeted – Multiple samples of water or sediment, both affected and unaffected 

by oil product, were collected in an attempt to characterize water and sediment 

quality in areas where bathers could not reasonably expect to swim or walk 

without coming into contact with the product. These data could be compared 

against human health benchmarks to support beach advisory or closure 

decisions.

• Dispersant – Dispersant sampling was performed in an attempt to detect or 

semiquantify the concentration of dispersant in the water where oil 

contamination has been observed. Samplers avoided getting actual oil product 

in the dispersant sample. These data were used to support beach advisory or 

closure decisions.

• Proximity Sampling – Water samples were collected at known distances from 

oil (tarball, tarmat, sheen, mousse), and the distance was recorded. The 

samplers intentionally avoided collecting the actual oil product in the water 

sample. This sampling was performed when the oil contamination was sparse 

enough that a bather might reasonably expect to swim in the water without 

coming into contact with significant amounts of oil. These data were compared 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

22

against human health benchmarks to support beach advisory or closure 

decisions. 

• Oil Characterization – Oil characterization samples were samples of actual oil 

product (tarball, tarmat, sheen, mousse) used to determine the state of product 

weathering or for source characterization (fingerprinting). These samples may 

contain water or sediment/soil in addition to the oil, but the intent was not to 

quantify the concentration of the oil in the media collected.

Deepwater Horizon oil first hit Florida’s shores on June 4, 2010. A total of 381 water samples 

were collected from designated beaches within the seven westernmost Florida counties 

between June 1 and September 9, 2010. Only 19 of these samples contained measurable 

concentrations of PAHs (see FDEP’s Water Sampling Data website). While none of these 

samples contained PAHs that exceeded the EPA’s May 20, 2010, proposed human health 

benchmark values (see the EPA’s Human Health Benchmarks for Chemicals in Water ), they 

did exceed the more conservative FDOH Human Health Screening Values, which were 

established during the fall of 2010. Almost all of these detects occurred during a 2-week period 

between June 22 and July 3, 2010, when a weather system and high waves brought large 

amounts of oil onto Florida’s Panhandle beaches. Perdido Key and the beaches along Fort 

Pickens National Park were particularly hard hit. Detectable concentrations of DOSS were 

observed in only 2 of 23 samples with PAHs (also see FDEP’s Water Sampling Data website). 

The lack of detectable concentrations of PAHs in the oil spill-affected waters off Florida’s 

western Panhandle beaches was attributed to the significant weathering of the oil during its 

migration from the spill site off the coast of Louisiana to Florida’s waters. While some oil was 

observed in the form of a sheen or mousse, the vast majority of oil reaching Florida’s waters 

was in the form of tarballs or larger tar mats. 

Due to the lack of detectable petroleum product in routine water samples from July 4 through 

September 9, 2010, regular beach water monitoring was discontinued. Routine beach water 

monitoring was resumed the week of February 7, 2011, from Escambia through Wakulla 

County, in order to provide assurance to the public that Florida’s beaches were safe for 

recreational bathing prior to the spring break season. Water samples were collected and 

analyzed for PAHs and two constituents of the Corexit dispersant, DOSS and DPBE 

(dipropylene glycol butyl ether [DPBE]). This monitoring was continued until mid-August 2011. 

A total of 1,147 samples were collected during this period (see FDEP’s Beach Health Results). 

PAHs were detected in 7 out of 473 samples. However, those 7 samples contained trace levels 

of naphthalene, which were attributed to sample contamination due to a similar number of hits 

occurring in the field blank samples and the beach water samples. DOSS was detected in 7 out 

of 386 samples. These were also attributed to field or laboratory contamination due to a similar 

number of hits in the field blanks and in the beach water samples. DOSS was present in 

relatively high concentrations in the absorbent paper used to cover the chemistry laboratory 

bench tops. DPBE was not detected in any of the 288 samples analyzed.

Bacterial and Mercury Contamination

Assessment results for bacterial and mercury contamination indicate that several human healthrelated designated uses are not always maintained in Florida’s surface waters. Specifically, 

primary contact and recreation use support and shellfish harvesting use support are sometimes 

limited by the presence of bacteria in the water column, and fish consumption use support is 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

23

commonly limited by the presence of mercury in fish tissue for a number of species in many

waters across the state.

It is important to note, however, that these impairments are not based on documented impacts 

on public health. Florida has extensive monitoring programs that issue beach advisories, 

shellfish bed closures, and fish consumption advisories when ambient samples reach 

predetermined thresholds. These thresholds are conservatively designed to protect public 

health against the potential effects of exposure to bacteria (in water and shellfish) and mercury 

(in fish tissue). 

FDEP’s Mercury in Aquatic Ecosystems in Florida website provides information on the mercury 

issue and links to other useful websites dealing with mercury. Information on the latest fish 

consumption advisories is available on the FDOH Fish Consumption Advisories website. 

Information on shellfish bed closures is available on the FDACS Shellfish Harvesting website. 

Recent sampling results and information on beach closures are available on the FDOH Florida 

Healthy Beaches Program website. 

Harmful Algal Blooms

Florida closely tracks harmful algal blooms (HABs) in fresh waters as well as estuarine and 

marine waters because of their potential health threat. As with all blooms, their increase in 

biomass results from a combination of physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms that are 

for the most part poorly understood. Most HABs are caused by either dinoflagellates or 

cyanobacteria, but other classes of algae, including diatoms, may form HABs under proper but 

unknown conditions (Glibert et al. 2005). HABs may produce toxins that can harm humans 

through exposure to contaminated shellfish, fish, dermal contact, and even the inhalation of 

aerosols. They can also affect plant and animal communities. Additional information on HABs 

is available on the FDOH Aquatic Toxins Program website. Any illnesses caused by exposure 

to harmful algae can be reported to FDOH’s toll-free Aquatic Toxins Hotline (1-888-232-8635).

Freshwater HABs

The occurrence of cyanobacteria (or blue-green algae) blooms has received increased attention 

in recent years because of their potential to produce toxins that can harm humans, livestock, 

domestic animals, fish, and wildlife. While blooms of cyanobacteria can occur naturally, they 

are frequently associated with elevated nutrient concentrations, slow-moving water, and warm 

temperatures; however, significant blooms can occur almost any time of year due to Florida’s 

subtropical climate.

Cyanotoxins are bioactive compounds naturally produced by some species of cyanobacteria 

that can damage the liver (hepatotoxins), nervous system (neurotoxins), and skin 

(dermatotoxins) of humans and other animals. Several cyanotoxins, namely microcystins and 

the lyngbyatoxins, are potential tumor promoters. Three classes of cyanotoxins (anatoxin-a, 

microcystin-LR, and cylindrospermopsin) are on the 2009 EPA Contaminant Candidate 3 List. 

The EPA uses this list to prioritize research and criteria development. 

Potentially toxigenic cyanobacteria have been found statewide in river and stream systems, as

well as lakes and estuaries. There are also concerns that freshwater cyanotoxins can be 

transported into coastal systems. The results of the Cyanobacteria Survey Project (1999–

2001), managed by the Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force at the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC) Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI), indicated that the 

taxa Microcystis aeruginosa, Anabaena spp., and Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii were the 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

24

dominant species, while species with the genera Aphanizomenon, Planktothrix, Oscillatoria, and 

Lyngbya were also observed statewide but not as frequently. Cyanotoxins (microcystins, 

saxitoxin, cylindrospermopsins, and anatoxin) were also found statewide. Other cyanobacteria 

of concern in Florida are reported in Abbott et al. (2009). 

Measured concentrations of microcystins have been reported in some post-processed finished 

water from drinking water facilities in Florida. Over a period of about 9 months, the 2000 

Cyanobacteria Survey Project focused on water treatment plants that produced drinking water 

from surface waters. On 6 occasions, microcystin levels (hepatotoxins) in finished samples 

were above the World Health Organization’s (WHO) suggested guideline level of 1 to 10 μg/L 

for drinking water. However, this level has a safety factor of 1,000 and is based on long-term

exposure. Further, the sample deviation at these low concentrations raised the issue of quality 

assurance, particularly considering the use of new analytical procedures and the lack of 

laboratory certification. The results of a 2007 study by the FDEP Bureau of Laboratories 

indicated that there is as much as an order of magnitude difference in reported values between 

laboratories using different analytical methods. 

Neither the EPA nor Florida has established any water quality standards for cyanotoxins, and 

the WHO threshold is used as an indicator of potential adverse effects in potable drinking water. 

There are no established limits for fish tissue concentrations or recreational exposure. The 

FWC does not discourage people from eating fish from cyanobacteria bloom waters so long as 

there is no ongoing or recent history of a fish kill and if fish are active and appear healthy on the 

fishing line. FDOH recommends that people do not drink, recreate, or irrigate with water that is 

experiencing a cyanobacteria bloom. 

Research by the FDEP Bureau of Laboratories on Microcystis aeruginosa bloom samples from 

Lake Munson in Leon County, Florida, indicates that even nontoxin-producing blooms can 

contain strains of M. aeruginosa that possess the gene for toxin production. This suggests that, 

for reasons yet unknown, nontoxin-producing blooms can become toxin-producing blooms 

under the right environmental conditions. This finding supports the FDOH guidance to stay out 

of bloom waters regardless of the toxin concentrations that may have been reported, as 

conditions and toxin concentrations can change rapidly.

Several drinking water facilities in Florida monitor for cyanotoxins. Reports from the WHO and 

other researchers around the world indicate that conventional treatment processes are effective 

at eliminating the algae and the toxin, so long as treatment media (e.g., activated carbon) in the 

systems are maintained. The taste, odor, and color associated with the bloom provide a clear 

indication of its presence and initiate the use of additional treatment. While these treatment 

techniques are used to control the taste, odor, and color of the water, they are also very 

effective at removing or degrading the toxins.

FDOH, FDEP, and other state agencies have collaborated to create a new Cyanobacteria 

Bloom Module in the FDOH Foodborne, Waterborne, and Vectorborne Disease Surveillance 

System (FWVSS) database. The module allows each potential responding agency (e.g., FDOH 

and local county health units, FDEP, FWC, the WMDs, and FDACS) to enter a new case 

identification number for a cyanobacteria bloom. This system can send email notifications to the 

cyanobacteria bloom contacts in each agency whenever a new bloom is reported or a significant 

update is made to an existing case. The use of the new tool should help improve state 

agencies’ response to cyanobacteria blooms.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

25

Estuarine and Marine HABS1

There are more than 50 marine and estuarine HAB species that occur in Florida with the 

potential to affect public health, cause economic losses, affect living resources, disturb 

ecosystems, and generate water quality problems. Any highly concentrated bloom can reduce 

water quality because decomposing and respiring cells contribute to the reduction (hypoxia) or 

absence of oxygen (anoxia), the production of nitrogenous byproducts, or the formation of toxic 

sulfides. Declining water quality can lead to animal mortality or chronic diseases, species 

avoidance of an area, and reduced feeding. Such sublethal, chronic effects on habitats can 

have far-reaching impacts on animal and plant communities.

Within the Gulf of Mexico, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Harmful Algal Bloom Operational Forecast System website provides information on the location, 

extent, and potential for the development or movement of HABs. The Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a 

partnership between Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, is working to increase

regional collaboration to enhance the Gulf’s ecological and economic health. Reducing the 

effects of HABs is one of its water quality priorities. 

Red Tide

While most blooms of the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis occur on the west coast of Florida, red 

tides occasionally are entrained by the Gulf Stream and move to the east coast. Florida’s red 

tides may contribute to significant economic losses, causing declines in fisheries and adversely 

impacting businesses that depend on local tourism. Historically, K. brevis red tides producing 

brevetoxins, which disrupt normal neurological processes, have caused the most significant 

problems. Blooms of K. brevis have led to threats to the public from aerosolized toxins or to a 

lesser extent from Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning (NSP), caused the deaths of thousands of 

fish, and impacted marine mammals, turtles, and birds (Magaña et al. 2003). Fish kills caused 

by K. brevis were first documented in 1844, but the cause was not identified until the 1946–47 

red tide. 

Although human shellfish poisonings have been known to occur in Florida since the 1880s, the 

connection with filter-feeding shellfish, toxicity, and K. brevis red tides was not identified until the 

1960s. Over the past 40 years in Florida, human cases of NSP have only occurred when 

shellfish were harvested illegally from closed shellfish beds or unapproved areas, yet no human 

fatalities have been recorded. People and marine mammals can experience respiratory 

irritation and other pulmonary effects when brevetoxins become aerosolized. 

FWC–FWRI monitors state waters for K. brevis blooms in cooperation with other state 

regulatory agencies, such as FDACS, FDOH, and FDEP; a volunteer network of boaters, 

charter boat captains, fishermen, citizens; and Mote Marine Laboratory (MML). All analyses 

involve either on-site, onboard, or onshore laboratory testing. Results are posted weekly on the 

FWC–FWRI website and include data from a variety of sources. A toll-free number (1–866–

300–9399) is also available to access current Florida red tide monitoring information. 

To protect public health during bloom events, FDACS’ Division of Aquaculture closes shellfish 

areas to harvesting when K. brevis cell counts are above 5,000 cells per liter. They are 

reopened when test results provided by FWC–FWRI are acceptable. The FDACS Shellfish 

Harvesting website lists current shellfish area closures. The protocol is in compliance with 

Florida’s Marine Biotoxin Control Plan (FDACS 2007). 

 

1 Much of the information in this section was abstracted from Abbott et al. 2009. Other sources are listed in the References

section at the end of this report.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

26

The Harmful Algal Bloom Integrated Observing System is a web-based tool developed by a 

regional coalition of U.S. and Mexican federal and state agencies, as well as international 

researchers, to collect and disseminate information on K. brevis.

The historical FWC–FWRI red tide database had a number of inconsistencies, including the 

presence of data collected for different purposes (experiments vs. monitoring), different 

sampling efforts over the years, and differences in collection and analysis techniques. Because 

of these issues, the FWC contracted with biostatisticians at the University of Florida (UF) to 

analyze the red tide data for long-term trends to determine what statistical conclusions could be 

drawn. UF concluded that the nature of the data prevented any valid statistical interpretation 

concerning trends and human influences on K. brevis blooms. A summary of the UF analysis is 

available on the FWC–FWRI website. 

K. brevis blooms are natural events that start offshore; however, there is an ongoing scientific 

debate on whether land-based human influences affect the longevity and persistence of red 

tides once they come close to shore. Current available data from the past 10 years suggest that 

K. brevis blooms may utilize a multitude of nutrient sources, depending on along-shore and 

offshore locations (Vargo et al. 2008). The data suggest that no single nutrient source 

(including terrestrially derived nutrients) is sufficient to support these blooms, and while K. 

brevis can utilize these nearshore sources. There is a salinity restriction on K. brevis survival, 

which does not occur at salinity levels below 24 practical salinity units (psu), and argues against 

a direct link to land-based sources of nutrients. While data linking nutrient loading with K. brevis

occurrence do not currently exist, the FWC’s FWRI is currently conducting research on this 

issue.

Other HAB Species

One of the most important HAB species in Florida, other than K. brevis, is the saxitoxinproducing dinoflagellate Pyrodinium bahamense. As a tropical species, it has seldom been 

observed at bloom levels north of Tampa Bay on the west coast and the Indian River Lagoon on 

the east coast, where the blooms are generally limited to May through October (Phlips et al.

2006). Pyrodinium can form intense blooms, which have been linked to the bioaccumulation of 

the neurotoxin in shellfish and fish (Landsberg et al. 2006). While these blooms raise serious 

concerns about impacts on the ecology of effected ecosystems and human health, the blooms 

have been occurring naturally at levels toxic to nearshore Florida fishes and seabirds for 25 

million years (Emslie et al. 1996). 

In Florida, Pyrodinium is most prevalent in flow-restricted lagoons and bays with long water 

residence times and salinities between 10 and 30 psu. The latter conditions competitively favor 

Pyrodinium because of its slow growth rates and euryhaline character (Phlips et al. 2006). 

Blooms also appear to be accentuated during periods of elevated rainfall and nutrient loads to 

lagoons (Phlips et al. 2010a), suggesting a link between coastal eutrophication and the intensity 

and frequency of blooms. However, discharges of naturally tannic waters from wetlands during 

high rainfall events can also produce favorable conditions for this organism. These 

observations also point to the potential role of future climate trends in defining the dynamics of 

HAB species in Florida (Phlips et al. 2010a).

The other bloom-forming marine species that could have potentially harmful impacts in Florida 

are roughly divided into two categories: toxin-producing species and taxa that form blooms 

associated with other important problems, such as low oxygen concentrations, physical damage 

to organisms, or general loss of habitat. Potential toxin-producing planktonic marine HAB 

species include the diatom group Pseudo-nitzschia spp., the dinoflagellates Alexandrium 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

27

monilatum, Takayama pulchella, Karenia mikimotoi, K. selliformis, Karlodinium veneficum, 

Prorocentrum minimum, P. rhathymum, and Cochliodinium polykrikoides, and the 

microflagellates Prymnesium spp., Chrysochromulina spp., and Chattonella sp. (Landsberg 

2002). Many of these species are associated with fish or shellfish kills in various ecosystems 

around the world (Landsberg 2002). Additionally, benthic cyanobacteria and macroalgae 

blooms have been observed on Florida’s coral reefs and have been associated with mortality 

and disease events involving various organisms (Lapointe et al. 2004; Paul et al. 2005; 

Richardson et al. 2007). 

Although many HAB species have been observed at bloom levels in Florida (Phlips et al.

2010b), considerable uncertainty remains over the relative toxicity of the specific strains. 

Certain species of benthic microalgae also produce toxins that can impact human health, such 

as the ciguatoxin-producing dinoflagellate Gamberdiscus toxicus, implicated in ciguatera 

incidents in south Florida (Landsberg 2002). 

In addition to ichthyotoxic HAB species that directly cause fish kills, the list of HAB species 

linked to hypoxia or other density-related issues (e.g., allelopathy, physical damage to gills of 

fish) is very long and includes almost any species that reaches exceptionally high biomass. 

Examples include the widespread bloom-forming planktonic dinoflagellate Akashiwo sanguinea, 

in the Indian River Lagoon and the St. Lucie Estuary, and the cyanobacterium Synechococcus

in Florida Bay (Phlips et al. 1999; Phlips et al. 2010b). Many fish kills, particularly those 

occurring in the early morning hours, are due to low DO levels in the water associated with the 

algal blooms and are not necessarily the result of toxins. 

Another important issue associated with HABs is the loss or alteration of overall habitat quality. 

Prolonged and intense coastal eutrophication can result in the domination by a select few 

species, resulting in loss of diversity and alteration of food web structure and function. For 

example, during major Pyrodinium blooms, 80% to 90% of total phytoplankton biomass is 

attributable solely to this species (Phlips et al. 2006). Similar domination by a single species 

occurs in benthic ecosystems, where massive blooms of green and red macroalgae have 

periodically over-run some shallow habitats of the Florida coast (Lapointe and Bedford 2007).

The FWC responds to discolored water, fish kills, and other mortality or disease events to 

determine whether the cause is environmental or human related. A statewide fish kill hotline 

(1-800-636-0511) has been in operation for 17 years. The FWC fish kill database contains 

information on fish kills and other aquatic animal health events in Florida reported to the FWC 

from 1972 to the present. New fish kill reports can be submitted through the website.

Initiatives 

FDEP has identified a variety of ongoing and emerging state concerns related to water quality 

and is addressing these through the following special projects and initiatives: 

• Nutrient Impairment. Significant progress has been made in reducing nutrient 

loads to state waters (see Chapter 11, which summarizes TMDL and BMAP 

activities that address nutrient loading to impaired waters and describes the 

permitting programs that have reduced nutrient loading from point sources and 

from new development). However, nutrient loading and changes in biological 

communities continue to be an issue. While the occurrence of blue-green algae 

is natural and has occurred throughout history, algal growth caused by human 

sources (such as fertilizers and septic tanks) associated with a growing 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

28

population and the resulting increase in residential landscapes) is an ongoing

concern. 

The state has collected and assessed large amounts of data related to nutrients. 

FDEP convened a Numeric Nutrient Criteria Technical Advisory Committee 

(Nutrient TAC) that met 23 times beginning in 2003. FDEP began rulemaking 

for the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria in lakes and streams in 2009, 

but suspended its rulemaking efforts when the EPA signed a Settlement 

Agreement that included a detailed schedule for the EPA to promulgate nutrient 

criteria. FDEP provided its data to the EPA, which promulgated criteria in 

November 2010, with a 15-month delayed implementation date. FDEP recently 

(December 2011) completed its rulemaking process to establish numeric 

nutrient criteria similar to the EPA’s, but with more specificity concerning 

assessment and implementation. FDEP’s rule also provides criteria for 

approximately half of the state’s marine waters, with a schedule to finish the 

remainder by 2015. The EPA is scheduled to propose numeric nutrient criteria 

for south Florida canals and Florida's estuarine and coastal waters, as well as

additional flowing waters criteria designed to protect downstream estuaries 

(termed “Downstream Protection Values”), in May 2012. 

Additional information is available on the FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

Development website. The University of Florida Institute of Food and 

Agricultural Sciences (UF–IFAS) document, A Guide to EPA’s Proposed 

Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida, provides summary

information. 

• Algal Growth in Springs. Water quality has declined in most springs since the 

1970s; in particular, levels of nitrate (a nutrient) and blue-green algal growth in 

springs are widespread. Recognizing the need to assess the status of bluegreen algae not just in springs but all waters, in 1998 the Florida Legislature 

approved funding for the FWC’s Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force. This task 

force was initiated to address potential concerns regarding microalgae—

including blue-green algae—through monitoring and investigation. The state 

continues to monitor blue-green algae closely and is taking measures to reduce 

nutrient loading and improve water quality. FDOH’s Aquatic Toxins Program, in 

coordination with FDEP, has derived and implemented several tools to help 

identify and assess blue-green algae blooms.

• Mercury in Fish Tissue. In many coastal and inland waters, excessive 

concentrations of mercury in the tissue of some fish species limit the attainment 

of the designated use of fish consumption. Mercury levels in fish are the leading 

cause of water quality impairment in Florida’s lakes, coastal waters, and 

estuaries, and the second leading cause of impairment in the state’s rivers. 

To address this issue, FDEP initiated the development of a statewide TMDL for 

mercury in fresh water and estuaries in 2008 that is scheduled to be completed 

by September 2012. The project consists of gathering and assessing a complex 

suite of data (on mercury emissions, deposition, and aquatic cycling 

bioaccumulation) and conducting modeling to quantify the needed mercury 

reductions in order to address mercury-related impairment in surface waters. 

Elements of the proposed statewide mercury TMDL study include the following:
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

29

o Collecting comprehensive, highly temporally resolved measurements of wet 

and dry mercury deposition at four locations, along with a suite of tracers that 

may be used to link deposition with sources. These sampling areas are 

referred to as “Supersites.”

o Identifying all significant sources of mercury, whether fixed or mobile, in 

Florida (an emissions inventory). 

o Conducting atmospheric modeling (both dispersion and receptor models) to 

quantify Florida mercury sources versus those sources outside Florida that 

must be controlled to satisfy the TMDL.

o Developing an empirical, probabilistic aquatic-cycling model to predict 

mercury levels in fish as a function of water quality parameters.

About one-third of the freshwater fish sampled in Florida exceed the EPArecommended methyl-mercury criterion (0.3 mg/kg) for human health. Currently 

over 300 freshwater waterbodies in Florida have a consumption limit on 

recreationally caught fish. Twenty species of freshwater fish are under some 

level of advisory. 

Marine and estuarine fish are of particular concern because they are 

overwhelmingly the primary source of human exposure to methyl-mercury; the 

consumption of these species accounts for more than 90% of Americans’ total 

fish consumption. For the entire coast of Florida (Gulf and Atlantic), over 60 

species of marine fish are under a limited consumption advisory due to mercury 

in fish. In addition, the five states bordering the Gulf of Mexico (as well as 

Florida’s entire Atlantic coast) have issued a “do not eat” advisory for king 

mackerel, a marine species. The FDOH Fish Consumption Advisories website

contains the most up-to-date information for Florida. 

The Gulf of Mexico is a very significant fishery, accounting in 2010 for 16% of 

the nation’s marine commercial fish landings and 41% of the marine recreational 

fish catch. Because mercury levels in a high proportion of fish in the Gulf 

exceed the recommended EPA fish tissue criterion for safe consumption (0.3 

mg/kg), this waterbody is a significant source of human exposure to methylmercury. Currently, about 5% to10% women of childbearing age in the Gulf 

region are overexposed to mercury from consuming contaminated fish.

The issue of elevated mercury levels in Gulf fish, however, should not be 

addressed only by the five Gulf states. As with other pollutants such as 

nutrients, 31 states in the Mississippi River Basin contribute mercury inputs to 

the Gulf through surface water runoff, and 94% of U.S. Gulf waters are under 

federal jurisdiction. The Gulf is a single waterbody with fish moving from one 

state’s waters to another’s, with water currents moving mercury around the Gulf, 

and with atmospheric emissions of mercury from one state being deposited in 

other states’ waters; thus a Gulf-wide research and TMDL approach is needed. 

Currently, FDEP is submitting grant applications to the EPA and NOAA for 

funding for research to assist in developing a Gulf of Mexico mercury TMDL.

• Saltwater Encroachment. Investigations by FDEP’s Florida Geological Survey 

(FGS) and the Watershed Monitoring Section (WMS) indicate that spring flow 

and ground water levels in many parts of Florida are declining. As they decline, 

there is a tendency for ground water supplies to be affected by saltwater 

encroachment. Florida, which is surrounded by high-salinity marine waters, has 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

30

a “lens” of fresh ground water that “floats” above saline ground water. The 

overpumping of ground water can induce saline water upwelling and/or marine 

water encroachment. Ground water usage is becoming a significant 

environmental challenge, since the state needs plentiful water for drinking, 

agricultural, and industrial use, and the maintenance of natural communities. 

To examine ground water quality concerns, the FGS and WMS have proposed 

the creation of a new multiagency working group to align local, state, and federal 

monitoring efforts. Beginning in 2011, FDEP, along with other state agencies, 

the WMDs, and the USGS, have been working towards the establishment of a 

statewide “salinity” ground water monitoring network. The objective of the 

proposed network will be to monitor saltwater encroachment. 

• Arsenic in Ground Water. To address the issue of arsenic contamination in 

ground water, FDEP’s Ground Water and Watershed Monitoring Sections, the

FGS, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) have 

initiated two studies to answer the following questions:

o What are the concentrations of trace metals, with an emphasis on arsenic, in 

each aquifer system in the study area?

o How do the concentrations vary over space and time by aquifer system?

o How are concentrations related to human-induced land use and water use 

activities? 

The first study, completed in early 2011, focused on characterizing natural and 

anthropogenic sources of arsenic in ground water in the Tampa Bay region. 

Forty-eight wells, tapping the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifer 

systems in a four-county area near Tampa Bay, were sampled for arsenic during 

the wet and dry seasons of 2009. 

The analysis evaluated the relationships and interactions among the lithology, 

water levels, and land use in the area. Of the three factors, land use was found 

to be the most significant; lithology was found to interact with land use. Study 

results indicate that managers and policy makers will need to consider the 

interrelationships between land use and lithology, which may be ultimately 

understood from investigating geochemical processes. 

The current study, which addresses the geochemical influences on the temporal 

variability of arsenic in private wells, will be completed in late 2012. It is 

designed to identify geochemical processes relating to the temporal variability of 

arsenic concentrations in selected wells that tap the Floridan aquifer system. 

Objectives include the following: 

o Examining the temporal correlation between arsenic concentrations and 

variables potentially contributing arsenic to ground water;

o Developing a better understanding of the relationship between the ground 

water oxygen-reduction (redox) state and arsenic concentrations in ground 

water; and 

o Evaluating the relationship between solid-phase arsenic and its concentration 

in ground water. 

Monthly monitoring is being conducted at three monitoring wells and three

private supply wells at two locations in Florida. The results from the study will 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

31

ultimately contribute to the overall understanding of the natural and 

anthropogenic causes of arsenic mobilization.

• Emerging Substances of Concern (ESOCs). In December 2008, an FDEP 

workgroup released a report on strategies to effectively address a wide variety of 

potential contaminants in surface water and ground water. These contaminants, 

which are commonly referred to as ESOCs, include global organic contaminants, 

endocrine-modulating chemicals, nanoparticles, and biological metabolites. 

Recent improvements in laboratory analytical methods have enabled the 

identification of these substances. ESOCs are particularly challenging for 

regulatory agencies because of their sheer numbers (there are about 14 million 

commercially available compounds in the United States) and because 

environmental risk cannot currently be meaningfully assessed for the vast 

majority of them. 

The report identified several potential strategies for addressing ESOCs, 

including the following:

o Preventing pollution through stakeholder education; 

o Assessing ESOCs data quality to better understand the magnitude of ESOCs 

concentrations in the environment, given the incorrect reporting of ESOCs 

levels by some key researchers;

o Asking the EPA for specific ESOCs monitoring projects; and

o Improving coordination with federal agencies.

While the report describes all of the strategies, the workgroup concluded that 

preventing ESOCs from entering the environment is the most effective control 

strategy, and FDEP’s initial efforts to address ESOCs have focused on public 

education. Additional information and the workgroup report are available on the 

FDEP Watershed Management website. 

Analytes for the 2012 ground water monitoring network will include “tracers,” 

which are elements that can be measured to determine the presence of 

products found exclusively in human waste. These compounds, if found in a 

sample, indicate that other contaminants including ESOCs may be present.

FDEP’s Watershed Monitoring Section is also looking into the possible addition 

of some ESOCs that have been identified in Florida waters from federal studies. 

• Ocean Acidification. In 2010, the EPA solicited comments on the topic of 

ocean acidification with regard to impaired waters assessments and TMDLs. In 

November 2010, the agency issued guidance to the states on how they should 

work towards addressing this issue. In response to this guidance, FDEP 

solicited information from researchers within the state in order to help 

understand the status of this issue in Florida’s coastal waters. Florida has many 

aquatic species that are sensitive to shifts in pH and site-specific studies in 

Florida are needed. FDEP continues to monitor the progress of research being 

done within the state but currently has no funded projects under way.

• Revision of Recreational Water Quality Criteria. Based on beach advisories, 

shellfish bed closures, and ambient water quality monitoring data, concentrations 

of indicator bacteria above water quality standards in the water column 

sometimes limit primary contact and recreational use, as well as shellfish 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

32

harvesting. However, these advisories or closures may not accurately identify 

the true risk to human health due to the limitations of the criteria used to assess 

these uses. Current methods for evaluating whether recreational and shellfishharvesting areas meet water quality criteria are based on the culture of fecal 

indicator bacteria; these evaluations require 24 hours or more to perform and are 

not source specific, making them impractical for short-term (same-day) 

management decision making. 

The EPA is currently in the process of revising its 1986 recreational water quality 

criteria and recently proposed new criteria. The EPA has stated that the revised 

criteria will continue to include its current culture-based fecal indicator bacteria 

(e.g., E. coli and Enterococcus) but will also include a more rapid molecular 

method (e.g., q-PCR general Enterococcus) for bathing beach monitoring; 

however, this method has a number of disadvantages, as follows: 

o It will still not be source specific; 

o It will still not be rapid enough for beach managers to use for same day 

beach notifications unless many new labs are established and sampling 

strategies are developed to monitor a limited number of beaches per lab in 

order to facilitate rapid turn-around-times for the analysis and dissemination 

of results;

o It will result in even greater numbers of waters being listed as impaired with 

no greater accuracy in predicting risk to human health; 

o It will, at least in the short-term, be significantly more expensive than the 

culture-based methods; and

o It will result in questionable gains in human health protection since the 

general marker molecular methods are no better at discriminating bacteria 

associated with anthropogenic sources of fecal matter from those that are 

naturally present in the environment. 

FDEP is exploring alternative molecular methods to better distinguish when 

elevated fecal indicator levels are associated with actual fecal contamination, 

and not environmental strains of bacteria that have no known association with 

increased human health risk, in order to prioritize restoration efforts in areas with 

the greatest probable risk to human health.

• Revision of DO Criteria. Florida’s freshwater DO criterion currently requires 

that DO “shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L in Class I and III fresh waters. 

Additionally, normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above this level shall be 

maintained” (Subsection 62-302.530[31], Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). 

Florida’s fresh waters are exposed to temperatures ranging from temperate to 

tropical, and many originate in low-oxygen environments, such as swamps and 

aquifers. These sources are naturally low in DO and have daily and seasonal 

fluctuations where DO falls below 5.0 mg/L. Since these levels result from

natural conditions and native flora and fauna have adapted to this variability, 

they generally do not impact a waterbody’s designated use. Furthermore, 

Subsection 62-302.300(15), F.A.C., states that “the Department shall not strive 

to abate natural conditions.” 

To better understand the natural variability of DO in freshwater aquatic systems 

around the state, FDEP conducted a major DO study in 2005–06. 

Approximately 350 sites in 6 different waterbody types were monitored quarterly. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

33

Data were collected on water quality, water chemistry, and biology. The results 

of the DO study confirmed that Florida’s existing 5.0 mg/L freshwater DO 

criterion was not suitable for a large number of the state’s waterbodies. DO 

concentrations in approximately 70% of the minimally disturbed streams and 

52% of the minimally disturbed lakes sampled during the study would 

inappropriately fail the existing criterion (with 10% of the diel measurements 

falling below the criterion).

In 2010 and 2011, FDEP also assessed available DO data for Florida estuaries 

and confirmed that, as was the case for fresh waters, many Florida estuaries 

naturally do not attain the state’s marine DO criterion (“shall not average less 

than 5.0 mg/L in a 24-hour period and shall never be less than 4.0 mg/L”).

Given that many state waters do not attain the criteria, in 2011, FDEP developed 

draft revised DO criteria for both freshwater and marine waters, and prepared a 

Technical Support Document, Derivation of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to Protect 

Aquatic Life in Florida’s Fresh and Marine Waters. The document was recently

peer reviewed, and FDEP plans to initiate rulemaking to revise the DO criteria in 

2012. Revising Florida’s DO criteria will allow FDEP to determine when DO has 

been altered below these natural conditions and focus its TMDL development 

and restoration efforts on abating the causes of those alterations. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

34

CHAPTER 4: FLORIDA’S APPROACH 

TO MONITORING SURFACE WATER AND 

GROUND WATER

Background 

FDEP‘s approach to comprehensive surface water monitoring is designed to meet the 

monitoring-related requirements of the federal CWA, as well as Florida’s statutory and 

regulatory monitoring requirements.2

 Broadly stated, these requirements are as follows: 

• Determine water quality standards attainment and identify impaired waters; 

• Identify the causes and sources of water quality impairments; 

• Establish, review, and revise water quality standards; 

• Support the implementation of water management programs; 

• Establish special monitoring for unique resources; and

• Support the evaluation of program effectiveness.

FDEP continues to carry out extensive statewide monitoring in order to meet these federal and 

state requirements. However, other governmental entities at federal, state, regional, and local 

levels, as well as volunteer and private organizations, carry out monitoring. The bulk of the data 

used in this report comes from approximately 79 data providers across the state who conduct 

ambient monitoring of water chemistry, collect biological data, and sample sediments. In most 

cases, these data are initially loaded into the FL(orida) STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 

database (FL STORET), and annually uploaded to the EPA national STORET database. FDEP 

evaluates these data to establish whether they meet the quality assurance requirements of Rule

62-160, F.A.C., and whether the data can be used to determine the health of the state’s ambient 

waters. Some qualifiers are placed on these data. For example, by law Florida LAKEWATCH 

data can be used only for nonregulatory proceedings and cannot be used for regulatory or 

enforcement activities. Chapter 5 provides additional details on these qualifiers.

Each governmental agency and volunteer or private organization has its own monitoring 

objectives, strategy, design, and indicators, as well as procedures for quality assurance, data 

management, data analysis and assessment, and reporting. Data derived by these 

 

2 At the federal level, Section 305(b) of the 1972 CWA (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S. Code 1251–1375, as amended) 

directs each state to (1) prepare and submit a report every two years that includes a description of the water quality of all of its 

navigable surface waters to the EPA, and (2) analyze the extent to which navigable waters provide for the protection and 

propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to submit to the EPA 

lists of surface waters that are impaired (i.e., that do not meet their designated uses, such as drinking water, recreation, and 

shellfish harvesting, as defined by applicable water quality standards). TMDLs must be developed for each of these impaired 

waters on a schedule. Also, Section 106 (e)(1) of the CWA directs the EPA to determine whether states meet the prerequisites for 

monitoring their aquatic resources.

Monitoring is required under Florida law through a series of rules that govern FDEP’s regulatory activities. The 1997 Water Quality 

Assurance Act (Section 403.063, F.S.) directs FDEP to establish and maintain a ground water quality monitoring network designed 

to detect or predict contamination of the state’s ground water resources. In addition, Section 62-40.540, F.A.C., Florida’s Water 

Policy, states that FDEP “. . . shall coordinate district, state agency, and local government water quality monitoring activities in order 

to improve data quality and reduce costs.”
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

35

organizations are beyond the scope of this report. The various federal, state, regional, and local 

agencies and organizations, including FDEP, that carry out water quality monitoring statewide, 

are as follows:

Federal Monitoring Agencies/Organizations

• Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve

• Avon Park Air Force Range 

• Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program

• Eglin Air Force Base

• Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

• Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

• Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program

• Tampa Bay National Estuary Program

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Geological Survey

Out-of-State Monitoring Agencies/Organizations

• Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Florida Monitoring Agencies/Organizations

• Charlotte Harbor Aquatic/Buffer Preserves

• Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve

• Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection

• Florida Department of Health

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

• Florida Marine Research Institute

Regional Monitoring Agencies/Organizations

• Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance

• Loxahatchee River District

• Peace River Manasota Regional Water Authority (PBS&J)
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

36

• Pensacola Bay Nutrient Study (Gulf Breeze)

• Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD)

• South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)

• Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)

• Southwest Florida Water Management District (Coast Project)

• St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD)

• Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD)

Local Monitoring Agencies/Organizations

• Alachua County 

• Bay County 

• Broward County Environmental Monitoring Division

• Charlotte County Storm Water

• City of Cape Coral

• City of Jacksonville

• City of Lakeland

• City of Lynn Haven 

• City of Key West

• City of Maitland

• City of Naples

• City of Orlando

• City of Panama City Beach

• City of Port St. Joe Project (Gulf Breeze)

• City of Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant

• City of Port St. Lucie

• City of Punta Gorda Utilities

• City of Sanibel

• City of Tallahassee

• City of Tampa

• City of West Palm Beach

• Collier County Pollution Control

• Dade County Environmental Resource Management

• East County Water Control District
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

37

• Escambia County Utility Association

• Hillsborough County 

• Lake County Water Resource Management

• Lee County Environmental Laboratories

• Lee County Hyacinth Control District

• Manatee County Environmental Management

• McGlynn Laboratories and Leon County

• Okaloosa County Environmental Council

• Orange County Environmental Protection Division

• Palm Beach County Environmental Resource Management

• Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management

• Polk County Natural Resources Division

• Reedy Creek Improvement District Environmental Services

• Sarasota County Environmental Services

• Seminole County Public Works Roads/Stormwater

• Seminole Improvement District

• St. Johns County 

• Volusia County Environmental Health Lab

Volunteer/Private Monitoring Agencies/Organizations

• Baskerville Donovan, Inc.

• Baywatch

• Biological Research Associates

• Bream Fisherman's Association 

• Conservancy of Southwest Florida

• Environmental Research and Design, Inc

• Florida Center for Community Design + Research

• Florida LAKEWATCH (identification of potentially impaired waters only)

• Gulf Power Company

• IMC Agrico/Phosphates

• Janicki Environmental

• The Nature Conservancy of the Florida Keys

• Palm Coast Community Service Corp.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

38

• Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation

• Southeast Environmental Research Center

Florida’s Integrated Water Resources Monitoring Program

As discussed earlier, water resource monitoring in Florida is conducted by FDEP, the WMDs, 

local governments, and other entities. Over the past decade, FDEP has worked closely with 

these monitoring entities to establish an Integrated Water Resources Monitoring (IWRM) 

Program that integrates surface water and ground water monitoring. Since it is fiscally and 

logistically prohibitive to sample every segment of river or stream, every acre of lake, or each 

individual monitoring well in the state annually, the IWRM also integrates three tiers of 

monitoring—statewide ambient monitoring networks that allow statistical inferences to be made 

about all waters in the state (Tier 1); strategic monitoring for verification of impairment and 

identification of causative pollutants (Tier 2); and specialized, site-specific monitoring (Tier 3) 

(Tables 4.1a through 4.1d). These three tiers are composed of several core monitoring

programs in FDEP’s Division of Water Resource Management and Division of Environmental 

Assessment and Restoration. These tiers are not to be viewed as a prioritization structure; they 

simply reflect different categorical objectives.

The IWRM approach is consistent with the 2003 EPA guidance document, Elements of a State 

Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. In 2009, FDEP prepared and submitted a report 

on these elements for the different monitoring programs. The report, Elements of Florida’s 

Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, addresses the following 10 elements:

1. Monitoring objectives; 

2. Monitoring strategy; 

3. Monitoring design; 

4. Indicators; 

5. Quality assurance; 

6. Data management; 

7. Data analysis and assessment; 

8. Reporting; 

9. Programmatic evaluation; and 

10. General support and infrastructure planning.

This section broadly discusses Elements 1 (monitoring objectives), 2 (monitoring strategy), 5 

(quality assurance), 6 (data management), 9 (programmatic evaluation), and 10 (general 

support and infrastructure planning). The methodology and assessment sections of this report 

address Elements 3 (monitoring design), 4 (indicators), 7 (data analysis and assessment), and 8 

(reporting).
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

39

Table 4.1a. FDEP's Tier I Monitoring Programs

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the program, Column 2 summarizes its activities, and Column 3 lists the 

water resources addressed.

Program Summary Resources Addressed

Status 

Network

Consists of a probabilistic monitoring design to 

estimate water quality across the entire state based on 

a representative subsample of water resource types.

Large lakes, small lakes, rivers, 

streams, confined aquifers, and 

unconfined aquifers

Trend 

Network

Comprises a fixed station design to examine changes 

in water quality and flow over time throughout the 

state.

Rivers, streams, confined aquifers, and 

unconfined aquifers

Table 4.1b. FDEP's Tier I and Tier II Blended Monitoring Programs

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the program, Column 2 summarizes its activities, and Column 3 lists the 

water resources addressed.

Program Summary Resources Addressed

Spring 

Monitoring 

Program 

Consists of a fixed station network of freshwater 

springs intended to enhance the understanding of 

Florida’s springs, evaluate spring flow, and assess 

spring health.

First-magnitude springs, secondmagnitude springs, subaquatic 

conduits, river rises, and coastal 

submarine springs

Table 4.1c. FDEP's Tier II Monitoring Programs

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the program, Column 2 summarizes its activities, and Column 3 lists the 

water resources addressed.

Program Summary Resources Addressed

Strategic 

Monitoring 

Program 

Addresses questions in specific basins and stream 

segments that are associated with determinations of 

waterbody impairment for the TMDL Program.

All surface waters based on the 

schedule in the watershed 

management cycle

Table 4.1d. FDEP's Tier III Monitoring Programs

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists each program, Column 2 summarizes its activities, and Column 3 lists 

the water resources addressed.

Program Summary Resources Addressed

Intensive 

Surveys for 

TMDLs

Provides detailed, time-limited investigations of the 

conditions of specific surface water resources that 

are identified as impaired.

Specific surface water resources 

identified as impaired

Water Quality 

Standards 

Development

Develops, evaluates, and revises new and existing 

surface water quality standards. Carries out 

monitoring to determine concentrations to protect 

aquatic life and human health.

Surface water and ground water

Site-Specific 

Alternative 

Criteria 

Develops moderating provisions unique to a 

waterbody that does not meet particular water quality 

criteria, due to natural background conditions or 

human-induced conditions that cannot be controlled 

or abated.

Surface waterbodies to which particular 

ambient water quality criteria may not 

be applicable

Fifth-Year 

Inspections

Achieves and maintains compliance through sound 

environmental monitoring and permitting practices.

Surface waters that receive point 

source discharges
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

40

Element 1: Monitoring Objectives

The goal of FDEP’s monitoring activities is to determine the overall quality of the state’s surface 

and ground water, how they are changing over time, and the effectiveness of water resource 

management, protection, and restoration programs. Monitoring activities collectively address 

the following broad objectives:

• Identify and document the condition of Florida’s water resources, spatially and 

temporally, with a known certainty;

• Collect data on important chemical, physical, and biological parameters to 

characterize waterbodies based on thresholds in Rule 62-302, F.A.C.; 

• Collect data from impaired waters that will be used to evaluate changes over 

time in response to restoration activities; 

• Establish a database with known data quality objectives and quality assurance 

for the purpose of determining a basin’s long-term ecological health and 

establishing water quality standards; and

• Provide reliable data to managers, legislators, agencies, and the public, and aid 

in management decision making.

Element 2: Monitoring Strategy

Under FDEP’s IWRM approach, there are three tiers of monitoring, ranging from the general to 

the specific, designed to fill data gaps or support specific regulatory needs. Each of FDEP’s

core monitoring programs has a detailed monitoring design, a list of core and supplemental 

water quality indicators, and specific procedures for quality assurance, data management, data 

analysis and assessment, reporting, and programmatic evaluation. FDEP relies on both 

chemical and biological sampling in its monitoring programs, and also conducts the bulk of the 

biological sampling that is carried out statewide. Tables 4.1a through 4.1d briefly describe 

FDEP’s approach and the water resources addressed for each FDEP monitoring program.

Based on the goals and objectives of each individual core monitoring program, sample locations 

are selected, monitoring parameters and sampling frequencies are determined, and sample 

collection and analysis are coordinated among FDEP’s six districts and cooperating federal, 

state, and county agencies. This close coordination with other monitoring entities around the 

state is essential to prevent duplication and to maximize the number of waterbodies that are 

monitored on a regular basis.

FDEP’s three tiers of monitoring are as follows:

• Tier I consists of the statewide surface water and ground water Status and 

Trend Networks. The Status Network employs a probabilistic monitoring design 

to estimate water quality statewide, based on a representative subsample of 

water resource types. The Trend Network uses a fixed station design to 

examine changes in water quality over time at selected sites throughout the 

state. The objective of these networks is to provide scientifically defensible 

information on the important chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

surface waters and major aquifer systems of Florida. Both networks are 

designed to measure condition using a variety of threshold values, including 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

41

water quality standards, water quality indices, and other appropriate ecological 

indicators.

• Tier II includes the Strategic Monitoring Program, which is designed to address 

questions in specific basins and stream segments that are associated with 

determinations of waterbody impairment for the TMDL Program. In addition, this 

tier includes the Spring Monitoring Program, which encompasses all of the 

extensive monitoring activities begun in 1999 to address the needs of Florida’s 

freshwater spring systems. 

• Tier III addresses questions that are site-specific or regulatory in nature. 

Examples of Tier III monitoring activities include monitoring to determine whether 

moderating provisions such as site-specific alternative criteria (SSACs) should 

apply to certain waters, monitoring tied to regulatory permits issued by FDEP, 

monitoring to establish TMDLs (intensive surveys), and monitoring associated 

with evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs. Tier III also includes monitoring 

activities for the development of water quality standards.

Element 5: Quality Assurance

Because water quality monitoring is carried out by many agencies and groups statewide, FDEP 

has a centralized quality assurance (QA) program to ensure that data are properly and 

consistently collected. A Quality Assurance Officer coordinates and oversees data quality 

activities for each program. However, QA is the responsibility of everyone associated with 

sampling, monitoring, and data analysis. In September 2009, FDEP’s Secretary approved a 

program directive, DEP 972, which further outlines this distributed responsibility, including each 

employee’s obligation to ensure that decisions are based upon defensible scientific information. 

Additionally, in support of the QA directive (DEP 972), all organizational units are required to 

update existing quality assurance manuals and plans describing internal QA procedures and 

criteria applied to all scientific data generation, review and use. A comprehensive QA report will 

be compiled from these manuals/plans and submitted to FDEP’s Secretary on an annual basis.

Training classes, which are conducted by FDEP staff, focus on program-specific sampling 

requirements. Any updates or changes to an individual program’s monitoring protocols are 

communicated through project management meetings, statewide meetings, and an Internet 

website.

The accuracy of field measurements is assessed through internal FDEP programs. Staff also 

monitor the on-site sampling environment, sampling equipment decontamination, sample 

container cleaning, the suitability of sample preservatives and analyte-free water, and sample 

transport and storage conditions, to control the impact that these activities may have on sample 

integrity and representativeness.

For each monitoring program, field staff are instructed to follow a comprehensive set of FDEP 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for sample collection and field testing (e.g., field meter 

measurements). These are incorporated by reference in Rule 62-160, F.A.C., Quality 

Assurance, and are specified in the FDEP document, Standard Operating Procedures for Field 

Activities (DEP-SOP-001/01, March 31, 2008). Other mandatory quality assurance 

requirements detailed in Rule 62-160, F.A.C., are also followed. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

42

Water quality samples are sent to FDEP’s Central Laboratory for analysis for the majority of 

programs; however, some external and overflow laboratories are also used. FDEP laboratories 

have SOPs for handling and analyzing samples; for reporting applicable precision, accuracy, 

and method detection limits (MDLs); and for reporting data. Laboratory certification is 

maintained as required by Section 62-160.300, F.A.C. The Quality Assurance Rule (Rule 62-

160, F.A.C.) (current effective date of December 3, 2008), requires all entities submitting data to 

FDEP be certified by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) 

through FDOH. The certification process requires the laboratory to develop a comprehensive 

quality manual for internal operations, analyze performance testing samples twice a year, and 

undergo periodic systems audits conducted by FDOH inspectors. In addition, other mandatory 

QA requirements specified in Rule 62-160, F.A.C., are followed. Contracted overflow labs are 

held to identical QA requirements via detailed contract language.

The sampling and testing performance of field teams is evaluated by auditors from FDEP’s QA 

program, which is administered by the Standards and Assessment Section. Staff from other 

organizational units who have been trained as auditors also conduct these evaluations. The 

criteria for field performance are those specified by Rule 62-160, F.A.C., the FDEP SOPs, 

internal quality manuals or plans, and where applicable, contractual requirements. 

The quality of laboratory data and its usability for specific applications is also evaluated by 

auditors from FDEP’s QA program and other organizational units. The criteria for laboratory 

data usability are those specified by Rule 62-160, F.A.C.; the FDOH certification rule, Rule 64E1, F.A.C.; the NELAC standards, which are incorporated by reference in Rule 64E-1, F.A.C.; 

data quality objectives specified in FDEP internal quality manuals or plans; other applicable 

FDEP program rules; and, where applicable, contractual requirements. In addition, a document 

describing the data evaluation process (Process for Assessing Data Usability, DEP-EA-001/07, 

March 31, 2008) is incorporated by reference into Rule 62-160, F.A.C.

Various checklists have been developed to ensure the application of consistent and systematic 

procedures for auditing field and laboratory data.

Element 6: Data Management

The smooth and timely flow of water quality data from sample collectors and analytical agencies 

to data analysts is a high priority. FDEP’s Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support and 

Bureau of Watershed Restoration house or oversee the majority of the surface and ground 

water resource monitoring programs described in this report. There are program-specific data 

management requirements; however, these bureaus serve as the principal warehouses for 

monitoring data. Assisted by cooperating federal, state, and county agencies, sample locations 

are selected, monitoring parameters and frequencies determined, and sample collection and 

analysis coordinated to meet data quality objectives.

Element 9: Program Evaluation

FDEP, in consultation with the EPA, reviews each monitoring program to determine how well 

the program serves its water quality decision needs for all state waters. EPA and FDEP QA 

audits are used in evaluating each program to determine how well each of the EPA’s 

recommended elements is addressed and how to incorporate needed changes and additions 

into future monitoring cycles. Additionally, DEP 972 (QA Directive) outlines FDEP’s distributed 

responsibility for ensuring that FDEP programs and organizational units meet established data 

quality objectives.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

43

Element 10: General Support and Infrastructure Planning 

The EPA’s general support and infrastructure planning element is encompassed by a number of 

activities. FDEP’s Central Laboratory provides laboratory support for all the core monitoring 

programs. Staff from all programs provide substantial support for planning and refining field 

logistics, and also provide data management, review, analysis and reporting. The results are 

often used to pursue and implement management actions to address areas of concern via 

differing program mechanisms.

