National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Assessment of Coastal Water Quality at 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2009/108 
ON THE COVER 

Egret in the mudflats at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve. 

Photograph by: National Park Service 
Assessment of Coastal Water Quality at 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2009/108 

Joe DeVivo 

National Park Service 

Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network 

100 Alabama St., SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Phillip H. Flournoy 

University of Georgia 

Marine Extension Service 

0101 Fisheries Building 

Brunswick, GA 31523 

Katy Austin Smith 

University of Georgia 

Marine Extension Service 

715 Bay Street 

Brunswick, GA 31520 

May 2009 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii 

The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and 

applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management 

of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation 

and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information 

is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, 

and is designed and published in a professional manner. 

Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current 

natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a 

general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues 

of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series 

include vital signs monitoring plans; monitoring protocols; "how to" resource management 

papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of 

resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; 

fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are solely 

those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, NPS. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from the Southeast Coast Network and the Natural Resource Publications 

Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

DeVivo, J. C., P. H. Flournoy, and K. A. Smith. 2009. Assessment of coastal water quality at 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—

2009/108. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS 100008, May 2009 
iii 

Contents 

Page 

Summary and Key Findings............................................................................................................ v

Introduction and Methods ............................................................................................................... 1

Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 1

Sediments ............................................................................................................................ 2

Sample Locations ............................................................................................................................ 3

Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 5

Water Chemistry Assessment ............................................................................................. 5

Sediment Chemistry Assessment ........................................................................................ 5

Summary Assessments.................................................................................................................... 9

Water Chemistry ................................................................................................................. 9

Sediment Chemistry .......................................................................................................... 12

Data ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Water Chemistry ............................................................................................................... 13

Sediment Chemistry .......................................................................................................... 14

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 17
iv 
v 

Summary and Key Findings 

1. In July, 2008, the Southeast Coast Network and the University of Georgia conducted an 

assessment of water and sediment quality at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve as a 

part of the NPS Vital Signs Monitoring Program. 

2. Monitoring was conducted following the methods developed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency as a part of the National Coastal Assessment Program (EPA 2001). 

3. Water quality at TIMU was determined to be Fair. This rating was determined based on the 

fact that more than 50% of the sites sampled were in either Fair or Poor condition (Figure 1). 

4. Sediment quality at TIMU was determined to be Good. This rating was determined based on 

the fact that less than 5% of the sites sampled were in Poor condition, and less than 50% of 

sites were in combined Poor and Fair condition (Figure 2). 

5. Concentrations of Total Dissolved Phosphorus, Chlorophyl a, and Total Organic Carbon 

most frequently caused sites to rank as Poor. 

6. Although Dissolved Oxygen levels ranked Fair at six sites, none of the readings were below 

State water quality standards. 

7. Sediment contaminants were not a determining factor in overall sediment quality (all sites 

rated Good). 

8. Sites ranked most frequently as Poor were concentrated in the headwaters of the Nassau 

River. 
vi 

Figure 1. Assessment of Water Quality Index scores at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, 

and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received a Good rating, yellow 

sites ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 

Figure 2. Assessment of Sediment Quality Index scores at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, 

and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received a Good rating, yellow 

sites ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 
1 

Introduction and Methods 

In July 2008, the Southeast Coast Network and the University of Georgia conducted an 

assessment of water and sediment quality at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (TIMU) 

as a part of the Network’s Vital Signs Monitoring program (DeVivo et al., 2009). The 

monitoring was conducted in estuarine and tidal creek waters following the methods developed 

by the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Coastal Assessment Program (U.S. EPA 

2001). Descriptions of the water quality parameters and the assessment criteria are from EPA’s 

National Coastal Assessment II Report (2005). 

