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 se ries addresses natural resource to pics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the Nationa l 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 publishe d in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated me dium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS po licy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Exam ples of the diverse array of re ports published in this series include vital signs monitoring pl ans; monitoring protocols; " how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natura l Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly -published newsletters. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommenda tions 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 .......................................................................................................... 1 2 Data .......................................................................................................................... ..................... 13 Water Chemistry ............................................................................................................... 13 Sediment Chemistry .......................................................................................................... 1 4 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. ............... 17

### iv

### v 

# Summary and Key Findings

1. In July, 2008, the Southeast Coast Network a nd the University of Georgia conducted an assessment of water and sediment quality at Timu cuan Ecological and Hi storic Preserve as a part of the NPS Vital Signs Monitoring Program. 2. Monitoring was conducted following the me thods developed by the Environmental Protection Agency as a part of the Nationa l 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 le ss than 50% of sites were in combined Poor and Fair condition (Figure 2). 5. Concentrations of Total Dissolved Phosphor us, 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 sedime nt 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. Sit es denoted as green received a Good rating, yellow sites ranked Fair , and red sites ranked Poor

.

Figure 2. Assessment of Sediment Quality Index score s at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sit es 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 a nd the University of Georgia conducted an assessment of water and sediment quality at Timu cuan Ecological and Hist oric Preserve (TIMU) as a part of the Network’s Vital Signs M onitoring program (DeVivo et al., 2009). The monitoring was conducted in estu arine and tidal creek waters following the methods developed by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Na tional Coastal Assessment Program (U.S. EPA 2001). Descriptions of the water quality paramete rs and the assessment criteria are from EPA’s National Coastal Assess ment II Report (2005). Estuaries are semi-enclosed coastal bodies of wa ter that have free connection with the open sea and within which sea water mixes with fresh water. The key feature of an estu ary is that it is an interface between sea water and fresh water and ther e is an influence of the ocean tide creating a dynamic relationship between the two waters. Estuar ies contain critical hab itat 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 pr oviding a multitude of recreational opportunities including boating, fishing, and bi rd watching. These are fragile ec osystems vulnerable to impacts caused by development and use. Severe im pacts including alterations to hydrodynamic processes, exposure to levels of chemical contam inants 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 a bundances (Lerberg et al. 2000). In areas with increased impervious cover, st ormwater runoff is fl ashy and greater then natural amounts of fresh and polluted waters are released in to estuaries (Holla nd 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 inpu ts to coastal waters (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) are necessary for a healthy, functioni ng estuarine ecosystem. When nutrients from various sources, such as sewage and fertilizers, are introduced in to an estuary, the concentration of available nutrients will incr ease beyond natural background levels. This increase in the rate of supply of organic matter is calle d eutrophication, which may result in a host of undesirable water quality conditions. Excess nutrients can lead to excess plan t production, and thus, to increased chlorophyll, which can decrease water clarity and lower concen trations of dissolved oxygen. The water quality index used in this report is intended to characterize acutely degraded water quality conditions. It does not c onsistently identify sites experi encing 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 likel y 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 meta ls and organic substances, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinat ed biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides, are discharged into estuaries from urban, agricultural, and industria l sources in the watershed. The contaminants adsorb onto suspended particles an d eventually accumulate in depositional basins where they can disrupt the benthi c community of invert ebrates, shellfish, a nd crustaceans that live in or on the sediments. To the extent that the contaminants become concentrated in the organisms, they pose a risk to organism s throughout the food web—including humans. Several factors influence the exte nt and severity of contamina tion. Fine-grained, organic-rich sediments are likely to become resuspended and transported to distant locations and are also efficient at scavenging pollutant s. Thus, silty sediments high in total organic carbon (TOC) are potential sources of contamina tion. Conversely, organic-rich part icles bind some toxicants so strongly that the threat to or ganisms can be greatly reduced. The physical and chemical characteristics of surfac e 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 se diments 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 Pres erve is situated entirely within Duval County and the city limits of Jacksonville, FL, and encompasses approximately 46,000 acres between th e St. Johns and Nassau rivers. The southern third of the preserve lie s 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, industria l 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 Rive r drainage basin, a small watershed that covers parts of Duval and Nassau counties. The Nassau River watershed has not yet experienced th e concentrated urban and industrial growth found along the St. Johns River; still, portions of the watershed exhibit poor water quality. The area su rrounding the preserve to the west and north is predominantly marsh and low uplands utilized for timbering, residential an d agricultural uses. Thirty sites within th e boundaries of TIMU were randomly selected following using methods developed by the U.S. EPA (Stevens 1997; Steven s 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. N a s s a u R

.

S t . J o h n s 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 para meters 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 South east 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), tota l 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 i ndicators. 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 poo r. More than 20% of sites are in poor condition Missing Two components of the indicator are missing and the available indicators do not s uggest a fair or poor rating



# Sediment Chemistry Assessment There are no absolute chemical concentrations th at correspond to sediment toxicity, but Effects Range Low (ERL) and Effects Range Median (ERM) values are used as gui delines in assessing sediment contamination (Table 3; Long et al., 19 95). 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 concen tration is the ERL criteria, which is the 10th percentile concentration of a contaminant represented by st udies demonstrating adverse biological effects in the literatu re. Ecological effects are not li kely to occur at contaminant

### 6 

# concentrations below the ERL criterion. The crit eria 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 10 th 

### percentile in a database of ascending concentr ations associated with biological effects. ERM (Effects Range Median) thresholds are determined for each chemical as the 50 th 

### percentile (median) in a database of ascending concentrations associated with ad verse biological effects. From Long et al. (1995).

Contaminant ERL ERM Metals a A rsenic 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 Organics b A cenaphthene 16 500 A cenapthylene 44 640 A nthracene 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 enri chment can be altered in areas where there is considerable deposition of organi c 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 A n 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 asse ssments 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 cate gory. 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. Sit es 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 concentrat ions at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, and percentage of sites in each condition category. Si tes 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 Ind ex at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, and percentage of sites in each condition category. Sit es denoted as green received a Good rating, yellow sites ranked Fair , and red sites ranked Poor

.

Figure 10. Assessment of Total Organic Carbon concen trations in sediments at Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 2008, and percentage of sites in each condition cat egory. 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.

StationArsenicCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSilverZinc

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 si tes 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.

Station2-Methylnaphthalene4,4-DDEAcenaphtheneAcenaphthyleneAnthraceneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneChryseneDibenz(a,h)AnthraceneFluorantheneFluoreneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyreneTotal DDTHigh molecular weight PAHLow molecular weight PAHTotal PAHsTotal 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. Linka ges between tidal creek ecosystems and the landscape and demographic attri butes 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 watershe d 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. Spatia lly restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources. Journal of Agricu ltural, Bi ological and Environmen tal Statistics 4:415-428. Stevens, D. and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balan ced 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 Laborator y, gulf Ecology Division, gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/620/R-01/002. U.S. EPA. 2005. National Coastal Condition Repor t 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 a nd cultural heritage; provides scientific a nd other information about those resources; and honors its specia l responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities. NPS 100008, May 2009National 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