Evolving Approaches to Monitoring

Florida continues to develop new approaches to monitoring. FDEP has developed a number of 

biological indices to characterize the condition of surface waters and has adopted these indices 

for use in water resource assessments at all three tiers of monitoring. The following indicators

are currently used to measure the biological health of surface waters:

• The Stream Condition Index (SCI) is a carefully calibrated macroinvertebrate 

index for use in flowing streams, and is used as a definitive measure of 

biological health for impairment. Data generated on the species composition 

and abundance of organisms in a stream are used to calculate 10 biological 

metrics (e.g., sensitive taxa, filter feeders, clingers, very tolerant taxa, 

Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera taxa). Points are assigned for each metric, 

based on regionally calibrated criteria. The score at which the designated use of 

the waterbody is being met (threshold) has been determined through analysis of 

reference site data and a BioCondition Gradient exercise.

• The Linear Vegetation Survey (LVS) is a rapid assessment tool for evaluating 

ecological condition in flowing waters based on vascular plants. To employ the 

LVS method, a trained biologist surveys a 100-meter segment of a stream, 

divides the stretch into 10-meter sampling units, and identifies the plant species 

present to the typical high-water mark, including submersed, floating, and 

emergent plants. FDEP uses the LVS to determine if the stream floral 

community meets its designated use by a comparison with the reference 

condition. 

• The Rapid Periphyton Survey (RPS) is a rapid assessment tool for 

demonstrating a lack of or abundance of nuisance or problematic algal growth in 

streams. To conduct the RPS method, a trained biologist visits 99 points within

a 100-meter segment of a stream or river, and determines the presence and 

thickness of algae at each point. If thick algae are abundant, the algae are 

identified to determine if nuisance taxa are present. FDEP uses the RPS to 

determine if the stream algal community meets its designated use by a 

comparison with reference condition.

• The Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) is a multimetric index to evaluate plant 

(macrophyte) community health in Florida lakes. Macrophyte species lists are 

generated during a rapid visual field and transect survey and summarized in four 

metrics. The score at which the designated use of the waterbody is being met 

(threshold) has been determined through an analysis of reference site data and 

a BioCondition Gradient exercise.

• A Wetland Condition Index, using vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and algae, 

has been developed for some freshwater wetland systems (forested wetlands
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

44

and depressional wetlands; a pilot study for strands and floodplains was 

completed in 2005). This tool was used to refine FDEP’s rapid wetland 

assessment methodology for permitting and mitigation, and is being used to 

assess the effectiveness of wetland restoration projects and in other special 

studies. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

45

CHAPTER 5: DESIGN FOR THE STATUS 

AND TREND NETWORKS 

Background 

The 2002 EPA Integrated Report guidance on the requirements for water quality assessment, 

listing, and reporting under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the CWA states that “. . . a 

probabilistic monitoring design applied over large areas, such as a state or territory, is an 

excellent approach to producing, with known confidence, a ‘snapshot’ or statistical 

representation of the extent of waters that may or may not be impaired. A probabilistic 

monitoring design can assist a state or territory in determining monitoring priorities and in 

targeting monitoring activities” (Wayland 2001). Beginning in 2000, the FDEP Status Monitoring 

Network (Status Network), based on this probabilistic design, provided an unbiased, costeffective subsampling of these resources. Florida adopted this approach so that the condition of 

the state’s surface and ground water resources could be estimated with a known statistical 

confidence. Data produced by the Status Network complement traditional CWA 305(b) and 

303(d) reporting.

In addition, FDEP has designed a Trend Monitoring Network (Trend Network) to monitor 

changes in water quality in rivers, streams, and aquifers (via wells) over time. To achieve this 

goal, sites at fixed locations are sampled monthly or quarterly. The Trend Network 

complements the Status Network by providing spatial and temporal information about resources 

and potential changes from anthropogenic or natural influences, including extreme events (i.e., 

droughts and hurricanes).

The following resources are monitored in the Status and/or Trend Networks: 

• Rivers, Streams, and Canals: Rivers, streams, and canals that are sampled 

include linear waterbodies with perennial flow that are waters of the state 

(Chapter 403, F.S.) or flow into waters of the state. For the Status Network, 

canals were included only in the 2009 resource coverage.

• Lakes (Status Network Only): Lakes include natural bodies of standing water 

and reservoirs that are waters of the state and are designated as lakes on the 

USGS 24K National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). The lakes population does

not include many types of artificially created waterbodies, or streams/rivers 

impounded for agricultural use or private water supply. 

• Ground water (Confined and Unconfined Aquifers): The term ground water, 

as used here, refers to those portions of Florida’s aquifers that have the potential 

for supplying potable water or affecting the quality of currently potable water. 

However, this does not include ground water that lies directly within or beneath a 

permitted facility’s zone of discharge or water influenced by deep well injection 

(Class I and II wells).

Neither the Status Network nor the Trend Network is currently intended to monitor estuaries, 

wetlands, or marine waters. Other sections within FDEP regulate and monitor these resources.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

46

Status Network Monitoring

Stratified, random sampling (probabilistic) networks, such as the Status Network, sample

predefined geographic subunits (zones) that together comprise the whole state. The resulting 

data can address questions at statewide and regional (zonal) scales. The Status Network 

divides the state into six zones (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Status Monitoring Network Reporting Units
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

47

The Status Network uses the Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) sampling 

design sampling design, supported by the EPA’s Aquatic Resource Monitoring approach, to 

select sampling sites. Geographic stratification breaks the state into nonoverlapping areas 

(zones), from which the sample sites are chosen from a target population (list frame) using a 

spatially balanced site selection process. GRTS design ensures that the sites are 

representative of the target resources and that their selection is not biased. 

FDEP adjusted the GRTS sample design due to the unequal distribution of water resources. 

For example, there are few lakes in the southern portion of the state, which is dominated by 

wetlands and canals. Other factors, such as periods of drought or denials of access from large 

landowners, can limit the list of possible sites to sample. Target resource lists are continually 

updated based on field staff comments.

Water Resource Types

The parent populations for the Status Network are all statewide surface and ground waters. 

The following water resources are the target populations: 

• Surface Water—Florida’s surface waters are diverse and challenging to 

categorize. Surface waters are divided into two groups: flowing (lotic) or still 

(lentic). The lotic group consists of rivers, streams, springs, and canals. In 

Florida, the lentic group consists of many types of natural lakes, including 

sandhill lakes, sinkhole lakes, oxbow lakes, and established reservoirs. These 

range in size from less than an acre to over 350,000 acres. Artificial 

waterbodies, such as stormwater retention ponds, impoundments used for 

agriculture, golf course ponds, or other man-made water features that are not 

waters of the state, are common but are not part of the target population and are 

removed from the resource list frame. 

• Rivers, Streams, and Canals—Flowing surface waters that are waters of the 

state are divided into rivers or streams based on size, as recommended by 

FDEP and WMD staff. Rivers are initially identified, and the remaining, 

smaller flowing surface waters are classified as streams. Rivers and streams 

that are mostly or entirely channelized are deemed canals and are still 

considered part of the target population in 2009, but excluded in 2010. 

Segments of rivers and streams that are impounded are not included in this 

resource. 

• Large and Small Lakes—Lakes are subdivided into two populations: (1)

small lakes between 2.5 and 25 acres; and (2) large lakes over 25 acres. The

differentiation on the basis of size is intended to accommodate different 

sampling strategies and allows a better representation of the resource types. 

If all lakes were in one category, the size of large lakes would skew site 

selection and cause small lakes to be under-represented.

• Ground Water—Ground water resources are subdivided into two target 

populations for the purposes of sampling and resource characterization: 

(1) unconfined aquifers, and (2) confined aquifers. Unconfined aquifers are near 

the land surface and can be readily affected by human activities. The confined

aquifer target population includes aquifers that are below a confining unit. 

Individual wells are selected annually from an updated list provided to the WMS 

by various state and federal governmental agencies. The ground water target 

population is chosen to represent ambient ground water conditions, including 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

48

public supply wells but avoiding facility wells used for compliance. Compliance 

wells are not intended to represent ambient aquifer conditions and are excluded 

from the Status Monitoring Network. 

Geographic Design and Site Selection

Location information for the state’s water resources resides in a Geographic Information System 

(GIS) database. WMS staff use GIS data, with associated information (metadata), to select 

sample sites. Florida’s 6 zones (Figure 5.1) facilitate the spatial distribution of sites throughout 

the state. Annually, 10 random sites (primary sites) and a 9-time oversample (alternate sites), 

for a total of 100 possible sites, are selected from each surface water resource type in each 

zone, resulting in 600 potential sample sites statewide. Twenty primary sites and a 9-time 

oversample, for a total of 200 possible sites, are selected annually from each ground water 

resource type in each zone, resulting in 1,200 potential sample sites statewide. The alternate 

sites are required due to the high probability of sampling problems, such as landowner denials 

of access, dry resources, and other challenges associated with random versus fixed station 

sampling designs. 

Sampling and Frequency

The annual goal of the Status Network is to collect 10 samples from each surface water 

resource type in each zone, for a total of 60 samples statewide and 20 samples from each 

ground water resource type in each zone, for a total of 120 samples statewide. Figure 5.2

represents the sampling scheme used in 2009 and 2010. Each ground water resource type was

sampled over a 2-month period. The surface water resource types were sampled over a 1- 

month period with a resample (revisit) performed in an opposing season. The results will be 

used to determine how seasonality affects the results of these analyses. 

Figure 5.2. Status Network Sampling Periods for 2009 and 2010

Jan 60

Feb

Mar

Apr 60

May 60

Jun 60

Jul 60

Aug

Sep

Oct 60

Nov 60

Dec 60

Primary Sampling Period Revisit Sampling Period

* Total does not include QA samples

--- Dashed line indicates current Contract Period Start/Finish

120

120

Month Confined Aquifer Unconfined Aquifer Streams Rivers Small Lakes Large Lakes
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

49

Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators

While most water quality monitoring has historically focused on chemistry, FDEP’s Status and 

Trend Networks expand this scope to include biological and physical indicators. Together, the 

chemical, physical, and biological indicators provide scientific information about the condition of 

the state’s water resources and whether they meet their designated uses based on state and 

EPA guidance. 

Core indicators provide information about the chemical, physical, and biological status of 

surface and ground water, including suitability for human and aquatic uses. These data can be 

used to gauge condition based on water quality standards or guidance. Supplemental 

indicators provide additional information and aid in screening for potential pollutants of concern. 

Certain biological indicators are collected only in rivers, streams, and lakes (i.e., chlorophyll a). 

Appendix A discusses the surface water indicators for rivers, streams, and lakes.

These core and supplemental indicators are often chosen to support special projects or used to 

develop water quality criteria. Some indicators are combined to form indices that evaluate 

waterbody condition—for example, the Trophic State Index (TSI) uses TN, TP, and chlorophyll a

values to provide a broader understanding of a waterbody’s status. Selected indicators, such as

chloride, nitrate, and bacteria, serve to assess the suitability of ground water for drinking water 

purposes. Likewise, the indicator lists for surface water resources are selected to detect threats 

to water quality, such as nutrient enrichment, which can lead to eutrophication and habitat loss. 

The Status Network has supported the development of biological indices to evaluate waterbody 

condition in Florida, and includes sampling for both the Stream Condition Index (SCI) and the 

Lake Vegetation Index (LVI). 

In addition to the suite of water quality indicators (Tables 5.1a through 5.1f), sediment chemistry 

is a useful supplemental indicator of an aquatic system’s ecological health (Tables 5.2a and

5.2b). Florida has developed geochemical- and biology-based tools to assess sediment quality. 

The interpretation of sediment metals data is not straightforward because metals occur naturally 

in Florida sediment. Thus, depending on the source region, Florida sediment metal 

concentrations range between two orders of magnitude. FDEP uses the guidance outlined in 

An Interpretative Tool for the Assessment of Metal Enrichment in Florida Freshwater Sediment

(Carvalho and Schropp et al. 2003), which estimates contamination through the use of a 

statistical normalizing technique. Additionally, FDEP follows the guidance outlined in 

Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida 

Inland Waters (MacDonald et al. 2003), a biology-based tool that estimates the effects of 

potentially toxic contaminants in lake sediments. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

50

Table 5.1a. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Field Measurements

Note: For Tables 5.1a through 5.1f, all samples are unfiltered unless stated. All methods, unless otherwise stated, are based on 

EPA 600, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. 

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method numbers, and Column 

3 lists the sampled resource(s). 

Field Measurement Indicator Analysis Method Sampled Resource(s) 

pH Method 150.1 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Temperature Method 170.1 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Specific Conductance Method 120.1 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Method 360.1 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Turbidity DEP-SOP-001/01 FT 1600 Aquifers

Secchi Depth Welch (1948); EPA 620/R-97/001 Lakes, Streams/Rivers

Total Depth Manual/electronic measuring device Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Sample Depth Manual/electronic measuring device Lakes, Streams/Rivers

Micro Land Use Sampling manual (01/11), Section 4 Aquifers

Depth to Water Manual/electronic measuring device Aquifers

Table 5.1b. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Biological and Microbiological 

Indicators

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method numbers, and Column 

3 lists the sampled resource(s).

1 Dropped QPS from rivers and streams on July 22, 2009. 

2 Adopted new criteria for performing SCI on May 1, 2010.

Biological/Microbiological Indicator Analysis Method Sampled Resource(s)

Chlorophyll a SM 10200 H (modified) Lakes, Streams/Rivers

Qualitative Periphyton (QPS)1 SOP AB03.1, SOP AB03 Streams/Rivers

Rapid Periphyton Survey (RPS) SOP FS 7130 Streams/Rivers 

Biological Community (SCI)2 SM 10500 C (modified) Streams/Rivers

Habitat Assessment DEP-SOP-001/01 FT 3000 Streams/Rivers 

Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) DEP-SOP-001/01 FS 7220 Lakes

Total Coliform SM 9222B Aquifers

Fecal Coliform SM 9222D Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Enterococci EPA 1600 Lakes, Streams/Rivers

Table 5.1c. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Organic and Nutrient Indicators

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method numbers, and Column 

3 lists the sampled resource(s).

1 Added TOC for aquifers on October 1, 2010.

Organic/Nutrient Indicator Analysis Method Sampled Resource(s)

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SM 5310 B Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers1

Nitrate + Nitrite Method 353.2 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Ammonia Method 350.1 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Method 351.2 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Phosphorus Method 365.1/365.4 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

51

Table 5.1d. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Major Ion Indicators

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method numbers, and Column 

3 lists the sampled resource(s).

Major Ion Indicator Analysis Method Sampled Resource(s)

Chloride Method 300 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Sulfate Method 300 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Fluoride SM 4500 F-C Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Calcium Method 200.7/200.8 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Magnesium Method 200.7/200.8 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Potassium Method 200.7/200.8 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Sodium Method 200.7/200.8 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Table 5.1e. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Metal Indicators

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method numbers, and Column 

3 lists the sampled resource(s).

Metal Indicator Analysis Method Sampled Resource(s) 

Aluminum, Arsenic, Cadmium,

Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, 

Manganese, Zinc

Method 200.7/200.8 Aquifers

Table 5.1f. Status Network Core and Supplemental Indicators for Physical Property Indicators

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method numbers, and Column 

3 lists the sampled resource(s).

1 True color replaced apparent color for laboratory analysis on January 1, 2010. 

Physical Property Indicator Analysis Method Sampled Resource(s)

Alkalinity SM 2320 B Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Turbidity (Lab) Method 180.1 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Specific Conductance (Lab) Method 120.1 Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Color1 SM 2120 B Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Total Suspended Solids SM 2540 D Lakes, Streams/Rivers

Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540 C Lakes, Streams/Rivers, Aquifers

Table 5.2a. Status Network Organic and Nutrient Indicators for Sediment Analysis in Lakes

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the indicators and Column 2 lists the analytical method numbers.

Note: For Tables 5.2a through 5.2b, all methods, unless otherwise stated, are based on EPA 600, Methods for Chemical Analysis 

of Water and Wastes.

Sediment Organic/Nutrient Indicator Analysis Method

TOC In-house based on 415.1

TP Method 365.4

TKN Method 351.2

Sulfate Method 300 (modified)
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

52

Table 5.2b. Status Network Metal Indicators for Sediment Analysis in Lakes

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the indicators and Column 2 lists the analytical method numbers.

Sediment Metal Indicator Analysis Method

Aluminum, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, 

Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc Method 6010B/6020

Mercury DEP-SOP-001/01 Hg-008-3 

(based on EPA 7471)

Methyl Mercury SOP Hg-003-2 (based on EPA 

1630)

Status Monitoring Network Design Changes 

Starting in 2009, the Status Network was changed to an annual assessment of statewide water 

resource condition (a strategy described in the 2009–11 Monitoring Design Document). A longterm benefit of the annual approach for both surface and ground water is the ability to examine 

trends in water quality over time. The annual probability approach, coupled with the existing 

Trend Network monthly sampling (discussed in the next section), will provide a more 

comprehensive picture of changes in water quality. The Status Network design has been 

changed in scope but is still based on collecting a statistically valid number of samples for all 

resources to make an annual estimate of the condition of the state’s water resources. 

For this assessment, the state is divided into 6 zones or reporting units (Figure 5.1). As 

previously stated, the design is based on 4 surface water resources (rivers, streams, large 

lakes, and small lakes) and 2 ground water resources (confined and unconfined aquifers). Sixty 

sites for each surface water resource type are distributed throughout the state (10 in each of the 

6 zones), and 120 sites for each ground water resource type are distributed throughout the state 

(20 in each zone). Overall, fewer samples will be collected to make the statewide estimate; 

however, statewide condition will be assessed and can be reported on annually, rather than 

every 5 years. Based on these sample sizes, the 95% confidence interval for the estimate of 

statewide condition is ±12% for surface water and ± 9% for ground water. 

Another significant design change during 2009–10 is that surface water samples were collected 

twice a year at each site. This addresses questions about whether surface waters may be 

influenced by seasonality and changes due to rainfall or drought events. The results from these 

two events will be evaluated to determine if the response compared with the thresholds is 

significant enough to warrant the second sample. In contrast to surface water, previous ground 

water studies indicated minimal seasonal trends in water quality, and no repeat samples were 

collected for ground water resources.

Future Design and Reporting

The 2011 statewide annual assessment and revisit analyses from the Status Network will be 

included in the 2014 Integrated Report. The results from both the Status and Trend Networks 

will continue to provide data on chemical, physical, and biological indicators to managers, other 

programs, and data users to complement their programs. Revisions to the design are 

anticipated as agency or other program needs change, and will be reported through the 

modification of the Monitoring Design Document submitted to the EPA.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

53

Trend Network

The Trend Network is designed to determine if selected water quality indicators (Tables 5.3a 

through 5.3f) are changing over time in the state’s major rivers and aquifers at fixed locations. 

To complete a statistically valid trend analysis, any periodicity implicit in the data must be 

identified by collecting a sufficient number of samples at regular intervals. For example, 

variability in data over seasons (e.g., seasonality) has been shown for many surface water 

analytes; therefore, an effort is made to collect at least one sample in each season, four per 

year at a minimum. However, surface waters are much more likely to be influenced by seasonal 

changes than ground water, and therefore surface water trend sampling is conducted more 

frequently.

Trend Network data provide a temporal reference on a regional scale for the Status Network. 

To facilitate the comparison of Trend Network results with those of the Status Network, FDEP 

separates the Trend Network into surface water (rivers and streams) and ground water 

(confined and unconfined aquifers) resources. 

Table 5.3a. Trend Network Field Measurement Indicators

Note: For Tables 5.3a through 5.3f, all methods, unless otherwise stated, are based on EPA 600, Methods for Chemical Analysis 

of Water and Wastes. 

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method number, Column 3 lists

the sampling regime for surface waters, and Column 4 lists the sampling regime for ground waters.

1 Completed once a year per site. 

X = Other sample or measurement

N/A = Not applicable

Field Measurement Indicator Analysis Method Surface Water Ground Water

pH Method 150.1 X X 

Temperature Method 170.1 X X

Specific Conductance/Salinity Method 120.1 X X 

DO Method 360.1 X X

Turbidity DEP-SOP-001/01 FT 1600 N/A X 

Secchi Depth Welch (1948); EPA 620/R-97/001 X N/A

Total Depth Manual/electronic measuring device X X 

Sample Depth Manual/electronic measuring device X N/A

Micro Land Use Sampling manual (01/11), Section 4 N/A X1

Depth to Water Manual/electronic measuring device N/A X
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

54

Table 5.3b. Trend Network Biological and Microbiological Indicators

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method number, Column 3 lists

the sampling regime for surface waters, and Column 4 lists the sampling regime for ground waters.

1 Dropped the Qualitative Periphyton Survey (QPS) from rivers and streams on July 22, 2009. 

2

 Collected once a year per site. 3

 Collected twice a year per site. 4 Adopted new criteria for performing the SCI on May 1, 2010.

T = Total sample (unfiltered sample)

X = Other sample or measurement

N/A = Not applicable

Biological/Microbiological Indicator Analysis Method Surface Water Ground Water

Chlorophyll a SM 10200 H (modified) T N/A

QPS1 SOP AB03.1, SOP AB03 X2 N/A

RPS SOP FS 7130 X3 N/A

Biological Community (SCI)4 SM 10500 C (modified) X2 N/A

Habitat Assessment DEP-SOP-001/01 FT 3000 X3 N/A

Total Coliform SM 9222B N/A T

Fecal Coliform SM 9222D T T 

Enterococci EPA 1600 T N/A

Table 5.3c. Trend Network Organic and Nutrient Indicators

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method number, Column 3 lists

the sampling regime for surface waters, and Column 4 lists the sampling regime for ground waters.

1 Collected once a year per site. 2 Prior to October 2009, total analytes were collected once a year; dissolved analytes were collected quarterly

T = Total sample (unfiltered sample)

D = Dissolved sample (filtered sample) 

N/A = Not applicable

Organic/Nutrient Indicator Analysis Method Surface Water Ground Water

TOC SM 5310 B T T 

Nitrate + Nitrite Method 353.2 T D1/T2

Ammonia Method 350.1 T D1/T2

TKN Method 351.2 T D1/T2

Phosphorus Method 365.1/365.4 T D1/T2

Orthophosphate Method 365.1 N/A D

Table 5.3d. Trend Network Major Ion Indicators

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method number, Column 3 lists

the sampling regime for surface waters, and Column 4 lists the sampling regime for ground waters.

1 Collected once a year per site. 2 Prior to October 2009, total analytes were collected once a year; dissolved analytes were collected quarterly. 

T = Total sample (unfiltered sample)

D = Dissolved sample (filtered sample) 

Major Ion Indicator Analysis Method Surface Water Ground Water

Chloride Method 300 T D1

/T2

Sulfate Method 300 T D1

/T2

Fluoride SM 4500 F-C T D1/T2

Calcium Method 200.7/200.8 T D1

/T2

Magnesium Method 200.7/200.8 T D1

/T2

Sodium Method 200.7/200.8 T D1

/T2

Potassium Method 200.7/200.8 T D1

/T2
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

55

Table 5.3e. Trend Network Metal Indicators

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method number, Column 3 lists

the sampling regime for surface waters, and Column 4 lists the sampling regime for ground waters.

1 Collected quarterly at predetermined SCI-applicable sites beginning in October 2009. 2 Collected once a year per site. 

T = Total sample (unfiltered sample)

N/A = Not applicable

Metal Indicator Analysis Method Surface Water Ground Water

Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, 

Lead, Zinc Method 200.7/200.8 T1 N/A

Arsenic, Iron, Lead Method 200.7/200.8 N/A T2

Table 5.3f. Trend Network Physical Property Indicators

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the analytical method number, Column 3 lists

the sampling regime for surface waters, and Column 4 lists the sampling regime for ground waters.

1 Collected once a year per site. 2 Prior to October 2009, total analytes were collected once a year; dissolved analytes were collected quarterly

3 True color replaced apparent color for laboratory analysis on January 1, 2010. 4 Dropped total suspended solids (TSS) for ground water on October 1, 2009.

T = Total sample (unfiltered sample)

D = Dissolved sample (filtered sample) 

Physical Property Indicator Analysis Method Surface Water Ground Water

Alkalinity SM 2320 B T D1/T2

Turbidity (Lab) Method 180.1 T T

Specific Conductance (Lab) Method 120.1 T T 

Color3 SM 2120 B T T

TSS4 SM 2540 D T T 

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) SM 2540 C T T

Surface Water Trend Network

The Surface Water Trend Network consists of 76 fixed sites that are sampled monthly (Figure 

5.3); however, only 74 stations have a sufficient period of record. Most of these sites are 

located on the nontidal portions of rivers at or near USGS gauging stations, often at the lower 

end of a watershed. The sites enable FDEP to obtain biology, chemistry, and loading data at a 

point that integrates land use activities. Some surface water trend sites are also located at or 

near the Florida boundary with Alabama and Georgia. These are used to obtain chemistry and 

loading data for rivers or streams entering Florida. Data from Surface Water Trend Network 

sites are used to evaluate temporal variability in Florida’s surface water resources and 

determine indicator trends. They are not designed to monitor point sources of pollution, since 

these sites are located away from known outfalls or other regulated sources.

Ground Water Trend Network

The Ground Water Trend Network consists of 48 fixed sites that are used to obtain chemistry 

and field data in confined and unconfined aquifers; however, only 47 stations have a sufficient 

period of record (Figure 5.4). These data are used to quantify temporal variability in ground 

water resources. Water samples are collected quarterly at all wells in the Ground Water Trend

Network. Field analytes are measured monthly at the unconfined aquifer sites. A land use 

form, completed at all sites annually, aids in determining potential sources of contamination for 

ground water resources. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

56

Figure 5.3. Surface Water Trend Network Sites 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

57

Figure 5.4. Ground Water Trend Network Sites with Sufficient Period of Record
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

58

Trend Network Core and Supplemental Indicators

For data comparability, many of the same indicators are included in both the Status and Trend 

Network indicator lists. To maintain the historical aspect of the data, changes to the indicator 

list are minimized.

Data Evaluation

Prior to data analyses for Status and Trend reporting, all data were checked to ensure the 

accuracy of the results. Data from the Trend Network that were qualified with an O, V, or Y 

were excluded before any analysis was conducted.3

 Additionally, some data qualified with a J 

were excluded from the trend analysis.4

 All remaining data were used. 

The Trend Network consists of 48 ground water and 76 surface water stations; of these, 1 

ground water and 2 surface water stations were either recently added to the network or do not 

have enough data to conduct a Seasonal Kendall (SK) analysis. Seasonal cyclicity 

(seasonality) has been shown for many surface water constituents; therefore, an effort should 

be made to collect at least 1 sample in each season, 4 per year as a bare minimum. If 

seasonality, or any other form of cyclicity, is present, the long-term trend of the constituent may 

be determined only after statistically adjusting the data. This is referred to as deseasonalizing 

the data. The SK analysis requires a reasonable amount of data, consisting of at least 2 

seasons and 12 data points in order to determine if a trend exists. 

The SK is a nonparametric test that is insensitive to outliers, missing values, and censored 

data. It can be conducted on all analytes as it does not require a standard or threshold value to 

determine the results. The alpha level at which the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected, 

has been set at 0.05, indicating a 95% confidence level about the trend decision.

The statewide assessments provide a broad overview of the results obtained by the Status 

Network, while zonewide results may depict areas of concern for specific indicators. Statewide 

assessments can hide or minimize the impact an indicator may have within a zone. This 

document does not present assessments by zone as there are insufficient data to conduct the 

analysis. 

 

3 The qualifiers are as follows:

• Data qualified with an O indicate that the site was sampled but a chemical analysis was lost or not performed.

• The V value qualifier indicates that the analyte was detected in both the sample and any of the associated blanks at 

similar concentrations. 

• Data with the Y value qualifier indicate the laboratory analysis is from an unpreserved or improperly preserved sample, 

and therefore the data may not be accurate.

 

4

 Data qualified with a J for the following reasons were excluded from Trend Network analysis: 

• Field, equipment, and trip blank failures.

• Field instrument calibration failures.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

59

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS OF THE STATUS 

AND TREND NETWORK ASSESSMENTS 

FOR 2009–10

Summary of Status Network Surface Water Results 

Introduction

The probabilistic approach discussed in Chapter 5 is used to sample and report on the condition 

of surface water resources from the entire state. This chapter summarizes the results of the 

combined statewide assessment for 2009 and 2010. 

Four surface water resources were assessed: rivers, streams, large lakes, and small lakes. 

Table 6.1 summarizes the miles of rivers and streams, and acres and numbers of large and

small lakes, for the waters assessed. Approximately 10 samples were collected annually from 

each resource, in each zone, for 60 samples statewide. 

Table 6.1. Summary of Surface Water Resources Assessed by the Status Network’s Probabilistic 

Monitoring, 2009–10

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the waterbody type, and Column 2 lists the miles of rivers and streams, 

and acres and numbers of large and small lakes. 

Note: The estimates in the table do not include coastal or estuarine waters. These calculations are from the 1:24,000 NHD.

Waterbody Type Assessed

Rivers 3,927 miles

Streams 16,861 miles

Large Lakes 1,725 lakes (1,006,574 acres) 

Small Lakes 2,676 lakes (40,905 acres)

The indicators selected for surface water reporting include fecal coliform, DO, un-ionized 

ammonia, chlorophyll a (rivers and streams), and TSI (lakes). Tables 6.2a through 6.2c

summarize the indicators and their threshold values. Tables 5.1a through 5.1f and 5.2a

through 5.2b contain the complete list of indicators used in the Status Monitoring Network.

The main source of information for these indicators is Rule 62-302, F.A.C., which contains the 

surface water quality standards for Florida. The water quality criteria and thresholds are derived 

from the following:

• Section 62-302.530, F.A.C., Criteria for Surface Water Classifications; 

• Rule 62-550, F.A.C., Drinking Water Standards; 

• Rule 62-303, F.A.C., Identification of Impaired Surface Waters; and 

• Section 62-520.420, F.A.C., Standards for Class G-I and Class G-II Ground 

Water.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

60

It is important to note that the diversity of Florida’s aquatic ecosystems also means there is a 

large natural variation in some water quality parameters. For example, surface waters that are 

dominated by ground water inflows or flows from wetland areas will have lower DO levels. 

Therefore, some Florida aquatic systems naturally exhibit DO levels less than the state’s 

standard of 5.0 mg/L.

Table 6.2a. Status Network Physical/Other Indicators/Index for Aquatic Life Use with Water 

Quality Criteria/Thresholds

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the indicators and Column 2 lists the water quality criteria/thresholds.

1 Both TSI and chlorophyll a are not criteria, but thresholds used to estimate the impairment of state waters. These thresholds are 

used in the analysis of Status Monitoring Network data, based on single samples. The analysis and representation of these data 

are not intended to infer the verification of impairment, as defined in Rule 62-303, F.A.C. 2 PCUs = Platinum cobalt units 3 SU = Standard units

Physical/Other Indicators/

Index for Aquatic Life Use

(Surface Water) Criterion/Threshold

DO ≥ 5 mg/L

Un-ionized Ammonia ≤ 0.02 mg/L

Fluoride ≤10 mg/L

Chlorophyll a1 ≤ 20 μg/L

TSI1 Color ≤ 40 PCUs,3 then TSI ≤ 40

Color > 40 PCUs, then TSI ≤ 60

Table 6.2b. Status Network Microbiological Indicators/Index for Recreational Use with Water 

Quality Criteria/Thresholds

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the indicators and Column 2 lists the water quality criteria/thresholds.

Microbiological Indicator/

Index for Recreation Use

(Surface Water) Criterion/Threshold

Fecal Coliform Bacteria < 400 colonies/100mL

Table 6.2c. FDEP Freshwater Lake Sediment Contaminant Thresholds for Metals

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the metals, Column 2 lists the threshold effects concentration, and 

Column 3 lists the probable effects concentration.

Metal

Threshold Effects 

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Probable Effects 

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Arsenic 9.8 33

Cadmium 1.00 5 

Chromium 43.4 111

Copper 32 149

Lead 36 128

Mercury 0.18 1.06

Nickel 23 48

Zinc 121 459

Silver 1 2.2
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

61

Rivers, Streams, Large Lakes, and Small Lakes

The following pages present the surface water Status Network results for rivers, streams, large 

lakes, and small lakes. For each resource, there is a map showing the sample site locations

(Figures 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, and 6.7), a figure with a summary of the statewide results (Figures 6.2, 

6.4, 6.6, and 6.8), and a table of the statewide results for each indicator for a particular resource 

(Tables 6.3b through 6.3e). Table 6.3a explains the terms used in the statewide summary 

tables. 

Table 6.3a. Explanation of Terms Used in Tables 6.3b through 6.3e 

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the terms used and Column 2 explains each term.

Term Explanation

Analyte Indicators chosen to base assessment of condition of waters of the state.

Target Population

Estimate of actual extent of resource from which threshold results were 

calculated. Excludes % of resource that was determined to not fit 

definition of resource.

Number of Samples Number of samples used for statistical analysis after qualified data and 

resource exclusions are eliminated from the data pool. 

% Meeting Threshold % estimate of resource that meets a specific indicator’s 

criterion/threshold value. 

95% Confidence Bounds 

(% Meeting Threshold)

Upper and lower bounds for 95% confidence of % meeting a specific 

indicator’s criterion/threshold value. 

% Not Meeting Threshold % of estimate of extent of resource that does not meet a specific 

indicator’s criterion/threshold value. 

Assessment Period Duration of probabilistic survey sampling event. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

62

Figure 6.1. Statewide River Sample Locations 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

63

Table 6.3b. Statewide Percentage of Rivers Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators Calculated 

Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Miles

This is a 7-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the 95% confidence bounds, Column 6 lists 

the percent not meeting the threshold, and Column 7 lists the assessment period.

Analyte

Target 

Population

(miles)

Number 

of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

95% 

Confidence 

Bounds

(% meeting 

threshold)

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Chlorophyll a 3,927 119 85.6 79.9-91.4 14.4 2009–10

Un-ionized Ammonia 3,927 119 99.6 99.0-100.0 0.4 2009–10

Fecal Coliform 3,927 119 97.2 94.1-100.0 2.8 2009–10

DO 3,927 119 88.0 84.1-92.0 12.0 2009–10

Figure 6.2. Statewide Summary of River Results
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

64

Figure 6.3. Statewide Stream Sample Locations
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

65

Table 6.3c. Statewide Percentage of Streams Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators Calculated 

Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Miles

This is a 7-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting the threshold, Column 5 lists the 95% confidence bounds, Column 6 

lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and Column 7 lists the assessment period.

Analyte

Target 

Population

(miles)

Number 

of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

95% 

Confidence 

Bounds

(% meeting 

threshold)

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Chlorophyll a 16,861 90 95.0 90.2-99.8 5.0 2009–10

Un-ionized Ammonia 16,861 90 97.6 93.5-100.0 2.4 2009–10

Fecal Coliform 16,861 90 75.3 67.1-83.5 24.7 2009–10

DO 16,861 90 74.3 64.5-84.1 25.7 2009–10

Figure 6.4. Statewide Summary of Stream Results
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

66

Figure 6.5. Statewide Large Lake Sample Locations
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

67

Table 6.3d. Statewide Percentage of Large Lakes Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Acres

This is a 7-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting the threshold, Column 5 lists the 95% confidence bounds, Column 6 

lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and Column 7 lists the assessment period.

Analyte

Target 

Population

(acres)

Number 

of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

95% 

Confidence 

Bounds

(% meeting 

threshold)

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

TSI 1,006,574 120 62.6 51.1-74.1 37.4 2009–10

Un-ionized Ammonia 1,006,574 120 95.0 90.5-99.5 5.0 2009–10

Fecal Coliform 1,006,574 120 98.7 96.4-100.0 1.3 2009–10

DO 1,006,574 120 90.4 83.2-97.6 9.6 2009–10

Figure 6.6. Statewide Summary of Large Lake Results
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

68

Figure 6.7. Statewide Small Lake Sample Locations
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

69

Table 6.3e. Statewide Percentage of Small Lakes Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Lakes

This is a 7-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting the threshold, Column 5 lists the 95% confidence bounds, Column 6 

lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and Column 7 lists the assessment period.

Analyte

Target 

Population

(lakes)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

95% 

Confidence 

Bounds

(% meeting 

threshold)

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

TSI 2,676 106 87.3 80.7-93.8 12.7 2009–10

Un-ionized Ammonia 2,676 106 100.0 100.0 0.0 2009–10

Fecal Coliform 2,676 106 99.6 98.9-100.0 0.4 2009–10

DO 2,676 106 96.7 91.6-100.0 3.3 2009–10

 

Figure 6.8. Statewide Summary of Small Lake Results
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

70

Sediment Quality Evaluation

Background

In healthy aquatic environments, sediments provide essential habitat but, at the same time, they 

are a source of contamination and recycled nutrients as substances accumulate over time from 

upland discharges, the decomposition of organic material, and atmospheric deposition. 

Knowledge of a site’s sediment quality is also important for environmental managers in 

evaluating restoration and dredging projects. In contrast to the standards established for many 

water column constituents, FDEP has no standards (criteria) for sediment and no statutory 

authority to establish criteria. Therefore, it is important to use scientifically defensible thresholds 

to estimate the condition of sediments and determine the ecological significance of the chemical 

results. 

The interpretation of sediment metals data is not straightforward because metallic elements are 

natural constituents in sediment. The geochemistry of a region must be factored into the 

analysis of sediment chemistry data. For example, marine sediments in the northern part of the 

state tend to be fine-grained , while sediments farther south in the Peninsula coastal regions are 

coarser and predominantly carbonate in nature. Sediments in the north have a higher natural 

burden of metals, and in comparison to sediments from the southern region of the state may 

appear to be contaminated. However, a closer examination based on the geology of the region 

“normalizes” the results so that scientifically defensible inferences can be made.

For sediment metals data analysis, FDEP developed two interpretive tools, detailed in the

following publications: A Guide to the Interpretation of Metals Concentrations in Estuarine 

Sediments (Schropp and Windom 1988) and Development of an Interpretive Tool for the 

Assessment of Metal Enrichment in Florida Freshwater Sediment (Carvalho and Schropp 2003).

These documents use a statistical normalization technique to predict background 

concentrations of metals in sediments, regardless of their composition. 

Programs evaluating sediment metals concentrations must distinguish between natural 

background levels of metals in the environment versus what human activity introduced. The 

metals interpretive tool can be used to determine natural levels of the metals arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc, and then determine which might be elevated above expected 

background concentrations. This tool was applied to the dataset to identify sediments with

elevated trace metals. 

However, the presence of higher levels of metals alone does not mean that the sediment metal 

level will cause a biological effect. To address the elevated metals concentrations issue, and to 

determine whether these levels are ecologically significant, FDEP developed additional metrics 

to interpret sediment chemistry. 

During the 1990s, several state and federal agencies developed concentration-based guidelines 

used to evaluate biological effects from sediment contaminants. These agencies employed 

several approaches, including a weight-of-evidence statistical strategy, which derived guidelines 

from studies containing paired sediment chemistry and associated biological responses. FDEP 

selected this weight-of-evidence approach to develop biological based sediment guidelines. To 

provide guidance in the interpretation of sediment contaminant data, two documents were 

published: Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters

(MacDonald 1994) and Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality 

Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters (MacDonald et al. 2003). 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

71

Rather than traditional pass/fail criteria, the weight-of-evidence approach selected by FDEP 

uses two guidelines to assess each sediment contaminant: a lower guideline, the Threshold 

Effects Concentration (TEC), and a higher guideline, the Probable Effects Concentration (PEC). 

A value below the TEC indicates a low probability of harm occurring to sediment-dwelling 

organisms. Conversely, sediment values above the PEC have a high probability of causing 

biological harm. These guidance values are used to determine whether the sediments at the 

sampling site may need further evaluation, such as toxicity testing to verify that the presence of 

metals or organic contaminants would have a deleterious ecological effect.

Small and Large Lakes

Of the four Status Network surface water resources, lakes were selected as the most 

appropriate resource to evaluate sediment contaminants, since lakes integrate runoff within 

watersheds. Both the geochemical metals tool and the freshwater biological effects guidance 

values (MacDonald et al. 2003) were used to evaluate lake sediment chemistry data. 

In 2009 and 2010, 223 sediment samples were collected from the state’s 2 lake resources: 107 

from small lakes and 116 from large lakes. Samples were analyzed for major elements 

(aluminum and iron), a suite of trace metals, and 3 sediment nutrients (Tables 5.2a through 

5.2b). To ensure accurate metals data, samples were prepared for chemical analysis using 

EPA Method 3051 (total digestion) rather than with the EPA’s 200.2 method (referred to as the 

total recoverable method). 

FDEP staff compared the sediment metal concentrations with the FDEP freshwater sediment 

guidelines (Table 6.2c). When the concentration exceeded the TEC, the metal concentration 

was evaluated. If the concentration was within a naturally occurring range, the sediment sample 

was reclassified as “not elevated.” 

Results are found in Figures 6.9 and 6.10 and Tables 6.4a and 6.4b. The tables display two 

rows for each metal. The first row contains the uncorrected results for each metal (raw 

chemical result), while the second row contains the corrected results after applying the 

previously described metals normalization analysis. This evaluation illustrates that the number 

of metal exceedances is lower than expected if concentration were the only measure used to 

determine ecological impact. Some sites that appear impacted exhibit expected sediment metal 

concentrations. Copper (still widely employed as an aquatic herbicide), lead, and zinc are the 

most elevated metals in many small lakes. Elevated lead and zinc concentrations are frequently

associated with stormwater input. Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and silver occasionally exceed 

the sediment guidelines. Sediment metals are highest in lakes located in urbanized areas, with 

the highest number of elevated metals results from lakes in peninsular Florida. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

72

Table 6.4a. Statewide Percentage of Large Lakes Meeting Sediment Contaminant Threshold 

Values

This is a six-column table. Column 1 lists the metal (uncorrected and corrected), Column 2 lists the percent meeting 

the TEC threshold, Column 3 lists the percent not meeting the TEC threshold, Column 4 lists the percent not meeting 

the PEC threshold, Column 5 lists the percent of stations greater than the TEC that include naturally occurring metal 

concentrations, and Column 6 lists the percent of stations greater than the PEC that include naturally occurring metal 

concentrations.

N/A = Not applicable

Metal

% Meeting 

TEC 

Threshold 

% Not Meeting 

TEC 

Threshold

% Not Meeting 

PEC 

Threshold

% of Stations 

>TEC Due to

Natural Metal 

Concentrations

% of Stations 

>PEC Due to

Natural Metal 

Concentrations

Arsenic

Uncorrected 92.2 7.8 0 N/A N/A

Arsenic

Corrected 92.2 0 0 7.8 0 

Cadmium

Uncorrected 92.2 7.8 0 N/A N/A

Cadmium

Corrected 92.2 1.8 0 6.0 0 

Chromium

Uncorrected 79.3 20.7 0 N/A N/A

Chromium 

Corrected 79.3 0 0 20.7 0 

Copper

Uncorrected 85.3 12.1 2.6 N/A N/A

Copper

Corrected 85.3 10.4 2.6 1.7 0 

Silver

Uncorrected 100 0 0 N/A N/A

Silver

Corrected 100 0 0 0 0 

Nickel

Uncorrected 95.7 4.3 0 N/A N/A

Nickel

Corrected 95.7 0 0 4.3 0 

Lead

Uncorrected 72.4 25.9 1.7 N/A N/A

Lead 

Corrected 72.4 19.0 1.7 6.9 0 

Mercury

Uncorrected 62.9 37.1 0 N/A N/A

Mercury

Corrected 62.9 3.5 0 33.6 0 

Zinc

Uncorrected 94.8 5.2 0 N/A N/A

Zinc

Corrected 94.8 5.2 0 0 0 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

73

Figure 6.9. Statewide Summary of Large Lake Sediment Results
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

74

Table 6.4b. Statewide Percentage of Small Lakes Meeting Sediment Contaminant Threshold 

Values

This is a six-column table. Column 1 lists metal (uncorrected and corrected), Column 2 lists the percent meeting the 

TEC threshold, Column 3 lists the percent not meeting the TEC threshold, Column 4 lists the percent not meeting the 

PEC threshold, Column 5 lists the percent of stations greater than the TEC that include naturally occurring metal 

concentrations, and Column 6 lists the percent of stations greater than the PEC that include naturally occurring metal 

concentrations.

N/A = Not applicable

Metal

% Meeting TEC 

Threshold 

% Not 

Meeting 

TEC 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

PEC 

Threshold

% of Stations 

>TEC Due to

Natural Metal 

Concentrations

% of Stations 

>PEC Due to

Natural Metal 

Concentrations

Arsenic 

Uncorrected 80.4 18.7 0.9 N/A N/A

Arsenic 

Corrected 80.4 5.6 0.9 13.1 0 

Cadmium 

Uncorrected 82.2 16.9 0.9 N/A N/A

Cadmium 

Corrected 82.2 3.7 0.9 13.2 0 

Chromium 

Uncorrected 60.7 37.4 1.9 N/A N/A

Chromium 

Corrected 60.7 0 0 37.4 1.9

Copper 

Uncorrected 49.5 40.2 10.3 N/A N/A

Copper 

Corrected 49.5 36.5 10.3 3.7 0 

Silver 

Uncorrected 96.3 3.7 0 N/A N/A

Silver 

Corrected 96.3 2.8 0 0.9 0 

Nickel 

Uncorrected 89.7 10.3 0 N/A N/A

Nickel 

Corrected 89.7 1.9 0 8.4 0 

Lead 

Uncorrected 30.9 57.0 12.1 N/A N/A

Lead 

Corrected 30.9 44.9 12.1 12.1 0 

Mercury 

Uncorrected 49.6 49.5 0.9 N/A N/A

Mercury 

Corrected 49.6 8.4 0.9 41.1 0 

Zinc 

Uncorrected 61.7 30.8 7.5 N/A N/A

Zinc 

Corrected 61.7 23.4 7.5 7.4 0 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

75

Figure 6.10. Statewide Summary of Small Lake Sediment Results
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

76

Summary of Status Network Ground Water Results 

FDEP’s Watershed Monitoring Section has monitored ground water quality since 1986 in both 

confined and unconfined aquifers. The current Status Network ground water monitoring 

program uses a probabilistic monitoring design to estimate confined and unconfined aquifer 

water quality across the state. This estimate is, by necessity, based on a subsampling of wells 

representing both the confined and unconfined aquifers. The wells used in this evaluation 

include private, public, monitoring, and agricultural irrigation wells. Figures 6.11 and 6.13

depict the randomly selected wells that were sampled for confined and unconfined aquifers, 

respectively.

The assessment period for this report is January 2009 through December 2010. Table 6.5

describes the ground water indicators used in the analysis and lists primary drinking water 

standards (thresholds). Some of the more important analytes include total coliform, nitratenitrite, trace metals such as arsenic and lead, and sodium (salinity), all of which are threats to 

drinking water quality.

Table 6.5. Status Network Physical/Other Indicators/Index for Potable Water Supply for Ground 

Water with Water Quality Criteria/Thresholds

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, and Column 2 lists the water quality criteria/threshold for that 

indicator. 

Primary Indicator/Index 

for Potable Water Supply

(Ground Water) Criterion/Threshold

Fluoride ≤4 mg/L

Arsenic ≤10 μg/L

Cadmium ≤5 μg/L

Chromium ≤100 μg/L

Lead ≤15 μg/L

Nitrate-Nitrite ≤10 mg/L

Sodium ≤160 mg/L

Fecal Coliform < 2/100mL

Total Coliform Bacteria ≤4 /100mL

For each Status Network ground water resource (confined aquifers and unconfined aquifers), 

there is a map showing the sample site locations (Figures 6.11 and 6.13), a figure summarizing

the statewide results (Figures 6.12 and 6.14), and a table containing the statewide results for 

each indicator for a particular resource (Tables 6.6b and 6.6c). Table 6.6a contains a legend 

for the terms used in Tables 6.6b and 6.6c. Tables 6.6b and 6.6c provide an estimate of the 

quality of Florida’s confined and unconfined aquifers by listing the percentage of the resource

that meets a potable water threshold. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

77

Table 6.6a. Legend for Terms Used in Tables 6.6b and 6.6c

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the terms and Column 2 provides an explanation.

Term Explanation

Analyte Indicators chosen to base assessment of the condition of waters 

of the state.

Target Population

Number of wells from which inferences are based. Excludes % 

of resource that was determined to not fit definition of 

resource.

Number of Samples Number of samples used for statistical analysis after qualified 

data and resource exclusions are eliminated from the data pool. 

% Meeting Threshold % estimate of resource extent that meets a specific indicator’s 

criterion/threshold value.

95% Confidence Bounds 

(% Meeting Threshold)

Upper and lower bounds for 95% confidence of % meeting a 

specific indicator’s criterion/threshold value.

% Not Meeting Threshold % of estimate of extent of resource that does not meet a specific 

indicator’s criterion/threshold value.

Assessment Period Duration of probabilistic survey’s sampling event.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

78

Figure 6.11. Statewide Confined Aquifer Well Locations
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

79

Table 6.6b. Statewide Percentage of Confined Aquifers Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Primary Drinking Water Standards

Units: Number of wells in list frame

This is a seven-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the 

number of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting the threshold, Column 5 lists the 95% confidence bounds, 

Column 6 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and Column 79 lists the assessment period.

Analyte

Target 

Population

(wells in list 

frame)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting

Threshold

95%

Confidence 

Bounds

(% meeting)

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Arsenic 9,018 219 98.2 95.5-100.0 1.8 2009–10

Cadmium 9,018 219 100.0 100.0 0.0 2009–10

Chromium 9,018 209 100.0 100.0 0.0 2009–10

Lead 9,018 219 99.7 99.5-99.9 0.3 2009–10

Nitrate-Nitrite 9,018 180 100.0 100.0 0.0 2009–10

Sodium 9,018 219 95.5 93.8-97.1 4.5 2009–10

Fluoride 9,018 219 100.0 100.0 0.0 2009–10

Fecal Coliform 9,018 218 100.0 100.0 0.0 2009–10

Total Coliform 9,018 174 93.8 89.0-98.6 6.2 2009–10

Figure 6.12. Statewide Summary of Confined Aquifer Results
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

80

Figure 6.13. Statewide Unconfined Aquifer Well Locations
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

81

Table 6.6c. Statewide Percentage of Unconfined Aquifers Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Primary Drinking Water Standards 

Units: Number of wells in list frame

This is a seven-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the 

number of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting the threshold, Column 5 lists the 95% confidence bounds, 

Column 6 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and Column 7 lists the assessment period.

Analyte

Target 

Population 

(wells in list 

frame)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting

Threshold

95%

Confidence 

Bounds

(% meeting)

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessmen

t Period

Arsenic 8,551 222 99.1 98.4-99.9 0.9 2009–10

Cadmium 8, 551 222 99.9 99.7-100.0 0.1 2009–10

Chromium 8, 551 222 100.0 100.0 0.0 2009–10

Lead 8, 551 207 97.9 96.5-99.3 2.1 2009–10

Nitrate-Nitrite 8, 551 191 98.6 96.8-100.0 1.4 2009–10

Sodium 8, 551 222 98.5 97.6-99.5 1.5 2009–10

Fluoride 8, 551 222 100.0 100.0 0.0 2009–10

Fecal Coliform 8, 551 222 95.4 95.9-100.0 4.6 2009–10

Total Coliform 8, 551 222 83.6 75.3-91.9 16.4 2009–10

Figure 6.14. Statewide Summary of Unconfined Aquifer Results
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

82

Summary of Surface and Ground Water Trend Network 

Results

Surface Water Trends

The flow rate of rivers can be highly variable and can complicate data analysis unless taken into 

consideration. Where available, flow rates from associated USGS gauging stations were 

collected at the same time as surface water samples. The surface water quality data were 

adjusted for flow before SK data analysis. Since ground water flows very slowly, there is little to 

no seasonality to the data. Therefore, no adjustment to the ground water data was necessary 

prior to any analysis was performed. If a trend was found to exist for either seasonally adjusted 

or nonadjusted data, the corresponding slope was determined using the Sen Slope (SS) 

estimator (Gilbert 1987). The estimator measures the median difference between successive 

concentration observations over the time series. SS was used only to measure the direction of 

the slope, not as a hypothesis test. Therefore, reporting the trend as increasing, decreasing, or 

no trend indicates the direction of the slope and does not indicate the impairment or 

improvement of the analyte being measured in the waters.