Estuaries are semi-enclosed coastal bodies of water that have free connection with the open sea 

and within which sea water mixes with fresh water. The key feature of an estuary is that it is an 

interface between sea water and fresh water and there is an influence of the ocean tide creating a 

dynamic relationship between the two waters. Estuaries contain critical habitat for a variety of 

fish and wildlife species. They serve as nursery habitats for fish, crustaceans, and shellfish and 

foraging habitat for birds and mammals while providing a multitude of recreational opportunities 

including boating, fishing, and bird watching. These are fragile ecosystems vulnerable to impacts 

caused by development and use. Severe impacts including alterations to hydrodynamic 

processes, exposure to levels of chemical contaminants that cause mortality, altered growth, and 

reduced reproduction and exposure to more frequent and severe hypoxia can be seen in estuarine 

habitats from urban and industrial development (Lerberg et al. 2000). In addition, macrobenthic 

communities in impacted areas are characterized by low diversity, low numbers of rare and 

pollution sensitive species, and low macrobenthic abundances (Lerberg et al. 2000). In areas with 

increased impervious cover, stormwater runoff is flashy and greater then natural amounts of 

fresh and polluted waters are released into estuaries (Holland et al. 2004). 

Water Quality 

The water quality index is made up of five indicators: nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, water 

clarity, and dissolved oxygen. Some nutrient inputs to coastal waters (such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus) are necessary for a healthy, functioning estuarine ecosystem. When nutrients from 

various sources, such as sewage and fertilizers, are introduced into an estuary, the concentration 

of available nutrients will increase beyond natural background levels. This increase in the rate of 

supply of organic matter is called eutrophication, which may result in a host of undesirable water 

quality conditions. Excess nutrients can lead to excess plant production, and thus, to increased 

chlorophyll, which can decrease water clarity and lower concentrations of dissolved oxygen. 

The water quality index used in this report is intended to characterize acutely degraded water 

quality conditions. It does not consistently identify sites experiencing occasional or infrequent 

hypoxia, nutrient enrichment, or decreased water clarity. As a result, a rating of poor for the 

water quality index means that the site is likely to have consistently poor condition during the 

monitoring period. If a site is designated as fair or good, the site did not experience poor 

condition on the date sampled, but could be characterized by poor condition for short time 

periods. In order to assess the level of variability in the index at a specific site, increased or 

supplemental sampling is needed. 
2 

Sediments 

Another issue of major environmental concern in estuaries is the contamination of sediments 

with toxic chemicals. A wide variety of metals and organic substances, such as polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides, are 

discharged into estuaries from urban, agricultural, and industrial sources in the watershed. The 

contaminants adsorb onto suspended particles and eventually accumulate in depositional basins 

where they can disrupt the benthic community of invertebrates, shellfish, and crustaceans that 

live in or on the sediments. To the extent that the contaminants become concentrated in the 

organisms, they pose a risk to organisms throughout the food web—including humans. 

Several factors influence the extent and severity of contamination. Fine-grained, organic-rich 

sediments are likely to become resuspended and transported to distant locations and are also 

efficient at scavenging pollutants. Thus, silty sediments high in total organic carbon (TOC) are 

potential sources of contamination. Conversely, organic-rich particles bind some toxicants so 

strongly that the threat to organisms can be greatly reduced. 

The physical and chemical characteristics of surface sediments are the result of interacting forces 

that control chemical input and particle dynamics at any particular site. In assessing coastal 

condition, researchers measure the potential for sediments to affect bottom-dwelling organisms. 

The sediment quality index used by the SECN is based on two indicators of sediment condition: 

sediment contaminants, and the sediment TOC concentration. 
3 

Sample Locations 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve is situated entirely within 

Duval County and the city limits of Jacksonville, FL, and encompasses 

approximately 46,000 acres between the St. Johns and Nassau rivers. 

The southern third of the preserve lies at the mouth of the extensive St. 

Johns River watershed, which includes parts of Duval and several other 

counties for approximately 300 miles to the south. The St. Johns River 

is heavily impacted by agricultural, industrial and urban pollution; 

however, marine tidal waters near its mouth serve to ameliorate 

pollution through dilution and flushing. The northern two thirds of the 

preserve lie within the Nassau River drainage basin, a small watershed 

that covers parts of Duval and Nassau counties. The Nassau River 

watershed has not yet experienced the concentrated urban and industrial 

growth found along the St. Johns River; still, portions of the watershed 

exhibit poor water quality. The area surrounding the preserve to the west 

and north is predominantly marsh and low uplands utilized for 

timbering, residential and agricultural uses. 

Thirty sites within the boundaries of TIMU were randomly selected following using methods 

developed by the U.S. EPA (Stevens 1997; Stevens and Olsen 1999; Stevens, D. and A.R. Olsen 

2004) (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Sites surveyed during 2008 assessment of coastal waters (red dots). Yellow dots indicate alternate 

sampling sites also monitored as a part of the assessment. 

Na s s au R.

St . Joh ns R .

Jacksonville

City of

FOCA

0 10 5

Kilometers

Timucuan Ecological &

Historic Preserve
4 
5 

Assessment Criteria 

Water Chemistry Assessment 

Water quality was assessed for each of the parameters following the East / Gulf Coast site 

criteria in EPA’s National Coastal Assessment II Report (2005) (Table 1). 

Table 1. 

Condition criteria for water quality parameters collected by the Southeast Coast Network during Coastal 

Water Quality monitoring. 

Rating Water Clarity Index 

(WCI) 

Chlorophyl a 

(ug/L) 

Total Dissolved Nitrogen 

(mg/L) 

Total Dissolved Phosphorus 

(mg/L) 

Dissolved Oxygen

(mg/L) 

Good <2.3 < 5 < 0.1 < 0.01 > 5 

Fair 2.3 – 2.99 5 – 20 0.1 – 0.5 0.01 – 0.05 2 – 5 

Poor > 3.00 > 20 > 0.5 > 0.05 < 2 

 

After total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), chlorophyll a, water 

clarity, and dissolved oxygen were assessed for a given site, the water quality index rating was 

calculated for the site based on these five indicators. The index was rated good, fair, or poor 

using the criteria shown in Table 2. Criteria for determining park-wide assessments are also 

presented in Table 2. 

Table 2. 

Condition criteria for summary water quality assessments by site and by park. 

Rating Site Water Quality Index Rating Park Water Quality Index Rating 

Good A maximum of one indicator is fair, and no indicators are 

poor. 

 Less than 10% of sites are in poor condition and less than 

50% of sites are in combined poor and fair condition. 

Fair One of the indicators is rated poor, or two or more 

indicators are rated fair. 

 10% to 20% of sites are in poor condition, or more than 50% 

of sites are in combined fair and poor condition 

Poor Two or more of the five indicators are rated poor. More than 20% of sites are in poor condition 

Missing Two components of the indicator are missing and the 

available indicators do not suggest a fair or poor rating 

 

Sediment Chemistry Assessment 

There are no absolute chemical concentrations that correspond to sediment toxicity, but Effects 

Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Median (ERM) values are used as guidelines in assessing 

sediment contamination (Table 3; Long et al., 1995). ERM is the median concentration of a 

contaminant observed to have adverse biological effects in the literature studies examined. A 

more protective indicator of contaminant concentration is the ERL criteria, which is the 10th 

percentile concentration of a contaminant represented by studies demonstrating adverse 

biological effects in the literature. Ecological effects are not likely to occur at contaminant 
6 

concentrations below the ERL criterion. The criteria for rating sediment contaminants at 

individual sampling sites are shown in Table 4. 

Table 3. 

Sediment Contaminant guidance values. ERL (Effects Range Low) thresholds are determined for each 

chemical as the 10th percentile in a database of ascending concentrations associated with biological effects. 

ERM (Effects Range Median) thresholds are determined for each chemical as the 50th percentile (median) in a 

database of ascending concentrations associated with adverse biological effects. From Long et al. (1995). 