Forty-three surface water stations were adjusted for flow, while the remaining 33 stations were 

not flow adjusted. Table 6.7 provides a general statewide overview of the analyses conducted 

on the surface water trend data (1999–2010). For the results of the analyses by station, see 

Tables 6.8a through 6.8c. Table 6.8a contains the legend for the acronyms and abbreviations 

used in Tables 6.8b and 6.8c. Tables 6.8b and 6.8c present the results of the trend analyses, 

and Figures 6.15 through 6.22 show the results graphically for each indicator. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

83

Table 6.7. Surface Water Trend Summary (1999–2010)

This is a nine-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Columns 2 and 6 show the pie chart for the indicator, 

Columns 3, 4, and 5 list the flow-adjusted percentages, and Columns 7, 8, and 9 list the nonflow-adjusted 

percentages. 

Note: Light blue segments of the pie charts represent the percentage of stations sampled that exhibit an increasing trend for the 

specified analyte. Dark blue segments represent the percentage of stations sampled that exhibit a decreasing trend for the 

specified analyte. Gray segments represent the percentage of stations sampled that exhibit no trend for the specified analyte. 

Flow-adjusted site percentages were calculated based on a sample size of 43 stations that are associated with a USGS gauging 

station and adjusted for water flow. Nonflow- adjusted site percentages were calculated based on a sample size of 31 stations. 

Indicator

FlowAdjusted 

Sites 

% 

Increasing

% 

Decreasing

% No 

Trend

NonflowAdjusted 

Sites 

% 

Increasing

% 

Decreasing

% No 

Trend

Nitrate + 

Nitrite 20.9% 16.3% 62.8% 19.4% 9.7% 71.0% 

Total Kjeldahl 

Nitrogen 30.2% 11.6% 58.1% 32.3% 3.2% 64.5% 

Total 

Phosphorus 11.6% 30.2% 58.1% 3.2% 45.2% 51.6% 

Total Organic 

Carbon 16.3% 16.3% 67.4% 9.7% 6.5% 83.9% 

Chlorophyll a 18.6% 4.7% 76.7% 32.3% 45.2% 22.6% 

Fecal Coliform 14.0% 9.3% 76.7% 32.3% 0.0% 67.7% 

pH 20.9% 14.0% 65.1% 16.1% 16.1% 67.7% 

DO 30.2% 2.3% 67.4% 32.3% 6.5% 61.3% 

Table 6.8a. Legend for the Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in Tables 6.8b and 6.8c 

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the acronym or abbreviation, and Column 2 spells out the acronym. 

Acronym/Abbreviation Indicator

TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

TP Total Phosphorus

TOC Total Organic Carbon

DO Dissolved Oxygen

pH pH, Field
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

84

Table 6.8b. Trends for Specified Analytes for Surface Water Trend Network Stations that Are 

Associated with a USGS Gauging Station and Adjusted for River Flow

This is a 10-column table. Column 1 lists the station, Column 2 lists the river, and Columns 3 through 10 list the 

analytes.

Positive trends are indicated with a plus sign (+), negative trends are indicated with a minus sign (-), and no trends are indicated by

zero (0).

Station River

NitrateNitrite TKN TP TOCChlorophyll 

a

Fecal 

Coliform pH DO

3494 Barron + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 

3497 Fisheating Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3500 St. Lucie 0 o - 0 0 - + + 

3501 Kissimmee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3509 Anclote - - - 0 - + - o 

3513 Withlacoochee + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 

3515 St. Johns 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 

3517 Ocklawaha 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 

3519 Suwannee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3521 Santa Fe - + + + 0 0 0 0 

3522 Suwannee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3524 Apalachicola + 0 - 0 + 0 0 + 

3527 Ochlockonee 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 

3528 St. Marks 0 0 0 - 0 + + + 

3530 Suwannee + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 

3531 Econfina Creek + + 0 0 0 0 + + 

3532 Telogia Creek 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 

3534 Choctawhatchee + 0 - 0 + 0 - + 

3535 Suwannee 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 

3538 Alapaha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3539 Withlacoochee + 0 0 - + 0 0 0 

3541 Escambia 0 + - 0 + 0 0 + 

3542 Perdido - + + + 0 - 0 0 

3543 Apalachicola 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 

3545 Blackwater 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 

3549 Escambia 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 + 

3554 Alafia - + - 0 0 0 0 0 

3555 Little Manatee 0 + - + o + - 0 

3556 Peace - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 

3557 St. Johns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3558 Miami Canal - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 

3559 Hillsboro Canal 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 

3560 Withlacoochee 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 

3561 Charlie Creek 0 + + 0 0 0 - 0 

3563 New 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 

3564 Waccasassa 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 

3565 Eleven Mile Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 

3566 Weeki Wachee + + - 0 0 - - - 

3568 Caloosahatchee 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 

3569 Little 

Econlockhatchee - - - - 0 + + 0 

3571 Black Creek Canal + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 

3572 Miami 0 0 - - 0 0 0 + 

21380 Homosassa Spring 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 0 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

85

Table 6.8c. Trends for Specified Analytes for Surface Water Stations from the Trend Network and 

not Adjusted for River Flow

This is a 10-column table. Column 1 lists the station, Column 2 lists the river, and Columns 3 through 10 list the 

analytes.

Positive trends are indicated with a plus sign (+), negative trends are indicated with a minus sign (-), no trends are indicated by zero

(0), and ISD indicates insufficient data to determine a trend. 

Station River

NitrateNitrite TKN TP TOC Chlorophyll aFecal 

Coliform pH DO

3495 Golden Gate Canal 0 + 0 0 + 0 + + 

3499 Myakka 0 + 0 + + 0 - 0 

3502 Phillippe Creek 0 + 0 0 + 0 - - 

3504 C-25 Canal 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 

3505 Manatee + + - 0 + + 0 0 

3506 C-38 Canal 0 0 - - + + - - 

3507 Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3508 Indian River Lagoon 0 0 - - 0 0 + 0 

3516 Tomoka + 0 + 0 - + + 0 

3526 Aucilla 0 + 0 0 - + 0 0 

3533 East Bay - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 

3536 Alaqua Creek 0 + - + - 0 0 + 

3537 Nassau 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 

3540 Ochlockonee 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 + 

3544 St. Marys - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 

3546 Yellow 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 

3547 Cowarts Creek + 0 - 0 - o 0 + 

3548 Choctawhatchee 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 

3550 Brushy Creek - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 

3551 Yellow 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 

3552 Chipola 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 + 

3553 St. Johns 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + 

3570 Aerojet Canal + + - 0 0 + + + 

6976 Econfina 0 + 0 + - + 0 0 

6978 Steinhatchee + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 

21179 Spruce Creek 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 

21200 Rice Creek 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 

21201 Moultrie Creek 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 

21202 Orange Creek + - - 0 - + 0 0 

21460 Wrights Creek 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 

21461 Big Coldwater Creek 0 0 0 0 - + - 0 

34879 Wakulla ISD ISD ISD ISD ISD ISD ISD ISD

24139 Wekiva ISD ISD ISD ISD ISD ISD ISD ISD
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

86

Figure 6.15. Surface Water Trends for Nitrate + Nitrite, 1999–2010

Highlights

• There were 15 stations with increasing trends and 10 stations with decreasing 

trends for nitrate-nitrite around the state. The far western Panhandle had 3 of 

the decreasing trend stations, while the remaining stations were located 

throughout the rest of the state. Trends in nitrate-nitrite may indicate changes in 

anthropogenic input.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

87

Figure 6.16. Surface Water Trends for TKN, 1999–2010

Highlights

• TKN had 23 stations with increasing trends and 6 stations had decreasing

trends. TKN is ammonia plus organic nitrogen.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

88

Figure 6.17. Surface Water Trends for TP, 1999–2010

Highlights

• TP had 6 stations with increasing trends and 27 stations with decreasing trends 

across the state. The areas of increasing trends are the Suwannee River and 

Bone Valley where phosphate mining occurs. Phosphorus is found naturally in 

ground water in many areas of the state.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

89

Figure 6.18. Surface Water Trends for TOC, 1999–2010

Highlights

• There were 10 stations with increasing trends and 9 stations with decreasing 

trends for TOC across the state. There is no distinct pattern to either the 

increasing or decreasing trends. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

90

Figure 6.19. Surface Water Trends for Chlorophyll a, 1999–2010

Highlights

• The trends for chlorophyll a were mixed, with 18 stations having an increasing 

trend and 16 stations a decreasing trend, with no apparent pattern around the 

state. Chlorophyll a is a photosynthetic pigment and may be used as a 

surrogate indicator of changes in plant biomass related to nutrients. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

91

Figure 6.20. Surface Water Trends for Fecal Coliform Bacteria, 1999–2010

Highlights

• There were 16 stations with an increasing trend for fecal coliform bacteria and 4 

stations with a decreasing trend. Increased levels of fecal coliform in surface 

waters can indicate inadequate treatment of domestic wastewater, sewer line 

spills, or failing septic tanks; however, there are also many natural sources of 

coliform, and the EPA no longer supports the use of fecal coliform as an 

indicator organism.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

92

Figure 6.21. Surface Water Trends for pH, 1999–2010

Highlights

• There were 13 stations with increasing trends and 11 stations with decreasing 

trends for pH around the state.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

93

Figure 6.22. Surface Water Trends for DO, 1999–2010

Highlights

• There were 23 stations with an increasing trend for DO concentrations and 3 

stations with a decreasing trend. There was no pattern to the trends, but more 

stations with increasing trends were located in the Panhandle.

 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

94

Ground Water Trends

Ground water trend analyses were performed in the same manner as the surface water trend 

analyses. As stated previously, reporting the trend as increasing, decreasing, or no trend 

indicates the direction of the slope and does not indicate the impairment or improvement of the 

analyte being measured in the waters.

Forty-seven of the 48 ground water stations (wells) had a complete set of field and analytical 

data. Twenty-two of the wells tap confined aquifers, while 26 tap unconfined aquifers. Table 

6.9 provides a general statewide overview of the analyses conducted on the ground water trend 

data (1999–2010). For the results of the analyses by station, see Tables 6.10a through 6.10c. 

Tables 6.10b and 6.10c present the results of the trend analyses, and Figures 6.23 through 

6.38 show the results graphically for each analyte. At some locations there are multiple wells 

tapping different areas of the aquifers. These are shown in the figures as a bubble grouping. 

Table 6.10a contains the legend for the acronyms and abbreviations used in Tables 6.10b and 

6.10c. 

Table 6.9. Ground Water Trend Summary (1999–2010)

This is a nine-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Columns 2 and 6 show the pie chart for the indicator, 

Columns 3, 4, and 5 list the unconfined aquifer percentages, and Columns 7, 8, and 9 list the confined aquifer 

percentages. 

Note: Light blue segments of the pie charts represent the percentage of stations sampled that exhibit an increasing trend for the 

specified analyte. Dark blue segments represent the percentage of stations sampled that exhibit a decreasing trend for the 

specified analyte. Gray segments represent the percentage of stations sampled that exhibit no trend for the specified analyte. 

Unconfined aquifer percentages were calculated based on a sample size of 25 stations, except for depth to water, where the sample 

size was 24 stations. Confined aquifer percentages were calculated based on a sample size of 22 stations, except for depth to 

water, nitrate + nitrite, phosphorus, potassium, sulfate, and fecal coliform, where the sample size was 21 stations. 

Indicator

Unconfined 

Aquifer

% 

Increasing

% 

Decreasing

% No 

Trend

Confined 

Aquifer

% 

Increasing

% 

Decreasing

% No 

Trend

Temperature 16.0% 44.0% 40.0% 13.6% 18.2% 68.2% 

Specific 

Conductance 40.0% 28.0% 32.0% 18.2% 13.6% 68.2% 

pH 20.0% 32.0% 48.0% 0.0% 36.4% 63.6% 

Depth to 

Water 4.2% 16.7% 79.2% 9.5% 4.8% 85.7% 

Total 

Dissolved 

Solids

24.0% 16.0% 60.0% 4.5% 13.6% 81.8% 

Nitrate + 

Nitrite 16.0% 8.0% 76.0% 0.0% 4.8% 95.2% 

Phosphorus 12.0% 16.0% 72.0% 4.8% 14.3% 81.0% 

Potassium 40.0% 4.0% 56.0% 23.8% 0.0% 76.2% 

Sulfate 16.0% 12.0% 72.0% 14.3% 4.8% 81.0% 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

95

Indicator

Unconfined 

Aquifer

% 

Increasing

% 

Decreasing

% No 

Trend

Confined 

Aquifer

% 

Increasing

% 

Decreasing

% No 

Trend

Sodium 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 22.7% 0.0% 77.3% 

Chloride 48.0% 16.0% 36.0% 31.8% 0.0% 68.2% 

Calcium 16.0% 4.0% 80.0% 13.6% 4.5% 81.8% 

Magnesium 32.0% 0.0% 68.0% 13.6% 0.0% 86.4% 

Alkalinity 28.0% 16.0% 56.0% 27.3% 4.5% 68.2% 

Total Coliform 12.0% 0.0% 88.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

Fecal Coliform 4.0% 0.0% 96.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 

Table 6.10a. Legend for the Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in Tables 6.10b and 6.10c 

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the acronym or abbreviation, and Column 2 spells out the acronym. 

Acronym/Abbreviation Indicator

Temp Temperature (°C)

SC Specific Conductance, Field

pH pH, Field

WL Depth to Water (from measuring point) 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids (TDS measured)

NOX Nitrate + Nitrite, Dissolved (as N)

P Phosphorus, Dissolved (as P)

K Potassium, Dissolved

SO4 Sulfate, Dissolved

Na Sodium, Dissolved

Cl Chloride, Dissolved

Ca Calcium, Dissolved

Mg Magnesium, Dissolved

ALK Alkalinity, Dissolved (as calcium carbonate [CaCO3]) 

TC Coliform, Total (MF method) 

FC Coliform, Fecal (MF method) 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

96

Table 6.10b. Trends for Specified Analytes for Stations in the Ground Water Trend Monitoring Network, Confined Aquifers 

This is a 17-column table. Column 1 lists the stations, and Columns 2 through 17 list the individual analytes.

Note: A positive trend is indicated with a plus sign (+), a negative trend is indicated with a minus sign (-), no trend is indicated by a zero (0), and ISD indicates insufficient data to 

determine a trend.

Station Temp SC pH WL TDS NOX P K SO4 Na Cl Ca Mg ALK TC FC

243 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 

312 0 + - 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 

615 - 0 - + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 

707 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

737 0 0 - 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 

775 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

997 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 

1420 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 

1674 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 + - 0 - 0 0 

1762 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 

1763 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 

1779 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1780 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2187 0 - 0 + 0 ISD ISD ISD ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 ISD 

2353 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 

2404 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 

2585 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 

2675 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2873 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 

3108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3433 0 0 0 ISD 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 

7935 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

97

Table 6.10c. Trends for Specified Analytes for Stations in the Ground Water Trend Monitoring Network, Unconfined Aquifers 

This is a 17-column table. Column 1 lists the stations, and Columns 2 through 17 list the analytes.

Note: A positive trend is indicated with a plus sign (+), a negative trend is indicated with a minus sign (-), no trend is indicated by zero (0), and ISD indicates insufficient data to 

determine a trend.

Station Temp SC pH WL TDS NOX P K SO4 Na Cl Ca Mg ALK TC FC

67 - 0 0 ISD 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 

91 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 0 

129 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 

131 0 + - - + 0 0 + 0 + + + + 0 0 0 

245 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 

313 0 + + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 

736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 

996 - - - 0 0 + - - - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 

1087 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 

1100 0 - - 0 + + 0 0 0 + + + + + 0 0 

1417 + 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 

1764 - 0 0 - 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 + + 0 0 

1781 - - - - - + - 0 0 + + 0 0 - 0 0 

1931 0 + 0 0 + - 0 + + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 

1943 - + - 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 

2003 0 0 0 0 - 0 + + 0 - - 0 + - + 0 

2259 0 + - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + + 

2465 + + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 + 0 0 

2793 - + 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - + 0 0 0 0 0 

2872 + - 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 

3109 - + + 0 + 0 0 + + + + + + - 0 0 

3398 - + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 

3490 + - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 

6490 - - + 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 

7934 0 - + + 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

98

Figure 6.23. Ground Water Trends for Temperature, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 3 stations with an 

increasing trend and 4 stations with a decreasing trend for temperature. 

• There were 4 stations with increasing trends in the unconfined aquifer wells and 

11 stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

99

Figure 6.24. Ground Water Trends for Specific Conductance, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 4 stations with an 

increasing trend and 3 stations with a decreasing trend for specific conductance. 

• There were 10 stations with increasing trends in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 7 stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

100

Figure 6.25. Ground Water Trends for pH, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported none of the stations 

with an increasing trend and 8 stations with a decreasing trend for pH.

• There were 5 stations with increasing trends in the unconfined aquifer wells and 

8 stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

101

Figure 6.26. Ground Water Trends for Depth to Water, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 2 stations with an 

increasing trend and 1 station with a decreasing trend for depth to water. One

station did not have enough data to determine if a trend exists (ISD). An 

increasing trend indicates the water level in the well is decreasing relative to 

mean sea level; a decreasing trend indicates the water level in the well is 

increasing.

• There was 1 station with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells and 

4 stations with a decreasing trend. One station did not have enough data to 

determine if a trend exists (ISD). 

Ground Water Trend

Depth to Water
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

102

Figure 6.27. Ground Water Trends for Total Dissolved Solids, 1999–2010 

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 1 of the stations with 

an increasing trend and 3 stations with a decreasing trend for total dissolved 

solids. 

• There were 6 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 4 stations with a decreasing trend. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

103

Figure 6.28. Ground Water Trends for Nitrate + Nitrite, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported no stations with an 

increasing trend and 1 of the stations with decreasing trend for nitrate + nitrite.

• There were 4 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 2 stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

104

Figure 6.29. Ground Water Trends for Phosphorus, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 1 station with an 

increasing trend and 3 stations with a decreasing trend for phosphorus. 

• There were 3 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 4 stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

105

Figure 6.30. Ground Water Trends for Potassium, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 5 stations with 

increasing trends and none of the stations with a decreasing trend for potassium. 

• There were 10 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells, 

and 1 station with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

106

Figure 6.31. Ground Water Trends for Sulfate, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 3 stations with an 

increasing trend and 1 of the stations with a decreasing trend for sulfate. 

• There were 4 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 3 stations with a decreasing trend. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

107

Figure 6.32. Ground Water Trends for Sodium, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 5 stations with an 

increasing trend and no stations with a decreasing trend for sodium. 

• There were 10 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 5 stations with a decreasing trend. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

108

Figure 6.33. Ground Water Trends for Chloride, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 7 stations with an 

increasing trend and no stations with a decreasing trend for chloride.

• There were 12 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 4 stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

109

Figure 6.34. Ground Water Trends for Calcium, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 3 stations with an 

increasing trend and 1 station with a decreasing trend for calcium.

• There were 4 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 1 station with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

110

Figure 6.35. Ground Water Trends for Magnesium, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 3 stations with an 

increasing trend and no stations with a decreasing trend for magnesium. 

• There were 8 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells

and no stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

111

Figure 6.36. Ground Water Trends for Alkalinity, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported 6 stations with an 

increasing trend and 1 station with a decreasing trend for alkalinity. 

• There were 7 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and 4 stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

112

Figure 6.37. Ground Water Trends for Total Coliform, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported no stations with either 

an increasing or decreasing trend for total coliform. 

• There were 3 stations with an increasing trend in the unconfined aquifer wells 

and no stations with a decreasing trend.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

113

Figure 6.38. Ground Water Trends for Fecal Coliform, 1999–2010

Highlights:

• The trend analysis for the confined aquifer wells reported no stations with either 

an increasing or decreasing trend for fecal coliform. 

• There was 1 station with an i ncreasing trend in the unconfined aquifer 

wells and no stations with a decreasing trend. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

114

CHAPTER 7: OVERVIEW OF 

STRATEGIC MONITORING AND 

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR 

SURFACE WATER

Section 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters are submitted to 

the EPA by states to provide information used in setting national priorities and in implementing 

water quality controls and protection activities. In 2001, to develop a more complete 

understanding of the status of waters on a nationwide basis, the EPA provided states, 

territories, and authorized tribes guidance for the development and submission of an Integrated 

Report that would satisfy both the listing requirements of Section 303(d) and the reporting 

requirements of Section 305(b), as well as those of Section 314 for lakes.

The Integrated Report provides a more comprehensive inventory of the water quality status of 

waters within the state. It is built on an integrated assessment in which the assessment and 

listing methodology is supplemented with the results of monitoring data used to develop the 

report (Wayland 2001; Regas 2005).

Historical Perspective on the Assessment Methodology 

In 1999, the Florida Legislature enacted the FWRA, Section 403.067, F.S., which authorized 

FDEP to develop a rule under which waters of the state would be assessed to determine 

impairment status for the purpose of developing TMDLs, as required by the CWA.

Beginning in July1999, FDEP held extensive meetings of a Technical Advisory Committee to 

establish and develop the scientific basis for the new rule. At the conclusion of this process, the 

Environmental Regulation Commission adopted Florida’s Identification of Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule (IWR) (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.) on April 26, 2001. Although the IWR has been 

amended since it was adopted, the basic methodology has not changed (the current IWR is 

available online). 

Assessment Methodology: The Impaired Surface Waters Rule

According to the EPA, “The assessment methodology constitutes the decision process 

(including principles of science, statistics, and logic used in interpreting data and information 

relevant to water quality conditions) that a state employs to determine which of the five 

integrated reporting categories a waterbody segment belongs. It is important that assessment 

methodologies must be consistent with applicable WQSs [Water Quality Standards]. They 

should also be consistent with sound science and statistics” (Regas 2005).

FDEP evaluates the water quality of the waters of the state using the science-based 

methodology described in Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (the IWR). The IWR outlines a process by which 

impaired waters of the state (waterbody segments) are identified and includes a statistical 

methodology (the binomial method) for identifying waters with exceedances of water quality 

criteria designed to protect aquatic life. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

115

The methodology has been designed to provide a required level of confidence to ensure that the 

outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. In addition to assessment and listing 

thresholds, the IWR also (1) describes data sufficiency requirements, (2) addresses data quality 

concerns, and (3) describes the requirements for delisting segments previously identified as 

impaired, or those listed on the 1998 303(d) list. Appendix C describes the provisions of the 

IWR methodology in greater detail. 

Description of the Watershed Management Approach

The IWR is implemented following FDEP’s watershed management approach. Under this 

approach, which is based on a 5-year basin rotation, Florida’s 52 HUC basins (51 HUCs plus 

the Florida Keys) have been distributed among 29 basin groups. These basin groups are 

located within the 6 FDEP statewide districts, with 5 basin groups in each of the Northwest, 

Central, Southwest, South, and Southeast Districts, and 4 basin groups in the Northeast District. 

One basin group in each district is assessed each year (except for the Northeast). Table 7.1

lists the basin groups for each of the FDEP districts that are included in each year of the basin 

rotation

Table 7.1. Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by FDEP District 

This is a six-column table. Column 1 lists the FDEP districts, and Columns 2 through 5 list the basin groups for each 

of the basin rotations, Groups 1 through 5, respectively.

- = No basin assessed

FDEP 

District

Group 1

Basins

Group 2

Basins

Group 3

Basins

Group 4

Basins

Group 5

Basins

Northwest Ochlockonee– 

St. Marks

Apalachicola–

Chipola

Choctawhatchee– 

St. Andrew Pensacola Perdido

Northeast Suwannee Lower St. Johns - Nassau–St. Marys Upper East 

Coast

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

Lagoon

Southwest Tampa Bay Tampa Bay 

Tributaries

Sarasota Bay–

Peace–Myakka Withlacoochee Springs Coast

South Everglades West

Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

Southeast Lake Okeechobee St. Lucie–

Loxahatchee

Lake Worth 

Lagoon– 

Palm Beach Coast

Southeast Coast–

Biscayne Bay Everglades

Implementation of the TMDL Program under the Rotating Basin 

Approach

The implementation of the TMDL Program (monitoring, assessment, identification of impaired 

waters, development of TMDLs, and implementation) under the rotating basin approach 

includes five distinct phases (Table 7.2), as follows:
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

116

Table 7.2. Phases of the Basin Management Cycle

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the phase of the basin rotation, Column 2 lists the corresponding year of 

the five-year basin rotation, and Column 3 provides the activities associated with each phase. 

Phase Schedule Activities

Phase 1:

Preliminary Basin 

Evaluation

Year 1

• Identify stakeholders/participants

• Obtain data and enter into Florida STORET

• Conduct public meeting to introduce cycle

• Primary Products: 

 –Develop Planning List of potentially impaired waters

 –Develop Strategic Monitoring Plan for assessments performed in support 

of TMDL Program

Phase 2:

Strategic 

Monitoring

Years 2–3 

• Carry out strategic monitoring to collect additional data identified in Phase 1

• Acquire additional data and enter into Florida STORET

• Evaluate new data and incorporate findings into draft version of Verified List of

 Impaired Waters and Delist List 

• Distribute draft Verified List of Impaired Waters and Delist List for review

• Conduct public meetings and solicit comments from stakeholders on draft

 version of Verified List of Impaired Waters and Delist List 

• Primary Products: 

 –Finalize Verified List of Impaired Waters and Delist List for Secretarial 

adoption

 –Adopt Verified List of Impaired Waters and Delist List by Secretarial Order

 –Submit finalized Verified List of Impaired Waters and Delist List to EPA as 

update to 303(d) list

Phase 3:

TMDL 

Development 

Years 2–4 • Complete TMDLs for verified impaired waters according to prioritization

Phase 4:

Development of 

BMAPs

Year 4

• Finalize management goals/objectives

• Develop draft BMAP, including TMDL allocation

• Identify monitoring and management partnerships, needed rule changes and

 legislative action, and funding opportunities

• Develop Monitoring and Evaluation Plans

• Seek funding

• Obtain participant commitment to implement plans

Phase 5:

Implementation Year 5+ • Implement BMAPs

• Carry out rule development/legislative action

• Phase 1: Development of the Planning List

During the first phase of any basin rotation cycle, FDEP initially evaluates all 

readily available water quality data, using the methodology described in the 

IWR. During this phase, water segments that are identified as potentially not 

meeting water quality standards are included on a Planning List.

• Phase 2: Development of the Verified List of Impaired Waters 

During the second phase of the basin rotation, FDEP implements additional 

sampling and strategic monitoring activities, focusing on those waters that were 

identified and placed on the Planning List during the first phase of the basin 

rotation. The goal of these activities is to ensure that sufficient data and/or 

ancillary information are available to determine (i.e., to “verify”)—using the 

methodology described in the IWR—whether a waterbody segment is impaired 

and if the impairment is caused by a pollutant. In conjunction with the 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

117

determination of impairment status, FDEP actively solicits stakeholder input, and 

assessment results are finalized at the end of the second phase based on 

available data. 

To conclude the second phase of the basin rotation, after the assessments have 

been completed, those waterbody segments identified and verified as impaired

are placed on the state’s Verified List of impaired waters. Correspondingly, 

those waterbody segments determined to be no longer impaired or in need of a

TMDL are placed on the Delist List. Both the Verified and Delist Lists are 

adopted by Secretarial Order and submitted to the EPA to update the state’s

303(d) list.

Waterbody segments identified as not meeting water quality standards due to a 

pollutant are prioritized for TMDL development. The priority ranking considers 

the severity of the impairment and the designated uses of the segment, taking 

into account the most serious water quality problems, most valuable and 

threatened resources, and risk to human health and aquatic life.

Segments verified as impaired are initially assigned a medium priority. A high 

priority is assigned if (a) the impairment poses a threat to potable water supplies 

or to human health, or (b) the impairment is due to a pollutant that has 

contributed to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or 

endangered species. Impairments due to exceedances of fecal coliform criteria 

are assigned a low priority. Waters listed due to fish consumption advisories for 

mercury are designated high priority. FDEP plans to address mercury through a 

statewide TMDL that is scheduled to be completed in 2012.

FDEP intends to address all listings with a high priority within 5 years after they 

are added to the Verified List, to address listings with a medium priority within 5 

to 10 years (subject to available resources), and to address listings with a low 

priority within 10 years.

• Phase 3: TMDL Development 

The third phase of the basin rotation cycle consists primarily of TMDL 

development and is initiated when the Verified List is adopted by Secretarial 

Order. When TMDLs are completed for segments on the Verified List, they are 

adopted by rule, and those segments are subsequently removed from the state’s 

Verified List of impaired waters.

• Phases 4 and 5: BMAP Development and Implementation

During the fourth phase of the watershed management cycle, a watershed 

management plan (or BMAP) aimed at reducing the pollutant loads linked to the

verified impairments may be developed, and implementation is initiated in the 

fifth phase of the basin rotation cycle to achieve the pollutant reduction goals of 

the TMDL. 

Focus on Outcomes

One of the key benefits provided by the iterative nature of the watershed management cycle is 

the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of management activities (i.e., BMAP and TMDL 

implementation, the extent to which water quality objectives are being met and whether 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

118

individual waters are no longer impaired) using the results of monitoring conducted in 

subsequent cycles of the basin rotation. For example, each adopted BMAP includes a 

monitoring component designed to assess progress in improving water quality in conjunction 

with the implementation of pollutant load reduction projects. The monitoring program (ambient 

and stormwater) is developed collaboratively with local stakeholders to ensure that there is 

cooperation in the sampling effort and that the sampling program is adequately robust to 

demonstrate water quality changes in the impaired waterbody. Monitoring results are reported 

to FDEP STORET, and water quality trend evaluations are conducted during the basin rotation 

cycle. These results are used to inform future monitoring, assessment, and restoration 

activities.

Assessment Periods for the Planning and Verified List Assessments

Table 7.3 displays the time frames for the assessment periods for the Planning and Verified 

Lists for each of the five basin groups for the first three cycles of the basin rotation. 

Assessments for the second basin rotation were recently completed, and assessments for the 

waters in the first basin group for the third cycle will be performed during the upcoming year.

Table 7.3. Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists for the Basin Rotation Cycles

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the cycle rotation, Column 2 lists the basin group, Column 3 lists the 

planning period, and Column 4 lists the verified period.

Cycle 

Rotation

Basin 

Group Planning Period Verified Period

1 1 1989–1998 1/1/1995–6/30/2002

1 2 1991–2000 1/1/1996–6/30/2003

1 3 1992–2001 1/1/1997–6/30/2004

1 4 1993–2002 1/1/1998–6/30/2005

1 5 1994–2003 1/1/1999–6/30/2006

2 1 1995–2004 1/1/2000–6/30/2007

2 2 1996–2005 1/1/2001–6/30/2008

2 3 1997–2006 1/1/2002–6/30/2009

2 4 1998–2007 1/1/2003–6/30/2010

2 5 1999–2008 1/1/2004–6/30/2011

3 1 2000–09 1/1/2005–6/30/2012

3 2 2001–10 1/1/2006–6/30/2013

3 3 2002–11 1/1/2007–6/30/2014

3 4 2003–12 1/1/2008–6/30/2015

3 5 2004–13 1/1/2009–6/30/2016

Determination of Use Attainment 

Section 303(c) of the CWA requires that water quality standards established by the states and 

tribes include appropriate uses to be achieved and protected for jurisdictional waters. The CWA 

also establishes the national goal of “fishable and swimmable” for all waters wherever that goal 

is attainable.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

119

In Florida, the designated uses for waters of the state are established and protected within a 

surface water quality classification system (Rule 62-302, F.A.C.). Class-specific water quality

criteria for specific analytes describe the water quality necessary to meet the present and future 

most beneficial designated uses for surface water in the state. The section on Florida’s Water 

Quality Standards Program in Chapter 11 of this report provides the details of this classification 

system. 

Table 7.4 summarizes the EPA reporting categories based on designated use attainment and 

the corresponding surface water classifications that have been implemented in the Florida

Water Quality Standards (Rule 62-302, F.A.C.) 

Table 7.4. Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the designated use attainment category used in the IWR evaluation, and 

Column 2 lists the applicable Florida surface water classification.

Designated Use Attainment Category Used

in the IWR Evaluation

Applicable Florida 

Surface Water Classification

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

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

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment Class II

Drinking Water Use Attainment Class I

Protection of Human Health Class I, II, and III

Although the IWR establishes the assessment methodology for identifying impaired waters, the 

EPA has actively encouraged states to use a five-category reporting system in reporting the 

status of all jurisdictional waters (segments) in meeting their relevant water quality standards. 

Under this reporting system, states may establish additional subcategories to further enhance or 

refine the framework provided by the EPA.

The system that FDEP has developed and implemented to report use attainment based on IWR 

assessment results and listing decisions is based on EPA’s five-category system, but includes 

additional subcategories (see Table 7.5). For example, under the EPA reporting framework, 

Category 3 identifies segments for which there are insufficient data to determine whether water 

quality standards are being met. FDEP has implemented Subcategories 3a and 3b to 

distinguish between segments for which no data and/or information are available (3a), and 

those waterbody segments for which some data and/or information may be available, but those 

data do not meet the data sufficiency requirements as described in the IWR (3b).

Although assessments performed under the IWR and listing decisions are based on specific 

assessment periods, the EPA has also encouraged listing decisions for specific segments to 

incorporate an additional review of all water quality data from the entire period of record. To 

accommodate this request, FDEP has developed a process to incorporate additional data from 

the entire period of record (when these are available and can be determined to meet FDEP QA 

requirements).

Figure 7.1 illustrates the process by which additional data from the period of record are 

incorporated into assessments performed under the IWR.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

120

Table 7.5. Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2012 Integrated Report

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the waterbody categories, Column 2 describes the category, and Column 

3 provides comments regarding FDEP’s use of the category.

Note: The descriptions in this table reflect the EPA’s use attainment categories. In the Basin Status Reports for Groups 1 through 

3 and in the Water Quality Assessment Reports for Groups 1 through 2 that were previously produced, Categories 4b and 4c were 

reversed. That is, the description of Category 4b was previously listed as Category 4c, and the description of Category 4c was 

listed as Category 4b.

1 TMDLs are established only for impairments caused by pollutants (a TMDL quantifies how much of a given pollutant a waterbody 

can receive and still meet its designated uses). For purposes of the TMDL Program, pollutants are chemical and biological 

constituents, introduced by humans into a waterbody that may result in pollution (water quality impairment). Other causes of 

pollution, such as the physical alteration of a waterbody (for example, canals, dams, and ditches) are not linked to specific 

pollutants.

Category Description Comments

1 Indicates that all designated uses are 

attained. Currently not used by FDEP.

2 

Indicates that sufficient data are available to 

determine that at least one designated use is 

attained and insufficient data or no 

information are available to determine if 

remaining uses are attained. 

If attainment is verified for some designated uses of a 

waterbody or segment, FDEP will propose partial delisting 

for those uses that are attained. Future monitoring will be 

recommended to acquire sufficient data and/or information to 

determine if remaining designated uses are attained.

3a

Indicates that no data and/or information are 

available to determine if any designated use 

is attained. 

Future monitoring will be recommended to acquire sufficient 

data and/or information to determine if designated uses are 

attained.

3b

Indicates that although some data and/or 

information are available, available data are 

insufficient to determine if the designated 

use is attained. 

Future monitoring will be recommended to acquire sufficient 

data and/or information to determine if designated uses are 

attained.

3c

Indicates that sufficient data are available to 

determine that at least one designated use is 

not attained using the Planning List 

methodology in the IWR. 

These waters are placed on the Planning List and will be 

prioritized for future monitoring to acquire sufficient data 

and/or information to determine if designated uses are 

attained.

3d

Indicates that sufficient data are available to 

determine that at least one designated use is 

not attained using the Verified List 

methodology. 

It has been determined that water quality standards for these 

waters are not being met. However, no impairment has yet 

been verified, and it has not yet been determined whether 

TMDL development will be required. 

4a

Indicates a segment that has been identified 

as not attaining one or more designated 

uses, but TMDL development is not needed 

because a TMDL has already been 

completed.

After the EPA approves a TMDL for the impaired waterbody 

or segment, it will be included in a BMAP to reduce pollutant 

loading toward attainment of designated use(s).

4b

Indicates a segment that has been identified 

as not attaining one or more designated 

uses, but does not require TMDL 

development because the water will attain 

water quality standards due to existing or 

proposed pollution control measures. 

Pollutant control mechanisms designed to attain applicable 

water quality standards within a reasonable time frame have 

either already been proposed or are already in place.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

121

Category Description Comments

4c

Indicates a segment that has been identified 

as not attaining one or more designated 

uses, but the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant and therefore TMDL development is 

not needed.1

This category includes segments that do not meet their water 

quality standards due to naturally occurring conditions or 

pollution; such circumstances more frequently appear linked 

to impairments for low DO or elevated iron concentrations. 

In these cases, the impairment observed is not caused by 

specific pollutants but is believed to represent a naturally 

occurring condition, or to be caused by pollution.

4d

Indicates a segment that has been identified 

as not attaining one or more designated 

uses, but no causative pollutant has been 

identified. 

This category includes segments that do not meet their water 

quality standards, but no causative pollutant has been 

identified. This typically applies to low DO or failed biological 

assessments.

4e

Indicates a segment that has been identified 

as not attaining one or more designated 

uses, but recently completed or ongoing 

restoration activities are expected to restore 

the designated uses. 

Restoration activities for this waterbody have been 

completed or are ongoing, such that once the activities are 

completed or the waterbody has had a chance to stabilize, 

FDEP believes it will meet its designated uses.

5 One or more designated uses is not attained 

and a TMDL is required. 

Waterbodies or segments in this category are impaired for 

one or more designated uses by a pollutant or pollutants. 

Waters in this category are included on the basin-specific 

Verified List adopted by FDEP’s Secretary as Florida’s 

impaired waters list and submitted to the EPA as Florida’s 

303(d) list of impaired waters at the end of Phase 2.

Sources of Data

Rule 62-303, F.A.C., provides that the primary source for data used for assessment purposes is 

Florida STORET (or its successor database). Although the vast majority of IWR assessments 

rely almost entirely on data from Florida STORET, this data source is supplemented, as 

required, with data obtained from other sources. Data acquired from Legacy STORET currently 

account for approximately only 35% of the data available for assessment purposes, with data 

from Florida STORET accounting for the majority of the remainder. A relatively small proportion 

of the data used in the IWR assessment is provided directly by individual organizations and data 

providers without having first been loaded into Florida STORET. 

Table 7.6 lists the organizations that have provided data used for assessments performed 

under the IWR. These data are routinely made available by FDEP in the IWR database, which 

is linked to the Watershed Assessment Program website (data for many of these agencies and 

organizations are available via links on their own website[s]). 

Additional information used to assess waterbody health is acquired from FDOH, including fish 

consumption advisories and information for beach closures, advisories, and/or warnings. 

FDACS provides information pertaining to the classification of shellfish-harvesting areas. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

122

Figure 7.1. Period of Record Assessment Flow Chart
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

123

Table 7.6. Organizations Providing Data Used in the IWR Assessments

This is a single-column table listing the organizations providing data.

Name of Organization

Alabama Department of Environmental Management

Alachua County Environmental Protection Department

Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve

Avon Park Air Force Range

Babcock Ranch

Bay Watch

Biological Research Associates (ENTRIX)

Biology data from FDEP SBIO (Retired)

Bream Fishermen Association

Brevard County Office of Natural Resource Management

Brevard County Stormwater Utility Department

Broward County Environmental Protection Department

Charlotte County Stormwater Division

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic/Buffer Preserves (FDEP) 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 

Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance

Citizens Monitoring Program (FDEP)

City of Cape Coral

City of Jacksonville

City of Key West

City of Lakeland

City of Maitland

City of Naples

City of Orlando

City of Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant

City of Port St. Lucie

City of Punta Gorda

City of Sanibel Natural Resources Department

City of Tallahassee Stormwater Management Division

City of Tampa Bay Study Group

City of West Palm Beach

Collier County Pollution Control and Prevention Department

Conservancy of Southwest Florida

Dade County Environmental Resources Management

East County Water Control District

Emerald Coast Utility Authority

Environmental Research and Design, Inc

Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve (FDEP)

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

124

Name of Organization

Florida Department of Health

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Florida LAKEWATCH 

Florida Marine Research Institute

Georgia Department of Environmental Resources

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Gilchrist County Well Watch

Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Gulf Ecology Division Laboratory (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

Gulf Power Company

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission

IMC-Agrico 

Indian River County

Jacksonville Electric Authority

Lake County Water Resource Management Division

Lake Worth Drainage District

Lee County Environmental Laboratory

Lee County Hyacinth Control District

Leon County Public Works

Loxahatchee River District

Manatee County Environmental Management Department

Marine Resources Council of East Florida

McGlynn Laboratories

Mote Marine Laboratory

National Park Service (Water Resources Division)

Northwest Florida Water Management District

Orange County Environmental Protection Division

Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management

Palm Coast Community Service Corporation

Pasco County Stormwater Management Division

Peace River-Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority

Pinellas County Department of Engineering and Environmental Services

Polk County Natural Resources Division

Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (now Atkins)

Reedy Creek Improvement District

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve (FDEP)

Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation

Sarasota County Environmental Services

Save the Bay Associations

Seminole County

SMR Communities

South Florida Water Management District
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

125

Name of Organization

Southwest Florida Water Management District

St. Johns County

St. Johns River Water Management District

St. Lucie Mosquito Control District

Suwannee River Water Management District

Tampa Bay Water

The Nature Conservancy Florida Keys Program 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Southeast Region)

U.S. Forest Service (Region 8)

U.S. Geological Survey 

Volusia County Environmental Health Laboratory

Watershed Action Volunteers

IWR Strategic Monitoring

The goal of the IWR strategic monitoring is to ensure that sufficient data are available with 

which to make reliable assessment decisions. IWR strategic monitoring is driven by a set of 

Strategic Monitoring Plans (SMPs) that are provided to each of the FDEP district offices

annually. Samples collected by district staff may be supplemented by contract sampling when 

required to ensure that an adequate sample size will be available to perform assessments under 

the IWR, particularly in the case of high-priority waters.

Analyses of samples that are collected under the SMPs are primarily performed by the FDEP 

Central Laboratory. Results for analyses of samples collected under the SMPs are 

subsequently made available for IWR assessment purposes and, more generally, to the entire 

TMDL Program, as well as for other programmatic needs and public consumption, after they 

have been loaded into Florida STORET.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Criteria

The IWR addresses quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) by requiring all data providers to 

use established SOPs and NELAC certified laboratories to generate results intended for use in 

assessments performed under the IWR. In addition, all data are required to meet QA rule 

requirements (Rule 62-160, F.A.C.). 

To ensure that the QA/QC objectives of the TMDL Program are being met, FDEP’s 

Environmental Assessment Section (EAS) upon request conducts audits of data providers on 

behalf of the TMDL Program.

Rationales for Not Using Existing Data

In assessing surface water quality under the IWR, FDEP attempts to assemble and use all 

existing and readily available ambient surface water quality data. Measurements or 

observations that are known not to be representative of ambient waters (e.g., data for water 

coming out of a discharge pipe or known to have been collected within approved mixing zones) 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

126

are not included in assessments performed under the IWR. Data gathered from locations that 

may not be representative, or during periods that are unrepresentative, of the general condition 

of the waterbody (e.g., samples collected during or immediately after a hurricane, or linked to a 

short-term event such as a sewage spill) are subject to additional review before they are 

included in the IWR assessment process.

During the review of water quality data, specific errors or discrepancies that may preclude data 

from being used for assessment purposes are sometimes encountered. These types of errors 

or discrepancies may include systemic issues in the data received from a particular data 

provider (e.g., errors in the conversion of units, errors caused by using an incorrect fraction to 

characterize an analyte, or other data-handling errors that may have occurred in conjunction 

with the data-loading process).

When such errors or discrepancies are encountered, the data are excluded from further 

processing, and FDEP works with the data provider to resolve the issue. After the problems

have been resolved, the corrected data are (re)loaded to Florida STORET and made available 

for assessments performed under the IWR.

If, as a result of QA/QC audits performed on behalf of the TMDL Program, deficiencies are 

noted, specific portions of the data received from the audited agency may be excluded from 

assessments performed under the IWR. For audits of agencies where deficiencies have been 

identified, the EAS will provide a recommendation for data use to the TMDL Program. Such 

recommendations generally apply only to the water quality data for specific analytes, and within 

a specific time frame.

Specific sets of data may also be excluded for regulatory reasons. For example, although the 

Florida Legislature has precluded the use of Florida LAKEWATCH data in any regulatory 

proceeding, data generated by this statewide volunteer monitoring group are used in developing 

the Planning List of potentially impaired waters, evaluating pollutant loading to lakes, and 

modeling lake function for FDEP’s TMDL Program. LAKEWATCH data can also be used to 

document long-term water quality trends and provide general background information, but they 

cannot be used to verify impairment, nor can they be used in support of enforcement actions.

Table 7.7 provides additional details about the specific types of data that have been excluded 

from assessments performed under the IWR.

Public Participation in the Process

During the assessment and list development process, FDEP provides numerous opportunities

for public participation in meetings and workshops held during each listing cycle within assessed 

basins throughout the state. Citizens, stakeholders, and other interested parties are 

encouraged to provide comments and feedback on the draft lists in person at basin-specific 

public meetings held throughout the state, and/or in writing. 

The public is notified of upcoming list development activities through e-mails to basin-specific 

interested parties via distribution lists that are maintained by FDEP, as well as in 

announcements in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Notices may also be published in 

selected newspapers located throughout the state. In addition, this information is posted on 

FDEP’s Watershed Assessment website. 

The types of information solicited by FDEP through the public participation process typically 

include the following: 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

127

• Comments on the appropriateness of the listing for individual waterbody

segments;

• Updated and/or more recent information about the listed waters, including water 

quality and bioassessment data;

• Additional supporting information (such as evidence of algal blooms or sitespecific studies about nutrient impairment in area waters); and

• Information about planned pollution control mechanisms. 

Additional types of information of particular interest to FDEP during the most recently completed

assessment cycle also included the following:

• Information on ocean acidification and methods that can be used to determine 

when ocean acidification is impacting biological communities; and

• Information on the existing uses of waterbodies and other designated uses that 

may no longer be attained (e.g., shellfish harvesting).

When additional information or data is provided prior to and/or during the public comment 

period, it is evaluated and, if necessary, the assessment results may be revised before the lists 

are finalized by Secretarial adoption and subsequently submitted to the EPA.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

128

Table 7.7. Types of Data Excluded from IWR Assessments

This is a single-column table listing the types of excluded data.

Excluded Data

• Results reported in Florida STORET that did not include units, or included units that were 

inappropriate for the particular analyte. These were excluded because the result values 

could not accurately be quantified or relied upon for assessment purposes under the IWR.

• Results reported as negative values. It was concluded that, except in cases where 

documentation was presented that indicated otherwise, any results reporting a negative 

value for the substance analyzed represent reporting errors. Credible data could not have 

any values less than the detection limit (in all cases a positive value) reported, and 

therefore results reported as negative values could not be relied upon for assessment 

purposes under the IWR.

• Results reported as “888" "8888" "88888" "888888" "8888888" and "999" "9999" "99999" 

"999999" "9999999." Upon investigation, all data reported using these values were found 

to be provided by a particular WMD. The district intentionally coded the values in this 

manner to flag the fact that they should not be used, as the values reported from the lab 

were suspect. The data coded in this manner were generally older.

• J-qualified results from the same WMD were excluded from the assessments after the 

district brought to FDEP’s attention that its intent in using the 

J-qualifier was not consistent with FDEP’s use of the FDEP J-qualifier.

• Extremely old USGS data (from the beginning of the previous century). These results did 

not have complete date information available, and accurate date information is required to 

be able to assess results under the IWR. USGS data using USGS parameter codes 32230 

or 32231 were also excluded from assessments performed under the IWR, based on 

information in a memo that was sent from the USGS. 

• Results for iron that were confirmed to be entered into dbHydro using an incorrect Legacy

STORET parameter code. These results were limited to a subset of the results reported by 

a particular WMD. 

• Results reported associated with “K,” "U," "W," and "T" qualifier codes (all of which suggest 

that the result was below the method detection limit [MDL]) when the reported value of the 

MDL was greater than the criterion, or the MDL was not provided. To be able to compare a 

nondetect result with a criterion value, it is necessary to know that it was possible to 

measure as low as the numeric value of the criterion.

• Results reported using an “l” qualifier code (meaning that the result value was between the 

MDL and the practical quantification limit [PQL]) if the MDL was not provided, or where the 

MDL and PQL were inconsistent with the rest of the data record. 

• Results reported for metals using an “I” qualifier code if the applicable criterion was 

expressed as a function of hardness, and the numeric value of the metal criteria 

corresponding to the reported hardness value was between the MDL and PQL.

• Results reported using an “L” qualifier code (meaning that the actual value was known to be 

greater than the reported value) where the reported value for the upper quantification limit 

was less than the criterion. The reasoning for excluding these data follows a similar logic 

as the cases discussed above for results reported as below the MDL. 

• Results reported with a “Z” qualifier code (which indicates that the results were too 

numerous to count). These results were excluded because there was no consistency 

among data providers in how data using this qualifier code were reported. Some data 

providers entered numeric estimates of bacteria counts, while others entered the dilution 

factor. As a result, the meaningful interpretation of data reported using this qualifier was not 

uniformly possible.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

129

Excluded Data

• Results reported with an “F” qualifier code (which indicates female species). Since the IWR 

does not assess any analytes for which this qualifier code would be appropriate, the 

intended meaning of the use of this code is unknown. The reported result is therefore 

rendered uninterpretable (although there are very few instances of the use of this qualifier 

code in the IWR dataset, and some agencies may use this to indicate a field measurement).

• Results reported with an “O” qualifier code (which indicates that the sample was collected 

but that the analysis was lost or not performed). The exclusion of results reported using this 

qualifier code is self-explanatory.

• Results reported with an “N” qualifier code (which indicates a presumption of evidence of 

the presence of the analyte). Comparing concentrations of analytes with water quality 

criteria requires a numeric result value. Presence or absence, for the purposes of 

assessments performed under the IWR, is not sufficient information upon which to base an 

impairment decision.

• Results reported with a "V" or "Y" qualifier code (which indicates the presence of an analyte 

in both the environmental sample and the blank, or a laboratory analysis that was from an 

unpreserved or improperly preserved sample). Such data may not be accurate. The use of 

these codes indicates that the reported result was not reliable enough to be used in IWR 

assessments.

• Results reported with a “Q” qualifier code (which indicates that the holding time was 

exceeded). These data were reviewed to validate whether the appropriate holding times 

were used, and if so, whether the holding time was exceeded. When appropriate, such 

data were excluded from the assessments. These reviews were performed manually, not 

as part of the automated processing of the IWR data.

• Results reported for mercury not collected and analyzed using clean techniques, as 

required by the IWR. The use of clean techniques removes the chance for contamination of 

samples collected and analyzed for mercury. Mercury concentrations obtained from 

contaminated samples would not be representative of the true mercury concentrations in 

the target waterbody segments.

• Results recommended for exclusion from FDEP’s EAS as a result of lab audits performed 

on behalf of the TMDL Program. The data excluded based on lab audits were generally 

analyte specific and referred to a specific time frame. While the data issues encountered 

were variable, the lack of acceptable, or verifiable, records was a common issue.

• Certain DO measurements collected using a field kit (as opposed to a meter).
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

130

CHAPTER 8: RESULTS FOR 

ATTAINMENT OF DESIGNATED USES IN 

SURFACE WATERS

Surface Waters Assessed 

For assessment purposes, FDEP has delineated the waters of the state into assessment units, 

each having a unique waterbody identification (WBID) number, with each WBID representing a 

relatively homogenous and hydrologically distinct segment of a major surface water feature of 

the state. Each WBID is further characterized by a waterbody type (including rivers/streams, 

lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and beaches) and a waterbody class. For assessments 

performed under the IWR during the most recent basin rotation, there were 6,539 distinct 

assessment units (WBIDs) in the state’s waterbody system.

Historically, river and stream segments have averaged about 5 miles long, most frequently 

bounded by headwaters, river mouths, or other major intersecting streams, and include only 

perennial waters of significant size. Estuary segments have averaged approximately 5 square 

miles in size (often bounded by bridges). For small lakes, segments may encompass an entire 

lake; however, for larger lakes, or for those lakes having areas characterized by distinct water 

quality, a lake may be represented by multiple segments. To the extent possible, mileages for 

streams and square miles for lakes and estuaries were derived from the 1:24,000 NHD GIS 

coverage.

The use support determinations presented in this report are based on assessments performed 

under the IWR for the most recently completed cycle of the basin rotation. The assessment 

results that are summarized in this report correspond to assessment results previously 

submitted to the EPA, updated with the most recent set of assessment results for the Group 5 

waters. Combined, these data represent the assessment results for 14,454.2 miles of rivers 

and streams, 1,964.6 square miles of lakes, 5,473.1 square miles of estuaries, 6,486.9 square 

miles of coastal waters, and 104.3 miles of beaches (Table 8.1).