Contaminant ERL ERM 

Metalsa 

Arsenic 8.2 70 

Cadmium 1.2 9.6 

Chromium 81 370 

Copper 37 270 

Lead 46.7 218 

Mercury 0.15 0.71 

Nickel 20.9 51.6 

Silver 1 3.7 

Zinc 150 410 

Organicsb 

Acenaphthene 16 500 

Acenapthylene 44 640 

Anthracene 85.3 1,100 

Flourene 19 540 

2-Methyl napthalene 70 670 

Napthalene 160 2,100 

Phenanthrene 240 1,500 

Benz(a)anthracene 261 1,600 

Benzo(a)pyrene 430 1,600 

Chrysene 384 2,800 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 63.4 260 

Fluoranthene 600 5,100 

Pyrene 665 2,600 

Low molecular weight PAH 552 3,160 

High molecular weight PAH 1,700 9,600 

Total PAHs 4,020 44,800

4,4’-DDE 2.2 27 

Total DDT 1.6 46.1 

Total PCBs 22.7 180 

a

 Units are ug/g dry sediment, equivalent to ppm. 

b

 Units are ng/g dry sediment, equivalent to ppb. 
7 

Sediment contaminant availability or organic enrichment can be altered in areas where there is 

considerable deposition of organic matter. Sediment toxicity from organic matter is assessed by 

measuring TOC. The criteria for rating TOC for individual sampling sites are shown in Table 4. 

After sediment contaminants, and sediment TOC were assessed for a given site, the sediment 

quality index rating was calculated for the site and park based on these three indicators. The 

sediment quality index was rated good to poor for each site using the criteria shown in Table 4. 

Table 4. 

Condition criteria for sediment chemistry measures. 

Rating Sediment Contaminants 

Rating 

(SC) 

% Total Organic 

Carbon 

(TOC) 

Site Sediment Quality 

Index 

(SQI) 

Park Sediment Quality Index 

Good No ERM concentrations are 

exceeded and less than five 

ERL concentrations are 

exceeded. 

< 2% TOC is good and Sediment 

Contaminants Rating is 

good. 

Less than 5% of the sites are rated in 

Poor condition and less than 50% of 

the sites are rated in combined Poor 

and Fair condition. 

Fair Five or more ERL 

concentrations are exceeded. 

2% – 5% TOC is fair or Sediment 

Contaminants Rating is fair. 

5% to 15% of sites are in Poor

condition, or more than 50% of sites 

are in combined Poor and Fair 

condition. 

Poor An ERM concentration is 

exceeded for one or more 

contaminants 

> 5% TOC is poor or Sediment 

Contaminants Indicator is 

poor. 

More than 15% of sites are in Poor 

condition 

 
8 
9 

Summary Assessments 

Figures 4 through 10 display the summary assessments for each water quality and sediment 

parameter measured. 

Water Chemistry 

Figure 4. Assessment of Water Clarity Index scores at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, and 

percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received a Good rating, yellow sites 

ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 
10 

Figure 5. Assessment of Chlorophyll a concentrations at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, 

and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received a Good rating, yellow 

sites ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 

Figure 6. Assessment of Total Dissolved Nitrogen concentrations at Timucuan Ecological and Historic 

Preserve, 2008, and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received a Good

rating, yellow sites ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 
11 

Figure 7. Assessment of Total Dissolved Phosphorus concentrations at Timucuan Ecological and Historic 

Preserve, 2008, and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received a Good

rating, yellow sites ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 

Figure 8. Assessment of Dissolved Oxygen concentrations at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 

2008, and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received a Good rating, 

yellow sites ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 
12 

Sediment Chemistry 

Figure 9. Assessment of Sediment Contaminants Index at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, 

and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received a Good rating, yellow 

sites ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 

Figure 10. Assessment of Total Organic Carbon concentrations in sediments at Timucuan Ecological and 

Historic Preserve, 2008, and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sites denoted as green received 

a Good rating, yellow sites ranked Fair, and red sites ranked Poor. 
13 

Data 

Water Chemistry 

Table 5. 

Water quality data for sites sampled at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, July 2009. Green values 

ranked as “Good,” yellow sites ranked “Fair,” and red sites ranked “Poor.” 

Station Water Clarity 

Index 

(WCI) 

Chlorophyl a 

(ug/L) 

Total Dissolved Nitrogen 

(mg/L) 

Total Dissolved Phosphorus 

(mg/L) 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(mg/L) 

TIMU-21 0.838 6.620 0.113 0.033 5.690 

TIMU-12 0.850 9.745 0.155 0.032 5.330 

TIMU-02 1.022 8.914 0.110 0.028 5.950 

TIMU-18 2.000 2.118 0.092 0.023 6.920 

TIMU-25 2.000 2.476 0.081 0.023 6.940 

TIMU-06 2.000 8.722 0.102 0.026 7.010 

TIMU-24 0.462 10.429 0.140 0.033 6.030 

TIMU-20 0.626 13.183 0.126 0.034 5.300 

TIMU-16 2.000 27.583 0.263 0.077 4.830 

TIMU-28 0.850 16.793 0.305 0.061 4.660 

TIMU-15 0.427 12.672 0.171 0.044 5.370 

TIMU-27 0.626 13.596 0.147 0.043 5.040 

TIMU-10 2.000 12.842 0.214 0.046 4.860 

TIMU-08 0.850 6.125 0.199 0.048 5.010 

TIMU-04 1.022 7.372 0.214 0.049 4.770 

TIMU-09 1.222 17.550 0.255 0.041 5.460 

TIMU-ALT-01 1.500 5.458 0.131 0.044 5.110 

TIMU-14 1.222 5.516 0.133 0.041 4.910 

TIMU-03 0.629 3.311 0.086 0.031 5.780 

TIMU-07 0.397 3.070 0.069 0.037 5.780 

TIMU-23 0.850 8.039 0.154 0.053 5.010 

TIMU-01 0.715 4.450 0.177 0.038 5.600 

TIMU-05 0.463 5.170 0.128 0.046 5.970 

TIMU-13 1.500 6.489 0.175 0.066 4.440 

TIMU-11 1.500 6.523 0.095 0.047 4.330 

TIMU-29 2.000 6.452 0.072 0.026 5.690 

TIMU-19 1.500 8.542 0.179 0.060 5.420 

TIMU-17 1.042 8.410 0.139 0.045 4.420 

TIMU-ALT-03 1.022 8.828 0.114 0.036 5.870 

TIMU-ALT-02 5.000 8.594 0.192 0.033 5.410 
14 

Sediment Chemistry 

Table 6. 

Metals concentrations (in ppm) for sites sampled at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, July, 2008. 

Green values ranked as “Good,” yellow sites ranked “Fair,” and red sites ranked “Poor.” Blue indicates 

missing / unavailable data. 