Under the IWR methodology, assessments compare measures of surface water quality 

parameters with the class-specific criteria from the Florida Water Quality Standards (Rule 62-

302, F.A.C.), which provide a benchmark against which the attainment of designated use can be 

determined. Attainment status is reported using the state’s implementation of the EPA reporting 

categories and subcategories. Although individual assessments performed under the IWR are 

waterbody and analyte specific, use support for each WBID has been determined by 

summarizing the results of individual assessments over all assessments performed for the 

respective WBID to determine a summary assessment category. Based on the summary 

assessment category, a corresponding use attainment status is determined.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

131

Table 8.1. Total Number of Waterbody Segments and Size of Assessed Waterbody Segments by 

Waterbody Type

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the waterbody type, Column 2 lists the number of waterbody segments, 

and Column 3 lists the miles or square miles of waters assessed. 

Note: Waters in EPA category 3a are not included when reporting the miles or square miles of the waterbody segments that were 

assessed, but are included in the total number of waterbodies. 

- = Empty cell/no data

Waterbody Type

Total Number of 

Waterbody 

Segments

Size of Waters 

Assessed

Rivers/Streams 4,030 14,454.2 miles

Lakes 1,394 1,964.6 square miles

Estuaries 592 5,473.1 square miles

Coastal Waters 226 6,486.9 square miles

Beaches 297 104.3 miles

Total 6,539 - 

303(d) Listed Waters 

Only those waterbody segments assessed under the IWR that are placed in EPA Category 5 

are included on the state’s Verified List of impaired waters adopted by Secretarial Order. The 

Category 5 waterbody segments are those that will require the development of a TMDL and are 

subsequently submitted to the EPA as additions to the 303(d) list.

Although water quality standards are not met for waterbody segments placed in EPA Category 4 

(including Subcategories 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, or 4e), these segments are not included on the Verified 

List. 

• Although waterbody segment/analyte combinations in Subcategory 4a do not 

meet water quality standards, a TMDL is not required, as one has already been 

developed; and 

• Although waterbody segment/analyte combinations in Subcategories 4b or 4c do 

not meet water quality standards, a TMDL is not needed to restore waterbody 

health (waterbody segment/analyte combinations in Subcategory 4c actually do 

support their designated uses).

Waterbody segment/analyte combinations that are in Categories 4d or 4e are included on the 

303(d) list submitted to the EPA because it has been determined they do not meet water quality 

standards and a TMDL may be required in the future to restore waterbody health:

• For waterbody segment/analyte combinations in Subcategory 4d, more 

information is needed to determine the causative pollutant that needs to be 

reduced in a TMDL; and 

• Waterbody segment/analyte combinations in Subcategory 4e already have 

ongoing restoration activities; however, should these activities not be successful 

in restoring waterbody health, a TMDL would then be required.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

132

Summary of Causes of Impairment

The most frequently cited causes of impairment for rivers and streams, as well as for lakes and 

estuarine segments, are DO, fecal coliform, mercury (in fish tissue) and nutrients. The most 

common causes of impairment are list here by waterbody type:

• Out of 4,030 river/stream segments assessed: DO, fecal coliform, mercury 

(in fish tissue), and nutrients (based on the assessment of chlorophyll a).

• Out of 1,394 lake segments assessed: Mercury (in fish tissue), DO, and 

nutrients (TSI).

• Out of 592 estuarine segments assessed: Mercury (in fish tissue), DO, 

nutrients (based on the assessment of chlorophyll a), and fecal coliform. 

• Out of 226 coastal segments assessed: Mercury (in fish tissue) and DO. 

The water quality standard currently in use for DO is based on outdated national guidance that 

used the results of research from the 1960s and 1970s. More recently, FDEP has conducted 

Florida-specific research to revise the existing DO criteria for both fresh and marine waters to 

reflect the needs of Florida’s aquatic species and its subtropical environment, which results in 

unique water quality conditions compared with the rest of the country.

Changing these criteria to reflect natural differences will improve assessment decisions and 

reduce the number of cases where waters are assessed as impaired for DO when designated 

uses are, in fact, being supported. This will better focus public resources towards meaningful 

environmental action. The Department has presented the science underpinning revisions to DO

criteria to a peer review committee of leading scientific experts.

Tables 8.2a through 8.2c present the distribution of impairments by waterbody type and EPA 

reporting category for the most frequently identified causes of impairment (other than DO) for 

each waterbody type (including rivers/streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters). For the 

summary information presented in these tables, assessment results were categorized into 

groupings depending on whether the assessment that was performed fell into the following 

categories: 

1. Pathogens: Assessment results classified as pathogens included results for all 

waterbody segments that were assessed for fecal coliform, results for all 

assessed waterbody segments that had a waterbody type of BEACH, and results 

for all Class 2 waterbody segments that were assessed for changes in shellfish 

classification.

2. Nutrients: Assessment results classified as nutrients included results for all 

waterbody segments that were assessed for either nutrients (chlorophyll a) or 

nutrients (historic chlorophyll) when the waterbody type was not a lake; and 

nutrients (TSI), nutrients (historic TSI), or nutrients (TSI trend) for waterbody 

segments that were lakes (note here that due to data sufficiency requirements, it 

would be extremely rare, if not impossible, to have a waterbody segment that had 

not been assessed for nutrients [TSI] but that was assessed for nutrients [TSI 

trend]).
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

133

3. Mercury: Assessment results classified as mercury included only those 

assessments based on the results of fish tissue studies for mercury performed by 

FDOH.

All results representing EPA Category 3a were excluded from this analysis. Results were first 

summarized by applying a ranking order to the assessment results within each of the groupings

based on EPA categories, in order to develop a single grouping-specific assessment to

represent each waterbody segment. Results were then summarized by waterbody type and 

EPA reporting category.

Tables 8.3a through 8.3d summarize the number and size of waterbody segments that have 

been assessed as impaired (and for which a TMDL may be required—i.e., in assessment 

Subcategories 4d, 4e, or 5) by impairment cause. Summary assessment results for lakes are 

largely influenced by assessment results for Lake Okeechobee. Covering 730 square miles, 

Lake Okeechobee is by far the largest lake in the state and is included among the Category 5 

waters.

In addition, all estuaries and coastal waters have been assessed for mercury (based on 

analyses of mercury in fish tissue) and are also included among the waters assessed as 

impaired (in EPA Category 5).

Table 8.2a. Assessment Results for Pathogens by Waterbody Type and Assessment Category

The three tables below are each 11-column tables. Column 1 lists the waterbody type assessed, Columns 2 through 

10 list the number of each waterbody type in each of the EPA reported categories, and Column 11 summarizes the 

total number of waterbody segments in each of the reporting categories.

Notes: There are no waters in EPA Category 1 (attaining all designated uses) because FDEP does not sample for all uses. 

Category 2 comprises waters attaining all the uses that are sampled for.

The EPA Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and a TMDL has been completed; 

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

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

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

pollutant; 

4d—No causative pollutant has been identified; 

4e—Impaired, but recently completed or ongoing restoration activities should restore the designated uses of the waterbody; 

and

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

- = Empty cell/no data

Waterbody 

Type

Cat. 

2

Cat. 

3B

Cat. 

3C

Cat. 

4A

Cat. 

4B

Cat. 

4C

Cat. 

4D

Cat. 

4E

Cat. 

5 Total

Beach 170 12 9 - - - - - 77 268

Coastal 91 13 - - - - - - 19 123

Estuary 213 44 11 4 - - - - 154 426

Lake 291 537 11 - - - - - 11 850

Stream 398 726 80 23 - - - - 343 1,570

Total 1,163 1,332 111 27 0 0 0 0 604 3,237
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

134

Table 8.2b. Assessment Results for Nutrients by Waterbody Type and Assessment Category

- = Empty cell/no data

Waterbody 

Type

Cat. 

2

Cat. 

3B

Cat. 

3C

Cat. 

4A

Cat. 

4B

Cat. 

4C

Cat. 

4D

Cat. 

4E

Cat. 

5 Total

Coastal 41 49 1 - - - - 1 1 93

Estuary 105 178 31 12 6 - - 1 111 444

Lake 214 744 52 22 - - 1 - 43 1,076

Stream 398 859 67 22 - - 3 10 206 1,565

Total 758 1,830 151 56 6 0 4 12 361 3,178

Table 8.2c. Assessment Results for Mercury by Waterbody Type and Assessment Category

- = Empty cell/no data 

Waterbody Type

Cat. 

2

Cat. 

3B

Cat. 

3C

Cat. 

4A

Cat. 

4B

Cat. 

4C

Cat. 

4D

Cat. 

4E

Cat. 

5 Total

Coastal - - - - - - - - 221 221

Estuary - 1 1 - - - - - 504 506

Lake 3 1 43 - - - - - 127 174

Stream 16 1 32 - - - - - 249 298

Total 19 3 76 0 0 0 0 0 1,101 1,199

Table 8.3a. Miles of Rivers/Streams Impaired by Cause

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the parameter assessed, Column 2 lists the number of impaired 

waterbodies, and Column 3 lists the total miles impaired.

Parameter Assessed

Number

Impaired

Miles

Impaired

DO 699 5,975

Fecal Coliform 338 2,685

Mercury (in fish tissue) 249 2,903

Nutrients (chlorophyll a) 153 1,014

Biology 36 320

Nutrients (other than 

chlorophyll a) 28 18

Iron 17 314

Lead 14 123

Specific conductance 10 111

Bacteria (shellfish harvesting 

classification) 10 82

Turbidity 10 83

Un-ionized Ammonia 7 69

TP 6 76

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 2 21

Copper 2 3

Total Dissolved Solids 2 6

Silver 1 6

Chloride 1 0

Dioxin 1 2

Total Suspended Solids 1 3
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

135

Table 8.3b. Square Miles of Lakes Impaired by Cause

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the parameter assessed, Column 2 lists the number of impaired 

waterbodies, and Column 3 lists the total square miles impaired.

Parameter Assessed

Number

Impaired

Square 

Miles

Impaired

Mercury (in fish tissue) 127 1,344

DO 112 280

Nutrients (TSI) 36 107

Fecal Coliform 11 15

Iron 7 526

Lead 5 7 

pH 4 308

Un-ionized Ammonia 3 4 

Copper 2 19

Turbidity 2 1 

Silver 1 12

Nutrients (other than TSI) 1 0 

Thallium 1 6 

Table 8.3c. Square Miles of Estuaries Impaired by Cause

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the parameter assessed, Column 2 lists the number of impaired 

waterbodies, and Column 3 lists the total square miles impaired.

Parameter Assessed

Number 

Impaired

Square 

Miles

Impaired

Mercury (in fish tissue) 504 5,163

DO 151 1,198

Fecal Coliform 99 896

Nutrients (chlorophyll a) 92 678

Bacteria (shellfish harvesting 

classification) 76 1084

Copper 28 378

Iron 18 162

Nutrients (other than

chlorophyll a) 13 76

Lead 4 29

Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand 1 38

Turbidity 1 11
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

136

Table 8.3d. Square Miles of Coastal Waters Impaired by Cause

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the parameter assessed, Column 2 lists the number of impaired 

waterbodies, and Column 3 lists the total square miles impaired.

Parameter Assessed

Number 

Impaired

Square 

Miles

Impaired

Mercury (in fish tissue) 221 6,487

DO 17 220

Copper 9 32

Bacteria (shellfish harvesting 

classification) 6 377

Fecal Coliform 2 377

Nutrients (chlorophyll a) 1 102

Figures 8.1a through 8.1c geographically present the results of statewide assessment results 

for pathogens, nutrients, and mercury, respectively. A statewide TMDL to address all fresh 

waters listed as impaired for mercury and marine waters that were listed as impaired for 

mercury on the 1998 303(d) list is nearly complete, with a scheduled completion date of 

September 2012.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

137

Figure 8.1a. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment:

EPA Assessment Categories for Pathogens
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

138

Figure 8.1b. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment:

EPA Assessment Categories for Nutrients
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

139

Figure 8.1c. Results of Florida’s Surface Water Quality Assessment:

EPA Assessment Categories for Mercury

Delisting 

When it is demonstrated that water quality criteria are currently being met for a waterbody or 

segment/analyte combination that was previously included on either the 303(d) list, or on the 

state’s Verified List of impaired waters, the waterbody segment may be proposed for delisting. 

If it is demonstrated that water quality criteria are met for some, but not all, parameters, FDEP 

may propose partial delisting for those parameters; additional monitoring would be required to 

determine attainment for the remaining parameters.

Waterbody segments may also be proposed for delisting for other reasons (e.g., if it can be 

demonstrated that the original listing was in error, or if an impairment is determined to be due to 

natural causes). Although the IWR specifies the conditions for delisting, determining the 

ultimate assessment category (or subcategory) for some analytes is not necessarily 

straightforward.

For example, the EPA has provided guidance that a waterbody previously verified as impaired 

for nutrients based on chlorophyll a or TSI can be delisted if the waterbody does not exceed 

IWR threshold values. However, until sufficient site-specific information is available to 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

140

demonstrate designated use attainment, these waterbody segments are placed in Category 3b 

rather than Category 2. The required site-specific information can include, but is not limited to, 

measures of biological response such as the SCI and macrophyte or algal surveys.

Even when a waterbody meets the delisting thresholds in the IWR for nutrients based on 

chlorophyll a or TSI assessments, if the waterbody has been verified as impaired for DO, and if 

either TN or TP has been identified as the causative pollutant, then the waterbody cannot be 

delisted unless site-specific information is available to demonstrate support of aquatic life use. 

Figure 8.2 illustrates the decision process for delisting waters that have been verified as 

impaired for nutrients.

Nutrient 

assessment 

meets delisting 

thresholds

Is WBID 

impaired based 

on DO 

assessment

YES

YES

YES

Is 

Aquatic Life Use 

Support attained

Is there biological 

data to support 

EPA Category 2

NO

Delist

for 

Nutrients 

(chla)

NO

Is 

causative 

pollutant a 

nutrient

Cannot 

Delist for 

Nutrients 

(chla)*

Delist

for 

Nutrients 

(chla)*

Assign EPA 

Category 2

Assign EPA 

Category 3B

Assign EPA 

Category 2

Assign EPA 

Category 3B

YES

YES

NO

NO

DELIST DECISION

ASSIGNMENT OF 

EPA ASSESSMENT 

CATEGORY

If

• The nutrient impairment 

is not based on the DO 

assessment; or

• The nutrient impairment 

is based on the DO 

assessment; and

• The causative pollutant 

that has been identified 

is not a nutrient

Then

• The decision to delist for 

nutrients can be made 

without looking at the 

biology information

If 

• The causative 

pollutant that has 

been identified as a 

nutrient, 

Then 

• The delist decision for 

nutrients requires 

additional review

• After the nutrient 

delisting decision 

is made,

• Status of 

supporting 

biological data 

determines only 

the assignment of 

EPA Category

• In this case, lack 

of biology data 

determines the 

assignment of 

EPA Category

Is Biological Data 

Available?

Delist

for 

Nutrients 

(chla)*

YES

NO Assign EPA 

Category 3B

If 

• Biological data is 

available 

Then 

• It needs to be 

evaluated to 

determine if the use is 

attained

If

• The use is not 

attained

Then

• More information is 

needed to determine if 

nutrients are the 

cause.

Delist Decision Tree 

For Nutrient Impairments based on Assessment of Chlorophyll-a

* The procedure as described applies only to delisting for impairments 

based on Chlorophyll-a assessments; specifically, 

• May not delist for nutrients (chla) if waterbody is impaired for 

nutrients based on abundant algae

• May not delist if there is an increasing trend in chla or chla 

levels are near or approaching the threshold value.

Figure 8.2. Decision Tree for Delisting for Nutrient Impairment

Based on Chlorophyll a (Chl-a)
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

141

Biological Assessment

Under the IWR, biological assessments can provide the basis for impairment determinations, or 

can be used as an adjunct to support assessment determinations made for other parameters. 

For example, for some waterbodies that have naturally low DO concentrations, it may be 

possible to demonstrate that aquatic life use is fully supported by using biological information. 

For such waterbody segments, when there is biological information to demonstrate that aquatic 

life use is fully supported, a TMDL would not be required, and the waterbody segment would be 

placed in Subcategory 4c. 

Use and Interpretation of Biological Results

Biological assessment tools used in conjunction with assessments performed under the IWR 

consist primarily of the SCI and the BioRecon. Since 1992, FDEP has processed 3,441 SCI 

and 1,117 BioRecon samples.

Since the BioRecon is used as a screening tool, low BioRecon scores are not used as the sole 

basis for making an impairment determination. To determine impairment based on biological 

information, FDEP requires follow-up sampling with the SCI, which provides a more 

comprehensive measure of aquatic life use support. In addition, a single SCI with a score less 

than the acceptable value is not sufficient to support an impairment determination. When SCIs 

are used in conjunction with impairment determinations, FDEP requires two temporally 

independent SCIs having an average value that is below the minimum score associated with a 

healthy, well-balanced aquatic community.

Bioassessment methods, and the corresponding interpretation of bioassessment results 

(calibration), have changed over time. The BioRecon was revised in 1992, in 2004, and again 

in 2008; the SCI was revised in 1992 and 2007. The current version of the SCI used by FDEP 

is based on a Human Disturbance Gradient (HDG) approach that was not explicitly included in 

previous versions of the SCI. Consequently, the use and interpretation of the biological data 

generated by these tools depend on the specific version of the biological tool used. 

Table 8.4a presents the distribution of bioassessment results for the version-specific 

bioassessment tools. Apparent changes in the distribution of bioassessment results may be 

artifactual: without additional information, it is difficult to know the extent to which such changes 

in the distribution are representative of actual changes in the biological health of waterbody 

segments statewide, or whether such changes may be related to revisions and refinements that 

have been made to the methodology. 

Table 8.4b summarizes the results of biological assessments performed by assessment type 

and aquatic life use support. From 1992 to 2011, 33% of BioRecons performed statewide 

required additional follow-up SCI sampling to determine aquatic life use support. During the 

same period, 18% of the SCI values were below the minimum score associated with a healthy, 

well-balanced aquatic community (however, 2 temporally independent SCI failures would be 

required for an impairment determination).
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

142

Table 8.4a. Distribution of Biological Results by Assessment Type and Aquatic 

Life Use Support

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the biological assessment, Column 2 lists the result of the biological 

assessment, Column 3 lists the corresponding aquatic life use support status, and Column 4 lists the number of 

measurements.

Biological

Assessment and 

Year

Result

Category

Meets Aquatic Life Use 

Support?

Number of 

Measurements

BioRecon 1992 Healthy Yes 337

BioRecon 1992 Suspect Yes 314

BioRecon 1992 Impaired Requires follow-up 

sampling 282

BioRecon 2004 Pass Yes 79

BioRecon 2004 Fail Requires follow-up 

sampling 75

BioRecon 2008 Category 1 Yes 15

BioRecon 2008 Category 2 Yes 7 

BioRecon 2008 Category 3 Requires follow-up 

sampling 8 

SCI 1992 Excellent Yes 1,208

SCI 1992 Good Yes 448

SCI 1992 Poor

No (if 2 independent 

samples are collected in a 

water segment)

182

SCI 1992 Very Poor

No (if 2 independent 

samples are collected in a 

water segment)

48

SCI 2007 Category 1 Yes 340

SCI 2007 Category 2 Yes 820

SCI 2007 Category 3

No (if 2 independent 

samples are collected in a 

water segment)

395
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

143

Table 8.4b. Summary of Biological Results by Assessment Type and Aquatic 

Life Use Support

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the type of biological assessment, Column 2 lists the aquatic life use 

support status associated with the result, Column 3 lists the number of results for each biological assessment type, 

and Column 4 lists the percentages.

- = Empty cell/no data

Biological

Assessment

Type

Meet Aquatic Life Use 

Support?

Number

of

Results %

BioRecon Requires follow-up 

sampling 365 32.68

BioRecon Yes 752 67.32

Total - 1,117 100

SCI

No (if 2 independent 

samples are collected in 

a water segment)

625 18.16

SCI Yes 2,816 81.84

Total - 3,441 100

Special Focus: Lakes 

Lakes are a particular focus of the EPA’s Integrated Report guidance. This section addresses 

CWA Section 314 reporting requirements, providing information on lake trends, approaches to 

controlling lake pollution and lake water quality, and publicly owned lakes with impaired uses.

Table 8.2 summarizes the square miles of lakes assessed in each of the EPA Integrated Report 

categories. Table 8.3b lists the square miles of lakes impaired by the cause of impairment. 

Lake Trends for Nutrients

Although assessments performed to identify impaired lake segments evaluate current nutrient 

status, the IWR incorporates additional methodologies that evaluate trends in the nutrient 

enrichment status of lakes. The latter methodologies interpret trends in the annual average TSI 

as indicative of changes in lake water quality (details of the methodology to identify both longand short-term trends indicative of declining lake water quality are described in Subsection 62-

303.352[3], F.A.C.). Both long- and short- term trends are addressed as follows: 

• To identify long-term trends in nutrient status, segment-specific baseline 

(“historical minimum”) TSI values are determined. Baseline values are then 

used to develop segment-specific threshold values that are calculated as a 10-

unit increase in the TSI. Subject to data sufficiency requirements, for each lake 

segment and year in the current assessment period, annual average TSI values 

are calculated and compared with segment-specific threshold values. Annual 

average TSI values from the current assessment period that exceed threshold 

values are interpreted as an indication that lake water quality has deteriorated 

over time.

• The identification of short-term trends is limited to analyses of annual average 

TSI values from the current assessment period. Since the IWR methodology 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

144

focuses on identifying impaired waters of the state, it has not explicitly sought to 

identify trends where water quality is improving over time. However, if for a 

particular lake segment the historical average TSI from the current assessment 

period is less than the historical baseline TSI, this suggests that lake water 

quality for that lake segment has improved over time.

Methodology To Establish Lake Segment–Specific Baseline TSI Values

The following methodology is used to establish lake segment–specific baseline TSI values:

• Individual TSI values used in the calculation of seasonal averages for the entire 

period of record up to, but not including, the current assessment period are 

calculated using an adaptation of the TSI described in the state’s 1996 305(b) 

report; 

• Subject to data sufficiency requirements, for each sampling location, individual 

TSI values are used to calculate four-day station median TSIs;

• For each lake segment and for each year, seasonal average TSI values are 

calculated as the average of all four-day station median TSI values over all 

sampling locations within the lake segment;

• Subject to data sufficiency requirements, for each lake segment and for each 

year, annual average TSIs values are calculated as the average of the four 

seasonal TSIs;

• Using the annual averages from the entire period of record (up to, but not 

including, the current assessment period, and subject to additional data 

sufficiency requirements), five-year moving average TSI values are calculated;

and

• The five-year moving average TSI values are used to establish a baseline TSI 

value, defined as the minimum of the five-year moving average TSIs over the 

entire period of record (up to, but not including, the current assessment period). 

Identification of Long-Term Nutrient Trends 

Under the IWR, long-term increasing trends in nutrient enrichment are indicated by an increase 

of more than 10 units in the annual average TSI over historical values. Consequently, the 

threshold value with which annual average TSI values from the current assessment period are 

compared is taken as the baseline TSI value + 10. 

Annual average TSI values from the current assessment period are compared with the 

threshold value. Lake segments having annual average TSI values that exceed the threshold 

value for two consecutive years are identified as those for which nutrient enrichment indicates a 

deterioration of water quality over time (long-term trend). This methodology provides the basis 

for one of the three components of nutrient assessments performed for lakes under the IWR.

Identification of Short-Term Nutrient Trends 

Short-term increasing trends in nutrient enrichment over the current assessment period are 

indicated by a positive slope in the annual average TSI values plotted versus time. However, 

when evaluating the slope of the annual average TSIs over time, an increase of at least five TSI 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

145

units over the assessment period is first required. To evaluate short-term trends over time, the 

IWR specifies the use of Mann’s one-sided, upper-tail test for trend at a 95% confidence level.5

 

For assessments performed under the IWR, subject to data sufficiency, annual average TSI 

values from the current assessment period are analyzed using Mann’s test. Lake segments 

having a positive slope based on the results of this analysis are identified as those for which 

water quality shows evidence of a decline (short-term trend). This test provides the basis for an 

additional component of the nutrient assessments performed for lakes under the IWR.

Approaches to Controlling Lake Pollution and Lake Water Quality

The TMDL assessment process described in Chapter 7 provides an approach to controlling the 

point and nonpoint source pollution entering Florida’s lakes and restoring lake water quality. In 

particular, BMAPs developed for impaired waterbodies describe specific management activities 

and BMPs for reducing pollution. Each BMAP also provides interim and final targets for 

evaluating water quality improvements, a mechanism for tracking the implementation of 

management actions, procedures for monitoring and reporting on progress, data management 

and QA/QC procedures, a description of methods used to evaluate progress towards goals, 

strategy and schedule for periodically reporting results to the public, and procedures to 

determine whether additional corrective actions are needed and whether plan components need 

to be revised.

Publicly Owned Lakes with Impaired Uses

Appendix D provides an alphabetical list of the impaired lakes in the state, the parameter 

causing impairment, the basin group, and the river basin within which each lake is located.

Drinking Water Use Support

Although earlier sections of this chapter discussed impaired waters by waterbody type, this 

section provides assessment results for waterbodies designated as Class I (potable water 

supply). Table 8.5 lists the total miles of rivers/streams and square miles of lakes/reservoirs 

designated for drinking water use. 

Table 8.5. Total Miles of Rivers/Streams and Square Miles of Lakes/Reservoirs Designated for 

Drinking Water Use

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the waterbody type, Column 2 lists the number of waterbodies in the 

state designated for drinking water use, and Column 3 lists the stream miles and lake square miles with that 

designation.

Waterbody 

Type Number Total in State

Streams 91 559 miles

Lakes 23 773 square miles

In addition to being protective of potable water supplies, Class I waters must also be protective 

of fish consumption, aquatic life, and recreational uses. Class I rivers/streams and lakes are 

assessed for all applicable criteria, including those that are protective of these other uses. 

Nonattainment for criteria for aquatic life use support or recreation does not affect whether a 

 

5 This particular analysis is described in Nonparametric Statistical Methods, by M. Hollander and D. Wolfe (1999 ed.), pp. 376 and 

724, which is incorporated in the IWR by reference.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

146

waterbody is suitable as a potable water supply, since treatment requirements for drinking water 

sources that rely on surface waters are sufficiently stringent that potable water supply use is 

attained.

In fact, the impairments for Class I waters determined in assessments performed under the IWR 

have been those that pertain to uses other than those associated with providing safe drinking 

water. Table 8.6 lists the miles of rivers/streams and square miles of lakes/reservoirs 

designated for drinking water use that are assigned to each of the EPA’s five reporting 

categories. Note that Lake Okeechobee is a Class I waterbody and comprises 730 square 

miles of the total 773 square miles of Class I lakes that are currently impaired under the IWR.

Overlap of Source Water Areas and Impaired Surface Waters

About 13% of Florida's public drinking water systems receive some or all of their water from a 

surface water source. Of 5,483 public drinking water systems statewide, 17 obtain their water

from surface water. An additional 57 systems wholly or partially purchase water from these 17 

systems. Because it is expensive to operate a surface water system (given that filtration and 

advanced disinfection are costly), most such systems are quite large.

In conjunction with the integrated assessment, the adopted Verified Lists of impaired surface 

waters were compared with the coverage of the source water assessment areas generated for 

the Source Water Assessment and Protection Program (SWAPP). The source water 

assessment area coverage for community drinking water systems was modeled based on a 3-

day travel time to the intake within surface waters and their 100-year floodplains. Table 8.7 lists 

the river/stream miles (including springs) and square miles of lakes/reservoirs that overlap 

source water areas for community water systems that are impaired for fecal coliform.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

147

Table 8.6. Waterbodies Designated for Drinking Water Use by Assessment Category (Results for 

Assessments Including Criteria for All Use Support)

This is a five-column table. Column 1 lists the waterbody type, Column 2 lists the assessment category, Column 3 

lists the assessment status, Column 4 lists the number of waterbody/analyte combinations, and Column 5 lists the 

mile/analyte combinations (for streams) and square mile/analyte combinations (for lakes).

Note:

The EPA Integrated Report categories are as follows:

1—Attains all designated uses;

2—Attains some designated uses;

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

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

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

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and a TMDL has been completed; 

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

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

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

pollutant; 

4d—No causative pollutant has been identified; 

4e—Impaired, but recently completed or ongoing restoration activities should restore the designated uses of the waterbody; 

and

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

* These impairments are not related to criteria specifically designed to protect drinking water supplies.

Waterbody 

Type

Assessment

Category

Assessment

Status

Number of 

Waterbody/Analyte 

Combinations

Mile/Analyte 

Combinations (for 

Streams) and 

Square Mile/Analyte 

Combinations (for 

Lakes)

Rivers/Streams 2 Not Impaired 476 3,915

Rivers/Streams 3A No Data 280 2,497

Rivers/Streams 3B Insufficient 

Data 444 3,107

Rivers/Streams 3C Planning List 64 588

Rivers/Streams 4A TMDL 

Complete 2 7 

Rivers/Streams 4B Reasonable 

Assurance 7 92

Rivers/Streams 4C Natural 

Condition 4 11

Rivers/Streams 4D No Causative 

Pollutant 18 241

Rivers/Streams 4E Ongoing 

Restoration 2 27

Rivers/Streams 5* Impaired 55 287

Lakes/Reservoirs 2 Not Impaired 181 4,680

Lakes/Reservoirs 3A No Data 104 559

Lakes/Reservoirs 3B Insufficient 

Data 225 10,135

Lakes/Reservoirs 3C Planning List 13 626

Lakes/Reservoirs 4A TMDL 

Complete 26 1,788

Lakes/Reservoirs 4D No Causative 

Pollutant 1 5 

Lakes/Reservoirs 5* Impaired 41 1,810
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

148

Table 8.7. Summary of Impaired River/Stream Miles and Lake/Reservoir Square Miles Overlapping 

Source Water Areas of Community Water Systems

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the surface water type, Column 2 lists the length or area of impaired

waters overlapping source water areas in Groups 1–5, and Column 3 lists the percent of total length or area in 

Groups 1–5.

Note: The analysis is based on Verified Lists of impaired surface waters based on the Cycle 2 assessments for the Group 1–5 

basins. The parameter of interest was fecal coliform.

Surface Water Type

Length or Area of Impaired Surface 

Waters Overlapping Source Water 

Areas in Basin Groups 1–5

% of Total Length or 

Area in Basin 

Groups 1–5

Streams/Rivers 59 miles 0.41

Lakes/Reservoirs 9 square miles 0.05
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

149

CHAPTER 9: INTRODUCTION TO 

GROUND WATER MONITORING 

Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs 

The quality of ground water is of foremost concern in Florida, because ground water is so 

heavily used as a potable water source and because ground water inputs into surface water 

systems are so important. Over the years, ground water quality monitoring has been 

incorporated into several programs. The programs pertinent to this report are discussed below 

and summarized in Tables 9.1a and 9.1b.

Table 9.1a. Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs and Data Sources: 

FDEP-Maintained Monitoring Networks

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the monitoring network or program, Column 2 lists the period over which 

it has operated, and Column 3 provides a description.

Monitoring Network or Program Period Description

Status Network 1999–2003; 

2004–08

The statewide rotating basin, probabilistic sampling network was 

based on sampling 60 wells from several basins per year. The 

1999–2003 cycle (Cycle 1) completed a statewide survey in 4 

years. During 2004–08, the state adopted the TMDL 29-basin 

design (Cycle 2), completing the statewide survey in 5 years. 

These sample locations were randomly selected from a list frame 

of wells, with samples collected from 30 unconfined and 30

confined aquifers in each 5 to 6 reporting units. This report 

presents the results from Cycle 2.

Status Network 2009–ongoing

This statewide probabilistic sampling network samples 240 wells 

annually. Sample locations are randomly selected from a list 

frame of wells, with samples collected from 20 unconfined and 20

confined aquifers in each of 6 reporting units. The data used to 

characterize water quality on a statewide scale, and the 

parameters monitored, correspond with those targeted in surface 

water evaluations.

Background Network and

Temporal Variability (TV) 

Subnetwork

1985–1999

A statewide network of 1,600 water wells and monitoring wells 

used to spatially monitor general background water quality of local 

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

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

analytes. TV network wells are sampled monthly to quarterly.

Ground Water Temporal Variability 

(GWTV) Subnetwork 1999–ongoing

The current network consists of 46 wells statewide. It is designed 

to help correlate Status Network results with seasonal hydrologic 

variations, and estimate the temporal variance of analytes.

Very Intense Study Area (VISA) 

Network 1989–1999

The network monitored the effects of land uses on ground water 

quality in 23 selected areas of the state. Individual VISAs 

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

year period. Sampling was carried out for a targeted list of 

analytes.

Springs Monitoring Network 2001–2010

Until 2010, 58 samples were collected quarterly from 23 firstmagnitude and 9 second-magnitude spring clusters. Since then, 

the quarterly network has been reduced to eliminate redundancy 

with stations also monitored by Florida’s WMDs. Since 2010, the 

network has consisted of 24 springs. The basic analyte list is 

similar to that used for the Status Network but also includes 

isotopes for nitrogen sourcing.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

150

Table 9.1b. Summary of Ground Water Monitoring Programs and Data Sources: Programs that 

Include Potable Ground Water Sampling: 

FDEP-Maintained Monitoring Networks

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the monitoring network or program, Column 2 lists the period over which 

it has operated, and Column 3 provides a description.

Monitoring Network or Program Period Description

Public Water System (PWS)

Monitoring Ongoing

Under Rule 62-550, F.A.C., all public water systems are 

required to monitor and report water quality at regular intervals 

within their compliance cycle. Ground water is the primary 

source of potable water in the state.

FDOH/FDEP Water Supply 

Restoration Program (WSRP)–

Private Well Sampling Program

Ongoing

This consists of private well data collected in investigations of 

potential ground water contamination, maintained in an FDEP 

WSRP database. The parameter list is variable, depending on 

the contaminants of concern.

Monitoring of discharges

to ground water Ongoing

Under Rule 62-520, F.A.C., facilities discharging to ground 

water are required to implement a ground water monitoring plan 

and report those results to FDEP.

FDEP-Maintained Ground Water and Springs Monitoring

Programs 

FDEP established a ground water quality monitoring network in 1984, under the authority and 

direction of the 1983 Water Quality Assurance Act. From 1984 to1999, the Background 

Network was maintained to establish the background and baseline ground water quality of major 

aquifer systems in Florida. In 1999, FDEP initiated a probabilistic sampling Status Network to 

assess ground water and surface water quality on a basinwide scale. This sampling has been 

integrated into the agency’s watershed management approach. Since the Status Network’s 

inception, three statewide samplings have been completed. 

Monitoring results for the Ground Water Temporal Variability Network (GWTV), which also 

began in 1999, are used to assess seasonal and long-term variability in ground water quality. 

Other, historical monitoring efforts include the Background Network, the VISA Network, and 

FDOH’s Private Water Well Quality Survey. Additional information on all these monitoring 

networks is available on the FDEP Watershed Monitoring website. 

This report includes the Status Network monitoring data in the dataset used to evaluate overall 

ground water quality and ground water parameters of particular concern that may influence 

receiving surface waters.

FDEP established a springs monitoring network under the Florida Springs Initiative and has 

continued quarterly monitoring and data acquisition. Beginning in 2001, this effort initially 

included quarterly monitoring at each of the state’s first-magnitude springs but has since 

expanded to include important second-magnitude springs as well. Currently, FDEP samples 24 

spring stations quarterly and also integrates spring monitoring data from other providers into its 

database. In this report, quarterly spring monitoring data collected by FDEP as well as the 

regional WMDs are evaluated to identify spring water quality with respect to nutrients.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

151

Potable Water Monitoring by FDOH/FDEP Water Supply Restoration 

Program

Contaminated drinking water wells are identified through the sampling efforts of the local county 

public health units, supported by FDEP funding. To optimize resources, wells are sampled in 

areas of known or suspected contamination, such as agricultural areas, areas of known off-site 

contamination near regulated facilities, landfills, or near underground storage tanks. 

The FDOH Petroleum Surveillance Program concentrates its efforts in areas suspected to have 

petroleum-related contamination and targets drinking water wells near known storage tanks for 

sampling.

The FDOH Drinking Water Toxics Program looks for contamination related to the use of 

pesticides and fertilizers, and contamination from solvents and metals. The program is a 

cooperative effort between FDOH, county public health units, and FDEP. FDEP funds the 

program through a contract with FDOH, and FDOH directs the sampling effort by local public 

health units.

In this report, the FDEP Water Supply Restoration Program (WSRP) database maintained by 

FDEP was used in the evaluation of the ground water contaminants of concern identified in 

private drinking water wells. The database currently has water quality records for approximately 

40,000 private wells. A caveat to their use in this evaluation is that these wells are not evenly 

distributed because they were sampled in areas of known or suspected contamination. Thus, 

the number of exceedances in a particular basin can be misleading because the results may 

depend on well density and distribution in relationship to a given problem area.

Public Water System Monitoring

Approximately 5,600 PWSs in Florida rely on ground water. These are served by over 10,000

wells. Rule 62-550, F.A.C., sets the drinking water standards and the monitoring requirements 

and treatment techniques to be met by PWSs, and also mandates that testing must be 

conducted by FDOH-certified laboratories. The ultimate concern of the PWS supervision 

program is the quality of water when the water reaches consumers, but PWS monitoring 

involves the direct sampling of wells in some instances. Water quality results include samples 

from various entry points into the water system and points in the distribution system, include 

treated water, and for some parameters may include composite samples. Not all samples 

included in the data are used to determine compliance with Rule 62-550, F.A.C. 

The monitoring framework for PWSs is a nine-year compliance cycle containing specific 

monitoring requirements for individual parameter groups and specific actions based on the 

detection of parameters above action limits or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Water 

quality data in the PWS database are reported by the public water system identification number 

(PWS ID#). While individual sample results collected for this report may exceed an action level 

or MCL, that exceedance does not necessarily translate directly into a violation of water 

delivered to the consumer because of the compositing or blending of water mentioned above, or 

because averaging with subsequent samples was below the action level or MCL. Additional 

information is available on the FDEP Drinking Water Program website. 

Water quality data in the PWS database were used in the evaluation of regional and statewide 

contaminants of concern. These data can either represent one individual well or a composite 

sample from multiple wells that comprise a system. Generally, the most densely populated 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

152

areas of the state have public supply systems with multiple wells, while less populated areas 

may rely on only one well. Each public supply well was assigned to a basin or, in the case of a 

system, the basin that represents the majority of those wells. In the analysis of contaminants of 

concern, the number of MCL exceedances is not weighted, and thus each exceedance may 

represent one individual well or a composite of many wells in a system. Drinking water 

standards, monitoring requirements, and the frequency of sampling for public water supply wells 

are based on Rule 62-550, F.A.C.

Monitoring of Discharges to Ground Water

FDEP implements a comprehensive ground water quality protection program that regulates 

discharges to ground water. The program establishes ground water quality standards and 

classifications and permitting criteria. Several FDEP rules contain construction and operation 

requirements, minimum setbacks, and ground water monitoring criteria. 

Most permitted discharges to ground water are required to submit and implement a ground 

water monitoring plan showing the location of the proposed upgradient and downgradient 

monitoring wells, construction details, and a ground water sampling and analysis protocol. At a 

minimum, these plans require three monitoring wells: a background well, an intermediate well, 

and a compliance well. These wells are generally sampled quarterly by the permittee, and the 

analysis is submitted to FDEP to ensure compliance with Florida’s ground water standards. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

153

CHAPTER 10: RESULTS OF THE 

GROUND WATER ASSESSMENTS 

Overall Ground Water Quality

Data from the in-house ground water monitoring program were used to evaluate the overall 

quality of ground water based on several categories of primary ground water MCLs. The data 

were sorted into analyte groups, and an “indicator” analyte was selected to determine ground 

water quality for wells in each of the basins. The groups used in this evaluation include metals, 

bacteria, nitrate, and saline water, which represent some of the most common threats to 

drinking water noted by the EPA in national surveys. Organics and radionuclides were not 

included in the Status Network parameter list but are addressed in a later section. The ground 

water evaluation used the same source of data as the Status and Trends reporting in Chapter 5. 

This evaluation also provided information by basin rather than statewide as was done with the 

assessments reported in Chapter 5. 

The wells used in this statewide evaluation of overall ground water quality consist of a mixture of 

drinking water, irrigation, production, and monitoring wells used by FDEP for monitoring ground 

water quality. It should also be noted that the main network from which these data were 

obtained uses randomly selected wells for each sampling cycle, and new wells are sampled 

each time a basin is sampled. These data are meant to represent general basin-scale 

conditions, and there is no attempt to target specific localized ground water problem areas. 

Thus, for the purposes of this analysis the water quality in these wells represents overall ground 

water conditions. 

Table 10.1 presents the results of this evaluation, with the results provided by individual basin 

and combined for statewide statistics. The results in the table are further broken down to show 

the results from the past two years and prior data back to 2000. Older (pre-2000) data may 

include nonrepresentative artifacts from sample collection and analysis, and so these were not 

included in the assessment. Overall, bacteria (as total coliform) and salinity (as sodium) were 

the analyte groups with the largest percentage of MCL exceedances in ground water samples. 

Coliform bacteria can occur in well casing and water distribution systems, and their detection in 

water samples from wells may not always indicate a ground water contamination problem. For 

that reason, coliform data should always be scrutinized carefully. The next section on Ground 

Water Issues and Contaminants of Concern discusses the occurrence of coliform bacteria in 

ground water in greater detail. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

154

Table 10.1. Summary of Percent Ground Water Samples Achieving Primary Ground Water Standards for Selected Analytes by Basin

This is a six-column table. Column 1 lists the basins, and Columns 2 through 6 list the results for arsenic, lead, total coliform, nitrate + nitrite (as N), and total sodium, 

respectively, in 2000–09 and 2009–11.

Notes: Data are from FDEP’s Status and Trends Network. For some basins, datasets are limited. Values for basins with five or fewer samples are indicated by shading and boldface type. 1 Metals assessments were conducted for arsenic (As) and lead (Pb), the two primary metals most commonly exceeding their MCL. 

N/A = Not available

Basin

Metals, Arsenic1

2000–09 / 2009-11

Metals, Lead1

2000–09 / 2009–11

Coliform, Total

2000–09 / 2009-11

Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)

2000–09 / 2009–11

Sodium, Total

2000–09 / 2009–11

Apalachicola–Chipola 100% - 97% 100% - 100% 93% - 85% 100% - 96% 100% - 100%

Caloosahatchee 93% - 95% 98% - 100% 69% - 58% 100% - 100% 71% - 88%

Charlotte Harbor 95% - 100% 97% - 100% 86% - 100% 100% - 100% 56% - 50%

Choctawhatchee–St. Andrew 100% - 100% 99% - 96% 91% - 93% 100% - 100% 99% - 100%

Everglades 100% - 100% 100% - 100% 72% - 80% 96% - 100% 96% - 100%

Everglades West Coast 93% - 97% 87% - 87% 76% - 67% 100% - 100% 72% - 74%

Fisheating Creek 100% - 100% 100% - 100% 96% - 75% 100% - 100% 89% - 75%

Florida Keys 87% - N/A 100% - N/A 75% - N/A 100% - N/A 0% - N/A

Indian River Lagoon 96% - 75% 98% - 75% 86% - 100% 98% - 100% 70% - 100%

Kissimmee River 100% - 100% 97% - 96% 88% - 81% 91% - 96% 98% - 100%

Lake Okeechobee 100% - 100% 97% - 100% 98% - 100% 100% - 100% 78% - 67%

Lake Worth Lagoon– 

Palm Beach Coast 91% - 100% 87% - 100% 69% - 80% 100% - 100% 100% - 100%

Lower St. Johns 100% - 95% 100% - 100% 81% - 74% 100% - 100% 97% - 85%

Middle St. Johns 100% - 100% 97% - 100% 76% - 46% 95% - 100% 90% - 92%

Nassau–St. Marys 98% - 100% 96% - 100% 89% - 70% 100% - 100% 98% - 100%

Ochlockonee–St. Marks 97% - 94% 100% - 100% 73% - 87% 100% - 100% 99% - 100%

Ocklawaha 97% - 100% 97% - 95% 70% - 84% 100% - 96% 98% - 100%

Pensacola 100% - 100% 98% - 100% 92% - 100% 100% - 100% 98% - 100%

Perdido 100% - 100% 97% - 100% 97% - 100% 100% - 100% 97% - 100%

Sarasota Bay–Peace–Myakka 97% - 100% 100% - 89% 64% - 65% 100% - 100% 93% - 93%

Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay 100% - 100% 98% - 92% 59% - 50% 100% - 100% 91% - 100%

Springs Coast 89% - 100% 97% - 87% 86% - 87% 100% - 100% 74% - 75%

St. Lucie–Loxahatchee 100% - 100% 95% - 100% 87% - 91% 100% - 91% 84% - 54%

Suwannee 97% - 97% 99% - 100% 85% - 82% 99% - 97% 96% - 98%

Tampa Bay 95% - 100% 97% - 100% 79% - 67% 100% - 100% 86% - 87%

Tampa Bay Tributaries 94% - 100% 98% - 100% 76% - 57% 100% - 100% 94% - 100%

Upper East Coast 98% - 100% 98% - 100% 84% - 75% 100% - 100% 77% - 100%

Upper St. Johns 98% - 89% 97% - 100% 92% - 89% 98% - 100% 87% - 56%

Withlacoochee 98% - 100% 97% - 100% 84% - 67% 96% - 100% 100% - 100%

STATEWIDE SUMMARY 97% - 98% 97% - 97% 82% - 79% 99% - 99% 86% - 89%
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

155

The statewide assessment shows that data from the past 2 years were similar to the 2000–09 

median in the number of samples achieving the MCL (79% compared with 82% of the samples). 

Table 10.1 shows the basins with the highest and lowest percentages of wells achieving the 

ground water standards. The Middle St Johns, Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay, Tampa Bay 

Tributaries, and Caloosahatchee Basins had the lowest percentage of wells achieving the MCL 

for total coliform in the recent 2-year period. As previously noted, some of the reported 

exceedances may not all be attributable to actual aquifer conditions.

Sodium can be used as an indicator of saline ground water influence on freshwater aquifers. 

Higher salinity can be related to increased ground water usage that creates the upward 

seepage of mineralized ground water from deeper aquifers or the lateral intrusion of seawater if 

wells are located in coastal areas. Saline water (as sodium) was found to be a potential issue in 

several of the basins based on their percentage of samples meeting the sodium MCL. The 

Caloosahatchee, Charlotte Harbor, St. Lucie–Loxahatchee, and Upper St. Johns Basins had the 

lowest percentages of wells achieving the MCL. The statewide assessment shows that data 

from the past 2 years were similar to the 2000–09 median in the number of samples achieving 

the MCL (89% in comparison to 86% of the samples). Table 10.1 shows the basins with the 

highest and lowest percentages of ground water samples achieving the MCL for sodium. 

Statewide, one or more metals exceeding a primary ground water MCL occurred in only about 

3% of the samples. The most common metal with exceedances was arsenic. Lead also 

exceeded its MCL in a few instances. Elevated lead concentrations in samples are sometimes 

related to well casing or plumbing material, but when arsenic is found, it is most likely 

associated with an actual condition in the aquifer.

Nitrate - nitrogen is a conservative contaminant, and concentrations are not typically biased by 

well materials or sampling technique. The compound nitrite - nitrogen is seldom detected in 

ground water and, if present, occurs in only minute concentrations. Therefore, when 

concentrations of nitrate + nitrite - nitrogen are reported together, as they are in Table 10.1, it 

can be safely assumed that the value represents the nitrate concentration. Elevated nitrate 

levels reflect the presence of nutrient sources such as fertilizers, animal waste, or domestic 

wastewater. 

According to the statewide assessment, nitrate above the MCL is a concern in only 1% of the 

samples analyzed. Table 10.1 lists the basins with the highest and lowest percentage of 

samples achieving the MCL for nitrate. The vast majority of wells in the FDEP network that 

were sampled for nitrate were below the MCL. However, ground water samples from several 

basins exceeded the MCL. The basins with the lowest percentage of wells meeting the MCL for 

nitrate during the recent 2-year period were the St. Lucie–Loxahatchee, Kissimmee, Ocklawaha, 

and Apalachicola–Chipola Basins.

This analysis of the regional data shows that ground water quality in the state is good overall, 

when considering these parameters. However, it also indicates that there are some ground 

water quality issues in some basins. Depending on the contaminant, these can be very 

significant on a localized or regional scale. The following section describes the contaminants of 

concern in Florida and their observed occurrences in potable ground water. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

156

Ground Water Quality Issues and Contaminants of Concern, 

Including Potable Water Issues 

As discussed in the analysis of ambient data, the overall quality of ground water in Florida is 

good. However, there are ground water quality issues in specific areas. Private well sampling 

data and public water system data (which include both treated and raw water samples) were 

used to develop a summary of the categories of parameters that were most frequently found at 

levels exceeding primary MCLs in Florida’s aquifers used for potable supply. Data were 

obtained for an approximate 2-year period of record from November 2009 through October 

2011. The number and distribution of the samples that exceed specific MCLs for ground water 

during this period help identify current issues and contaminants of concern. The reporting of 

these exceedances in wells and water systems is not meant to imply that well owners or public 

water customers are consuming contaminated ground water. Alternative sources or treatment 

systems are provided to private well owners, and water from public water systems is most often 

treated but sometimes blended to reduce contaminants to safe levels.

Figure 10.1 summarizes statewide findings by contaminant category. Tables 10.2a and 10.2b 

summarize contaminant categories in each of the state’s 29 major basins, showing the numbers 

of exceedances reported for public water systems and private wells since the 2010 Integrated 

Report data were compiled. The data for this evaluation were compiled for an approximate 2-

year period (November 2009 through October 2011). The contaminant of concern categories 

include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides/synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs), 

nitrate, primary metals, salinity (measured as sodium), and radionuclides. This evaluation is 

limited to contaminants that have potable ground water primary MCLs. Although not included in 

the summary tables, trihalomethanes and bacteria are also significant contaminants affecting 

water supplies and are discussed in this section. 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Volatile organics can be highly mobile and persistent in ground water, and incidences of ground 

water contamination by VOCs have historically been fairly widespread in mainly urban areas. 

Table 10.2a summarizes the numbers of water systems and private wells for which samples 

contained above-MCL levels of VOCs that have primary drinking water MCLs. Only 8 public 

water systems had VOC exceedances during this 2-year period. A total of 93 private wells had 

VOC exceedances in the recent 2-year period, and of these the highest numbers of wells were 

in the Middle St. Johns Basin, followed by the Lower St. Johns Basin 

Benzene has historically been the compound that most frequently exceeded MCLs in each of 

the two sets of water quality data, followed by trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene 

(PCE). The VOCs with the most frequent MCL exceedances in the past two years in private 

wells were benzene, vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon 

tetrachloride. Based on the last two years of data, vinyl chloride was the VOC with the highest 

number of exceedances in public water systems, but exceedances were also noted for these 

same compounds found in private wells as well as tetrachloroethene and dichloromethane. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

157

Figure 10.1. Statewide Summary of Primary MCL Exceedances Reported for Untreated Public 

Water Systems and Private Wells in a Recent Two-Year Period 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

158

Table 10.2a. Summary of Recent Exceedances of Primary Ground Water Standards in Untreated 

Samples from Private Wells and Ground Water–Based Public Water Systems 

This is a seven-column table. Column 1 lists the basin and aquifer. Columns 2 and 3 list the number of public water 

systems and private wells, respectively, exceeding primary standards for VOCs since the 2010 report. Columns 4 

and 5 list the number of public/private exceedances, respectively, for pesticides/SOCs over the same period; and 

Columns 6 and 7 list the number of public/private exceedances, respectively, for nitrate.

1 Public water systems or private wells with samples that exceeded primary MCLs for VOCs, excluding trihalomethanes and 

ethylene dibromide (EDB). 2 Public water systems or private wells with samples that exceeded primary MCLs for pesticides (also known as SOCs). 3 Public systems or private wells with samples that exceeded MCLs for nitrate or nitrate + nitrite. 4 PWS data not restricted to wells only. Some parameter results are for other entry points into a system or composite samples. 

Data are from systems that operate their own wells. While individual sample results collected for this report may exceed an action 

level or MCL, that exceedance does not necessarily translate directly into a violation of water delivered to the consumer (1) because 

of the compositing or blending of water mentioned above, or (2) because averaging with subsequent samples was below the action 

level or MCL.

5 Private well sampling under the WSRP is targeted sampling conducted in areas of suspected contamination, and the parameters 

analyzed are specific to contaminants of concern. 

- = Empty cell/no data; ND = No data

- 

Contaminant Categories and Number of Private Well and Water 

Systems with Samples Exceeding Primary Standards 

(period of record November 2009–October 2011)

Basin—Aquifer

VOCs1 in Public Water Systems4VOCs1 in Private Wells (WSRP)5Pesticides/SOCs2 in Public Water Systems4Pesticides/SOCs2 in Private Wells (WSRP)5Nitrate3 in Public Water Systems4Nitrate3 in Private Wells (WSRP)5

Apalachicola–Chipola—Floridan Aquifer 0 1 1 24 0 6 

Caloosahatchee—Surficial Aquifer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Charlotte Harbor—Floridan Aquifer (SW) 0 5 0 0 0 0 

Choctawhatchee–St. Andrew—Floridan Aquifer 0 2 0 0 0 0 

Everglades—Surficial Aquifer (SW) 1 ND 0 0 0 ND

Everglades West Coast—Surficial Aquifer 0 0 0 0 0 ND

Fisheating Creek—Surficial Aquifer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Florida Keys—None 0 ND 0 ND 0 ND

Indian River Lagoon—Floridan and Surficial Aquifers 0 4 0 0 0 0 

Kissimmee River—Floridan, Intermediate, and Surficial 

Aquifers 1 3 0 15 2 25

Lake Okeechobee—Surficial Aquifer (SW) 0 0 0 0 0 ND

Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm Beach Coast—Surficial Aquifer 1 0 0 0 0 ND

Lower St. Johns—Floridan Aquifer 0 13 0 0 0 0 

Middle St. Johns—Floridan Aquifer 0 35 0 0 0 3 

Nassau–St. Marys—Floridan Aquifer 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ochlockonee–St. Marks—Floridan Aquifer 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Ocklawaha—Floridan Aquifer 2 5 1 23 0 12

Pensacola—Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer 0 0 2 1 0 0 

Perdido—Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer 0 0 0 0 0 ND

Sarasota Bay–Peace–Myakka—Floridan and Surficial 

Aquifers 0 4 1 31 1 31

Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay---Biscayne Aquifer 0 4 0 1 1 1 

Springs Coast—Floridan Aquifer 1 0 1 0 1 1 

St. Lucie–Loxahatchee—Surficial Aquifer 1 5 0 0 0 ND

Suwannee—Floridan Aquifer 1 4 0 0 2 3 

Tampa Bay—Floridan Aquifer 0 1 0 0 1 2 

Tampa Bay Tributaries—Floridan Aquifer 0 4 0 0 9 7 

Upper East Coast—Floridan Aquifer and Surficial Aquifer 0 1 0 0 0 ND

Upper St. Johns—Floridan Aquifer and Surficial Aquifer 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Withlacoochee—Floridan Aquifer 0 1 0 2 0 3 

STATEWIDE SUMMARY—All Results 8 93 6 98 17 94
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

159

Table 10.2b. Summary of Recent Exceedances of Primary Ground Water Standards in Untreated 

Samples from Private Wells and Ground Water–Based Public Water Systems 

This is a seven-column table. Column 1 lists the basin/aquifer. Columns 2 and 3 list the number of public water 

systems and private wells, respectively, exceeding primary standards for primary metals since the 2010 report. 

Columns 4 and 5 list the number of public/private exceedances, respectively, for saline water over the same period; 

and Columns 6 and 7 list the number of public/private exceedances, respectively, for radionuclides. 

1 Public water systems or private wells with samples that exceeded MCLs for primary metals. 2 Public water systems or private wells with samples that exceeded MCL for sodium, an indicator of salinity. 3 Public water systems or private wells with samples that exceeded MCL for radionuclides, measured as Radium-226, Radium-228, 

gross Alpha, and/or gross Beta.

4 PWS data not restricted to wells only. Some parameter results are for other entry points into a system or composite samples. 

Data are from systems that operate their own wells. While individual sample results collected for this report may exceed an action 

level or MCL, that exceedance does not necessarily translate directly into a violation for water delivered to the consumer (1) 

because of the compositing or blending of water mentioned above, or (2) because averaging with subsequent samples was below 

the action level or MCL.

5 Private well sampling under the WSRP is targeted sampling conducted in areas of suspected contamination, and the parameters 

analyzed are specific to contaminants of concern.

- = Empty cell/no data; ND = No data

-

Contaminant Categories and Number of Private Well and Water 

Systems with Samples Exceeding Primary Standards

(period of record November 2009–October 2011)

Basin—Aquifer

Primary Metals1in Public Water Systems4Primary Metals1in Private Wells (WSRP) 5Saline Water2 in Public Water Systems4Saline Water2 in Private Wells (WSRP) 5Radionuclides3in Public Water Systems 4Radionuclides3in Private Wells (WSRP) 5

Apalachicola–Chipola—Floridan Aquifer 0 2 0 0 0 ND

Caloosahatchee—Surficial Aquifer 0 0 2 ND 1 ND

Charlotte Harbor—Floridan Aquifer 0 1 2 ND 1 ND

Choctawhatchee–St. Andrew—Floridan Aquifer 0 3 1 0 0 ND

Everglades—Surficial Aquifer 0 ND 0 ND 0 ND

Everglades West Coast—Surficial Aquifer 1 1 2 ND 0 ND

Fisheating Creek—Surficial Aquifer 0 0 0 ND 0 ND

Florida Keys—None 0 ND 0 ND 0 ND

Indian River Lagoon—Floridan and Surficial Aquifers 0 0 2 ND 1 ND

Kissimmee River—Floridan, Intermediate, and Surficial Aquifers 1 2 0 0 3 ND

Lake Okeechobee—Surficial Aquifer 0 2 1 0 1 ND

Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm Beach Coast—Surficial Aquifer 1 1 2 ND 2 ND

Lower St. Johns—Floridan Aquifer 0 4 0 0 0 ND

Middle St. Johns—Floridan Aquifer 1 0 0 1 1 ND

Nassau–St. Marys—Floridan Aquifer 1 1 0 ND 0 ND

Ochlockonee–St. Marks—Floridan Aquifer 0 1 0 ND 0 ND

Ocklawaha—Floridan Aquifer 2 10 1 0 1 ND

Pensacola—Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer 0 0 2 0 2 ND

Perdido—Sand-and-Gravel Aquifer 0 0 0 0 1 ND

Sarasota Bay–Peace–Myakka—Floridan and Surficial Aquifers 1 8 5 0 18 ND

Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay–Biscayne Aquifer 2 6 0 ND 1 ND

Springs Coast—Floridan Aquifer 7 146 0 2 0 ND

St. Lucie–Loxahatchee—Surficial Aquifer 1 ND 2 ND 0 ND

Suwannee—Floridan Aquifer 1 135 0 ND 1 ND

Tampa Bay—Floridan Aquifer 4 17 2 0 4 ND

Tampa Bay Tributaries—Floridan Aquifer 15 107 0 0 7 ND

Upper East Coast—Floridan Aquifer and Surficial Aquifer 1 0 0 ND 0 ND

Upper St. Johns—Floridan Aquifer and Surficial Aquifer 2 9 1 ND 1 ND

Withlacoochee—Floridan Aquifer 2 138 1 0 1 ND

STATEWIDE SUMMARY—All Results 43 594 26 3 46 ND
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

160

Synthetic Organic Chemicals/Pesticides

Over the years, EDB is the compound that has most frequently been detected in public water 

systems and private drinking water wells in Florida. This nematocide, which was used heavily in 

the 1980s on citrus and other croplands, was found to be highly mobile and a threat to potable 

ground water supplies. In response to FDEP’s identification of EDB as an issue, FDOH 

conducted a comprehensive sampling program in areas where it was suspected to have been 

applied. In 16 basins, this work identified thousands of private drinking water wells 

contaminated by the compound, prompting the formal delineation of ground water contamination 

areas. Since the 1980s, EDB has been banned from use, but it is still detected in well water 

samples in areas where it was formerly used. 

Table 10.2a shows the distribution of MCL exceedances of SOCs/pesticides (mainly EDB) in 

samples reported for the recent 2-year period. Although much less widespread, EDB has also 

been found in some public water systems. Over the past 2 years, there were only 6 public 

water systems with SOC exceedances (2 for EDB). During that period, 98 private wells were 

found with exceedances, mainly for EDB. The majority of the private wells with exceedances 

were in the Sarasota–Peace–Myakka, Ocklawaha, Apalachicola, and Kissimmee Basins, and 

most exceedances were for EDB. The EDB concentrations in many of the private wells with 

earlier detections have decreased to below detection limits.

More recently applied pesticides such as bromacil and alachlor were detected at levels 

exceeding their human health criteria in private drinking water wells. Bromacil has a HAL, and 

alachlor has a primary MCL. Elevated detections of bromacil were found (mainly in the 1990s) 

in the citrus-growing area of central Florida, which includes parts of the Kissimmee, Tampa Bay 

Tributaries, Middle St. Johns, and Ocklawaha Basins. In the 1990s, both compounds were 

found (along with dieldrin) at elevated levels in numerous wells in an agricultural area of 

Jackson County in the Apalachicola–Chipola Basin. FDACS has since prohibited the 

application of bromacil in citrus areas with vulnerable soils and high leaching potential. Also, 

alachlor is now listed as a restricted use pesticide.

Dieldrin, an insecticide that the EPA banned from use in 1987, has become a significant 

concern in Florida in recent years due to ground water contamination. In 2005, FDOH issued a 

new HAL for dieldrin in ground water that significantly lowered the threshold used in Florida. As 

a result, exceedances of the HAL have become more prevalent. Significant clusters of private 

wells contaminated by dieldrin have been identified in Miami–Dade and Volusia Counties (the 

Biscayne Bay–Southeast Coast and Middle St. Johns Basins, respectively). Since 2005, 

samples from more than 400 wells have been found to exceed the Florida HAL. Dieldrin 

detections are not reflected in Table 10.2b, as the HAL has not been formally adopted by rule 

as a ground water MCL. 

Nitrate 

Elevated nitrate concentrations in ground water have been associated with inorganic fertilizers, 

animal waste and domestic wastewater and residuals (Harrington et al. 2010). Nitrate has 

occasionally been found at concentrations greater than the MCL of 10mg/L in public water 

systems, most commonly those in the Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin. Over the past 2 years, 

samples from 17 systems using ground water have reported nitrate detections above the MCL. 

Historically, most of the private wells with nitrate above the MCL were found in the Kissimmee, 

Ocklawaha Basin, and Sarasota Bay–Peace–Myakka Basins. Elevated concentrations of 

nitrate in private wells continue to be detected in FDOH sampling. For the recent 2-year period, 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

161

approximately 100 private wells had MCL exceedances. From previous years this is a 

decrease, but only because FDOH sampling resources have been focused on other 

contaminants of concern (arsenic and dieldrin). The distribution of public water systems and 

private wells with nitrate exceedances for the recent 2-year period is shown in Table 10.2a.

Nitrate contamination of ground water remains a significant issue in some areas of Florida. The 

basins with the highest number of MCL exceedances in water systems and wells include large 

citrus-growing areas or areas where citrus was previously grown on top of vulnerable aquifers. 

An area within portions of the Kissimmee and Ocklawaha Basins with the highest number of 

above-MCL concentrations of nitrate in private wells is known as the Ridge Citrus Area. In the 

early 1990s, FDACS began implementing a BMP program for growers in the Ridge Citrus Area 

to use fertilizers more efficiently and reduce nitrate concentrations in ground water. It is hoped 

that this program will eventually help to reduce the number of nitrate exceedances in wells in 

this area.

Primary Metals

Metals have been detected at concentrations above the MCL in public water systems. At times,

these detections have been due to the materials containing and conveying the water, rather 

than actual concentrations in ground water. Metal well casings, piping, storage tanks, and 

plumbing fixtures, in addition to sampling techniques, often cause bias in the analysis of ground 

water samples for metals. Lead and cadmium have historically been found at concentrations 

above the MCL in samples from public water systems, and both metals are very frequently 

associated with impurities in water distribution and storage systems. Galvanized coatings on 

metal surfaces, paint, and lead solder are documented sources of metals contamination in water 

systems. 

Arsenic has recently arisen as the metal of concern in public water systems and private wells. 

In the past 2 years, there have been 43 metals exceedances in samples from public water 

systems. The Tampa Bay Tributaries and Springs Coast Basins have had the highest number 

of water systems reporting samples with concentrations above the MCL in the past 2 years, 

primarily for arsenic and lead. In the past 2 years, a total of 594 private wells sampled have had 

exceedances for primary metals, mainly arsenic and to a lesser extent lead. The basins with 

the highest number of wells with exceedances for the recent 2-year period are the Springs 

Coast, Withlacoochee, Suwannee, and Tampa Bay Tributaries Basins. Lead, again, may be an 

artifact of well materials, piping, or plumbing fixtures, but arsenic, which is responsible for the 

vast majority of exceedances, is not typically associated with any of these. Table 10.2b

summarizes the exceedances of MCLs for primary metals during the recent 2-year period.

Arsenic in ground water may be naturally occurring, of anthropogenic origin due to humaninduced geochemical changes, or a true contaminant released as a result of human activities. 

Throughout Florida, arsenic is a stable element associated with the minor mineral pyrite. In 

addition, a recent unpublished study suggests that arsenic may occur in association with the 

mineral powellite, although much less is known about its distribution in Florida rocks. The 

prevalence of elevated arsenic detections in the southwest Florida basins and the Suwannee 

Basin may be due to the chemical makeup of the aquifer in these areas. 

In addition to this natural source, potential anthropogenic sources include arsenic-based 

pesticides applied to cotton fields; citrus groves; road, railroad, and power line rights-of way; golf 

courses; and cattle-dipping vats (which were reportedly used until the 1960s). In recent years, 

the use of arsenical pesticides has significantly decreased, and as of 2012 its use is restricted 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

162

only to cotton fields. However, residues from past use, when bound to soil particles, do not 

readily dissipate. Higher numbers of reported exceedances may be considered an artifact of 

the change in the EPA arsenic standard for ground water, which was reduced from 50 to 10 

μg/L in 2001, and was fully implemented in 2006.

Recent studies indicate that human disturbance which introduces water or oxygen into arsenicbearing limestone leads to the release of soluble arsenic from the rock matrix. Activities such 

as mining, well drilling, stormwater discharge into drainage wells, Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

(ASR) projects (Arthur et al. 2002; Price and Pichler 2006), and overpumping can potentially 

release previously stable arsenic into ground water. In addition, drought can lower the water 

table, allowing oxygen to permeate the aquifer matrix and cause the release of arsenic 

compounds from limestone. 

Saline Water 

Saltwater intrusion has been a well-documented concern in some coastal areas of the state 

where the wedge of salt water is drawn inland by well pumpage and dewatering of wetland 

areas (Harrington et al. 2010). In several areas of the state, not necessarily on the coast, the 

upward seepage of brackish water from deeper zones has also been an issue. In this 

assessment, an exceedance of the MCL for sodium was used as an indicator of possible saline 

water impacts. 

Historically, elevated sodium concentrations were found in samples from public water systems 

in the Tampa Bay Tributaries, Middle St. Johns, and Ocklawaha Basins. Over the recent 2-year 

period, however, 26 public water systems scattered among 14 basins reported sodium 

exceedances. Although private wells are not frequently sampled for sodium, data from the 

recent 2-year period show that 3 private well samples in the Lower St. Johns, Middle St. Johns, 

and Sarasota Bay–Peace–Myakka Basins have exceeded the MCL. Table 10.2b summarizes 

these results for the recent 2-year period for the state’s basins. 

Public drinking water supplies with the highest number of sodium exceedances are typically in 

areas of the state where consumptive use has caused saline water to migrate into potable 

aquifers. Protracted drought conditions and the increased consumption of ground water in 

Florida are probable causes of these exceedances. Florida’s WMDs have been working on 

alternative water supplies in areas of the state where this is a problem. 

Radionuclides

In Florida, most elevated radionuclide levels are due to natural conditions, but these conditions 

may still result in MCL exceedances and a potential health concern. Radionuclides occur 

naturally as trace elements in rock and soil as a consequence of the radioactive decay of 

uranium-238 (U-238) and thorium-232 (Th-232). Elevated radionuclide levels occur most 

commonly from phosphate mineral deposits that are present throughout much of the state. 

Measurements for radionuclides in ground water include gross Alpha, gross Beta, and analysis 

for the isotopes radium 226 and radium 228. Of these, gross Alpha is the most commonly 

measured parameter. Table 10.2b summarizes radionuclide MCL exceedances in water from 

public water systems. There have been no samples collected from private wells for 

radionuclides in the past two years.

Historically, public water systems in the west-central area of the state have most frequently had 

MCL exceedances for radionuclides. Over the two-year period, samples of ground water from 

46 public water systems exceeded MCLs for radionuclides. Most were from systems in the 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

163

Sarasota Bay–Peace–Myakka and Tampa Bay Tributaries Basins where natural phosphate is 

abundant. These basins include one of the three largest phosphate-mining areas in the world 

that encompasses large areas of Manatee, Sarasota, Polk, and Hillsborough Counties. FDOH 

infrequently samples private wells for radionuclides, and there are no private well data from the 

recent two-year period. Historically, based on limited data, the highest number of MCL 

exceedances in private wells was in the Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin.

Trihalomethanes

Trihalomethanes (THMs) are an unfortunate byproduct of chlorinating source water that 

contains organic matter and are not normally an issue with the actual ground water resource. 

Chlorination is a disinfection treatment practiced by public water systems to kill potentially 

harmful bacteria. Unlike a number of states, Florida requires public water systems to provide 

disinfection. Chloroform, dibromochloromethane, bromodichloromethane, and bromoform are 

the most common THMs found in treated water. Some public water systems are using 

alternative disinfection methods (such as the use of chloramine) to reduce or eliminate the 

creation of THMs.

Bacteria (Coliform)

Bacteria are not typically a concern to public water systems, because the water is disinfected 

before distribution. However, the bacterial contamination of private drinking water wells is a 

common issue addressed by FDOH. Unfortunately, the number of bacterial exceedances in 

private wells is poorly documented and not maintained in a central database. Of all water 

quality issues evaluated, bacterial contamination, as indicated by elevated total coliform counts, 

is one of the most prevalent issues in ground water samples collected from monitoring wells 

(Table 10.1). 

However, the significance of bacteria in water samples as it relates to the ground water 

resource must still be determined. The presence of bacteria may be a result of improper well 

construction, poor hygiene at the wellhead, animal waste or septic tank issues and/or flooding, 

and the surface water infiltration of a water system. These considerations highlight the fact that 

individual well assessments are necessary, and that in many cases, bacterial contamination is 

localized and may not be an issue outside of the individual wells themselves.

Summary of Ground Water Contaminant Sources 

The EPA’s 2004 Florida Source Water Assessment identified the top five potential sources of 

contamination in Florida. These are (1) underground storage tanks (not leaking), (2) gasoline 

service stations (including historical gas stations), (3) municipal sanitary waste treatment and 

disposal (commercial, domestic, and industrial waste), (4) known contamination sites/plumes 

(equivalent to FDEP’s delineated areas), and (5) drycleaning facilities. Several of these have 

commonly been the focus of waste cleanup and monitoring activities in Florida. 

However, there are also instances where ground water has been degraded as the result of 

nonpoint activities. This section discusses the most significant ground water degradation 

sources, based on waste cleanup, monitoring, and restoration actions taken by FDEP and other 

agencies concerned with ground water quality.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

164

Petroleum Facilities

FDEP’s Storage Tank Contamination Monitoring (STCM) contains information on all storage 

tank facilities registered with FDEP and tracked for active storage tanks, storage tank history, or 

petroleum cleanup activity. Currently, the STCM database lists approximately 64,000 registered 

petroleum storage tanks, and it shows that approximately 25,000 storage tank facilities have 

had documented ground water contamination by petroleum constituents. Petroleum sites and 

petroleum problems are concentrated in the most populated areas of the state, as well as along 

major transportation corridors. The main petroleum constituents found in ground water are 

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and methyl tert-butyl ether. Contaminants at older 

petroleum sites may also contain lead and EDB.

Florida’s Petroleum Cleanup Program encompasses the technical oversight, management, and 

administrative activities necessary to prioritize, assess, and clean up sites contaminated by the 

discharges of petroleum and petroleum products from stationary petroleum storage systems. 

These include sites determined to be eligible for state-funded cleanup using preapproved

contractors designated by the property owner or responsible party and state lead contractors 

under direct contract with FDEP, as well as nonprogram or voluntary cleanup sites funded by 

responsible parties.

Drycleaning Solvent Facilities

Approximately 1,400 drycleaning facilities (mainly retail) have signed up for eligibility for 

contaminant cleanup under FDEP’s Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program (DSCP) due to 

evidence of contamination. Of those, approximately 190 are actively being assessed and may 

be under remedial action. Drycleaning solvent constituents (PCE, TCE, dichloroethenes, and 

vinyl chloride) are among the most mobile and persistent contaminants in the environment.

The Florida Legislature established a state-funded program, administered by FDEP, to clean up 

properties that are contaminated as a result of the operations of a drycleaning facility or 

wholesale supply facility (Chapter 376, F.S.). The drycleaning industry sponsored the statute to 

address environmental, economic, and liability issues resulting from drycleaning solvent 

contamination. The program limits the liability of the owner, operator, and real property owner 

of drycleaning or wholesale supply facilities for cleaning up drycleaning solvent contamination, if 

the parties meet the eligibility conditions stated in the law.

Federal and State Waste Cleanup and Monitoring Sites

The Federal Superfund Program (authorized under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response Compensation and Liability Act [CERCLA]) and Florida’s Hazardous Waste Site 

Cleanup Program were developed to provide mechanisms for addressing contamination on 

uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. In the state, there are currently 50

Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) and 72 sites on Florida’s Hazardous Waste 

Cleanup Program list. Many of these sites have documented ground water contamination.

Nonpoint Sources

Degraded ground water quality is sometimes not associated with a single contaminant source 

but instead may be related to multiple sources or land use practices in an area. In many cases, 

the cumulative effect of human activities through leaching from nonpoint sources of pollution 

creates ground water quality problems. In urban areas, ground water can receive contaminants 

from a variety of sources, including residential septic systems, leaking sewer lines, urban 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

165

stormwater, residential fertilizers and pesticide applications, and pet waste. In more rural areas, 

significant nonpoint sources can include fertilizers and pesticides used on agricultural fields, 

animal wastes from pastures and confined animal feeding operations, wastewater application

sites, and road and utility rights-of-way. The magnitude of the impacts to ground water is highly 

dependent on the vulnerability of the ground water resource. Ground water is particularly 

vulnerable in karst (limestone) areas, where it is not protected and discharges can have a direct, 

unfiltered pathway to the drinking water resource via sinkholes. 

Unfortunately, the potable ground water resource in some areas dominated by agricultural 

activities is often susceptible to direct impacts by fertilizer and agrichemical use. The Ridge 

citrus area in central Florida, mentioned previously, is an example of an area with known nitrate 

impacts to ground water. Ridge citrus growers are encouraged to address nonpoint impacts 

through the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Program, using voluntary fertilizer management 

practices as a primary BMP to reduce their inputs of nitrate to ground water. This work has

served as a model for the development of other BMPs to protect ground water from 

contamination caused by the use of fertilizers on agricultural lands. Similar BMPs have been 

developed to help address urban sources of nutrients. These BMP programs can help reduce 

the contamination of ground water from some of these nonpoint sources. 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interaction 

Setting and Pathways 

The dependence of Florida’s surface waters on ground water contributions cannot be 

overemphasized. For example, in many areas surface water flows into ground water through 

sinkholes or reversing springs. As mentioned previously, spring-fed stream systems can 

depend almost entirely on ground water discharge. Canals can also contain mostly ground 

water. Other streams and lakes may receive over half of their total inflows via ground water 

seepage, and natural estuaries rely on ground water seepage as a significant source of fresh 

water. In areas where the Floridan aquifer system is near the surface, and in southern parts of 

the state where porous limestone is present near the surface, conduit systems in the limestone 

material efficiently deliver ground water to streams and canals at high rates. In other areas of 

the state, ground water discharge occurs as seepage from the surficial aquifer system.

Ground Water Influence on Impaired Surface Waters 

Nutrients, DO, and iron are the ground water parameters most likely to influence water quality in 

impaired or potentially impaired surface waters. Table 10.3 summarizes the median 

concentrations of these parameters in unconfined aquifers of the state’s 29 major basins and 

compares them against typical values for Florida’s streams. 

The addition of relatively low concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus can create nutrient 

imbalances in surface water and contribute to impairments. Nitrate is always attributable to 

human influence, but in Florida phosphorus can be naturally occurring.

Nitrate in ground water is associated with anthropogenic sources such as atmospheric 

deposition, fertilizers, animal waste, and human wastewater. Elevated nitrogen concentrations 

are of particular concern to clear-water surface water systems, such as some rivers and 

estuaries, where algal smothering and excessive chlorophyll in the water column can cause 

biological imbalances. Elevated nitrate is a significant issue with springs, as discussed in a

following section. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

166

The more common anthropogenic sources of phosphorus include fertilizers, animal waste, and 

domestic wastewater/residuals. However, in much of the state naturally occurring phosphate is 

a significant source of phosphorus in surface waters. In several of Florida’s basins, phosphorus 

occurs naturally at high concentrations in ground water because of its contact with mineral 

phosphate in the aquifer material. Phosphorus in ground water in several basins along the east 

coast is also elevated and is most likely derived from phosphatic sands and shell beds that 

make up the aquifer material. 

Low DO is a normal characteristic of ground water. Depressed DO in springs, spring runs, 

spring-fed rivers, and many drainage canals is often primarily or entirely attributable to ground 

water inflows. In instances where ground water contributions to surface waterbodies are high, 

low DO is a typical consequence, and many DO exceedances in Florida waters are partially 

attributable to ground water.

Iron is another ground water constituent that occurs at high concentrations naturally due to the 

leaching of ferric iron from iron-rich clay soils and sediment. Iron in the environment also has an 

affinity for organic materials. Streams that are high in iron concentration typically tend to have a 

high to moderate ground water component, low DO, and high dissolved organic carbon content. 

Many of the iron exceedances in surface waters in Florida are due to this set of natural 

conditions.

Specific conductance is also sometimes an indicator of ground water discharge to surface 

waters. In some basins, the specific conductance of ground water discharging to surface water 

(quite often via springs) is higher than 1,000 microSiemens per centimeter (μS/cm), which may 

reflect an exceedance of the specific conductance criterion for fresh surface waters (the criterion 

is stated as 50% above background or 1,275 μS/cm, whichever is higher). 

Springs and Spring-Related Issues 

Nutrient overenrichment causes the impairment of many surface waters, including springs. The 

two major nutrients that are monitored are nitrogen and phosphorus, which are essential 

nutrients to plant life, including algae. For aquatic vegetation and algae to grow, both nutrients 

have to be present. In fact, one can be present in excess but if the other is not present, the 

overgrowth of vegetation or algae is not likely to occur. Historically, many spring systems have 

had sufficient phosphorus to cause an overabundance of plant growth, but this was limited by 

very low concentrations of nitrogen. With increases in nitrate due to human influences, these 

springs have become impaired due to algal smothering. A detailed report on the water quality of 

springs in Florida was prepared by Harrington et al. (2010).

Historically, nitrogen was only a minor constituent of spring water, and typical nitrate 

concentrations in Florida were less than 0.2 mg/L until the early 1970s. However, increases in 

fertilizer use, intensive animal feeding operations, and the development of population centers 

near springs have caused increases in nitrate concentrations in ground water and springs. 

Now, nitrate concentrations greater than 1 mg/L are found in many springs. Data from the 

Spring Monitoring Network indicate that elevated nitrate (expressed as nitrate + nitrite – total) is 

a widespread problem (Figure 10.2), and with sufficient phosphorus in the water column, 

seemingly low nitrate concentrations can actually cause a significant shift in the balance of 

spring ecological communities, leading to the degradation of biological systems due to the 

increased growth of algae and sometimes aquatic plants. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

167

Table 10.3. Median Concentrations of Ground Water–Surface Water Constituents in Unconfined Aquifers (2000–11)

This is a six-column table. Column 1 lists the individual basins, Column 2 lists the median concentration for nitrate + nitrite (as N), Column 3 for phosphorus, 

Column 4 for DO, Column 5 for iron, and Column 6 for specific conductance.

Notes: Ground water data provided from FDEP Status and Trends Network, all representing unconfined aquifers that have the potential to interact with surface water. For some 

basins, datasets are limited.

* An asterisk and boldface type indicate values that are concentrations higher (or in the case of DO, lower) than median values for typical streams in Florida (per Hand et al. 2009). 

Basin

Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 

(mg/L)

TP 

(mg/L)

DO 

(mg/L)

Iron 

(μg/L)

Specific 

Conductance 

(μS/cm)

Apalachicola–Chipola 1.7* 0.012 5.91 20.5 160

Caloosahatchee 0.005 0.053 0.67* 1,330* 830*

Charlotte Harbor 0.01 0.044 0.58* 846* 970*

Choctawhatchee–St. Andrew 0.19* 0.011 5.07* 59 77

Everglades 0.006 0.015 0.56* 15 1,260*

Everglades West Coast 0.006 0.044 0.46* 770* 762*

Fisheating Creek 0.012 0.032 0.62* 259 197

Florida Keys 0.005 0.019 1.29* 57.5 5,400*

Indian River Lagoon 0.013 0.19* 0.70* 780* 1,010*

Kissimmee River 0.28* 0.042 0.99* 467* 302

Lake Okeechobee 0.002 0.23* 0.3* 620* 488*

Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm Beach Coast 0.002 0.55* 0.23* 289 684*

Lower St. Johns 0.009 0.046 0.65* 389* 186

Middle St. Johns 0.037 0.042 1.28* 680* 170

Nassau–St. Marys 0.007 0.065 0.98* 408* 252*

Ochlockonee–St. Marks 0.1* 0.024 2.5* 188 170

Ocklawaha 0.6* 0.091* 3.79* 115 320*

Pensacola 0.3* 0.002 7.54 24 30

Perdido 0.35* 0.002 6.45 50.5 39

Sarasota Bay–Peace–Myakka 0.01 0.26* 1.19* 1,325* 404*

Southeast Coast–Biscayne Bay 0.13* 0.014 1.63* 564* 625*

Springs Coast 0.024 0.052 1.17* 710* 397*

St. Lucie–Loxahatchee 0.01 0.12* 0.19* 1,100* 737*

Suwannee 0.097* 0.054 1.98* 297 383*

Tampa Bay 0.014 0.039 0.54* 583* 760*

Tampa Bay Tributaries 0.0125 0.088* 1.1* 1,059* 215

Upper East Coast 0.013 0.26* 0.59* 820* 735*

Upper St. Johns 0.002 0.195* 0.8* 744* 578*

Withlacoochee 0.02 0.056 0.84* 1,030* 401*

Statewide 0.18* 0.014 0.36* 381* 390*

Typical Value for Streams in Florida 0.051 0.076 5.8 367 251
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

168

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Research into the relationship of nutrients to algal growth in springs has led FDEP and the EPA

to propose a surface water criterion of 0.35 mg/L for nitrate in springs. Based on the past 2 

years of monitoring data, the median nitrate + nitrite concentration for all springs with recent 

FDEP data was 0.62 mg/L, nearly twice as high as this proposed criterion. Based on the 

proposed criterion, about three-quarters (over 74%) of the springs in this dataset have median 

nitrate + nitrite concentrations high enough to promote algal growth problems. Jackson Blue, 

Fanning, Apopka, and Lithia Major Springs are among the most nitrate-laden springs in the 

network, with nitrate + nitrite concentrations approaching 3 mg/L or higher. Of these, Fanning 

Spring has the highest median nitrate + nitrite concentration (5 mg/L). It is noteworthy that 

these 3 springs are located in areas that are dominated by agriculture and/or former agricultural 

areas undergoing urbanization. 

Today, only a small number of springs in the state exhibit nitrate concentrations close to 

predevelopment conditions. The nitrate detected in these background springs must be due to 

atmospheric deposition, since they are mostly located in remote settings such as national 

forests. Some springs previously considered as background springs have had increases in their 

nitrate concentrations to the point that they are no longer considered as such. This may be due 

to increased atmospheric deposition or other factors. 

Phosphorus

Phosphorus is measured as both TP and orthophosphate by the spring monitoring program. TP 

consists of organic and inorganic fractions. The soluble inorganic form of phosphorus is 

orthophosphate. There is very little organic phosphorus in ground water and, with few 

exceptions, only inorganic (orthophosphate) is found in springs. Orthophosphate is the natural 

form of phosphorus found in geologic material and also the form of phosphorus found in 

conventional fertilizers. Throughout much of Florida, the Miocene-age Hawthorn Group 

comprises a massive geologic unit that is naturally rich in phosphorus. This material lies on top 

of the porous and permeable limestone in which spring systems occur, and it can provide a 

continuing source of phosphorus to ground water. 

The natural abundance of phosphorus varies across the state, and as a result background 

ground water concentrations vary. Table 10.3 summarizes the median phosphorus 

concentrations in ground water of the nine basins that have springs.

Springs in the Suwannee and Middle St. Johns River Basins have the highest orthophosphate 

concentrations, with many springs in these basins having phosphorus concentrations 

significantly higher than the median value of 0.03 mg/L for all the springs in the recent two-year 

dataset (Figure 10.3). The springs with the highest orthophosphate concentrations are Rock, 

Hornsby, Volusia Blue, Fanning, Ichetucknee Group, and DeLeon. In contrast, springs in the 

Choctawhatchee–St. Andrew Basin have low concentrations of phosphorus, which is consistent 

with ground water concentrations. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

169

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Figure 10.2. Median Nitrate + Nitrite Concentrations in the Spring Network (2001–06) 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

170

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Figure 10.3. Median Orthophosphate Concentrations in the Spring Network, 2001–06
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

171

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

CHAPTER 11: WATER PROTECTION 

AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS

Maintaining overall water quality and supplies, protecting potable water supplies, satisfying 

competing and rapidly increasing demands for finite quantities of fresh water, minimizing 

damage to future water reserves, addressing habitat loss and associated aquatic life use, and 

ensuring healthy populations of fish and wildlife are major objectives of water resource 

management and protection. To meet these objectives, many different programs and agencies 

throughout the state, including FDEP, work to address activities and problems that affect 

surface water and ground water quality and quantity. In cooperation with other agencies and 

stakeholders, FDEP has also initiated a number of programs and activities, which are discussed 

in this chapter, to expand the scientific understanding of Florida’s water resources and improve 

the protection, management, and restoration of surface water and ground water. 

Florida’s Water Resource Management Programs

In 1972, the Florida Legislature, recognizing the importance of the state’s water resources, 

passed the Florida Water Resources Act, 373, F.S., and the Florida Air and Water Pollution 

Control Act, Chapter 403, F.S. Many goals and policies in the State Comprehensive Plan, 

Chapter 187, F.S., also address water resources and natural systems protection. 

In addition to the FDEP district offices around the state, Florida is unique in that there are also 

five regional WMDs, as follows, broadly established along natural watershed boundaries: 

• Northwest Florida; 

• St. Johns River; 

• Southwest Florida; 

• South Florida; and

• Suwannee River. 

The statute gives FDEP “general supervisory authority” over the districts and the authority to 

exercise any power authorized to be exercised by the districts. FDEP exercises its general 

supervisory authority through several means, including reviewing and approving district rules, 

carrying out coordinated planning, and providing program, policy, and rule guidance through the 

Water Resource Implementation Rule (Rule 62-40, F.A.C.).

This approach combines state-level oversight with regional decision making. It facilitates 

appropriate statewide consistency in the application of Florida water law, while maintaining 

regional flexibility where necessary to accommodate the wide-ranging climatic, geological, and 

environmental conditions that affect the state’s water resources.

The water management activities of FDEP and the WMDs are divided into the following four 

areas of responsibility:

• Water Supply: Promoting the availability of sufficient water for all existing and future 

reasonable and beneficial uses and natural systems.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

172

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

• Flood Protection and Floodplain Management: Preventing or minimizing damage from 

floods, and protecting and enhancing the natural system values of floodplains.

• Water Quality Management: Improving, protecting, and maintaining the quality of surface 

and ground water. 

• Natural System Management: Preserving, protecting, and restoring natural systems.

These responsibilities are carried out through a variety of activities, including planning, 

watershed management, assessment through the application of water quality standards, the 

management of nonpoint source pollution, wastewater facilities permitting, ambient water quality 

monitoring, ground water protection, educational programs, and land management. 

Overview of Surface Water Monitoring Programs 

Watershed-Based Monitoring and Reporting

Different types of monitoring, ranging from the general to the specific, are needed to answer 

questions about water quality at varying scales. Questions may pertain to larger national, 

statewide, or regional/local conditions; whether trends exist in water quality over time; or 

whether there are problems in individual surface or ground waters. Other monitoring may 

include gathering project-specific information to develop standards or to fill data gaps if there is 

a need to address specific regulatory problems. To that end, FDEP has developed diverse 

monitoring programs to resolve questions in response to these needs. 

FDEP has embraced a tiered monitoring approach and is reporting the results of statewide 

ambient monitoring networks (Tier I; Chapter 5 and Chapter 6), strategic monitoring for the 

verification of impairment and identification of causative pollutants, (Tier II; Chapter 7 and 

Chapter 8,) and specialized, site-specific monitoring (Tier III). Tier I consists of FDEP’s 

statewide Status Monitoring (probabilistic) and Trend Monitoring Networks, TMDL basin- and 

waterbody-specific monitoring, and site-specific monitoring for special projects and regulatory 

needs, such as statewide DO and nutrient criteria monitoring.

The Tier I Status Network used a statewide probabilistic monitoring design to estimate water 

quality across the entire state during 2009–10, based on a representative subsample of water 

resource types. These estimates are based on a variety of threshold values, including water 

quality standards, water quality indices, and other appropriate ecological indicators. The Trend 

Network uses a fixed station design to examine changes in water quality over time in select river 

and stream sites throughout the state. 

Strategic monitoring (Tier II) includes monitoring designed to address data gaps in order to 

verify impairment in potentially impaired waterbodies and monitoring in response to citizen 

concerns and environmental emergencies. Another example, the Spring Monitoring Program, 

encompasses all of the extensive monitoring activities begun in 1999 to address the needs of 

Florida’s freshwater spring systems, a fragile and unique resource type that is at risk.

Tier III monitoring addresses questions that are regulatory in nature or that support specific 

program needs and quality objectives. Examples include monitoring to determine whether 

moderating provisions such as SSACs should apply to certain waters, monitoring tied to 

regulatory permits issued by FDEP (including fifth-year inspections of wastewater facilities 

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Program), intensive 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

173

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

surveys for the development of TMDLs, monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs, and 

monitoring to establish or revise state water quality standards.

Each of FDEP’s core monitoring programs has a monitoring design, a list of core and 

supplemental water quality indicators, and specific procedures for quality assurance, data 

management, data analysis and assessment, reporting, and programmatic evaluation. FDEP 

relies on both chemical and biological sampling in all of its monitoring programs and conducts 

the bulk of the biological sampling statewide. The remainder of this chapter contains 

information about these programs, their objectives, and the results of each of their efforts.

Overview of Surface Water Protection Programs 

Water Quality Standards Program

Florida’s surface water quality standards are described in Rule 62-302, F.A.C. The components 

of this system, which are described below, include water quality classifications; water quality 

criteria; an antidegradation policy; and moderating provisions.

Water Quality Classifications

Florida’s Water Quality Standards Program, the foundation of the state’s program of water 

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

the state (Subsection 403.061[10], F.S.). Florida’s surface water is protected for five designated 

use classifications, as follows:

 Class I Potable water supplies

 Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting

 Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, wellbalanced population of fish and wildlife

 Class IV Agricultural water supplies (large agricultural lands, located mainly 

around Lake Okeechobee)

 Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters 

currently in this class)

Class I waters generally have the most stringent water quality criteria and Class V the least. 

However, Class I, II, and III surface waters share water quality criteria established to protect 

recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish 

and wildlife. All waters of the state are considered to be Class III, except for those specifically 

identified in Section 62-302.600, F.A.C. All waters of the state are required to meet the 

“Minimum Criteria for Surface Waters,” as identified in Section 62-302.500, F.A.C.

FDEP has proposed the establishment of a Class III subclassification (Class III Limited) for 

some wholly artificial and altered waters, in acknowledgment that many of these waters have 

physical or habitat limitations that preclude support of the same type of aquatic ecosystem as a 

natural stream or lake. Chapter 7 discusses the relationship between the state and the EPA’s 

designated use classifications.

Water Quality Criteria

Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specific parameters, describe 

the water quality necessary to maintain designated uses (such as fishing, swimming, and 

drinking water) for surface water and ground water. These criteria are presented in Rule 62-

302, F.A.C., and specifically in Section 62-302.530, F.A.C.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

174

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Antidegradation Policy

The Florida Antidegradation Policy (Sections 62-302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C.) recognizes that 

pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to the 

continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of the state. Under this policy, the 

permitting of new or previously unpermitted existing discharges is prohibited where the 

discharge is expected to reduce the quality of a receiving water below the classification 

established for it. Any lowering of water quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to 

surface waters must be in the public interest (that is, the benefits of the discharge to public 

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

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

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

alternatives to the surface water discharge.

Moderating Provisions

Florida’s water quality standards include a variety of moderating provisions (provided in 

Subsection 62-302.300[10] and Rules 62-4 and 62-6, F.A.C., and described in Sections 62-

302.300, 62-4.244, 62-302.800, and 62-4.243, F.A.C., and Sections 403.201 and 373.414, 

F.S.), which include mixing zones, zones of discharge, SSACs, exemptions, and variances. 

These provisions are intended to moderate the applicability of water quality standards where it 

has been determined that, under certain special circumstances, the social, economic, and 

environmental costs of such applicability outweigh the benefits.

Watershed Assessment Program

The primary tasks of the Watershed Assessment Program include coordinating strategic 

monitoring; implementing the IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.); ensuring the completion of the 

biannual Integrated Report; and submitting annual updates of Florida’s 303(d) list to the EPA . 

Section 303(d) of the federal CWA requires states to submit to the EPA lists of surface waters 

that do not meet applicable water quality standards (i.e., their designated uses or water quality 

criteria) and establish TMDLs for each of these waters on a schedule. Pollution limits are then 

allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin. A waterbody that does not meet 

its designated use is defined as impaired. 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act

The 1999 FWRA (Section 403.067, F.S.) clarified FDEP’s statutory authority to establish 

TMDLs, required FDEP to develop a scientifically sound methodology for identifying impaired 

waters, specified that FDEP could develop TMDLs only for waters identified as impaired using 

this new methodology, and directed FDEP to establish an Allocation Technical Advisory 

Committee (ATAC) to assure the equitable allocation of load reductions when implementing 

TMDLs. 

Another significant component of the FWRA was the requirement for FDEP and FDACS to 

adopt, by rule, BMPs to reduce urban and agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution. As Florida 

already has an urban stormwater regulatory program, this new authority was particularly 

important in strengthening Florida’s agricultural nonpoint source management program. This 

section of the law requires FDACS to adopt, by rule, BMPs to reduce agricultural nonpoint 

source pollution, and for FDEP to verify the effectiveness of the BMPs in reducing pollutant 

loads. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

175

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Once FDACS adopts the BMPs, landowners must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to FDACS, 

specifying the BMPs that will be applied on specific land parcels and the schedule for BMP 

implementation. The landowners also must maintain records, such as fertilizer use, and allow 

FDACS staff to inspect the BMPs. By submitting a NOI, the landowners become eligible for 

state and federal cost-share funding to implement BMPs and receive a presumption of 

compliance that they are meeting water quality standards. The BMP rules and the associated 

BMP manuals that have been adopted are available from FDACS’ Office of Agricultural Water 

Policy website. 

The FWRA identifies BMAPs as the primary mechanism for implementing TMDLs to restore 

water quality. BMAPs are developed cooperatively with local stakeholders over an 18- to 24-

month period following TMDL development. The strategies developed in each BMAP are 

implemented in NPDES permits for wastewater facilities and municipal separate storm sewer 

system (MS4) permits.

The 2005 Florida Legislature’s amendments to the FWRA focused on the development and 

adoption of BMAPs as an appropriate method for implementing TMDLs. The Legislature also 

established a long-term funding source that provided $20 million per year for urban stormwater 

retrofitting projects to reduce pollutant loadings to impaired waters; however, that level of 

funding has not been consistently provided. Additionally, the 2005 amendments provide FDEP 

with the ability to take enforcement action against nonpoint sources that do not implement the 

BMPs that they agreed to implement in the BMAP.

Impaired Surface Waters Rule

Waterbodies are assessed and TMDLs are developed and implemented using the methodology 

in Florida’s IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). This science-based methodology for evaluating water 

quality data in order to identify impaired waters establishes specific criteria for impairment based 

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

fish consumption advisories, and ecological impairment. The IWR also establishes thresholds 

for data sufficiency and data quality, including the minimum sample size required and the 

number of exceedances of the applicable water quality standard for a given sample size that 

identify a waterbody as impaired. The number of exceedances is based on a statistical 

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

assessment is correct. Waters that are identified as impaired through the IWR are prioritized for 

TMDL development and implementation.

In 2006, and again in 2007, the IWR was amended to address legal challenges that arose 

following its original adoption in 2001. After the state rulemaking process was completed, the 

revised IWR was submitted to the EPA on September 14, 2007, as a change to water quality 

standards. On February 19, 2008, the EPA sent a letter of approval to FDEP acknowledging 

that the IWR was an approved change to water quality standards.

Watershed Management Approach

FDEP's statewide tactic for water resource management, called the watershed management 

approach, is the framework for developing and implementing the provisions of Section 303(d) of 

the CWA, including the development of TMDLs, as required by federal and state laws.

Watershed management is a comprehensive approach to managing water resources on the 

basis of hydrologic units—which are natural boundaries such as river basins—rather than 

arbitrary political or regulatory boundaries. It does not focus on individual causes of pollution. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

176

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Instead, each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic resources are 

evaluated from a basinwide perspective that considers the cumulative effects of human 

activities.

On a simple level, Florida’s watershed management approach provides a mechanism to focus 

resources on specific units (river or estuary basins), rather than trying to work on all state waters 

at one time. An important feature is the involvement of all the stakeholders who have an 

interest in an individual basin (including federal, state, regional, tribal, and local governments 

and individual citizens) in a cooperative effort to define, prioritize, and resolve water quality 

problems. Existing programs are coordinated to manage basin resources without duplicated 

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

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

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

coordination among such activities as monitoring, stormwater management, wastewater 

treatment, wetland restoration, land acquisition, and public involvement. 

Florida’s watershed management approach involves a multiple-phase, five-year, rotating basin 

cycle. During Phase 1, a Planning List of potentially impaired waters is prepared in a 

collaborative process with stakeholders. During this phase, FDEP works closely with local 

monitoring staff to determine when and where additional monitoring is needed to verify the 

impairments. This culminates in the preparation of a Strategic Monitoring Plan that is 

implemented the following year, during Phase 2 of the cycle.

The key product of Phase 2 is the Verified List of impaired waters. These lists are developed 

through applying the Florida Surface Water Quality Standards in Rule 62-302, F.A.C., as well as 

the methodologies provided in Rule 62-303, F.A.C. Generally draft lists are provided to 

stakeholders for comment. Lists are finalized based on public comment and any additional 

information received throughout the process.

During Phase 3 of the cycle, watershed and waterbody modeling are carried out to develop 

TMDLs for impaired waters and the preliminary allocations to point and nonpoint sources. 

Typically, a Basin Working Group is formalized during this phase and begins the process of 

developing the BMAP that will guide TMDL implementation activities. FDEP works closely with 

the Basin Working Group and other watershed stakeholders to ensure that they understand and 

support the approaches being undertaken to develop the TMDL. 

To date, FDEP has adopted a total of 234 TMDLs. Of those 234, 138 were developed for DO 

and/or nutrients, 92 were developed for bacteria, and 4 are for other parameters such as unionized ammonia. These TMDLs represent areas in all basin groups and cover many of the 

largest watersheds within the state (e.g., St. Johns River, St. Lucie Estuary). Many more 

TMDLs have been drafted or are in various stages of development. 

During Phase 4 of the cycle, the Basin Working Group and other stakeholders—especially other 

state agencies, WMDs, and representatives of county and municipal governments, including 

local elected officials—develop the BMAP. This process typically takes about two years and 

culminates in the formal adoption of the BMAP by FDEP’s Secretary.

Both the BMAP and the Verified List of impaired waters are adopted by Secretarial Order, while 

all TMDLs are adopted by rule. Like all official agency actions, these adoptions are subject to 

state administrative procedures set forth in Chapter 120, F.S. Once a BMAP, Verified List, or 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

177

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

TMDL is adopted, a notice is published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and any affected 

party has the opportunity to request an administrative hearing to challenge the adoption.

Florida continues to develop an integrated database of assessment information that reflects 

whether water quality standards are being attained. The Verified Lists of impaired waters, lists 

of waters to be delisted, Basin Status and Water Quality Assessment Reports, BMAPs, TMDL 

reports, and other information are available on the FDEP Watershed Assessment Program 

website. 

BMAP Development Activities to Date

To date 9 BMAPs have been fully adopted and are under implementation in the following 

basins: Upper Ocklawaha, Orange Creek, Long Branch, Lower St. Johns River Mainstem, 

Lower St. Johns River Tributaries (2), Hillsborough River, Lake Jesup, and Bayou Chico. The 

Santa Fe River BMAP is anticipated to be adopted in 2012. These 10 BMAPs encompass 

restoration activities in 78 impaired WBIDs. BMAP development activities are currently under

way and in various stages of completion in an additional 11 basins around the state: the Upper 

Peace River and Winter Haven Chain of Lakes, Wekiva River, Suwannee River, Indian River 

Lagoon, Caloosahatchee River, Everglades West Coast, St. Lucie River, Lakes Monroe and 

Harney, Middle Trout River, Alafia River, and Manatee River. Table 11.1 describes the current 

status of these ongoing BMAP efforts. In addition to these BMAPs, local governments and 

WMDs are concurrently carrying out restoration activities in many other waterbodies statewide.

BMAPs are Florida’s primary mechanism for implementing TMDLs adopted through Chapter 

403.067, F.S. As discussed earlier, they are developed in collaboration with the Basin Working 

Group and other stakeholders, and are then adopted by FDEP Secretarial Order. The goals of 

each BMAP are to reach consensus on the scientific foundation of the TMDL, determine 

detailed allocations as appropriate, and reach agreement on how the required load reductions 

will be accomplished. A BMAP includes defined water quality restoration goals, refined source 

identification, detailed allocations by entity where appropriate, load reduction projects, a 

monitoring plan, and local commitments. Implementation projects may include structural and 

nonstructural BMPs, educational and outreach activities, additional research and studies, 

changes to programs and permits, and changes to local ordinances and policies.

The Lower St. Johns River Mainstem BMAP provides an excellent example of both the extent of 

the efforts required to address TMDL requirements and the substantial efforts being made by 

local stakeholders to move forward in carrying them out. The TMDL required a reduction of 

1,076,403 kilograms per year (kg/yr) TN in the marine portion of the river. Through 2010, the 

responsible entities have achieved reductions of 717,877 kg/yr TN. In the freshwater section, 

the TMDL required reductions of 1,543,989 kg/yr TN and 99.285 kg/yr TP. Through 2010, 

stakeholders have achieved reductions of 150,039 kg/yr TN and 38,124 kg/yr TP. In order to 

meet the full TMDL reductions, significant additional reductions must occur within the upstream 

basins. Much of that may be accomplished through the implementation of the Lake Jesup 

(adopted 2010) and Lakes Harney/Monroe (in development) BMAPs. Additional reductions will 

need to be addressed in the Upper St. Johns Basin.

During 2010, one wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) project in the freshwater section of the 

river was completed with a reduction of 6,314 kg/yr TN. This project, in conjunction with 

previously completed projects, has achieved the TN reductions required for WWTFs in the 

freshwater reach. In addition, 3 wastewater projects were completed in the marine section for a 

total reduction of 134,115 kg/yr TN. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

178

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

In 2010, 2 municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) projects were completed in the 

freshwater section of the river for a total reduction of 829 kg/yr TN. The total reductions in TN 

have achieved the required reductions for the MS4s in the freshwater reach. The TP reductions 

were met with the completion of the projects in 2009. An additional 11 MS4 projects were 

completed in the marine section for a reduction of 11,297 kg/yr TN. In the freshwater section, 3 

non-MS4 TP projects were completed this year, yielding 723.2 kg/yr TP reductions. A total of 7 

non-MS4 projects completed this year for TN reduced 7,879 kg/yr TN. There were also 3 nonMS4 projects completed in the marine reach for 881 kg/yr TN reduction.

FDACS has continued to sign up growers under the vegetable and agronomic crop, leatherleaf 

ferns, sod, and cow/calf BMP manuals. To date, no producers have opted to monitor water 

quality instead of implementing BMPs. In addition, the SJRWMD contractors have completed a 

technical memorandum and associated BMP Optimization Model addressing a nutrient 

reduction strategy for the freshwater reach for the remainder of the agricultural reductions. 

Land use assessments of the marine section showed that the dairy operations included in the 

TMDL loading have since been abandoned; therefore, it does not appear that additional regional 

treatment options are needed in the marine reach.

BMAP monitoring plan efforts have continued in the freshwater section, marine section, and 

tributaries. The river transect sampling in the freshwater section occurred on schedule from

April through October 2011. The two new BMAP continuous DO stations were reinstalled in the 

marine section. Stakeholders have continued the ambient water quality sampling in the 

tributaries and the high-flow sampling. 

The Lake Jesup BMAP, adopted in May 2010, includes commitments for projects to reduce TP 

by 10,167.5 pounds per year (lbs/yr) over the next 5 years (approximately 54% of the total 

18,748 lbs/yr reduction required by the TMDL, which will be fully met within 15 years). Many 

projects have already been completed demonstrating the commitment of local stakeholders to 

the restoration of their local waterbodies. 

In March 2011 FDEP completed the document Implementation Guidance for the Fecal Coliform 

Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. It

provides local stakeholders with useful information for identifying sources of fecal coliform 

bacteria in their watersheds and examples of management actions to address these sources.

Information on FDEP’s BMAP activities can be found on FDEP’s Watershed Management 

website. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

179

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table 11.1. Status of Ongoing BMAP Efforts

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the basin, Column 2 lists the status of BMAP development, Column 3 lists 

the impairment(s) addressed by the BMAP, and Column 4 lists comments.

- = Empty cell/no data

Basin Status

Impairment(s) 

Addressed by BMAP Comments

Suwannee

Santa Fe BMAP 

adoption is 

anticipated in 

2012. Individual 

stakeholder 

discussions and 

stakeholder 

technical meetings 

will be initiated in 

the remaining 

Suwannee Basin. 

Nutrients/DO

The Santa Fe River BMAP is expected to be 

adopted in 2012. Following the adoption of 

the Santa Fe River BMAP, efforts will switch 

to the remainder of the Suwannee Basin. The 

Santa Fe BMAP will be used as the template 

for the larger Suwannee Basin BMAP as 

similar conditions are found there. The next 

stage of activities will include initiating general 

stakeholder meetings and meeting 

individually with basin stakeholders (counties, 

cities, and agricultural interests). FDEP, 

FDACS, and other stakeholders will work 

cooperatively to identify Restoration Focus 

Areas (RFAs) within the Santa Fe Basin and 

subsequently the overall Suwannee Basin.

Wekiva 

Basin Working 

Group meetings 

are ongoing. 

Nutrients/DO

BMAP efforts began in March 2009, and the 

most recent Basin Working Group meeting 

was held on September 29, 2010. Technical 

work continues in the interim. Current BMAP 

activities include building a common 

understanding of sources, developing the 

allocation/sufficiency of effort approach, and 

compiling a list of preliminary projects. The 

BMAP will be sensitive to local concerns 

connected to other Wekiva Protection Area 

activities.

Upper Peace 

(Hancock Chain, 

Winter Haven Chain, 

and Upper Peace 

Creek)

BMAP activities 

are on hold 

pending the 

resolution of 

issues related to 

the effectiveness 

of management 

options and 

completion of a 

local watershed 

master plan.

Nutrients, 

Fecal Coliform

A technical review of the TMDLs and lake 

processes has led to questions about the 

effectiveness of management options in 

attempting to meet TMDLs. A comprehensive 

watershed master plan has been developed 

for the city of Winter Haven and SWFWMD. 

FDEP is coordinating with the city of Winter 

Haven regarding the next steps in moving 

forward with a BMAP for the Southern Chain 

of Lakes.

Indian River Lagoon

Rotating meetings 

among sub-basins

are continuing.

Nutrients/DO

The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) Mainstem 

Basin is divided into three sub-basins 

(Banana River, North, and Central) for BMAP 

development. A seagrass distribution target 

has been developed as a mechanism for 

assessing success in implementing the 

TMDL. The Banana River and North IRL subbasin allocations have been drafted and 

project information collection is under way. 

The Central IRL currently appears to be 

meeting the seagrass distribution target. A 

BMAP will be developed that takes a “hold the 

line” approach and will document additional 

projects being implemented by local 

stakeholders. The Monitoring Plan 

discussions are under way, with primary and 

secondary objectives being developed in 

coordination with local stakeholders.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

180

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin Status

Impairment(s) 

Addressed by BMAP Comments

St. Lucie

Technical 

meetings and 

individual 

stakeholder 

meetings are 

continuing.

Nutrients/BOD

BMAP activities were started in July 2009. 

The last BMAP technical meeting was held in 

May 2011. An evaluation continues of the 

Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection 

Program (NEEPP) Regional Watershed 

Protection Plan applicability and

implementation/allocation approach 

document. FDEP staff are collecting and 

reviewing information on pollutant load 

reduction projects proposed by local 

stakeholders. Draft allocations have been 

developed and are under review.

Everglades West 

Coast

Technical 

meetings and 

individual 

stakeholder 

meetings are 

continuing. 

Multiple

Basic Watershed Management Modeling to 

determine current loading was completed, 

and details have been presented to 

stakeholders. One-on-one meetings have 

been held with stakeholders to discuss the 

current loading calculation process and 

projects eligible for BMAP credit. FDEP staff 

are currently evaluating the list of nutrient 

reduction projects implemented since the 

TMDL verified period and calculating BMP 

efficiencies for the projects submitted. Staff 

are awaiting results from a nutrient source 

tracking and ground water input study 

conducted in June 2010. BMAP stakeholder 

technical meetings are continuing.

Caloosahatchee

Technical 

meetings and 

individual 

stakeholder 

meetings are 

continuing. 

Nutrients

The current loading calculation process and 

potential allocation approaches have been 

discussed with local stakeholders. One-onone meetings were held with several 

stakeholders to address concerns and 

discuss the types of projects that would 

receive credit in the BMAP. Staff are 

currently evaluating the list of nutrient 

reduction projects implemented since the 

TMDL verified period and working on 

calculating BMP efficiencies for projects 

submitted. They are finalizing current loading 

calculations and draft potential allocation 

approach calculations. BMAP stakeholder 

technical meetings are continuing. FDEP is 

working on a revised TMDL for the estuarine 

Caloosahatchee and developing a TMDL for 

the upstream reaches of the river.

Lakes Monroe and

Harney

Technical 

meetings and 

individual 

stakeholder 

meetings are 

continuing.

- 

This BMAP effort was initiated in October 

2010. Draft allocations have been developed 

and stakeholder projects are being collected 

and reviewed. A monitoring plan is being 

developed. BMAP technical stakeholder 

meetings are continuing.

Alafia River Basin

Technical 

meetings and 

individual 

stakeholder 

meetings are 

continuing.

Multiple This BMAP effort was initiated in June 2011 

and encompasses six impaired WBIDs.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

181

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin Status

Impairment(s) 

Addressed by BMAP Comments

Manatee River Basin

Technical 

meetings and 

individual 

stakeholder 

meetings are 

continuing.

Multiple This BMAP effort was initiated in June 2011 

and encompasses four impaired WBIDs.

Middle Trout River

Technical 

meetings and 

individual 

stakeholder 

meetings are 

continuing. 

DO and Nutrients

This BMAP effort was initiated in December 

2010. Draft allocations have been developed, 

stakeholder projects are being collected and 

reviewed, and a monitoring plan is being 

developed. Local stakeholders are proposing 

a plan of study to reassess the impairment 

status of this waterbody. FDEP may suspend 

further BMAP development pending the 

results of this effort.

Public Participation

The success of Florida’s water resource management program, especially its watershed 

management approach/TMDL Program, depends heavily on input from local stakeholders in 

each watershed. This process is highly collaborative, and FDEP staff closely coordinate and 

communicate with stakeholders in all phases of the five-year, rotating basin cycle.

FDEP works with a variety of stakeholders in developing a draft Verified List of impaired waters 

for each basin. The draft lists are placed on the FDEP Watershed Assessment Program 

website and are also sent by request to interested parties via mail or email. As part of the 

review process, public workshops are advertised and held in each basin to help explain the 

process for developing the Verified Lists, exchange information, and encourage public 

involvement. The workshops are noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly and on the 

website. Stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists in person at 

public workshops and/or through email and letters. If additional information or data are provided 

during the public comment period or before, FDEP typically creates a revised draft Verified List 

for further review and comment before submitting the final proposed list to the Secretary for 

adoption and then to the EPA.

All public meetings are recorded, and specific comments are noted in written meeting 

summaries. Significant comments typically receive a written response. All written comments 

received and FDEP’s responses are kept in a permanent file maintained by FDEP. These are 

included in an Appendix to each Water Quality Assessment Report. The reports are available 

on the FDEP Watershed Management website. 

Surface Water Improvement and Management Program

In 1987, the Florida Legislature passed the Surface Water Improvement and Management

(SWIM) Act, Sections 373.451 through 373.4595, F.S. The act directed the state to develop 

management and restoration plans for preserving or restoring priority waterbodies. The 

legislation designated 6 SWIM waterbodies: Lake Apopka, Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, 

Biscayne Bay, Lower St. Johns River, and Lake Okeechobee. Currently, 29 waterbodies are on 

the priority list. Additional information and the list of priority waterbodies are available on the 

FDEP SWIM Program website. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

182

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

The SWIM Program addresses a waterbody’s needs as a system of connected resources, 

rather than isolated wetlands or waterbodies. Its goals are protecting water quality and natural 

systems, creating governmental and other partnerships, and managing watersheds. While 

FDEP oversees the program, the WMDs are responsible for its implementation—including 

developing lists of additional high-priority waterbodies and waterbody plans (outlined under Rule

62-43, F.A.C.). The districts also provide matching funds for state revenues. In a collaborative 

effort, other federal and state agencies, local governments, and the private sector provide funds 

or in-kind services.

SWIM plans must contain the following:

• A description of the waterbody;

• A list of governmental agencies with jurisdiction;

• A description of land uses;

• A list of point and nonpoint source discharges;

• Restoration strategies;

• Research or feasibility studies needed to support restoration strategies;

• A restoration schedule;

• An estimate of costs; and

• Plans for interagency coordination and environmental education.

Pollutant Load Reduction Goals

A pollutant load reduction goal (PLRG) is an estimated reduction in stormwater pollutant 

loadings needed to preserve or restore designated uses in SWIM waterbodies that receive 

stormwater. Ultimately, water quality in a receiving water should meet state water quality

standards, and PLRGs provide benchmarks toward which specific strategies can be directed. 

Interim PLRGs are best-judgment estimates of the pollution reductions from specific corrective 

actions. Final PLRGs are goals needed to maintain water quality standards.

The Water Resource Implementation Rule (Rule 62-40, F.A.C.) requires the WMDs to establish 

PLRGs for SWIM priority waters and other waterbodies, and include them as part of a SWIM 

plan, other watershed management plan, or districtwide or basin-specific rules.

Point Source Control Program

Florida's well-established wastewater facility regulatory program was revised in 1995 when the 

EPA authorized FDEP to administer a partial NPDES Program, and then expanded again in 

2000 when the EPA authorized FDEP to administer the NPDES Stormwater Program. While 

the federal program only regulates discharges to surface waters, the state wastewater program 

issues permits for facilities that discharge to either surface water or ground water. Of about 

3,652 wastewater facilities in Florida, approximately 506 are permitted to discharge to state 

surface waters under individual permits. While an additional 486 facilities discharge to surface 

waters under general (called generic) permit authorization (and many others discharge 

stormwater to surface waters under the NPDES Stormwater Program), most wastewater 

facilities in Florida discharge indirectly to ground water via land application or reuse. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

183

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

An important component of the state’s wastewater management is the encouragement and 

promotion of reuse. Florida leads the nation in reuse. In fact, the current reuse capacity (2010

data) represents about 62% of the total permitted domestic wastewater treatment capacity in 

Florida.

FDEP's six district offices handle most of the permitting process, with the Tallahassee office 

overseeing the program, conducting rulemaking, providing technical assistance, managing the 

state and federal wastewater databases that are the repositories of all program data, and 

coordinating with the EPA. The Tallahassee office also oversees the administrative relief 

mechanisms for applicants that are allowed under Florida law, as well as permits for steam 

electric–generating power plants that discharge to waters of the state, and the implementation 

of the pretreatment component of the NPDES Program. Wastewater permits, issued for up to 

five years, set effluent limits and monitoring requirements to provide reasonable assurance that 

water quality criteria will be met. A permit may allow a mixing zone when there is enough 

dilution to ensure that a waterbody's designated use will not be affected. In other special cases, 

a variance allows certain water quality standards to be exceeded temporarily. 

Facilities that cannot comply with new requirements may be issued or reissued a permit 

containing the effluent limitations to be met and an administrative order setting out the steps 

required to achieve compliance. This procedure applies only to facilities complying with an 

existing permit, and is not used in lieu of enforcement when a permittee is out of compliance 

with an existing permit or operating without a required permit.

All facilities must meet, at a minimum, the appropriate technology-based effluent limitations. In 

many cases, water quality–based effluent limitations (WQBELs) may also be necessary. Two 

types of WQBELs are used (as defined in Rule 62-650, F.A.C.). Level I WQBELs are generally 

based on more simplified evaluations for streams and for permit renewals. To determine Level 

II WQBELs, which are typically calculated for more complicated situations, a waterbody is 

generally sampled intensively, and computer models are used to predict its response to a 

facility’s discharge.

Permit Compliance

The primary objective of FDEP’s Wastewater Program is to protect the quality of Florida's 

surface water and ground water by ensuring that permitted wastewater facilities meet the 

conditions of their permits, and to quickly identify unpermitted pollution sources and those 

facilities that do not meet water quality standards or specific permit conditions. To provide 

proper oversight of the wastewater facilities in the state, FDEP’s Wastewater Compliance 

Evaluation Section developed a compliance inspection strategy based on its five-year permitting 

cycle (permits are issued for five years). 

For NPDES-permitted facilities, the goal is to conduct at least an annual Compliance Evaluation 

Inspection (CEI) and to conduct a Performance Audit Inspection (PAI) immediately following 

permit renewal. When an NPDES-permitted facility is approximately one year away from 

submitting a permit renewal application, a much more comprehensive inspection, or Fifth-Year 

Inspection (FYI), is scheduled. The FYI consists of an overview of the facilities operation but 

also includes an in-depth sampling plan consisting of a Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI), 

Toxic Sampling Inspection (XSI), Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection (CBI), Impact 

Bioassessment (IBI), and Water Quality Inspection (WQI). The results of these inspections help 

to determine if current permit limits are adequate to protect the quality of the receiving waters. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

184

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Land application facilities are also inspected annually as resources allow; however, they are not 

sampled as intensely as the surface water dischargers. 

District compliance and enforcement staff make every effort to work with permittees to resolve 

minor problems before beginning a formal enforcement action. During an inspection, it is the 

inspector’s responsibility to determine if a facility is in compliance with its permit limits and 

compliance schedules. This is accomplished by verifying the accuracy of facility records and 

reports, plant operation and maintenance requirements, effluent quality data (Discharge 

Monitoring Reports, or DMRs), and the general reliability of the facility’s self-monitoring 

program.

Enforcement

FDEP’s Wastewater Program uses the Office of General Council’s Enforcement Manual as a 

guide for developing specific types of enforcement actions such as Consent Orders and Notices 

of Violations (NOVs). However, in order to provide guidance on specific wastewater issues 

related directly to the Wastewater Program, the Wastewater Program’s Enforcement Response 

Guide was developed to aid inspectors in determining the proper course for corrective actions. 

The guide also provides consistency in addressing enforcement actions specifically related to 

wastewater issues.

When formal enforcement is necessary, staff attempt to negotiate a consent order, which is a 

type of administrative order in which civil penalties (such as fines) and corrective actions for 

noncompliance can be assessed. Consent Orders also establish step-by-step schedules for 

complying with permit conditions and Florida law, and set a final compliance date for the facility 

to return to compliance. 

In 2001, the Florida Legislature enacted the Environmental Litigation Reform Act (ELRA) to 

provide a fair, consistent, and expedient method for determining appropriate penalty amounts 

for violations. If a settlement cannot be reached through the consent order process, FDEP has 

the authority to issue an NOV to collect penalties (up to $10,000), as specified in ELRA. The 

NOV can also be used when only corrective actions are needed and no penalties are being 

sought. When a serious violation endangers human health or welfare, or the environment, 

FDEP issues a complaint for injunctive relief or takes other legal action, including an immediate 

final order for corrective action.

Nonpoint Source Management Program

The importance of minimizing nonpoint source pollution, especially from new development, was 

recognized in Florida in the late 1970s when the state’s growth rate increased greatly. Over the 

past 25 years, Florida has implemented one of the most comprehensive and effective urban and 

agricultural nonpoint source management programs in the country and has made significant 

progress towards addressing elevated nutrients. 

However, nutrient impairment is still an ongoing challenge, as evidenced by eutrophic conditions 

in some state surface waters and increased nitrates in ground water. Nutrient impairment 

remains a concern due to higher fertilizer use by the state’s intensive agricultural industry and 

continued population growth, both of which increase wastewater and nonpoint source nutrient 

loads. Discharges from urban stormwater systems, especially those built before the Stormwater 

Rule was implemented in 1982, and septic tanks continue to be a leading source of loading to 

Florida’s surface and ground waters. The cumulative impacts of nonpoint source pollution, also 

called “pointless personal pollution,” continue to be an issue.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

185

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

It is important to remember that many activities resulting in nonpoint source pollution often are 

not regulated and that public education, cultural change, and personal stewardship are essential 

to protecting Florida’s water resources. A simple example is controlling pet wastes, which can 

add nutrients and fecal bacteria to the landscape that are washed off with each rain storm. 

Picking up and properly disposing of pet waste is essential to preventing this source of 

“pointless personal pollution.” This was demonstrated and documented by the very successful 

Think About Pointless Personal Pollution (TAPP) public service ads on pet waste. These 

multimedia ads increased awareness of the problem (to over 90% of the population) and 

increased the percentage of pet owners who pick up their pet waste and dispose of it properly 

by 30%. In addition, the city of Tallahassee estimated that the load reduction associated with 

the increased proper disposal of pet waste saved $2.5 million per year in potential capital 

improvement costs associated with a traditional stormwater retrofitting project.

FDEP’s comprehensive Nonpoint Source Management Program, in collaboration with the TMDL 

Program (which is being implemented through the watershed management approach), provides 

the institutional, technical, and financial framework to address these issues. The program 

includes a mixture of regulatory, nonregulatory, restoration and financial assistance, and public 

education components, which are discussed below.

Urban Stormwater Rule

The cornerstone of Florida’s urban nonpoint source program is the state’s Environmental 

Resource Permit (ERP) Program. Florida was the first state in the country to establish a 

statewide stormwater permitting program that requires the treatment of stormwater from all new 

development. The state’s first Stormwater Rule was adopted in 1979, with a more 

comprehensive rule going into effect in 1982. New developments, except for single-family 

dwellings, and modifications to existing discharges must obtain stormwater permits. Projects 

must include a stormwater management system that provides flood control and BMPs such as 

retention, detention, or wetland filtration to reduce stormwater pollutants. This technologybased Stormwater Rule establishes design criteria for various stormwater treatment BMPs to 

obtain the minimum level of treatment established in the state’s Water Resource Implementation 

Rule (Rule 62-40, F.A.C.). Specifically, these BMPs are designed to remove at least 80% of the 

average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water 

quality standards (Paragraph 62-40.432[2][a][1]), F.A.C. 

For Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), some other sensitive waters (such as shellfishharvesting areas), and waters that are below standards, BMPs must be designed to remove 

95% of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state 

water quality standards (Paragraph 62-40.432[2][a][2], F.A.C.). The ERP also provides the 

mechanism for wetland protection. Today, FDEP continues to monitor and evaluate BMPs to be 

used with its development of the statewide Stormwater Rule. 

Wetlands Protection and Permitting

A second important nonpoint source regulatory program is the state’s wetlands protection law 

and permitting program. This program has been instrumental in minimizing the loss of 

wetlands, especially isolated wetlands. The section on the Wetlands Program at the end of 

this chapter provides additional details.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

186

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Management

Under the ERP Program, only certain agricultural discharges may be subject to permitting, 

depending on the rules of the specific WMD. For example, the SFWMD permits new 

agricultural activities in a manner similar to urban development, while the SJRWMD only 

requires permits for certain pumped agricultural discharges.

However, as discussed earlier in this chapter (in the section on the Watershed Assessment 

Program), the FWRA requires FDACS’ Office of Agricultural Water Policy (OAWP) to develop 

and adopt, by rule, BMPs to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Under the FWRA, 

Paragraph 403.067(7)(c), F.S., FDEP is charged with providing initial verification that the BMPs

are reasonably expected to be effective, which includes monitoring their effectiveness. To date, 

FDACS has developed and/or adopted BMP manuals for citrus in the Lake Wales, Indian River, 

Peace River, and Gulf areas; forage grasses in the SRWMD; leatherleaf ferns in and around 

Volusia County; vegetable and agronomic crops; container nurseries; aquaculture; cow/calf 

operations; sod farms; manure application; water conservation; and, most recently, equine 

operations. FDACS is currently prioritizing a statewide citrus BMP manual, as well as a fruit/nut 

BMP manual. The BMP rules and the associated BMP manuals that have been adopted are 

available on the FDACS Office of Agricultural Water Policy website. 

This nonregulatory program provides agricultural producers with incentives to implement BMPs. 

Participation in the program opens the door for state and federal cost-share dollars to implement 

BMPs, and it provides the landowner with a presumption of compliance that water quality 

standards are being met. To participate, landowners must submit a NOI to FDACS, specifying 

the lands to be covered, the BMPs to be implemented, the BMP implementation schedule, and 

the annual tracking requirements such as fertilizer use. Under the FWRA, Section 403.067,

F.S., agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution are required to submit a NOI to FDACS to 

implement BMPs when located in specified impaired watersheds, unless they monitor to prove 

compliance with reductions specified in the BMAP. Table 11.2 provides the most recent 

statistics on the number of enrolled acres and NOIs as of June 30, 2011. 

Table 11.2. Number of Enrolled Acres and NOIs as of June 30, 2011

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the program/manual, Column 2 lists the enrolled acres, and Column 3 

lists the number of NOIs.

Program/Manual Enrolled Acres

Number 

of NOIs

Citrus – Gulf 97,529.48 76

Citrus – Indian River 220,935.09 562

Citrus – Peace River 64,274.85 352

Citrus – Ridge 116,824.92 2,026

Container Nurseries 27,409.96 1,089

Forage Grass 8,709.98 74

Lake Okeechobee Protection Program 529,013.56 240

Statewide Cow/Calf 969,418.78 255

Statewide Dairy Program 4,574.01 3

Statewide Sod 22,532.45 39

Vegetable and Agronomic Crops 885,340.89 649

Total 2,946,563.98 5,365
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

187

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Recent Nonpoint Source Management Program Enhancements 

Restoring Florida’s impaired waters and protecting its pristine waters is a critical part of Florida’s 

Nonpoint Source Management Program. The program is responsible for overseeing restoration 

efforts occurring throughout the state through the distribution of federal and state grants aimed 

at addressing nonpoint sources. A significant focus of grant funding is retrofitting urban areas to 

treat urban stormwater runoff. However, state funding also goes to agricultural BMP 

development and implementation, sediment and erosion control, bioassessment of the state’s 

waters, and public outreach and education. Recent and current initiatives include the following:

Carrying Out Stormwater BMP Effectiveness Monitoring

As discussed in the section on Ongoing and Emerging Issues of Concern, FDEP has 

undertaken a broad array of projects and policy revisions to better address the impacts of 

nutrients on Florida’s surface and ground water. In cooperation with the WMDs and local 

governments, FDEP has been carrying out stormwater BMP monitoring over the past 10 years 

to increase the effectiveness of Florida’s urban stormwater program in reducing pollutant 

loadings, especially nutrient loadings. A variety of projects have been completed to quantify the 

benefits and refine the design criteria for both traditional and innovative BMPs. These projects 

have included the monitoring of traditional BMPs such as wet detention systems, underdrain 

filtration systems, and dry detention systems. They also include innovative BMPs such as 

managed aquatic plant systems or floating wetland mats, soil amendments to increase nutrient 

removal in retention basins, and polyacrylamides (PAM) floc logs. 

Promoting Low-Impact Development

FDEP is currently developing a revised statewide stormwater treatment rule that will increase 

the minimum level of treatment of nutrients from stormwater discharges. It is also working with 

the development community and local governments to promote low-impact development (LID) 

and practices such as green roofs, pervious pavements, and stormwater harvesting. During the 

past year, an excellent demonstration site for LID was completed at the Escambia County One 

Stop Center, where all development permits are issued. The site includes a traditional and LID 

parking lot to demonstrate the differences, as well as the largest green roof in Florida.

LID practices such as green roof/cistern systems, pervious pavements, and stormwater 

harvesting have been extensively monitored. The data obtained from these projects have 

helped to promote the acceptance of LID practices by the WMDs and local governments. As 

part of the Springs Initiative, a model LID land development code was developed to make it 

easier for local governments to revise their land development regulations to allow and even 

encourage low-impact design. 

Reducing Potential Fertilizer Impacts

Another major focus has been reducing potential nutrient impacts from the fertilization of urban 

landscapes. This is being implemented through the UF–IFAS Florida-Friendly Landscaping 

Program (which includes Florida Yards and Neighborhoods)), the Green Industries BMP 

Training and Certification Program, the development of a Florida-Friendly Model Landscape 

Ordinance, and a change in Florida’s fertilizer labeling rules so that only “Florida-friendly 

fertilizers” with low or no phosphorus and slow-release nitrogen are sold in Florida. Changes to 

the Florida Statutes in recent years also now require the following:

1. All local governments within a watershed with a waterbody that is impaired for 

nutrients must implement a Florida-friendly fertilizer ordinance; and
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

188

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2. All commercial applicators of fertilizer must be trained through the Green 

Industries BMP Training Program and receive, by January 1, 2014, a limited 

certification for urban landscape commercial fertilizer application. 

Since 1994, Florida has educated homeowners on Florida-friendly landscaping, including BMPs 

for fertilizer application. In 2009, the Florida Legislature found “that the use of Florida-friendly 

landscaping (FFL) and other water use and pollution prevention measures to conserve or 

protect the state’s water resources serves a compelling public interest and that the participation 

of homeowners’ associations and local governments is essential to the state’s efforts in water 

conservation and water quality protection and restoration” (Paragraph 373.185[3][a], F.S.). 

From the FFL Program grew the Green Industries BMP Program, a science-based educational 

program for green industry workers (lawn-care and landscape maintenance professionals) in 

order to teach environmentally safe landscaping practices that help conserve and protect 

Florida’s ground and surface waters. These programs have produced numerous publications, 

including the manual Florida Friendly Best Management Practices for Protection of Water 

Resources by the Green Industries. 

In part due to the successes of these programs, in 2009 the Florida Legislature took aim at the 

overuse and misuse of fertilizer in urban landscapes. The new statute encourages all county 

and municipal governments “to adopt and enforce the Model Ordinance for Florida-Friendly 

Fertilizer Use on Urban Landscapes or an equivalent requirement” and went as far as requiring 

every “county and municipal government located within the watershed of a water body or water 

segment that is listed as impaired by nutrients [to] adopt the department’s Model Ordinance for 

Florida-Friendly Fertilizer Use on Urban Landscapes” (Paragraphs 403.9337[1] and [2], F.S.).

Additionally, the Nonpoint Source Management Program addresses fertilizer application at golf 

courses in a widely accepted and industry-supported program. The 2007 manual, BMPs for 

Enhancement of Environmental Quality on Florida Golf Courses, discusses the approach for 

environmental stewardship and pollution prevention at golf courses. 

Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (OSTDS)

On March 27, 2008, in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, the EPA and NOAA 

found that “the state of Florida has satisfied all conditions placed on approval of the Florida 

coastal nonpoint pollution control program....” To date, of the 29 coastal states (excluding 

territories), Florida is one of 17 states to have a fully approved program. 

FDOH regulates OSTDS in Florida. FDEP’s Nonpoint Source Management Program also 

provides financial and technical support to OSTDS inventorying, maintenance, educational 

efforts, and inspection and enforcement. Between federal fiscal years 2004 and 2010, FDEP 

dedicated nearly $2 million of Section 319(h) grant funds to OSTDS projects.

During the past few years, FDEP, in cooperation with Florida State University, has monitored 

traditional OSTDS and performance-based systems (PBS) to better quantify the nutrient loads 

discharged to ground water and the performance of these systems in removing nutrients. In 

addition, FDEP contracted with the University of Central Florida on a research project to 

develop, demonstrate, and quantify the ability of passive nutrient-removing OSTDS. The final 

report, On-Site Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Evaluation for Nutrient Removal, was 

published in April 2011. Two types of passive systems show great potential with an ability to 

reduce TN to under 10 mg/L: a subsurface flow wetland and a traditional OSTDS with a 

modified drainfield that includes an aerobic and an anaerobic zone, together with a green 

sorption media filter. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

189

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Public Education and Outreach

Public education is an important component of Florida’s Nonpoint Source Management 

Program. Over the past 20 years, a wide variety of educational materials have been developed 

and distributed. Nearly all of these materials are now available electronically and can be 

downloaded either from the FDEP website or from the University of Central Florida Stormwater 

Management Academy website. During the past year a new educational website, 

WatershedED, was implemented to provide nonpoint source managers even greater 

accessibility to educational materials to assist them implement and evaluate their programs. 

Given the state’s rapid growth rate, and the number of people arriving from out of state, these

materials are important in teaching residents how they contribute to nonpoint source pollution 

and how they can be part of the solution to “pointless personal pollution.” 

Nonpoint Source Funding

Funding for these nonpoint source initiatives and activities comes from multiple funding sources 

across the state, including, but not limited to, Section 319(h) grant funding, TMDL Water Quality 

Restoration Grant funding, State Revolving Fund grant and loan funding, and legislatively 

appropriated grant funding (such as SWIM Program development). 

Section 319(h) Grants. The Nonpoint Source Management Section within FDEP’s Bureau of 

Watershed Restoration administers grant money it receives from EPA through Section 319(h) of 

the federal CWA. These grant funds are used to implement projects or programs that will help 

to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution. Florida requires all retrofit projects to include at least a 

40% nonfederal match. In recent years, FDEP has awarded between $4 million and $5 million 

each year in Section 319(h) funds to local governments and others in Florida to implement 

projects designed to reduce the impacts of nonpoint source pollution. 

Between federal fiscal years 2005 and 2011, more than $28 million in grant funds have been

spent on restoration projects under the Section 319(h) Program. However, funding has also 

been used for demonstration projects (for agricultural and urban BMPs), training opportunities, 

and educational programs. Between federal fiscal years 2005 and 2011, nearly $3.5 million has 

gone directly to agricultural projects, while nearly $7 million has gone to education and 

outreach, including the Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program, Green Industries BMP Program, 

and OSTDS Program efforts (inventorying, monitoring, and public education and outreach), 

described above. Unfortunately, since FY2007 the annual amount of funding has fallen from 

$7.5 million to $6.5 million.

TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grants. FDEP receives documentary stamp funding for the 

implementation of projects to reduce urban nonpoint source pollution discharged to impaired 

waters. These funds are restricted to projects to reduce stormwater pollutant loadings from 

lands developed without stormwater treatment that discharge to waterbodies on the state’s 

Verified List of Impaired Waters, waterbodies with an FDEP-proposed or adopted TMDL, or 

waterbodies with an FDEP-proposed or adopted BMAP. The funds are used for urban 

stormwater retrofitting projects undertaken by local governments, WMDs, or other government 

entities. Grant funds may not be used to provide stormwater treatment for new development or 

redevelopment activities. 

In 2008, FDEP adopted Rule 62-305, F.A.C. (TMDL Water Quality Grants), to set forth the 

procedures for administering these grant funds. All retrofit projects require a minimum of 50% 

matching funds, with at least 25% of the match coming from the local government. Projects are 

evaluated, ranked, and selected for funding three times each year based on the criteria found in 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

190

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

the TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grant Rule (Rule 62-305, F.A.C.). The criteria for project

evaluation and ranking include the impairment status of the receiving waterbody, anticipated 

load reduction of the pollutants of concern, percentage of local matching funds, costeffectiveness of the project in terms of cost per pound of pollutant removed per acre treated, 

inclusion of an educational component, and whether the local government sponsor has 

implemented a dedicated funding source for stormwater management, such as a stormwater 

utility.

Since 1999, FDEP has also received additional funds for the TMDL Program from the Florida 

Legislature both for program operations to reduce pollutant loads from urban stormwater 

discharges. 

With state funding, FDEP has issued over $11 million in contracts for urban BMP research, with 

the results of these projects being used to improve stormwater design in Florida. Unfortunately, 

the 2009 economic crisis led the Legislature to eliminate this funding source; however, some 

limited funding was provided for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010–11 and FY2011–12. 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program. The CWSRF Program provides lowinterest loans for water pollution control activities and facilities. Water pollution sources are 

divided into point sources (typically domestic and industrial wastewater discharges) and 

nonpoint sources (generally related to leaching or runoff associated with rainfall events from 

various land uses). Since the program began in 1989, FDEP has made over $3.2 billion in 

loans. The program revolves in perpetuity, using state and federal appropriations, loan 

repayments, investment earnings, and bond proceeds.

This program evolved from the federal Construction Grants Program as a result of the 1988 

amendments to the CWA. Between 1958 and 1988, almost $2 billion was disbursed from the 

Construction Grants Program to help municipalities meet the enforceable requirements of the 

CWA, particularly applicable NPDES permit requirements. Only a few federal construction 

grants were awarded after 1988, with the last grant awarded in 1994 to Marathon. 

Projects eligible for CWSRF loans include wastewater management facilities, reclaimed 

wastewater reuse facilities, stormwater management facilities, widely accepted pollution control 

practices (sometimes called BMPs) associated with agricultural stormwater runoff pollution 

control activities, brownfields associated with the contamination of ground water or surface 

water, and estuary protection activities and facilities.

For the CWSRF Program, a total of $2.9 billion has been disbursed to date from funds awarded 

to the following sources: 

• Wastewater: $3,098,595,047

• Stormwater: $133,798,315

• Nonpoint sources: $4,809,571

Dedicated Funding. In 1986, legislation was passed authorizing local governments to 

implement stormwater utility fees to provide funding for stormwater treatment and infrastructure. 

Today, approximately 154 of Florida’s local governments have implemented a stormwater utility 

fee. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

191

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

In 2011, the Florida Stormwater Association conducted a Stormwater Utility Survey to which 81 

utilities responded. It found that a utility services an average of 40,419 residential accounts and 

3,599 nonresidential accounts (including commercial, industrial, and institutional). Most use 

impervious area as a basis for setting the fee. The average rate per month was $5.22, an 

increase over the average of $4.88 found in 2009. The average revenue generated among the 

81 respondents was $3,905,226, up from $3,130,842 in 2009 and $2,708,763 in 2005. 

Additionally, many jurisdictions require stormwater management permits or stormwater 

management plan reviews and collect fees for permits, reviews, or inspections. It should be 

noted that many jurisdictions use other revenue sources beyond their stormwater utility fee 

revenue to implement their stormwater capital construction program.

Legislative Appropriations. The Florida Legislature has shown strong support for protecting 

Florida’s natural resources and investing in cleaner water. In 1994, the Legislature adopted the 

Nitrate Bill, which imposed a small fee on nitrogen fertilizers. These funds are used to fund 

research to develop BMPs to reduce the leaching of nitrogen into ground water, especially from 

agricultural producers. In 2004, the Nitrate Bill was expanded to add a fee for phosphorus 

fertilizers and also to address the eutrophication of surface waters. Additionally, the Legislature 

has supported retrofitting the urban environment, providing for the development of BMPs, and 

assessing waterbodies, as seen in Table 11.3. 

Land Acquisition 

Land acquisition is an essential component of the state’s surface water protection and 

restoration activities. The state’s first environmental land acquisition program was enacted by 

the Florida Legislature in 1972 (the Environmentally Endangered Lands Act). In 1981, the Save 

our Coasts and Save our Rivers Programs were enacted to expand land acquisition. In 1989, 

recognizing the importance of accelerating land acquisition, given the state’s rapid population 

growth, the Preservation 2000 program was enacted. This decade-long program provided $300 

million annually for land acquisition. In 1999, Preservation 2000 was extended for another 

decade by the enactment of the Florida Forever Program, which continued the $300 million 

annual commitment for another decade. These programs have led to the acquisition of over 2.5 

million acres of sensitive lands.

Costs and Benefits of Implementing Florida’s Surface Water 

Protection Programs to Meet the CWA’s Objectives

The EPA, in partnership with the states, conducts the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 

(CWNS) to identify and document the cost of projects needed to address water quality and 

public health in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.-held territories. The CWNS 

includes detailed estimates of the capital costs eligible for funding under the CWSRF Program 

established by the 1987 Amendments to the CWA—that is, CWSRF-eligible costs. The CWNS 

includes publicly owned municipal wastewater collection and treatment facilities, facilities for the 

control of combined sewer overflows (CSOs), activities designed to control stormwater runoff, 

activities designed to control nonpoint source pollution, and activities associated with 

implementing approved Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) under 

the National Estuary Program (NEP) established by Section 320 of the CWA. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

192

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table 11.3. Florida Legislative Appropriations for Nonpoint Sources and TMDLs, 2000–11

This is a four-column table generated from budgets passed by the Legislature. Column 1 lists the budget year, 

Column 2 lists the state appropriation to FDEP’s nonpoint source activities, Column 3 lists the state appropriation to 

TMDL programs, and Column 4 lists the aid to local governments for nonpoint source activities, including restoration.

- = Empty cell/no data

1 The TMDL Program was not specifically appropriated funds until 2006–07. Prior to that, the program was funded with Section 106 

funds and general appropriations to FDEP. 

Year

State 

Appropriation to 

Nonpoint 

Sources

(does not 

include 

FDEP/WMD

salaries or 

expenses)

State Appropriation 

to TMDL Programs Aid to Local Governments

2000–01 N/A1 N/A1 $453,000 (SRWMD) 

$250,000 (WMDs)

2001–02 $2,800,000 N/A1 $453,000 (SRWMD)

$250,000 (WMDs)

2002–03 $2,800,000 N/A1 $453,000 (SRWMD)

$250,000 (WMDs)

2003–04 $3,000,000 N/A1 $453,000 (SRWMD)

$250,000 (WMDs)

2004–05 $9,280,552 N/A1 $453,000 (SRWMD) 

$250,000 (WMDs)

2005–06 $8,500,000 N/A1

$123,562,460 (nonpoint source restoration 

projects; includes some wastewater repairs and 

sewering)

$453,000 (SRWMD) 

$250,000 (WMDs)

2006–07 $12,900,000 $17,000,000

$215,733,274 (nonpoint source restoration 

projects; includes some wastewater repairs and 

sewering)

$10,000,000 (SWIM projects)

$453,000 (SRWMD) 

$250,000 (WMDs)

2007–08 $8,500,000 $16,500,000

$153,350,000 (nonpoint source restoration 

projects; includes some wastewater repairs and 

sewering)

$10,000,000 (SWIM projects) 

$453,000 (SRWMD) 

$250,000 (WMDs)

2008–09 $3,175,706 $7,148,228

$66,500,000 (nonpoint source restoration 

projects; includes some wastewater repairs and 

sewering)

$453,000 (SRWMD) 

$250,000 (WMDs)

2009–10 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $453,000 (SRWMD)

$100,000 (WMDs)

2010–11 $2,410,000 $6,250,000

$800,000 (nonpoint source restoration project) 

$453,000 (SRWMD) 

$100,000 (WMDs)

Total $54,366,258 $47,898,228 $586,925,734
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

193

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Key elements of the survey are as follows:

• Facilities must be publicly owned and operated; 

• Costs represent capital needs (operating and maintenance costs are not 

represented); and

• Costs must be documented.

Historically, the costs have been interpreted as representing 20-year design needs, but since 

the 1996 survey, costs have been documented by planning and design documents representing 

horizons of 10 years or less. The survey is conducted every four years, and the results are 

published in the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Report to Congress. The 2008 survey results 

are available on the EPA’s Clean Watershed Needs survey website. Table 11.4 summarizes 

the most recent survey results for Florida.

These needs are being addressed by several funding mechanisms, most notably the CWSRF

Program; direct congressional appropriations through the State and Tribal Assistance Grant 

(STAG) Program; state appropriations through the Community Budget Initiative Request (CBIR) 

Program; the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) (a joint 50/50 program 

funded by Florida and the EPA); Section 319 nonpoint source grants; TMDL Water Quality 

Restoration Grants; and local county, municipal, and WMD programs. 

Table 11.4. Results of the 2008 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey for Florida

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the category of need, and Column 2 lists the dollar amount needed.

Category of Need Needs ($000)

Category I – Secondary Treatment $ 0 

Category II – Advanced Treatment $ 9,356

Category III-A – Inflow/Infiltration Correction $ 135

Category III-B – Major Sewer Rehabilitation $ 1,529

Category IV-A – New Collector Sewers $ 3,013

Category IV-B – New Transmission Facilities $ 1,828

Category V – Combined Sewer Overflow Correction 0 

Category VI – MS4 Permitted Stormwater Management $ 2,498

Category VII – Nonpoint Source BMPs $ 2,079

Category VIII – Confined Animals Point Source 0 

Category IX – Mining Point Source 0 

Category X – Recycled Reclaimed Water Distribution $ 1,198

Category XI – Estuary Management $ 2,151

Florida’s Total Needs $15,861
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

194

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Coordination with Other State, Tribal, and Local Agencies

Florida’s surface water protection programs all emphasize the need for interagency coordination 

in achieving statewide water management goals. Table 11.5 lists the primary state, local, and 

regional coordination mechanisms for managing water resources. Figure 11.1 shows the 

agencies responsible for water resource management and coordination in Florida, and lists their 

principal activities.

Table 11.5. Primary Coordination Mechanisms for Managing State,

Regional, and Local Water Resources

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the function/entity, and Column 2 lists the primary coordination 

mechanisms.

Function/Entity Primary Mechanisms

General supervision over WMDs (policies, plans, 

and programs) 

(FDEP) 

a. Water Resources Coordinating Commission

b. Meetings of the WMDs’ executive directors

c. Water Resource Implementation Rule (Rule 62-40, F.A.C.)

d. Florida Water Plan/District Water Management Plan (DWMP) 

work group

e. Issue-specific work groups (policy and rule development)

f. Reuse Coordinating Committee

g. Memoranda of Understanding (delegation of programs and 

authorities)

h. Permit streamlining, mitigation banking

i. FDEP review of WMD rules and budgets, auditing

Statewide watershed management approach 

(FDEP) 

a. Implementation of rotating basin watershed management cycle 

for assessing the state’s river basins

b. Process for verifying impaired waterbodies in each basin

c. Development of TMDLs for verified impaired waters

d. Adaptive management

State Comprehensive Plan 

(Governor’s Office) Overall coordination by Governor’s Office

Florida Transportation Plan 

(Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT]) Interagency plan review process

Strategic regional policy plans 

(Regional Planning Councils)

a. Florida Water Plan/DWMP work group

b. Plan review process (Subsection 186.507[2], F.S., and Rule

27E-5, F.A.C.)

Agricultural interests 

(FDACS) Agricultural Water Policy Committee

Local comprehensive plans 

(Florida Department of Economic Opportunity 

[FDEO])

Interagency review of local government comprehensive plans and 

plan amendments (Chapter 163, Part II, F.S.)

Water supply planning, wastewater management, 

stormwater management, solid waste management

(Local governments)

FDEP and WMD programs for technical and financial assistance
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

195

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Function/Entity Primary Mechanisms

Reuse of reclaimed water

(FDEP, WMDs, FDOT, Public Service Commission) Reuse Coordinating Committee

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) 

a. Public works program

b. State clearinghouse review process

c. Quarterly meetings between FDEP and the USACOE

d. Joint FDEP/USACOE permit application process (CWA, Section 

404)

e. Memoranda of Understanding

f. Potential delegation of Section 404 permitting to FDEP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

a. EPA/FDEP yearly work plans and grants

b. EPA technical assistance and special projects

c. Delegation of EPA/CWA programs to FDEP

d. NEP annual work plans and grants

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) 

a. Grants

b. Cooperative agreements and special projects

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) a. Contracts for technical services and data

b. Cooperative agreements

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly 

Soil Conservation Service)

Contracts for technical services and data

U.S. Forest Service Ecosystem Management teams

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

a. Acquisition programs

b. Ecosystem Management teams

c. Special projects

National Park Service a. Acquisition programs

b. Ecosystem Management teams

Alabama and Georgia

a. Memorandum of Agreement for Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–

Flint/Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa Rivers Comprehensive Study

b. Suwannee River Coordinating Committee

c. St. Marys River Management Committee

d. Florida–Alabama Water Resources Coordinating Council
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

196

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Figure 11.1. Agencies Responsible for Water Resource Coordination and Management in Florida

Wetlands Program

Wetlands Inventory and Wetlands Protection

This section provides an inventory of the major wetlands and historical coverage of wetlands in 

the state, the development of wetlands water quality standards, and management and 

protection efforts for wetlands and other surface waters. Due to a lack of sufficient funding and 

resources, Florida does not have a program to comprehensively monitor the areal extent (gains

or losses of wetland acreage) or health (water quality and functions) of wetlands on a statewide 

basis. Some monitoring is required in the process of reviewing and granting permits for 

dredging and filling in wetlands and other surface waters, particularly when the permit 

authorizes mitigation for work in wetlands or other surface waters, and for activities that 

discharge wastewater to wetlands. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

197

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Historical Wetlands Coverage in Florida

Although information on the historical extent of Florida’s wetlands is limited, one researcher 

estimates that the state lost as many as 46% of its original wetlands between the 1780s and the 

1980s. Table 11.6 contains estimates of Florida’s historical wetlands at a number of different 

points in time.

Table 11.6. Historical Estimates of Wetlands in Florida, 1780–1980

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the period for the estimate, Column 2 lists the wetlands acreage during 

that period, and Column 3 lists the information source.

Period Wetlands Acreage Source

circa 1780 approx. 200,000,000 unknown

mid-1950s 12,779,000 Hefner 1986

mid-1970s 11,334,000 Hefner 1986

mid-1970s 11,298,600 Frayer and Hefner 1991

1979–80 11,854,822 Tiner 1984

circa 1980 11,038,300 Dahl 1990

What is notable about the table above is that the rate of wetland loss has significantly slowed 

since the mid-1970s, corresponding to when federal and state dredge-and-fill regulatory 

programs were enacted. There is no single, current, comprehensive way to estimate the 

wetland acreage in Florida. The state developed its own wetland delineation methodology, 

which has been adopted as Rule 62-340, F.A.C. This methodology, used by all state and local 

agencies throughout the state, requires field-based, site-specific determinations on a case-bycase basis—including an assessment of on-site soils, hydrology, and vegetation. As such, 

wetland estimates using the Florida methodology cannot be determined based on aerial surveys 

or mapping. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have estimated wetlands coverage nationwide, 

including Florida, using the National Wetlands Inventory, and many of the estimates in the table 

are based on that inventory. However, wetlands mapped in the inventory have not been 

ground-truthed and maps produced using the inventory do not directly correspond to either the 

state methodology or the wetland mapping methodology used by the USACOE. 

Development of Wetlands Water Quality Standards

Florida does not have separate water quality standards for wetlands. Wetlands are considered 

surface waters of the state, although water quality standards do not apply to wetlands that are 

wholly owned by one person other than the state, except with respect to discharges offsite and 

into ground water.6

 Wetlands in which water quality standards apply are subject to the same 

water quality standards as other surface waters, including the same five functional 

classifications described earlier and the state's anti-degradation rules (as set out in Sections 62-

302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C.). Most wetlands, like most surface waters in Florida, are 

designated as Class III Waters, except where a wetland is part of the landward extent of another 

waterbody that is classified otherwise (as Class I, II, IV, or V waters), in which case the water 

quality standards that apply to the wetland are the same as the waterbody with which the 

wetlands are associated. 

 

6

 Wetlands owned entirely by one person other than the state are not considered waters of the state; this would include isolated 

wetlands owned entirely by one permit (Section 403.031[13], F.S.).
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

198

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida’s rules already contain qualitative and quantitative biological criteria—for example, 

substances shall not be present in concentrations that will result in a dominance of nuisance 

species, and there is a maximum allowable degradation of biological integrity. The state has 

developed procedures for assessing biological communities in streams and lakes, defining 

relevant ecoregions, and identifying relatively pristine reference sites. Florida has also 

developed and implemented the toughest standards for phosphate loading in the country (10 

parts per billion [ppb] for the Everglades). Lake Apopka (in central Florida), which has long

been degraded by agricultural runoff and wastewater discharges, and its associated wetlands 

also have a special standard of 55 ppb for TP.

7

Wetlands Management and Protection

Florida implements an independent state regulatory permitting program that operates in addition 

to the federal dredge-and-fill permitting program. Under the authority of Part IV, Chapter 373, 

F.S., the state’s regulatory permit program, known as the ERP Program, governs the 

construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment or removal of any surface water

management system (including stormwater management systems), dam, impoundment, 

reservoir, appurtenant work or works, including dredging or filling in wetlands and other surface

waters, and for the maintenance and operation of existing agricultural surface water 

management systems or the construction of new agricultural surface water management 

systems dredging and filling. A separate regulatory program under Sections 403.9321 through 

403.9333, F.S., governs the trimming and alteration of mangroves, which consist of tropical to 

subtropical wetland swamp vegetation growing within tidal environments, primarily in south 

Florida.

As discussed below, Florida’s ERP Program is implemented jointly by FDEP and the five 

WMDs, as well as by one delegated local government. As such, there are some differences in 

how the program is implemented statewide. Rules regulating impacts to wetlands and other 

surface waters have been adopted by FDEP and each of the WMDs. These include Rules 62-

25, 62-312, 62-330, 62-340, 62-341, 62-343, 62-346, 40A-4, 40B-4, 40B-400, 40C-4, 40C-40, 

40C-41, 40C-400, 40D-4, 40D-40, 40D-400, 40E-4, 40E-40, 40E-41, and 40E-400, F.A.C. A 

requirement for issuing a permit is that the activity must not be contrary to the public interest, or, 

if located in OFWs, the activity must be clearly in the public interest.8

 The major provisions of 

the ERP Program are as follows:

• Statewide, the ERP Program regulates virtually all alterations to the landscape, 

including all tidal and freshwater wetlands and other surface waters (including 

isolated wetlands) and uplands. The ERP addresses dredging and filling in 

wetlands and other surface waters, as well as stormwater runoff quality (i.e., 

stormwater treatment) and quantity (i.e., stormwater attenuation and flooding of 

other properties), including that resulting from alterations of uplands. The 

program regulates everything from the construction of single-family residences in 

wetlands, to convenience stores in uplands, to dredging and filling for any 

purpose in wetlands and other surface waters (including maintenance dredging), 

to the construction of roads located in uplands and wetlands, to agricultural 

alterations that impede or divert the flow of surface waters. Issuance of the ERP 

also constitutes a water quality certification or waiver under Section 401 of the 

 

7 Paragraph 373.461(3)(a), F.S., and Section 11.7 of the SJRWMD Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface 

Waters. 8 Although this last designation, created in 1989, applies to Everglades and Biscayne National Parks, it has not been confirmed by 

the Florida Legislature.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

199

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1341. In addition, the issuance of an ERP in coastal counties 

constitutes a finding of consistency under the Florida Coastal Zone Management 

Program under Section 307 (Coastal Zone Management Act). The ERP 

Program is implemented jointly by FDEP, five WMDs, and one (as of 2009) 

delegated local government (Broward County), in accordance with operating 

agreements that identify the respective divisions of responsibilities. In addition, 

the WMDs administer permits for surface water and ground water withdrawals 

(consumptive use permitting) under Part II, Chapter 373, F.S.

• In the Panhandle (encompassing the geographic territory of the NWFWMD, west 

of and including mid-Jefferson County), a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) 

under Rule 62-312, F.A.C., and, in some cases, a separate stormwater permit 

under Rule 62-25, F.A.C., is required instead of an ERP for activities

“grandfathered” under Subsections 373.414(11) through (16), F.S., or Paragraph

373.4145(1)(a), F.S. The WRP regulates dredging and filling in surface waters 

of the state that are connected (directly or via one or more natural or artificial 

waters) to other bays, bayous, streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, or the Gulf of 

Mexico. It does not regulate dredging or filling in isolated wetlands. The 

stormwater rule (Rule 62-25, F.A.C.) only addresses water quality, not water 

quantity.

• The following special provisions apply to agriculture and forestry: 

o Sections 373.406 and 403.927, F.S., exempt certain agricultural activities 

from the need for an ERP. These include the rights of any person engaged 

in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture to alter 

the topography for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation, 

provided the alteration is not for the sole or predominant purpose of 

impounding or obstructing surface waters. Permit applicants must show that 

they will not harm wetlands (including isolated wetlands) of five acres or 

larger. The review of all agricultural activities, including permitting, 

compliance, and enforcement, is the responsibility of Florida’s five WMDs. 

FDACS, in cooperation with FDEP and the WMDs, developed various BMP

handbooks to help the agricultural community work in a manner that 

minimizes adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. 

o Certified aquaculture activities that apply appropriate BMPs adopted under 

Section 597.004, F.S., are exempt from the need for permits under Part IV, 

Chapter 373, F.S. Compliance, enforcement, and permitting of such 

aquaculture activities are the responsibility of FDACS. Compliance, 

enforcement, and permitting of activities that are not so certified continue to 

be the responsibility of FDEP. 

In addition to the regulatory permit programs described above, activities that are located on 

submerged lands owned by the state (otherwise called sovereign submerged lands) also require 

a proprietary authorization for such use under Chapter 253, F.S., and Rule 18-21, F.A.C. Such 

lands generally extend waterward from the mean high water line (of tidal waters) or the ordinary 

high water line (of fresh waters) both inland and out to the state’s territorial limit (approximately 

3 miles into the Atlantic Ocean, and 10 miles into the Gulf of Mexico). 

If such lands are located in certain designated Aquatic Preserves, the authorization also must 

meet the requirements of Chapter 258, F.S., and Rule 18-18, F.A.C. (in the Biscayne Bay 

Aquatic Preserve), and Rule 18-20, F.A.C. (in all the other aquatic preserves). Such 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

200

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

authorization considers issues such as riparian rights, impacts to submerged land resources, 

and the preemption of other uses of the water by the public. Authorizations typically are in the 

form of consents of use, easements, and leases. This program is implemented jointly by FDEP

and four of the state’s five WMDs, in accordance with the same operating agreement that 

governs the ERP Program. The program is structured so that applicants who do not qualify at 

the time of the permit application for both the regulatory permit and the proprietary authorization 

cannot receive either a permit or an authorization.

Although each FDEP and WMD office has its own enforcement officers, the public reports many 

violations. Public education occurs through several state pamphlets and documents, technical 

and regulatory workshops, and newspaper coverage. The press has done a good job of 

reporting on wetlands issues.

As discussed above, Florida uses its own methodology (Rule 62-340, F.A.C.), rather than the 

federal methodology, to delineate the boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters. This 

approach, designed specifically for Florida wetland communities, determines the landward 

extent of wetlands and other surface waters. It applies to both isolated and contiguous 

wetlands, with some exceptions in northwest Florida, and must be used by all local, state, and 

regional governments.

Numerous programs are working to restore both freshwater and estuarine wetlands—most 

notably the Everglades system. Over 60,000 acres of filtration marshes, known as stormwater 

treatment areas (STAs), are being built to reduce the phosphorus in agricultural runoff entering 

the Everglades.

Land acquisition is crucial to wetlands preservation. The state has bought thousands of acres 

of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive lands since 1963, mainly through the Florida 

Forever and Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Programs, administered by FDEP, 

and the Save Our Rivers (SOR) Program, administered by the WMDs. Both are funded 

primarily by the documentary stamp tax on the transfer of property. Additional funding comes 

from the Preservation 2000 (P-2000) Trust Fund. In addition to outright land purchases, the 

state and WMDs can enter into agreements where the owner retains use of the property with 

certain restrictions such as conservation easements, the purchase of development rights, 

leasebacks, and sale with reserved life estates.

Mitigation, which is often used to offset otherwise unpermittable wetlands impacts, may include 

the restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of wetlands, other surface waters, or 

uplands. Before 2004, the recommended ranges of ratios for offsetting wetland impacts through 

mitigation generally ranged from 1.5:1 to 4:1 for created or restored marshes, 2:1 to 5:1 for 

created or restored swamps, 4:1 to 20:1 for wetlands enhancement, 10:1 to 60:1 for wetlands 

preservation, and 3:1 to 20:1 for uplands preservation.

In 2004, FDEP, in consultation with the WMDs, adopted a statewide Uniform Mitigation 

Assessment Method (UMAM) in Rule 62-345, F.A.C. All state, regional, and local agencies in 

the state use UMAM to determine the amount of mitigation required to offset impacts to 

wetlands and other surface waters. As of August 2005, the USACOE, Jacksonville District, also 

began using this method. It is used to determine the amount of functional loss caused by a 

proposed project, and the amount of “lift” need to offset that loss of function.

FDEP and the WMDs adopted rules governing mitigation banks in 1994 (Rule 62-342, F.A.C.). 

A mitigation bank is a large area set aside for enhancement, restoration, and preservation. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

201

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Mitigation credits are the increase in ecological value from restoring, creating, enhancing, or 

preserving wetlands. Permit applicants can use mitigation credits to offset damage to wetlands 

functions. Table 11.7 lists all open mitigation banks in the state and the agency administering 

each of them. 

Table 11.7. Open Mitigation Banks in Florida1 

This is a six-column table. Column 1 lists the bank name, Column 2 the administrative agency, Column 3 the 

acreage, Column 4 the potential credits, Column 5 the credits released, and Column 6 the credits used.

- = Empty cell/no data 1

 Current data were updated as indicated by the superscript date. 2 SFWMD = South Florida Water Management District

SJRWMD – St. Johns River Water Management District

SWFWMD = Southwest Florida Water Management District

Bank Name

Administrative 

Agency2 Acres

Potential 

Credits

Credits 

Released

Credits

Used

Bear PointApr-11 FDEP 317.00 49.80 49.80 5 

Breakfast PointDec-08 FDEP 4,637.00 1,011.28 194.19 30.58

CorkscrewJun-11 FDEP 635.00 351.80 155.69 113.06

Devils SwampApr-10 FDEP 3,049.20 516.74 208.20 10.36

FMBApr-11 FDEP 1,582.00 847.50 847.50 815.50

FPL/EMB INov-10 FDEP 4,125.00 390.71 390.71 281.57

FPL/EMB IIApr-11 FDEP 9,026.00 1,769.53 547.27 208.77

GarconNov-10Oct-07 FDEP 337.00 172.39 77.40 25.41

GrahamOct-07 FDEP 66.00 32.50 29.25 5.50

LoxNov-10 FDEP 1,264.00 641.60 470.60 336.50

LPIApr-11 FDEP 1,264.00 807.00 330.60 236.85

NOKUSEFeb-11 FDEP 2220.00 273.83 27.38 0.00

San PedroDec-08 FDEP 6,748.00 1,083.00 388.60 31.30

Sand Hill LakesOct-10 FDEP 2,155.00 298.40 178.90 87.36

Wekiva RiverJan-10 FDEP 1,643.00 258.24 97.53 28.95

Big CypressAug-08 SFWMD 1,280.00 1,001.78 641.19 246.23

BluefieldAug-09 SFWMD 2,695.00 1,244.00 868.00 408.00

PantherAug-08 SFWMD 2,788.00 934.64 880.85 851.63

Reedy CreekAug-08 SFWMD 2,993.00 627 590.13 416.00

RG ReserveAug-08 SFWMD 638.00 32.48 10.00 2.55

Treasure Coast SFWMD 2,545.14 1,033.43 - - 

BarbervilleDec-08 SJRWMD 366 84.30 58.30 57.42

BlackwaterDec-08 SJRWMD 347.00 152.13 15.31 2.01

Brick Road Dec-08 SJRWMD 2945.00 451.41 - - 

CGW Dec-08 SJRWMD 150.00 66.20 54.60 42.70

Colbert Dec-08 SJRWMD 2,604.00 718.80 560.30 515.90

East Central Dec-08 SJRWMD 1,061.00 286.30 286.30 286.04

Farmton Dec-08 SJRWMD 23,992.00 4,585.00 783.20 720.87

Lake Louisa Dec-08 SJRWMD 1,007.00 297.90 246.00 245.90

Lake Monroe Dec-08 SJRWMD 603.00 199.90 130.00 114.58

Loblolly Dec-08 SJRWMD 6,247.00 2,031.80 1,074.51 1,008.50
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

202

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bank Name

Administrative 

Agency2 Acres

Potential 

Credits

Credits 

Released

Credits

Used

Longleaf Dec-08 SJRWMD 3,021.00 808.30 444.58 169.13

Mary A Dec-08 SJRWMD 2,069.00 1,252.80 707.29 394.92

NE Florida Dec-08 SJRWMD 779.00 407.30 393.90 376.98 

Port Orange Dec-08 SJRWMD 5,719.00 1,176.30 237.90 112.10

Sundew Dec-08 SJRWMD 2,107.00 698.30 192.01 129.85

Thomas Creek Dec-08 SJRWMD 594.00 72.48 20.91 - 

TM-Econ Dec-08 SJRWMD 5,199.00 1,568.60 879.46 538.94

Toso Dec-08 SJRWMD 1,312.00 185.00 185.00 152.90

Tupelo Dec-08 SJRWMD 1,524.80 459.70 258.76 209.37

Boran Dec-08 SWFWMD 237.00 108.59 108.59 100.70

Hammock Lakes Dec-08 SWFWMD 819.00 58.04 - - 

Myakka Dec-08 SWFWMD 380.00 224.60 38.20 12.09

Tampa Bay Dec-08 SWFWMD 161.200 111.55 - - 

Upper Coastal Dec-08 SWFWMD 149.00 47.62 - - 

Wetlandsbank Dec-08 SFWMD 420.00 370.00 367.37 367.37

Split Oak Dec-08 SFWMD 1,049.00 206.50 88.80 88.80

Integrity of Wetlands Resources

Table 11.8 shows the acreage of wetlands that have been authorized to be dredged, filled, 

created, improved, and preserved as a result of ERPs and WRPs issued by FDEP and the 

WMDs from 2010 to 2011. 

Results of Florida’s Surface Water Protection Programs

Despite the increase in Florida’s population over the past 35 years, from 6.8 million to more than 

18 million, the state’s surface water management programs have been successful in preventing 

and minimizing pollution from new sources, especially from new nonpoint sources of pollution, 

and in reducing existing pollutant loadings, especially from point sources of pollution. This has 

been accomplished by implementing new technologies, requiring better treatment of wastewater 

discharges, eliminating many surface water discharges, and treating stormwater.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

203

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table 11.8. Acreage of Affected Wetlands Regulated by FDEP and the WMDs (2010–11) 

This is a five-column table. Column 1 lists the agency, Column 2 lists the wetlands acreage permanently lost, 

Column 3 lists the acreage created, Column 4 lists the acreage preserved, and Column 5 lists the acreage improved.

1 FDEP data coverage is from October 2010 to September 2011. 2 Data do not represent impacts from nonregulated or unpermitted activities. 3 Wetlands destroyed. 4 Wetlands created where none existed. 5 Wetlands with additional protective devices placed on them (i.e., conservation easements). 6 Poor or lesser quality jurisdictional wetlands enhanced through various activities (i.e., improved hydrology; the removal of exotics, 

the re-establishment of native flora). 

Agency

Wetlands Acreage 

Permanently Lost3 Wetlands Acreage Created4 Wetlands Acreage Preserved5 Wetlands Acreage Improved6

FDEP1 11.85 4.23 96.19 7.56

NWFWMD 13.07 2.65 93.41 9.76

SWFWMD 430.20 1,088.34 3,947.53 1,743.49

SJRWMD 872.00 61.17 3,676.24 627.17

SFWMD 577.00 1,108.04 3,327.75 3,067.73

SRWMD 5.58 0.00 28.64 0.75

Total2 1,909.70 2,264.43 11,169.76 5,456.46
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

204

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

REFERENCES 

Abbott, J.P., L.J. Flewelling, and J.H. Landsberg. 2009. Saxitoxin monitoring of three species 

of Florida puffer fish. Harmful Algae 8: 343–348. 

Abbott, G.M., J.H. Landsberg, A.R. Reich, K.A. Steidinger, S. Ketchen, and C. Blackmore. 

2009. Resource guide for public health response to harmful algal blooms in Florida. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 

Technical Report TR-14. Available: http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_

redirection_process.asp?file=TR_14screen.pdf&objid=20125&dltype=article.

American Public Health Association. 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and 

wastewater resources. 19th Edition. Baltimore, MD: United Book Press.

American Safety Council. 2010. Florida quickfacts. Available: http://www.

stateofflorida.com/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=95. 

Americasroof.com. 2012. Florida highest named summits. Available: 

http://www.americasroof.com/highest/fl.shtml. 

Arthur, J.A., A.A. Dabous, and J.B. Cowart. 2002. Mobilization of arsenic and other trace 

elements during aquifer storage and recovery, southwest Florida. U.S. Geological Survey 

Open File Report 02–89. USGS Artificial Recharge Workshop Proceedings. Available: 

http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/ofr0289/jda_mobilization.htm. 

Azanza, R.V., and F.J.R.M. Taylor. 2001. Are Pyrodinium blooms in the Southeast Asianregion 

recurring and spreading? A view at the end of the millennium. Ambio 30: 356–364.

Backer, L.C. 2009. Impacts of Florida red tides on coastal communities. Harmful Algae 8: 

618–622. 

Backer, L.C., L.E. Fleming, A.D. Rowan, and D.G. Baden. 2003. Epidemiology, public health 

and human illnesses associated with harmful marine algae. In: G.M. Hallegraeff, D.M. 

Anderson, and A.D. Cembella (Eds.), Manual on harmful marine microalgae (Paris, France:

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, pp. 723–750). 

Bay Regional Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (BRACE). 2011. Tampa, FL: University of 

South Florida, Health Sciences Center, College of Public Health, Environmental and

Occupational Health. Available: http://hsc.usf.edu/publichealth/EOH/BRACE/. 

Blair, J.A., and R. Jones. Updated January 15, 2008. Consumer Fertilizer Task Force: Final 

report to the 2008 Florida Legislature. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Florida 

Conflict Resolution Consortium. Available: http://consensus.fsu.edu/fertilizer-taskforce/pdfs2/Fertilizer_Task_Force_Final_Report11408-3.pdf. 

Bodager, D. 2002. Outbreak of saxitoxin illness following consumption of Florida pufferfish. 

Florida Journal of Environmental Health 179: 9–13. 

Brown, M.T., K.C. Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, P.W. Inglett, K.S. Inglett, K.R. Reddy, T.K. 

Frazer, C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips, R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, R.G. Hamann, and K.A. 

McKee. April 28, 2008. Summary and synthesis of the available literature on the effects of 

nutrients on spring organisms and systems. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Water 

Institute. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/UF_SpringsNutrients_

Report.pdf. 

Burns, J. 2008. Toxic cyanobacteria in Florida waters. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 619: 127–137. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

205

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Burns, J., C. Williams, and A. Chapman. 2002. Cyanobacteria and their toxins in Florida 

surface waters. In: D. Johnson and R.D. Harbison (Eds.), Proceedings of health effects of 

exposure to cyanobacteria toxins: State of the science (August 13–14, 2002, Sarasota, FL, 

pp. 16–21). 

Campbell, P. May 1997. Current population reports: Population projections: States, 1995–

2025. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available: 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2/pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf. 

Carvalho, A., W. Schropp, G.M. Sloane, T.P. Biernacki, and T.L. Seal. 2003. Development of 

an interpretive tool for assessment of metal enrichment in Florida freshwater sediment. 

Jacksonville, FL: Taylor Engineering and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/docs/seds/FFW_Metals_Report_Final.pdf. 

Chang, N.B., M. Wanielista, A. Daranpob, F. Hossain, and Z. Xuan et al. April 17, 2011. Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems evaluation for nutrient removal. FDEP Project 

#WM 928. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida, Civil, Environmental, and 

Construction Engineering Department, Stormwater Management Academy. Available: 

http://stormwater.ucf.edu/research/UCF_OSTDSFinalReport04192011.pdf. 

Chapman, A.D., and C.L. Schelske. 1997. Recent appearance of Cylindrospermopsis 

(Cyanobacteria) in five hypereutrophic Florida lakes. J. Phycology 33: 191–195.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 2012. Available: 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/. 

Conover, W.J. 1999. Practical nonparametric statistics. New York: Wiley. 

Copeland, R., N.A. Doran, A.J. White, and S.B. Upchurch. 2009. Regional and statewide 

trends in Florida’s spring and well groundwater quality. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 

No. 69. Tallahassee, FL. Available: http://ufdcweb1.uflib.ufl.edu/ufdc/

?b=UF00095137&v=00001. 

Crabbe, N. February 28, 2008. Drought just tip of water problems. Gainesville Sun.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands: Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Report to Congress. St. Petersburg, FL: National Wetlands Inventory. 

Available: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/. 

———. 2005. Florida's wetlands: An update on status and trends, 1985 to 1996. Washington, 

DC: U.S .Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Floridas-Wetlands-An-Update-on-Status-andTrends-1985-to-1996.pdf#search. 

Emslie, S.D., W.D. Allmon, F.J. Rich, J.H. Wrenn, and S.D. Defrance. 1996. Integrated 

taphonomy of an avian death assemblage in marine sediments from the late Pliocene of 

Florida. Palaeogeogr. Palaeocl. 124, 107–136. 

Fernald, E.A., and E.D. Purdum (Eds.). 1998. Water resources atlas of Florida. Tallahassee,

FL: Florida State University, Institute of Science and Public Affairs.

Fleming, L.E., D.G. Baden, J.A. Bean, R. Weisman, and D.G. Blythe. 1998. Marine seafood 

toxin diseases: Issues in epidemiology and community outreach. In: Environmental health 

resources for community outreach and education: Marine science (Miami, FL: National 

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Marine and Freshwater Biomedical Sciences 

Center). Available: http://iodeweb1.vliz.be/odin/bitstream/1834/758/1/Lora%20E5.pdf. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

206

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Flewelling, L.J., J.P. Naar, J.P. Abbott, D.G. Baden, and N.B. Barros et al. 2005. 

Brevitoxicosis: Red tides and marine mammal mortalities. Nature 435 (7043), 755–756.

Florida Administrative Code. August 8, 2007. Section 5E-1.003, Fertilizer: Labels or tags. 

Available: https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=5E-1. 

Florida Administrative Weekly. 2012. Available: https://www.flrules.org/Default.asp.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Revised November 29, 2007. 

Contingency plan for the control of shellfish potentially contaminated by marine biotoxin. 

Tallahassee, FL.

———. 2006. Shellfish harvesting. Division of Aquaculture. Available: 

http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/SEAS/SEAS_intro.htm. 

———. 2006. Red tide. Available: 

http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/RedTide/RedTideInfo.htm. 

———. 2010. Office of Agricultural Water Policy. Available: 

http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Florida coastal sediments 

contaminants atlas. Available: http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/FGS/FGS_Publications/

FGS%20Library%20Documents/FLCoastSedContamAtlas.pdf. 

———. 2000. Integrated water quality assessment for Florida: 2000 305(b) report and 303(d) 

list update. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed Management. Available: 

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

———. 2000–06. Basin status reports and water quality assessment reports. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/default.htm. 

———. February 2001. A report to the Governor and the Legislature on the allocation of Total 

Maximum Daily Loads in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed Management. 

———. January 2003. Interpretative tool for the assessment of metal enrichment in Florida 

freshwater sediment. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/fwseds.htm. 

———. 2004. Integrated water quality assessment for Florida: 2004 305(b) report and 303(d) 

list update. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed Management. Available: 

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

———. December 22, 2004 (revised March 30, 2005). Elements of Florida’s water monitoring 

and assessment program. Tallahassee, FL: Division of Water Resource Management, 

Bureau of Watershed Management. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/docs/monitoring-strategy-2009.pdf. 

———. 2006a. South Florida Mercury Science Program. Available: 

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

———. 2006b. Criteria for surface water quality classifications. Available: 

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

———. 2006c. Florida’s springs: Protecting native gems. Available: www.floridasprings.org.

———. 2006d. Drinking Water Program. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

water/drinkingwater/index.htm. 

———. 2006e. STORET Program. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/

storet/index.htm. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

207

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

———. May 2, 2006. Integrated water quality assessment for Florida: 2006 305(b) report and 

303(d) list update. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed Management. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2006_Integrated_Report.pdf. 

———. December 2006. Canal recharge: A report to the Legislature and Governor. 

Preliminary draft report. Division of Water Resource Management in consultation with the 

South Florida Water Management District. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/docs/CanalRechargeReport.pdf. 

———. January 2007. Best management practices for the enhancement of environmental 

quality on Florida golf courses. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/docs/nonpoint/glfbmp07.pdf. 

———. September 2007. Plan for development of a statewide total maximum daily load for 

mercury (mercury TMDL). Tallahassee, FL: Division of Water Resource Management and 

Division of Air Resource Management, Bureau of Laboratories. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/sas/mercury/docs/merc-tmdl-plan-draft.pdf. 

———. 2008. Florida friendly best management practices for protection of water resources by 

the green industries. Available: 

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/GIBMP_Manual_WEB_2_17_11.pdf . 

———. March 31, 2008a. Standard operating procedures for field activities. DEP-SOP001/01. 

———. March 31, 2008b. Process for assessing data usability. DEP-EA-001/07. 

———. October 2008. Integrated water quality assessment for Florida: 2009 305(b) report and 

303(d) list update. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed Management. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2008_Integrated_Report.pdf. 

———. December 3, 2008. Standard operating procedures for field activities. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/sas/sop/sops.htm. 

———. 2010. 1:24,000 high-resolution, National Hydrography Dataset. 

———. 2011. 2011 Springs database. Tallahassee, FL: Ground Water Management Section.

———. March 2011. Implementation guidance for the fecal coliform total daily maximum loads 

adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL: Division 

of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Bureau of Watershed Restoration. 

Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/docs/fcg_toolkit.pdf. 

———. July 2011. Derivation of dissolved oxygen criteria to protect aquatic life in Florida’s 

fresh and marine waters. Draft technical support document. Tallahassee, FL: Division of 

Environmental Assessment and Restoration. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/docs/do/do_tsd.pdf. 

———. August 29, 2011. Monitoring design document. Tallahassee, FL: Watershed 

Monitoring Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/docs/watershed-monitoring-designdocument.pdf. 

———. 2012a. Agricultural Nonpoint Source Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/agsrc.htm. 

———. 2012b. Basin management action plans—News and announcements. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/bmap.htm. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

208

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

———. 2012c. Beach health results. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/cgibin/beach_health/index.asp. 

———. 2012d. Blue-green algae. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/

bgalgae/index.htm. 

———. 2012e. Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems. Available: http://www.dep.

state.fl.us/waste/categories/pss/default.htm. 

———. 2012f. Chapter 303, Identification of impaired surface waters. Florida Administrative 

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

———. 2012g. Delineation Program. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/

groundwater/delineate.htm. 

———. 2012h. Drinking Water Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/. 

———. 2012i. Drinking Water Toxics Program. Available: 

http://www.myfloridaeh.com/water/drinkingwatertoxics.html. 

———. 2012j. Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/drycleaning/default.htm. 

———. 2012k. Emerging substances of concern fact sheet. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/esoc.htm. 

———. 2012l. Florida Action Team on Energy and Climate Change. Available: 

http://www.flclimatechange.us/index.cfm

.———. 2012m. Florida Forever Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/fl_forever.htm. 

———. 2012n. Florida-friendly landscaping. Green industries best management practice 

training and program overview. Available: 

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/professionals/BMP_overview.htm. 

———. 2012o. Florida Geological Survey. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/. 

———. 2012p. Florida’s springs. Available: http://www.floridasprings.org/. 

———. 2012q. Florida State Emergency Response Team natural resource damage 

assessment. Available: http://nrdata.org/. 

———. 2012r. Florida’s surface water quality standards: Refining designated uses and 

classifications. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/designateduse.htm. 

———. 2012w. Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/wc/pages/cleanup/default.htm. 

———. 2012t. Interpretative tool spreadsheet for assessment of metal enrichment in Florida 

freshwater sediment. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/WATER/monitoring/fwseds.htm. 

———. 2012u. Mercury in aquatic systems in Florida. Available: 

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

———. 2012v. Nonpoint Source Management Program. Available: http://www.dep.

state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/. 

———. 2012w. Development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s waters. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/index.htm. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

209

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

———. 2012x. Petroleum Cleanup Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/pcp/default.htm. 

———. 2012y. Sediment guidelines. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/

monitoring/sediments.htm. 

———. 2012. Status Monitoring Network. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/status.htm. 

———. 2012z. Source Water Assessment and Protection Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/swapp/. 

———. 2012aa. Statewide stormwater treatment rule development. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Water/wetlands/erp/rules/stormwater/index.htm. 

———. 2012bb. Statistical abstract: Geographical summary. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/stats/geographical.htm. 

———. 2012cc. Storage tank and petroleum contamination/cleanup monitoring. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/database_reports/pages/stcm/stcm_reports.ht

m. 

———. 2012dd. STORET. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.htm. 

———. 2012ee. Surface water improvement and management. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/swim.htm. 

———. 2012ff. Temporal Variability (Trend) Monitoring Network. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/trend.htm. 

———. 2012gg. TMDL Program. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/

index.htm. 

———. 2012hh. Wastewater permitting. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wastewater/permitting.htm. 

———. 2012ii. Water sampling data. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/deepwaterhorizon/water.htm. 

———. 2012jj. Underground Injection Control Program. Available: http://www.dep.

state.fl.us/water/uic/. 

———. 2012ll. Watershed Assessment Program. Available: 

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

———. 2012mm. Watershed monitoring. Available: 

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

———. 2012nn. Watershed Supply Restoration Program. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wff/wsupply/. 

———. 2012oo. Wellhead protection. Available: http://www.dep.state.

fl.us/water/groundwater/wellhead.htm. 

Florida Department of Health. 2011. Human health based screening levels for petroleum 

products impacting Gulf coastal waters and beach sediments. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/deepwaterhorizon/files2/FLScreeningLevels.pdf. 

———. 2012a. Healthy Beaches Program. Available: http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/

irm00beachwater/default.aspx. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

210

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

———. 2012b. Bureau of Water Programs. Available: 

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/water/index.html. 

———. 2012c. Fish consumption advisories. Available: 

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/medicine/fishconsumptionadvisories/index.html. 

———. 2012d. Healthy Beaches Program history. Available: 

http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/history/hisintro.htm. 

———. 2012e. Petroleum Surveillance Program (Super Act). Available: 

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Environment/water/petroleum/saindex.html. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010a. Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute. Available: http://research.myfwc.com/. 

———. 2010b. Fish kill database. Available: http://research.myfwc.com/fishkill/. 

———. 2010c. Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force. Available: 

http://myfwc.com/research/redtide/task-force/. 

———. 2012a. The economic impact of saltwater fishing in Florida. Available: 

http://myfwc.com/conservation/value/saltwater-fishing/. 

———. 2012b. Most recent commercial landings data for freshwater fisheries in Florida. 

Available: http://myfwc.com/research/freshwater/fish-projects/commercialfisheries/commercial-landings-data/. 

———. 2012c. The economic impact of freshwater fishing in Florida. Available: 

http://myfwc.com/conservation/value/freshwater-fishing/. 

Florida LAKEWATCH. October 1999. A beginner’s guide to water management: The ABCs. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Available: http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/

circpdffolder/ABCsInt.pdf. 

———. 2012. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

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

Florida Legislature Bureau of Economic and Demographic Research. 2011. Available: 

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/. 

Florida Springs Task Force. November 2000. Florida’s springs: Strategies for protection and 

restoration. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/

SpringsTaskForceReport.pdf. 

Florida Trend. 2009. 2009 economic yearbook: Bad case of the blues. 

Fore, L.S., R. Frydenborg, D. Miller, T. Frick, and D. Whiting et al. March 2007. Development 

and testing of biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams (Stream 

Condition Index and BioRecon: Final report. Prepared for the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Nonpoint Source Bioassessment Program, by Statistical Design, 

Inc., Seattle, WA. Available: 

http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/labs/sas/sopdoc/sci_final.pdf. 

Fore, L.S., R. Frydenborg, N. Wellendorf, J. Espy, and T. Frick et al. December 2007. 

Assessing the biological condition of Florida lakes: Development of the Lake Vegetation 

Index (LVI). Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Nonpoint 

Source Bioassessment Program, by Statistical Design, Inc., Seattle, WA. Available: 

http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/sas/sopdoc/lvi_final07.pdf. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

211

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Frayer, W.E., and J.M. Hefner. 1991. Florida wetlands status and trends, 1970s to 1980s. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Available: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=iL5ywoshPl0C&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=frayer+florid

a+wetlands+status+and+trends,+1970s+to+1980s&source=bl&ots=CcDtpki0N4&sig=_qiGb

7K02n6pOVJStBTvlENfmc&hl=en#v=onepage&q=frayer%20florida%20wetlands%20status%2

0and%20trends%2C%201970s%20to%201980s&f=false. 

Fujiki, H., M. Suganuma, H. Surguri, S. Yoshizawa, and K. Takagi et al. 1990. New tumor 

promoters from marine natural products. In: S. Hall and G. Strichartz (Eds.), Marine toxins: 

Origin, structure and molecular pharmacology (Washington, DC: American Chemical 

Society, pp. 232–240). 

Gabriel, M.C., D.M. Axelrad, T. Lange, and T. Dirk. 2010. Chapter 3B. Mercury and sulfur 

monitoring: Research and environmental assessment in south Florida. In: 2010 South 

Florida environmental report, Volume I (West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water 

Management District). Available: https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/

pg_grp_sfwmd_sfer/portlet_sfer/tab2236037/2010%20report/v1/chapters/v1_ch3B.pdf. 

Gao, X. 2007. TMDL report: Nutrient TMDLs for the Wekiva River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A, and 

2956C) and Rock Springs Run (WBID 2967), Draft 11/15/07. Tallahassee, FL: Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed Assessment Section. Available: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/tmdls/final/gp2/Wekiva_MainStem04182008.pdf. 

Gerritsen, J., B. Jessup, E. Leppo, and J. White. July 2000. Development of Lake Condition 

Indexes (LCI) for Florida. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

by Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD. Available: http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/

dear/labs/sas/sopdoc/lci_final.pdf. 

Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. New York, NY: 

Van Nostrand.

Glibert, P.M., D.M. Anderson, P. Gentien, E. Graneli, and K.G. Sellner. 2005. The global, 

complex phenomena of harmful algal blooms. Oceanography 18, 2 (2005): 136–147.

Governor’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change. October 15, 2008. Florida energy 

and climate change action plan. Available: http://www.flclimatechange.us/documents.cfm. 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2010. Available: http://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/. 

Hale, J.A., T.K. Frazer, D.A. Tomasko, and M.O. Hall. 2004. Changes in the distribution of 

seagrass species along Florida's Central Gulf Coast—Iverson and Bittaker revisited. 

Estuaries 27(1): 36-43. 

Hand, J., N. Lewis, and L. Lord. April 2009. Typical water quality values for Florida lakes, 

streams, blackwaters, coastal waters, and estuaries. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection, Watershed Assessment Section. 

Harrington, D., G. Maddox, and R. Hicks. 2010. Florida Springs Initiative monitoring network 

report and recognized sources of nitrate. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration. 

Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/springs_report_102110.pdf. 

Hefner, J.M. 1986. Wetlands of Florida 1950s to 1970s. In: E.D. Estevez, J. Miller, J. Morris, 

and R. Hamman (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference: Managing cumulative effects in 

Florida wetlands (Madison, WI: Omnipress). New College Environmental Studies 

Program, Publication No. 37.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

212

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Heil, C.A., and K.A. Steidinger. 2009. Monitoring, management, and mitigation of Karenia 

blooms in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Harmful Algae 8: 611–617. 

Heil, D. 2009. Karenia brevis monitoring, management, and mitigation for Florida molluscan 

shellfish harvesting areas. Harmful Algae 8(4): 608–610. 

Jones, G.W, and T. Pichler. 2007. The relationship between pyrite stability and arsenic Mobility 

during aquifer storage and recovery in southwest central Florida. Environmental Science 

and Technology 41-3, 723–730.

Kirkpatrick, B., L.E. Fleming, L.C. Backer, J.A. Bean, R. Tamer, G. Kirkpatrick, T. Kane, A.

Wanner, D. Dalpra, A. Reich, and D.G. Baden. 2006. Environmental exposures to Florida 

red tides: Effects on emergency room respiratory diagnoses admissions. Harmful Algae 5: 

526–533. 

Kirkpatrick, B., L. Fleming, D. SquicciarinI, L. Backer, R. Clark, W. Abraham, J. Benson, Y.S.

Cheng, D. Johnson, R. Pierce, J. Zaias, J.D. Bossart, and D.G. Baden. 2004. Literature 

review of Florida red tide: Implications for human health. Harmful Algae 3: 99–115. 

Kushlan, J.A. 1990. Freshwater marshes. In: R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel (Eds.), Ecosystems of 

Florida (Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press).

Landsberg, J.H. 2002. The effects of harmful algal blooms on aquatic organisms. Reviews in 

Fisheries Science 10: 113–390. 

Landsberg, J.H., S. Hall, J.N. Johannessen, K.D. White, S.M. Conrad, and J.P. Abbott et al. 

2006. Saxitoxin puffer fish poisoning in the United States, with the first report of Pyrodinium 

bahamense as the putative toxin source. Environ. Health Persp. 114: 1502–1507.

Lane, C.R., M.T. Brown, M. Murray-Hudson, and M.B. Vivas. September 2003. The Wetland 

Condition Index (WCI): Biological indicators of wetland condition for isolated depressional 

herbaceous wetlands in Florida. Report submitted to the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection under Contract #WM-683. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 

H.T. Odum Center for Wetlands. Available: http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/labs/

sas/library/docs/wet_herb.pdf. 

Lapointe, B.E., and B.J. Bedford. 2007. Drift rhodophyte blooms emerge in Lee County, 

Florida, USA: Evidence of escalating coastal eutrophication. Harmful Algae 6:421–437.

Lapointe, B.E., P.J. Barile, and C.A. Yentsch. 2004. The physiology and ecology of macroalgal 

blooms (green tides) on coral reefs off northern Palm Beach County, Florida (USA). 

Harmful Algae 3:185–268.

Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed 

contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Seattle, WA: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the assessment of sediment quality in Florida coastal 

waters. MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd. Prepared for the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/

publications/documents/sediment/volume2.pdf. 

MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd. and U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Development and 

evaluation of numerical sediment quality assessment guidelines for Florida inland waters. 

Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/monitoring/docs/seds/SQAGs_for_

Florida_Inland_Waters_01_03.PDF. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

213

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Magaña, H.A., C. Contreras, and T.A. Villareal. 2003. A historical assessment of Karenia 

brevis in the western Gulf of Mexico. Harmful Algae 2, 163–171.

Marella, R.L. 2009. Water withdrawals, use, and trends in Florida, 2005. U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5125. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/

sir/2009/5125/. 

Morris, A., and J.P. Morris. 2009. The Florida handbook: 2009–2010. 32nd biennial edition. 

Tallahassee, FL: Peninsular Publishing Company.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. January 6, 2009. New economic report 

finds commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than two million jobs. 

Available: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090105_nmfseconomics.html. 

———. 2010. Harmful Algal Bloom Operational Forecast System. Available: 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/hab/. 

Natural Resources Defense Council. April 2007. Florida’s coastal and ocean future: A 

blueprint for economic and environmental leadership. Florida Ocean and Coastal Coalition. 

Issue Paper. Available: http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/florida/flfuture.pdf. 

Netstate.com. 2010. The state of Florida. Available: http://www.netstate.com/

states/intro/fl_intro.htm. 

Northwest Florida Water Management District. September 19, 2007. Environmental resource 

permitting in Florida’s Panhandle. Brochure. District Publication Number PIC 07-01. 

———. 2011. Apalachicola River. Available: 

http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/apalachicolariver.html. 

———. 2012. NWFWMD wetland programs: Apalachicola River and Bay watershed. 

Available: http://nwfwmdwetlands.com/Watershed.php?watershed_id=5. 

Obreza, T., M. Clark, B. Boman, T. Borisova, and M. Cohen et al. Revised March 2011. A 

guide to EPA's numeric nutrient water quality criteria. Publication SL316. Tallahassee, FL: 

University of Florida, Soil and Water Science Department, Florida Cooperative Extension 

Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Available: 

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SS/SS52800.pdf. 

Ollis, S., and G. Redfield. 2010. Introduction. In: 2010 South Florida environmental report, 

Volume I, Chapter 1 (West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District). 

Available: https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_sfer/

portlet_sfer/tab2236037/2010%20report/v1/chapters/v1_ch1.pdf. 

Palmer, S.L. 1984. Chapter 6: Surface water. In: E.A. Fernald and D.J. Patton (Eds.), Water 

resources atlas of Florida (Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, pp. 54–67). 

Paul, V.J., R.W. Thacker, and K. Banks. 2005. Benthic cyanobacterial bloom impacts the reefs 

of South Florida (Broward County, USA). Coral Reefs 24:693–697.

Phlips, E.J., S. Badylak, and T.L. Lynch. 1999. Blooms of the picoplanktonic Cyanobacterium 

Synechococcus in Florida Bay. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44:1166–1175.

Phlips, E.J., S. Badylak, E.L. Bledsoe, and M. Cichra. 2006. Factors influencing the distribution 

and abundance of Pyrodinium bahamense in coastal ecosystems of Florida. Mar. Ecol. 

Progr. Ser. 322:99–115. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

214

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Phlips, E.J., S. Badylak, M. Christman, and M. Lasi. 2010a. Climatic trends and temporal 

patterns of phytoplankton composition, abundance and succession in the Indian River 

Lagoon, Florida, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 33:498–513.

Phlips, E.J., S. Badylak, M. Christman, J. Wolney, J. Garland, and L. Hall et al. 2010b. Scales 

of variability of harmful algae blooms in the Indian River, Florida, USA. Harmful Algae,

accepted for publication. 

Phlips, E.J., E. Bledsoe, M. Cichra, S. Badylak, and J.Frost. 2002. The distribution of potentially 

toxic cyanobacteria in Florida. In: D. Johnson and R.D. Harbison (Eds.), Proceedings of 

health effects of exposure to cyanobacteria toxins: State of the science, August 13–14, 

2002, Sarasota, FL, pp. 22–29. 

Poli, M.A., S.M. Musser, R.W. Dickey, P. Eilers, and S. Hall. 2000. Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning and brevetoxin metabolites: A case study from Florida. Toxicon 38: 981–993. 

Price, R.E. and T. Pichler. 2006. Abundance and mineralogical association of arsenic in the 

Suwannee Limestone (Florida): implications for arsenic release during water-rock 

interaction. Invited paper for special issue of Chemical Geology 228 (1-3), 44–56.

Regas, D. July 29, 2005. 2006 integrated report guidance. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Available: 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/2006IRG_index.cfm. 

Reiss, K.C., and M.T. Brown. June 2005a. The Florida Wetland Condition Index (FWCI): 

Developing biological indicators for isolated depressional forested wetlands. Report 

submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection under Contract #WM-683. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands. Available: 

http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/labs/sas/library/docs/wet_depf.pdf. 

———. June 2005b. Pilot study—The Florida Wetland Condition Index (FWCI): Preliminary 

development of biological indicators for forested strand and floodplain wetlands. Report 

submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection under Contract #WM-683. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands. Available: 

http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/labs/sas/library/docs/wet_stfp.pdf. 

Richardson, L., R. Sekar, J.L. Meyers, M. Gantar, and J.D. Voss et al. 2007. The presence of 

the cyanobacterial toxin microcystin in black band disease of corals. FEMS Microbiol Letts 

272: 182–187.

Sato, K., A. Kitahara, K. Satoh, T. Ichikawa, M. Tatematsu, and N. Ito. 1984. The placental 

form of glutathione S-transferase as a new marker protein for preneoplasia in rat chemical 

carcinogenesis. Gann 75: 199–202.

Schropp, S., and H. Windom. 1988. A guide to the interpretation of metals concentrations in 

estuarine sediments. Tallassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 

Coastal Zone Management Section. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/WATER/

monitoring/docs/seds/estuarine.pdf. 

Scott, T.M., G.H. Means, R.P. Meegan, R.C. Means, S.B. Upchurch, R.E. Copeland, J. Jones, 

T. Roberts, and A. Willet. 2004. Springs of Florida. Florida Geological Survey. Bulletin 

66. Available: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/springs/bulletin66.htm. 

Seal, T., F. Calder, G. Sloane, S. Schropp, and H. Windom. 1994. Florida coastal sediment 

contaminants atlas: A summary of coastal sediment quality surveys. Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. Available: http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/FGS/

FGS_Publications/FGS%20Library%20Documents/FLCoastSedContamAtlas.pdf. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

215

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

South Florida Water Management District. 2010a. Available: http://www.sfwmd.

gov/portal/page/portal/sfwmdmain/home%20page. 

———. 2010b. About Everglades. Available: https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/

portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_watershed/subtabs_evergladesflbay_home/tab1834093/flbayalgalblo

om.pdf. 

———. 2012c. Kissimmee Basin. Available: 

http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xweb%20protecting%20and%20restoring/kissimm

ee%20river. 

Southeast Regional Climate Center. September 8, 2011. Florida state averaged precipitation 

data, 1895–2011. Available: 

http://www.sercc.com/climateinfo_files/monthly/Florida_prcp.html. 

———. 2012. Available: http://www.sercc.com/ 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2012. Available: 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/. 

St. Johns River Water Management District. 2012. Management and storage of surface waters 

(MSSW) applicant’s handbook. Available: 

http://www.sjrwmd.com/handbooks/msswhandbook.html. 

Steidinger, K.A., P. Carlson, D. Baden, C. Rodriguez, and J. Seagle. 1998. Neurotoxic shellfish 

poisoning due to toxin retention in the clam Chione cancellata. In: B. Reguera, J. Blanco, 

M.L. Fernández, and T. Wyatt (Eds.), Harmful algae (Paris, France: Xunta de Galicia and 

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, pp. 457–458). 

Steidinger, K.A., J.H. Landsberg, C.R. Tomas, and J.W. Burns. 1999. Harmful algal blooms in 

Florida. Unpublished technical report submitted to the Florida Harmful Algal Bloom Task 

Force. St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and 

Wildlife Research Institute. Available: http://research.myfwc.com/features/

view_article.asp?id=26925. 

Steidinger, K.A., J.H. Landsberg, E.W. Truby, and B.S. Roberts. 1998. First report of

Gymnodinium pulchellum Larsen 1994 (Dinophyceae) in North America and associated fish 

kills in the Indian River, Florida. J. Phycology 34: 431–437.

Stevenson, R.J, A. Pinowska, A. Albertin, and J.O. Sickman. 2007. Ecological condition of alga 

and nutrients in Florida springs: The synthesis report. Michigan State University, 

Department of Zoology, FDEP Contract WM858. Available: http://publicfiles.dep.

state.fl.us/dear/labs/sas/library/docs/springs/synthesisreport.pdf. 

Suwannee River Water Management District. 2010. Nitrate information. Available: 

http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=332. 

———. 2012. Available: http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/. 

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. Resident population by age and state—Projections: 2010 and 

2015. Available: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0018.pdf. 

———. 2010b. Statistical abstract of the United States 2011. 130th Edition. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

216

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

———. 2012a. State and county quickfacts: Florida. Available: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html. 

———. 2012b. State and county quickfacts. Available: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000lk.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 20, 2002. EPA review of 2002 Section 303(d) lists 

and guidelines for reviewing TMDLs under existing regulations issued in 1992. Available: 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/guidance.cfm. 

———. March 2003. Elements of a state water monitoring and assessment program. 

Washington, DC: Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. EPA 841-B-03-003. 

Available: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/. 

———. July 29, 2005. Guidance for 2004 assessment, listing, and reporting requirements 

under Sections 303(d) and 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act. Watershed Branch, Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.

———. 2006a. Ecoregions of Florida. Available: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/

ecoregions/fl_eco.htm. 

———. 2006b. TMDLs in Florida. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/. 

———. 2006c. National STORET/WQX Program. http://www.epa.gov/storet/. 

———. 2008. Clean watersheds needs survey 2008: Report to Congress. Available: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/cwns/upload/cwns2008rtc.pdf. 

———. 2009. Contaminant candidate 3 list. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/ccl/ccl3.html#chemical. 

———. January 14, 2009. Letter to Michael Sole, FDEP Secretary, from Benjamin Grumbles, 

Assistant Administrator. Washington, DC: Office of Water. 

———. 2010a. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cwns/. 

———. 2012b. Aquatic resource monitoring. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/index.htm. 

———. 2012c. Human health benchmarks for chemicals in water. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/health-benchmarks.html. 

———. 2012d. National Priorities List. Available: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/. 

———. 2012e. Watershed improvement summaries. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/watersheds/watershed_summaries.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Branch of Resource and Mapping 

Support. 2010. Wetlands status and trends. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Status-and-Trends/index.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey. May 1995. Springs of Florida. Fact Sheet FS-151-95. Tallahassee, 

FL. Available: http://fl.water.usgs.gov/PDF_files/fs151_95_spechler.pdf. 

———. 2008. Historical water use by category, 1970–2000. Available: 

http://fl.water.usgs.gov/WaterUse/Historical_Tables_Miscellaneous/florida-historicalcategory.1970-2000.htm. 

———. 2012a. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River National Water Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) Program study. Basin description: Apalachicola River Basin. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

217

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Atlanta, GA: Georgia Water Science Center. Available: 

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/basin/apalachicola-basin.html).

———. 2012b. Water resources of the United States. Available: http://water.usgs.gov/. 

U.S. Geological Survey and Florida Water Science Center Environmental Data Server. 2010. 

Available: http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/. 

University of Central Florida Stormwater Management Academy. 2012. Orlando, FL. 

Available: http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/. 

University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. February 2010. A guide to 

EPA’s proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for Florida. SL316. Gainesville, FL: 

Soil and Water Science Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Available: 

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SS/SS52800.pdf. 

———. 2012. Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program. Available: http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/

Visit Florida, Florida Commission on Tourism. 2012. Research. Available: 

http://media.visitflorida.org/research.php. 

Vogel, M. April 2006. Economic yearbook 2006: Good migrations. Florida Trend. 

Water Quality Association. 2006. Water quality glossary: pH. Available: http://www.wqa.

org/glossary.cfm?gl=1146. 

Watkins, S.M., A. Reich, L.E. Fleming, and R. Hammond. 2008. Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning. 

Marine Drugs 6: 431–455. 

Wayland, R.H. November 19, 2001. 2002 Integrated water quality monitoring and assessment 

report guidance. Memorandum. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Wekell, J.C., J. Hurst, and K.A. Lefebvre. 2004. The origin of the regulatory limits for PSP and 

ASP toxins in shellfish. J. Shellfish Res. 23: 927–930. 

Welch, P.S. 1948. Limnological methods. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Williams, C.D., M.T. Aubel, A.D. Chapman, and P.E. D’Aiuto. 2007. Identification of 

cyanobacterial toxins in Florida’s freshwater systems. Lake and Reservoir Management 

23: 144–152. 

Williams, C.D., J. Burns, A. Chapman, M. Pawlowicz, and W. Carmichael. 2006. Assessment

of cyanotoxins in Florida’s surface waters and associated drinking water resources. Final 

report to the St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. Available: 

http://greenwaterlab.com/articles/Assess%20of%20Cyano%202006.pdf. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

218

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Discussion of Status Network Surface Water 

Indicators for Rivers, Streams, and Lakes, and Ground Water 

Indicators for Confined and Unconfined Aquifers

Surface Water Indicators for Rivers, Streams, and Lakes

Table A.1 contains the list of surface water analytes, with the associated criterion for each 

analyte. 

Table A.1. Status Monitoring Network Water Quality Standards for Surface Water

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the criterion/threshold, and Column 3 lists 

the designated use.

1 mL – milliliters; mg/L – milligrams per liter; μg/L – micrograms per liter; PCUs – platinum cobalt units

Indicators Criterion/Threshold1 Designated Use

Fecal Coliform Bacteria < 400 counts/100mL Recreation

DO ≥ 5 mg/L Aquatic Life

Un-ionized Ammonia ≤ 0.02 mg/L Aquatic Life

Chlorophyll a ≤ 20 μg/L Aquatic Life

TSI Color ≤ 40 PCUs, then TSI ≤ 40

Color > 40 PCUs, then TSI ≤ 60 Aquatic Life

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

The threshold for fecal coliform bacteria is 400 colonies per 100 mL of water. Additionally, twice 

that number (800), as cited in Rule 62-302, F.A.C., indicates a highly contaminated result, and 

is used for regulatory purposes. The presence of these bacteria can indicate the contamination 

of a waterway or well and the possible presence of other pathogenic organisms.

Fecal coliform bacteria can enter water through the discharge of waste from mammals and 

birds, agricultural and stormwater runoff, and untreated human sewage. Septic tanks for 

individual homes can become overloaded during the rainy season and allow untreated human 

wastes to flow into drainage ditches and nearby waters. Agricultural practices that fail to contain 

animal wastes during the rainy season, as well as spreading manure and fertilizer on fields 

during rainy periods, and allowing livestock access to streams, can all contribute fecal coliform 

contamination.

DO 

The state criterion for DO is greater than or equal to 5 mg/L. DO is a measure of water quality 

indicating free oxygen dissolved in water. Oxygen is measured in its dissolved form. If more 

oxygen is consumed than is produced, DO levels decline and some sensitive aquatic animals 

may move away, weaken, or die. Levels vary with water temperature; therefore, cold water 

holds more oxygen than warm water.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

219

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Surface water gains oxygen from the atmosphere and plants as a result of photosynthesis. 

Running water contains more oxygen than still water because of its flow. Respiration by aquatic 

animals, decomposition, and various chemical reactions consume oxygen. 

Wastewater from sewage treatment plants often contains organic materials that are 

decomposed by microorganisms, which use oxygen in the process. Other sources of oxygenconsuming waste include stormwater runoff from farmland or urban streets, feedlots, and failing 

septic systems. Ground water is naturally low in DO. Surface water contact with ground water 

seepage or upwelling can cause a natural lowering of DO levels.

Un-ionized Ammonia

The threshold for un-ionized ammonia is ≤0.02 mg/L as ammonia and is calculated using 

temperature, salinity, ammonia, and pH. This criterion applies to predominantly fresh waters in 

Florida. In water, ammonia occurs in two forms, which together are called total ammonia 

nitrogen, or TAN. Chemically, these two forms are represented as NH4

+ and NH3. NH4+ is 

called ionized ammonia because it has a positive electrical charge, and NH3 is called un-ionized 

ammonia as it has no charge. Un-ionized ammonia (abbreviated as UIA), is the form that is 

toxic to fish and invertebrates. Water temperature and pH affect the form of ammonia that is 

predominant at any given time in an aquatic system.

Chlorophyll a

The threshold for chlorophyll a is ≤ 20 μg/L. This threshold is applied to the rivers and streams 

resources in the Status Monitoring Network. It is not a criterion under Rule 62-302, F.A.C.; 

rather, it is listed as a measure to identify impairment in surface waters in Section 62-303.351, 

F.A.C., which describes the assessment of nutrients in streams. 

Chlorophyll is the pigment that allows plants—including algae—to convert sunlight into organic 

compounds during the process of photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a is the predominant type found 

in algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), and its abundance is a measurable indicator of 

the amount of algae present in a surface waterbody.

Excessive quantities of chlorophyll a can indicate the presence of algal blooms. These usually 

consist of species undesirable for fish and other predators to consume. Unconsumed algae 

sink to the bottom and decay, using up the oxygen required by other plants and benthic 

organisms to survive. The presence of too many nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, 

can stimulate algal blooms and reduce water clarity.

Chlorophyll a also plays a direct role in reducing the amount of light available to plants in 

shallow-water habitats. Like their terrestrial cousins, these plants need sunlight to grow. As 

chlorophyll a levels increase, the amount of sunlight reaching underwater plants declines.

Trophic State Index

TSI and chlorophyll a are the primary measures used to assess nutrient impairment in 

waterbodies. TSI is measured using chlorophyll, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations. 

There are two thresholds for TSI that are based on the color of a lake. Dark-water lakes with a 

mean color greater than 40 PCUs are impaired when their annual mean TSI exceeds 60. Clear 

and low-color lakes with a mean color less than or equal to 40 PCUs are impaired when their 

annual mean TSI exceeds 40. A 10-unit increase or decrease in the index represents a 

doubling or halving, respectively, of the number of algal cells present 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

220

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Note: Both chlorophyll a and TSI are not standards, but thresholds used to estimate the 

condition of state waters. These thresholds are used in the analysis of Status Monitoring 

Network data based on single samples in a basin during a predetermined index period. The 

analysis and representation of these data are not intended to infer the verification of impairment 

in these waters, as defined in Rule 62-303, F.A.C.

Ground Water Indicators for Confined and Unconfined Aquifers

Analytes with primary drinking water standards have been added to measure the condition of 

Florida’s aquifers. Table A.2 contains the list of ground water analytes with the associated 

criterion for each analyte. Primary standards mean that the criterion for an analyte is based on 

human health effects.

Key indicator contaminants for ground water (e.g., chloride, nitrate, metals, and bacteria) serve 

to assess its general suitability for drinking water purposes. Aquifer samples collected for the 

Status Monitoring Network between 1999 and 2003 (Cycle 1) were filtered to mitigate well 

construction factors, and the analytes were measured as dissolved constituents. Aquifer 

samples collected for the Status Monitoring Network between 2004 and 2010 were not filtered

and were analyzed as total constituents. These samples represent more closely the conditions 

of water as it comes directly from the aquifer. Additionally, standards are measured using 

unfiltered water, and so unfiltered samples allow consistency with standards.

Table A.2. Status Monitoring Network Water Quality Standards for Ground Water

This is a three-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, Column 2 lists the criterion/threshold, and Column 3 lists 

the designated use.

1 The Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) for fecal coliform, per FDEP SOP MB-X, is 2 counts/100mL.

Indicators Criterion/Threshold Designated Use

Arsenic ≤ 10 μg/L Potable Water (drinking water)

Cadmium ≤ 5 μg/L Potable Water (drinking water)

Chromium ≤ 100 μg/L Potable Water (drinking water)

Lead ≤ 15 μg/L Potable Water (drinking water)

Nitrate–Nitrite ≤ 10 mg/L Potable Water (drinking water)

Sodium ≤ 160 mg/L Potable Water (drinking water)

Fluoride ≤ 4 mg/L Potable Water (drinking water)

Total Coliform Bacteria 

(counts/100mL) ≤ 4 (sample maximum) Potable Water (drinking water)

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

(counts/100mL) < 2 (sample maximum)1 Potable Water (drinking water)

Total Coliform Bacteria

The EPA has determined that the presence of total coliform is a possible health concern. Total 

coliform bacteria are common in the environment and are generally not harmful themselves. 

The presence of these bacteria in drinking water, however, is a result of a problem with water 

treatment or the pipes that distribute the water, and indicates that the water may be 

contaminated with organisms that can cause disease. 

The EPA and the state have set an enforceable drinking water standard for total coliform of 4 

counts/100mL to reduce the risk of adverse health effects. Drinking water that meets this 

standard is usually not associated with a health risk from disease-causing bacteria and should 

be considered safe.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

221

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

The EPA has determined that the presence of fecal coliform bacteria is a possible health 

concern because these are usually associated with sewage or animal wastes. Their presence 

in drinking water generally results from a problem with water treatment or pipes that distribute 

the water, and indicates that the water may be contaminated with organisms that can cause 

disease. In addition, ground water can become contaminated with fecal coliform from surface 

water interactions in karst (limestone) terrains, such as those found in Florida.

The EPA and the state have set an enforceable drinking water standard for fecal coliform to 

reduce the risk of adverse health effects. Under this standard, all drinking water samples must 

be free of fecal coliform bacteria. The FDEP Bureau of Laboratories has an MDL per sample of 

2 counts/100mL, and so the presence of any detectable fecal coliform is considered an 

exceedance. Drinking water that meets this standard is associated with little or no health risk 

and should be considered safe.

Arsenic 

Arsenic, a naturally occurring element, is widely distributed in the earth’s crust. Two main 

categories are found: inorganic and organic arsenic. Inorganic arsenic compounds are mainly 

used to preserve wood. Organic arsenic compounds, found in animals and plants, occur when 

arsenic combines with carbon and hydrogen. Organic arsenic compounds are used as 

pesticides.

Many arsenic compounds can dissolve in water and can be transported into ground water. 

Arsenic can affect human health. Several studies have shown that inorganic arsenic can 

increase the risk of lung, skin, bladder, liver, kidney, and prostate cancers. The World Health 

Organization (WHO), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the EPA 

have determined that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen. For this reason, the EPA and 

FDEP have set an enforceable drinking water standard of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for arsenic.

Organic arsenic compounds are less toxic than inorganic arsenic compounds. However, 

exposure to high levels of some organic arsenic compounds may cause similar effects to those 

of inorganic arsenic.

Cadmium

The EPA and FDEP set the drinking water standard for cadmium at 5 ppb to protect against the 

risk of adverse health effects. Cadmium, a naturally occurring heavy metal whose chemical 

properties are similar to those of zinc, does not occur uncombined in nature. A byproduct of 

smelting and refining zinc and lead ores, it is used for its anticorrosive properties in the 

electroplating of steel, in its sulfide form in the manufacture of paint pigments, and in the 

manufacture of batteries and other electrical components. Cadmium also occurs as a byproduct 

in many chemical fertilizers that are produced from phosphate ores. Cadmium enters the 

ambient air primarily from local smelting operations, it enters soil from local mining operations 

and from chemical fertilizers, and it enters water from fertilizer runoff and/or industrial 

wastewater. 

This inorganic metal is a contaminant in the metals used to galvanize pipe. It generally enters

water by the corrosion of galvanized pipes or by improper waste disposal. Drinking water that 

meets the EPA standard is associated with little to none of this risk and is considered safe with 

respect to cadmium.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

222

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Chromium

This inorganic metal, which occurs naturally in the ground, is often used in electroplating metals. 

It generally enters water from runoff from old mining operations and improper waste disposal 

from plating operations. Some humans exposed to high levels of chromium have suffered liver 

and kidney damage, dermatitis, and respiratory problems. The EPA has set the drinking water 

standard for chromium at 100 ppb to protect against the risk of adverse health effects. Drinking 

water that meets the EPA standard is associated with little to none of this risk and is considered 

safe with respect to chromium.

Fluoride

EPA regulations require fluoride, which occurs naturally in some water supplies, not to exceed a 

concentration of 4.0 mg/L in drinking water. Extended exposure to drinking water levels above 

4.0 mg/L may result in crippling skeletal fluorosis, a serious bone disorder. 

State regulations require notification of the public when monitoring indicates that the fluoride in a 

drinking water system exceeds 2.0 mg/L. This is intended to alert families about dental 

problems that might affect children under 9 years of age. Fluoride in children's drinking water at 

levels of approximately 1 mg/L reduces the number of dental cavities. However, some children 

exposed to levels of fluoride greater than about 2.0 mg/L may develop dental fluorosis. In its 

moderate and severe forms, this is a brown staining and/or pitting of the permanent teeth.

Because dental fluorosis occurs only when developing teeth (before they erupt from the gums) 

are exposed to elevated fluoride levels, households without children are not expected to be 

affected by this level of fluoride. Families with children under the age of nine are encouraged to 

seek other sources of drinking water for their children to avoid the possibility of tooth staining 

and pitting.

Lead

The EPA and FDEP set the drinking water standard for lead at 15 ppb to protect against the risk 

of adverse health effects. Lead toxicity affects the nervous system, blood, kidney, heart, and 

reproductive system. Infants and young children whose nervous and circulatory systems are 

not fully developed are more susceptible to the adverse health effects from lead exposure. 

Irreversible learning difficulties, mental retardation, and delayed neurological and physical 

development can occur from long-term exposure to even low levels of lead. 

Materials that contain lead have frequently been used in the construction of water supply 

distribution systems, and in plumbing systems in private homes and other buildings. The most 

commonly found materials include service lines, pipes, brass and bronze fixtures, and solders 

and fluxes. Lead in these materials can contaminate drinking water as a result of the corrosion 

that takes place when water comes into contact with those materials. 

Nitrate-Nitrite

The EPA has set the drinking water standard at 10 parts per million (ppm) for nitrate to protect 

against the risk of adverse effects. Excessive levels of nitrate in drinking water have caused 

serious illness and sometimes death in infants less than 6 months of age. Nitrate is used in 

fertilizer and is found in sewage and wastes from human and/or farm animals; it generally enters 

drinking water from these activities. 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

223

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

The EPA has also set a drinking water standard for nitrite at 1 ppm. To allow for the fact that 

the toxicity of nitrate and nitrite is additive, the EPA has established a standard for the sum of 

nitrate and nitrite at 10 ppm. Drinking water that meets the EPA standard is associated with 

little to none of this risk and is considered safe with respect to nitrate.

Sodium 

The EPA has set the drinking water standard for sodium (salt) at 160 ppm to protect individuals 

who are susceptible to sodium-sensitive hypertension or diseases that cause difficulty in 

regulating body fluid volume. Sodium is monitored so that individuals on sodium-restricted diets 

may take the sodium in their water into account. Sodium naturally occurs in food and drinking 

water. Food is the common source of sodium. Drinking water contributes only a small fraction 

(less than 10%) of an individual’s overall sodium intake.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

224

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Appendix B: Tables and Maps from the 2009–10 Status 

Network Assessment Results for Large Lakes, Small Lakes, 

Rivers, Streams, Confined Aquifers, and Unconfined Aquifers 

The Status Network design focuses on the following four surface water resource types:

• Rivers are major rivers of the state; 

• Streams are the remaining streams; 

• Large Lakes are 25 acres or greater; and 

• Small Lakes are 2.5 to less than 25 acres in size. 

Status Network indicators include the following:

• Rivers and Streams:

o DO 

o Fecal coliform

o Un-ionized ammonia (calculated)

o Chlorophyll a

• Large and Small Lakes:

o DO 

o Fecal coliform

o Un-ionized ammonia (calculated) 

o TSI

The threshold criteria for these indicators are as follows: 

• DO: 5.0 mg/L or above. 

• Fecal coliform: Less than 400 counts/100mL. 

• Un-ionized ammonia: Less than or equal to 0.02 mg/L. 

• Chlorophyll a: Less than or equal to 20 μg/L. 

• TSI: For samples with color less than or equal to 40 PCUs, the threshold is less 

than or equal to 40. For samples with color greater than 40 PCUs, the threshold 

is less than or equal to 60.

The light blue portion of each individual pie chart is the portion that meets the threshold for each 

indicator. 

Note: Appendix A provides additional information on whether the thresholds listed in the tables in this appendix are water quality 

standards or screening levels.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

225

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.1. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Rivers Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Miles

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.1. 2009 Statewide Summary of River Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(miles)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Chlorophyll a 2,951 60 77 23 2009

Un-ionized Ammonia 2,951 60 100 0 2009

Fecal Coliform 2,951 60 98 2 2009

DO 2,951 60 89 11 2009
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

226

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.2. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Rivers Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Miles

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.2. 2010 Statewide Summary of River Results

Analyte

Target 

Population 

(miles)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Chlorophyll a 3,927 60 97 3 2010

Un-ionized Ammonia 3,927 60 98 2 2010

Fecal Coliform 3,927 60 91 9 2010

DO 3,927 60 64 36 2010
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

227

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.3. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Streams Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Miles

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period. 1 Miles

Figure B.3. 2009 Statewide Summary of Stream Results

Analyte

Target 

Population1 Number of Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Chlorophyll a 24,732 51 74 26 2009

Un-ionized Ammonia 24,732 51 100 0 2009

Fecal Coliform 24,732 51 71 29 2009

DO 24,732 51 66 34 2009
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

228

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.4. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Streams Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Miles

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.4. 2010 Statewide Summary of Stream Results

Analyte

Target 

Population 

(miles)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Chlorophyll a 16,861 57 93 7 2010

Un-ionized Ammonia 16,861 57 98 2 2010

Fecal Coliform 16,861 57 87 13 2010

DO 16,861 57 68 32 2010
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

229

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.5. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Large Lakes Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Lakes

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.5. 2009 Statewide Summary of Large Lake Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(lakes)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Trophic State Index 1,918 60 73 27 2009

Un-ionized Ammonia 1,918 60 97 3 2009

Fecal Coliform 1,918 60 97 3 2009

DO 1,918 60 89 11 2009
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

230

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.6. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Large Lakes Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Lakes

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.6. 2010 Statewide Summary of Large Lake Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(lakes)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Trophic State Index 1,725 60 57 43 2010

Un-ionized Ammonia 1,725 60 93 7 2010

Fecal Coliform 1,725 60 100 0 2010

DO 1,725 60 93 7 2010
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

231

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.7. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Small Lakes Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Lakes

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.7. 2009 Statewide Summary of Small Lake Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(lakes)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Trophic State Index 3,708 58 83 17 2009

Un-ionized Ammonia 3,708 58 100 0 2009

Fecal Coliform 3,708 58 99 1 2009

DO 3,708 58 95 5 2009
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

232

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.8. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Small Lakes Meeting Threshold Values for Indicators 

Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Recreation and Aquatic Life Units: Lakes

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.8. 2010 Statewide Summary of Small Lake Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(lakes)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Trophic State Index 2,676 49 88 12 2010

Un-ionized Ammonia 2,676 49 100 0 2010

Fecal Coliform 2,676 49 100 0 2010

DO 2,676 49 100 0 2010
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

233

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

The Status Network design focuses on the following two ground water resource types:

• Confined Aquifers

• Unconfined Aquifers 

This appendix contains information on the following indicators for Confined and Unconfined 

Aquifers for the Status Network:

• Arsenic

• Cadmium

• Chromium

• Fluoride

• Lead

• Nitrate + nitrite

• Sodium

• Fecal coliform

• Total coliform

Table B.9 lists the threshold criteria for these ground water analytes, with the associated 

criterion for each analyte. 

Table B.9. Status Monitoring Network Water Quality Criteria/Thresholds for Ground Water

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the indicator, and Column 2 lists the criterion/threshold.

1 Appendix A provides additional information on whether the thresholds listed in the tables in this appendix are water quality 

standards or screening levels.

Indicator Criterion/Threshold1

Arsenic ≤ 10 μg/L

Cadmium ≤ 5 μg/L

Chromium ≤ 100 μg/L

Lead ≤ 15 μg/L

Nitrate–Nitrite ≤ 10 mg/L

Sodium ≤ 160 mg/L

Fluoride ≤ 4 mg/L

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

(counts/100mL) < 2 (sample maximum)

Total Coliform Bacteria

(counts/100mL) ≤ 4 (sample maximum)
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

234

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.10. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Confined Aquifers Meeting Threshold Values for 

Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Primary Drinking Water Standards Units: Number of wells 

in list frame

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.9. 2009 Statewide Summary of Confined Aquifer Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(wells)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Arsenic 227 111 100 0 2009

Cadmium 227 111 100 0 2009

Chromium 227 111 100 0 2009

Lead 227 111 100 0 2009

Nitrate-Nitrite 227 111 100 0 2009

Sodium 227 111 95 5 2009

Fluoride 227 111 100 0 2009

Fecal Coliform 227 111 100 0 2009

Total Coliform 227 111 93 7 2009
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

235

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.11. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Confined Aquifers Meeting Threshold Values for 

Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Primary Drinking Water Standards Units: Number of wells 

in list frame

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.10. 2010 Statewide Summary of Confined Aquifer Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(wells)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Arsenic 380 112 97 3 2010

Cadmium 380 112 100 0 2010

Chromium 380 112 100 0 2010

Lead 380 112 100 0 2010

Nitrate-Nitrite 380 112 100 0 2010

Sodium 380 112 96 4 2010

Fluoride 380 112 100 0 2010

Fecal Coliform 380 112 100 0 2010

Total Coliform 380 112 95 5 2010
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

236

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.12. 2009 Statewide Percentage of Unconfined Aquifers Meeting Threshold Values for 

Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Primary Drinking Water Standards Units: Number of wells 

in list frame

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.11. 2009 Statewide Summary of Unconfined Aquifer Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(wells)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Arsenic 280 120 100 0 2009

Cadmium 280 120 100 0 2009

Chromium 280 120 100 0 2009

Lead 280 120 98 2 2009

Nitrate-Nitrite 280 120 100 0 2009

Sodium 280 120 98 2 2009

Fluoride 280 120 100 0 2009

Fecal Coliform 280 120 96 4 2009

Total Coliform 280 120 89 11 2009
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

237

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table B.13. 2010 Statewide Percentage of Unconfined Aquifers Meeting Threshold Values for 

Indicators Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Design

Status Network Designated Use: Primary Drinking Water Standards Units: Number of wells 

in list frame

This is a 6-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, Column 2 lists the target population, Column 3 lists the number 

of samples, Column 4 lists the percent meeting threshold, Column 5 lists the percent not meeting the threshold, and 

Column 6 lists the assessment period.

Figure B.12. 2010 Statewide Summary of Unconfined Aquifer Results

Analyte

Target 

Population

(wells)

Number of 

Samples

% Meeting 

Threshold

% Not 

Meeting 

Threshold

Assessment 

Period

Arsenic 381 120 99 1 2010

Cadmium 381 120 100 0 2010

Chromium 381 120 100 0 2010

Lead 381 120 98 2 2010

Nitrate-Nitrite 381 120 97 3 2010

Sodium 381 120 99 1 2010

Fluoride 381 120 100 0 2010

Fecal Coliform 381 120 96 4 2010

Total Coliform 381 120 75 25 2010
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

238

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Appendix C. IWR Methodology for Evaluating Impairment

To identify impairments in the attainment of designated uses, the IWR is structured around four 

attainment categories, as follows: 

• Aquatic life use support; 

• Primary contact and recreation use support; 

• Fish and shellfish consumption use support; and

• Drinking water use support and protection of human health. 

The particular type of data and/or information required to determine use attainment varies by 

designated use and—in addition to discrete measurements of analytical results that reflect the 

physical and chemical characteristics of the water column and bacteriological data—includes 

biological data, fish consumption advisories, beach closure and advisory information, and 

information related to changes in the classification of shellfish-harvesting areas. At times 

information from field surveys and recons is also used to help identify impairments. 

Numeric and narrative water quality criteria from the Florida Water Quality Standards (Rule 62-

302, F.A.C.) are used to determine aquatic life use support, drinking water use support, and 

protection of human health for Class I, II, and III waters. In addition, the bacteriological criteria 

from the Florida Standards are used in conjunction with IWR assessments performed under the 

IWR for determinations of primary contact and recreation use support (Section 62-303.360, 

F.A.C.) for Class I, II, and III waters; and fish and shellfish consumption use support (Section 

62-303.370, F.A.C.) for Class II waters.

Aquatic Life Based Use Attainment

The methodology described in Rule 62-303, F.A.C., determines aquatic life based use 

attainment based on evaluation of the following three distinct types of data (Section 62-303.310, 

F.A.C.):

1. Comparisons of discrete water quality measurements with specific numeric

threshold values, consisting of comparisons with class-specific numeric 

criteria from the Florida Standards (and other, similarly worded numeric

threshold values, as outlined in Section 62-303.320, F.A.C.); 

2. Comparisons of results calculated for multimetric biological indices with 

waterbody type–specific biological assessment thresholds (as outlined in 

Section 62-303.330, F.A.C); and

3. Comparisons of annual summary statistics with threshold values based on an 

interpretation of narrative criteria from the Florida Standards (as outlined in 

Section 62-303.350, F.A.C.)

These evaluations rely primarily on discrete sample data primarily obtained from Florida 

STORET; subject to data sufficiency and data quality requirements, exceedances of applicable

thresholds indicate that aquatic life based use attainment is not met.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

239

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Primary Contact and Recreation Use Attainment 

The methodology described in Rule 62-303, F.A.C., determines primary contact and recreation

use attainment based on the evaluation of the following types of information (Section 62-

303.360, F.A.C.):

1. Comparisons of discrete water quality measurements with specific numeric 

thresholds values for bacteria, consisting of comparisons with the relevant 

class-specific numeric criteria from the Florida Standards (and other, similarly 

worded numeric threshold values, as outlined in Section 62-303.320, F.A.C.);

2. Evaluation of beach closure, or beach advisories or warning, information; this 

information must be based on bacteriological data, issued by the appropriate 

governmental agency; and

3. Comparison of summary measures of bacteriological data with threshold 

values described in Section 62-303.360, F.A.C.

For assessment purposes using discrete sample data for bacteria, FDOH reports data directly to 

Florida STORET; beach advisory and beach closure information is received directly from FDOH. 

Subject to data sufficiency and data quality requirements, exceedances of applicable thresholds 

indicate that primary contact and recreational use attainment is not met.

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Use Attainment 

The evaluation of fish and shellfish consumption use attainment relies on the following 

evaluation of both quantitative and qualitative information (as described in Section 62-303.370, 

F.A.C.): 

1. Comparisons of discrete water quality measurements with specific 

quantitative threshold values for bacteria consisting of comparisons with the 

relevant class-specific numeric criteria from the Florida Standards (and 

other, similarly worded numeric threshold values, as outlined in Section 62-

303.320, F.A.C.);

2. Evaluation of fish advisory information issued by FDOH, or other authorized 

governmental entity; and

3. Evaluation of shellfish-harvesting actions taken by FDACS, provided those 

actions were based on bacteriological contamination or water quality data).

Assessments performed under the IWR that are based on the evaluation of discrete sampling 

results to determine fish and shellfish use attainment rely on data reported to Florida STORET 

by FDACS (as well as other by data providers statewide). FDOH issues fish consumption 

advisories for surface waters based on mercury levels found in fish tissue studies. FDEP 

receives information related to fish advisories directly from FDOH; in addition, information 

related to shellfish area actions is received directly from FDACS.

When a Class I, II, or III waterbody fails to meets its applicable Class II water quality criteria for 

bacteriological quality, the waterbody is assessed as impaired under the IWR. Subject to data 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

240

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

sufficiency and data quality requirements, exceedances of applicable thresholds indicate that 

the aquatic life–based use attainment is not met. 

In addition, if FDOH has issued a fish consumption advisory, or if FDACS has classified a Class 

II waterbody segment as anything other than approved for shellfish harvesting or propagation, 

that segment is verified as impaired, and determined not to meet its designated use.

Drinking Water Use Attainment 

The evaluation of drinking water use attainment is based on the following type of information 

(Section 62-303.380, F.A.C.):

1. Comparisons of discrete water quality measurements with threshold values 

consisting of comparisons with class-specific numeric criteria from the 

Florida Standards (and other, similarly worded numeric threshold values, as 

outlined in Section 62-303.320, F.A.C.).

Evaluation and Determination of Use Attainment 

Exceedances of Numeric Criteria from the Florida Standards

Table C.1 lists analytes for which numeric criteria in the Florida Standards exist and counts of 

sample results available for assessments performed under the IWR.

Table C.1. Sample Counts for Analytes Having Numeric Criteria in the Florida Standards

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the analyte, and Column 2 lists the number of observations.

Analyte Number of Observations

2,4-D 42

Anthracene 228

Silver 22,718

Aluminum 944

Aldrin 812

Alkalinity 83,108

Gross Alpha 29

Acenaphthene 190

Arsenic 31,737

Barium 1,329

Beta Benzenehexachloride 

(β-BHC) 210

Cadmium 4,666

Chlordane 804

Chloride 8,107

Chlorine 46

Cyanide 121

Specific Conductance 226,540

Chlorophenol 56

Chromium 6 23

Copper 7,673

2,4-Dichlorophenol 182

DDT 724
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

241

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Analyte Number of Observations

Demeton 609

Detergents 19

Dieldrin 835

Dissolved Solids 4,785

2,4-Dinitrophenol 178

Dissolved Oxygen 390,051

Endosulfan 833

Endrin 800

Fluoride 39,535

Fecal Coliform 267,900

Iron 34,767

Fluoranthene 227

Fluorene 191

Guthion 190

Heptachlor 818

Mercury 3,153

Lindane 885

Malathion 766

Mirex 195

Manganese 205

Methoxychlor 702

Nickel 1,922

Nitrate 1,503

Oil/Grease 282

Parathion 7 

Lead 5,964

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 26

Pentachlorophenol 220

Phenol 975

Pyrene 227

Radium 29

Antimony 6,928

Selenium 18,104

Silvex 12

Thallium 6444

Toxaphene 819

Turbidity 172,601

Un-ionized Ammonia 93,290

Zinc 5,433

Since the numeric water quality criteria from Rule 62-302, F.A.C., are class and waterbody–type 

specific, segments are first classified by their appropriate waterbody class and as one of four

waterbody types—stream (including springs), lake, estuary, or coastal. For each analyte having 

a criterion in the Florida Standards, four-day station-median concentrations are calculated, and 

these values are then compared with the applicable class-specific criterion values in the Florida 

Standards (in some instances, however, the IWR specifies the use of daily values, rather than 

the four-day station median).

For waters assessed under Subsection 62-303.320(1), F.A.C., for each segment and analyte 

combination, the count of the number of samples and exceedances of the applicable criterion 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

242

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

from the Florida Standards is calculated, and the exceedance count is compared with the listing 

threshold value for the corresponding sample size. The listing thresholds represent the 

minimum number of samples not meeting the applicable water quality criterion necessary to 

obtain the required confidence levels for samples of known sizes and to place an assessed 

segment on the Planning List and Verified List (Tables 1 and 3, respectively, of Subsection 62-

303.320[1], F.A.C.). Comparisons performed for acute toxicity-based exceedances, or 

exceedances of synthetic organics and pesticides, have a lower listing threshold of more than a 

single exceedance in any consecutive three-year period.

Subject to data sufficiency requirements, a waterbody segment assessed under Subsection 62-

303.320(1), F.A.C., is placed on the Planning List if there are a sufficient number of samples to 

attain at least 80% confidence that the actual criterion exceedance rate was greater than or 

equal to 10%. Waters placed on the Planning List are subject to additional data collection and 

subsequent review. Sample size requirements for placing a waterbody segment on the 

Planning List include a minimum of 10 samples from the 10-year period preceding the Planning 

List assessment (waters may also be placed on the Planning List if there are at least 3 

exceedances of the applicable water quality criterion when this sample size requirement is not 

met).

To place a waterbody segment assessed under Subsection 62-303.420(2), F.A.C., on the 

Verified List, the number of samples must be sufficient to attain at least a 90% confidence that 

the actual criterion exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10%. Sample size 

requirements for placing a waterbody segment on the Verified List include a minimum of at least 

20 samples from the last 7.5 years preceding the Verified List assessment (however, waters 

may be placed on the Verified List if there are at least 5 exceedances of the applicable water 

quality criterion when the sample size requirement is not met).

Interpretation of Narrative Nutrient Criterion 

The Florida Standards also include a narrative nutrient criterion rather than a numeric value for 

nutrient thresholds. This narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a 

body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or 

fauna.” In Section 62-303.350, F.A.C., the IWR provides a working interpretation of the 

criterion. Under this interpretation, annual mean chlorophyll a concentrations (for segments that 

are not lakes) and annual mean TSI (for lake segments) are the primary means for assessing 

whether a waterbody should be further assessed for nutrient impairment, as follows: 

• For streams assessed under Section 62-303.351, F.A.C., nutrient enrichment is 

indicated when the annual mean chlorophyll a concentrations are greater than 

20 μg/L, or if annual mean chlorophyll a concentrations have increased by more 

than 50% over historical values for at least 2 consecutive years. The IWR 

interpretation of the narrative criterion for nutrients also incorporates 

consideration of direct evidence and additional information, when such 

information is available, indicative of an imbalance in flora or fauna due to 

nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a 

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

or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, or

excessive diel oxygen swings. 

• Section 62-303.352, F.A.C., of the IWR provides the following narrative nutrient 

interpretation for lakes:
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

243

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

o For lakes having a mean color greater than 40 PCUs, an annual mean TSI 

exceeding 60 suggests potential nutrient enrichment; and

o For lakes having a mean color less than or equal to 40 PCUs, an annual 

mean TSI exceeding 40 indicates potential nutrient enrichment.

Potential nutrient enrichment is also indicated for any lake by a statistically 

significant increase in TSI over the assessment period, or if TSI values

increased by 10 units over historical values.

• In estuarine areas and open coastal waters (Section 62-303.353, F.A.C.), 

nutrient enrichment is indicated when the annual mean chlorophyll a 

concentrations are greater than 11 μg/L, or if annual mean chlorophyll a 

concentrations have increased by more than 50% over historical values for at 

least 2 consecutive years. 

Exceedances of Biological Thresholds

Biological assessment is an applied scientific discipline that uses the response of resident 

aquatic biological communities to various stressors as a method of evaluating ecosystem 

health. The rationale in using bioassessment methodology to characterize surface water quality 

status and attainment of designated uses recognizes the fact that biological components of the 

environment can manifest long-term water quality conditions. Thus these components can 

potentially provide a more comprehensive indication of a waterbody’s health than can be 

characterized by discrete chemical or physical measurements alone.

Bioassessment results are particularly significant because biota inhabiting a waterbody function 

as continual natural monitors of environmental quality, capable of detecting the effects of both 

episodic, as well as cumulative, water quality, hydrologic, and habitat alterations. Monitoring the 

composition, abundance, and health of these natural communities enhances the state’s ability to 

evaluate the health of its waters.

In conjunction with assessments performed under the IWR, bioassessment tools can often 

provide a direct measure of whether the designated aquatic life use, a “well-balanced population 

of fish and wildlife,” is being attained (Section 62.302-400, F.A.C.). In addition to their use as an 

adjunct to physical and chemical water quality measurements to determine the impairment 

status of waterbody segments, bioassessment tools often can provide insights into appropriate

restoration strategies. 

Metrics Used

Bioassessment tools used in conjunction with assessments performed under the IWR 

incorporate multimetric methods to quantify biological community structure or function that 

responds in a predictable manner to changes in the environment. When multimetric methods 

are used, individual metrics (e.g., number of long-lived taxa, number of sensitive taxa, percent

filter feeders, percent clingers) are determined, and the results of the individual metrics are 

combined into a single dimensionless, multimetric index. Such indices offer potential

advantages over the use of individual metrics in that they can integrate multiple nonredundant 

measures into a single score that reflects a wider range of biological information. 

The SCI and BioRecon are two examples of multimetric indices used to in conjunction with IWR

assessments to quantify the health of rivers and streams based on the biological health of 

macroinvertebrates.
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

244

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Recalibrations of the SCI and the BioRecon methods completed in 2007 involved the use of the 

HDG, which ranks sites based on independent assessments of habitat quality, degree of 

hydrologic disturbance, water quality, and human land use intensity. SCI and BioRecon scores 

calculated prior to August 2007 used a somewhat smaller, but similar, set of input metrics than 

those that were ultimately included in the final recalibrated index; however, since both sets of 

scores represent valid biological assessments performed during discrete periods, both are used 

in assessments of biological health performed under the IWR.

Additional efforts in the development of multimetric indices for periphyton (attached algae) and 

phytoplankton (drifting algae) that incorporate the HDG have also been attempted, but 

significant relationships between human disturbance and biological response in these 

communities have not been established. FDEP has since developed, and implemented, a RPS

method to evaluate periphyton communities and continues to use chlorophyll a concentrations 

to quantify imbalances in phytoplankton communities.

Bioassessment Data Used

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

in the bioassessments included in water quality assessments performed under the IWR. 

Although sites designated as test and/or background sites for NPDES fifth-year inspections may 

be included, data from locations established to sample effluent outfalls from discharging 

facilities, or from monitoring sites not clearly established to collect ambient water quality data, 

are excluded from assessments performed for IWR purposes. 

Site-specific habitat and physicochemical assessment (e.g., % suitable macroinvertebrate 

habitat, water velocities, extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian [or streamside] buffer 

zone widths) provides adjunct information that can be important in identifying the stressors 

responsible for a failed bioassessment and is collected when a bioassessment is performed. 

This information is also evaluated in conjunction with IWR assessments and can be extremely 

useful in a definitive determination of biological impairment, since biological communities 

sometimes respond to factors other than water quality, such as habitat disruption and hydrologic 

disturbances. 

In using bioassessment data in conjunction with water quality assessments performed under the 

IWR, waterbody segments that are adversely affected only by pollution (e.g., a lack of habitat or 

hydrologic disruption) but not by a pollutant (a water quality exceedance) are not placed on the 

Verified List.

The FDEP SOPs provide definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of 

bioassessment data. Because these bioassessment procedures require specific training and 

expertise, the IWR additionally requires that persons conducting the bioassessments must 

comply with the quality assurance requirements of Rule 62-160, F.A.C.; attend at least eight 

hours of FDEP-sanctioned field training; and pass an FDEP-sanctioned field audit verifying that

the sampler follows the applicable SOPs in Rule 62-160, F.A.C., before their bioassessment 

data can be used in conjunction with assessments performed under the IWR.

Stream Condition Index

A total SCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the 10 metrics in the method: total 

number of taxa, total number of taxa belonging to the order Ephemeroptera, total taxa of the 

order Trichoptera, percent filter feeders, percent long-lived taxa, clinger taxa, percent dominant 

taxa, percent taxa in the Tanytarsini, percent sensitive taxa, and percent very tolerant taxa (see 
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

245

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table C.2 for calculations). A poor or very poor (or Category 3) rating based on the total score 

constituted a failed bioassessment, based on the IWR. 

Table C.2. SCI Metrics for the Northeast, Panhandle, and Peninsula Regions of Florida

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the SCI metric, Column 2 lists the calculation for northeast Florida, 

Column 3 lists the calculation for the Panhandle region, and Column 4 lists the calculation for the Peninsula region.

SCI Metric Northeast Panhandle Peninsula

Total taxa 10 * (X–16)/26 10 * (X–16)/33 10 * (X–16)/25

Ephemeroptera taxa 10 * X /3.5 10 * X /6 10 * X /5

Trichoptera taxa 10 * X /6.5 10 * X /7 10 * X /7

% filterer 10 * (X–1)/41 10 * (X–1)/44 10 * (X–1)/39

Long-lived taxa 10 * X /3 10 * X /5 10 * X /4

Clinger taxa 10 * X /9 10 * X /15.5 10 * X /8

% dominance 10 – ( 10 * [ ( X–10)/44 ] ) 10 – ( 10 * [ ( X–10)/33 ] ) 10 – ( 10 * [ ( X–10)/44 ] )

% Tanytarsini 10 * [ ln( X + 1) /3.3] 10 * [ ln( X + 1) /3.3] 10 * [ ln( X + 1) /3.3]

Sensitive taxa 10 * X /11 10 * X /19 10 * X /9

% Very tolerant 10 – (10 * [ ln( X + 1)/4.4 ] ) 10 – (10 * [ ln( X + 1)/3.6 ] ) 10 – (10 * [ ln( X + 1)/4.1 ] )

BioRecon

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, the six metrics as calculated in 

Table C.3 and the index thresholds in Table C.4 were used. 

Table C.3. BioRecon Metrics for the Northeast, Panhandle, and Peninsula Regions of Florida

This is a four-column table. Column 1 lists the BioRecon metric, Column 2 lists the calculation for northeast Florida, 

Column 3 lists the calculation for the Panhandle region, and Column 4 lists the calculation for the Peninsula region.

BioRecon Metric Northeast Panhandle Peninsula

Total taxa (X–14)/23 (X–16)/33 (X–11)/25

Ephemeroptera taxa X /3.5 X /12 X /5

Trichoptera taxa X /6.5 X /7 X /7

Long–lived taxa X /6 X /10 X /7

Clinger taxa X /7 X /15.5 X /8

Sensitive taxa X /11 X /19 X /9
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

246

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Table C.4. BioRecon Sample Size and Index Range

This is a two-column table. Column 1 lists the BioRecon sample size and score, and Column 2 lists the index range.

BioRecon Index Range

1 sample: Pass (6–10)

1 sample: Fail (0–6)

2 samples: Good (7–10)

2 samples: Fair (4–7)

2 samples: Poor (0–4)
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

247

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Appendix D: Impaired Lakes in Florida, Group 1–5 Basins 

This is a five-column table. Column 1 lists the basin group, Column 2 lists the basin name, Column 3 lists the WBID 

number, Column 4 lists the waterbody name, and Column 5 lists the parameters causing impairment.

Note: The most up-to-date Verified List of impaired waters, by basin group, is available at FDEP’s Watershed Assessment Program 

website. 

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 1 Everglades West Coast 3259W Lake Trafford DO, pH, TSI, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 1 Everglades West Coast 3259Z Little Hickory Bay Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212A Lake Okeechobee DO, Iron, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, 

Turbidity

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212B Lake Okeechobee Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, Turbidity

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212C Lake Okeechobee DO, Iron, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212D Lake Okeechobee DO, Iron, Mercury in Fish Tissue, pH, TSI, 

Turbidity, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212E Lake Okeechobee Alkalinity, Iron, Mercury in Fish Tissue, 

TSI, Turbidity

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212F Lake Okeechobee Iron, Mercury in Fish Tissue, pH, TSI, 

Turbidity

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212G Lake Okeechobee Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, Turbidity, Unionized Ammonia

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212H Lake Okeechobee Iron, Mercury in Fish Tissue, pH, TSI, 

Turbidity

Group 1 Lake Okeechobee 3212I Lake Okeechobee Mercury in Fish Tissue, pH, TSI, Turbidity

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 1297C Lake Talquin DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 1297D Lake Talquin DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 540A Tallavanna Lake TSI

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 647C Lake Killarney DO

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 689A Lake Overstreet DO

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 689B Lake Hall DO

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 756B Lake Piney Z DO, TSI

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 756C Lake Lafayette 

(Lower Segment) DO, TSI

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 791N Lake Miccosukee DO, TSI

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 807C Lake Munson DO, TSI, Turbidity

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 878C Lake Hiawatha DO

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 878D Cascade Lake DO

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 889A Moore Lake DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 971A Lake Erie DO

Group 1 Ochlockonee–St. Marks 971B Lake Weeks DO

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2705B Newnans Lake DO, TSI, Turbidity, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2718B Bivans Arm TSI, TSI2, Turbidity

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2720A Alachua Sink Fecal Coliform, TSI, TSI2

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2723A Cowpen Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2738A Lockloosa Lake TSI, TSI2

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2740B Lake Ocklawaha Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2741A Wauberg Lake TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2749 Orange Lake Reach DO
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

248

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2749A Orange Lake DO, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2771A Lake Eaton DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2779A Mill Dam Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2782C Lake Bryant Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2785A Smith Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2790A Lake Weir TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2797A Ella Lake DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2803A Holly Lake DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2807 Lake Yale Canal DO, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2807A Lake Yale DO, TSI, TSI2

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2814A Lake Griffin DO, TSI, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2817B Lake Eustis DO, TSI, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2819A Trout Lake DO, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2821B Lake Joanna TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2825A Silver Lake TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2831B Lake Dora DO, TSI, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2832A Lake Denham DO, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2834C Lake Beauclair TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2835D Lake Apopka TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2837B Lake Carlton DO, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2838A Lake Harris DO, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2838B Little Lake Harris DO, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2839A Lake Minneola Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2839B Lake Hiawatha DO

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2839C Lake Wilson DO

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2839D Lake Cherry DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2839M Lake Louisa DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2839N Lake Minnehaha DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Ocklawaha 2873C Johns Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, TSI2

Group 1 Suwannee 3321A Lake Octahatchee Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Suwannee 3322A Lake Cherry Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Suwannee 3438A Peacock Lake DO

Group 1 Suwannee 3496A Low Lake DO

Group 1 Suwannee 3516A Alligator Lake DO, TSI

Group 1 Suwannee 3593A Lake Crosby Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Suwannee 3598D Lake Sampson Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Suwannee 3605G Santa Fe Lake DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Suwannee 3605H Lake Alto Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Suwannee 3635A Hampton Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 1 Suwannee 3703A Watermelon Pond DO

Group 1 Suwannee 3731A Lake Marion DO

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1463M Little Lake Wilson Fecal Coliform, TSI
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

249

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1473W Lake Juanita TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1473X Mound Lake TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1473Y Calm Lake TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1474V Crescent Lake TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1474W Lake Dead Lady TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1478H Lake Reinheimer TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1486A Lake Tarpon DO, TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1493E Buck Lake TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1496A Sunset Lake TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1516B Lake Magdalene TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1530A Moccasin Creek DO, Fecal Coliform, TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1574A Alligator Lake DO

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1579A Bellows Lake (East Lake) TSI

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1603D Lake Chautauqua DO

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1700A Crescent Lake DO

Group 1 Tampa Bay 1731A Lake Maggiore DO, TSI, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 2 Apalachicola–Chipola 272 Thompson Pond TSI

Group 2 Apalachicola–Chipola 344 Ocheesee Pond DO

Group 2 Apalachicola–Chipola 51A Dead LakeS Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Apalachicola–Chipola 60 Lake Seminole TSI

Group 2 Apalachicola–Chipola 926A1 Lake Mystic Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2213G St. Johns River above 

Doctors Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue, Thallium, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2213H St. Johns River above 

Julington Creek Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2213I St. Johns River above 

Black Creek Silver, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2213J St. Johns River above 

Palmo Creek Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2213K St. Johns River above Tocoi Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2213L St. Johns River above 

Federal Point DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2308 Eagle Run DO, Fecal Coliform

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2389 Doctors Lake TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2476B Kingsley Lake DO, TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2509 Lake Geneva Lead, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2509H Lily Lake Lead

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2528B Lake Sheelar DO, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2541 Georges Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2543F Lake Ross Lead, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2575 Cue Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2593A Davis Lake DO

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2606B Crescent Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2615A Dead Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2617A Lake Broward Mercury in Fish Tissue
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

250

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2630B Lake Disston Mercury in Fish Tissue, Lead

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2659A Lake Winona TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2667A Lake Dias TSI

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2671A Lake Daugharty Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Lower St. Johns 2680A Lake Molly TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2892 Lake Margaret Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2893A Lake George Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2893D Lake Monroe DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2893H Mullet Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2893J Mud Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2894 Lake Delancy Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2899B Lake Kerr Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2905C Wildcat Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2912A Lake Emporia TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2916B South Grasshopper Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2917 Boyd Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2921 Lake Woodruff Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2921C Lake Dexter Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2925A Lake Ashby Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2929B Lake Norris Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2929C Lake Dorr Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2931 Lake Winnemissett TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2953A Broken Arrow Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2954 Konomac Lake Reservoir Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2956A1 Linden Lake DO

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2956E Sand Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2961 Lake Sylvan Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2964A Lake Harney DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2981 Lake Jesup TSI, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2981A Lake Jesup near 

St. Johns River TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2986B Lake Myrtle DO

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2987A Spring Lake TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2991B Buck Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2991D Horseshoe Lake DO

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2994C Fairy Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2994D Island Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2994E Red Bug Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2994X Little Lake Howell TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2994Y Fruitwood Lake TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2994Y1 Lake Tony TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 29971 Leftover Lake Ivanhoe TSI
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

251

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 29975 Lake Sybella TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 29977 Lake of the Woods TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997B Howell Lake TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997B1 Lake Ann TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997I Lake Sue TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997J Lake Rowena TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997K Lake Estelle TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997M Lake Formosa TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997O Park Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997Q Lake Dot Fecal Coliform, TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997R Lake Adair TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997S Lake Spring TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997U Lake Park TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2997X Lake Killarney TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2998A Lake Florida TSI, TSI2, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2998C Lake Orienta TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2998E Lake Adelaide TSI, TSI2, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 2999A Lake Hayes TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3000 Lake Pearl TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3000A Lake Harriet DO, Fecal Coliform

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3002J Lake Hiawassee TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004A Bear Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004B Lake Fairview TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004C Lake Lawne TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004D Silver Lake TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004E Lake Daniel TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004F Lake Sarah TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004G Bay Lake TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004J Lake Gandy TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004K Lake Wekiva (Orlando) TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004N Lake Fairview TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004O Asher Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3004P Cub Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3009 Bear Gulley Lake TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3009C Lake Burkett TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3009E Lake Georgia TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3011A Lake Weston TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3011B Lake Shadow TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3011C Lake Lucien Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3023C Lake Sasannah TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3023D Lake Gear TSI

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3023E Lake Barton TSI
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

252

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 2 Middle St. Johns 3036 Lake Frederica Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 2 St. Lucie–Loxahatchee 3194C Savannas Copper, DO

Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries 1451G King Lake TSI

Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries 1451W Saxon Lake TSI

Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries 1522B Lake Thonotosassa DO, TSI, TSI2, Un-ionized Ammonia

Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries 1537 Lake Wire Lead, TSI

Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries 1543 Lake Hunter TSI, TSI2

Group 2 Tampa Bay Tributaries 1807B Lake Manatee Reservoir DO, Fecal Coliform, TSI

Group 3 Caloosahatchee 3237C Lake Hicpochee DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 1009A Western Lake DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 1027A Camp Creek Lake DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 1037 Eastern Lake DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee– 

St. Andrew 1055A Lake Powell DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 210A Double Pond Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 283 Lake Juniper Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 553A Deerpoint Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 61A Sand Hammock Pond Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 959 Morris Lake DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 959D Draper Lake DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 959E Alligator Lake DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 959G Fuller Lake DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee–

St. Andrew 959I Big Redfish Lake DO

Group 3 Choctawhatchee– 

St. Andrew 959J Little Redfish Lake DO

Group 3 Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm 

Beach Coast 3245B Lake Clarke DO, Fecal Coliform

Group 3 Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm 

Beach Coast 3245C2 Clear Lake TSI

Group 3 Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm 

Beach Coast 3245C4 Pine Lake DO, Fecal Coliform, TSI

Group 3 Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm 

Beach Coast 3256A Lake Osborne DO

Group 3 Lake Worth Lagoon–Palm 

Beach Coast 3262A Lake Ida TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488A Lake Smart TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488B Lake Rochelle TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488C Lake Haines TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488D Lake Alfred TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488G Lake Silver TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488P Lake Martha TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace– 1488Q Lake Maude TSI
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

253

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Myakka

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488S Lake Buckeye TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488U Lake Conine TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488V Lake Swoope TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488Y Lake Pansy TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1488Z Lake Echo TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 14921 Lake Tracy TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1497A Crystal Lake TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1497B Lake Parker TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1497C Lake Teniroc TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1497D Lake Gibson TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1497E Lake Bonny TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 15001 Little Lake Hamilton TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 15003 Lake Confusion TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1501 Lake Lena TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1501B Lake Ariana TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1501W Sears Lake TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 15041 Lake Hamilton Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 15101 Lake Eva TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521 Lake Lulu TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521B Lake Eloise TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521D Lake Shipp TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521E Lake May TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521F Lake Howard TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521G Lake Mirror TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521H Lake Cannon TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521J Lake Idylwild TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521K Lake Jessie TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521L Lake Marianna TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521P Deer Lake TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1521Q Lake Blue TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1539C Lake Annie TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1539P Lake Dexter Mercury in Fish Tissue
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

254

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1539Q Lake Ned TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1539R Lake Daisy TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1539Z Lake Menzie TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1548 Lake Elbert TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1549B Banana Lake TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1549B1 Lake Stahl DO, TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1549X Hollingsworth Lake TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1588A Lake Mcleod TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1617A Lake Effie DO

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1623L Lake Hancock DO, TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1623M Eagle Lake TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1623M1 Grassy Lake TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1677C Lake Buffum Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1971 Clark Lake TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1981 Lake Myakka (Lower 

Segment) Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 1981C Lake Myakka (Upper 

Segment) Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 3 Sarasota Bay–Peace–

Myakka 2041B Shell Creek Reservoir 

(Hamilton Reservoir) DO

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 28931 Sawgrass Lake DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, TSI2

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 28932 Lake Cone at Seminole Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 2893K Lake Poinsett DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 2893O Lake Washington DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 2893Q Lake Helen Blazes DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, TSI2, 

TSI2

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 2893V Blue Cypress Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 2893Y Lake Winder DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 2964B Puzzle Lake DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 2964C Ruth Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 2966A Buck Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 3008A Fox Lake DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 3 Upper St. Johns 3008B South Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1436A Lake Davenport BOD 5Day

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1472B Lake Hatchineha Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, TSI2, TSI2

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1480 Lake Marion Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1532A Lake Pierce TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1532B Lake Marie TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1573A Tiger Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1573E Lake Weohyakapka TSI, TSI2

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1619A Lake Wales TSI
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

255

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1663 Crooked Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1685A Lake Arbuckle Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1685D Reedy Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1706 Lake Clinch Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1730 Hickory Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1730B Livingston Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1730E Pabor Lake DO

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1761H Lake Lucas DO

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1813E Bonnet Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1813F Lake Angelo TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1813G Little Bonnet Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1813L Lake Glenada TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1842 Lake Sebring Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1856B Lake Istokpoga Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, TSI2

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1860B Lake Josephine Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1893 Huckleberry Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1938A Lake June in Winter Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1938C Lake Placid Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 1938H Lake Annie DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168C Lake Jessamine TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168D Lake Gatlin TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168H Lake Holden TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168I Lake Pinelock TSI, TSI2

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168J Jennie Jewel Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168Q Lake Warren (Lake Mare 

Prairie) TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168W1 Lake Mary Gem TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168W2 Druid Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168W3 Lake Wade TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168W5 Lake Tyner DO

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168W6 Lake Warren DO

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168W7 Lake Bumby TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168X1 Lake Tennessee 

(Orange County) TSI, TSI2

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168X5 Lake Condel Fecal Coliform

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168X8 Lake Angel TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168Y2 Lake Como (Orange County) DO

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168Y3 Lake Greenwood DO

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168Y4 Lake Davis TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168Y7 Lake Theresa DO

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168Z1 Lake Lucerne (West) TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3168Z9 Lake Lawsona TSI, TSI2

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169C Big Sand Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

256

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169G Clear Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169G4 Lake Kozart TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169G5 Lake Walker TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169G6 Lake Richmond TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169G8 Lake Beardall TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169I Lake Mann TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169P Lake Catherine DO, TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169Q Rock Lake TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3169S Lake Roger (Lake Christie) TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170B Lake Russell Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170FE Lake Britt DO

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170H Pocket Lake (Lake Sheen) Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170J3 Cypress Lake

(Orange County) TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170Q Lake Butler Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170S Lake Down Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170T Lake Bessie Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170W Lake Louise Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170X Lake Palmer (Lake Isleworth) TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3170Y Lake Tibet Butler Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3171 Lake Hart Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3171A Lake Mary Jane Iron, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3171C Re Lake Copper

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3172 East Lake Tohopekaliga Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3173A Lake Tohopekaliga Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3176 Alligator Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3177 Lake Gentry Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3177A Brick Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3180A Lake Cypress Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3183B Lake Kissimmee Mercury in Fish Tissue, TSI, TSI2

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3183G Lake Jackson (Osceola 

County) DO, TSI

Group 4 Kissimmee River 3184 Lake Marian TSI

Group 4 Nassau–St. Marys 2105A Hampton Lake DO

Group 4 Nassau–St. Marys 2339 Ocean Pond Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Pensacola 10EA Woodbine Springs Lake Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Pensacola 145 Lake Karick DO

Group 4 Pensacola 179A Bear Lake DO

Group 4 Pensacola 83A Hurricane Lake DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1329B Lake Rousseau DO, Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1329H Lake Lindsey DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340A Davis Lake DO, TSI

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340B Fort Cooper Lake DO
2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, May 2012

257

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Basin 

Group Basin Name WBID Waterbody Name Listed Parameters

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340C Magnolia Lake DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340D Hampton Lake DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340E Little Lake (Consuella) TSI

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340K Cato Lake DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340L Cooter Lake DO, TSI

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340M Little Henderson Lake DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340P Spivey Lake DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340Q Tussock Lake DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1340R Tsala Apopka Lake

(Floral City Arm) DO

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1347 Lake Okahumpka Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1351B Lake Panasoffkee DO, TSI

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1449A Lake Deeson TSI

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1467 Mud Lake TSI, TSI2

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1484A Lake Tennessee TSI

Group 4 Withlacoochee 1484B Lake Juliana TSI

Group 5 Everglades 3289X Everglades Lakes Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 5 Springs Coast 1392B Lake Hancock DO

Group 5 Springs Coast 1450B Lake Nash Mercury in Fish Tissue

Group 5 Springs Coast 1618 Lake Seminole DO, pH, TSI, Turbidity