Station 

Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Silver Zinc 

TIMU-01 4.6 0.26 9.7 7.4 11.9 0.016 4.8 0.49 21.5 

TIMU-02 4 0.26 1.6 1.4 3.2 0.0063 1.3 0.49 17.7 

TIMU-04 0.18 0.0051 47.9 0.2 0.36 0.042 0.32 0.0097 1 

TIMU-05 3.9 0.25 0.8 1.6 5.6 0.0063 1.7 0.48 7.8 

TIMU-06 3.9 0.25 1.6 0.81 1.7 0.0063 1.2 0.48 2.1 

TIMU-07 4.1 0.25 3.2 4.4 9 0.0063 2.6 0.48 13.3 

TIMU-08 3.9 0.25 1.6 1.3 3.3 0.0063 1.2 0.48 3.6 

TIMU-09 4 0.26 0.8 3.3 6.9 0.011 5.1 0.49 15.7 

TIMU-10 12.55 0.255 55.45 7 15.85 0.0175 14.25 0.485 43.15 

TIMU-11 5.95 0.385 1.2 2 6.3 0.0094 2.95 0.73 15.7 

TIMU-12 4 0.26 1.6 0.96 2 0.0063 1.3 0.49 12.9 

TIMU-13 4 0.26 0.8 2 3.9 0.0063 1.3 0.49 5.9 

TIMU-14 6.7 0.25 10.7 12.8 21.1 0.023 10.9 0.48 55.5 

TIMU-15 3.9 2.2 1.6 4.2 5.4 0.0063 5.8 2.7 18.1 

TIMU-16 8.5 2.8 29.2 8.2 18.4 0.043 14.7 2.9 48.7 

TIMU-17 0.25 5.4 4.4 10.1 0.021 5.5 0.48 21.1 

TIMU-18 3.95 0.255 1.6 0.935 2.9 0.0063 1.25 0.485 11.5 

TIMU-19 0.25 7.3 6.2 14.1 0.016 4.8 0.48 28 

TIMU-20 4.4 2.3 1.6 4.9 9.9 0.0063 7.2 2.8 22.6 

TIMU-21 3.9 0.25 1.6 3.1 6.6 0.0063 2.2 0.48 18 

TIMU-23 4 0.26 0.8 2.8 5.6 0.0063 2 0.49 14 

TIMU-24 3.9 0.25 1.6 1.1 1.9 0.0063 1.2 0.48 4.2 

TIMU-25 4 0.26 1.6 0.78 2.6 0.0063 1.3 0.49 13.7 

TIMU-27 3.9 2.6 1.6 4.1 4.9 0.0063 5.6 2.8 19.1 

TIMU-28 9.2 2.4 29.7 9.1 21.1 0.046 16.1 2.9 52.4 

TIMU-29 0.25 0.79 1.4 4.7 0.0062 1.3 0.48 4.2 

TIMU-ALT-01 3.9 0.25 13.3 5 7.3 0.018 3.4 0.48 19.4 

TIMU-ALT-02 0.26 0.81 2.8 10.2 0.0063 3.5 0.49 13.3 

TIMU-ALT-03 0.25 0.8 0.75 2.5 0.019 1.2 0.48 2 
15 

Table 7. 

Organic contaminant concentrations (in ppm) for sites sampled at Timucuan Ecological and Historic 

Preserve, July, 2008. Green values ranked as “Good,” yellow sites ranked “Fair,” and red sites ranked 

“Poor.” Blue sites contained missing data. 

Station 

2-Methylnaphthalene 4,4-DDE Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total DDT High molecular weight PAH Low molecular weight PAH Total PAHs Total PCBs 

TIMU-01 5 0.5 5 5 0.99 4.2 0.99 3.2 5 5 5 5 1.7 3.7 1 40.77 58.43 99.2 21 

TIMU-02 1 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 10 1 120 113 233 21 

TIMU-04 1.9 0.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1 22.8 26.6 49.4 21 

TIMU-05 5.3 0.5 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 1 63.6 74.2 137.8 21 

TIMU-06 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 120 140 260 21 

TIMU-07 5.6 0.5 5.6 5.6 0.56 2.2 1.4 3.1 5.6 3.1 5.6 5.6 1.7 3.4 1 45.1 69.46 114.56 21 

TIMU-08 6.3 0.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 1 75.6 88.2 163.8 21 

TIMU-09 4.1 0.5 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 1 49.2 57.4 106.6 21 

TIMU-10 3 0.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 36 42 78 21 

TIMU-11 5.6 0.5 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 3.35 1 64.95 78.4 143.35 21 

TIMU-12 2 0.5 10 1.5 1.5 2.5 2 2.5 10 2.5 1.5 2 2 2 1 50.5 30 80.5 21 

TIMU-13 6 0.5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 72 84 156 21 

TIMU-14 3.1 0.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.2 0.78 1.1 3.1 2.3 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.9 1 22.32 41.4 63.72 21 

TIMU-15 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 10 10 1 120 131 251 21 

TIMU-16 1 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 10 10 1 120 122 242 21 

TIMU-17 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 120 140 260 20.92

TIMU-18 1 0.5 6.25 10 10 27 10 34.5 10 42 12 1 5.5 22 2.55 201.75 115.75 317.5 21.8 

TIMU-19 10 0.5 10 10 10 2.5 1.5 3 10 5.5 10 10 2 5.5 1 73.5 132 205.5 21 

TIMU-20 1 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 10 1 120 113 233 21 

TIMU-21 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 120 140 260 21 

TIMU-23 5.9 0.5 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.5 5.9 5.9 5.9 1.5 1 62 82.6 144.6 21 

TIMU-24 1 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 10 10 1 120 122 242 21 

TIMU-25 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 10 1 10 10 1 111 131 242 21 

TIMU-27 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.5 120 140 260 21 

TIMU-28 1 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 1.5 10 2 10 1 1 10 1 103.5 113 216.5 21 

TIMU-29 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 120 140 260 21 

TIMU-ALT-01 6 0.5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1.5 6 6 0.9 1.2 1 62.7 78.9 141.6 21 

TIMU-ALT-02 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 120 140 260 21 

TIMU-ALT-03 10 0.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 120 140 260 21 
16 

Table 8. 

Sediment contaminants rating (SC), percent total organic carbon (TOC), and Sediment Quality Index (SQI) 

rating for sites sampled at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, July, 2008. Green values ranked as 

“Good,” yellow sites ranked “Fair,” and red sites ranked “Poor.” 

Station SC TOC SQI 

TIMU-01 Good 1.4 Good 

TIMU-02 Good 0.32 Good 

TIMU-04 Good 5 Fair 

TIMU-05 Good 0.49 Good 

TIMU-06 Good 0.41 Good 

TIMU-07 Good 1.2 Good 

TIMU-08 Good 0.36 Good 

TIMU-09 Good 1.6 Good 

TIMU-10 Good 4.05 Fair 

TIMU-11 Good 1.31 Good 

TIMU-12 Good 0.42 Good 

TIMU-13 Good 0.64 Good 

TIMU-14 Good 2.8 Fair 

TIMU-15 Good 0.59 Good 

TIMU-16 Good 5.6 Poor 

TIMU-17 Good 1.4 Good 

TIMU-18 Good 0.285 Good 

TIMU-19 Good 0.91 Good 

TIMU-20 Good 0.98 Good 

TIMU-21 Good 0.6 Good 

TIMU-23 Good 0.63 Good 

TIMU-24 Good 0.29 Good 

TIMU-25 Good 0.28 Good 

TIMU-27 Good 0.74 Good 

TIMU-28 Good 5.7 Poor 

TIMU-29 Good 0.7 Good 

TIMU-ALT-01 Good 0.41 Good 

TIMU-ALT-02 Good 1.2 Good 

TIMU-ALT-03 Good 0.3 Good 
17 

Literature Cited 

DeVivo, J. C., C. J. Wright, M. W. Byrne, E. DiDonato, and T. Curtis. 2008. Vital signs 

monitoring in the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2008/061. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Holland, A. F., D. M. Sanger, C. P. Gawle, S. B. Lerberg, M. S. Santiago, G. H. M. Riekerk, L. 

E. Zimmerman, and G. I. Scott. 2004. Linkages between tidal creek ecosystems and the 

landscape and demographic attributes of their wetlands. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology 298:151-178. 

Lerberg, S. B., A. F. Holland, and D. Sanger. 2000. Responses of tidal creek macrobenthic 

communities to the effects of watershed development. Estuaries 23(6):838-853. 

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse 

biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine 

sediments. Environmental Management 19(1):81–97. 

Stevens, D. L., Jr. 1997. Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial 

populations. Environmentric 8:167-195. 

Stevens, D. L., Jr. and Olsen, A.R. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic 

resources. Journal of Agricu ltural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 4:415-428. 

Stevens, D. and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of 

the American Statistical Association 99:262-278. 

U.S. EPA. 2001. Environmental Monitoring an Assessment Program (EMAP). National Coastal 

Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001 – 2004. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and 

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, gulf Ecology Division, gulf Breeze, FL. 

EPA/620/R-01/002. 

U.S. EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. Office of Research 

and Development and Office of Water, Washington, D.C., USA. 

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities. 

NPS 100008, May 2009
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM