Comparison of Water Quality Results from Fixed 

Station and Random Sampling Monitoring 

Programs in the Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay 

Aquatic Preserves: 2001 - 2007

Final Report 

Submitted to: 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 

1926 Victoria Avenue 

Ft. Myers, FL 33901 

July 2, 2009 

CHAP Technical Report #3 
The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program is a partnership of citizens, elected 

officials, resource managers and commercial and recreational resource users working to 

improve the water quality and ecological integrity of the greater Charlotte Harbor 

watershed. A cooperative decision-making process is used within the Program to address 

diverse resource management concerns in the 4,400 square mile study area. Many of 

these partners also financially support the Program, which, in turn, affords the Program 

opportunities to fund projects such as this. The entities that have financially supported 

the Program include the following: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Southwest Florida Water Management District 

South Florida Water Management District 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Florida Coastal Zone Management Program 

Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

Polk, Sarasota, Manatee, Lee, Charlotte, DeSoto, and Hardee Counties 

Cities of Sanibel, Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Punta Gorda, North Port, Venice, 

Fort Myers Beach, and Winter Haven 

and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District, on behalf of the Peace River and 

Manasota Basin Boards, provided funding for this project. 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

i 

Comparisons of Water Quality from Fixed Station 

and Random Sampling Monitoring Programs in 

the Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic 

Preserves: 2001 - 2007

Final Report July 2, 2009 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves Office 

Punta Gorda, FL 

In Cooperation with: 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 

Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

ii 

Executive Summary 

 This report presents water quality status and trends results for the CHEVWQMN 

and CCHMN from 2001 through 2007 across the six Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay 

Aquatic Preserves, and surrounding regions. Eleven water quality parameters were 

analyzed across twelve estuary regions characterized by relatively homogenous 

hydrologic conditions. In addition, another five parameters were measured in the 

CCHMN. Combined, these water quality parameters reflect health of the estuaries and 

affect the habitats located there, including factors limiting light availability to seagrasses. 

The Charlotte Harbor estuaries region extends from Venice south to Bonita 

Springs, encompassing over 900 km2

 (~225,000 acres) of diverse submerged habitats. 

North to south, the six Florida Aquatic Preserves contained within the greater Charlotte 

Harbor estuary are: Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor, Cape Haze, Pine 

Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and Estero Bay. 

 This report summarizes 2001 - 2007 water quality data throughout the Charlotte 

Harbor region and relates the findings to the general health of the individual estuaries to 

aid in management efforts. The analyses display water quality relationships both 

spatially and temporally in order to highlight parameters and regions of concern. The 

water quality parameters evaluated include: dissolved oxygen, water clarity, salinity, 

nutrients, chlorophyll a, and fecal coliform bacteria, as well as others. 

To characterize water quality as it relates to estuarine health, CCHMN and 

CHEVWQMN results were compared within the region and to each other. Additional 

comparisons were made to numerical criteria to aid in the interpretation of water quality 

results. A Seasonal Kendall trend test was used to detect trends in water quality from 

2001 through 2007 for each estuary region. Analyses of the relationships among 

selected water quality parameters were conducted to aid in the understanding of water 

quality conditions and trends across the region. Summaries of status and trend results 

for each parameter and estuary region are presented. 

Across the region, results varied by parameter seasonally, spatially and over 

time, as well as by program. The DO concentrations had frequent exceedances below 

Florida Surface Water Criteria of 5.0 mg/L, but few below 4.0 mg/L. There were few 

observations from either program exceeding other State of Florida criteria. Significant 

decreasing trends in pH, chlorophyll a, fecal bacteria and increases in DO 

concentrations were observed for many estuaries from 2001 through 2007. Significant 

relationships between light-limiting factors and clarity, as measured by both Secchi 

depth and Kd, were observed. However, the percent contribution of each parameter 

varied across the region and between the rainy and dry seasons. Strong relationships 

between salinity and many other parameters including color, nutrients and bacteria were 

also observed and quantified. 

 Across the twelve estuary regions analyzed in this report, water quality in the 

tidal portions of the major tributaries was below average compared to other estuary 

regions within the Charlotte Harbor area. In addition, salinities, pH and lower water 

clarity, as measured by both Kd and Secchi depth, as well as higher color and TN 

values were observed in these regions. Higher levels of TP were also observed near 

the mouths of the Myakka and Peace Rivers, most likely from the associated geological 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

iii 

material at their headwaters. In Estero Bay, decreasing trends in chlorophyll a and fecal 

coliform bacteria were observed. 

Status and trends results presented in this report express the spatial and temporal 

variability of water quality conditions across the Charlotte Harbor Estuary. 

CHEVWQMN and CCHMN results are used to characterize the relationships between 

water quality parameters and factors affecting estuarine health, including changes in 

freshwater inflows and influences from watershed land uses. The primary use of the 

dataset is to guide resource management goals for the six Aquatic Preserves in order to 

preserve the health of the system. 

These three programs are valued by resource managers in the region. The data 

are used to guide policy and management decisions, for education and outreach, for 

regulatory purposes, and for research by many agencies in the area. This study will be 

used by the CHNEP and the six Aquatic Preserves to aid in these purposes. 

CHAP and EBAP will make modifications and improvements to their programs as 

they deem necessary. 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

iv 

Table of Contents 

Section Page

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3 

II. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region .................................... 6 

III. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer 

Water Quality Monitoring Network (CHEVWQMN) ........................................... 8 

IV. Description of the Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network 

 (CCHMN) .......................................................................................................... 10 

V. Description of the Seagrass Transect Monitoring Program (STMP) and 

 Methods .......................................................................................................... 12 

VI. Methods Used by Both the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN ...................................... 14 

A. Introduction .............................................................................................. 14 

B. Quality Assurance Methods .................................................................... 15 

C. Field Methods ........................................................................................... 16 

D. Laboratory Methods ................................................................................. 18 

E. Data Preparation and Exploratory Analysis .......................................... 19 

F. Methods Used to Determine Water Quality Status ................................ 21 

G. Analysis Methods Used to Determine Trends ....................................... 23 

H. Methods Used to Determine Relationships between Water Quality 

Parameters ............................................................................................... 26 

VII. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the CHEVWQMN & 

 CCHMN: 2001 – 2007 ....................................................................................... 27 

A. Introduction .............................................................................................. 27 

B. Secchi depth ............................................................................................. 29 

C. Temperature ............................................................................................. 38 

D. Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................... 46 

E. pH... .......................................................................................................... 55 

F. Salinity ...................................................................................................... 64 

G. Total Nitrogen ........................................................................................... 72 

H. Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................... 81 

I. Chlorophyll a ............................................................................................ 88 

J. Fecal Coliform Bacteria ........................................................................... 97 

K. Turbidity .................................................................................................. 104 

L. Color ........................................................................................................ 112 

VIII. Results of Water Quality Relationships within the CHEVWQMN 

 & CCHMN ........................................................................................................ 120 

A. Introduction ............................................................................................ 120 

B. Relationship between Rainfall and Selected Parameters ................... 121 

C. Relationship between Salinity and Selected Parameters ................... 123 

D. Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationships ............................................ 127 

IX. Segmentation Scheme for the CCHMN & CHEVWQMN ............................... 131 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

v 

Table of Contents, cont.

Section Page

X. Summaries of Status and Trends Results for Each Estuary Region 

 Based on Both the CCHMN & CHEVWQMN ................................................. 134 

A. Introduction ............................................................................................ 134 

B. Lemon Bay and its Basins .................................................................... 141 

C. Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze and Their 

 Associated Basins ................................................................................. 141 

D. Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Tidal 

 Caloosahatchee and Their Associated Basins .................................... 155 

E. Estero Bay and Its Associated Basin ................................................... 165 

XI. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 169 

XII. References ...................................................................................................... 171 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

vi 

List of Figures and Tables in Text 

Section Page

I. Introduction 

Figure 1.1 Fixed monitoring sites and Aquatic Preserves of the Charlotte 

Harbor region ............................................................................................... 2

II. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region 

Figure 2.1: Aquatic Preserves & watershed basins for the Charlotte Harbor 

region ........................................................................................................... 5 

Table 2.1: .. Florida Aquatic Preserves within the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries 

Region .......................................................................................................... 6 

VI. Methods Used by Both the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

Figure 6.1: Monitoring site map and CCHMN estuary region delineation ... 15 

Table 6.1: Field Method Summary ............................................................. 17 

Table 6.2: Summary of values reported as the minimum detection limit 

(MDL) ......................................................................................................... 19 

Table 6.3: Description of regulations used to determine water quality 

Status ......................................................................................................... 22 

Table 6.4: Summary of values reported as the minimum detection limit 

(MDL) ........................................................................................................ 24 

Table 6.5: Summary of depth and Secchi depth results for each aquatic 

Preserve ..................................................................................................... 25 

VII. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Table 7.1: Average annual rainfall (m) by watershed region ..................... 28 

 Figure 7.1: Average annual rainfall by watershed region .......................... 28 

Table 7.2: CHEVWQMN summary and status of Secchi depth (m) results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................... 32 

Table 7.3: CCHMN summary and status of Secchi depth (m) results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 32 

Figure 7.2: CHEVWQMN Secchi depth (m) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 7.3: CCHMN Secchi depth (m) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 7.4: CHEVWQMN seasonal Secchi depth (m) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 34 

Figure 7.5: CCHMN seasonal Secchi depth (m) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 34 

Figure 7.6: CHEVWQMN time series plot of Secchi depth (m) for 2001 

through 2007 .............................................................................................. 35 

Figure 7.7: CCHMN time series plot of Secchi depth (m) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 36 

Table 7.4: CHEVWQMN Secchi depth (m) trend results ............................ 37 

Table 7.5: CHEVWQMN summary and status of temperature (°C) results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................... 39 

Table 7.5: CCHMN summary and status of temperature (°C) results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 40 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

vii 

List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont.

Section Page

Figure 7.8: CHEVWQMN temperature (°C) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 7.9: CHEVWQMN seasonal temperature (°C) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 41 

Figure 7.10: CCHMN temperature (°C) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 41 

Figure 7.11: CCHMN seasonal temperature (°C) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 42 

Figure 7.12: CHEVWQMN time series plot of temperature (°C) for 2001 

through 2007 .............................................................................................. 43 

Figure 7.13: CCHMN time series plot of temperature (°C) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 44 

Table 7.7: CHEVWQMN temperature (°C) trend results ............................ 45 

Table 7.8: CCHMN temperature (°C) trend results..................................... 45 

Table 7.9: CHEVWQMN summary and status of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 

results for each estuary .............................................................................. 49 

Table 7.10: CCHMN summary and status of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) results 

for each estuary ......................................................................................... 49 

Figure 7.14: CHEVWQMN dissolved oxygen (mg/L) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 50 

Figure 7.15: CHEVWQMN seasonal dissolved oxygen (mg/L) boxplot results 

for each estuary region .............................................................................. 50 

Figure 7.16: CCHMN dissolved oxygen (mg/L) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 51 

Figure 7.17: CCHMN seasonal dissolved oxygen (mg/L) boxplot results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................... 51 

Figure 7.18: CHEVWQMN time series plot of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) for 

2001 through 2007 ..................................................................................... 52 

Figure 7.19: CCHMN time series plot of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) for 2001 

through 2007 .............................................................................................. 53 

Table 7.11: CHEVWQMN dissolved oxygen (mg/L) trend results .............. 54 

Table 7.12: CCHMN dissolved oxygen (mg/L) trend results ...................... 54 

Table 7.13: CHEVWQMN summary and status of pH results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 57 

Table 7.14: CCHMN summary and status of pH results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 58 

Figure 7.20: CHEVWQMN pH boxplot results for each estuary region ...... 58 

Figure 7.21: CHEVWQMN seasonal pH boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 59 

Figure 7.22: CCHMN pH boxplot results for each estuary region............... 59 

Figure 7.23: CCHMN seasonal pH boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 60 

Figure 7.24: CHEVWQMN time series plot of pH for 2001 through 2007 ... 61 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

viii 

List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont.

Section Page

Figure 7.25: CCHMN time series plot of pH for 2001 through 2007 ........... 62 

Table 7.15: CHEVWQMN pH trend results ................................................ 63 

Table 7.16: CHEVWQMN pH trend results ................................................ 63 

Table 7.17: CHEVWQMN summary and status of salinity (psu) results for 

each estuary .............................................................................................. 66 

Table 7.18: CCHMN summary and status of salinity (psu) results for each 

estuary ....................................................................................................... 66 

Figure 7.26: CHEVWQMN salinity (psu) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 67 

Figure 7.27: CHEVWQMN seasonal salinity (psu) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 67 

Figure 7.28: CCHMN salinity (psu) boxplot results for each estuary region 68 

Figure 7.29: CCHMN seasonal salinity (psu) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 68 

Figure 7.30: CHEVWQMN time series plot of salinity (psu) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 69 

Figure 7.31: CCHMN time series plot of salinity (psu) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 70 

Table 7.19: CHEVWQMN salinity (psu) trend results ................................. 71 

Table 7.20: CCHMN salinity (psu) trend results ......................................... 71 

Table 7.21: CHEVWQMN summary and status of total nitrogen (ppm) results 

for each estuary region .............................................................................. 74 

Table 7.22: CCHMN summary and status of total nitrogen (ppm) results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................... 75 

Figure 7.32: CHEVWQMN TN (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 75 

Figure 7.33: CHEVWQMN seasonal TN (ppm) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 76 

Figure 7.34: CCHMN TN (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 76 

Figure 7.35: CCHMN seasonal TN (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 77 

Figure 7.36: CHEVWQMN time series plot of TN (ppm) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 78 

Figure 7.37: CCHMN time series plot of TN (ppm) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 79 

Table 7.23: CCHMN total nitrogen (ppm) trend results .............................. 80 

Table 7.24: CHEVWQMN summary and status of TP (ppm) results for each 

estuary ....................................................................................................... 83 

Table 7.25: CCHMN summary and status of TP (ppm) results for each 

estuary ....................................................................................................... 83 

Figure 7.38: CHEVWQMN TP (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 84 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

ix 

List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont.

Section Page

Figure 7.39: CHEVWQMN seasonal TP (ppm) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 84 

Figure 7.40: CCHMN TP (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 85 

Figure 7.41: CCHMN seasonal TP (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 85 

Figure 7.42: CHEVWQMN time series plot of TP (ppm) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 86 

Figure 7.43: CCHMN time series plot of TP (ppm) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 87 

Table 7.26: CHEVWQMN summary and status of chlorophyll a (μg/L) results 

for each estuary region .............................................................................. 91 

Table 7.27: CCHMN summary and status of chlorophyll a (μg/L) results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................... 91 

Figure 7.44: CHEVWQMN Chlorophyll a (μg/L) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 92 

Figure 7.45: CHEVWQMN seasonal chlorophyll a (μg/L) boxplot results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................... 92 

Figure 7.46: CCHMN Chlorophyll a (μg/L) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ......................................................................................................... 93 

Figure 7.47: CCHMN seasonal chlorophyll a (μg/L) boxplot results for each 

estuary region ............................................................................................ 93 

Figure 7.48: CHEVWQMN time series plot of chlorophyll a (μg/L) for 2001 

through 2007 .............................................................................................. 94 

Figure 7.49: CCHMN time series plot of chlorophyll a (μg/L) for 2001 through 

2007 .......................................................................................................... 95 

Table 7.28: CCHMN chlorophyll a (μg/L) trend results ............................... 96 

Table 7.29: CHEVWQMN summary and status of fecal coliform bacteria 

(cfu/100mL) results for each estuary region ............................................... 99 

Table 7.30: CCHMN summary and status of fecal coliform bacteria 

(cfu/100mL) results for each estuary region ............................................... 99 

Figure 7.50: CHEVWQMN fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) boxplot results 

for each estuary region ............................................................................ 100 

Figure 7.51: CHEVWQMN seasonal fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) 

boxplot results for each estuary region .................................................... 100 

Figure 7.52: CCHMN fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) boxplot results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................. 101 

Figure 7.53: CCHMN seasonal fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) boxplot 

results for each estuary region ................................................................. 101 

Figure 7.54: CHEVWQMN time series plot of fecal coliform bacteria 

(cfu/100mL) for 2001 through 2007 .......................................................... 102 

Table 7.31: CHEVWQMN fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) trend 

results ...................................................................................................... 102 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

x 

List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont.

Section Page

Table 7.32: CHEVWQMN summary and status of turbidity (NTU) results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................. 106 

Table 7.33: CCHMN summary and status of turbidity (NTU) results for each 

estuary region .......................................................................................... 106 

Figure 7.55: CHEVWQMN turbidity (NTU) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ....................................................................................................... 107 

Figure 7.56: CHEVWQMN seasonal turbidity (NTU) boxplot results for each 

estuary region .......................................................................................... 107 

Figure 7.57: CCHMN turbidity (NTU) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ....................................................................................................... 108 

Figure 7.58: CCHMN seasonal turbidity (NTU) boxplot results for each 

estuary region .......................................................................................... 108 

Figure 7.59: CHEVWQMN time series plot of turbidity (NTU) for 2001 through 

2007 ........................................................................................................ 109 

Figure 7.60: CCHMN time series plot of turbidity (NTU) for 2001 through 

2007 ........................................................................................................ 120 

Table 7.34: CHEVWQMN turbidity (NTU) trend results ............................ 111 

Table 7.35: CCHMN turbidity (NTU) trend results .................................... 111 

Table 7.36: CHEVWQMN summary and status of color (PCU) results for 

each estuary region .................................................................................. 114 

Table 7.37: CCHMN summary and status of color (PCU) results for each 

estuary region .......................................................................................... 114 

Figure 7.61: CHEVWQMN color (PCU) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ....................................................................................................... 115 

Figure 7.62: CHEVWQMN seasonal color (PCU) boxplot results for each 

estuary region .......................................................................................... 115 

Figure 7.63: CCHMN color (PCU) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ....................................................................................................... 116 

Figure 7.64: CCHMN seasonal color (PCU) boxplot results for each estuary 

region ....................................................................................................... 116 

Figure 7.65: CHEVWQMN time series plot of color (PCU) for 2001 through 

2007 ........................................................................................................ 117 

Figure 7.66: CCHMN time series plot of color (PCU) for 2001 through 

2007 ........................................................................................................ 118 

Table 7.38: CHEVWQMN color (PCU) trend results ................................ 119 

Table 7.39: CHEVWQMN color (PCU) trend results ................................ 119 

VIII. Results of Water Quality Relationships within the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

Figure 8.1: Scatterplot results of color as predicted by salinity ................ 124 

Figure 8.2: Scatterplot results of total phosphorus as predicted by 

salinity ...................................................................................................... 125 

Figure 8.3: Scatterplot results of total nitrogen as predicted by salinity .... 125 

Figure 8.4: Scatterplot results of turbidity as predicted by salinity ............ 126 

Figure 8.5: Scatterplot results of fecal coliform bacteria as predicted by 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

xi 

List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont.

Section Page

salinity ...................................................................................................... 126 

Figure 8.6: Scatterplot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total 

nitrogen .................................................................................................... 129 

Figure 8.7: Scatterplot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total 

phosphorus .............................................................................................. 129 

Table 8.1: Stepwise regression results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total 

nitrogen and total phosphorus .................................................................. 130 

IX. Segmentation Scheme for the CCHMN & CHEVWQMN 

Table 9.1: Salinity based segmentation results ........................................ 131 

Table 9.2: Results of Turkey HSD ............................................................ 133 

X. Summaries of Status and Trends Results for Each Estuary Region Based on 

 Both the CCHMN & CHEVWQMN 

Figure 10.1: Charlotte Harbor Watershed Population Densities/Urban 

Areas ........................................................................................................ 135 

Figure 10.2: Venice Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites ............. 138 

Figure 10.3: Lemon Bay Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites ...... 139 

Table 10.1: Status and trends summary for Lemon Bay .......................... 140 

Figure 10.4: Myakka Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites ............ 146 

Table 10.2: Status and trends summary for Tidal Myakka ....................... 147 

Figure 10.5: Peace River Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites..... 148 

Table 10.3: Status and trends summary for Tidal Peace ......................... 149 

Table 10.4: Status and trends summary for West Wall ............................ 150 

Table 10.5: Status and trends summary for East Wall ............................. 150 

Figure 10.6: Charlotte Harbor Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater 

Sites ........................................................................................................ 152 

Table 10.6: Status and trends summary for Gasparilla Sound/Cape 

Haze ........................................................................................................ 153 

Table 10.7: Status and trends summary for Lower Charlotte Harbor ....... 154 

Figure 10.7: Pine Island Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites ...... 159 

Table 10.8: Status and trends summary for Pine Island Sound ............... 160 

Table 10.9: Status and trends summary for Matlacha Pass ..................... 161 

Table 10.10: Status and trends summary for San Carlos Bay ................. 162 

Figure 10.8: Lower Caloosahatchee Basin NPDES Sites and 

Wastewater Sites ..................................................................................... 163 

Table 10.11: Status and trends summary for Tidal Caloosahatchee ........ 164 

Figure 10.9: Estero Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites .............. 167 

Table 10.12: Status and trends summary for Estero Bay ......................... 168 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

xii 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A: Summary Statistics for Each Estuary 

Appendix B: Water Quality Comparisons 

Appendix C: Comparison of Results to Numerical Water Quality Criteria 

Appendix D: Water Quality Relationships 

Appendix E: Rainfall Relationships 
Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

xiii 

List of Acronyms 

AMO: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation 

APHA: American Public Health Association 

CAMA: Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

CCHMN: Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network 

CCMP: Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

CFU: Colony forming unit 

CHAP: Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves 

CHEC: Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center 

CHEVWQMN: Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Network 

CHNEP: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 

DO: Dissolved Oxygen 

EBAP: Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve 

EMAP: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

ENSO: El Nino-Southern Oscillation 

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency 

FAC: Florida Administrative Code 

FDEP: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FGCU: Florida Gulf Coast University 

FIM: Fisheries Independent Monitoring 

FMRI: Florida Marine Research Institute 

FWC: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

MDL: Minimum Detection Level 

NELAC: National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference 

NOAA: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOx: Nitrate plus nitrite 

NTU: Nephelometric units 

PAR: Photosynthetically active radiation 

PCU: platinum cobalt units 

ppm: parts per million 

ppt: parts per thousand 

RAMP: Regional Ambient Monitoring Program 

SFWMD: South Florida Water Management District 

SGTP: Seagrass Transect Monitoring Program 

SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences 

STORET: Storage and Retrieval database 

SWFWMD: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

TKN: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen 

TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load 

TN: Total Nitrogen 

TP: Total Phosphorus 

TSS: Total suspended solids 

USACE: United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USGS: United States Geological Survey 
Introduction Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

1 

This page intentionally blank 
Introduction Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

2 

Figure 1.1: Fixed monitoring sites and Aquatic Preserves of the Charlotte Harbor region. 
Introduction Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

3 

Comparison of CHEVWQMN, CCHMN & Seagrass 

Water Quality: Status and Trends for 2001 - 2007 

I. Introduction

The purposes of this report is to describe water quality conditions throughout the 

Charlotte Harbor estuaries region of southwest Florida and to compare the results of 

two of the water quality monitoring programs to aid in the management of the Charlotte 

Harbor estuaries. The Charlotte Harbor region includes six Florida Aquatic Preserves 

crossing twelve interconnected estuary regions. Water quality data used in the 

analyses were collected by the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality 

Monitoring Network (CHEVWQMN), the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program’s 

(CHNEP) Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network (CCHMN), and the southwest 

Florida Seagrass Transect Monitoring Program (STMP) from 2001 through 2007. 

 The Charlotte Harbor estuaries region extends from Venice south to Bonita 

Springs, encompassing over 900 km2

 (~225,000 acres) of diverse submerged habitats 

(Fig. 1.1). North to south, the six Florida Aquatic Preserves contained within the greater 

Charlotte Harbor estuary are: Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor, Cape 

Haze, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and Estero Bay. 

 The legislative mission of the Aquatic Preserve Program is to preserve Florida's 

submerged resources in their essentially natural condition for future generations. The 

primary activities of the Aquatic Preserve Program are resource monitoring and 

management, and education and outreach. The Aquatic Preserve Program is overseen 

by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Office of Coastal and 

Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA). The local Aquatic Preserve offices include the 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves (CHAP), located in Punta Gorda, and the Estero 

Bay Aquatic Preserve (EBAP), located in Fort Myers Beach. 

 This report summarizes 2001 - 2007 water quality data throughout the Charlotte 

Harbor region and relates the findings to the general health of the individual estuaries to 

aid in management efforts. The analyses display water quality relationships both 

spatially and temporally in order to highlight parameters and regions of concern. The 

report comprises descriptions of the Charlotte Harbor estuaries regions (Section II), the 

CHEVWQMN, CCHMN and STMP programs (Sections III - V), and the methods used 

(Section VI). The seven-year trends for each parameter, as well as comparisons of the 

CCHMN and CHEVWQMN are given in Section VII, followed by the segmentation 

scheme (Section VIII) and relationships between the parameters in Section IX. 

Summaries of water quality and management considerations for each estuary region 

and their associated watershed basins are given in Section XI, followed by conclusions 

in Section XII. Detailed tables of data analyses results are given in the appendices. 

 These three programs are valued by resource managers in the region. The data 

are used to guide policy and management decisions, for education and outreach, for 

regulatory purposes, and for research by many agencies in the area. This study will be 

used by the CHNEP and the six Aquatic Preserves to aid in these purposes. 
Introduction Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

4 

CHAP and EBAP will make modifications and improvements to their programs as 

they deem necessary. 

.

Figure 2.1: Aquatic Preserves & watershed basins for the Charlotte Harbor region. 
Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

5 

II. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region

 The Charlotte Harbor estuaries region (Figure 1.1), located in southwest Florida, 

is large, productive, complex and diverse (e.g. Duffey et al 2007). The Charlotte Harbor 

estuaries extend from Venice south to Bonita Springs, and encompass over 900 km2

(~250,000 acres) of coastal and estuarine habitats. The greater Charlotte Harbor 

watershed is approximately 16,600 km2 (~4 million acres) in size, ranking among the 

largest watersheds in Florida. The watershed, as defined by CHNEP, extends from the 

headwaters of the Peace River in Lake Hancock, and the Franklin Locks on the 

Caloosahatchee River downstream to the Charlotte Harbor estuaries (Figure 2.1). 

 The Charlotte Harbor estuaries are located within three counties: Sarasota, 

Charlotte and Lee. The watershed also includes two FDEP Districts (South and 

Southwest) and two Water Management Districts (South [SFWMD] and Southwest 

[SWFWMD]). Additionally, the region is also part of the CHNEP and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1). 

 

 The Charlotte Harbor region (Figure 1.1) includes twelve interconnected estuary 

regions, including (from north to south): Tidal Peace and Myakka Rivers, the East and 

West Walls of Upper Charlotte Harbor, Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, 

Lower Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay, Tidal 

Caloosahatchee River and Estero Bay. These estuary regions are separated from the 

Gulf of Mexico by a chain barrier islands from Manasota Key south to Little Hickory 

Island. Gulf of Mexico waters enter the estuary through a complex of passes, from 

Stump Pass south to Big Hickory Pass. Estuarine waters mix with fluvial inputs from 

three major rivers - Myakka, Peace and Caloosahatchee Rivers. In addition to the 

larger rivers, there are numerous smaller tributaries within the estuarine complex. The 

water exchange between these areas creates large variations in water quality conditions 

around the region, seasonally and annually. 

 The balance between estuarine habitat and the health of species located within 

the estuary depends largely on water quality and watershed influences. Human 

interactions within the estuary are important both commercially and recreationally. 

Commercial harvests of fish and shellfish contribute significantly to the local economy. 

Nearly 4500 kg (~10 million lbs) of shellfish and fin-fish were collected commercially 

from within the watershed in 2004 (BEBR 2005). In addition, recreational fishing, 

Table 2.1: Florida Aquatic Preserves within the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region

Estuary Management Program

Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve 1986 Sarasota,Charlotte 26.95

Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve 1975 Charlotte, Lee 340.07

Cape Haze Aquatic Preserve 1978 Charlotte 61.40

Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve 1970 Lee 228.58

Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve 1972 Lee 80.10

Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve. 1966 Lee 43.42

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1995 Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee 918.53

Date Designated

Estuary Location 

(counties)

Estuary Area Managed 

(sq km)
Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

6 

boating, kayaking and nature watching are pastimes that depend on the health of the 

estuary and its water quality. 

 Along with recreational and commercial uses of the estuary, water quality and 

quantity within the Charlotte Harbor estuaries depend on land use and activities within 

the adjacent basins. The severity of the impacts from land use upon water quality 

depends on both the intensity and proximity of the land use to surface water. The type 

and degree of land use and distance to the estuary vary for each sub-basin of the 

greater Charlotte Harbor watershed. Sub-basin uses and rainfall/runoff conditions 

throughout the watershed influence the downstream condition of each estuary region. 

 
Descriptions and Methods Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

7 

III. Description of the CHEVWQMN 

A. Introduction 

 The CHEVWQMN is a region-wide, fixed station, monthly water quality 

monitoring program, and is a partnership of the CHAP, EBAP, CHEC, CHNEP, and 

local citizens. The monitoring program was initiated in 1996 in order to address the 

needs of aquatic preserve managers to obtain baseline resource information and to 

address citizens' concerns for the health of local estuaries. Originally, the CHEVWQMN 

was administered by CHEC from a grant from SWFWMD to sample ten sites in northern 

Charlotte Harbor for ten field parameters. However, in 1998 and subsequent years, 

CHAP received additional grants from the CHNEP to expand and maintain the 

monitoring program region-wide and to include laboratory analyses. The monitoring 

program is administered through the CHAP office in Punta Gorda, Florida. 

 The primary purpose of the CHEVWQMN is to collect consistent, technically 

sound water quality data throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuaries region. The 

CHEVWQMN was designed to characterize baseline water quality conditions 

throughout the region. The details of CHEVWQMN methods are summarized in Section 

VI of this report. 

 The six specific objectives of the CHEVWQMN are: 

• Describe baseline water quality conditions throughout the six aquatic preserves 

• Identify the most critical, regional water quality locations, parameters and 

trends relative to estuarine health 

• Complement CHAP seagrass and regional water quality monitoring program 

results in order to define aquatic preserve resource management needs 

• Enhance public understanding and stewardship of the aquatic preserves 

• Improve aquatic preserves managers’ understanding of citizen concerns 

regarding local estuaries 

• Encourage the development of partnerships between agencies to conduct 

uniform water monitoring throughout the region. 

B. Sampling Design

 Each month, on the first Monday within two hours of sunrise, volunteer samplers 

collect samples at 48 fixed sites throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuaries region 

(Figure 6.1). The sites were chosen to represent general water quality conditions 

throughout the region, as well as to be accessible in a safe and timely manner for 

samples to be collected and transported to the laboratory within holding times. The 

sampling locations emphasize shallower, coastal areas, with limited sampling in open 

water portions of Charlotte Harbor. 

 At each site, during the monthly sampling time, surface water samples were 

collected, as well as field measurements and observations made for ten physical and 

chemical parameters: wind speed and direction, wave height, tide stage, water depth, 

Secchi depth, water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO) and salinity. Water 

samples were collected for seven additional laboratory parameters: chlorophyll a, 
Descriptions and Methods Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

8 

turbidity, color, total phosphorus (TP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate/nitrite (NOx), 

and fecal coliform bacteria. 

To assist with interpreting the results and identifying resource conditions for each 

estuary, sampling sites were grouped into twelve estuary regions with similar hydrologic 

conditions, based on the thirteen hydrologic regions (strata) established by the CHNEP 

for the interagency Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network (CCHMN). The 

CCHMN strata were designed to describe relatively homogeneous hydrologic regions of 

the estuary. Grouping the CHEVWQMN sites into the hydrologic strata allows the data 

to be compared to the CCHMN open water sampling results, the CHAP seagrass 

monitoring results and to determine estuary specific resource management concerns 

and solutions. 

 Management and analyses of the CHEVWQMN data were conducted using 

Microsoft Access and Excel and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 

following specific data management criteria described in Section.... The data are also 

entered into the federal water quality database (Storage and Retrieval database 

[STORET]) to allow access by others. It is intended that the CHEVWQMN analyses of 

the data will be used to determine resource management objectives for each of the six 

Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves (Duffey et al 2007). 

C. Quality Assurance Methods

 CHEVWQMN citizen and agency water monitors are trained in the classroom 

and field, have standard sampling equipment and are generally assigned to work in 

pairs at a specific site. In addition, water monitors are required to attend region-wide 

quality assurance sampling practice sessions twice a year to receive updated supplies 

and equipment, validate techniques, and correct any problems that are identified. For 

quality assurance purposes, duplicate and blank laboratory parameters are collected 

each month at 10% of the sampling sites. Additional quality assurance measures are 

detailed Section VI. 
Descriptions and Methods Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

9 

IV. Description of the CCHMN 

A. Introduction

In April 2001 the CCHMN was formed in order to implement the CHNEP’s Long 

Term Monitoring Strategy in Upper Charlotte Harbor, the tidal Peace and Myakka Rivers 

and Lemon Bay. This monitoring network is a stratified, random monitoring program 

based on the EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The 

agencies participating in this portion of the CCHMN are: SWFWMD, FWC-FMRI, 

CHAP, and Charlotte and Sarasota Counties. The CCHMN has divided Upper Charlotte 

Harbor into five estuary regions, or strata: Tidal Peace River, Tidal Myakka River, the 

West and East Walls of Upper Charlotte Harbor and the Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 

area of Charlotte Harbor. An additional stratum exists for Lower Lemon Bay, and 

extends from the Tom Adams Bridge to Englewood Beach, south to the Boca Grande 

Causeway at Placida. However, for the purpose of this paper, both portions of Lemon 

Bay were analyzed together. Then, in April 2002 an additional six regions were added 

to the CCHMN, in cooperation with Lee County, the Cities of Cape Coral and Sanibel, 

CHAP and SFWMD. These six additional estuary regions are: Lower Charlotte Harbor, 

Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, Tidal Caloosahatchee River, San Carlos and Estero 

Bays (Figure 6.1). 

B. Sampling Design

Monthly, five sites were randomly chosen within each region and were sampled for 

the core marine analytes contained within the CHNEP’s Comprehensive Conservation 

and Management Plan (CCMP): PAR, Secchi depth, temperature, salinity, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, color, turbidity, TSS, TOC, chlorophyll a, TN, TKN, ammonia, 

NOx, OP and TP. This provides an equal probability of sampling each site within a 

region at all times of the year. Additionally, if a site was greater than or equal to three 

meters, both top and bottom samples were taken in order to account for possible 

stratification within the water column. 

This program sought to obtain 60 samples per year per estuary region (five sites 

per month x twelve months per year) as requested by the CHNEP’s Long Term 

Monitoring Strategy. Therefore, it was hoped that this design would lend results 

approximating a normal distribution and allow for the use of parametric statistical 

analyses for more robust comparisons. 

This sampling design was somewhat different from the EPA’s EMAP, which uses 

hexagonal grids and samples four sites every three weeks for ten months, in that the 

CCHMN utilizes FMRI’s square grid system at five sites per month. These 

modifications were made because of the ease in which they allow participants to use 

the randomization process and help ensure comparability of the water quality data 

collected within this network with the fisheries data collected by FMRI-Fisheries 

Independent Monitoring (FIM) program in the future. The grid system and regional 

delineations are shown in Figure .... 

Single samples for water quality parameters were collected at 0.5 m below the 

surface for all locations. However, for locations where the bottom depth was greater 

than or equal to 3.0 meters, an additional sample was collected at 0.5 meters above the 
Descriptions and Methods Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

10 

bottom. Samples taken using sondes (i.e. for DO, pH, etc.) were taken at 0.5 m from 

the bottom, 0.5 m from the surface, and at whole meter increments in between (for 

example: 2.4 m, 2.0 m, 1.0 m and 0.5m). Light attenuation coefficients were taken if 

sites were visited between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (local time), with 10:00 

a.m. to 2:00 p.m. being optimal. The details of CCHMN methods are summarized in 

Section VI of this report. 

C. Quality Assurance Methods

The program manager for the CCHMN (the CHNEP Senior Scientist) performed 

annual field audits for sample collections for each sampling agency. The results of 

these audits were presented at annual CCHMN meetings in order to resolve 

outstanding issues that arose from the audits. All laboratories involved in the CCHMN 

follow all applicable federal and state guidelines for quality assurance and quality 

control of water quality analyses, including the use of appropriate duplicate samples and 

equipment blanks. The laboratories also participate in quarterly inter-laboratory splitsample exercises with the Southwest Florida Regional Ambient Monitoring Program 

(RAMP) in order to help ensure region-wide data comparability (CHNEP 2004). 

Additional quality assurance measures are detailed Section VI. 
Descriptions and Methods Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

11 

V. Description of the Seagrass Transect Monitoring Program 

(STMP) and its Methods 

A. Introduction

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is important for sustaining the diversity and 

health of marine environments. SAV, including seagrasses, provide primary food 

sources as well as shelter, spawning and nursery habitat to a great diversity of aquatic 

organisms. SAVs can also reduce turbidity; facilitate sediment stabilization and aid in 

nutrient cycling. SAV growth is affected by water quality variables such as color and 

suspended matter, including turbidity and chlorophyll from phytoplankton. Epiphytic 

growth on the seagrass blades also reduces light available for growth. Together, these 

factors largely regulate which SAV species grow where, to what depths, and at what 

abundances. 

Historically, aerial surveys have been the most widely used tool for mapping 

seagrasses. Aerial surveys are valuable for estimating seagrass locations, acres and 

broad changes over time. However, to effectively manage the seagrass resources, 

additional information is needed to determine localized changes over time including 

seagrass species, abundance, health, and zonation relative to depth and water quality. 

Therefore, CHAP, EBAP and the FDEP South District sample seagrasses along fixed 

transects located throughout the estuary regions. Between the three groups, there are 

a total of 59 seagrass sites (Figure 6.1). 

B. Sampling Design 

Once near the site, the defined reference point on shore is located using previous 

flagging tape, PVC stake and/or known GPS coordinates. The shallow, shoreward point 

for the transect is then found by measuring the specified distance (called the “offset”) 

and direction from the reference point and/or using GPS coordinates for the zero point 

PVC stake. The zero point of each transect is determined when the transect is first 

established. This point becomes the baseline, shoreward edge of seagrass growth. 

From the zero point, a compass heading, point of reference (e.g. a water tower) 

and/or GPS coordinates are used to determine the waterward direction of travel along 

the transect. Record the direction of travel from the flagging to the zero point (i.e. 

perpendicular, etc.). Each transect is then sampled at regular intervals specified in the 

site description using a tape measure to determine a known distance between points. 

At the beginning and end of monitoring each transect, tide level (relative to the 

biological mean high water line) is recorded on the data sheet. Tide stage is measured 

as the height of the water (cm) above or below the barnacle line on mangrove roots, 

adjacent navigation markers, or dock pilings. Local tide gauge information is used 

during data analysis to convert observed water depths to mid-tide conditions. 

Sampling is conducted along each transect at regular intervals using a 1 m square 

quadrat. This quadrat is further divided into 100 squares, each 10x10 cm, using bungee 

cord line for use in collecting abundance data. Quadrat sampling points are marked 

with PVC stakes and have established GPS coordinates used for reference. At each 

sampling point along transects (except the beginning and end), the quadrat is centered 
Descriptions and Methods Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

12 

on the PVC stake. At the beginning and end of the grass bed, the quadrat is either 

placed forward or behind the grass edge, respectively. On the data sheet each quadrat 

is denoted as being at the beginning, middle or end of the seagrass bed. At each 

quadrat, water depth, sediment type, species types, abundances, blade lengths, shoot 

counts, and epiphyte loads are observed and recorded on the data sheet. Water depth 

is recorded in centimeters and sediment is characterized as shelly sand, sand, muddy 

sand, or mud. Seagrass abundance is determined for each species, as well as for the 

quadrat as a whole, using the Braun-Blanquet (BB) coverage classes. The coverage 

classes are defined as follows: r = solitary; + = few; 1 = <5%; 2 = 5 - 25%; 3 = 26 -50%; 

4 = 51 - 75%; and 5 = 76 - 100%. Shoot counts are made for each species in a 

predetermined number of 10 cm squares based on BB abundance. Five representative 

blade lengths (cm) are recorded for each species. Blade lengths should be randomly 

picked and measured from the beginning of the base to the tip. For Thalassia, only 

blades with rounded, healthy, green tips are to be measured. Epiphytes are quantified 

as clean, light, moderate, or heavy. 

C. Quality Assurance Methods

At the beginning of each seagrass monitoring season, monitors from CHAP, EBAP 

and the FDEP South District must receive or refresh training on seagrass species 

identification, abundance estimation, sediment types and tide and water chemistry 

techniques. Abundance estimates must be practiced among staff for precision and 

accuracy. During monitoring, seagrass abundance estimates are made by and agreed 

upon by two or more staff at each quadrat (FDEP, CHAP 2007). 
Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

13 

VI. Methods Used by Both the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

A. Introduction 

To provide consistent, technically sound water quality data, both the 

CHEVWQMN and CCHMN adhere to strict monitoring protocols. The quality 

assurance, field and laboratory methods are described in detail in the CHEVWQMN 

Comprehensive Quality Assurance Project Plan (FDEP 1997, Updated 1999), CHNEP 

standard operating procedures (SOPs; CHNEP 2004), and in FDEP and EPA SOPs, 

and summarized here. In addition, data preparation and analysis guidelines used to 

evaluate data results are also described below. This assures the accuracy and 

precision of the data so they can be used with confidence by resource managers and 

scientists. In addition, the approved methods allow the data to be used to determine 

Florida Impaired Waters and to be entered into the federal STORET water quality data 

base, making them accessible nationwide. 

 B. Quality Assurance Methods

 Consistent with the CHEVWQMN Quality Assurance Project Plan, CHNEP 

SOPs, and 62-160 F.A.C., extensive measures are taken to ensure the precision and 

accuracy of the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN data by guiding field sample collection, 

laboratory analyses and data management. Specific quality assurance procedures 

include: 

• Duplicate and blank field samples are collected for laboratory analyzed 

parameters at 10% (or for one site per sample trip for CCHMN) of sites each 

month 

• Samples are transported to the laboratory within maximum sample holding 

times 

• Chain-of-custody procedures are used to track samples 

• Laboratory analyses are conducted by FDEP and National Environmental 

Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certified laboratories. 

Beginning in 2003, FDEP required NELAC certification and laboratories were 

given 18 months to comply. Prior to that date laboratory analyses were 

conducted following APHA Standard Methods which became the basis for 

NELAC protocols. 

• Replicate and blank laboratory analyses are conducted on 10% of samples 

each month 

• Data are reviewed for transcription errors 
Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

14 

Figure 6.1: Monitoring site map and CCHMN estuary region delineation.
Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

15 

C. Field Methods 

 In compliance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan, written field procedures 

are followed by the CHEVWQMN water monitors, and are described in detail in the 

CHEVWQMN Field Methods Manual (1998, updated 2005). In addition, field methods 

listed in the CHNEP’ SOPs are followed by samplers within the CCHMN. Field methods 

are summarized in Table 6.1. During monthly sampling, field measurements are made 

for six parameters and water samples are collected for laboratory analyses of additional 

analytes from each site. Field procedures used by both CHEVWQMN and CCHMN 

during monthly sampling events include: 

• Surface water "grab" samples are collected in clean buckets (CHEVWQMN) or 

with a horizontal sampling device (i.e. Niskin or Alpha bottles, CCHMN) 

• No bottom water samples are collected and no water column depth profiles are 

conducted for CHEVWQMN, however for CCHMN locations where the bottom 

depth was greater than or equal to 3.0 meters, an additional sample was 

collected at 0.5 meters above the bottom. Samples taken using sondes (i.e. for 

DO, pH, etc.) were taken at 0.5 m from the bottom, 0.5 m from the surface, and 

at whole meter increments in between (for example: 2.4 m, 2.0 m, 1.0 m and 

0.5m). 

• Weather and water conditions were recorded on the data sheet: wind speed 

and direction, cloud cover, wave height, and tide stage 

• Six physical and chemical parameters measured were in situ, including: water 

depth, water clarity, temperature, pH, DO and salinity (see below for methods 

used by programs) 

• Surface water samples are collected in clean sample bottles (pre-acidified as 

needed) for laboratory analysis of seven parameters, including: color, turbidity 

and chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrate plus 

nitrite, and fecal coliform bacteria; in addition to the following parameters for the 

CCHMN only: ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, orthophosphate and total suspended 

solids 

• Water samples were stored on ice (4.0 +/-2°C) and transported to the 

laboratory within the maximum holding times 

• Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) was measured (CCHMN only) as 

μE/cm2

/sec using a LiCor on the sunny side of the boat. LiCor water readings 

were taken at 0.5 m increments (for example at 1 and 1.5 m, or at 1 and 2 m), 

or by profiling at 0.2 m increments. Both under water readings and the air 

reading were taken simultaneously if possible, otherwise profiling at 0.2 m 

increments was used. From these three measurements, K-values can be 

calculated (CHNEP 2004). 
Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

16 

Table 6.1: Field Method Summary

CHEVWQMNDepth (m) Secchi depth (m) Temperature (deg C) DO (mg/l) pH Salinity (ppt)

Method weighted line

Secchi disk 

(LaMotte #0171) 

0.20 m disc 

calibrated at 0.10 m 

intervals

Armored thermometer 

(LaMotte #1066)

Winkler Titration Test 

Kit (LaMotte #7414)

Colorimetric test kit 

CresolRed (LaMotte 

#2111)

HACH #2234-00, 

Hydrometer 

(LaMotte #30025)

Comments

value missing when 

Secchi depth was 

equal to or greater 

than total depth immediate sample

average of two 

determinations immediate sample

determined by 

temperature and 

specific gravity

CCHMN Sondes Same as above Sondes (FT 1400) Sondes (FT 1500)

Sondes (USEPA 

150.1)

Sondes (USEPA 

120.1)
Methods Used by the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN Final Program Comparison Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

17 

D. Laboratory Methods 

 Water samples collected by both CHEVWQMN and CCHMN monitors require 

laboratory analysis for seven parameters, and an additional five for the CCHMN, using 

methods summarized below. All laboratories utilized by the CCHMN and CHEVWQMN 

are NELAC and state certified, and use the following procedures to conduct the monthly 

analyses: 

• Duplicate and blank samples for laboratory parameters are collected in the field 

for 10% of the CHEVWQMN sites and for each sampling trip within the 

CCHMN, and are then analyzed in the laboratory. 

• Apparent color is measured in platinum cobalt units (PCU) and determined by 

visual comparison without filtration using the platinum cobalt method (APHA 

2120 B and USEPA 110.2). 

• Turbidity is measured in Nephelometric units (NTU) using the Nephelometric 

method and is estimated by comparing the amount of light scattered through 

the sample to a reference standard under the same conditions (APHA 2130 B 

and USEPA 180.1). 

• Chlorophyll a is measured in μg/l and determined spectrophotometrically 

without pheophytin correction (APHA SM10200 H). Due to time and funding 

constraints, chlorophyll a analyses were not conducted from December 2001 

through December 2002 for the CHEVWQMN. 

• Total phosphorus (TP) samples are preserved with 5N sulfuric acid in the field, 

then measured in ppm as the combination of orthophosphate, condensed 

phosphates and organically bound phosphates (USEPA 365.4 and APHA 4500 

P-E). 

• Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) samples are preserved with 1N hydrochloric acid 

in the field, then measured in mg/L as the sum of organic nitrogen plus 

ammonia (USEPA 351.2 and APHA 4500-Norg B). 

• Nitrate and nitrite (NOx) samples are preserved in the field with 1N hydrochloric 

acid, then measured collectively in ppm (USEPA 353.2 and APHA 4500-NO3

B). 

• Total nitrogen (TN) was calculated as the sum of total Kjeldahl nitrogen and 

nitrate plus nitrite values. 

• Fecal coliform bacteria values were measured as colony forming units (cfu) per 

100 ml and derived from counts of colony forming units per 100 ml aliquot 

incubated for 24 hours at an elevated temperature (APHA 9222 D). 
Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistical Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

18 

E. Data Preparation and Exploratory Analysis 

After field sampling and laboratory analyses have been completed according to 

quality assurance procedures, CHEVWQMN, CCHMN, and seagrass (STMP) data are 

entered into databases. For this report, data were compiled for the seven-year period 

from 2001 to 2007 and designated rainy and dry season. The dry seasons were 

defined as the months of November through May and the rainy seasons were June 

through October (Montgomery 2005). Average annual rainfall data were collected for 

the region using DBHYDRO from South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD 

2007) and from the USGS Drainage Basin Total Summaries provided by Southwest 

Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD 2007). Data preparation and 

exploratory analyses were conducted to: 1) screen for errors 2) determine the suitability 

for statistical applications and 3) group sites into estuary regions for further analysis. 

Data preparation, storage and analysis of results were conducted using SPSS and 

Microsoft Access and Excel. 

 Once compiled, the datasets were screened for errors and outliers, results were 

deemed invalid and not used for analyses if they met at least one of two conditions: 1) 

were outside the detection limits for the methods (i.e.; Secchi depth greater than 

bottom), and 2) were values not possible to occur under natural conditions for each 

parameter and site (for example pH greater than 14.0). After the data were screened 

for outliers, accommodations were made for values reported as less than the minimum 

detection limits (MDLs) for each parameter. It is recognized that the true values fall 

somewhere between the MDL and zero, however for this study, results were set equal 

to the reported MDL. A summary of MDLs for each parameter for the study period are 

included in Table 6.2. 

 

 After the datasets were prepared, the distribution of the data was assessed to 

determine the need to use parametric or nonparametric statistical methods. Visual 

assessment of histograms and quantitative assessment of skewness were conducted. 

Similar to patterns found in other water quality datasets, multiple sampling levels (by 

estuary region, season, year etc.) exhibited non-normal distributions. Because the data 

were not normally distributed and there were large outlying values, nonparametric 

statistics were used to make comparisons between groups, quantify relationships 

between variables, and estimate trends. In general, nonparametric tests are less 

affected by outlying values, normal distribution violations, and minimal censoring of 

laboratory results. 

 Following adjustments to the MDLs and evaluation of data distribution, the 

CHEVWQMN, CCHMN, and STMP sampling sites were grouped into twelve estuary 

Parameter TKN (ppm) NOX (ppm) TP (ppm) ChlA (μg/l) Coliform (cfu/100ml) Turbidity (NTU) Color (PCU)

Minimum MDL 0.010 0.004 0.003 0.01 1 0.01 1

Maximum MDL 0.500 0.100 0.500 3.00 2 1.40 10

Table 6.2: Summary of values reported as the minimum detection limit (MDL)
Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistical Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

19 

regions for data analysis. The purpose of grouping sites by estuary region was to 

facilitate interpretation of the water quality results so that estuary specific resource 

conditions and management needs could be determined. The twelve estuary regions 

represent areas of relatively uniform hydrologic conditions based upon the thirteen 

hydrologic strata defined by the interagency CCHMN established by the CHNEP. The 

CCHMN hydrologic strata were developed using the best available information and 

professional judgment of scientists throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuaries. The 

twelve estuary regions used for this report were chosen to most accurately represent 

spatial relationships between biological and physical parameters and watershed 

influences for each estuary, as well as reflect resource management jurisdictions for 

each aquatic preserve. The regions are: Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka River, Tidal Peace 

River, the West Wall and East Wall regions of upper Charlotte Harbor, Gasparilla 

Sound/Cape Haze, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, Tidal 

Caloosahatchee River, San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. Upper Lemon Bay was 

combined with Lower Lemon Bay due to only one STMP site in Upper Lemon Bay and 

no CCHMN sampling within this portion of Lemon Bay. 

 To characterize homogeneity of site conditions within each estuary region and 

reinforce estuary region delineations, an exploratory k-means cluster analysis was 

conducted using SPSS. The twelve estuary regions include sites from six aquatic 

preserves, as shown in Figure 6.1. 
Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistical Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

20 

F. Methods Used to Determine Water Quality Status

1. Introduction 

 

 The status of water quality parameters across the study region will be evaluated 

to guide interpretation of water quality as it relates to estuary health. The parameters 

chosen were selected as the ones sampled most often for both the CCHMN and 

CHEVWQN. The parameters are: Secchi depth (SD), temperature, dissolved oxygen 

(DO), pH, salinity, TN, TP, chlorophyll a (Chla), fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity (Turb) 

and color (colored dissolved organic matter, CDOM). Water quality status was 

evaluated by comparing results between regions within the various programs as well as 

comparing results to additional estuarine baseline datasets and regulatory criteria. 

Summary statistics will be provided for each estuary region including sample size (N) 

minimum, maximum, mean, standard error (SE) and median. Standard error is a 

measure of spread within the data and is the standard deviation divided by the square 

root of the sample size. Estuary medians were also ranked in ascending order to 

demonstrate the relative relationships between estuaries for a given parameter. 

Estuary results are compared to water quality classifications as described below and 

displayed in tables by parameter in the Results section. 

2. Comparisons of Water Quality Conditions within the Charlotte Harbor 

Estuaries 

 The first method to be used to describe regional water quality status based on 

program results will quantify the relationship between regions and seasons for each 

parameter. To estimate differences across all estuary regions and programs within the 

entire region the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. The Kruskal-Wallis test is a 

nonparametric one-way between-subjects ANOVA which compares differences 

between two or more groups. To quantify differences between individual estuaries, a 

post hoc comparison was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. The MannWhitney U test is a nonparametric version of the between-subjects t-test which 

compares differences between medians of two groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was 

also used to detect significant differences between the rainy and dry season for each 

estuary region and between programs. Box plots will be provided for a visual analysis 

of seasonal and regional comparisons. Box plot data tables are provided in the 

following sections with detailed results included in Appendix A. 

3. Comparison to Regulatory Criteria 

 The second method to be used to describe the status of Charlotte Harbor water 

quality conditions will compare results to available Florida water quality criteria and 

standards. Florida Surface Water Regulations (Chapter 62-302.530, Florida 

Administrative Code [FAC]) and Impaired Waters Rule (Chapter 62-303.353, FAC) 

served as comparison sources for DO, chlorophyll a, turbidity, and fecal coliform 

bacteria. For some parameters, estuaries and sites, insufficient numbers of samples 

were available to allow for direct comparison of the results to a specific regulation. 
Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistical Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

21 

Where insufficient data were available, general comparisons were made to the 

numerical water quality criterion. Comparisons are included in the Results section of 

this report for each parameter. This analysis is a tool for quantifying water quality status 

and in no means represents methods, findings or decisions resulting from the Florida’s 

Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs. Regulatory criteria 

are summarized in Table 6.3. 

4. Comparisons of Water Quality Conditions Between the CCHMN & CHEVWQMN 

To estimate differences between programs within the entire region the KruskalWallis test will be used. To quantify differences between individual programs, a post 

hoc comparison will be conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. The Mann-Whitney 

U test will be used to detect significant differences between CCHMN and CHEVWQMN 

programs. These analyses will aid in illuminating program limitations and aid in 

modifying programs in order to better manage the estuaries within the study area. 

5. Comparisons of Water Clarity Conditions Between the CCHMN, CHEVWQMN & 

Seagrass Monitoring Programs 

 Parameters affecting light attenuation were compared to STMP biological data, 

such as shoot density per meter, frequency, abundance and extent of deep edge, in 

order to test the model. For this study, Kruskal-Wallace tests will be conducted for the 

monthly median of the parameters one month prior to the STMP observations (based on 

design by Catherine Corbett; Note: this form of analysis could not be run as designed, 

therefore Spearman’s rho correlation was conducted in it’s place). 

Table 6.3: Description of regulations used to determine water quality status

Source Description Parameter Criteria Summary

Impaired Waters Rule 

62-303.353 Chlorophyll a

Annual mean must not exceed 11 ug/l or not have increased by more 

than 50% in two or more consecutive years

Fecal Coliform Monthly geometric mean must not exceed 200 cfu/100ml

10% of samples must not exceed 400 cfu/100ml

Must not exceed 800 cfu/100ml on any given day

DO Daily average must be greater than 5 mg/l and never less than 4 mg/l

Turbidity ≤ 29 above natural background conditions

Florida Surface Water 

Regulations 62-302.530 

Class III Fresh and Marine
Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistical Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

22 

G. Analysis Methods Used to Determine Trends 

 To quantify changes in water quality over time for each estuary, the seasonal 

Kendall trend test will be used. The seasonal Kendall trend test is commonly used for 

trend analysis of water quality conditions to accommodate seasonal distribution of 

values. In addition, the nonparametric test is used for its robustness to deviations from 

a normal distribution and outlying values. The test is somewhat robust to censored 

values and missing data within the series, as well. The seasonal Kendall trend test is a 

modification of the Mann-Kendall test that adjusts for seasonality across the time series. 

The test, developed by Hirsch, Slack and Smith in 1982, has evolved extensively over 

the years to account for serial correlation, spatial variation across sites and various 

anomalies within the dataset (e.g. Hirsch, Slack and Smith 1982; Hirsch and Slack 

1984; Hirsch, Alexander and Smith 1991; Helsel and Hirsch 2002). 

 The seasonal Kendall trend test ranks the differences between seasonal data 

pairs to calculate the test statistic and variance which produces the correlation 

coefficient tau and respective significance value. For this report, a season was defined 

as one month. The test statistic (S) is the sum of differences between all months across 

the series, in which January is only compared to January, February to February, etc, for 

the study period. The test statistic is then standardized and divided by the standard 

deviation to estimate the correlation coefficient and two tailed significance value. When 

a significant trend (p<0.05) is detected, the slope of the trend line is estimated. The 

trend slope is the median of all slopes of the monthly data pairs used to estimate the 

initial test statistic (S). 

 For trend analysis of the data, the seasonal Kendall trend test will be conducted 

using the USGS, “Computer Program for the Kendall Family of Trend Tests”. The 

USGS program was created and interpreted by Dennis R. Helsel, David K. Mueller, and 

James R. Slack (2006). The package is a Microsoft DOS based program which 

produces the seasonal Kendall trend test statistic, standard normal deviation, 

significance value and trend equation. For this report, a "water year" includes the 

months of June through May. 

 Interpreting the results of the seasonal Kendall trend test is limited by the amount 

of censoring of laboratory results, study duration and underlying patterns in the data. 

These conditions may increase the possibility of Type I or Type II errors in the results. 

Prediction of the significance value of a trend depends on the absence of serial 

correlation in the time series (Helsel and Hirsch 2002). Serial correlation (or 

autocorrelation) is defined as the degree to which the previous result influences the 

subsequent result. Autocorrelation can exist both intra-annually as a seasonal type 

affect, and inter-annually as serial correlation across the time series. When 

autocorrelation does exist, it is necessary to adjust the series for seasonal or interannual effects. To accurately determine autocorrelation, as a means to adjust the 

significance value of the trend, the dataset must contain at least ten years of data 

(Helsel and Hirsch 2002). Because only seven years of data will be analyzed in this 

study, autocorrelation cannot be accurately quantified either seasonally or across the 

full time series. Therefore, it is important to note that autocorrelation may exist within 

the time series, affecting the overall trend significance. Because some autocorrelation 

may exist, the results will be presented in this report as a preliminary indicator of 
Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistical Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

23 

possible water quality trends, which will be reevaluated following collection of three 

more years of data. 

 Two additional considerations for interpreting trends in the results are the 

frequency of laboratory results reported as the MDL and the percent of Secchi depths 

observed as greater than total depth. The seasonal Kendall trend test is robust to 

censoring of data only if the MDLs do not change during the study. In this study, the 

MDLs changed frequently for all laboratory parameters, primarily as a function of 

changes in laboratories conducting the analyses. Therefore, for trend analyses only, 

within this report all values reported as less than the MDL were set equal to the highest 

MDL reported for each parameter during the seven-year study duration. In addition, 

trend analyses were not conducted on parameters in regions where greater than 50% of 

the data reported was below the largest MDL. These conditions are summarized in 

Table 6.4. 

 A similar method for qualifying Secchi depth for trend analysis was conducted. 

Frequent observations, in which Secchi depth exceeds total depth, artificially influence 

trend results. As a result, trend analysis will not be conducted when Secchi depth are 

equal to or greater than bottom depth for over 50% of the samples for each estuary 

region. See Table 6.5. 

 Monthly results for each site were aggregated by estuary region to determine the 

median value by parameter for each month. All regions had a minimum of 58 samples 

over the complete time series for each parameter. Trend outputs will include: results 

summary table with ranking of the individual regions within the study area, time series 

plots per parameter over the complete time series and monthly box plots. The monthly 

box plots visually display seasonal relationships and the time series plots provide a 

visual reference for long-term trends within the series. 

 The seasonal Kendall trend test was not conducted for the CHEVWQMN for 

chlorophyll a due to 12 months of missing data in 2002. 

Table 6.4: Summary of values reported as equal to the maximum MDL

% Reported as 

MDL**

Minimum 

MDL

Maximum 

MDL Trend Threshold

Ttotal Nitrogen* (ppm) na na na na

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ppm) 63.1% 0.080 0.500 0.500

Nitrate + Nitrite (ppm) 90.7% 0.004 0.100 0.100

Phosphorus (ppm) 95.3% 0.003 0.500 0.500

Chlorophyll a (μg/l) 37.1% 0.010 3.000 3.000

Fecal Coliform (cfu/100ml) 38.2% 1 2 2

Turbidity (NTU) 26.4% 0.010 1.400 1.400

Color (PCU) 17.5% 0.700 10 10

*Total nitrogen is the calculated sum of total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrate plus nitrite

**Values in bold do not qualify for trend analysis due to > 50% of values are reported as the MDL 
Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistical Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

24 

Table 6.5: Summary of depth and secchi depth results for each aquatic preserve

average sample 

depth (m)

average secchi 

depth (m)

total sample 

results

total valid 

cases

total greater 

than bottom

% greater 

than bottom*

Lemon Bay 2.81 2.18 1560 438 1122 72%

Tidal Myakka 1.63 0.84 732 276 456 62%

Tidal Peace 1.87 0.93 1066 482 584 55%

West Wall 3.82 1.62 1266 225 1041 82%

Eat Wall 3.78 1.94 1371 204 1167 85%

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 1.74 1.39 717 170 547 76%

Lower Charlotte 3.41 2.07 1438 286 1152 80%

Pine Island Sound 1.75 1.45 588 264 324 55%

Matlacha Pass 2.77 1.49 557 194 363 65%

Tidal Caloosahatchee 1.60 0.87 292 247 45 15%

San Carlos Bay 2.90 1.60 675 283 392 58%

Estero Bay 1.38 1.16 545 329 216 40%

All Sites 2.60 1.32 10807 3398 7409 69%

*values in bold are greater than 50% and not used for trend analysis

Based on combining CCHMN, CHEVWQMN & Seagrass results
Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistical Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

25 

H. Methods Used to Determine Relationships between Water Quality 

Parameters 

 An additional analysis will be conducted to describe the relationships between 

water quality variables for each estuary collectively and for each season. Relationships 

between water quality variables were quantified using both the Spearman’s rho 

correlation test and stepwise linear regressions. Spearman’s rho is a nonparametric 

correlation analysis that characterizes relationships using ordered ranking of results. 

Reported statistics will include sample size, significance value and Spearman’s 

correlation coefficient. Evaluations of relationships were conducted on selected 

parameters for the entire study region and for each estuary. Results are included in 

tables and scatter plots in Section VIII and Appendix D. 

 As a means of describing estuarine health and water clarity for seagrass growth, 

forward stepwise regression analyses were conducted to quantify contributions of 

selected parameters to changes in Secchi depth and chlorophyll a values. A stepwise 

regression differs from a linear regression in that only parameters that contribute 

significantly to changes in the dependent variable are added to the regression equation. 

Addition of parameters into the regression model was set at p<0.05 and parameters 

were removed from the regression when p>0.10. Statistics reported include: F, R, R2

, 

R2 adjusted, R2 change, and SE. 

 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

26 

VII. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the 

CHEVWQMN & CCHMN: 2001 – 2007 

A. Introduction 

The following section describes the water quality status and trends results 

for the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN from 2001 through 2007. Thirteen parameters 

were analyzed for each estuary region and are included in this section. 

Summary statistics and status results are provided in tables included in the 

sections for each parameter. Seasonal and spatial comparisons are included to 

describe significant differences between estuaries and seasons for each 

parameter. Comparison results are reported in box plots for visual reference with 

detailed results included in Appendix B. Trend analyses were conducted for 

each estuary and the results are shown in graphs and tables in each of the 

following parameter sections. No analyses for the CHEVWQMN were conducted 

on the West Wall or Tidal Caloosahatchee, due to no CHEVWQMN sampling 

being conducted in those regions. However, analyses for these regions within 

the CCHMN are presented. 

To accurately interpret water quality status and trends results, 

consideration should be given to hydrologic effects and watershed influences 

outside of the estuarine system. Specifically, land uses in the adjacent basins 

affect water quality conditions in each of the estuary regions to varying degrees. 

The intensity of the land use and its proximity to surface water and other 

hydrologic conditions determine the extent of water quality influence. Altering 

hydrologic regimes, such as increasing channelization and the amount of 

impervious surfaces within the watershed, as well as changes in discharges and 

withdrawals, impact water quality and estuarine health within the system, as well. 

Additionally, when interpreting water quality results, it is important to 

consider weather patterns which occurred during the study period and their 

potential effects upon water quality. Increases in freshwater inflow can have 

various effects on water quality parameters, including increasing the loads of 

dissolved organic matter, nutrients, pollutants and sediments delivered to the 

system. As a result, large scale temporal patterns in climate, and subsequently 

hydrological conditions, can have significant impacts on the results presented 

within this report. Therefore, the reader should keep in mind larger scale 

influences, particularly climate and precipitation changes, on the water quality 

results presented here. See Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1 for annual average rainfall 

and Appendix F for correlations of rainfall and study parameters. 

There were no statistically significant relationships between water clarity 

and seagrass monitoring parameters, and therefore are not included in this 

discussion. For seagrass summary statistics, see Appendix B; and for seagrass 

correlations, see Appendix D. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

27 

Table 7.1: Average annual rainfall (m) by watershed region. 

 Peace 

Lemon 

Bay Myakka

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Tidal 

Caloosahatchee Estero Bay ALL 

2001 1.23 1.20 1.35 1.24 1.22 1.53 1.30

2002 1.52 1.36 1.48 1.40 1.33 1.39 1.41

2003 1.34 1.57 1.60 1.48 1.42 1.73 1.52

2004 1.61 1.33 1.59 1.40 1.24 1.14 1.39

2005 1.61 1.53 1.71 1.69 1.48 1.47 1.58

2006 1.03 1.16 1.17 1.24 1.09 1.22 1.15

2007 0.94 0.87 0.95 0.99 1.03 1.08 0.98

? Tidal Peace

> Lemon Bay

& Tidal Myakka

$ Charlotte Harbor

H Tidal Caloosahatchee

5 Estero Bay

Watershed

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

A

v

era

g

e

A

n

n

u

al R

a

ni fall m( )

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

&

&

& &

&

&

&

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Figure 7.1: Average annual rainfall (m) by watershed basin. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

28 

B. Secchi Depth

1. Background 

Secchi depth can be used to provide an estimate of water clarity (Kirk 

1983). Water clarity, as measured by Secchi depth, is a function of light 

absorption and scattering from water, dissolved matter, and suspended matter 

(McPherson and Miller 1987). As water clarity decreases, Secchi depth 

decreases as well. Evaluating the status and trends of water clarity as measured 

by Secchi depth can be a tool in aquatic resource management, particularly with 

regard to seagrasses. Studies in southwest Florida have shown that decreases 

in water clarity may result in decreased seagrass abundance (e.g. EPA 1993). 

CHEVWQMN Secchi depth values may be affected by shallow sample 

depths at some sites and tide stages, as well as the early morning, low sunlight 

sampling time, whereas CCHMN Secchi depth measurements were typically 

taken during mid-day in open water. Therefore, analyses of Secchi depth results 

were limited to sites and dates where water depth exceeded Secchi depth. 

When Secchi depth was greater than water depth, the value was considered 

missing and was not used for analyses. It is also important to remember that 

Secchi depth is a visual measure of light attenuation and not a direct measure of 

diffuse light in the water column, nor does it take into account specific 

wavelengths that may be required for photosynthesis (Kirk 1983). As a result, 

Secchi depth should serve as an estimate of light available for photosynthetic 

growth, not the absolute quantity or quality of light available. Results were not 

corrected for tidal stage or wind speed/direction. 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results

Secchi depth summary statistics and status results from the CHEVWQMN 

for 2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlotte Harbor region are shown in Tables 8.2 

and 8.4 and Figures 8.2-8.3 and 8.6. For the entire region and the study period, 

Secchi depth values ranged from less than 0.1 m to 4.5 m, with a median value 

of 1.2 m and a mean value of 1.3 m. Secchi depth varied significantly between 

all estuary regions (p <0.05). The estuary region with the highest median Secchi 

depth value was Matlacha Pass at 1.6 m. The lowest estuary regional median 

values were found in the East Wall section of Upper Charlotte Harbor with 

median values of 0.8 m. 

Seasonally, Secchi depth varied significantly (p<0.05), with a region wide 

median value of 1.4 m in the dry season and 1.1 m in the rainy season. Dry 

season Secchi depth values were significantly higher (p<0.05) than rainy season 

values in seven estuary regions: Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace, East 

Wall, Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. There 

were no significant differences between rainy season and dry season Secchi 

values in three estuary regions: Estero Bay, Lower Charlotte Harbor and Pine 

Island Sound. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.3 with 

detailed statistical results in Appendix B. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

29 

Secchi depth trend analyses were only conducted for estuary regions 

where at least 50% of Secchi depth observations were less than water depth. 

See Section VII-G for an overview of censoring and criteria for trend analysis. 

Four estuary regions qualified for trend analyses: Tidal Peace, Matlacha Pass, 

San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. Of these, only San Carlos Bay showed a 

significant (p=0.04) change in Secchi depth over the study period, increasing at 

approximately 0.07 m per year. For visual trend assessment time series plots 

are included in Figure 7.6, with detailed analysis results in Table 7.4. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results

Secchi depth summary statistics and status results from the CCCHMN for 

2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlotte Harbor region are shown in Table 7.3 and 

Figures 7.4 - 7.5 and 7.7. For the entire region and the study period, Secchi 

depth values ranged from 0.15 m to 4.5 m, with a median value of 1.1 m and a 

mean value of 1.3 m. Secchi depth varied significantly between all estuary 

regions (p <0.05). The estuary region with the highest median Secchi depth 

value was Lower Charlotte Harbor, with 2.1 m. The lowest estuary median 

values were found in the tidal portions of the major tributaries, Tidal Peace, Tidal 

Myakka, and Tidal Caloosahatchee, with median values of 0.8 m. 

Seasonally, Secchi depth varied significantly (p<0.05), with a region wide 

median value of 1.2 m in the dry season and 1.0 m in the rainy season. Dry 

season Secchi depth values were significantly higher (p<0.05) than rainy season 

values in nine estuary regions: Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace, East 

Wall, West Wall, Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha 

Pass and Tidal Caloosahatchee. There were no significant differences between 

rainy season and dry season Secchi values in three estuary regions: Estero Bay, 

Lower Charlotte Harbor and San Carlos Bay. For a visual comparison of 

seasonal results, see Figure 7.5 with detailed statistical results in Appendix B. 

No Secchi depth trend analyses were conducted, due to none of the 

estuary regions having at least 50% of Secchi depth observations less than water 

depth. See Section VI-G for an overview of censoring and criteria for trend 

analysis. 

4. Discussion

Throughout the study region, period and by programs, water clarity, as 

measured by Secchi depth, varied greatly. Secchi depth was significantly deeper 

(p<0.05) for the CHEVWQMN throughout the entire region and study period. 

However, post hoc analyses showed this to be true for only the following estuary 

regions: Estero Bay, Matlacha Pass and Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, with 

Lemon Bay, the East Wall and Lower Charlotte Harbor being significantly lower. 

The percent difference between the two programs ranged from -27% in Estero 

Bay for the CHEVWQMN, to 148% for the East Wall (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). 

The highest Secchi depth values often occurred at deeper sites, further offshore, 

and for the CCHMN. Secchi depth values were typically lower in shallow regions 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

30 

with strong freshwater inflow. Lowest Secchi depth values occurred at sites near 

Tidal Peace, Myakka and Caloosahatchee Rivers. Due to trend analyses only 

being conducted for estuaries where a minimum of 50% of Secchi depth samples 

resulted in measurable values, only estuary regions with the greatest sample 

depths (Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay) or particularly low water clarity 

(Tidal Peace and Estero Bay) qualified for trend analyses. None of the CCHMN 

regions qualified for trend analyses. 

In the Charlotte Harbor region, changes in Secchi depth can be attributed 

to fluctuations in CDOM (color), phytoplankton and non-algal suspended matter 

(Kirk 1983, Dixon and Kirkpatrick 1999, Ott et. al. 2006, McPherson and Miller 

1994, McPherson and Miller 1987), as well as changes in the light field at the 

time of measurement (Duffey et al. 2007). As a result, increases in one or more 

of these constituents may result in decreased water clarity and Secchi depth. 

CDOM, chlorophyll a, and turbidity levels can be influenced by various changes 

in the estuarine environment and watershed, including: 1) fluvial inputs, such as 

the Peace, Myakka and Caloosahatchee Rivers, as well as smaller tributaries 

(Doering and Chamberlain 1999, Doering et. al. 2006, McPherson and Miller 

1990, McPherson et. al 1990); 2) resuspension of sediment or particulates from 

dredging and wind/wave action; and 3) runoff within the watershed (Doering and 

Chamberlain 1999). 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

31 

Table 7.2: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of Secchi depth (m) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 313 0.40 3.30 1.07 0.02 1.00 4 

Tidal Myakka 42 0.40 2.30 0.94 0.06 0.90 2 

Tidal Peace 236 0.07 2.70 0.94 0.02 0.90 2 

East Wall 6 0.50 1.30 0.80 0.12 0.75 1 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 64 0.03 2.60 1.45 0.07 1.50 8 

Lower Charlotte 90 0.50 4.50 1.70 0.09 1.40 6 

Pine Island Sound 129 0.10 3.90 1.51 0.06 1.40 6 

Matlacha Pass 131 0.40 3.80 1.64 0.05 1.60 10 

San Carlos Bay 237 0.06 3.90 1.60 0.04 1.50 8 

Estero Bay 170 0.10 2.00 1.33 0.04 1.33 5 

All Sites 1418 0.03 4.50 1.31 0.02 1.20 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

 

Table 7.3: CCHMN Summary and status of Secchi depth (m) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 125 0.60 3.60 1.36 0.04 1.30 6 

Tidal Myakka 234 0.30 1.90 0.82 0.02 0.80 1 

Tidal Peace 246 0.15 2.70 0.92 0.03 0.80 1 

West Wall 225 0.40 5.20 1.62 0.06 1.50 9 

East Wall 198 0.40 10.10 1.97 0.08 1.75 11 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 106 0.60 2.50 1.33 0.05 1.30 6 

Lower Charlotte 196 0.85 5.00 2.24 0.06 2.10 12 

Pine Island Sound 135 0.40 3.10 1.39 0.05 1.30 6 

Matlacha Pass 63 0.20 2.90 1.18 0.07 1.00 4 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 247 0.30 2.30 0.87 0.02 0.80 1 

San Carlos Bay 46 0.60 5.10 1.61 0.12 1.50 9 

Estero Bay 159 0.30 2.00 0.98 0.03 1.00 4 

All Sites 1980 0.15 10.10 1.33 0.02 1.10 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

32 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

S

e

c

c

hi D

e

pth

m( )

Figure 7.2: Secchi depth Box plot results for each estuary region for the 

CHEVWQMN. Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

S

e

c

c

hi D

e

pth

m( )

Figure 7.3: Seasonal Secchi depth Box plot results for each estuary region for 

the CHEVWQMN. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

33 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

S

e

c

c

hi D

e

pth

m( )

Figure 7.4: Secchi depth Box plot results for each estuary region for the 

CCHMN. Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

S

e

c

c

hi D

e

pth

m( )

Figure 7.5: Secchi depth Box plot results for each estuary region for the 

CCHMN. Outliers and extremes are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

34 

1.00

2.00

3.00

Sec

chi De

pth

m( )

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Lemon Bay

Cape Haze

Lower C harlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

1.00

2.00

3.00

Sec

chi De

pth

m( ) 1.00

2.00

3.00

Sec

chi De

pth

m( )

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR2- 004

29-OCT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

1.00

2.00

3.00

Sec

chi De

pth

m( )

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR2- 004

29-OCT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

Figure 7.6: Time series plot of Secchi (m) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

35 

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower C harlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

W est W all

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

S

e

c

c

hi De

pth

m( ) 1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

S

e

c

c

hi De

pth

m( ) 1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

S

e

c

c

hi De

pth

m( )

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

S

e

c

c

hi De

pth

m( )

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date 29-AUG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

Figure 7.7: Time series plot of Secchi (m) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CCHMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each 

aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

36 

Table 7.4: CHEVWQMN Secchi depth (m) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay * * * * * 

Tidal Myakka * * * * * 

Tidal Peace 72 26 1.373 0.144 0.1696 

East Wall * * * * * 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze * * * * * 

Lower Charlotte * * * * * 

Pine Island Sound * * * * * 

Matlacha Pass 69 -1 0.000 -0.006 1.0000 

San Carlos Bay 71 38 2.086 0.217 0.0370 0.0667 1.367 

Estero Bay 71 26 1.400 0.149 0.1614 

All Sites 72 11 0.554 0.061 0.5799 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section VI-G 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

37 

C. Temperature

1. Background 

Temperature is one of the most important properties in water (e.g. 

Stickney 1984; Colling 2006). It is a controlling factor in a variety of biological 

and chemical processes within estuaries and may serve as a biological predictor 

(Duffey et al 2007). For example, temperature plays a key role in seasonal 

primary productivity and triggers life stage changes in many finfish and shellfish 

species. In general, temperature varies with: depth, mixing due to wind and 

tides, season, time of day, and anthropogenic influences (EPA 1993). Seasonal 

temperature stratification occurs in the deeper areas of Charlotte Harbor, 

associated with summer salinity stratification due to increased freshwater inflows. 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

 Temperature summary statistics and status results from the CHEVWQMN 

for 2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlotte Harbor region are shown in Tables 7.5 

and 7.7 and Figures 7.8, 7.9 and 7.12. Throughout the study region and period, 

temperature ranged from 9.0o

 – 32.0o C, with a median value of 24.5o C and a 

mean value of 23.6o C. Temperature did not vary significantly between 

estuaries, with median values ranging from 23.8o

 - 25.0o C. In addition, since 

there are no temperature water quality criteria in the Charlotte Harbor area, no 

regulatory comparisons were made. For region specific temperature summary 

statistic and status results, see Appendix A. 

 Dry season temperature values were significantly (p<0.05) lower than 

rainy season values in all ten estuary regions and the region as a whole. For the 

entire region, the median dry season temperature was 21.0o

 C and the median 

rainy season value was 28o C. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see 

Figure 7.9, with detailed statistical results in Appendix B. 

Adequate temperature sample sizes were collected, throughout the study 

region and period to conduct trend analyses for each estuary. No region showed 

any significant changes in temperature. For visual trend assessment, time series 

plots are included in Figure 7.12, with detailed analysis results in Table 7.7. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 

 Temperature summary statistics and status results from the CCHMN for 

2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlotte Harbor region are shown in Tables 7.6 and 

7.8 and Figures 7.10, 7.11 and 7.13. Throughout the study region and period, 

temperature ranged from 8.7o

 – 35.9o C, with a median value of 25.4o C and a 

mean value of 24.8o C. Temperature varied significantly between estuaries, with 

median values ranging from 24.0o

 – 26.2o C. In addition, since there are no 

temperature water quality criteria in the Charlotte Harbor area, no regulatory 

comparisons were made. For region specific temperature summary statistic and 

status results, see Appendix A. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

38 

 Dry season temperature values were significantly (p<0.05) lower than 

rainy season values in all twelve estuary regions and the region as a whole. For 

the entire region, the median dry season temperature was 21.7o C and the 

median rainy season value was 29.4o C. For a visual comparison of seasonal 

results, see Figure 7.11, with detailed statistical results in Appendix B. 

Adequate temperature sample sizes for trend analyses were collected for 

all estuary regions. No region showed any significant changes in temperature 

during the study period. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are 

included in Figure 7.13, with detailed analysis results in Table 7.8. 

4. Discussion

Throughout the study region, period and by programs, temperature, did 

not vary greatly. Temperature was significantly higher (p<0.05) for the CCHMN 

throughout the entire region and study period. However, post hoc analyses 

showed that the East Wall region was the only region that was not significantly 

lower (p=0.17). The percent difference between the two programs ranged from -

3% in Estero Bay for the CCHMN, to 8% for Tidal Myakka (CCHMN: 

CHEVWQMN). The differences in temperature are most likely due to the time at 

which the measurements were made for the two programs. There were no 

significant trends in temperature for either program during the study period. 

Table 7.5: Summary and status of CHEVWQMN temperature (°C) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 826 13.00 32.00 23.60 0.16 24.00 2 

Tidal Myakka 106 13.00 29.50 23.03 0.41 23.75 1 

Tidal Peace 340 9.00 30.50 23.42 0.24 24.00 2 

East Wall 68 15.00 31.00 24.05 0.53 25.00 9 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 145 14.00 31.50 20.74 0.39 24.00 2 

Lower Charlotte 198 13.00 31.50 23.60 0.32 24.00 2 

Pine Island Sound 337 13.00 31.00 23.76 0.25 25.00 9 

Matlacha Pass 198 13.50 30.50 23.78 0.32 24.50 7 

San Carlos Bay 243 10.00 31.00 23.67 0.00 24.50 7 

Estero Bay 318 13.00 31.00 23.33 0.25 24.00 2 

All Sites 2779 13.00 32.00 23.58 0.09 24.50 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

39 

Table 7.6: Summary and status of CCHMN temperature (°C) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 634 12.52 34.52 24.47 0.20 23.99 1 

Tidal Myakka 529 15.18 32.37 24.98 0.19 25.73 8 

Tidal Peace 609 15.51 33.26 25.09 0.17 25.50 6 

West Wall 1051 16.30 32.51 24.57 0.14 25.15 4 

East Wall 1073 17.02 33.27 24.77 0.14 25.07 3 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 480 8.65 33.10 25.30 0.21 25.73 8 

Lower Charlotte 1223 14.15 35.89 25.02 0.14 26.12 11 

Pine Island Sound 246 14.10 32.20 24.62 0.32 25.25 5 

Matlacha Pass 356 12.47 31.62 24.92 0.25 26.22 12 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 286 14.80 34.22 25.46 0.26 26.05 10 

San Carlos Bay 420 14.05 33.28 24.68 0.25 25.54 7 

Estero Bay 226 13.50 32.50 24.10 0.31 24.30 2 

All Sites 7133 8.65 35.89 24.84 0.06 25.43 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

10.00

20.00

30.00

T

e

m

p

erature (d

e

g. C)

Figure 7.8: CHEVWQMN temperature box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

40 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

10.00

20.00

30.00

T

e

m

p

erature (d

e

g. C)

Figure 7.9: CHEVWQMN Seasonal temperature box plot results for each estuary 

region. Outliers are not shown. 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

10.00

20.00

30.00

T

e

m

p

erature (d

e

g. C)

Figure 7.10: CCHMN temperature box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

41 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

10.00

20.00

30.00

T

e

m

p

erature (d

e

g. C)

Figure 7.11: CCHMN Seasonal temperature box plot results for each estuary 

region. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

42 

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Te

m

perature de ( g.

C)

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Te

m

perature de ( g.

C) 15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Te

m

perature de ( g.

C)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Te

m

perature de ( g.

C)

29-AUG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.12: Time series plot of temperature (°C) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

43 

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

W est W all

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Te

m

perature de ( g.

C) 15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Te

m

perature de ( g.

C) 15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Te

m

perature de ( g.

C)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Te

m

perature de ( g.

C)

29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.13: Time series plot of temperature (°C) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CCHMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each 

aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

44 

Table 7.7: CHEVWQMN Temperature (°C) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 72 -31 -1.685 -0.172 0.0920 

Tidal Myakka 71 -5 -0.226 -0.029 0.8209 

Tidal Peace 72 -15 -0.775 -0.083 0.4383 

East Wall 68 -21 -1.205 -0.130 0.2284 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 72 -21 -1.117 -0.117 0.2638 

Lower Charlotte 72 -28 -1.502 -0.156 0.1332 

Pine Island Sound 71 4 0.174 0.023 0.8619 

Matlacha Pass 72 -34 -1.824 -0.189 0.0682 

San Carlos Bay 71 -27 -1.465 -0.154 0.1429 

Estero Bay 72 -31 -1.656 -0.172 0.0978 

All Sites 72 -25 -1.338 -0.139 0.1808 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

Table 7.8: CCHMN Temperature (°C) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient p (2 tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 62 -46 -2.824 -0.324 0.0653 

Tidal Myakka 64 -38 -2.322 -0.268 0.0998 

Tidal Peace 64 -28 -1.694 -0.197 0.2725 

West Wall 64 -30 -1.820 -0.211 0.2421 

East Wall 64 -28 -1.694 -0.197 0.2682 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 64 -28 -1.169 -0.197 0.2787 

Lower Charlotte 66 -24 -1.400 -0.160 0.1703 

Pine Island Sound 59 -44 -3.046 -0.373 0.1064 

Matlacha Pass 64 -35 -2.149 -0.248 0.0544 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 64 -38 -2.331 -0.268 0.0512 

San Carlos Bay 59 -22 -1.1434 -0.183 0.1434 

Estero Bay 58 -34 -2.266 -0.283 0.2301 

All Sites 67 -32 -1.850 -0.206 0.0854 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section VI-G 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

45 

D. Dissolved Oxygen

1. Background 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is necessary for sustaining most aquatic life, and 

is a measure of the amount of gaseous oxygen dissolved in the water column. It 

is required for metabolic processes for all aerobic organisms. In waterbodies, 

DO is produced primarily by dissolution from the atmosphere (Stickney 1984) 

and through wind and wave action, and to a lesser extent by photosynthesis of 

primary producers, and may serve as an indicator of biotic productivity and 

estuarine health (Colling 2006). Oxygen saturation in the water (approximately 

7.2 mg/L at 25°C and 25 psu salinity within the Charlotte Harbor estuaries region) 

varies inversely with relative humidity, hydrostatic and atmospheric pressure, 

temperature and salinity, however around the coastal waters of Florida, pressure 

and relative humidity have little effect on DO levels, and super saturation can 

occur due to high rates of photosynthesis and surface mixing caused by wind 

and wave activity (e.g. Garcia and Gordon 1992). The DO is utilized, and 

therefore reduced in quantity by biological activity. Levels of DO vary diurnally in 

response to photosynthetic rates and community respiration, resulting in lowest 

values near sunrise. The magnitude of the DO cycle may be indicative of 

whether the system is well balanced or eutrophic due to elevated nutrient and 

phytoplankton levels (e.g. Stickney 1984). 

Stratification of DO occurs when bottom and surface water layers remain 

separated due to density differences associated with salinity or temperature 

variations (e.g. Camp et al. 1998). Once stratified, decreased oxygen in the 

lower layer occurs as a result of benthic respiration and decomposition of organic 

material and a lack of mixing with surface waters. In Charlotte Harbor, hypoxic 

conditions occur in deeper areas of Upper Charlotte Harbor due to summer 

stratification (Morrison, et al. 1998, Camp et. al. 1998). 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

 The DO concentrations summary statistics and status results from the 

CHEVWQMN for 2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlotte Harbor region are shown 

in Tables 7.9 and 7.11, and Figures 7.14, 7.15 and 7.18. Throughout the study 

region and period, DO values ranged from 0.1 mg/L to 10.0 mg/L, with a median 

value of 5.1 mg/L and a mean value of 5.1 mg/L. The DO values varied 

significantly (p<0.05), across the ten regions, with median values ranging from 

6.0 mg/L in San Carlos Bay to 4.3 mg/L in Lemon Bay. For region specific DO 

summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A.

Throughout the region, dry season median DO values (5.6 mg/L) were 

significantly higher (p<0.05) than rainy season median values (4.3 mg/L). In 

addition, estuary median DO values were significantly higher in the dry season in 

all estuary regions. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.15, 

with detailed statistical results in Appendix B. 

To characterize the status of DO within the region, CHEVWQMN DO 

results were compared to Florida Surface Water Quality Standards. However, 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

46 

due to strong tidal and seasonal fluctuations of salinity in the Charlotte Harbor 

estuaries, generalized comparisons to both standards of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L were 

made. In addition, because of the monthly sampling frequency, daily DO 

averages could not be obtained. However, samples with median values less 

than 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L for each estuary were analyzed and are shown in 

Appendix C. 

 During the study period, DO levels were frequently observed below the 

state standards of 5.0 mg/L (44% of samples) and 4.0 mg/L (23% of samples). 

The highest DO observations were reported at sites in San Carlos Bay with only 

13% of samples less than 5.0 mg/L and 2% less than 4.0 mg/L. The most 

observations below state standards occurred in Lemon Bay. The DO levels in 

Lemon Bay were below 5.0 mg/L for 64% of samples and below 4.0 mg/L for 

39% of samples. Seasonally, DO concentrations across all regions were lower 

than both the 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L standards more often during the rainy season. 

Results comparing DO concentrations to regulatory criteria for each estuary are 

included in Appendix C. 

Two significant trends in DO were detected across the ten estuary 

regions. The DO concentrations significantly increased in Lemon Bay and Lower 

Charlotte Harbor at a rate of increase ranging from less than 0.1 mg/L to 

approximately 0.2 mg/L per year, respectively. For visual trend assessment, time 

series plots are included in Figure 7.18, with detailed analysis results in Table 

7.11. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 

 The DO concentrations summary statistics and status results from the 

CCHMN for 2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlotte Harbor region are shown in 

Tables 8.10 and 8.12, and Figures 8.16, 8.17 and 8.19. Throughout the study 

region and period, DO values ranged from 0.1 mg/L to 15.9 mg/L, with a median 

value of 6.7 mg/L and a mean value of 6.6 mg/L. The DO values varied 

significantly (p<0.05), across the twelve regions, with median values ranging from 

7.2 mg/L in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze to 6.1 mg/L in Matlacha Pass. For 

region specific DO summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A.

Throughout the region, dry season median DO values (7.3 mg/L) were 

significantly higher (p<0.05) than rainy season median values (5.7 mg/L). In 

addition, estuary median DO values were significantly higher in the dry season in 

all estuary regions. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.17, 

with detailed statistical results in Appendix B. 

As with the CHEVWQMN, CCHMN DO results were compared to Florida 

Surface Water Quality Standards. For the same reasons as listed above for the 

CHEVWQM, samples with median values less than 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L for each 

estuary were analyzed and are shown in Appendix C. 

 During the study period, DO levels were frequently observed below the 

state standards of 5.0 mg/L (12% of samples) and 4.0 mg/L (5% of samples). 

The highest DO observations were reported at sites in Gasparilla Sound/Cape 

Haze with only 6% of samples less than 5.0 mg/L and 2% less than 4.0 mg/L. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

47 

The greatest percentage of observations below state standards occurred in 

Matlacha Pass. The DO levels in Matlacha Pass were below 5.0 mg/L for 22% of 

samples and below 4.0 mg/L for 6% of samples. Seasonally, DO concentrations 

across all sites were lower than both the 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L standards more often 

during the rainy season, with the exception of San Carlos Bay which had two dry 

season samples below 4.0 mg/L and no rainy season samples below 4.0 mg/L. 

Results comparing DO concentrations to regulatory criteria for each estuary are 

included in Appendix C. 

Eight significant trends in DO were detected across the twelve estuary 

regions. The DO concentrations significantly decreased in Lemon Bay, Tidal 

Peace and Myakka, West Wall, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, Tidal 

Caloosahatchee and Estero Bay at rates of approximately -0.2 to -0.8 mg/L per 

year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 7.19, 

with detailed analysis results in Table 7.12. 

4. Discussion 

Throughout the study region, period and by programs, DO varied greatly. 

DO was significantly higher (p<0.05) for the CCHMN throughout the entire region 

and study period. In addition, post hoc analyses showed this to be true for all 

estuary regions. Furthermore, analyses by season across all regions and both 

programs showed that DO concentrations were significantly higher (p<0.05) 

during the dry season. The percent difference between the two programs for DO 

ranged from ~6% in Matlacha Pass for the CCHMN, to over 45% in Lemon Bay 

(CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest DO values typically occurred for the 

CCHMN, and are possibly due to the time of day at which the samples are taken. 

Trend analyses for the two programs displayed some interesting results. Within 

the CHEVWQMN, Lemon Bay and Lower Charlotte Harbor, as well as the entire 

region as a whole, demonstrated increasing trends for DO. Whereas, the 

CCHMN had eight significant decreasing trends: Lemon Bay, Tidal Peace and 

Myakka, West Wall, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, Tidal Caloosahatchee 

and Estero Bay. 

When interpreting the DO results, it is important to remember the time of 

day at which the samples were taken. Additionally, the location of the sites, 

whether in shallow waters near shore or at deeper sites, needs to be considered, 

as shallow, near shore DO results may be low due to consumption of oxygen via 

decomposition of organic materials from shoreline vegetation. In general, DO 

concentrations were frequently observed below the state standards of 5.0 and 

4.0 mg/L. 

In Charlotte Harbor, lower DO values may be due to the combined effects 

of high water temperature, high CDOM and high amounts of detritus in shallow 

near-shore waters, as well as from anthropogenic sources of nutrients and other 

materials (Morrison et al. 1998, Camp et. al. 1998). However, it is important to 

note that neither the means nor the medians for any estuary region within either 

program dropped below 4.0 mg/L, and that none of the means or medians for the 

CCHMN dropped below 5.0 mg/L. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

48 

Table 7.9: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 818 0.70 8.80 4.32 0.05 4.30 1 

Tidal Myakka 107 0.60 9.50 5.61 0.17 5.80 7 

Tidal Peace 334 1.40 9.90 5.35 0.07 5.30 5 

East Wall 69 2.00 7.20 4.61 0.16 4.40 2 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 140 1.70 7.50 4.56 0.11 4.55 3 

Lower Charlotte 200 2.30 9.10 5.50 0.10 5.70 6 

Pine Island Sound 329 0.10 8.90 5.60 0.10 5.90 9 

Matlacha Pass 192 2.30 9.00 5.79 0.10 5.80 7 

San Carlos Bay 241 2.80 8.70 5.96 0.06 6.00 10 

Estero Bay 315 1.50 10.00 4.76 0.07 4.80 4 

All Sites 2745 0.10 10.00 5.05 0.03 5.10 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

 

Table 7.10: CCHMN Summary and status of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) results for each estuary 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 634 1.43 10.86 6.41 0.05 6.45 3 

Tidal Myakka 529 1.53 11.65 6.90 0.07 6.94 9 

Tidal Peace 609 0.35 14.49 6.84 0.08 6.94 10 

West Wall 1050 0.05 12.20 6.57 0.06 6.86 7 

East Wall 1073 0.09 15.85 6.52 0.05 6.63 6 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 480 0.59 11.21 7.21 0.07 7.23 12 

Lower Charlotte 1215 1.69 10.46 6.39 0.03 6.42 2 

Pine Island Sound 246 2.30 10.60 6.79 0.10 6.90 8 

Matlacha Pass 354 2.55 10.67 6.08 0.07 6.06 1 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 286 2.00 14.90 7.11 0.12 7.20 11 

San Carlos Bay 424 2.12 11.70 6.63 0.06 6.54 5 

Estero Bay 226 1.70 9.90 6.36 0.10 6.50 4 

All Sites 7126 0.05 15.85 6.61 0.02 6.67 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

49 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

2.50

5.00

7.50

10.00

Dis

s

o

vl e

d

O

xy

g

e

n

m( g

L/ )

Figure 7.14: CHEVWQMN DO box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers 

and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

2.50

5.00

7.50

10.00

Dis

s

o

vl e

d

O

xy

g

e

n

m( g

L/ )

Figure 7.15: CHEVWQMN seasonal DO box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

50 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Dis

s

o

vl e

d

O

xy

g

e

n

m( g

L/ )

Figure 7.16: CCHMN DO box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers and 

extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

Dis

s

o

vl e

d

O

xy

g

e

n

m( g

L/ )

Figure 7.17: CCHMN seasonal DO box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

51 

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

D

O (m

g/L)

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower C harlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

D

O (m

g/L) 2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

D

O (m

g/L)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

D

O (m

g/L)

29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.18: Time series plot of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) for 2001 through 2007 

for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all 

sites in each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

52 

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

W est W all

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

D

s

vl d.

O

x

y

g

e

n

m( g/

L) 2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

D

s

vl d.

O

x

y

g

e

n

m( g/

L) 2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

D

s

vl d.

O

x

y

g

e

n

m( g/

L)

29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

D

s

vl d.

O

x

y

g

e

n

m( g/

L)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date 29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

Figure 7.19: Time series plot of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) for 2001 through 2007 

for the CCHMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

53 

Table 7.11: CHEVWQMN Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 72 38 2.025 0.211 0.0429 0.1000 3.875 

Tidal Myakka 71 34 1.824 0.194 0.0682 

Tidal Peace 72 -4 -0.164 -0.022 0.8700 

East Wall 69 15 0.804 0.090 0.4212 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 72 -1 0.000 -0.006 1.0000 

Lower Charlotte 72 51 2.724 0.283 0.0065 0.1783 5.076 

Pine Island Sound 71 -10 -0.501 -0.057 0.6163 

Matlacha Pass 71 21 1.111 0.120 0.2668 

San Carlos Bay 71 4 0.167 0.023 0.8671 

Estero Bay 72 33 1.743 0.183 0.0813 

All Sites 72 63 3.367 0.350 0.0008 0.1680 5.444 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

Table 7.12: CCHMN Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 64 -64 -3.953 -0.451 0.0001 -0.3288 7.751 

Tidal Myakka 64 -50 -3.075 -0.352 0.0021 -0.4463 8.817 

Tidal Peace 64 -43 -2.641 -0.303 0.0083 -0.4296 8.631 

West Wall 64 -34 -2.071 -0.239 0.0384 -0.2431 7.946 

East Wall 64 -12 -0.690 -0.085 0.4901 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 64 -10 -0.565 -0.070 0.5723 

Lower Charlotte 66 -17 -0.976 -0.113 0.3293 

Pine Island Sound 59 -63 -4.402 -0.534 0.0000 -0.6750 9.663 

Matlacha Pass 64 -35 -2.149 -0.248 0.0316 -0.3417 7.436 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 64 -44 -2.709 -0.310 0.0068 -0.3917 8.971 

San Carlos Bay 59 0 0.000 0.000 1.0000 

Estero Bay 58 -48 -3.243 -0.400 0.0012 -0.7583 9.854 

All Sites 67 -1 0.000 -0.006 1.0000 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section VI-G 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

54 

E. pH

1. Background 

 An important component of water quality that potentially affects many 

chemical processes is pH (Stickney 1984). The pH of natural surface waters 

varies primarily with salinity, with fresh waters typically having lower pH values 

(uncontaminated rainfall=5, 6.5 – 9 for most lakes; Horne and Goldman 1994) 

than seawater (7.7 average, 7.2 – 8.2 typical range; Wright 2005). Estuaries 

have wide ranges of salinities depending on the mixing of freshwater from rivers 

with salt water from oceans, therefore pH varies spatially, daily and seasonally 

within estuaries, generally ranging from 7.0 - 8.6 (EPA 1993). The pH of open 

waters also fluctuates as a result of other natural and artificial events, and is 

linked to the carbon cycle (e.g. Wright 2005; Colling 2006). Levels of 

photosynthesis influence diurnal changes in pH and excess primary production 

may dramatically increase pH (Stickney 1984). In addition, pH can be influenced 

by the local geology and hydrology of the watershed. Weathering of carbonate 

rocks increases pH (Boggs 2006), while decomposing organic matter generally 

lowers pH (e.g. Stickney 1984). 

Water is naturally well buffered against changes in pH, with saline water 

having greater buffering capacity than freshwater. The majority of aquatic 

organisms are adapted to narrow pH ranges, with optimal pH ranges for most 

fish being about 6.5-8.5 (e.g. Wilber 1971, NOAA 2005). However, organisms 

with calcarious exoskeletons require pH’s greater than 7.0 in order to survive.

Dissolved metals may also be affected, as well: as pH increases, metal oxides 

precipitate out of the water column, whereas when pH decreases, dissolved 

metals are released from anoxic bottom sediments (Stickney 1984). 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

The pH summary statistics and status results from the CHEVWQMN for 

2001 - 2007 are shown in Tables 7.13 and 7.15, and Figures 7.20, 7.21 and 7.24. 

Throughout the region and the study period, pH values ranged from 5.8 to 9.0, 

with a median value of 8.2 and mean of 8.1. Between the ten regions, pH varied 

significantly (p<0.05). Pine Island Sound had the highest median pH value (8.5), 

whereas Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace and the East Wall had the lowest median pH 

(7.8). For region-specific pH summary statistics and status results, see Appendix 

A. 

The seasonal variation of pH for the region, as a whole, showed 

interesting results. The median dry and rainy season pH values, as well as the 

mean dry season value were each 8.2. However, the mean rainy season pH was 

8.1, proving to be statistically significantly lower than the dry season. The pH 

was significantly higher (p<0.05) in the dry season for seven estuary regions: 

Lemon Bay, Tidal Peace, Tidal Myakka, the East Wall, Matlacha Pass, San 

Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see 

Figure 7.21, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

55 

Significant pH trends were found in three of the Charlotte Harbor estuary 

regions. The pH decreased significantly in Lower Charlotte Harbor and San 

Carlos Bay at rates of 0.01 and 0.02 standard unit per year, respectively. 

However, pH increased significantly in Matlacha Pass at a rate of 0.05 standard 

unit per year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in 

Figure 7.24, with detailed analysis results in Table 7.15. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 

The pH summary statistics and status results from the CCHMN for 2001 - 

2007 are shown in Tables 7.14 and 7.16, and Figures 7.22, 7.23 and 7.25. 

Throughout the region and the study period, pH values ranged from 6.0 to 10.5, 

with a median value of 7.9 and mean of 7.9. Between the twelve regions, pH 

varied significantly (p<0.05). Pine Island Sound had the highest median pH 

value (8.0), whereas Tidal Caloosahatchee had the lowest median pH (7.8). For 

region-specific pH summary statistics and status results, see Appendix A. 

The median dry season pH value was each 7.9, whereas the median rainy 

season value was 7.8, which proved to be significantly lower. The pH was 

significantly higher (p<0.05) in the dry season for seven estuary regions: Tidal 

Peace, the East Wall, West Wall, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay, Tidal 

Caloosahatchee and Estero Bay. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, 

see Figure 7.23, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. 

A significant pH trend was only found in one of the Charlotte Harbor 

estuary regions. The pH decreased significantly in Tidal Peace, Pine Island 

Sound, Matlacha Pass and Estero Bay at rates of 0.04 – 0.18 standard unit per 

year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 7.25, 

with detailed analysis results in Table 7.16. 

4. Discussion 

Throughout the study region, period and by programs, pH varied greatly. 

pH was significantly higher (p<0.05) for the CHEVWQMN throughout the entire 

region and study period. However, post hoc analyses showed this to be true for 

Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island 

Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. Whereas, the CCHMN 

was significantly higher in the East Wall and Tidal Peace, and there was no 

statistical difference in Tidal Myakka. Furthermore, analyses by season across 

all regions and both programs showed that pH values were significantly higher 

(p<0.05) during the dry season, with the exception of Lower Charlotte Harbor, 

Pine Island Sound and Estero Bay. The percent difference between the two 

programs for pH was relatively small, and ranged from ~-5% in Lower Charlotte 

Harbor, to over 2% in the East Wall (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest pH 

values typically occurred for the CHEVWQMN, and are possibly due to the 

method employed, since the lowest pH values would be expected around 

sunrise. Trend analyses for the two programs displayed decreasing trends within 

different regions, in general. However, within the CHEVWQMN, Matlacha Pass 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

56 

demonstrated an increasing trend for pH, whereas, the CCHMN had an 

increasing trend for this region. 

In general, for both programs, estuaries with higher salinity and less 

freshwater influence had higher pH results. Regions with the lowest pH values 

were found closest to freshwater sources, particularly near the Tidal Peace, 

Myakka and Caloosahatchee Rivers. 

Table 7.13: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of pH results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 821 7.20 9.00 8.09 0.01 8.20 4 

Tidal Myakka 107 7.20 8.60 7.78 0.03 7.80 1 

Tidal Peace 341 5.80 8.60 7.75 0.02 7.80 1 

East Wall 69 7.00 8.30 7.77 0.03 7.80 1 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 142 7.20 8.60 8.24 0.02 8.20 4 

Lower Charlotte 198 6.60 8.70 8.24 0.02 8.20 4 

Pine Island Sound 334 7.00 8.80 8.37 0.02 8.50 10 

Matlacha Pass 188 7.40 8.60 8.18 0.02 8.20 4 

San Carlos Bay 242 7.40 8.60 8.26 0.01 8.20 4 

Estero Bay 316 7.20 8.80 8.10 0.02 8.20 4 

All Sites 2758 5.80 9.00 8.10 0.01 8.20 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

57 

Table 7.14: CCHMN Summary and status of pH results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 634 7.03 8.33 7.83 0.01 7.83 4 

Tidal Myakka 515 6.70 9.32 7.80 0.01 7.81 2 

Tidal Peace 587 6.67 9.38 7.80 0.01 7.84 6 

West Wall 1024 5.96 8.65 7.89 0.01 7.91 8 

East Wall 1048 7.00 10.33 7.92 0.01 7.95 9 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 480 7.23 10.53 8.03 0.01 8.02 11 

Lower Charlotte 1222 7.12 8.17 7.81 0.00 7.81 2 

Pine Island Sound 244 5.74 8.62 7.96 0.02 8.03 12 

Matlacha Pass 344 5.64 8.47 7.77 0.02 7.83 4 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 252 5.60 9.07 7.68 0.03 7.75 1 

San Carlos Bay 413 7.37 8.33 7.95 0.01 7.96 10 

Estero Bay 226 6.10 8.45 7.79 0.02 7.84 6 

All Sites 6989 5.96 10.53 7.86 0.00 7.88 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

p

H

Figure 7.20: CHEVWQMN pH box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers 

and extremes are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

58 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

p

H

Figure 7.21: CHEVWQMN seasonal pH box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

p

H

Figure 7.22: CCHMN pH box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers and 

extremes are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

59 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

p

H

Figure 7.23: CCHMN seasonal pH box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

60 

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

p

H

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower C harlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

p

H 7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

p

H

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

p

H

29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.24: Time series plot of pH for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. 

Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic 

preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

61 

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower C harlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

W est W all

6.00

7.00

8.00

p

H

6.00

7.00

8.00

p

H

6.00

7.00

8.00

p

H

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date

6.00

7.00

8.00

pH

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date 29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date

Figure 7.25: Time series plot of pH for 2001 through 2007 for the CCHMN. Each 

line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

62 

Table 7.15: CHEVWQMN pH trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 72 1 0.000 0.006 1.0000 

Tidal Myakka 71 26 1.408 0.149 0.1592 

Tidal Peace 72 8 0.398 0.044 0.6906 

East Wall 69 18 1.056 0.108 0.2911 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 72 16 0.859 0.089 0.3901 

Lower Charlotte 72 -38 -2.153 -0.211 0.0313 -0.0100 8.235 

Pine Island Sound 71 3 0.115 0.017 0.9085 

Matlacha Pass 72 -1 0.000 -0.006 1.0000 0.0513 8.147 

San Carlos Bay 71 -36 -2.055 -0.206 0.0399 -0.0167 8.358 

Estero Bay 72 15 0.803 0.083 0.4217 

All Sites 72 -46 -2.455 -0.256 0.0141 -0.0144 7.985 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

Table 7.16: CCHMN pH trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 64 -20 -1.203 -0.141 0.2289 

Tidal Myakka 62 -30 -1.918 -0.227 0.0551 

Tidal Peace 63 -32 -1.996 -0.234 0.0460 -0.0400 8.030 

West Wall 63 -28 -1.728 -0.203 0.0839 

East Wall 63 -24 -1.472 -0.174 0.1409 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 64 2 0.063 0.014 0.9500 

Lower Charlotte 66 -29 -1.707 -0.193 0.0878 

Pine Island Sound 59 -48 -3.346 -0.407 0.0008 -0.1788 8.701 

Matlacha Pass 64 -42 -2.654 -0.309 0.0080 -0.0758 8.145 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 61 -29 -1.853 -0.223 0.0639 

San Carlos Bay 58 -5 -0.285 -0.043 0.7757 

Estero Bay 58 -31 -2.065 -0.258 0.0389 -0.1275 8.366 

All Sites 67 -20 -1.142 .0.129 0.2533 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section VI-G 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

63 

F. Salinity

1. Background 

Salinity is a driving force for many chemical, physical and biological 

processes in aquatic environments (Stickney 1984). Large variations in salinity 

are characteristic of many estuaries (e.g. McPherson et al 1996). Open ocean 

salinity ranges between 33 and 37 practical salinity units (psu; Colling 2004), 

whereas estuaries typically vary from less than 1 to greater than 40 psu (Stickney 

1984). Freshwater sources in estuaries include watershed runoff, direct fluvial 

input, and precipitation. During the rainy season, within the northern portion of 

Charlotte Harbor, vertical salinity stratification occurs due to increased freshwater 

inflows passing over denser saline bottom waters (Stoker 1992). In parts of 

Charlotte Harbor, differences of up to 20 psu have been observed between 

surface and bottom waters (Stoker 1992). 

 Variations in salinity may affect many biological, chemical and physical 

processes within the estuarine system. Many estuarine species are adapted to 

particular salinity ranges including fish (Bortone et. al. 2006), seagrass 

(Greenawalt et. al. 2006; Corbett et. al 2005; Chamberlain and Doering 1998) 

and shellfish (Baker et al. 2002). Additionally, salinity can influence the 

concentrations of DO and nutrients, as well (Stickney 1984). 

 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results

 Salinity summary statistics and status results from 2001-2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN are given in Tables 7.17 and 7.19, and Figures 7.26, 7.27 and 

7.30. Throughout the study period and region, salinity ranged from less than 0.1 

to 41.8 psu, with a median value of 28.5 psu and mean salinity of 25.4 psu. 

Salinity was significantly different (p<0.05) between estuaries. Pine Island 

Sound had the highest median salinity (32.6 psu), whereas Tidal Myakka had the 

lowest median salinity value (17.0 psu). Variation in salinity over the entire study 

duration was greatest in Lemon Bay, Tidal Peace and Estero Bay. Salinity 

variability from 2001 through 2007 was lowest in Lower Charlotte Harbor and 

San Carlos Bay. For region specific summary statistic and status results, see 

Appendix A. 

 Throughout the region, salinity during the dry season (median 29.8 psu) 

was significantly higher (p <0.05) than salinity in the rainy season (median 24.8 

psu). Between the estuaries, salinity was significantly higher in the dry season in 

all of the ten estuaries. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 

7.27, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. 

 From 2001 through 2007, salinity significantly increased in Tidal Myakka 

at a rate of 0.95 psu per year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are 

included in Figure 7.30, with detailed analysis results given in Table 7.19. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

64 

 Salinity summary statistics and status results from 2001-2007 for the 

CCHMN are given in Tables 7.18 and 7.20, and Figures 7.28, 7.29 and 7.31 

Throughout the study period and region, salinity ranged from less than 0.1 to 

48.4 psu, with a median value of 26.3 psu and mean salinity of 24.3 psu. Salinity 

was significantly different (p<0.05) between estuaries. Lemon Bay had the 

highest median salinity (34.1 psu), whereas Tidal Caloosahatchee had the lowest 

median salinity value (1.2 psu). Variation in salinity over the entire study duration 

was lowest in Gasparilla/Cape Haze. Salinity variability from 2001 through 2007 

was greatest in Lower Charlotte Harbor. For region specific summary statistic 

and status results, see Appendix A. 

 Throughout the region, salinity during the dry season (median 27.9 psu) 

was significantly higher (p <0.05) than salinity in the rainy season (median 22.7 

psu). Between the estuaries, salinity was significantly higher in the dry season in 

all of the twelve estuaries. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see 

Figure 7.29, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. 

 From 2001 through 2007, salinity decreased significantly within Pine 

Island Sound at a rate of approximately 2.2 psu per year. For visual trend 

assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 7.31, with detailed analysis 

results given in Table 7.20. 

4. Discussion 

Throughout the study region, period and by programs, salinity varied 

greatly. Salinity was significantly higher (p<0.05) for the CHEVWQMN 

throughout the entire region and study period. However, post hoc analyses 

showed this to be true for only Tidal Peace and Pine Island Sound. Whereas, 

the CCHMN was significantly higher in the Lower Charlotte Harbor and Lemon 

Bay, and there were no statistical difference in the remaining estuary regions. In 

addition, analyses by season across all regions and both programs showed that 

salinity values were significantly higher (p<0.05) during the dry season. The 

percent difference between the two programs for salinity was relatively small, and 

ranged from -11% in Tidal Peace, to approximately 7% in the East Wall 

(CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest salinity values typically occurred in areas 

of limited freshwater influence. Trend analyses for the two programs displayed 

an increasing trend for Tidal Myakka within the CHEVWQMN, and a decreasing 

trend for Pine Island Sound in the CCHMN. The differences in salinity between 

the two programs may be due to human error while reading the hydrometer for 

the CHEVWQMN, since one would expect salinities to be higher during the day 

due to evaporation. 

Seasonal fluctuations in salinity concentrations can be attributed to 

increased freshwater inflow to Charlotte Harbor during the rainy season (Stoker 

1992). Additional influences on variations in salinity within the Charlotte Harbor 

estuaries include alterations in hydrologic regimes including changes in runoff 

patterns, hydrologic alterations (Stoker 1992) and discharges and withdrawals 

from its tributaries (Chamberlain and Doering 1998). Disruptions in natural 

salinity regimes pose a risk to sessile organisms that are narrowly adapted to 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

65 

specific salinity ranges (e.g. Stoker 1992, Doering and Chamberlain 1998, 

Greenawalt et. al. 2006, Duffey et al 2007). 

Table 7.17: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of salinity (psu) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 819 0.00 40.70 26.26 0.38 30.20 7 

Tidal Myakka 106 2.10 30.50 15.29 0.79 17.00 1 

Tidal Peace 337 0.00 36.70 17.03 0.51 18.60 2 

East Wall 67 2.50 37.10 22.99 1.03 24.80 4 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 145 3.70 40.70 30.19 0.53 32.10 9 

Lower Charlotte 198 7.30 39.10 27.88 0.42 28.60 5 

Pine Island Sound 337 3.80 41.80 31.40 0.29 32.60 10 

Matlacha Pass 195 3.10 39.80 21.35 0.58 22.00 3 

San Carlos Bay 243 8.80 41.40 28.58 0.43 30.20 7 

Estero Bay 315 0.20 39.80 26.30 0.56 29.50 6 

All Sites 2762 0.00 41.80 25.44 0.19 28.50 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Table 7.18: CCHMN Summary and status of salinity (psu) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 634 6.94 37.53 33.26 0.13 34.06 12 

Tidal Myakka 529 0.15 31.32 14.08 0.36 14.70 2 

Tidal Peace 609 0.08 34.33 15.48 0.38 17.24 3 

West Wall 1051 1.99 36.30 22.57 0.21 23.83 5 

East Wall 1073 4.20 39.10 24.91 0.17 25.81 6 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 480 12.67 38.13 30.22 0.24 31.88 11 

Lower Charlotte 1221 3.92 48.40 29.45 0.16 30.86 10 

Pine Island Sound 246 5.30 39.00 29.00 0.35 30.00 9 

Matlacha Pass 356 4.90 36.00 20.91 0.38 21.45 4 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 286 0.00 30.80 5.28 0.43 1.20 1 

San Carlos Bay 425 0.01 37.81 28.67 0.32 29.99 8 

Estero Bay 226 0.00 39.20 26.47 0.63 29.85 7 

All Sites 7136 0.00 48.40 24.26 0.11 26.30 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

66 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

S

alinity (p

s

u)

Figure 7.26: CHEVWQMN salinity box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

S

alinity (p

s

u)

Figure 7.27: CHEVWQMN seasonal salinity box plot results for each estuary 

region. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

67 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

S

alinity (p

s

u)

Figure 7.28: CCHMN salinity box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers 

and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

S

alinity (p

s

u)

Figure 7.29: CCHMN seasonal salinity box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

68 

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Salinity (ps

u)

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower Charlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Salinity (ps

u) 10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Salinity (ps

u)

29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Salinity (ps

u)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.30: Time series plot of salinity (psu) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

69 

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

W est W all

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Salinity (ps

u) 0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Salinity (ps

u) 0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Salinity (ps

u)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Salinity (ps

u)

29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.31: Time series plot of salinity (psu) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CCHMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each 

aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

70 

Table 7.19: CHEVWQMN Salinity (psu) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlat

ion 

coeffici

ent 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 72 -7 -0.326 -0.039 0.7445 

Tidal Myakka 71 52 2.819 0.297 0.0048 0.9500 13.680 

Tidal Peace 72 -4 -0.163 -0.022 0.8708 

East Wall 67 4 0.178 0.026 0.8590 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 72 4 0.163 0.022 0.8704 

Lower Charlotte 72 -12 -0.597 -0.067 0.5508 

Pine Island Sound 71 -3 -0.111 -0.017 0.9118 

Matlacha Pass 72 -4 -0.163 -0.022 0.8704 

San Carlos Bay 71 -10 -0.497 -0.057 0.6189 

Estero Bay 72 -4 -0.163 -0.022 0.8708 

All Sites 72 -10 -0.488 -0.056 0.6255 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

Table 7.20: CCHMN Salinity (psu) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 64 -3 -0.126 -0.021 0.8999 

Tidal Myakka 64 18 1.067 0.127 0.2861 

Tidal Peace 64 6 0.314 0.042 0.7537 

West Wall 64 -2 -0.063 -0.014 0.9500 

East Wall 64 -4 -0.188 -0.028 0.8507 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 64 2 0.063 0.014 0.9500 

Lower Charlotte 66 6 0.304 0.040 0.7609 

Pine Island Sound 59 -32 -2.222 -0.271 0.0263 -2.180 38.63 

Matlacha Pass 64 -5 -0.253 -0.035 0.8004 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 64 8 0.449 0.056 0.6532 

San Carlos Bay 59 -14 -0.906 -0.117 0.3651 

Estero Bay 58 -22 -1.442 -0.183 0.1492 

All Sites 67 -9 -0.477 -0.058 0.6336 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section VI-G 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

71 

G. Nitrogen 

1. Background 

 Critical to the health of estuarine environments are nutrients, including 

nitrogen and phosphorus. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen primarily exists in 

estuarine systems in three forms; ammonia (NH3), nitrite (NO2

-

) and nitrate (NO3

-

; 

Stickney 1984). However, the nitrogen cycle in estuaries is complex due to the 

rapid uptake of inorganic nitrogen by photosynthetic organisms and constant 

remineralization. In addition, nitrate, under anoxic conditions, can be reduced to 

nitrite, ammonia, nitrogen gas, or nitrous oxide (Senga, et al 2006). Nitrate, and 

occasionally ammonia, is readily taken up by primary producers and converted to 

organic forms of nitrogen (Stickney 1984). Within the Charlotte Harbor 

watershed, the most common anthropogenic source of nitrogen is from fertilizer 

runoff (Castro et al 2003). 

Concentrations of dissolved nitrogen within estuaries are determined by 

physical and chemical factors in the system, and the proximity of sources and 

sinks. For example, decreases in DO concentrations may inhibit the nitrification 

of ammonia and nitrite to nitrate, resulting in increased concentrations of nitrite 

and ammonia (EPA 1993). Nitrogen may be influenced by salinity 

concentrations as well, with observed decreases in nitrite and nitrate at salinities 

greater than 20 psu (McPherson and Miller 1990). 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

 The proportion of total nitrogen, in organic or inorganic forms, was 

assessed to help guide the interpretation of total nitrogen results. The percent of 

organic nitrogen plus ammonia, as measured by TKN, was fairly consistent 

across all estuaries ranging from approximately 90% to nearly 100% of the total 

nitrogen throughout the region. High levels of organic nitrogen may be the result 

of the limited residence time of inorganic nitrogen within the water column due to 

rapid uptake of by primary producers (Stickney 1984). 

Total nitrogen summary statistics and status results are given in Table 

7.21 and Figures 7.32, 7.33 and 7.36. Total nitrogen varied significantly (p<0.05) 

across the study area, ranging from 0.06 to 4.6 parts per million (ppm). For 

region specific summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. 

 Total nitrogen varied seasonally throughout the region. Total nitrogen was 

significantly higher (p<0.05) during the rainy season for each estuary region. The 

difference between the rainy season (0.88 ppm) median and the dry season 

median (0.71 ppm) was approximately 0.17 ppm. For a visual comparison of 

seasonal results, see Figure 7.33, with detailed statistical results given in 

Appendix B. 

Trend analyses were not conducted on total nitrogen because more than 

50% of nitrate plus nitrite values and TKN were reported as equal to or lesser 

than the highest MDL. As a result, trend analysis for nitrogen for this study was 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

72 

not conducted. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are shown in 

Figure 7.36. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 

 The proportion of total nitrogen, in organic or inorganic forms, was 

assessed to help guide the interpretation of total nitrogen results. With two 

exceptions (Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay), the percent of organic nitrogen 

plus ammonia, as measured by TKN, was fairly consistent across all estuaries 

ranging from approximately 90% to nearly 100% of the total nitrogen throughout 

the region and study period. However, TKN represented 67.2% and 77.9% of 

total nitrogen in Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay, respectively. 

Total nitrogen summary statistics and status results are given in Tables 

7.22 and 7.23, and Figures 7.34, 7.35 and 7.37. Total nitrogen varied 

significantly (p<0.05) across the study area, ranging from 0.01 to 10.1 ppm. For 

region specific summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. 

 With the exception of Lemon Bay, Gasparilla/Cape Haze and Estero Bay, 

total nitrogen varied seasonally throughout the region. Total nitrogen was 

significantly higher (p<0.05) during the rainy season for each of the nine 

remaining estuary regions. The difference between the rainy season (0.71 ppm) 

median and the dry season median (0.55 ppm) was approximately 0.16 ppm. 

For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.35, with detailed 

statistical results given in Appendix B. 

Trend analyses were not conducted for Pine Island Sound, San Carlos 

and Estero Bays TN due to over 50% of nitrate plus nitrite and TKN values were 

reported as equal to or lesser than the highest MDL. However, significant 

decreasing trends were detected in six of the remaining estuary regions: Lemon 

Bay, the East and West Walls, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Matlacha Pass and Tidal 

Caloosahatchee, as well as for the region as a whole. The greatest rate of 

decrease was detected in Tidal Caloosahatchee, at a rate of approximately -0.1 

ppm per year. The remaining estuary regions did not demonstrate any statistical 

trends. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are shown in Figure 7.37, 

with detailed analysis results given in Table 7.23. 

4. Discussion 

 Throughout the study region, period and by programs, TN varied greatly. 

TN was significantly higher (p<0.05) for the CHEVWQMN throughout the entire 

region and study period. However, post hoc analyses showed no significant 

difference for Tidal Peace or Myakka. In addition, analyses by season across all 

regions and both programs showed that TN values were significantly higher 

(p<0.05) during the rainy season. The percent difference between the two 

programs for TN ranged from -41% in Matlacha Pass, to approximately 11% in 

Tidal Peace (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest TN values typically occurred 

within the tributaries. Trend analyses for TN were only conducted on the 

CCHMN, and therefore cannot be compared to the CHEVWQMN. The lower 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

73 

levels of TN detected by the CCHMN may be attributed to increased nutrient 

uptake by photosynthetic organisms during the daylight hours. 

Significant seasonal variation was observed, as well as a decreasing trend 

in TKN over the study period for the CCHMN, and may be due to decreased 

inflow from tributaries during dry seasons and drought years. Nitrogen primarily 

enters Charlotte Harbor via freshwater inflow from major tributaries: Peace 

(55%), Caloosahatchee (40%) and Myakka River (5%; Hammett 1990). The 

distribution and quantity of nitrogen in the region is largely the result of tidal 

flushing, nitrogen cycling, and freshwater sources (Forelich et al 1985; 

McPherson and Miller, 1990), and may have a diurnal component as well. 

Sources of excess nitrogen in the Charlotte Harbor region may include 

both point and nonpoint sources of urban and agricultural runoff and atmospheric 

deposition (Castro et al. 2003). Excess nitrogen could have serious impacts on 

the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, primarily due to increased algal production and 

lowered water clarity (Doering et. al 2006, Montgomery et al. 1991, Jaworksi 

1981), and consequently decrease the availability of light for seagrass growth 

(Corbett 2005). 

Table 7.21: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of TN (ppm) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 517 0.15 3.01 0.91 0.02 0.83 8 

Tidal Myakka 88 0.06 2.28 0.99 0.04 0.92 9 

Tidal Peace 289 0.08 4.60 1.05 0.03 0.96 10 

East Wall 57 0.15 2.02 0.81 0.05 0.76 5 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 117 0.11 2.53 0.95 0.05 0.78 6 

Lower Charlotte 171 0.11 2.35 0.74 0.03 0.67 1 

Pine Island Sound 296 0.11 4.30 0.83 0.03 0.72 3 

Matlacha Pass 168 0.06 2.47 0.85 0.03 0.81 7 

San Carlos Bay 206 0.09 2.93 0.72 0.03 0.67 1 

Estero Bay 267 0.13 4.05 0.78 0.03 0.74 4 

All Sites 2176 0.06 4.60 0.87 0.01 0.78 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

74 

Table 7.22: CCHMN Summary and status of TN (ppm) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 373 0.01 2.66 0.57 0.02 0.50 4 

Tidal Myakka 357 0.02 10.10 1.04 0.04 0.95 10 

Tidal Peace 376 0.06 6.63 1.14 0.04 1.05 11 

West Wall 552 0.01 3.31 0.81 0.02 0.71 9 

East Wall 560 0.01 2.85 0.69 0.02 0.61 8 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 314 0.04 2.23 0.64 0.02 0.55 7 

Lower Charlotte 468 0.01 1.91 0.47 0.01 0.41 2 

Pine Island Sound 242 0.03 1.98 0.58 0.02 0.51 5 

Matlacha Pass 276 0.10 2.47 0.48 0.02 0.45 3 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 292 0.34 2.66 1.14 0.02 1.10 12 

San Carlos Bay 259 0.15 1.45 0.44 0.01 0.40 1 

Estero Bay 226 0.12 1.70 0.62 0.02 0.54 6 

All Sites 4295 0.01 10.10 0.73 0.01 0.61 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n (p

p

m)

Figure 7.32: CHEVWQMN TN box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers 

and extremes are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

75 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n (p

p

m)

Figure 7.33: CHEVWQMN seasonal TN box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n (p

p

m)

Figure 7.34: CCHMN TN box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers and 

extremes are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

76 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n (p

p

m)

Figure 7.35: CCHMN seasonal TN box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

77 

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n

p( p

m)

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower C harlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n

p( p

m) 0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n

p( p

m)

29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n

p( p

m)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.36: Time series plot of TN (ppm) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

78 

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower C harlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

W est W all

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

T

otal Nitrog

e

n

p( p

m) 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n

p( p

m) 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n pp ( m)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

T

otal Nitro

g

e

n

p( p

m)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date 29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date

Figure 7.37: Time series plot of TN (ppm) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CCHMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each 

aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

79 

Table 7.23: CCHMN TN (ppm) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 72 -35 -2.073 -0.194 0.0382 -0.0000 0.501 

Tidal Myakka 70 6 0.282 0.035 0.7780 

Tidal Peace 70 -35 -1.922 -0.206 0.0546 

West Wall 72 -45 -2.448 -0.250 0.0144 -0.0345 0.819 

East Wall 71 -65 -3.747 -0.371 0.0002 -0.0300 0.690 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 71 -21 -1.155 -0.120 0.2480 

Lower Charlotte 66 -37 -2.686 -0.247 0.0072 -0.0000 0.500 

Pine Island Sound * * * * * 

Matlacha Pass 64 -31 -2.156 -0.220 0.0311 -0.0000 0.500 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 65 -41 -2.476 -0.281 0.0133 -0.1050 1.487 

San Carlos Bay * * * * * 

Estero Bay * * * * * 

All Sites 72 -55 -3.075 -0.306 0.0021 -0.0358 0.750 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section VI-G 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

80 

J. Phosphorus

1. Background 

 Like nitrogen, phosphorus is essential for all aquatic life. Phosphorus is 

considered to be the ultimate limiting nutrient over geological time scales, due to 

its long residence time within the world’s oceans (Benitez-Nelson 2000, Duffey et 

al 2007). However, due to the local geology, Charlotte Harbor and the 

surrounding region are enriched with phosphorus (Froelich et al 1985). 

Phosphorus enters the aquatic system mostly in inorganic forms (P2O4 and PO4

3-

) from fluvial sources due to crustal weathering and from anthropogenic sources 

such as fertilizer runoff, and to a lesser extent by atmospheric deposition. 

Phosphorus may be rapidly recycled from inorganic to organic forms numerous 

times prior to burial or being flushed from the system (Benitez-Nelson 2000). For 

this study, phosphorus is the total concentration of organic and inorganic forms of 

phosphorus. 

 Phosphorus levels in estuaries are a function of physical processes that 

occur naturally within the aquatic environment. For example, when under low 

DO conditions, phosphorus bound to sediment particles is released back into the 

water column, resulting in increased dissolved phosphorus (EPA 1993). In most 

aquatic systems, primary production is limited by the concentration of 

phosphorus in the water column, however in the Charlotte Harbor region, the 

availability of nitrogen, rather than phosphorus, limits production, although the 

relationship varies (Montgomery et al 1991). Although phosphorus is not the 

primary limiting nutrient in Charlotte Harbor, excess phosphorus in the system 

could pose serious risks to the region (Martin and Kim 1977). 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

 Phosphorus summary statistics and status results are given in Table 7.24 

and Figures 7.38, 7.39 and 7.42. Total phosphorus (TP) varied significantly 

(p<0.05) across the study area ranging from 0.005 to 2.6 ppm. For region 

specific summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. 

 Region wide phosphorus varied seasonally across during the study period 

(p<0.05). TP was significantly higher (p<0.05) during the rainy season in Pine 

Island Sound and Tidal Peace. There were no significant seasonal differences in 

TP in any other estuary regions. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, 

see Figure 7.39, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. 

 Trend analysis was not conducted on TP because over 50% of samples 

were reported as equal to or lesser than the highest MDL. For visual trend 

assessment, time series plots are shown in Figure 7.42. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 

 Phosphorus summary statistics and status results are given in Table 7.25 

and Figures 7.40, 7.41 and 7.43. Total phosphorus (TP) varied significantly 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

81 

(p<0.05) across the study area ranging from 0.005 to 3.7 ppm. For region 

specific summary statistic and status results, see Appendix A. 

 Region wide phosphorus varied seasonally across during the study period 

(p<0.05). TP was significantly higher (p<0.05) during the rainy season. 

However, post hoc comparisons revealed that this was only true for: Pine Island 

Sound, the West Wall and Tidal Peace. For a visual comparison of seasonal 

results, see Figure 7.41, with detailed statistical results given in Appendix B. 

 Trend analyses were not conducted on TP because over 50% of samples 

were reported as equal to or lesser than the highest MDL. For visual trend 

assessment, time series plots are shown in Figure 7.43. 

4. Discussion 

Throughout the study region and period, TP varied greatly. TP was 

significantly higher (p<0.05) for the CHEVWQMN in Lemon Bay and was 

significantly higher in the CCHMN for Tidal Myakka, with no significant 

differences anywhere else in the region. In addition, analyses by season for both 

programs showed that TP values were significantly higher (p<0.05) during the 

rainy season in Tidal Peace, the West Wall and Pine Island Sound. The percent 

difference between the two programs for TP ranged from -44% in Pine Island 

Sound, to approximately 48% in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze (CCHMN: 

CHEVWQMN). The highest TP values typically occurred within the tributaries. 

The lack of difference between the two programs is possibly due to phosphorus 

not being the limiting nutrient in Charlotte Harbor. 

Sources of phosphorus in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries include runoff 

from fertilizers, phosphate mining, and waste water treatment, as well as from 

natural deposits within the watershed (EPA 1993, Fourqurean and Cai 2001). In 

the Charlotte Harbor region, freshwater flow from the Peace River Basin is the 

major source of phosphorus entering the estuary, and accounts for approximately 

85% of the TP loads (Morrison et al 1998, Hammett 1990). 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

82 

Table 7.24: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of total phosphorus (ppm) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 569 0.01 1.08 0.15 0.00 0.12 7 

Tidal Myakka 98 0.02 0.50 0.21 0.01 0.19 9 

Tidal Peace 314 0.04 1.50 0.40 0.01 0.34 10 

East Wall 63 0.03 0.59 0.17 0.01 0.15 8 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 128 0.01 0.35 0.09 0.01 0.07 4 

Lower Charlotte 185 0.01 0.42 0.12 0.01 0.11 6 

Pine Island Sound 311 0.01 2.60 0.08 0.01 0.05 1 

Matlacha Pass 181 0.01 0.29 0.09 0.00 0.08 5 

San Carlos Bay 222 0.01 0.27 0.07 0.00 0.06 2 

Estero Bay 286 0.01 1.00 0.07 0.01 0.06 2 

All Sites 2357 0.01 2.60 0.15 0.00 0.09 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Table 7.25: CCHMN Summary and status of total phosphorus (ppm) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 377 0.010 1.30 0.12 0.01 0.07 5 

Tidal Myakka 368 0.010 3.71 0.27 0.01 0.22 11 

Tidal Peace 387 0.010 2.33 0.40 0.01 0.35 12 

West Wall 565 0.010 1.62 0.23 0.01 0.17 10 

East Wall 568 0.010 0.87 0.18 0.01 0.13 9 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 330 0.010 1.26 0.13 0.01 0.10 7 

Lower Charlotte 468 0.010 0.80 0.10 0.00 0.07 5 

Pine Island Sound 242 0.005 0.80 0.05 0.00 0.04 1 

Matlacha Pass 287 0.050 0.57 0.07 0.00 0.05 3 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 292 0.020 0.43 0.11 0.00 0.10 7 

San Carlos Bay 290 0.010 0.82 0.07 0.00 0.05 3 

Estero Bay 226 0.005 0.20 0.05 0.00 0.04 1 

All Sites 4400 0.005 3.71 0.16 0.00 0.10 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

83 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

T

otal P

h

o

s

p

h

oru

s (p

p

m)

Figure 7.38: CHEVWQMN TP box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers 

and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

T

otal P

h

o

s

p

h

oru

s (p

p

m)

Figure 7.39: CHEVWQMN seasonal TP box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

84 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

T

otal P

h

o

s

p

h

oru

s (p

p

m)

Figure 7.40: CCHMN TP box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers and 

extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

T

otal P

h

o

s

p

h

oru

s (p

p

m)

Figure 7.41: CCHMN seasonal TP box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

85 

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

To at l Phosphorus (ppm)

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower Charlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

To at l Phosphorus (ppm) 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

To at l Phosphorus (ppm)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

To at l Phosphorus (ppm)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.42: Time series plot of TP (ppm) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

86 

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower C harlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

W est W all

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

T

otal P

h

o

s. (p

p

m) 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

T

otal P

h

o

s. (p

p

m) 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

T

otal P

h

o

s. (p

p

m)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

T

otal P

h

o

s. (p

p

m)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date 29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- A

Y-2007

Date

Figure 7.43: Time series plot of TP (ppm) for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CCHMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each 

aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

87 

K. Chlorophyll a

1. Background 

 Chlorophyll a concentrations within the water column are an estimate of 

the amount of phytoplankton within a water body. The amount of chlorophyll a 

within an estuary varies seasonally and spatially based on responses to 

temperature, nutrient levels and light availability. Increased levels of chlorophyll 

a generally result from an excess of nutrients, primarily nitrogen in the Charlotte 

Harbor estuaries, within the water column (Montgomery et al. 1991). Because 

photosynthetic production is limited by the availability of nutrients in the system, 

chlorophyll a concentrations are commonly used to estimate the degree of 

eutrophication within the estuary (e.g., Doering et. al. 2006). 

 For this study, chlorophyll a concentrations were estimated without 

correction for pheophytin. Subsequently chlorophyll a concentrations may be 

overestimated when the quantity of pheophytin is substantial. 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

 Chlorophyll a concentration summary statistics and status results from the 

CHEVWQMN are given in Table 7.26 and Figures 7.44, 7.45 and 7.48. 

Chlorophyll a levels were significantly different (p<0.05) across the study region 

and period, ranging from 0.01 to 119.00 μg/L. Tidal Peace and Myakka Rivers 

had the highest chlorophyll a values of all ten estuary regions, with median 

values greater than 6.00 μg/L. Chlorophyll a concentrations were lowest in 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. For site 

specific summary statistics and status results, see Appendix A. 

Chlorophyll a varied seasonally across the study region, with the 

exception of Tidal Peace and Caloosahatchee Rivers. During the rainy season 

the chlorophyll a median value of 5.98 μg/L was significantly higher (p<0.05) than 

the dry season median value of 4.18 μg/L for all estuary regions combined. For a 

visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.45, with detailed statistical 

results given in Appendix B. 

Chlorophyll a results were compared to state regulatory criteria to 

characterize the status of CHEVWQMN results. The Impaired Waters Rule, 62-

303.353 FAC states that estuarine waters are impaired if annual mean 

chlorophyll a levels exceed 11 μg/L, or data indicate an increase of 50% or more 

from historical values for at least two consecutive years. Annual mean 

exceedances, as well as frequency of exceedances over 11 μg/L were analyzed 

for each estuary region. For annual means exceeding 11 μg/L, see Appendix C. 

Chlorophyll a annual means exceeded 11 μg/L in all regions for at least 

one year except in Pine Island Sound and Estero Bay. Annual means exceeded 

11 μg/L most frequently in 2002, with no exceedances in 2003, 2004 or 2007. 

Tidal Peace was the only region to exceeded chlorophyll a standards more than 

one year. For annual means exceeding 11 μg/L, see Appendix C. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

88 

 Trend analyses were not conducted for chlorophyll a because over 50% of 

samples were reported as equal to or less than the highest MDL. For visual 

trend assessment, time series plots are shown in Figure 7.48. 

 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 

 Chlorophyll a concentration summary statistics and status results from the 

CCHMN are given in Tables 7.27 and 7.28, and Figures 7.46, 7.47 and 7.49. 

Chlorophyll a levels were significantly different (p<0.05) across the study region 

and period, ranging from 0.01 to 168.00 μg/L. Tidal Peace had the highest 

chlorophyll a values of all twelve estuary regions, with a median value of 7.00 

μg/L. Chlorophyll a concentrations were lowest in Lower Charlotte Harbor, Pine 

Island Sound and San Carlos Bay. For region specific summary statistics and 

status results, see Appendix A. 

 Chlorophyll a varied seasonally across the study region. During the rainy 

season the chlorophyll a median value of 5.63 μg/L was significantly higher 

(p<0.05) than the dry season median value of 3.00 μg/L for all estuary regions 

combined. Surprisingly, chlorophyll a concentrations did not vary seasonally in 

Tidal Peace, Tidal Caloosahatchee or San Carlos Bay. For a visual comparison 

of seasonal results, see Figure 7.47, with detailed statistical results given in 

Appendix B. 

As with the CHEVWQMN, chlorophyll a results were compared to state 

regulatory criteria to characterize the status of CCHMN results. Chlorophyll a

annual means exceeded 11 μg/L in all regions for at least one year except in 

Lower Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and 

Estero Bay. Annual means exceeded 11 μg/L most frequently in 2001, with no 

exceedances in 2003 or 2007. Tidal Myakka was the only region to exceeded 

chlorophyll a standards three years (2001, 2002, and 2006). For annual means 

exceeding 11 μg/L, see Appendix C. 

 Trend analyses were not conducted for chlorophyll a for Pine Island 

Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay or Estero Bay because over 50% of 

samples were reported as equal to or less than the highest MDL. Three estuary 

regions had significant decreasing trends for chlorophyll a: Lemon Bay, Lower 

Charlotte Harbor and Tidal Caloosahatchee, as well as for the region as a whole. 

The rate of decrease was greatest in Tidal Caloosahatchee, at a rate of -1.69 

μg/L per year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are shown in 

Figure 7.49, with detailed analysis results given in Table 7.28. 

4. Discussion 

Throughout the study region, period and for programs, chlorophyll a varied 

greatly. Chlorophyll a was significantly higher (p<0.05) for the CHEVWQMN. 

However post hoc comparisons revealed that there were no significant 

differences in Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace or the East Wall, and that the CCHMN 

was higher for Matlacha Pass and Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze. In addition, 

analyses by season for both programs showed that chlorophyll a values were 

significantly higher (p<0.05) during the rainy season in all regions, except for 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

89 

Tidal Peace and Caloosahatchee Rivers. The percent difference between the 

two programs for chlorophyll a ranged from -41% in Lower Charlotte Harbor, to 

over 28% in the East Wall (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest chlorophyll a

values typically occurred within the tributaries. The difference between the two 

programs is possibly due the diurnal nature of phytoplankton, however one would 

expect the CCHMN to have greater values in all regions for this reason. 

Chlorophyll a was frequently observed above state regulatory criteria of 11 

μg/L. Tidal Peace and Myakka had the highest median chlorophyll a 

concentrations and had annual means greater than 11 μg/L most often. Trends 

for the CCHMN showed that chlorophyll a concentrations are generally 

decreasing during the study period. 

In the Charlotte Harbor region, previous studies indicate that increased 

chlorophyll a concentrations are primarily due to increased inorganic nitrogen 

concentrations (Montgomery et al. 1991, McPherson et al 1996, Doering et. al. 

2006). This study appears to further support this notion, considering that all the 

regions with decreasing chlorophyll a trends also had decreasing TN trends. 

Chlorophyll a concentrations in southwest Florida vary seasonally and spatially 

with nutrient levels, freshwater inputs and light attenuation (Doering et al. 2006, 

Montgomery et al. 1991). Effects of increased chlorophyll a levels in the 

Charlotte Harbor region include: increased light attenuation (Doering et al 2006, 

Ott et. al. 2006) and hypoxia (Doering et al 2006). 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

90 

Table 7.26: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of chlorophyll a (μg/L) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 502 0.01 54.30 7.12 0.26 5.01 6 

Tidal Myakka 89 0.73 54.20 9.03 0.81 6.94 9 

Tidal Peace 265 0.01 65.60 10.41 0.57 7.42 10 

East Wall 54 1.00 15.89 5.10 0.39 3.84 3 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 113 1.00 119.00 5.93 1.05 3.48 2 

Lower Charlotte 160 0.01 75.80 7.13 0.58 5.10 6 

Pine Island Sound 256 0.01 47.70 7.27 0.40 5.01 6 

Matlacha Pass 152 1.00 34.10 5.69 0.39 3.84 3 

San Carlos Bay 186 0.01 68.00 5.18 0.41 3.29 1 

Estero Bay 241 0.01 114.00 6.18 0.51 4.48 5 

All Sites 2018 0.01 119.00 7.14 0.16 4.89 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Table 7.27: CCHMN Summary and status of chlorophyll a (μg/L) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 368 1.00 62.00 6.06 0.32 4.39 8 

Tidal Myakka 366 1.00 100.00 9.59 0.55 6.78 11 

Tidal Peace 385 1.00 149.00 10.87 0.72 7.00 12 

West Wall 564 1.00 168.00 7.42 0.48 4.72 9 

East Wall 565 1.00 96.00 6.09 0.34 3.49 6 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 328 1.00 43.00 7.13 0.42 4.00 7 

Lower Charlotte 465 0.50 36.90 3.92 0.21 2.36 3 

Pine Island Sound 241 0.29 28.00 4.55 0.28 2.90 4 

Matlacha Pass 196 0.10 25.00 3.82 .30 2.23 2 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 287 0.50 120.00 9.63 0.86 4.73 10 

San Carlos Bay 283 0.01 20.50 3.01 0.17 2.00 1 

Estero Bay 226 0.50 109.00 4.55 0.51 3.10 5 

All Sites 4274 0.01 205.00 8.08 0.22 4.00 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

91 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

C

h

ol ro

p

h

yll a (u

g

L/ )

Figure 7.44: CHEVWQMN chlorophyll a box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

C

h

ol ro

p

h

yll a (u

g

L/ )

Figure 7.45: CHEVWQMN seasonal chlorophyll a box plot results for each 

estuary region. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

92 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

C

h

ol ro

p

h

yll a (u

g

L/ )

Figure 7.46: CCHMN chlorophyll a box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

C

h

ol ro

p

h

yll a (u

g

L/ )

Figure 7.47: CCHMN seasonal chlorophyll a box plot results for each estuary 

region. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

93 

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

C

hloro

p

h

yll a (u

g

L/ )

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower Charlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

C

hloro

p

h

yll a (u

g

L/ ) 0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

C

hloro

p

h

yll a (u

g

L/ )

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

C

hloro

p

h

yll a (u

g

L/ )

29-AUG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.48: Time series plot of chlorophyll a for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

94 

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

W est W all

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower C harlotte Harb

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Estero Bay

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

Chl

orophyll a (ug L) /

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

Chl

orophyll a (ug L) /

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

Chl

orophyll a (ug L) /

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

Chl

orophyll a (ug L) /

29-AUG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date 29-AUG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.49: Time series plot of chlorophyll a for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CCHMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each 

aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

95 

Table 7.28: CCHMN Chlorophyll a (μg/L) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 71 -38 -2.203 -0.217 0.0276 -0.2200 5.620 

Tidal Myakka 72 36 1.904 0.200 0.0569 

Tidal Peace 72 -6 -0.274 -0.033 0.7842 

West Wall 72 -7 -0.339 -0.039 0.7345 

East Wall 71 -13 -0.761 -0.074 0.4464 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 72 -11 -0.586 -0.061 0.5582 

Lower Charlotte 66 -60 -4.389 -0.400 <0.0001 -0.0500 3.175 

Pine Island Sound * * * * * 

Matlacha Pass * * * * * 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 64 -67 -4.246 -0.475 <0.0001 -1.6880 12.380 

San Carlos Bay * * * * * 

Estero Bay * * * * * 

All Sites 72 -43 -2.415 -0.239 0.0157 -0.1267 4.606 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section IV-H 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

96 

L. Fecal Coliform Bacteria

1. Background 

 Fecal coliform bacteria are microorganisms that live in the digestive tracts 

of warm blooded animals. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in the water 

column is a predictor of fecal pollution and may indicate the presence of 

pathogens and viruses that pose risks to human health. Fecal coliform 

concentrations in coastal waters are controlled by an array of physical, chemical 

and biological factors (e.g. Duffey et al 2007). The presence of coliform bacteria 

in the estuarine environment decreases as salinity and temperature increase 

(Rhode and Kator 1988). Moreover, increased light penetration through the 

water column reduces fecal coliform bacteria viability (Fujioka et al 1981). 

Furthermore, competition from other microbial communities may limit the 

presence and productivity of fecal coliforms in estuarine waters (Rhode and 

Kator 1988). As a result, survival and persistence of fecal coliforms may be 

greater in areas exhibiting increased light attenuation, as well as lower salinity 

and temperature conditions (e.g. Duffey et al 2007). 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

 Fecal coliform bacteria summary statistics and status results from 2001 - 

2007 are given in Tables 7.29 and 7.31, and Figures 7.50, 7.51 and 7.54. Fecal 

coliform counts varied across the study region and period, ranging from 2 to 

2,850 cfu/100mL. The median coliform value for all sites was 7 cfu/100mL. 

Lemon Bay, Tidal Peace and the East Wall had the highest median coliform 

values of 20 cfu/100mL each. Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and Lower 

Charlotte Harbor had the lowest fecal coliform medians of 2 cfu/100mL each. 

 Across the study region, fecal coliform counts were not significantly 

different between rainy season and dry season. However, post hoc analyses 

showed that in Tidal Myakka the rainy season was significantly higher. For a 

visual comparison of results, see Figure 7.51 with detailed seasonal comparisons 

in Appendix B. 

 Additional analyses comparing results to state regulatory criteria were 

conducted to characterize the status of fecal coliform bacteria for each estuary 

region. No exceedances of either the 200 or 400 cfu/100mL standards were 

observed over the duration of the study. However, nine samples from Lemon 

Bay and one sample from Tidal Peace exceeded the 800 cfu/100mL standard. 

For detailed results of state fecal criteria, see Appendix C. 

 Fecal coliform counts significantly changed from 2001 through 2007 in two 

estuary regions. Coliform counts significantly decreased in Tidal Myakka and 

Peace at 8 and 4 cfu/100mL per year, respectively. For visual trend assessment, 

time series plots are included in Figure 7.54, with detailed analysis results given 

in Table 7.31. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

97 

 Fecal coliform bacteria summary statistics and status results from 2001 - 

2007 are given in Table 7.30 and Figures 7.52 and 7.53. Fecal coliform counts 

varied significantly (p<0.05) across the study region and period, ranging from 1 to 

280 cfu/100mL. The median coliform value for the entire study area and duration 

was 2 cfu/100mL. Tidal Caloosahatchee had the highest median coliform value 

of 5 cfu/100mL. Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Estero 

Bay had the lowest fecal coliform medians of 2 cfu/100mL. Lemon Bay, Tidal 

Peace, Tidal Myakka, East Wall, West Wall, Gasparilla/Cape Haze and Lower 

Charlotte Harbor were not sampled for fecal coliforms by the CCHMN during this 

time. 

 Across the study region, fecal coliform counts were not significantly 

different between rainy season and dry season. Estero Bay was the only region 

to have significantly higher fecal coliform values during the rainy season. For a 

visual comparison of results, see Figure 7.53 with detailed seasonal comparisons 

in Appendix B. 

Additional analyses comparing results to state regulatory criteria were 

conducted to characterize the status of fecal coliform bacteria for each estuary 

region. Fecal bacteria exceedances of all standards were never observed over 

the duration of the study. For detailed results of state fecal criteria, see Appendix 

C. 

 Fecal coliform trends could not be conducted, due to the limited sample 

size. 

4. Discussion 

Throughout the study region and period, fecal coliforms did not vary 

greatly. However, between programs, fecal coliforms did vary significantly 

(p<0.05), with the CHEVWQMN having higher coliform levels then the CCHMN. 

However, post hoc analyses revealed no statistical difference for Matlacha Pass. 

The percent difference between the two programs for fecal coliforms ranged from 

-69% in Pine Island Sound, to over 203% in Matlacha Pass (CCHMN: 

CHEVWQMN). The highest coliform values typically occurred within the in 

Lemon Bay. The difference between the two programs is possibly due photodegradation of fecal bacteria during the day. 

Fecal coliform bacteria were generally below detection limits for most sites 

across the Charlotte Harbor estuaries for the study period and by program. 

Individual fecal coliform bacteria counts exceeded state standards in Lemon Bay 

and Tidal Peace River. No significant difference was observed between 

seasonal medians, with the exception of Tidal Myakka. Two trends in fecal 

coliform were observed in the CHEVWQMN from 2001 through 2007, with rates 

of change of 4 cfu/100mL or greater. 

In Lemon Bay, faulty septic systems and urban storm water outfalls 

located close to sampling sites, as well as waste water sites, may be the source 

of high fecal coliform concentrations and require future investigations. However, 

the relationship between sources of fecal pollution and the presence of fecal 

coliform bacteria within the estuarine environment are not well understood in the 

Charlotte Harbor region. Thorough examinations of these relationships are 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

98 

necessary to assess the effects of fecal pollution as it relates to estuarine and 

human health. 

Table 7.29: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 592 1 2850 106.38 10.81 20 8 

Tidal Myakka 103 1 288 37.07 5.45 12 7 

Tidal Peace 330 1 1200 46.96 5.10 20 8 

East Wall 67 2 800 60.33 15.81 20 8 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 134 1 280 22.04 3.59 6 5 

Lower Charlotte 195 1 152 10.38 1.47 2 1 

Pine Island Sound 329 1 352 14.22 2.34 2 1 

Matlacha Pass 191 1 106 8.76 1.11 2 1 

San Carlos Bay 237 1 274 10.68 1.69 4 4 

Estero Bay 300 1 800 48.80 5.90 9 6 

All Sites 2478 1 2850 46.34 2.93 7 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Table 7.30: CCHMN Summary and status of fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Pine Island Sound 222 2 74 4.31 0.62 2 1 

Matlacha Pass 11 1 280 28.64 25.15 2 1 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 39 2 88 11.44 2.83 4 5 

San Carlos Bay 71 2 50 4.85 0.92 2 1 

Estero Bay 220 2 204 15.48 2.10 2 1 

All Sites 563 1 280 9.71 1.03 2 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

99 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

F

e

c

al C

olifo

mr B

a

cter ai (cfu 1/ 0

0

m

L)

Figure 7.50: CHEVWQMN fecal coliform box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

F

e

c

al C

ol ifo

mr B

a

cter ai (cfu 1/ 0

0

m

L)

Figure 7.51: CHEVWQMN seasonal fecal coliform box plot results for each 

estuary region. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

100 

Estero Bay

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

F

e

c

al C

olifo

mr (cfu 1/ 0

0

m

L)

Figure 7.52: CCHMN fecal coliform box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Estero Bay Matlacha Pass Pine Island Sound San Carlos Bay Tidal C aloosahatchee

Estuary Region

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

F

e

c

al C

olifo

mr (cfu/10

0

m

L)

Figure 7.53: CCHMN seasonal fecal coliform box plot results for each estuary 

region. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

101 

0.00

250.00

500.00

750.00

cfu 1/ 0

0

m

L

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower C harlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

0.00

250.00

500.00

750.00

cfu 1/ 0

0

m

L

0.00

250.00

500.00

750.00

cfu 1/ 0

0

m

L

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

250.00

500.00

750.00

cfu 1/ 0

0

m

L

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.54: Time series plot of fecal coliform for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

102 

Table 7.31: CHEVWQMN Fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlatio

n 

coefficie

nt 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 70 -18 -0.961 -0.106 0.3363 

Tidal Myakka 67 -67 -4.054 -0.432 0.0001 -8.0000 52.000 

Tidal Peace 70 -43 -2.364 -0.253 0.0181 -4.0000 36.500 

East Wall 67 -11 -0.600 -0.071 0.5484 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 70 -30 -1.651 -0.176 0.0988 

Lower Charlotte 70 -32 -1.955 -0.188 0.0505 

Pine Island Sound 69 -26 -1.925 -0.158 0.0542 

Matlacha Pass 70 4 0.187 0.024 0.8515 

San Carlos Bay 69 9 0.498 0.055 0.6187 

Estero Bay 70 -28 -1.550 -0.165 0.1211 

All Sites 70 -44 -2.528 -0.259 0.0115 -0.4000 6.400 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section VI-G 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

103 

M. Turbidity

1. Background 

 Turbidity is an estimate of suspended particulate matter, including both 

organic and inorganic material, within the water column. Increases in turbidity 

can result from resuspension of sediments due to wind and wave action, storm 

water runoff from the watershed, erosion, etc. Excessive turbidity in estuaries 

has a variety of physical and biological effects, including increased light 

attenuation (Kirk 1983, McPherson and Miller 1994, Ott et al 2006), as well as 

potentially decreasing growth and productivity, and thereby survival, of shellfish 

(Volety and Encomio 2006). 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

 Turbidity summary statistics and status results from the 2001-2007 

CHEVWQMN are given in Tables 7.32 and 7.34, and Figures 7.55, 7.56 and 

7.59. Turbidity levels varied significantly (p<0.05) over the study region and 

period and ranged from 0.1 to 120.00 NTU. The median value from all sites was 

2.4 NTU. Estero Bay had the highest median turbidity value of 3.6 NTU. 

 Turbidity levels varied seasonally across the Charlotte Harbor region. For 

all sites, the median turbidity value of 2.5 NTU in the dry season was significantly 

higher (p<0.05) than the rainy season median of 2.3 NTU. Although turbidity 

varied seasonally across the entire study region, post hoc comparisons revealed 

only Tidal Peace, Estero Bay and Matlacha Pass exhibited significant (p<0.05) 

seasonal differences. For visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 

7.56, with detailed seasonal comparisons in Appendix B. 

A generalized analysis comparing results to state regulatory criteria was 

conducted to characterize the status of turbidity for each site. Florida Surface 

Water Quality Standards state that turbidity shall never exceed 29 NTU, or above 

natural background conditions. Due to the absence of defined background 

turbidity levels in the Charlotte Harbor region, 29 NTU was used for the 

regulatory analyses. Only six samples across the study region exceeded 29 

NTU, at five different sites located in Pine Island Sound and Lemon, San Carlos 

and Estero Bays. Site EBV004 was the only site to exceed these criteria more 

than once. 

 Turbidity trends varied significantly from 2001 through 2007 in three of the 

ten estuary regions. Significant increases (p<0.05) were detected in Tidal Peace, 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze and Estero Bay. Rates of annual increase ranged from 

approximately 0.2 to 0.3 NTU per year. For visual trend assessment, time series 

plots are included in Figure 7.59, with detailed analysis results given in Table 

7.34. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 

 Turbidity summary statistics and status results from the 2001-2007 

CCHMN are given in Tables 7.33 and 7.35 and Figures 7.57, 7.58 and 7.60. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

104 

Turbidity levels varied significantly (p<0.05) over the study region and period and 

ranged from 0.02 to 64.9 NTU. The median value from all sites was 2.1 NTU. 

Tidal Peace had the highest median turbidity value of 3.7 NTU. 

 Turbidity levels did not vary seasonally across the Charlotte Harbor 

region. For all sites, the median dry season turbidity value was 2.1 NTU and the 

rainy season median was 2.2 NTU. Although turbidity had not varied seasonally 

across the entire study region, post hoc comparisons revealed that the East Wall, 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze, Lower Charlotte Harbor and Matlacha Pass exhibited 

significant (p<0.05) seasonal differences. For visual comparison of seasonal 

results, see Figure 7.58, with detailed seasonal comparisons in Appendix B. 

A generalized analysis comparing results to state regulatory criteria was 

conducted to characterize the status of turbidity for each site. Only two samples 

across the study region exceeded 29 NTU, in two different regions: Tidal Peace 

and the East Wall. 

 Turbidity trends decreased significantly from 2001 through 2007 in four of 

the twelve estuary regions. Significant decreases (p<0.05) were detected in 

Lemon Bay, East Wall, Gasparilla/Cape Haze and Lower Charlotte Harbor. 

Rates of annual decrease ranged from nearly 0.0 to 0.3 NTU per year. For visual 

trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 7.60, with detailed 

analysis results given in Table 7.35. 

4. Discussion

 Throughout the study region and programs, turbidity varied greatly. 

However, between seasons, turbidity did not vary significantly for the region, with 

exception of the East Wall, Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze and Matlacha Pass 

being greater in the rainy season, whereas Lower Charlotte Harbor, Tidal 

Caloosahatchee and Estero Bay were higher in the dry season. Turbidity values 

were significantly higher in the CHEVWQMN. However, post hoc analyses 

revealed that the CCHMN values were greater for Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka and 

Tidal Peace, while there were no statistical differences in the East Wall or 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze. The percent difference between the two programs 

for turbidity ranged from -44% for San Carlos Bay, to approximately 58% in 

Lemon Bay (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest turbidity values typically 

occurred within Tidal Peace and Myakka, and Estero Bay. The difference 

between the two programs is possibly due the sampling locations in the 

programs. 

Suspended particulates within the water column result from a diverse 

assortment of sources, including: sediment loading from fluvial sources, coastal 

erosion, resuspension due to wind, wave and boat action, tidal influences, and 

dredging activities. The relative contribution of these sources to turbidity levels 

varies spatially and temporally. Inputs from the Myakka, Peace and 

Caloosahatchee Rivers are primary sources of sediment loading within Charlotte 

Harbor (Hammett 1990); with nonpoint sources contributing nearly 97% of the 

total suspended solids load (Squires et. al. 1997). In shallow estuaries, however, 

resuspension of sediments by wind and wave action may be the primary source 

of increased turbidity (de Jorge and Beusekom 1995). The extent to which each 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

105 

of these contributes to fluctuations in turbidity within the system is primarily 

determined by water depth, sediment type and tidal influences (e.g. Duffey et al 

2007). 

Table 7.32: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of turbidity (NTU) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 599 0.56 66.00 2.85 0.13 2.40 5 

Tidal Myakka 104 0.96 6.90 2.85 0.14 2.56 7 

Tidal Peace 331 0.77 24.00 3.45 0.14 2.90 9 

East Wall 67 1.00 7.80 2.08 0.15 1.74 1 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 137 0.64 24.00 2.80 0.19 2.42 6 

Lower Charlotte 196 0.50 8.00 2.23 0.10 1.87 2 

Pine Island Sound 329 0.26 34.00 3.05 0.19 2.06 4 

Matlacha Pass 190 0.10 21.00 2.34 0.14 1.90 3 

San Carlos Bay 236 0.45 120.00 3.58 0.51 2.60 8 

Estero Bay 301 0.13 60.00 5.09 0.37 3.60 10 

All Sites 2490 0.10 120.00 3.18 0.08 2.40 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Table 7.33: CCHMN Summary and status of turbidity (NTU) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 375 0.60 26.00 4.60 0.19 3.38 10 

Tidal Myakka 363 0.43 23.80 4.30 0.14 3.60 11 

Tidal Peace 381 0.60 34.20 4.71 0.20 3.70 12 

West Wall 563 0.29 19.50 2.95 0.11 2.20 6 

East Wall 567 0.18 64.90 2.65 0.16 1.80 5 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 330 0.46 14.20 3.20 0.12 2.50 9 

Lower Charlotte 468 0.20 12.40 1.45 0.07 1.05 1 

Pine Island Sound 241 0.23 7.80 1.94 0.09 1.64 4 

Matlacha Pass 285 0.02 7.90 1.38 0.06 1.21 2 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 292 0.48 21.00 3.78 0.20 2.36 8 

San Carlos Bay 297 0.10 14.02 2.04 0.10 1.43 3 

Estero Bay 226 0.42 10.70 2.91 0.12 2.32 7 

All Sites 4388 0.02 64.90 3.01 0.05 2.14 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

106 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

T

urbidity

N( T

U)

Figure 7.55: CHEVWQMN turbidity box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

T

urbidity

N( T

U)

Figure 7.56: CHEVWQMN seasonal turbidity box plot results for each estuary 

region. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

107 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

T

urbidity

N( T

U)

Figure 7.57: CCHMN turbidity box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers 

and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

T

urbidity

N( T

U)

Figure 7.58: CCHMN seasonal turbidity box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

108 

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

T

urbidity (N

T

U)

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower Charlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

T

urbidity (N

T

U) 0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

T

urbidity (N

T

U)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

T

urbidity (N

T

U)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

Figure 7.59: Time series plot of turbidity for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

109 

Cape Haze

East W all

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Tidal Myakka

Tidal Peace

W est W all

0.00

10.00

20.00

Turbidity (N

T

U) 0.00

10.00

20.00

Turbidity (N

T

U) 0.00

10.00

20.00

Turbidity (N

T

U)

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

10.00

20.00

Turbidity (N

T

U)

29 A- UG-2002

30-MAR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31-MAY-2007

Date

29-AUG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.60: Time series plot of turbidity for 2001 through 2007 for the CCHMN. 

Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic 

preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

110 

Table 7.34: CHEVWQMN Turbidity (NTU) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 70 8 0.396 0.047 0.6922 

Tidal Myakka 68 26 1.465 0.162 0.1430 

Tidal Peace 70 46 2.556 0.271 0.0106 0.2217 2.224 

East Wall 67 8 0.423 0.051 0.6724 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 70 43 2.364 0.253 0.0181 0.1870 1.808 

Lower Charlotte 70 -14 -0.766 -0.082 0.4437 

Pine Island Sound 69 -9 -0.467 -0.055 0.6402 

Matlacha Pass 70 16 0.855 0.094 0.3927 

San Carlos Bay 69 4 0.173 0.024 0.8629 

Estero Bay 70 61 3.377 0.359 0.0007 0.3380 2.882 

All Sites 72 -17 -0.869 -0.094 0.3848 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

Table 7.35: CCHMN Turbidity (NTU) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 72 -46 -2.440 -0.256 0.0147 -0.2737 4.558 

Tidal Myakka 71 -29 -1.550 -0.166 0.1211 

Tidal Peace 71 -23 -1.214 -0.131 0.2247 

West Wall 72 -18 -0.938 -0.100 0.3484 

East Wall 71 -48 -2.735 -0.274 0.0062 -0.1300 2.335 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 72 -48 -2.556 -0.267 0.0106 -0.2500 3.375 

Lower Charlotte 66 -48 -3.821 -0.320 0.0001 -0.0000 1.400 

Pine Island Sound * * * * * 

Matlacha Pass 62 -7 -0.434 -0.053 0.6642 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 65 -16 -0.930 -0.110 0.3522 

San Carlos Bay * * * * * 

Estero Bay * * * * * 

All Sites 72 -62 -3.318 -0.344 0.0009 -0.2170 2.960 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section VI-G 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

111 

N. Apparent Color

1. Background 

 Apparent color is a visual assessment of not only dissolved matter within 

the water column, but also suspended matter. Color may include metal ions, 

humus or peat, plankton, aquatic vegetation, and industrial wastes (APHA 1998). 

Dissolved organic matter, as measured by apparent color, is largely the result of 

tannins, and related compounds (gelbstoff), leached from vegetation in upland 

and submerged habitats. In southwest Florida, mangroves and salt marshes, as 

well as upstream cypress swamps, are the primary contributors to tannins. 

Tannin-rich water enters the estuary primarily from fluvial sources and direct 

runoff from the adjacent watershed. High color, occurring at low salinities, can 

significantly reduce the amount of available light needed for photosynthetic 

growth (Kirk 1983, McPherson and Miller 1994, Ott et al. 2006). Due to this, 

color can be an indicator of salinity levels and the amount of freshwater inflow as 

it relates to the health of an estuary. 

 

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results 

Color summary statistics and status results from the 2001 - 2007 

CHEVWQMN are given in Tables 7.36 and 7.38, and Figures 7.61, 7.62 and 

7.65. Color varied significantly (p<0.05) across the ten estuary regions ranging 

from 1 to 400 PCU. The median color value for all sites across the Charlotte 

Harbor study area was 30 PCU. Tidal Myakka, a black-water system, had the 

highest color median of 60 PCU. Pine Island Sound had the lowest color median 

value of 20 PCU. 

 For all sub-estuaries across the region, color concentrations were 

significantly higher during the rainy season with a median value of 40 PCU, 

which is nearly double the dry season median value of 22.5 PCU. Seasonal 

differences were observed for each estuary region, with differences between 

seasonal medians ranging from 10 PCU in Gasparilla/Cape Haze and San 

Carlos Bay to 60 PCU in Tidal Myakka. For visual assessment of seasonal 

differences, see Box plot results in Figure 7.62 and for detailed seasonal 

comparisons, see Appendix B. 

 Color values varied significantly during the study period from 2001 through 

2007 for six of the ten estuary regions. Color concentrations significantly 

increased during this period in Lemon Bay, Tidal Peace, Lower Charlotte Harbor, 

Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. Rates of annual increase 

ranged from 2 PCU in Lower Charlotte Harbor to 5 PCU in Tidal Peace. For 

visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 7.65 with 

detailed analysis results given in Table 7.38. 

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results 

Color summary statistics and status results from the 2001 - 2007 CCHMN 

are given in Tables 7.37 and 7.39, and Figures 7.63, 7.64 and 7.66. Color varied 

significantly (p<0.05) across the ten estuary regions ranging from 0.7 to 507.0 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

112 

PCU. The median color value for all sites across the Charlotte Harbor study area 

was 25 PCU. Tidal Caloosahatchee had the highest color median of 66.6 PCU. 

Lemon Bay and San Carlos Bay had the lowest color median value of 10 PCU. 

 For all sub-estuaries across the region, color concentrations were 

significantly higher during the rainy season with a median value of 40 PCU, 

double the dry season median value of 20 PCU. Seasonal differences were 

observed for each estuary region, with differences between seasonal medians 

ranging from 5 PCU in San Carlos Bay to 105 PCU in Tidal Peace. For visual 

assessment of seasonal differences, see Box plot results in Figure 7.64 and for 

detailed seasonal comparisons, see Appendix B. 

 Color concentrations significantly decreased during this period in Lemon 

Bay, Tidal Peace, Tidal Myakka, East Wall, West Wall, Lower Charlotte Harbor 

and Tidal Caloosahatchee. Rates of annual decrease ranged from 0.6 PCU in 

Lemon Bay to more than 15 PCU in Tidal Caloosahatchee. For visual trend 

assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 7.66 with detailed analysis 

results given in Table 7.39. 

4. Discussion 

Apparent color, across the study region, had the highest median 

values occurring in sub-estuaries with the greatest freshwater influence, including 

Tidal Peace, Myakka and Caloosahatchee. Significant seasonal differences in 

color concentrations found in both the CCHMN and CHEVWQMN results 

reinforce previous studies detailing color concentrations are driven by freshwater 

inputs and vary seasonally as a result of increased rainfall during summer 

months (e.g. McPherson and Miller 1987; McPherson and Miller 1994; Dixon and 

Kirkpatrick 1999; Doering and Chamberlain 1999; Tomasko and Hall 1999, 

Duffey et al 2007). Moreover, decreasing trends in color from 2001 through 2007 

correspond to increasing salinity patterns and decreased freshwater flow during 

study period. The decreases in flow correspond to decreases in rainfall 

associated with a drought that has affected the Charlotte Harbor region during 

recent years. In the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, a better understanding is 

needed of the relationship between color and dissolved organic matter input from 

the adjacent watershed. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

113 

Table 7.36: CHEVWQMN Summary and status of color (PCU) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 599 1.00 360.00 39.20 1.63 30.00 4 

Tidal Myakka 104 15.00 320.00 83.39 6.23 60.00 10 

Tidal Peace 331 10.00 400.00 75.69 3.40 59.00 9 

East Wall 67 4.00 200.00 48.42 4.56 40.00 8 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 137 3.00 120.00 28.78 1.75 23.00 3 

Lower Charlotte 196 3.00 140.00 33.17 1.76 30.00 4 

Pine Island Sound 329 2.00 240.00 28.69 1.72 20.00 1 

Matlacha Pass 190 5.00 200.00 40.62 2.17 31.50 7 

San Carlos Bay 236 1.00 160.00 30.25 1.63 20.00 1 

Estero Bay 301 1.00 140.00 34.80 1.42 30.00 4 

All Sites 2490 1.00 400.00 42.44 0.84 30.00 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 

Table 7.37: CCHMN Summary and status of color (PCU) results for each estuary region 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median 

Rank within 

the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Estuaries* 

Lemon Bay 374 1.00 210.00 18.30 1.31 10.00 1 

Tidal Myakka 363 5.00 423.00 101.97 4.87 60.00 10 

Tidal Peace 387 5.00 507.00 91.19 4.30 60.00 10 

West Wall 563 2.00 332.00 57.21 2.56 30.00 9 

East Wall 568 5.00 300.00 44.18 1.97 28.00 8 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 323 1.00 300.00 31.10 2.04 20.00 6 

Lower Charlotte 468 0.70 158.00 22.19 1.12 13.20 3 

Pine Island Sound 241 0.70 120.00 16.77 0.97 13.40 4 

Matlacha Pass 285 2.00 200.00 26.24 1.28 20.00 6 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 292 12.70 272.00 83.25 3.18 66.60 12 

San Carlos Bay 295 0.70 90.00 14.38 0.74 10.00 1 

Estero Bay 226 1.50 140.10 26.39 1.61 19.90 5 

All Sites 4385 0.70 507.00 46.28 0.89 25.00 

*Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the study area 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

114 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

C

o

ol r (P

C

U)

Figure 7.61: CHEVWQMN color box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers and extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

Estuary Region

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

C

o

ol r (P

C

U)

Figure 7.62: CHEVWQMN seasonal color box plot results for each estuary 

region. Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

115 

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

C

o

ol r (P

C

U)

Figure 7.63: CCHMN color box plot results for each estuary region. Outliers and 

extremes are not shown. 

Dry

Rainy

Season

Cape Haze

East Wall

Estero Bay

Lemon Bay

Lower Charlotte Harb

Matlacha Pass

Pine Island Sound

San Carlos Bay

Tidal C aloosahatchee

Tidal M yakka

Tidal Peace

West Wall

Estuary Region

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

C

o

ol r (P

C

U)

Figure 7.64: CCHMN seasonal color box plot results for each estuary region. 

Outliers are not shown. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

116 

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

C

olor P( C

U)

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

Cape Haze

Lower C harlotte

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Estero Bay

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

C

olor P( C

U)

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

C

olor P( C

U)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

C

olor P( C

U)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29 O- CT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.65: Time series plot of color for 2001 through 2007 for the 

CHEVWQMN. Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in 

each aquatic preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

117 

Lemon Bay

Tidal Peace

Tidal Myakka

East W all

W est W all

Cape Haze

Lower C harlotte Harb

Pine Island Sound

Matlacha Pass

San Carlos Bay

Tidal Caloosahatchee

Estero Bay

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

Col

or P( C

U)

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

Col

or P( C

U)

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

Col

or P( C

U)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

Col

or P( C

U)

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

29 A- UG-2002

30 M- AR-2004

29-OCT-2005

31 M- AY-2007

Date

Figure 7.66: Time series plot of color for 2001 through 2007 for the CCHMN. 

Each line/point represents the monthly median from all sites in each aquatic 

preserve. 
Status and Trend Results: 2001 – 2007 Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

118 

Table 7.38: CHEVWQMN Color (PCU) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 70 39 2.176 0.229 0.0296 2.5000 18.750 

Tidal Myakka 68 26 1.475 0.162 0.1403 

Tidal Peace 70 50 2.780 0.294 0.0054 5.0000 32.500 

East Wall 67 24 1.388 0.154 0.1652 

Gasparilla/Cape 

Haze 70 34 1.901 0.200 0.0573 

Lower Charlotte 70 41 2.321 0.241 0.0203 2.0000 23.000 

Pine Island Sound 69 25 1.449 0.152 0.1473 

Matlacha Pass 70 55 3.151 0.324 0.0016 3.5000 21.750 

San Carlos Bay 69 46 2.616 0.279 0.0089 2.2500 17.120 

Estero Bay 70 55 3.102 0.324 0.0019 3.1670 18.920 

All Sites 72 -3 -0.110 -0.017 0.9126 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

Table 7.39: CCHMN Color (PCU) trends results 

 

Data 

Points 

Read 

Kendall's 

Test 

Statistic z 

correlation 

coefficient 

p (2 

tailed) slope intercept 

Lemon Bay 72 -65 -4.117 -0.361 <0.0001 -0.5625 12.470 

Tidal Myakka 71 -71 -3.899 -0.406 0.0001 -7.0000 84.500 

Tidal Peace 72 -70 -3.764 -0.389 0.0002 -5.0000 77.500 

West Wall 72 -57 -3.060 -0.317 0.0022 -3.2500 41.380 

East Wall 71 -67 -3.691 -0.383 0.0002 -2.6670 37.830 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 70 -69 -4.005 -0.406 0.0001 -3.3330 30.920 

Lower Charlotte 66 -45 -2.846 -0.300 0.0044 -1.9920 22.770 

Pine Island Sound * * * * * 

Matlacha Pass 62 10 0.598 0.076 0.5500 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 65 -76 -4.634 -0.521 <0.0001 -15.2300 126.500 

San Carlos Bay * * * * * 

Estero Bay * * * * * 

All Sites 72 -61 -3.288 -0.339 0.0010 -2.9000 35.150 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

* does not meet data disposition requirements, See section IV-H 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

119

VIII. Results of Water Quality Relationships within the 

CCHMN & CHEVWQMN 

A. Introduction 

 Identifying relationships among water quality parameters is essential for 

understanding interactions within estuarine systems. These associations can fluctuate 

both spatially and temporally, allowing the portrayal of both regional and seasonal 

influences upon water quality parameters within the Charlotte Harbor Estuary. 

Spearman’s rho correlation analyses were conducted to enumerate relationships 

between parameters of interest for both seasonally and spatially. Additional stepwise 

regressions were conducted to quantify the contribution of nutrients to changes in 

chlorophyll a concentrations, a proxy of phytoplankton production. Correlation and 

regression results for specific water quality relationships are presented in tables 

throughout the text, with detailed results in Appendix F. 

Data from both programs were combined and water quality relationships were 

analyzed for three major water quality interactions: 1) relationships between average 

annual rainfall and selected parameters, 2) the interactions between salinity and 

selected parameters, and 3) the relationships between nutrients and phytoplankton 

productivity, as represented by chlorophyll a concentrations. Significant relationships 

were detected for many parameters for all estuaries as a group and for each estuary 

region individually and during both seasons. Although the relationships between many 

parameters were significant, the strength of these relationships, as described by the 

correlation coefficient, varied and was often nominal. Therefore, when interpreting 

water quality correlations, attention should be given both to the significance of the 

relationship, as well as to the strength and direction of the relationship. 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

120

B. Relationship between Rainfall and Selected Parameters 

1. Background 

Variations in rainfall patterns can alter many physical and chemical processes 

within aquatic systems. Often this variation is the result of large-scale weather patterns, 

such as the AMO and ENSO. These patterns of precipitation have the potential to 

influence water quality parameters such as: salinity, pH, nutrient loads, fecal 

contaminants, and turbidity. Therefore it is important to examine these relationships in 

order to monitor the status of an estuary (e.g., Duffey et al 2007). 

Correlation analyses were conducted in order to detect relationships between 

rainfall and salinity, pH, nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria. These relationships are 

the basis for the other correlations in the study. In addition, due to the relationship 

between rainfall, runoff, and land use, it is important to understand the relationships 

between these factors affecting water quality and how they may be related to land use. 

2. Results 

Average annual rainfall was significantly and negatively correlated (correlation 

coefficient -0.164) to salinity throughout the entire region. As the quantity of rain 

increased, freshwater inputs increased and salinity decreased. Post hoc comparisons 

showed this to be true for the following estuary regions: Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka, 

West Wall, Matlacha Pass and Tidal Caloosahatchee. The pH within the Charlotte 

Harbor estuaries was not significantly correlated to rainfall. However, post hoc 

comparisons showed rainfall and pH to be significantly and negatively correlated in 

Tidal Caloosahatchee. See Appendix F for detailed results. 

Nutrients were significantly and positively correlated to rainfall within the region 

as a whole (TN correlation coefficient 0.256 and TP correlation coefficient 0.154). 

However, post hoc comparisons did not show a significant correlation between TN and 

rainfall within Tidal Myakka or Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze. However, post hoc 

comparisons did show a significant correlation between total phosphorus and rainfall 

within only Tidal Peace, West Wall, Matlacha Pass, Tidal Caloosahatchee and San 

Carlos Bay (correlation coefficients: 0.251, 0.328, 0.356, 0.502, and 0.324, 

respectively). Within the entire region, rainfall and chlorophyll a were significantly and 

positively correlated (correlation coefficient 0.224). Post hoc comparisons showed this 

to be true for Lemon Bay, the West Wall, Lower Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound 

and Estero Bay (correlation coefficients: 0.517, 0.269, 0.381, 0.545, and 0.356, 

respectively). Average annual rainfall was not significantly correlated to fecal coliform 

bacteria throughout the entire region, however post hoc analyses showed it to be 

significantly and negatively correlated within Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze (correlation 

coefficient -0.241). See Appendix F for detailed results. 

Within the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, significant correlations were found for 

Secchi depth and color versus rainfall (correlation coefficients -0.097 and 0.275, 

respectively), no significant correlations were found for turbidity and rainfall. However, 

post hoc comparisons did show Secchi depth to be significantly and negatively 

correlated to rainfall within only Tidal Myakka and the West Wall (correlation coefficients 

-0.097 and -0.493, respectively). Additional post hoc comparisons for color did show 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

121

that color was not significantly correlated to rainfall for only Tidal Peace and San Carlos 

Bay. See Appendix F for detailed results. 

3. Discussion 

 Average annual rainfall was significantly and negatively correlated to changes in 

salinity throughout the study period and region. Salinity decreased as rainfall increased 

for the entire region; however this was only true for sub-estuaries with greater 

freshwater influence. Results for pH did not vary spatially, and was not significantly 

correlated to sub-estuaries, with the exception of Tidal Caloosahatchee. Results varied 

spatially for nutrients, particularly for TP within estuary regions near higher population 

densities, i.e. Tidal Peace, San Carlos Bay, Matlacha Pass, etc. The fact that TN varied 

significantly with rainfall in all regions, with the exception of Tidal Myakka and Gasparilla 

Sound/Cape Haze, suggests that runoff, due to land use, combined with natural 

nitrogen cycles, is directly impacting the estuaries. Chlorophyll a was significantly 

linked to rainfall in most regions of the estuary, particularly those that had significant 

relationships with nutrients. Turbidity was not significantly related to rainfall, suggesting 

that turbidity patterns within the greater Charlotte Harbor estuary may not be related to 

flow, but rather anthropogenic sources (i.e. dredging, prop-dredging, etc.) and wind 

related resuspension of sediments. In addition, both Secchi depth and color were 

significantly related to rainfall, and has implications for seagrass management and 

water clarity targets in the region. 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

122

C. Relationship between Salinity and Selected Parameters 

1. Background 

As previously discussed, salinity influences many chemical, physical and 

biological processes within estuaries. Natural variability in salinity is due to tidal 

regimes, flow patterns, the degree to which the water column mixes. Artificially altering 

the flow of major tributaries, as well as changes to the hydrology of the watershed, can 

have serious negative impacts upon the water quality and biological communities within 

an estuary. Therefore, understanding potential effects of salinity changes upon other 

water quality parameters is essential to describing the status, and thereby the health, of 

the Charlotte Harbor estuaries (e.g., Duffey et al 2007). 

Correlation analyses were conducted to quantify the relationships between 

salinity and parameters that vary as a result of changes in salinity; including nutrients, 

color, turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria. Strong relationships between salinity and 

these variables help to characterize estuarine interactions. In addition, because 

decreases in salinity are related to increased flow from the watersheds, strong 

relationships between salinity and other parameters may link land uses within the 

watershed to the water quality within estuaries. 

2. Results 

 Salinity was significantly negatively correlated (correlation coefficient -0.748) to 

color across the Charlotte Harbor estuaries. As salinity decreased, color increased for 

both seasons and for all estuary regions. The negative correlation between color and 

salinity was strongest during the rainy season (correlation coefficient -0.762) and in 

estuaries with greater freshwater influence, including Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace, West 

and East Walls, and Tidal Caloosahatchee. See Figure 8.1, with detailed results in 

Appendix D. 

Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were significantly and negatively 

correlated (p<<0.05; correlation coefficients -0.426 and -0.455, respectively) to salinity. 

Correlations between both TN and TP and salinity were stronger during the rainy 

season (correlation coefficients -0.424 and -0.451, respectively) and in estuaries with 

strong freshwater influence including Tidal Peace (correlation coefficients -0.522 and -

0.571, respectively). See Figures 8.2 and 8.3 and Appendix D for detailed results. 

Salinity was also significantly and negatively correlated to turbidity (correlation 

coefficient -0.084), although the relationship was weaker compared to other significant 

salinity correlations. However, post hoc comparisons revealed that the magnitude and 

direction of significant correlations between turbidity levels and salinity varied greatly 

among regions. See Figure 8.4 and Appendix D for detailed results. 

Fecal coliform was significantly and negatively correlated with changes in salinity 

across the entire study region (correlation coefficient -0.342) and for both the rainy 

(correlation coefficient -0.409) and dry seasons (correlation coefficient -0.323). 

However, post hoc analyses revealed that coliform was not significantly correlated to 

salinity in the East Wall, Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha 

Pass, Tidal Caloosahatchee and San Carlos Bay. See Figure 8.5 and Appendix D for 

detailed analyses. 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

123

3. Discussion 

 Salinity was significantly and negatively correlated to changes in color, nutrients 

(including both TN and TP), turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria. Results varied 

seasonally and spatially, possibly as a result of increased variability in salinity during the 

rainy season. Results varied in some estuary regions as well, particularly for TP, 

turbidity and fecal coliforms. All estuary regions showed significant negative 

relationships between salinity and TN and color. Results indicate that increases in color 

and TN are significantly related to salinity declines resulting from increases in tanninrich freshwater inflows to the estuary and runoff. 

$ Dry

% Rainy

Season

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Salinity

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

C

o

ol r

%

% %%

% %

%

% %%% %%%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% %

%

%

% %

% % %

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

% %% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

% %

% %

% % % % %

% % % %%

% % %

%

% %

%

%%

%

% % %

% % %

%

% %

% %

% %

% %%

%

%% %

$

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$$ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$

$

$$ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $

$

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $$$

$

$ $ $$$

$ $$ $ $ $ $$

$$$ $$$

$ $

$

$ $

$

% % %% % %%% %%

% %

% % % %% % % % %% %%%

%

% %% %%%% %

%

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % %

% %

%

%

%%

%%

% % %

% % %

%% %%

%

% % % %% % % %

%

% % % % % %

%%

%

% %% % % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%% %%%

%

%

%

%%

% % %

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

% %%% % %

%

% % % % %

% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % %

%% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

%

%

%%

% % %

%% % % % %

% %

% % % % % %

% % %

%% % % % %

% % % %

% % % % %%

% %

%

%%

%

%

% % %% %

%

%

%

%

% % %

% %

%

% %% % % %

% % %

% %

% %% % % %

% %%

%

%%% % %

%

% % % % %

% % %

%

%

% % % % %

% % % %

%

% % % % % % % %

% % % %%% %

% % % %

%

%

% %

%

%

%%% %

%%% % % % %%%% % % $ $

$

$ $ $ $$$$$

$$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $ $

$

$$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$$

$$

$$

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $$ $ $

$$$

$

$

$ $$ $$$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $$$$$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$

$ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$

$ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $$

$$$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$ $ $$$$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$$ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

$$$$$$$$

$

$

$$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $$$$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$$ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $

$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$ $$ $$ $$$$ $$$ $

$

$$$

$ $$$

$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$

% %

%%

%

%%

%

%

% % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % % %

% %% %%%%%

% %% % % % %%

%

%

% % % %%% %% %%%

%

%

%

%

%

% %% % % % %

%%

% %

%%% %

%%

%

%%%% %%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

% % % %

%

% %

% %

% %

%%

%%

% %

%

% %

%

% %

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % %%

%

%

% %

%%

% % %

%% % %

%

%% % %%

% % %%%

% % %

%% %

%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% % %

%

% % %

% % %

%

%

% % % %

%

% % % %%

%

% % %%

% % %

%

%

% %

% %

%

%

% %

% %

%

%

%

%

% % % %

% %% %% % %% % %

% %

% %%

%

%

%

%%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %% %

% %%

% %%

% % %

% % % %

%

%

% %

%

% % % % %

%

% %

%

%

%

% % % %

%

%%

%%%

%

%

% %

%

% % % % %%

%

%

% %

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

% % %%

%

% %

% %% % % %%

%

% % % %

% %

% % %

%

% % % % %

%

%

% % %

% % %

%

%

% %

% % % % % %

%

% %

%

%

%

% % %

%

%

% %% % %%%%%

%

%

%% % %

%%%

% % %%

%%

%

% %

% %% %

% %

%

%%% %

% %

% % %

%%

$$ $$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $

$$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $$ $$ $

$$ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $$ $$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$$

$$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$$ $

$

$ $$$

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $

$

$ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $$

$$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $$$$ $ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $$ $$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $$$ $

$ $$

$

$ $$

$ $ $

$$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $$

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$$ $

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$ $$

$

$ $ $$ $

$ $ $$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$$ $

$

$

$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$$ $$

$ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $$ $$$ $$$$

$

$$$ $ $

$ $$ $$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$

$$

$$ $$ $ $ $ $$$$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$$$ $ $ $$ $$$$ $ $$ $

$$$

$ $$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$ $$$

$$$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $

$$$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $

$

$$$ $ $$$$

% % %%

%

%%

%

% % %% %%%%%%

%

%

% %% %

% %

%

%

% % %

%

% %

%

%

% % %

%% %

%

%

% % %

% % %

% %

%

% %%% % %% %%

% %% %

%% % %%%

% %% %% %% % %% % %%% %%%%

% %

%

%

% %

% % % %

%

% % %

% %% % % % %

%

%%

% %

%

%% %% %% % % %%%

% % % %%

%

% %%

% % % % %

%

% % % % % %

% %%

%%

%

% % %%%%% %% %%% %

%

% % %%%%%% % %

%

% %

%

%

%%

%

% % %

%

%

% %

%%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% %

% % % % % % % %

%% %

%

%

%

%

%% % %

%

%

% %%

%%

%

%

%

% % %%

%%

% %

%

% %

%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

% % % % % % % % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%%% %

%

%

%

%

%%%%% %

%

% %

% % % %

%

%

% %% %% %

%%

%

%

%

%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

% % % %

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

% % %%

%

% % %%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

% %

%

%%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % % %

%

% %

% %

%% %

%

%%

%

%

% % % % % % %

$

$

$ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $$ $ $ $$

$$

$ $ $$ $ $

$ $$

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $$ $$

$ $$$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$$ $$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $

$$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $

$ $$ $$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$ $$$

$ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$

$ $

$ $

$$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $$ $$ $

$$ $ $

$ $$ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $

$ $ $

$$

$$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

$ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$

$$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$

$ $ $$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $

$ $

$$

$$$ $ $ $$$$ $$$$ $ $$ $$$ $$ $$$$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $$ $

$ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $

$ $$$$

$$$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$$

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $$

$$ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$

$

$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$$

$ $$

$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $

%

%

%

% % % % %

% %

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%% %

%

%

% % %

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % % %

% % % % %

% %%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

% % % %% % % %

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%%

% %

%

%

%

% %

%

% %

% % % %

% %

%%

% %%

%

%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%%

% % % %

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%% % %

%

%

% %

%

%

%

% % %% %% %

%

% %

%

%

%

% %

%

%

% % %% %

%

% % % %

%

% % % % %

% %

%

%

%%

%%%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

% %

%

%% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % %

% %

%

%

%

%

%

% % %

%

%

%

% % %

%

%

% %

% % % % %

%%%% %

%%

%

% % %

%

%%%

%

%

% % % % %

% % %

% % %%%%

% %

%

%

% %%%%

%%

%% % %%%

%%

%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% %%

%

%

% % % %

%

% %

%

% %

%

% % %

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

% % % % %

%

% %

% %

% %

% %

% %

% %%%

%% % % % % % % %

%

%

% % % % %%%

%

%% %

%

%

%%

%% % % %%%

%%

%

% %

%

% % % % %

% %

%

%

% % %

% %

%

%

%%

%

% % % %%

%% %

%

% %

% %

%

% %% %%%

%%

%

% %% %

% % %

%%% % % %% % % % % %

%

%

%

% % % % %%

%

% % % %

% % %%

% % % %

%

%

%

% % % % $ $ $

$$$

$$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$ $ $

$$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$

$$

$ $ $$$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$

$$ $$$$

$

$$ $$ $ $ $ $$$

$$ $$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$$$

$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $$$$ $$ $$ $

$ $

$ $ $$$ $ $ $$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$$$ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $ $$$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$$$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$

$ $

$

$

$$ $$$$ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $$$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $$ $$

$

$ $ $

$ $$$

$$

$

$

$

$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $$ $ $$

$$$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

%%% % %%%%%%%

% %% %%%

%

%

%

% % %% %

%

%

%

%% % % %% %

%

% % % % % % % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%% % % % % %% %

%

%%%% %%%%%%%%

%%%% %% % % % %%%%%

% % %

%

%

% % % %

%

%% %

% % %% %% % % %%

%

% % % %

% %

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% % %

%

% %

% % %

%

%

% %

% %

%

% %%% %

%

%% %

%

% %

%

% % % %

%%% %

%

%

%% %% %

%% %% %%%%

% % % %%%% %%

% %

%%% %%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%%

%

% %

%

% % %%

%

% %%% %

%

%

%

% %

% % % %

%

%

%% % %

%

% %

%

%

% %

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% % %

% % % % %%% % % % %% %% % %%% %

%%% % % % % % %%% % %

%

%

% % %%%%%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

% %

%

% %%% %

% %% %% % %

% % %%% % % %% % %

%

%

%

% %

% % %

% %

% %

% %

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % %

% %

%

%

% %

%

%

% % %

%

% %

%

%

%

% % % %

% % %

%

% %

% % % %

% %%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

% % %% %% %

% % %

%

%

%

%

% % %%% %

% %% % % % % % %% %% %

% %

%%%

$

$

$ $

$

$

$$ $

$ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $$

$$$ $ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $ $$ $$

$ $$

$

$

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $$ $

$ $

$

$

$ $$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $$$$

$ $$ $ $$$ $

$ $$$ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

$

$$ $ $ $$

$$$$$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$ $

$ $

$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $$ $$

$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $

$ $$

$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $$

$

$

$ $ $$$

$

$ $

$$

$ $$ $$ $$

$

$ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $

$$ $

$ $

$ $ $

$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$$$

$ $ $$ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$$$ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$

$$

$

$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $

$$$

$$

$$ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $$$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $

$

$ $$$

$$ $ $$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $$$

$

$

$ $

$ $$ $$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$ $$$$ $$ $

$ $$$ $

$

$$

$$

Color = 122.89 + -3.33 * Salinity

R-Square = 0.50

 

Figure 8.1: Scatter plot results of color as predicted by salinity. 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

124

$ Dry

% Rainy

Season

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Salinity

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

T

ota

_l P

h

o

s

p

h

oru

s

% %

% %

%

% % %

% % % % % %% % % % %

% % % % % %%%

% % %

% % %

%

%

% % %

% %% % $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $$ $$ $

$

$

$ $$ $ $$$ $ $$$$$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $$$ $ $$$$ $$$ $ $

$

$$

$

$$

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $

$

$$ $$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $$ $

%

%

% % %% % %%

%

%

% % % %

%

%%

%

% % % %

%

% %

%

% % %% % % % %%% % % % % %% % %

%

% % % % % %%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

% %% % %

%

% % % %% %% %

% %

% %

% % % % % %

% %% % % %

% %

%

%

% % % %

% %%% % %%% % % % %

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%%

%

% %% % %% %

%

% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

%% % % % % %% % % %% % %

%

%% %

% %

%

% % % % %

%

% % %% % % %

%

%

%

% % %%% %%% % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % %% %

%

%% %% %

%

%

%

% % %

%

% % %

% %

%

% % % % %

% % %%% %

%

%

% % %% % % %

%

% % % % % %

%

%

%

% % %

% % %% % % % % % % % % %%

% % % % % % %%%

% %

% %% % %

% % % % % %

%

%%% %

%

%%% %% %% % $ $

$

$ $$$

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$

$ $

$

$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$$ $$$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$$ $$ $

$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $$$$$$ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $$$$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $

$ $

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$$ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $

$ $$$$ $

$ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$ $ $$$$ $$ $ $

$

$$

$

$

$ $$$ $

$ $ $$ $$ $$ $$

% %

%

% % % %

%

% % % %% %%%

%

% % % % % % % % % % % %% %% % % % % %% % % %%% % %% % % % %

%

%

%

% %%%

% %% %% % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %%%

%

%%% % %%

%

%%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% % % %% % %

% % %

% %

% % %% % % % %%

% % % % % %

% %% % % % %% %

%

% % %

%

% % % %%

% % % %

% % %% %

%

%

% % %% % %%

%

%

%

%

% %% % %

%

% % % %% % %%

%

% % % % % % %

% %% %% %

%

%%%

% % %

% % %% % %%%%% % % % % % % % %

% %

%% % % % %% %

%

% %

%

% % %

%

%

% % % %% %%% % %

% % % % %%

%

% % %

%

%

% %

%

% %

%

%

%

%% % %

%

% % %% % % % %

%

% % % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % %% %

%%%

%

% % % %

%

%

%

%

% % % % % % % %

% % %

%

% %

%

% % %% % % %

% % % % % % % %

%%% %

%

%%%%%% % % %% % %

% %

% % % % %

%

% % % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %%%%% % % %

%%% % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % %%%% %%% % % % % % % % % % % %%

$

$

$

$

$ $$ $

$

$ $ $$ $$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$

$

$

$

$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$

$

$$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$ $

$$ $ $ $$$$ $$ $$$$

$ $ $ $ $$$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$$

$

$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$$ $ $

$$

$ $$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $$$$ $$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$

$

$ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$$ $$$$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$$

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$ $$

$

$$$$

$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$$

$ $ $$ $$$ $$

$

$ $$$ $ $$$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $

$

$$$$ $$ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$ $$$$ $$$ $$$$ $ $$ $$$$$

% % % % %%%%

%

%

% % %

%%

%

% %%% %

% %% % %

%% % % %

%

% %

%% %

%

% % % %%%%

%

% %

% % % % % % % %%% % % % % %%%

%% % %%%% %% % %% % % % %% % %% % % %% %%%%

%

%

% %

% %% % %%

%

% %% %%

%%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %

%%% % % % % % %% %% % % %% %% % % % % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%% % %%%%% % % % %%%% % %% % %% %%

% %

% %

%

% % % % % %

%

% % % % %

%

% % % % % % %% % % % % %% %%

%% % % % %% % % %%% % %

% % %

% %

% % % % %

% %% % % % % %% % % % % % %

%

%%

%

% % %% %

%%% %% %

% % %

% % %

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % % % %

%

%

%

% % % %

%

%%

%

%

%% % % % %%

%%%%% % % % %

% % %%%% % % % % %%% %

%

% %

% %

% % % %% %

%

% %% %

% % %

% % % % % % % %% % %

% %

%

% %% %

%

% % % % % %

% %%

% %

%

%

% %% % %

%%%%

% % %

% %% %

% % %% %

% %

%

%

%%

% % % % % % % % %

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$

$ $

$

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$$ $$

$

$ $

$

$ $

$

$

$$$$$$$ $$

$ $ $$$

$ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$ $$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$

$ $ $$ $ $$ $

$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$ $$

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $$$$$$ $$

$

$$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$

$ $ $$ $

$$

$ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$$ $$

$$ $ $

$$

$

$ $ $$ $ $$ $$

$ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $$ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $$

$

$$ $

$

$$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $$

$

$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$ $$$$$ $ $$ $

%%%

%

%

%

% % %

%

%

%

%

% %

% %

% %%

%

%

% % % % % %

%

%

%

%

% %

%

% % %

%

% % % % % % %% % %

% %%

%

%

%

%

% % % %

% %

% %% %%

%% %

%%% %% % % % % % % %

%

%% % %% %% %

%% %

%

%%%%% %% %% %

%

%

% %

% % % % %

%

% % % % % % %% % %

%

% %

%

%

% %

% %

%

% % %%% %%

% %

%

%

% % %% % % %% %

% % % % % % %

%

% %%% %

% %

% %% % % % % % %

% %

% % %% %%

%%%

%

% %

% %

%

% %

% %

%

% % %% % %% %

%

%

% %

%

% % % % % % %% % %

%

% % % % % %

% % % % %

% % % % % %

% % % %

%

% %

%%%% % %

%

%%%

% %% % % % %% % %%%%%

% %

%

%

% %% % %% % % % % %

% %% %%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% %%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

% % %% %

%

% % %

%

% % % %%

%

%

%

%

%

% % %%

% %% %

%

%% % % %% %

%%% % % %

%

% % % % %%

%% %%%

% % % %

% % % %

%

%%

%%%%%

% % %%% % %% % % %%% %

% % %

%

%

% %

% % % %

%

% % % % % % %

%

%

%

%

%

% % %%% % % %

%

%%% % % %

%% %%%

%%

% % %

%% %%% %% % % % % % %

%

% %

%

%

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $$

$$$$ $$ $$ $ $$$$$ $$$$

$$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $$ $$

$$ $$ $

$

$

$

$$ $ $ $$$

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$$ $ $$$$$ $$$ $$ $$$$$ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $$ $

$ $$$

$

$ $

$$$

$ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $$$$$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$$ $$

$

$ $$ $$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $$

$

$

$ $$$$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $$$$ $ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $$$$$ $$$ $$$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$$

%%%%%%%%%%%%

%

%% %%%

%

%% % %

% %

% %%

%

% % %%% %

% % %

%

%% % % %% % %% % % %%% %%%

%

%%% %

% %% % %% % % % % %% %% %% % %%%%%%%% % %% %%

%%%% %

%% % % % % % % %

%

% %

% % % %

% % %

% % % % % %

%

% % % % % %% %% %

% %

%

% % % %

%

% % % % %

%

%%% % % % % %% % %% %

%% %% % % % %% %%% %% % % %% % % % % %% %%%%% %%% % %% %% % % %% %%

% %

% % %%

%

% %

%

% %

% % % %%

% %

%

% % %

%%% %

%

% % %% % % %

%

% % %%% % % %

%

%%

%

%

%

% % %

% %

% % % % %

%

% % %%% %% %% % %% % % % % %

%% % %%% % %%% % % % %% %%% %% %%%%% % %

%%% %

%

% %% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % % %

%

% % %% % % %

% %

%

% % % % % %

% %

% %%%

%

% % %% % % %

%

% %%

% %

% % %

% % %% %%%

%% %% % % % %%% % % %% %

%% % % % % %%% % %%%% % % % % %

%

% %

%

%

%

%%

% %

%

% %

% %% % % %

% %

%

% %

% % % % %

%

% % % % % % % %

%

% %

%

% % %

% % % % %% % % % % % %

% %

%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

% % %% %% %

%% % %% %% % %% % %% % % %% % % % % %%%%% % % %%%

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $$ $$$$ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $

$ $$$ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$$ $$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $$$$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $

$$$$$$$$ $

$$ $ $

$

$ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$ $$ $$$ $ $$$$$ $

$$$ $ $ $$$$

$ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$$$$ $$$ $$

$$$$

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$ $ $$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$$$

$

$

$$$ $ $

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$$

$$$$$ $$

$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$

$

Total_Phosphorus = 0.33 + -0.01 * Salinity

R-Square = 0.16

Figure 8.2: Scatter plot results of total phosphorus as predicted by salinity. 

$ Dry

% Rainy

Season

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Salinity

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

T

ota

_l Nitro

g

e

n

% % % %

% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % %% $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $$$$ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$$$$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%%% % % % %%% % % % %% %% %% % % % % % %% %% %%% %%% % % % %% % % %% % % % %

% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % %%%% %

% % % % %% % % %%% %% % %

% % % % % % %% %% % %

%

% % %% % %% % % % % % % % %% % %% %%%% %% % % %% % %%%%

% % % % % %% % %%% % % % %%%

% % % % % % % % % % % %% % %%% % %%%%% %%%%% % %%%% %

% % %% % %% % % % % %% % %

% %% % %% %%%%% % % %% % %% % %%% %% %% % % % % % %%% % % % % % %%%% %%% % %%

%

%

%

% % % % % %%%% $ $$ $$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$

$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$$$$$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$ $$$ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$$$ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$$$ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$$$ $$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$$ $ $$$$

$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$$ $$ $$ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$

% %% %% %%

%

% % %% % %% % %%% % % %% % %%%%% % % % % % % %% %% %% %% % %% %%%% % % % % %% % % %% % %%% %% % % %

%% % %% %%% %% % % %%% %% %%% %%%% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % %% % % %% % % % %%% %% % % %

% %% % % % %% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% %%% %% % % %%% % %% %%% %% % % % % % %%% % % % % %% % % %% % % % % %%%%% % %%%%

% % % % % %% %%

% % % % % %%% % %% %

% % %%

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %

%%%%% % % % % % % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %%% % %% % %% % % % % %%% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %%%% %% % % % % %% %% % % % % % % % %%% $ $ $ $% % % % $$ $$%$ %$$ %$

%%% % $$$$ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ %$$

%$ $ % %$ $% $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$$$ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $$ $ $$$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$

$

$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $$$$$$$$$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $$$$$ $$ $ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$$$$$$$$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$$$$$ $ $$$$$$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $$$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ % % % %%%%%% % %% %%%%%%% %% $$$ % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % %%

%

% %%% %%% % % % % % %% % %% %%%% %%% %%% % %%% %%%% % % % % %%%% % % %%% %%%%% % % %% %% % % % %% %

% % % % % % % %% %% % %% % %% %% %%% % % % % % %%% %%

% % % %

% % % % % %% % % %% %%% %%% % % %%%% % %%% % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %%%% % % % % %% %%%% %%% % % % %%% % % % % % %%% % % %

% % %% % % % % %% %% % %%%%%%

% % % % %% %

% % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % %% % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % % % %%%%% % %% % % %%%% % %%

% % % %%% % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % %%% % % %% % % % % % %% %%% % % % %% % %%% % % % %% %% % % % % $ % % % % % $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$ $

$ $ $$$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$$$$ $ $$

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $$$ $ $$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $

$ $ $$$ $ $$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$$$$$ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$

$$$ $ $ $ $$$$ $$$$$$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $

$$ $ $ $$ $

$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $$

$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $$$ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$

$

$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $$$ $$ $ $$$$ %%% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %% %%% % % % %% % % %% % % % % % %% % %% %% % % % % % % % %% %% % % % % %% % %%

%

% % % % % %% %

%

%% % % % % %% %% % % % %% % % % %% % %

%%% % % % %

%

% % %% %%% % % % % % % % % %%%% % %%%% % % % % % % % % %% % % %%% %% % % % % % % %% %% %% % %

% % % %% % % % % % % % % % %%

% % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %%% % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %

%%% % %% % %%%% % % % % % %% % %% %% % % % %% %%%% %% %%% % % %% %% % %

% % % % % % %%%% %% % %% %% % % % % % %

%

% % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % %%%% % %% % %% % % %%%%% % %% %% % % %%% %% % % % %% % %% % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % %% % % %%% % % % %% % %% %%% %%%%%% % % %% %%% % %% % %% % %%% % %% %% % % % %% % % % %% % % % $ $ $% $$ %%$% $ $ $ $$ %$$ % % $ % $%$$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$

$ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$$ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$$$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$$$$$$$$ $ $$$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$$$ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $$$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$$$ $ $ $$$ $$ %$%%% %%%%%%%% $$$ $ $$$$$$ %%$$$$$%%%$$$$ % %% % % % % % %% %%% %%%% % % % %%% % %%% %% %%% %% % %% % %%%% % % % % % % %% %% %%%%%%% %%%%%% %%%%% % %% % % %%% % % % %% % %% %% %% %% % % % %% %%% % % %% % % % %% % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % %

%

%% % % % %%% %%% % % % %%% %%%% %% %%%%% % % %%%%% % % % %% %% %%% % %%% % %% %% % % % % % % %%% % %% %%% %%%% %%% % %% % % % % % %% %% % %

% % %% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % %

%

% % % %% % %%%%% % % %%% % % % %%%%% %% % % %%% % %% %% % %%%%% % %%% % %% %% %% % % % %% % %%%% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % %% % % %%% % % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % % %%% %%%%%% % %%%% % % % %

%

% % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % %% %% % % % %%% % % % % %% % % % % %% % %% %%% %% % % %% % %% % % %% % %% % %%%%% %%% % % %% % % %% %% % % % %%% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$ $ $$$ $$ $$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$ $$$ $$ $ $ $$$$ $ $$$$$ $ $$$$ $$$$ $ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$$$ $ $$$$$$$

$$ $$$$$ $$$$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$ $$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$$$$ $$ $$

Total_Nitrogen = 1.28 + -0.02 * Salinity

R-Square = 0.07

 Figure 8.3: Scatter plot results of total nitrogen as predicted by salinity. 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

125

$ Dry

% Rainy

Season

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Salinity

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

T

urbidity

% % %% % %% %%% % %

%

%

%

% % % % % % % % % % %

%

%

%

%

% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %%

%%%%% %

% % %% % %%% % % % % % % % % % %% % %%% %% % % % % % % % %% % % % %%% %% % %%

% %

% % % % % % % %

% % % %% % %

%

% % $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $

$ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$$$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$ $$ $$$ $

$ $$

$

% % % % % % %% %%% % % %% %%%%%% %

%

% %

% % % %% %% % % %%%% %% % % % %

% % %

%

%

%%% % % % % %% % % % % % % % %%% %% % % %% % % % % % %%% %% % % % % % % % % % %% %% %%% % %%%% % % % %% % %%

%

% % %% % %% % % %% % % % % %

%

% % % % % % % % %

%

%

%

% % % %

%

%

%

% % % % % % % % %% % % %%%%%% % % % % %% % % % % %% %%% % % % % %% %% % % % % % % %

%

% % %%% %% % % % % % %% % % % % %%

% % % % %% % %% % %

%

%% % %

% % % %

% %

%

% %% %%% % % % %% % % % %

% % % %% % %% % % % %

% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %%%%

% %%%% %% % % % % %%%% % % % % $

$ $ $ $$$

$ $ $$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$ $$$

$ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$$$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$$ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $

$

$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $

$$$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$$$ $ $

$

$$ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$$$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$

$$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$

$ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $$$$$$

$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $$ $$$$

$

$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ % %%$ $$$$ %% $ $ $ %%$$ % % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % %% %% % %%%%% % % %% % % % %

%

%%

%

%

%

% % % % % % %% % % % %%% %% % % % %% % % %% %% % % %% %% % %% %%% %%%%%%%%%% % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % %% % % %

% % % % %% % % % % % % %

% % % % %% %% % % % % % % %%% % %%% %

%

%% % % % %% %% %%

%

% % % %

%

% % % % % % % %%% %% %%% %% % % % % %%

%

% % %%% % %% % % %%%% % % % % % % % % % % %

% % %% % %% % % % %% % % % % % %%% % %%% %%% % %

% %

%

% %%

%

% % % % %% % %% % % % % % % %% %% %%% % % % % %% % % % % %%% %% % %%% % % % % % %

% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %%% % % % % % % % %

%

%% % %%% %% %%%%%% %%%%%%%%% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %%%%%% % %% %% % % %

%

% % % %% %%% % % %% %% % %% % % % % % %

%

%

%

% % $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $$ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$$$ $$ $$ $$ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$ $$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$$$ $$$$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$

$$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $$ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$$

$$ $$$

$

$ $$$$$ $ $ $$$$$$$ $ $ $$$$$ $$$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$$$$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $

$

$$$$ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $$ $ $

$ $

$$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$$$ $$

$

$$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $

$ % $$ % % % %%

%

% % %

% %% %%%%%%%% %

%

% % % % %% %% %% %% % % % % % % % %%%% % % %%% % %%%% %% % % %% %%

% % % % %% %% % %%% % %% %% %% % %%% %%

%

% % %% %

% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% %% %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % % %%% %%

%

% %

%

% % % % % %% %

% %% % %%%%% % %%%% %% % % % % % % %%%%%% % % % % % % % % % % %% % %

%

% % % % % % % % %% % %% %% % % % % %% % % % %% %%%% % % %

% % %

% %

% % % % %

%

% %% % % % % %% % %%% %% % % % % % % %% % %% % % % %% % % % %

%

% % % % % % %

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

% %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % % %

%

%%%%%%% % % % %% %%% % %%%% % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %% %% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % %

%

% % % %% %% %% % %% % % % % %% %% % %%

%% %

% % %

%

% % % % %

% %% % $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$$

$ $ $$

$ $

$

$

$$$$$$$ $$

$

$ $$$ $ $

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $

$

$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $$ $ $ $

$ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $

$ $

$$

$ $$

$$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$$

$ $

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $

$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $$

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$$$ $$

$

$

$ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $ $$$ $ $

$

$ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $

$ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$$ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $$$ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$

$

$

$ $ $$$

$

$

$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ %% $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $ %%% % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % %%%% %% % % %% % % % %% % % % % %

% % % %% % % % %%% % %% %%%%% % % %%% % % % % % %% % % %

% % % % % %% %% %% % % % %% % %%% % % %% %%% % %% % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%%% %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %

%% % % % % % %%%% % % % %

%% % % % % % % % %

%

% % %%%% % % % % % %

% % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%%% % % %% % %

% %%%% % %% %

%

%

%%

% % % %% % % % % %% %% % %% %% % %%%% %% %% %

% % % % % % % %% % % % % %% %% %% % %% % %%

%

% %

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % %% % %% % % % % % %%% % % % %% % % % %% %

% % %% % % % % % % %%%% % % %% % % % %%%% %%

%% % %% % %% % % % % % % %% % %% % % %

%

% % % %

%

% % %%%% % % %%

%

% % %

%

% % %% % % % %%% %% % % % %% %

%

%%

%

% %% %% %% %%

% % %

% %% % % %%% %% % % %% % %

%

% %%% % %

%

%%

$ $ $ $$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $$

$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $

$

$ $

$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$

$$

$

$ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $$$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $

$ $$ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $

$

$$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$$ $

$

$

$

$$$ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $

$ $ $ $$ $$$

$$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$$$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$$$ $$ $ $ $$$$$ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $$$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $$ $$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$$

$ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $ $$

$

$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$$$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$$ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $$ %%% %%%

%%%%%% % %% %%% % %% % % % % % % % %%

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % %

% % %% %%%% % %%%% %% % % %%% % %%%%

%

%

%

%% % %%% % % % % %% %% % % % % % %%% % %% % % % % %

%

%

%

%%

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% %% % %%% %% % %

%

% % % %% %% %% % %% % % % %% % % % % %%%% % %% %

%

% % % % % %% % %

% %

%

% %% % %%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

% % % % %

% % % %

%%% % % % % %

% % %% % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % %% % %%%%%%% %% % %

%%%% % %

%

%%%

% %% % %%%%%%%%

%%%%% %%%%% % %%%% % % %%% % %% %% %% % % % %%% % % % %% % % % % % % %

%

% % %% % %

% % %

%

% % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % % %

% % % % %%

% %

% % %%%

% %% %% %% % % % %% % % % %

% % % % % % %% %% %% % %%% % %% %% % % % % % % % % %

% % % %%% % % % % % %

%

% %% % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% %% % % % % %% % % % %% %% % %% % %%% %

% % %%% % % %% % % % % %%% % % % %%%

$ $

$ $ $ $ $$

$$

$

$

$

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $$$

$$$$$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $$ $$$$$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $$

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $$$

$$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $$ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $

$

$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$

$

$ $ $ $$

$ $$

$

$ $$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $$$$$$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$$ $$$$$ $$$ $ $$$ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $$

$$$$ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $

$ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$

$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$ $$$$ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$$

$$ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $ $

$

$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$$$$$$$$ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $

$

Turbidity = 3.31 + -0.02 * Salinity

R-Square = 0.00

Figure 8.4: Scatter plot results of turbidity as predicted by salinity. 

$ Dry

% Rainy

Season

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Salinity

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

F

e

c

a

_l C

olifo

mr _

B

a

cter ai

% %% %%%% %% %%% %%

%

% % % % % %%% % %

%

% % % % % % %%

% % %% %

% %

% % % % %%%% %% % %

% % % % %

% % % % %

% % %

% % % % % % %%

% % %% %%% % % % % % % % %%

%

% % % % %

%

% % % % % % % %

%

% %%% % %

$ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$$$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$$ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$ $$$

$

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$$ $$ % $ $$ $ $ $ $ % % %%% %%% %%%% % %% % % % % % %% % %% % %%% %

% % % %

%

%

%% %% % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % % %

%

%

%

%

%

% % % % % % % %% % %%

%

% %% % % % % %%% %% %% % % % % % %% % %%% %%%% % % %

%

%% % % %%

%%

%

%% %

%

% % %% % %% % %%% % % %% %% %% %%

%

% % %% %% %

% %

% % % %

%

% % % % % % % % %

%

$ $ $ % $ $

$ $$ $ $

$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$$ $ $ $$

$ $$ $$$ $

$

$ $ $

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$$ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$

$

$$$ $ $ % % % % % % % % % $$ $ %%$ % % % % $ $ $ % % $ $ % $% %%% % % % % % %% % % % % %%

% % % % % % % % % % % % %%

%

% % %

%

% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %

% % %

%

% %

%

% % % %

%

% % % % % % %% %

% % % % % % %% % % % %

%

% %%

%

% % % % %

%

% % % %

%

% % % %% %% % % % % % % %% %% % % % % % %%

%

% % % % % % %

%

% %

%

% % % % %% % % % % %

%

$$ % %% % % $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$ $$$ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$

$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $

$$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $$

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ % % $ $% %% $ % $ $ $$

% $

%$ $ $ $ $$$$ % % % %% % % % % %

%% %%% % % %%% % % % %%%%% %% % % % %%%%% %% % %% % % %%% %% % %%% %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%

%%

% % % % %

%

% % % % % %% %% % % % %% %% %% % % % %%%%

% %

%

% % %

%

%

% % %

%

%

%

%

% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% %% % %

%

%

%

% % %

%

% % % % % %% % % % % % $ $ $ $$ $ $ % % %% $ $ $$ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$ $

$

$$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$$ $$ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $

$

$$$ % % % % % % % % % %

% %

% % % % % %

%

% % % %

%

% %

%

% % %% % % % %% %% %

%

% % %%%% % % % %% %% % % % %% % % % % %% % %

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% %

%

%% % %% % % % %% % % % % % % %

% % %%%%% %

% %

% % % % % % % % %% % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % %%

%

% % % %% % % % % %

%

% %

%

%

%% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% %

%

% % % % % % % %%

%

% % % % $ $ $ $ % % $% $ $$ $ $$ % $ %% % %%% % %% % % %% %% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

$

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$$$$ $$ $$ $$$ $

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$$$ % $ % %% % % $ % $ $ %% $%% %% $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ % %% $ $$$ $ $ $ % % $%% % %$ %$%%$$$$$ $$ % % % %% % % %%% % % %% % % %% % %%%% %% %%%% % %

%

% % % % % % % % %%

%

%

%

% %% %%

%

%

%

%

% % %%

%

%%%% % % % %% % % % % % % %% % %%%% %%%%% % % % %

%

% % % % %% % % % % % %% % % %%%% % %

%

%

%

% %% %

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%%% % % %%%% % % %

%

%

%

% % %

%

% % % %

%

% % % %% %

%

%%

%

%

%

%

% % %% % %%

%

% % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % %%%%% % %%% % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %

%

% % % %% % % %% %% % %% % % % % % %% % % % %% %%%%%% %% $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$

$

$

$

$ $$ $$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $

$

$

$ $$ $

$ $ $$$ $ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $

$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$$ $ $ $$$ $$$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$$ $$$ $

$

$ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $$$ $ $$ $

Fecal_Coliform_Bacteria = 140.05 + -3.89 * Salinity

R-Square = 0.08

Figure 8.5: Scatter plot results of fecal coliform bacteria as predicted by salinity. 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

126

D. Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationships 

1. Background 

 Nitrogen and phosphorus loadings have been shown to significantly increase 

phytoplankton production, as estimated by chlorophyll a concentrations, resulting in 

decreases in water clarity within the Charlotte Harbor region (e.g. Duffey et al 2007). 

Therefore, chlorophyll a can be utilized as a tool for characterizing nutrient enrichment 

within the Charlotte Harbor estuaries (e.g. Doering et al 2006 and Duffey et al 2007). 

Identifying the effects of nutrients upon chlorophyll a concentrations is necessary in 

order to manage water quality in the twelve estuary regions. Quantifying the 

contributions of nitrogen and phosphorus to fluctuations in chlorophyll a concentrations 

allows resource managers to target either nutrient as a means of chlorophyll a

reduction. 

2. Results 

 The relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll a varied spatially and 

seasonally across the twelve estuary regions during the study period. However, it 

should be noted that the strength of these relationships was minimal. Across the study 

area, chlorophyll a concentrations significantly increased as both TN and TP increased. 

For all regions, the relationship between TP and chlorophyll a (correlation coefficient 

0.258) was slightly stronger than nitrogen correlations (correlation coefficient 0.221) and 

changes in phosphorus levels explained the most variability (R2

=0.014) in chlorophyll a. 

However, during the dry season this relationship was stronger (R2=0.039). Total 

nitrogen was the only parameter maximizing explained variation in chlorophyll a

concentrations in Lemon Bay (R2=0.024), Matlacha Pass (R2=0.020), Tidal 

Caloosahatchee (R2

=0.062) and Estero Bay (R2=0.029). In addition, TN was the only 

nutrient significantly correlated to chlorophyll a in Tidal Peace, the East and West Walls, 

and San Carlos Bay, and explained more variability than TP in Lower Charlotte Harbor 

and Pine Island Sound. Alternately, in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, only phosphorus 

concentrations (R2

=0.018) statistically contributed to changes in chlorophyll a. Neither 

nutrient contributed significantly to changes in chlorophyll a concentrations, as 

measured by regression, in Tidal Myakka or San Carlos Bay. For visual reference of 

nutrient relationships see Figures 8.6 and 8.7, with detailed results for each estuary 

regions and season in Appendix D. For regression results, see Table 8.1. 

3. Discussion 

 Over the entire study region and seasonally, phosphorus maximized the 

explained variability in chlorophyll a concentrations, although post hoc analyses 

revealed that nutrient relationships varied both seasonally and spatially, with TN 

typically having greater influence on chlorophyll a. However, in 1991, Montgomery et al 

noted that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, although the 

relationship between nutrients and phytoplankton production vary both temporally and 

spatially; the results of this study support this conclusion for the region and study period 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

127

from 2001-2007. This may be due to both the rates at which nutrients are cycled 

through the system and the inability of this study to distinguish between natural inputs of 

nutrients, particularly phosphorus, and anthropogenic sources, as well as Redfeildratios. However, ten of the twelve estuary regions show nitrogen to be the primary 

nutrient influencing phytoplankton productivity, as measured by chlorophyll a. 

Therefore, management activities aimed at nutrient reductions, should consider the 

variability of these relationships, as compared to chlorophyll a, within the Charlotte 

Harbor estuaries. 
Water Quality Relationships Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

128

Figure 8.6: Scatter plot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total nitrogen. 

$ Dry

% Rainy

Season

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Total_Phosphorus

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

Chlorophyl _a l

%%%%%%%% % %%%%%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%%

%

%%

%% %% % %%%

%% %%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

% % % % %

% %% % %

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%%

%%

%%

%%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

% %%%% %

%

% %

%

%

%

%%

%

%% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%% %

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%% %% % % % % % %

%

%

% % % % %%

%%% %

% % %%

% % % %

% %

%

%%

%

%%

%%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$

$

$$$

$

$$ $

$

$

$ $$

$$

$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$ $ $ $

$$$

$ $

$

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$ $$

$$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$

$

$

$

$$ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $$

$

$

$

$$ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$ $$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$

$$

$

$ $ $

$$$

$ $

$

$$$

$$

$$ $

$$$

$ $ $ $

$ $$

$

$$

$

$$$

$$$$$$

$ $ $

$

$

$$$ $

$$

$ $ $

$

$$

$$ $

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$ $

$

$

$$

$

$

$ $

$$ $

$

$

$$$

$$$$$$ $$

$$$$

$

$$

$

$

$ $ $

$ $

$$

$ $

$$$

$

$$$$$ $$$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $

$$$$$$ $

$

$$$

$$

$$ $ $$

$$

$

$ $ $$$ $

$

$ $

$$$$ $$$ $$$ $$ $$

$$$

$

$$$

$ $ $$$$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

%

%

%

% % %%%

%

%

%

%

%%%%%

%

%%%%%%%

%

%%%

%%

%%%%%%% %

%

%%%%%%

%

%%% %

%

%

%

%

%

%% %

%%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%%%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% %

%

%

%% %

%%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

% % % %% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%% %

%

%

%

%

%%%

%

%

% %

%

% %

%%%%%

%%%

%

%

%

% %

% %

%%%%

%%

%

%

%%% %

%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

% %

%

% % %

%

%%

%

%

%%%

%

% %

%

%%

%%

%

% %

% % %

% %%%%% %% % %%%%%%%%

% %

%

%

%%%% % % % %% % %% %%%%%%%%

% %%

%%%

%%

%

$ $ $

$$

$$ $ $$ $ $$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$$ $ $ $

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $$$

$ $

$ $ $

$

$

$

$$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$

$

$$ $$ $ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $$

$ $

$$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$$$

$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$$

$

$ $$$$$$$

$

$$

$ $$ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $$$

$

$

$$$$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$ $$$$

$

$

$ $$

$

$

$$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$ $ $

$

$$ $ $$$$ $

$$$$$$$

$ $

$

$ $$$$ $

$

$

$

$

$$$

$$ $$$$$

$$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $$$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$$

$

$ $

$$$

$

$$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$$$$$

$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ $$$ $$ $

$ $

$

$

$

$

$$

$$

$

$$$$$$

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$ $$

$

$

$

$$$ $

$

$ $$$$

$$$$$$$$$

$ $

$ $ $ $$

$

$

$ $$

%

% %%

%%%

%% % % %%% %

%

%

%%

%

%%%%%%%

%%%%

%%

%

%%

%%%

%

%

%% % %% %

% % % %

%%%

%%%%

%

%

%%

%

%%

%

%%

% %

%

%

%

%% %%

% % % %

% %

%

%

%%%

%

% % %

%

% % %

%

%%%%%%% % %%%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%%

% %

%%%

%

% %

%%

%

%

%

%%

%% % %

%%%%

% %%%%

% %

% % %%

%%%%%% %% % %%% %% % %

%%% %

%

%

%

%

% %%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%% %%%

%

%

%

%

%

% %%

% %%% % %%

% %

%

%%%%%

%%%%%%

% %

%% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%% %

%%%% % % % %

%

%

%% % %% %

%%

%

%%

%% %%% % %%

%%

%

%%

% % %% % % %

%

% % %% %

%%

%

%

%% % %%% %

%

%

%

%

%%%%%%

%

%%

%%

%

%

%%%%%

% %%%%%%%% % %%%%%%%% %% % % %% %% % %%%%%

%%%

%

%

%% %% %%

%%%%%% %

%

%

%

% %%

%%%%

%

%

%%

%

%%%%%%%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$

$ $

$ $$$$$

$$$$$$$$ $

$$

$

$$$

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$$

$ $

$

$

$$$$$

$

$

$$$$$$

$$$

$$$ $ $$ $ $

$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$

$$ $$$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$ $ $$ $

$ $$$

$

$ $$

$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$

$$

$$$$$$$$

$$

$

$$

$

$

$$$ $ $$$ $$ $$$ $

$

$$$ $$

$

$$

$

$

$$

$$ $$$$

$$$

$

$$

$$ $ $$

$

$$$$

$

$$$$ $ $$

$

$ $ $$ $$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$

$$$$$$$$$$

$$$

$

$

$$$$$$$$$

$

$ $$ $$

$

$

$$$$$$ $ $$

$$

$

$

$$$$ $ $$

$$$$ $$$

$$$$$

$$ $

$$ $$

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $

$$$

$

$$$$$

$$$$$ $$$ $$ $$

$$

$

$

$$

$

$$$$$ $ $$

$$ $

$

$$ $$

$

$$$$

$$$$$

$

$$

$

$

$ $$

$

$

$$$$$ $

$$$$

$$$ $$$$

$

$

$ $ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $

$

$ $$ $ $$ $$$

$

$$$

$ $ $$ $ $ $$$$$$$$ $ $$$$$$$$ $$$

$ $

$

$$$$ $

$$$ $ $

$

$$

$$ $$$ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $$

$$

$$$ $ $$$$ $

$

$$

$

$

$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $$$$$$$ $ $$$$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$$

$$$ $ $$$$$$$$ $ $$$ $$$$$$$$$

$

$$$$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$$ $$ $

$$ % %

% % %%%% % % % %

% %

% % %%%%% %%%

% %

%

%

%% %%%%

%

% %% %% %

%%%%%%%

%

%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%

%%

%

%%%%%

%%

%%

%%

%%

%%%%%%%%%%%

%

% %%

%% %%

%%

% % %%%%%

%

% %

%

%%%

%%% %%

%

%%%

%%%%%%%%%

%

%

%

%%%%

%

%

%

%

%%%% %

%

%

%

%

% % % % %%%% %% %%%%%

%%%%%%

%%

%

%%

%

%

%

%%

%%

%

%

%% %%%

%%% %% %% %

% % %%% %

%

%

%%

%

%%%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%%%%%%% %%%%%

%%

% %%%

% %

%

% %

%

%

% %

%

%

% % %

%

%%

% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%%%%

%

%%% %

%

% %

%

% %

% %%%% %% %% %%%%%%

%

%

% %%

%

%%%%

%

%

%

%% % %%

%

% % %

%

% % % %

%

%

% %

% %

%

%%

% %%%

%%

%% %

%%

% %%%%%%% %%% %

%

%%

%%

%

%

%

%% %%% %

%%

%%

%

%%%%%

%

%

% %

%

%

%% % %

%%

% %% % %% %%%%%

%

%%% $$ $

$ $

$

$ $

$ $$

$

$$$

$

$

$$$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$$$

$

$

$

$$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$ $ $$ $$

$ $

$ $

$

$$$$$ $ $

$

$ $$$$$$$ $$$ $$

$$$

$$$ $

$

$ $

$

$$ $ $$$

$

$

$$$$$

$

$$ $$ $$$$ $$$ $

$

$

$ $ $$$

$

$

$$

$

$ $

$$

$

$

$$$

$ $$ $

$ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$$$ $ $$$

$$$$$$$

$ $ $

$

$

$$$$$$

$ $

$$$$$ $

$$$ $ $ $$$

$$$$$ $$$$

$$

$ $ $$$$$$ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $$ $ $$

$ $ $ $

$$$$$$ $ $$$$ $ $ $$$$

$

$$$$$$$$$$ $$$ $

$

$

$ $$$ $ $$$$$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$$

$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$$$

$

$$$$$ $$$

$

$ $

$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$

$$$

$

$

$$$$$ $$$$$$$

$$ $ $

$$ $ $

$$ $

$$

$$$

$$$$

$

$$$ $ $$ $$ $$$

$

$$$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$

$ $ $

$$

$

$

$$$$ $

$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$$$ $ $$$$$ $$$$

$$$ $$$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$

$

$$$$

$

$$

$$

$ $$ $

$ $$$

$$

$$$ $$ $$$$$

$

$$$ $$$$$ $$$ $$$$$ $$ $

$

$$ $ $ $$ $$

$

$$

$$$ $$$$$$$$ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $$$$$$$$ $$ $$ $$$$$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$$

$ $$

$

$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$$$ $ $$

$$$$

$$ $ $$

$$$$ $ $$$ $ $

$

$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $

$

$$

$$

$

$$$$ $

$$

$

$$

$$

$

%%

% %

%%%

% %

%

%% %% % %% % % %%%%%% % %

% %

% %

% %%%% % %

%%%%% %% %%

% %%

%

%

%

% % %

%

% %

% %%%%%% % % %%

%

% %

%

%%%

% %

%% %

%

%%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

% %%%

% %%

%

% %

%

%

% %

%%

%

%

%

%%%%%%%%%

% % %

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%%%

%%

%%

%% %%

%

%

% %

%

%%%%

%

% %% %%%%

%

%%

%%%%% % %

%% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%%%% %% %%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

% % %

% %%

%

%

%%%%%%% %

%

%

% %

%

%% %

%

% %

%

%%

%% % %

%

%%

%%%%

%

%% %

%%% %%% %%%%%

% % %

%

%%

%

%%%

%

%

%%%

% %%%

%

%%

%%%%%

%

% %%%

%

%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %%%

%% % % % % % % % %%%% % %

%

%

%% %

%%%

%

%

%%% % % % %%%

%

% %

%

%

%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%% %%%%%%%%

%

%%%%% % % %%

%

%

%%

% %%

%

%% %%%% %%

%

%

%

%%%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%% %%

%% % % %

%

%

%

% % %

%%%

%%%

% %

% %

%

%

%%%%

%%%

%% %

%%

%

% %%%%%% %%

%

%%

%

%% %% %

%

%

%

%

% %

%

% %

% %

%

%

%

% %

% % % %%%%%%%%% %% %

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%%

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$$ $

$ $ $$

$

$$$

$

$

$ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $$ $

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $$$$$

$$$ $ $

$

$ $ $

$

$

$$ $$ $$$ $ $$

$$

$$$$$$ $

$$$ $$

$

$ $$$

$

$

$$

$

$ $

$ $

$$$

$

$

$

$$$ $$$

$

$$ $ $$$

$

$ $$$ $ $$

$

$

$$ $

$

$ $$ $ $

$$$$$$ $$

$$$$ $$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$$ $$$

$

$ $$$$

$

$

$

$$$$

$

$ $ $$$ $$ $

$

$

$

$

$$

$$$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $$ $$ $

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $

$$$

$

$

$$$$$$ $ $ $

$

$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$$$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$$$$$

$ $$$$$ $

$$$$$

$$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$$$$$$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $$

$ $$$$$$$$$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$ $

$ $ $$$$

$

$$

$ $

$

$$ $$$$ $

$

$

$

$$$$$

$$

$

$

$$

$$$$$$$$$$$

$

$$

$

$

$

$$ $$ $

$

$$ $$ $$

$$$ $

$$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$

$ $

$

$$$$$$$

$ $ $

$$$ $$ $ $$

$

$$$$$$ $$

$

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$$

$ $$$ $ $

$$

$

$

$$$$$$$

$

$$$

$

$

$ $ $

$$

$

$

$ $ $$$$$$$

$

$$

$

$ $ $

$$$$$$ $$$$$$$

$

$$ $ $ $$$$$$$$

$$ $$$$ $$ $$

$$

$$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $$$$$$

$ $

$

$$$$$$$$$$

$

$

$$$

$

$$$$ $$$$$ $ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$

$$$

$$$$$$

$ $

$ $

$ $ $$$$$$$$$ $ $$$$ $$$$ $ $$$

$

$ $$ $ $ $ $$$

$$$ $

$ $$$$

$

$$$$$ $$

$$$$$

$$$

$

$

$

$

$$$$$

%

%%

%%

%

%%%% %%%% %%

%% %

%

%% %

%% %

%

%% %

%%%%%%%%

%

%

% %

% %%% %

%

%%

%%

%%

%%%%

%%% %%

%

%% % %

% %%%% %

%%%%%%%%%

%

%

%

%

%%%%%%%

%%% %%%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

% %

% %

%

%

%%

%

%%

%%

%%

%

%

%%%%

%%

%%

%

% %

%

%% %

% %

%%%% %

%%

%

%%

%

%

%%

% %

%

%

% %

%

%%

%%

%

%

%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%

%

%

%%%

%%%%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%% %%%

%%

% % %

%

%

%%%%%%

%

%

%

%

% % %

%

%%%% % %

%%

%%% % %

%

%

%

%

%

%%

% % %

%%%

%

%%

%

%

%%%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%

%

%

%%%%%%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%%%

%

%

%

%

% % % % % %

%

%

%

%%% % %

% % %

%%%

%% %

%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

% % %

%% % %

%%%%%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%%

%%

%

% %%%%

%%%%%%% %

%%%

%%%%%%%

%

%

%

%%

%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

% %

%

%

% % %% %

%

%

%

% % %%%

%%

%

%% %

%

%%

%

%

%%%%

%

%

%

%

%%

%

%

% %

%%

%

%

% % % % %%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%

%

%%

%

%

%

%

%%

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $$$

$

$

$

$$$

$ $ $

$

$

$$

$ $

$ $$ $$$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$$$$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $$ $ $$$$ $$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$$

$

$

$

$

$ $$$$

$

$ $ $$

$

$$$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$ $ $

$$ $

$

$$ $ $ $$$

$

$$

$

$

$$$$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $$$$$ $

$$$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$ $$$$$

$

$

$

$$

$

$$ $

$ $ $ $$ $

$

$$$$$$

$ $$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$

$

$$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$$$$$

$ $ $ $$ $$

$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$

$$$$$$$

$$

$ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $$$

$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$

$$

$

$

$$

$

$$$$$ $

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $ $$$$ $

$ $

$$

$$$

$

$$$

$

$ $$$$ $$$

$$$$$ $$$$ $$ $

$

$$$$$$$$$

$ $$ $$$

$$$$$

$$$$$

$

$$$$$$$ $ $$$$ $

$$$$$$

$

$ $$$$ $ $

$

$$$

$

$$

$ $ $

$$$$$$$$$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$$$

$

$$$$

$$$ $ $$$

$

$

$

$$$

$$$$$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$$$ $ $ $ $

$$ $

$$

$ $

$ $

$$$

$

$

$

$

$ $$$$ $ $$

$

$

$ $$$$$$$$

$

$$$$

$$$$

$

$

$ $

$$

$ $

Chlorophyll_a = 6.40 + 8.27 * Total_Phosphorus

R-Square = 0.01

Figure 8.7: Scatter plot results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total phosphorus.

> Rainy Season: 0.2537

@ Dry Season: 0.1480

Correlation Coefficients

0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000

Total Nitrogen (ppm)

0.000

25.000

50.000

75.000

100.000

Ch ol ro

phylla(ug/l

@

@

@ @ @ @ @

@

@

@

@

>

> @

>

@

> @

>

@

@ >

@

@ @

>

@

@@@ @>

@ @ @ @ @ @

>

>

@

@

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

@

@

@

@

@ @ >

>

> @ > @ @@@

@

> >

> > @ @ @

@

@ @@ > > @ > @ >

@

> >

@@@

>

@ @@ >@ @ @

> > > >

> > >

@ @ @

@

>

>

>

> >

> @

> @ @ >@ > @ @@

>

>

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

>

@

>

>

>

>

@ >

@ >@ @@ > @

@ @ >@ @ >

@ @

>

>

>

>

@ @ @

@

> >

> @

@

> @

@ @@@@ @ @> @ >

@

@

@

@

> > > @ @ @

@ @@>

>

@ @ @

>

@ @

@

@

@

@>@

@ @ @ > @ > @ @

@

@

@

@

@

> > > > @ >@ @ @ @ @

@

@@ @

@ @ > >

@ > @ @

@

@ @ @ @ @

@ @

>

@

>

> @@@ @

>

@ @

@

>

@ @ @ @> @

@ >

>

@@ >@ > > >

> >

@ @

@

>

>

@

@

@ @ >

@ @

> @

> >

@

@

>

@ > > @ > >

>

> > >>

> @@ @ > @

@

@

@

@ >

>

>

@ > @ > @

> > >

@

> >

>

> @

>

@

@ >

@> @ @

@

@ @

@

@

@

@

@

>

>>

@

@

@

@ @ @

>

> > > > @ @

@ @ @ @ >

>@ @ @ >

@

@

@

@

@

@

>

@ @

@

@

> >

@@ @

@ @

@

@

>

>

@

@ >

>

@ @ @ >

>>

@ @ @

@ @

>

@

@

@

@

@

@ @ >

>

@> @ @

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

> @ @ > @ @ >

@

@@@@

@ @

@ >> @

@

@ @ @

@

@ @> > >

@ @ > >

@

@

> >

@ @ @

@> >

@

@

@

@ > >

@

>

@ >

> > > >

@

>>

@

@ >

@

>

> >

@ >

>

>

> > > >

>

@ >

@ @

@ >

@ >

@

>

>

>

@ >@ @@ @ >

@

@

> > @

@

> @ @

@ >

> >

>

@ @@

@

@

@

@ @

@ >

@ @ @

@ @

@ >@ > @@@

@

@

>

> @@ @ @

@

@ @

@

@@

> @>

> @@@ >

@

> @@ @

@

>

> @ > @

@

> @

@ @

@

@

@ >

> >

>

>

@ @ @

@

@

>@ @> @

@ @

> @>

>

@

>

>

>

>

@ @ @ >

@ > @

>

@ > @

@

@

@

@ > >

> > > @

@ @ > @ >@ @ @

@

@

> @ @

> >

@ @ @

>

>

>

@

@

@

>

@

@ > @

>

@> @

@ @ >

>

>

>

@

@ > @ > @ @ @

>

@@ @ @ @

>@

>

>

@

@

@ @ @@

>

@

> >

>

>

>

@ >

@

> >

@

> >

>

> >

@

>

>

>

>

@

>

>

@ @ @ >

@

@

@

@

@

> >@ @@ @

@

@ @ @

@

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

@

@ @> @

@

@ > @

@

@ > @ @

@ @

@

@ @ @ @ @ >@ @

@ @ >

@ @ @ @@ @

@ >@ >

@

@ @

@

@ @ @ @@

@

@

>

@

>

@ @ @ @ @

>@ >

>

@ > @

>

@ > @ @ >

>

@ >

> > >

@@

>

@

@@ @ >

> > > >

>

> > @

>

@ >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

@

@

@ >

@

@

@

@

@@

> >

@ @ >

@

@ @ > @

@

>

>

> @

@ @

>

@ @ @ > >

> @@ @ @ @ @

@ > @ @

@

@

@ @

@ @ @

@

@ @@@ @

@

@ @

@

@

@ > > >

>

@>

@ @ @@ @

>

@

@@ @ @ @

> @ > >

@ @ @

@ > >@

@ @

@

@

@

@ > >

>

@ @ @ @

> @

> > @ @

@

@ >

>

>

>

@

@

@

@

@ @ >

@

@

@

> > >> @ >

@ @@ @ > > >

@

>

@

>

>

@ @

@

@

> > @ @

@ @ @

@

@ @

@ @ > >

>

>

@

>

> @

@

@ @

>

@ >>

@

@

>

>

> >

>

> @

> @ @

@

>

>

> >

>

>

@

@

@

@

>

>

> >

@

>

>

@

@

@

@ @

@

>

@ @

@

>

> @

> @

>

> @ @ > @

>

@ @ @@

@

@ @

@@@

@

@ >

@ >

@ >

>

@ @@ @ >

>

@

>

@

> >

@

>

@

@ > @ > >

@ @>

@

@

>

@

>

> @ @ @ @ >

@ @ @

@ >> @

@ >

@ @

@ @ @ @

>

@ >

>

@

>

>

@ >

@ @

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@ @ > @

@

@

@

>

@ @ @

@

@ @ @ @ @ @ @@

> > > @

@ @@ @

@

@ @@>

@ @ @@ @

@ > @@

@

@ > @ > @@ @

@ @ @ @ @ > >

@

>> @ @ > > >

> @

@ @ @

@ @ > @@ @> > @ > >

@

@

>

>> @ @ > >

@ @

>

>

@

> @

@

> @ @

@ >

>

@

@

>

>

>

>

>

@

@@

@ @ @ @ @

>

@ @ >

@

@

@

@

@

@

>

>@@@ @

@

@@ > @ @

@

@

@

> >

@

@

@

@ @ @ @ @ @

@

>

@

@@

@

@

@

@

@

@

>@@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@ @

@

@ @>

@

@ @

@

@ >

@ @@ @ @ @ @

>

@

@ @

@@@

@ >

@ @ >

@

@ @ @> @ > @

@

@

@

@

>

@ > @@

@

> @ >@@ @

@

>

@ > @@

@

@ @@ @ > > >

>

@ @ @ @

>

@

@

@

@ @ @

@

> > >

> @

@

@@

@

>@ >@ > @ @ @ @

@ @

>

> @ >@@

>@@ >

@

@

>

@

@

@

> @

@ @ @ @

@ @

>

@

@

@@

@ @

@ >

>

@

@ @

@

@ > >

@ >

@ @

@

@

>

> >

@

>

@

@

>

@

>

@

>

@

@

> @

@ @@ @> @

>

@ > > @ > @

>

@

>

@

@

@

>

@

@

@

@

@

> @ @ @

>

@

@

@

>

>

@

@

@

@

>

>

@

@

>

@ @

@

@ @

@

>

> @

@

>

> > @ @

@

@>

>

>

>

@ > @ @ >

>

@

@

@ @ @

@

>

@

>

>

>

@ @

@ >

> > @

@

>

@

>

>

>

@ >

> >

>

@

@

@ @

> >

@

>

@

@

>

@ @>

> > >

> >

@ >

@

>

>

>

>

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > @

>

@

> >

>

>

@

>

>

>

>

>

>

@

@

@

> > @ >

@

>

>

>

>

>

@

@ >

@

> @ >

@

>

>

@

> >

>

@

> >

> >

>

>

@

@

> @

@ @ @@ @ @ >

@

@ > @ @

@

@

@

@

@

@

@ >

@ @

@

@ @

>

@

@

@ @

@

@ @ @ @

>

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@ @

>

>

@ @ @ @@@ >

> @ @

@ @ @@

@

@ >

@

@

@

@

@

@ @

>

@ @ @

@ @

@

@

@ @ @

@

> >

@ @

@ @

@

@@

>

> > @ @@

@ @ @ @

> >

@

@

@ >

> @

>

> @@ @ > >

@

> @ @

> >

@

@ @ > > > >

@ >

>

@

>

>

>> @

@

>

>

>

>

@ @ >

>

@

>

> >

>

>

>

> > @

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>

> @

@

>

>

>

@

> >
Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationships Draft Program Comparisons Report 2008

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

129 

Table 8.1: Stepwise regression results of chlorophyll a as predicted by total nitrogen and total phosphorus 

 Model 

Order1 Parameter F R R2 R2 Change Adjusted R2 SE 

All 1 TP 83.062 0.118 0.014 0.014 12.768 

2 TP, TN 47.838 0.126 0.016 0.002 0.016 12.756 

Dry Season 1 TP 144.596 0.199 0.039 0.039 7.876 

2 TP, TN 87.912 0.218 0.048 0.008 0.047 7.844 

Rainy Season 1 TP 4.977 0.046 0.002 0.002 17.351 

Lemon Bay 1 TN 8.718 0.153 0.024 0.021 6.162 

Tidal Peace 1 TN 19.073 0.175 0.031 0.029 12.562 

2 TN,TP 12.639 0.201 0.040 0.010 0.037 12.510 

West Wall 1 TN 34.152 0.242 0.059 0.057 11.164 

2 TN,TP 23.866 0.283 0.080 0.022 0.077 11.046 

East Wall 1 TP 18.751 0.174 0.030 0.029 7.815 

2 TP, TN 13.625 0.209 0.044 0.013 0.040 7.768 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze 1 TP 7.439 0.134 0.018 0.016 8.868 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 1 TP 113.222 0.398 0.159 0.157 5.260 

2 TP, TN 60.773 0.411 0.169 0.010 0.166 5.233 

Pine Island Sound 1 TN 14.626 0.175 0.030 0.028 8.538 

2 TN,TP 9.845 0.202 0.041 0.010 0.037 8.502 

Matlacha Pass 1 TN 6.597 0.142 0.020 0.017 4.407 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 1 TN 18.964 0.250 0.062 0.059 14.119 

Estero Bay 1 TN 13.154 0.171 0.029 0.027 8.017 

1Only parameters that contribute significantly (p<.05) are added to the regression equation 

*In Tidal Myakka and San Carlos Bay nitrogen or phosphorus did not contribute significantly to changes in chlorophyll a 
Segmentation Scheme Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

130 

IX. Segmentation Scheme for the CCHMN & CHEVWQMN 

A. Introduction 

 In order to aid in management issues, the current CCHMN segmentation scheme 

was evaluated. The flow patterns documented in Sheng 2002 and Zheng and Weisberg 

2004 were used as the basis for the segmentation scheme. Once done the salinity 

regimes of the areas dominated by one flow pattern were compared with the segment’s 

neighbors. The segments were then analyzed using Mann Whitney U tests in order to 

determine if the salinity regimes were significantly, statistically different. Four existing 

segments were split based flow and salinity: Lemon Bay, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha 

Pass and Estero Bay. Lemon Bay was split at the Tom Adams Bridge (p<0.01). Pine 

Island Sound was split south of Redfish Pass (p<0.01). Matlacha Pass was split at the 

Bascule Bridge (p<0.01). And, Estero Bay was split at roughly latitude 26.42 (p<0.01); 

south of the Estero River. All of the other established segments were statistically 

significantly different from their neighbors based on salinity and followed the flow 

patterns set forth in the literature, and were not changed. The results of this 

segmentation scheme were not used for any of the other analyses in this paper. The 

results of the Mann Whitney U are presented graphically in Table 9.1. Additionally, 

Table 9.2 is presented in order to aid in visual representation of the segmentation 

scheme, however it needs to be noted that the table is based on parametric statistics 

although the data were not distributed evenly about the mean. It is intended for visual 

reference only. 

Table 9.1: Salinity based segmentation results. 

StratumID N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks StratumID N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 

Upper Lemon Bay 594 558.63 331,826.00 Tidal Peace 982 801.67 787,244.00 

Lower Lemon Bay 891 865.91 771,529.00 West Wall 1,074 1,235.90 1,327,352.00 

 Mann-Whitney U 155,111.000 Mann-Whitney U 304,591.000 

 Wilcoxon W 331,826.000 Wilcoxon W 787,244.000 

 Z -13.528 Z -16.566 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed) 1.070E-41 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1.225E-61 

Cape Haze 654 654.14 427,810.50 Tidal Peace 982 744.23 730,830.50 

Lower Lemon Bay 891 860.24 766,474.50 East Wall 1,152 1,343.07 1,547,214.50 

 Mann-Whitney U 213,625.500 Mann-Whitney U 248,177.500 

 Wilcoxon W 427,810.500 Wilcoxon W 730,830.500 

 Z -8.971 Z -22.376 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed) 2.929E-19 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 6.672E-111 

Cape Haze 654 1,218.02 796,588.00 West Wall 1,074 997.48 1,071,291.50 

West Wall 1,074 649.23 697,268.00 East Wall 1,152 1,221.67 1,407,359.50 

 Mann-Whitney U 119,993.000 Mann-Whitney U 494,016.500 

 Wilcoxon W 697,268.000 Wilcoxon W 1,071,291.500 

 Z -22.983 Z -8.223 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed) 6.955E-117 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1.980E-16 
Segmentation Scheme Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

131 

Table 9.1, Cont. 

StratumID N Mean Rank 

Sum of 

Ranks StratumID N Mean Rank 

Sum of 

Ranks 

Cape Haze 654 1,213.17 793,410.50 Lower Charlotte 1,441 1,570.65 2,263,304.00 

East Wall 1,152 727.70 838,310.50 West Wall 1,074 838.52 900,566.00 

 Mann-Whitney U 174,182.500 Mann-Whitney U 323,291.000 

 Wilcoxon W 838,310.500 Wilcoxon W 900,566.000 

 Z -19.014 Z -25.010 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed) 1.312E-80 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 4.707E-138 

Cape Haze 654 1,134.59 742,022.50 Lower Charlotte 1,441 1,553.55 2,238,668.00 

Lower Charlotte 1,441 1,008.70 1,453,537.50 East Wall 1,152 976.09 1,124,453.00 

 Mann-Whitney U 414,576.500 Mann-Whitney U 460,325.000 

 Wilcoxon W 1,453,537.500 Wilcoxon W 1,124,453.000 

 Z -4.414 Z -19.516 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed) 1.015E-05 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 8.058E-85 

Tidal Myakka 664 765.64 508,384.00 Lower Charlotte 1,441 921.59 1,328,014.50 

Tidal Peace 982 862.62 847,097.00 Upper Matlacha Pass 256 440.38 112,738.50 

 Mann-Whitney U 287,604.000 Mann-Whitney U 79,842.500 

 Wilcoxon W 508,384.000 Wilcoxon W 112,738.500 

 Z -4.061 Z -14.479 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed) 4.881E-05 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1.655E-47 

Tidal Myakka 664 563.11 373,908.00 Lower Charlotte 1,441 882.34 1,271,456.50 

West Wall 1,074 1,058.92 1,137,283.00 Upper Pine Island 

Sound 379 1,017.56 385,653.50 

 Mann-Whitney U 153,128.000 Mann-Whitney U 232,495.500 

 Wilcoxon W 373,908.000 Wilcoxon W 1,271,456.500 

 Z -20.012 Z -4.457 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed) 4.326E-89 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 8.315E-06 

Tidal Myakka 664 508.43 337,594.50 Upper Matlacha Pass 256 318.61 81,565.00 

East Wall 1,152 1,139.10 1,312,241.50 Lower Matlacha Pass 327 271.17 88,671.00 

 Mann-Whitney U 116,814.500 Mann-Whitney U 35,043.000 

 Wilcoxon W 337,594.500 Wilcoxon W 88,671.000 

 Z -24.684 Z -3.375 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed) 1.596E-134 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 7.368E-04 

Upper Pine Island 

Sound 379 336.96 127,708.00 San Carlos Bay 743 723.78 537,765.00 

Lower Pine Island 

Sound 263 299.22 78,695.00 Tidal Caloosahatchee 366 212.38 77,730.00 

 Mann-Whitney U 43,979.000 Mann-Whitney U 10,569.000 

 Wilcoxon W 78,695.000 Wilcoxon W 77,730.000 

 Z -2.536 Z -25.006 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 5.262E-138 

San Carlos Bay 743 631.23 469,002.50 Upper Estero Bay 179 395.05 70,713.50 

Lower Matlacha Pass 327 317.99 103,982.50 San Carlos Bay 743 477.51 354,789.50 

 Mann-Whitney U 50,354.500 Mann-Whitney U 54,603.500 

 Wilcoxon W 103,982.500 Wilcoxon W 70,713.500 

 Z -15.274 Z -3.719 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1.136E-52 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1.999E-04 
Segmentation Scheme Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

132 

Table 9.1, Cont. 

San Carlos Bay 743 488.63 363,048.50 Upper Estero Bay 179 255.89 45,804.50 

Lower Pine Island 

Sound 263 545.52 143,472.50 Lower Estero Bay 404 308.00 124,431.50 

 Mann-Whitney U 86,652.500 Mann-Whitney U 29,694.500 

 Wilcoxon W 363,048.500 Wilcoxon W 45,804.500 

 Z -2.729 Z -3.446 

 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 6.347E-03 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 5.698E-04 

Table 9.2: Results of Turkey HSD. 

 Group 

Segment N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Tidal 

Caloosahatchee 366 6.2779 

Tidal Myakka 664 14.2317 

Tidal Peace 982 15.9919 

Lower Matlacha 

Pass 327 19.9219 

Upper Matlacha 

Pass 256 21.9912 

West Wall 1,074 22.4725 

Upper Estero 

Bay 382 24.2846 

East Wall 1,152 24.7316 24.7316 

Upper Lemon 

Bay 594 26.1366 

San Carlos Bay 743 28.0548 

Lower Charlotte 1,441 29.1416 29.1416 

Lower Pine 

Island Sound 263 29.7167 

Cape Haze 654 30.1138 30.1138

Lower Estero 

Bay 201 30.2254 30.2254

Upper Pine 

Island Sound 379 30.6051 30.6051

Lower Lemon 

Bay 891 31.4343
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

133

X. Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary 

Region Based on Both CCHMN and CHEVWQMN 

A. Introduction 

Water quality status and trends were characterized for eleven parameters from 

2001 through 2007 across the Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves, and 

surrounding areas. Across the region, two water quality monitoring programs’ sites 

were grouped into twelve estuary regions and analyzed in this report. This section 

characterizes water quality conditions for each estuary region based on CHEVWQMN 

and CCHMN results. Additional summaries of influences from the adjacent watershed 

basins are provided based on the land uses and NPDES and Wastewater Sites, based 

on the most recent census data, active FDEP permits, and data from both water 

management districts in the watershed (U.S. Census 2002, FDEP 2008, SFWMD 2007 

and SWFWMD 2007). Management considerations are also provided based on the 

unique hydrologic conditions and interactions within each estuary. 

 For this summary, the twelve estuary regions are grouped based on Aquatic 

Preserve boundaries and watershed influences into four Aquatic Preserve management 

areas, including: Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze, Pine 

Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Tidal Caloosahatchee, and Estero 

Bay. Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve includes both the Venice and Lemon Bay Basins. 

Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve includes the Gasparilla 

Sound/Cape Haze, Tidal Myakka and Peace Rivers, the East and West Walls of Upper 

Charlotte Harbor and Lower Charlotte Harbor estuary regions, as well as the Myakka, 

Peace and Charlotte Harbor Basins. Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos 

were grouped because they are located in the Pine Island Basin. In addition, Tidal 

Caloosahatchee was added to this group due to it flowing directly into San Carlos Bay, 

and its affects on the other estuary regions in the area during times of high rates of flow. 

Finally, there is a section on Estero Bay and its associated Aquatic Preserve and Basin. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

134

Figure 10.1: Charlotte Harbor Watershed Population Densities/Urban Areas.
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

135

B. Lemon Bay and its Basins 

1. Background 

Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve extends from Alligator Creek in Venice to the Boca 

Grande Bridge. The Bay is separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a series of barrier 

islands. There are seven tributaries (Alligator, Forked, Gottfried, Ainger, Oyster, Buck 

and Lemon Creeks), two Gulf passes (Stump Pass and Little Gasparilla) and 

connections to the Gulf of Mexico through the Venice Bypass Canal to the north and 

Placida Harbor to the south. The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high 

waterline of the Bay and the tributaries upstream to SR 776/SR 775. Lemon Bay is 

approximately 28 km (~15 mi) long and averages 1 km (~3/4 mile) wide, with an area of 

27 km2 (6,660 acres). The Bay is narrow and shallow, averaging approximately 1.4 m 

deep at mean high water. Within the estuary, the largest submerged habitat is 

seagrass, comprising nearly 13 km2

 (3,179 acres) growing to approximately 1.6 m deep. 

The Aquatic Preserve includes two counties (Sarasota and Charlotte) and the urban 

areas of South Venice, Englewood and Placida (FWC-FMRI 2007, CHAP 2001 – 2007 

STMP data). 

 The watershed for Lemon Bay includes both the Coastal Venice and Lemon Bay 

Basins, and extends downstream from the headwaters of the seven tributaries and is 

approximately 496 km2

 (122,555 acres) in size. The ratio of watershed land area to 

open water estuary area is approximately 18:1. Based on 2006 data from SWFWMD, 

the largest land use in the watershed is urban (47%), followed by agriculture (22%) and 

upland forest (13%) followed by wetlands (11%; note: water areas were not included 

for calculating percentages). As of 2000, there were 111,378 residents living within the 

Venice and Lemon Bay Basins, with a projected increase in population of 303% by 2020 

(based on the 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses). There are 91 domestic 

wastewater discharges, 26 industrial wastewater discharges, 68 water supplies 

permitted within the Venice and Lemon Bay Basins, as well as 108 active NPDES 

permitted sites (Figures 10.2 and 10.3; FDEP 2008). 

2. Water Quality Status and Trends Results in Lemon Bay 

In the Lemon Bay region, results indicated generally below average water quality 

conditions compared to other sub-estuaries in the Charlotte Harbor region. Lemon Bay 

ranked lowest for all sub-estuaries in the region for DO and fecal coliform bacteria. In 

addition, Lemon Bay ranked 10th of 12 for TN, TP and chlorophyll a. Results showed 

frequent exceedances of Florida Surface Water Standards for DO, chlorophyll a and 

fecal coliform bacteria. Trend results for the Lemon Bay region indicate increases in 

DO, pH, and salinity, and a decrease in turbidity. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for both Secchi depth and Kd

values are turbidity and color (R2

=0.397 and R2=0.237, respectively). Water quality 

status and trends results for Lemon Bay are shown in Table 10.1. 

Sampling sites farther north in the bay exhibited the most degraded water quality 

in Lemon Bay possibly affecting the collective results for the region. The region had the 

greatest percentage of DO values less than both 4.0 mg/L (24%) and 5.0 mg/L (43%), 

as well as having the greatest number of fecal coliform bacteria exceedances greater 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

136

than 800 cfu/100mL in one day (N=9). 2001 was the only year during the study period 

that Lemon Bay exceeded an annual mean of 10 μg/L (11.13 μg/L, N=66). Lemon Bay 

had only one sample that exceeded 29 NTU for turbidity (03-Feb-2003, site LBV003, 66 

NTU). Region specific water quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 

3. Discussion 

Results for Lemon Bay were typically average to below-average compared to the 

other estuary regions in the area, and across both programs. Below average DO 

conditions frequently exceeding Florida Surface Water Criteria is of one of the most 

critical water quality issues across Lemon Bay; however trend analyses show DO to be 

improving at a rate of 0.24 mg/L per year. Regulatory exceedances of fecal coliform 

bacteria in the region, particularly near tributaries, are additional concerns. Results, 

however, indicate that fecal coliform bacteria exceedance events were isolated, 

indicating that causes of increased bacteria are site- and event-specific. In the Lemon 

Bay estuary, turbidity and color explained the most variability in water clarity. 

The chlorophyll a criteria was 12.60 μg/L. Turbidity criteria calculated as 6.60 

NTU, whereas color calculated as 20.00 PCU. In order to attain these, and state 

criteria, effective resource management goals for Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve should 

focus on improving DO and fecal coliform levels in the estuary, as well as reducing OP. 

Reducing color and turbidity levels would contribute to improving water clarity, 

potentially enhancing seagrass growth. Natural and anthropogenic sources of color, 

such as from runoff, need to be identified and quantified. Natural and anthropogenic 

sources of turbidity, including wind-driven and boating-related, should be investigated 

and quantified. However, trend results for turbidity show that it is decreasing annually at 

a rate of -0.12 NTU per year. Additionally, elevated nutrient and fecal coliform bacteria 

levels associated with increasing urban land uses, such as septic systems and 

stormwater runoff, should be identified, quantified, prioritized and remediated. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

137

Figure 10.2: Venice Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

138

Figure 10.3: Lemon Bay Basin NPDES and Wastewater Sites. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

139

Table 10.1: Status and Trends Summary for Lemon Bay 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 469 0.40 9.00 1.39 0.06 1.10 8 * 

Temp (deg. C) 1492 12.52 34.52 24.03 0.12 24.50 8 

DO (mg/L) 1483 0.70 10.86 5.27 0.05 5.30 12 ↑

pH 1455 7.03 9.00 7.98 0.01 7.91 4 ↑

Salinity (ppt) 1485 0.00 40.70 29.32 0.23 32.82 7 ↑

TN (ppm) 890 0.01 3.01 0.75 0.02 0.69 10 * 

TP (ppm) 946 0.01 1.30 0.14 0.00 0.09 10 *

Chl a (ug/L) 870 0.01 62.00 6.48 0.21 4.81 10 

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 592 1 2850 106.31 10.81 20 11 

Turbidity (NTU) 974 0.56 66.00 3.52 0.11 2.60 8 ↓

Color (PCU) 973 1.00 360.00 31.17 1.17 20.00 7 

1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 

 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

140

C. Gasparilla Sound–Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze and Their 

Associated Basins 

Including Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Tidal Peace and Myakka Rivers, the East 

and West Walls, and Lower Charlotte Harbor Estuary Regions 

1. Background 

 The Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves are 

discussed together in the following section because the two aquatic preserves share a 

common estuary and basins. Together, the two aquatic preserves extend from the 

Myakka and Peace River mouths southwest to Boca Grande Pass. The boundary of 

the aquatic preserves follows the mean high water line of the Harbor and tributaries 

upstream to tidal influence. Additionally, the aquatic preserves are bounded in Punta 

Gorda by the US 41 S Bridge, in El Jobean by the SR776 Bridge, in Placida by the Boca 

Grande causeway, and in the south by Cayo Costa and Pine Island. Charlotte Harbor is 

approximately 26 km (16 mi) long and 19 km (12 mi) wide at its maximum extents, 

covering over 401 km2

 (99,206 acres) of submerged lands. Charlotte Harbor proper is 

the largest and deepest of the local estuaries, exceeding 6 m deep in the central 

depressions and 15 m deep at Boca Grande Pass. The two major tributaries are the 

Myakka and Peace Rivers, along with several smaller tributaries, including Alligator, 

Catfish and Whidden Creeks. Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves are 

located in Charlotte and Lee Counties, adjacent to the communities of Punta Gorda, 

Port Charlotte, Placida and Boca Grande. 

 Seagrass habitat within the Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze 

Aquatic Preserves occurs along shallow shoreline areas, and comprises over 90 km2

(22,341 acres). Throughout the estuary, the average deep edge of seagrass growth 

varies from 0.7 m near the Myakka River, to 1.3 m along the East Wall of the Harbor, to 

1.8 m in Cape Haze (FWC-FMRI 2007, CHAP 2001 – 2007 STMP data). 

 The watershed for Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic 

Preserves begins for the Peace River at Lake Hancock in Polk County and for the 

Myakka River at Flatford Swamp in Sarasota County. Including the seven tributaries 

and rivers, the watershed area is approximately 8,482 km2 (2,095,849 acres) in size. 

The land to water ratio is approximately 21:1. Based on 2006 data from SWFWMD and 

2005 data from SFWMD, the largest land use in the watershed is agriculture (36%), 

followed by urban/developed (27%) and wetlands (16%) then upland forest (12%; note: 

water areas were not included for calculating percentages). A large percentage of the 

estuary shoreline is managed under the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park. Urban 

areas are centered adjacent to the estuary at Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte, along the 

Peace River at Arcadia and Bartow, and near Lake Hancock, as well as other areas. As 

of 2000, there were 530,491 residents living within the Peace, Myakka and Charlotte 

Harbor Basins, with a projected increase in population of 143% by 2020 (based on the 

1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses). There are 279 active domestic wastewater 

point source discharges, 262 active industrial wastewater discharges, 61 active power 

plant wastewater discharges, 138 active phosphate mining wastewater discharges, 402 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

141

water supplies permitted in the watershed, as well as 426 active NPDES permits 

(Figures 10.4 – 10.6; FDEP 2008). 

2. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Tidal Myakka River 

 Water quality in Tidal Myakka was generally below average compared to other 

sub-estuaries in the region. Tidal Myakka was tied with Tidal Caloosahatchee for the 

lowest median Secchi value and had the highest median turbidity and the second 

highest chlorophyll a and TP values of all estuary regions. Temperature, DO and 

salinity in Tidal Myakka had significantly increased over the study period, with DO 

increasing at a rate of 0.28 mg/L per year. Fecal coliform bacteria and color 

significantly decreased for Tidal Myakka, as well. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for both Secchi depth and Kd

values are color and turbidity (R2=0.380 and R2=0.557, respectively). 

Neither fecal coliform bacteria nor turbidity levels exceeded Florida Surface 

Waters criteria during the study period. However, Tidal Myakka did exceed criteria for 

DO occasionally (12% for 5.0 mg/L and 6% for 4.0 mg/L) and for chlorophyll a

(2001=11.45 μg/L, N=41; 2002=11.76 μg/L, N=61; 2006=14.19 μg/L, N=82). Salinity in 

Tidal Myakka significantly increased over the study duration and was the second lowest 

recorded median value across all estuary regions. Increasing salinity levels may 

correspond to a decreasing trend in color concentrations that was also detected in the 

region. Status and trends results for Tidal Myakka River are shown in Table 10.2. 

Region-specific water quality status results are shown in Appendix A.

3. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Tidal Peace River 

 Water quality in Tidal Peace was generally below average compared to other 

sub-estuaries in the region; however this may be due to the increased freshwater 

influence. Tidal Peace had the highest median TP and chlorophyll a levels and the 

second highest TN and turbidity values of all estuary regions. DO levels in Tidal Peace 

had significantly increased over the study period, with DO increasing at a rate of 0.18 

mg/L per year. Fecal coliform bacteria values significantly decreased for Tidal Peace, 

at a rate of 4 cfu/100 mL per year as well. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for both Secchi depth and Kd

values are color and turbidity (R2

=0.367 and R2=0.343, respectively). 

Along with Lemon Bay, Tidal Peace was the only other region to exceed fecal 

coliform bacteria levels of 800 cfu/100 mL in any one day (N=1). Tidal Peace also 

exceeded turbidity levels once during the study period (17-Oct-01, 34 NTU). In addition, 

it exceeded criteria for DO regularly (24% for 5.0 mg/L and 10% for 4.0 mg/L) and for 

chlorophyll a (2001=15.81 μg/L, N=58; 2006=12.94 μg/L, N=126). Status and trends 

results for Tidal Peace River are shown in Table 10.3. Region-specific water quality 

status results are shown in Appendix A.

4. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the West Wall 

 Water quality in the West Wall region was generally average compared to other 

sub-estuaries in the region. The West Wall had the third highest median Secchi value 

and had the second highest median DO of all estuary regions. However, the 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

142

temperature and DO had significantly decreased over the study period. In addition, 

color values had significantly decreased, as well. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for both Secchi depth and Kd

values in the West Wall region are color followed by turbidity (R2=0.464 and R2=0.504, 

respectively). Status and trends results for the West Wall are shown in Table 10.4. 

The West Wall was the only region that was not sampled for fecal coliform 

bacteria during the study period by either program, and therefore cannot be compared 

to other regions or to state criteria for this parameter. The West Wall never exceeded 

turbidity levels during the study period. However, it did exceeded criteria for DO 

occasionally (14% for 5.0 mg/L and 8% for 4.0 mg/L) and for chlorophyll a (2001=14.59 

μg/L, N=56; 2006=11.44 μg/L, N=99). Region-specific water quality status results are 

shown in Appendix A. 

5. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the East Wall 

 Water quality in the East Wall region was generally above average compared to 

other sub-estuaries within the region. The East Wall had the second highest median 

Secchi value and had the third lowest median values for both chlorophyll a and turbidity 

of all estuary regions. Significant decreasing trends for the East Wall were detected for 

both turbidity and color over the study period. In addition, DO and pH values had 

significantly increased, as well. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for Secchi depth values 

within the East Wall region are color, turbidity and followed by chlorophyll a (R2=0.335). 

However, when regressed against Kd, only color and chlorophyll a were statistically 

significant (R2=0.390). This apparent inconsistency is most likely due to seasonal 

changes, as turbidity was statistically significant (R2

=0.477) versus Kd during the dry 

season, whereas in the rainy season only color was significant (R2=0.361). Status and 

trends results for the East Wall are shown in Table 10.5. 

The East Wall exceeded turbidity levels only once during the study period (7-

Sep-05, 65 NTU). In addition, it exceeded criteria for DO occasionally (14% for 5.0 

mg/L and 8% for 4.0 mg/L) and for chlorophyll a (2001=11.64 μg/L, N=59). The East 

Wall never exceeded state standards for fecal coliform bacteria. Region-specific water 

quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 

6. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 

Water quality in the Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze was generally above average 

compared to other regions within the study. Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze had the forth 

highest median Secchi value and had the third highest median values for DO of all 

estuary regions. A significant decreasing trend for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze was 

detected for color during the study period. In addition, DO values had significantly 

increased. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for Secchi depth values 

within Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze region are color, turbidity and followed by 

chlorophyll a (R2

=0.334). However, when regressed against Kd, only color and turbidity 

were statistically significant (R2

=0.393), much like the East Wall. However, unlike the 

East Wall, this inconsistency cannot be explained by seasonality, as both color and 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

143

turbidity were statistically significant (R2=0.269) versus Kd during the dry season, and 

only color was significant (R2

=0.436) during the rainy season. Status and trends results 

for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze are shown in Table 10.6. 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze had few exceedances of state water quality criteria. 

Turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state standards during the 

study period. In addition, it exceeded criteria for DO occasionally (18% for 5.0 mg/L and 

9% for 4.0 mg/L) and for chlorophyll a (2001=13.37 μg/L, N=40). Region-specific water 

quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 

7. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Lower Charlotte Harbor

Lower Charlotte Harbor had some of the best water quality for all water quality 

parameters compared to other regions in the study. Lower Charlotte Harbor had the 

highest median Secchi value (2.00 m), as well as the lowest median values for TN (0.47 

ppm), fecal coliform bacteria (tied with three other regions; 2 cfu/100 mL), and turbidity 

(1.21 NTU) of all estuary regions. Lower Charlotte Harbor had a significant decreasing 

trend for chlorophyll a during the study period. In addition, pH values had significantly 

increased. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for Secchi depth values 

within Lower Charlotte Harbor region are color and turbidity (R2=0.407). However, 

when regressed against Kd, color, turbidity and chlorophyll a were statistically significant 

(R2=0.528), much like other regions. However, when looking at seasonality, both color 

and turbidity were statistically significant versus Kd during the dry season (R2=0.330), 

and both color and turbidity were significant (R2

=0.640) during the rainy season. Status 

and trends results for Lower Charlotte Harbor are shown in Table 10.7. 

Lower Charlotte Harbor had few exceedances of state water quality criteria. 

Turbidity, chlorophyll a, and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state 

standards during the study period. In addition, it exceeded criteria for DO few times 

(13% for 5.0 mg/L and 4% for 4.0 mg/L). Region-specific water quality status results 

are shown in Appendix A. 

8. Discussion 

Results indicated that overall water quality in the Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte 

Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves varied greatly based upon the parameter and 

region of interest. Water clarity was low in the in the Tidal Myakka and Peace Rivers, 

however water clarity among the best for the other four regions. Color and turbidity 

concentrations were the primary parameters most often contributing most to light 

attenuation across the region, with chlorophyll a contributing only occasionally and 

regionally. Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, were higher than average, 

particularly in the Tidal Peace and Myakka regions, but were among the lowest in Lower 

Charlotte Harbor. Below-average DO values, as well as frequent observations below 

state standards of 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L, are also cause for concern in the Tidal Peace 

River. 

Due to the complex nature of the Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape 

Haze Aquatic Preserves and their watershed basins, effective resource management 

goals should be multi-faceted and estuary/region specific. In Tidal Peace and Myakka, 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

144

sources of high nitrogen and fecal coliform bacteria need to be identified and reduced. 

In the East Wall, as with the Tidal Myakka and Peace, sources of fecal bacteria need to 

be identified. For the West Wall, nitrogen sources should be identified and reduced. 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze requires the identification of sources of OP and possible 

reduction, whereas Lower Charlotte Harbor needs the sources of nitrogen identified and 

potentially reduced. 

 In order to minimize light attenuation for improved seagrass growth, criteria were 

calculated for turbidity, color (actually a target value and not controllable criteria) and 

chlorophyll a. Calculated chlorophyll a criteria for the Tidal Peace and Myakka were 

4.81 μg/L for Tidal Peace and 6.87 μg/L for Tidal Myakka. Elsewhere, the calculated 

values were: 21.15 μg/L for the East Wall, 5.35 μg/L for the West Wall, 5.07 μg/L for 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, and 2.13 μg/L for Lower Charlotte Harbor. Turbidity 

criteria values for Tidal Myakka and Peace, the West and East Walls, Gasparilla 

Sound/Cape Haze, and Lower Charlotte Harbor were as follows: 22.10, 34.88, 7.95, 

19.28, 7.75, and 5.12 NTU, respectively. Calculated color targets for the Tidal Peace 

and Myakka were high (60.00 and 60.00 PCU, respectively), due to the nature of these 

black-water systems. The color criteria were substantially lower for the West and East 

Walls, Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, and Lower Charlotte Harbor: 30.00, 30.00, 20.00, 

and 16.80 PCU, respectively. Once again it is important to note that many of the 

turbidity and chlorophyll a criteria are near or below the state standards of 29 NTU and 

11 μg/L. There are no standards for color. 

In order to attain these criteria, the natural hydrology of the area needs to be 

restored and maintained; and the impacts to water quality from mining and agriculture, 

as well as other land-use activities needs to be identified, quantified, minimized and 

remedied. Nitrogen levels, and to a lesser extent phosphorus, need to be reduced 

within the entire region in order to restore seagrass beds, particularly Tidal Peace, and 

to improve the overall health of the region. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

145

Figure 10.4: Myakka Basin NPDES and Wastewater Sites. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

146

Table 10.2: Status and Trends Summary for Tidal Myakka 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 302 0.30 9.00 0.93 0.05 0.80 11 * 

Temp (deg. C) 664 13.00 32.37 24.69 0.17 25.41 8 ↑

DO (mg/L) 665 0.60 11.65 6.67 0.06 6.73 4 ↑

pH 622 6.70 9.32 7.79 0.01 7.80 10 

Salinity (ppt) 664 0.15 31.32 14.23 0.32 14.97 11 ↑

TN (ppm) 444 0.01 4.44 1.00 0.03 0.93 9 * 

TP (ppm) 466 0.01 3.71 0.26 0.01 0.22 11 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 455 0.73 100.00 9.44 0.47 6.82 11 

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 103 1 288 37.03 5.45 12 8 ↓

Turbidity (NTU) 467 0.43 23.80 3.98 0.12 3.35 12 

Color (PCU) 467 5.00 423.00 97.84 4.04 60.00 10 ↓

1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

147

 Figure 10.5: Peace River Basin NPDES and Wastewater Sites.
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

148

Table 10.3: Status and Trends Summary for Tidal Peace 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 515 0.07 9.00 1.10 0.05 0.90 10 * 

Temp (deg. C) 985 4.00 33.26 24.53 0.14 25.15 5 

DO (mg/L) 976 0.35 14.49 6.33 0.06 6.20 9 ↑

pH 928 5.80 9.38 7.78 0.01 7.80 10 

Salinity (ppt) 982 0.00 36.70 15.99 0.30 17.45 10 

TN (ppm) 665 0.01 6.63 1.09 0.03 0.98 11 * 

TP (ppm) 701 0.01 2.33 0.40 0.01 0.35 12 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 650 0.01 149.00 10.63 0.49 7.12 12 

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 330 1 1200 46.94 5.10 20 9 ↓

Turbidity (NTU) 712 0.60 34.20 4.12 0.13 3.20 11 

Color (PCU) 718 5.00 507.00 84.04 2.81 60.00 10 

1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

149

Table 10.4: Status and Trends Summary for West Wall 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte Harbor

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 245 0.40 9.00 1.71 0.08 1.50 3 * 

Temp (deg. C) 1074 16.30 32.51 24.58 0.14 25.15 5 ↓

DO (mg/L) 1072 0.05 12.20 6.59 0.05 6.89 2 ↓

pH 1024 5.96 8.65 7.89 0.01 7.91 8 

Salinity (ppt) 1074 1.99 36.30 22.47 0.20 23.73 8 

TN (ppm) 552 0.01 3.31 0.81 0.02 0.71 8 * 

TP (ppm) 565 0.01 1.62 0.23 0.01 0.17 9 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 564 1.00 168.00 7.42 0.48 4.72 8 

Coliform (cfu/100mL; not sampled) * * * * * * * * 

Turbidity (NTU) 563 0.29 19.50 2.95 0.11 2.20 6 

Color (PCU) 563 2.00 332.00 57.21 2.56 30.00 7 ↓

1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

150

Table 10.5: Status and Trends Summary for East Wall 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 215 0.40 10.10 2.05 0.10 1.70 2 * 

Temp (deg. C) 1153 15.00 33.27 24.74 0.13 25.06 4 

DO (mg/L) 1153 0.09 15.85 6.41 0.05 6.53 5 ↑

pH 1117 4.04 10.33 7.91 0.01 7.94 7 ↑

Salinity (ppt) 1152 2.50 39.10 24.73 0.17 25.76 6 

TN (ppm) 617 0.01 2.85 0.70 0.018 0.62 4 * 

TP (ppm) 631 0.01 0.87 0.18 0.01 0.13 8 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 619 1.00 96.00 5.98 0.31 3.63 4 

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 67 2 800 60.33 15.81 20 10 

Turbidity (NTU) 634 0.18 64.90 2.59 0.14 1.80 3 ↓

Color (PCU) 635 4.00 300.00 44.63 1.83 30.00 7 ↓

1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

151

Figure 10.6: Charlotte Harbor Basin NPDES and Wastewater Sites.
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

152

Table 10.6: Status and Trends Summary for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 194 0.03 9.00 1.63 0.10 1.40 4 * 

Temp (deg. C) 654 8.65 33.10 24.99 0.18 25.69 10 

DO (mg/L) 649 0.59 11.21 6.62 0.07 6.80 3 ↑

pH 622 7.20 10.53 8.08 0.01 8.05 2 

Salinity (ppt) 654 3.70 40.70 30.11 0.22 31.90 1 

TN (ppm) 431 0.01 2.53 0.71 0.02 0.63 6 * 

TP (ppm) 458 0.01 1.26 0.12 0.01 0.09 6 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 441 1.00 119.00 6.71 0.42 4.00 6 

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 134 1 280 21.88 3.60 6 6 

Turbidity (NTU) 467 0.46 24.00 3.09 0.10 2.50 9 

Color (PCU) 460 1.00 300.00 30.41 1.52 20.00 4 ↓

1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 

2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 

level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

153

Table 10.7: Status and Trends Summary for Lower Charlotte Harbor 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 305 0.50 9.00 2.31 0.09 2.00 1 * 

Temp (deg. C) 1444 13.00 35.89 24.87 0.13 26.00 12 

DO (mg/L) 1437 1.69 11.80 6.29 0.03 6.30 7 

pH 1420 6.60 8.70 7.87 0.01 7.83 9 ↑

Salinity (ppt) 1441 3.92 48.40 29.14 0.15 30.51 3 

TN (ppm) 639 0.01 2.35 0.54 0.01 0.47 1 * 

TP (ppm) 653 0.01 0.80 0.10 0.00 0.08 6 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 625 0.01 75.80 4.63 0.23 2.67 2 ↑

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 195 1 152 10.07 1.48 2 1 

Turbidity (NTU) 664 0.20 12.40 1.68 0.06 1.21 1 ↓

Color (PCU) 664 0.70 158.00 25.43 0.97 16.80 3 1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 

2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 

level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

154

D. Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Tidal 

Caloosahatchee and Their Associated Basins 

Including Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass Estuary Regions 

1. Background 

 Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass surround Pine Island from north to south 

and are bordered by barriers islands and Pine Island to the west. Pine Island Sound 

Aquatic Preserve extends from Boca Grande Pass south to Sanibel, between Pine 

Island and four barrier islands. There is one primary tributary (Caloosahatchee River) 

and four Gulf passes (Boca Grande, Captiva, Red Fish and Blind). The aquatic 

preserve boundary follows the mean high waterline of the Sound. Pine Island Sound is 

approximately 32 km (20 mi) long and 8 km (5 mi) wide, with an area of approximately 

229 km2 (56,483 acres). It is the second largest of the estuaries in the region. The 

aquatic preserves are located in Lee County and the City of Sanibel is the only 

incorporated area on the Sound. 

 Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve is located between Pine Island and Cape Coral, 

extending north-south along the length of the island. The primary tributary is the 

Caloosahatchee River. The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high waterline 

of the Pass, with the exclusion of a small area to the south. Matlacha Pass is 

approximately 21 km (13 mi) long and 5 km (3 mi) wide, with an area of approximately 

80 km2

 (19,794 acres). The aquatic preserve is located in Lee County and the primary 

urban area adjacent to the estuary region is the City of Cape Coral (Duffey et al 2007). 

 Within both estuaries, seagrasses comprise approximately 142 km2

 (35,039 

acres) of the estuarine area. The average deep edge of seagrass growth is 

approximately 1.7 m in Pine Island Sound and 1.3 m in Matlacha pass (FMRI 2007; 

CHAP 2001 – 2007 seagrass data).

 The Pine Island Sound Basin includes the coastal areas of northern Lee County, 

Pine Island and the barrier islands west of Pine Island Sound. The Pine Island Basin is 

approximately 778 km2

 (192,258 acres) in size. The ratio of watershed land area to 

open water estuary area is slightly over 2:1. Based on 2005 data from SFWMD, the 

largest land use in the watershed is urban/developed (43%), followed by wetlands 

(40%) and upland forest (7%) then agriculture (4%; note: water areas were not 

included for calculating percentages). A large portion of the shoreline is managed for 

preservation under the Charlotte Harbor Preserves State Park, "Ding" Darling National 

Wildlife Refuge and the nonprofit Calusa Land Trust. As of 2000, there were 41,081

residents living within the Pine Island Basin, with a projected increase in population of 

289% by 2020 (based on the 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses). Urban areas are 

concentrated on the east side of Matlacha Pass in Cape Coral, and are increasing 

rapidly on Sanibel and Pine Island. There are 25 domestic wastewater discharges, 

fourteen industrial wastewater discharges, 75 NPDES sites and 20 water supplies 

permitted in the basin (Figure 10.7; FDEP 2008). 

San Carlos Bay, while not an aquatic preserve itself, connects three adjacent 

aquatic preserves: Matlacha Pass, Pine Island Sound and Estero Bay Aquatic 

Preserves. San Carlos Bay receives waters from both the Pine Island and Lower 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

155

Caloosahatchee Basins. It is located at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, its 

primary tributary. San Carlos Bay is approximately 8 km (5 mi) long and 5 km (3 mi) 

wide, and is approximately 66 km2

 (16,309 acres) in area. It is located in Lee County 

and adjacent urban areas include Cape Coral, Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach. 

Within the estuary, seagrasses compromise approximately 37 km2

 (9,260 acres) of 

submerged land, averaging approximately 1.7 m deep (FMRI 2007; CHAP 2001 – 2007 

seagrass data). 

Tidal Caloosahatchee is located from the Franklin Lock and Dam in the west, 

east to San Carlos Bay, and contains no aquatic preserves within its boundaries. 

However, depending on flow levels, it can have impacts on the surrounding subestuaries and aquatic preserves. Tidal Caloosahatchee is approximately 42 km (26 mi) 

long and 3 km (2 mi) wide at its maximum extent, with an area of approximately 72 km2

(18,009 acres). It is located in Lee County and the primary urban areas adjacent to the 

estuary region are the Cities of Cape Coral and Fort Meyers. Within the estuary, 

seagrasses compromise less than 0.1 km2

 (~16 acres), averaging approximately 0.9 m 

deep (FMRI 2007; FDEP South District 2001 – 2007 seagrass data). 

 The Lower Caloosahatchee Basin drains into San Carlos Bay, and is 

approximately 1,100 km2

 (271,794 acres) in size. The Tidal Caloosahatchee River 

region is located entirely within the Lower Caloosahatchee Basin. The ratio of 

watershed land area to open water estuary area within the basin is approximately 15:1. 

Based on 2005 data from SFWMD and 2006 data from SWFWMD, the largest land use 

in the basin is urban/developed (43%), followed by wetlands (19%) and agriculture 

(17%) then upland forested (14%; note: water areas were not included for calculating 

percentages). As of 2000, there were 290,614 residents living within the Lower 

Caloosahatchee Basin, with a projected increase in population of 151% by 2020 (based 

on the 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses). There are 61 active domestic 

wastewater discharges, six active industrial wastewater discharges, fifteen active 

power-plant wastewater discharges, 34 active water withdrawals and 335 active NPDES 

sites permitted in the basin (Figure 10.8; FDEP 2008). 

2. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Pine Island Sound 

 Pine Island Sound had better than average water quality for all water quality 

parameters compared to other regions in the study. Pine Island Sound had the highest 

median pH value (8.2), as well as the lowest median values for TP (tied with two other 

estuary regions; 0.05 ppm) and fecal coliform bacteria (tied with three other regions; 2 

cfu/100 mL) of all estuary regions. Pine Island Sound had significant decreasing trends 

for chlorophyll a, pH and fecal coliform bacteria during the study period. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for Secchi depth values 

within the Pine Island Sound region are turbidity, chlorophyll a, and color (R2

=0.166). 

However, when regressed against Kd, no parameters were statistically significant. 

Status and trends results for Pine Island Sound are shown in Table 10.8. 

Pine Island Sound had few exceedances of state water quality criteria. 

Chlorophyll a and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state standards during 

the study period. Turbidity exceeded 29 NTU only once during the study period (site 

PIV004, 6-Feb-06, 34 NTU). In addition, it exceeded criteria for DO occasionally (20% 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

156

for 5.0 mg/L and 10% for 4.0 mg/L). Region specific water quality status results are 

shown in Appendix A. 

3. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Matlacha Pass 

Matlacha Pass had average water quality for most water quality parameters 

compared to other regions in the study. Matlacha Pass had the lowest median values 

for fecal coliform bacteria (tied with three other regions; 2 cfu/100 mL) and the second 

lowest median turbidity value (1.58 NTU) of all estuary regions. In addition, it had one 

of the lowest DO median values (6.01 mg/L). Matlacha Pass had significant increasing 

trends for pH and color during the study period. 

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for Secchi depth values 

within the Matlacha Pass region are color and chlorophyll a (R2

=0.308). However, when 

regressed against Kd, no parameters were statistically significant. Status and trends 

results for Matlacha Pass are shown in Table 10.9. 

Matlacha Pass had few exceedances of state water quality criteria. Chlorophyll 

a, turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state standards during the 

study period. In addition, it exceeded criteria for DO occasionally (23% for 5.0 mg/L and 

7% for 4.0 mg/L). Region specific water quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 

4. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for San Carlos Bay 

San Carlos Bay typically had the best water quality for most water quality 

parameters compared to other regions in the study. San Carlos Bay had the lowest 

median values for fecal coliform bacteria (tied with three other regions; 2 cfu/100 mL), 

TP (tied with two other estuary regions; 0.05), color (16 PCU), and chlorophyll a (2.50 

μg/L); and the second lowest median TN (0.49 ppm) value of all estuary regions. San 

Carlos Bay had no significant trends for any parameters during the study period. The 

only primary factor contributing to light attenuation for Secchi depth values within the 

San Carlos Bay region was color (R2

=0.093). However, when regressed against Kd, 

both turbidity and color were statistically significant (R2=0.615), with only turbidity in the 

dry season (R2

=0.559) and both turbidity and color in the rainy season (R2=0.706). 

Status and trends results for San Carlos Bay are shown in Table 10.10. 

San Carlos Bay had very few exceedances of state water quality criteria. 

Turbidity, chlorophyll a and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state 

standards during the study period. San Carlos Bay exceeded criteria for DO the fewest 

times within the entire study area and period (9% for 5.0 mg/L and 1% for 4.0 mg/L). 

Region specific water quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 

5. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Tidal Caloosahatchee 

Tidal Caloosahatchee typically had below average water quality for most water 

quality parameters compared to other regions in the study. Tidal Caloosahatchee had 

the lowest median values for pH (7.75) and salinity (2.51 psu) and tied Tidal Myakka for 

the second lowest median Secchi depth value (0.8 m) of all estuary regions. In addition, 

it had the highest median values for DO (7.30 mg/L), TN (1.10 ppm), and color (66.6 

PCU). Tidal Caloosahatchee had significant decreasing trends for Secchi depth, 

temperature, chlorophyll a, and color during the study period. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

157

The primary factors contributing to light attenuation for Secchi depth values 

within Tidal Caloosahatchee were turbidity and color (R2

=0.508). However, when 

regressed against Kd, color then turbidity were statistically significant (R2=0.302), with 

turbidity and chlorophyll a in the dry season (R2=0.277) and only color in the rainy 

season (R2

=0.341). Status and trends results for Tidal Caloosahatchee River are 

shown in Table 10.11. 

 Tidal Caloosahatchee had few exceedances of state water quality criteria. 

Turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state standards during the 

study period. It exceeded state criteria for chlorophyll a twice; 2002 (12.29 μg/L, N=47) 

and 2004 (17.52 μg/L, N=55). In addition, Tidal Caloosahatchee exceeded criteria for 

DO few times within the entire study period (16% for 5.0 mg/L and 8% for 4.0 mg/L). 

Region specific water quality status results are shown in Appendix A. 

6. Discussion 

Water quality in Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay was 

average to above average compared to other regions within Charlotte Harbor, whereas 

Tidal Caloosahatchee was typically below average. Overall, San Carlos Bay had the 

best water quality of all the estuary regions within greater Charlotte Harbor. Color 

concentrations were higher than average in Tidal Caloosahatchee and was a factor 

contributing to decreases in water clarity. Turbidity was the primary parameter causing 

light attenuation in Pine Island Sound. Color and turbidity concentrations were the 

primary parameters most often contributing most to light attenuation across the region, 

with chlorophyll a contributing only occasionally and regionally. Nutrients were lower 

than average, with the exception of Tidal Caloosahatchee, which had the highest 

nitrogen levels of all regions. Nitrogen levels are a key water quality issue affecting this 

region. 

Calculated chlorophyll a criteria for the Tidal Caloosahatchee were 4.06 μg/L. 

Chlorophyll a criteria calculated for Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass were 1.38 

and 2.90 μg/L, respectively. The calculated value for San Carlos Bay was 0.30 μg/L. 

Turbidity criteria values for Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and 

Tidal Caloosahatchee were calculated as follows: 5.51, 9.44, 1.69 and 13.76 NTU, 

respectively. Calculated color targets for the Tidal Caloosahatchee were high (66.60 

PCU), due to the nature of this black-water system. The color criteria were substantially 

lower for Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay: 17.15, 25.00 and 

16.00 PCU, respectively. Once again it is important to note that all of the turbidity and 

chlorophyll a criteria are less than the state standards of 29 NTU and 11 μg/L. 

In Tidal Caloosahatchee seagrass meadows are declining and sources of high 

nitrogen need to be identified and reduced. To maintain the relatively good water 

quality conditions throughout Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and 

Tidal Caloosahatchee, resource management goals should focus on reducing nutrient 

runoff, particularly nitrogen, from the increasing urban and agricultural areas. Due to 

the close proximity to urban areas, additional design considerations should be 

incorporated in storm water management measures. Additionally, natural and 

anthropogenic sources of turbidity and color in the region should be identified and 

quantified, and remediated as needed. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

158

Figure 10.7: Pine Island Basin NPDES and Wastewater Sites. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

159

Table 10.8: Status and Trends Summary for Pine Island Sound 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 313 0.10 9.00 1.91 0.11 1.40 4 * 

Temp (deg. C) 642 13.00 32.20 24.31 0.18 25.00 3 

DO (mg/L) 632 0.10 12.02 6.20 0.07 6.30 7 

pH 578 5.74 8.80 8.19 0.02 8.20 1 ↓

Salinity (ppt) 642 3.80 41.80 30.24 0.21 31.00 2 

TN (ppm) 538 0.01 4.30 0.70 0.02 0.62 4 * 

TP (ppm) 553 0.005 2.60 0.07 0.01 0.05 1 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 497 0.01 47.70 5.77 0.26 4.00 6 ↓

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 551 1 352 9.99 1.43 2 1 ↓

Turbidity (NTU) 570 0.23 34.00 2.58 0.12 1.86 4 

Color (PCU) 570 0.70 240.00 23.65 1.10 17.15 3 1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 

2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 

level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

160

Table 10.9: Status and Trends Summary for Matlacha Pass 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 223 0.20 9.00 1.71 0.10 1.40 4 * 

Temp (deg. C) 586 12.47 33.20 24.67 0.19 25.68 9 

DO (mg/L) 578 2.30 11.20 6.02 0.06 6.01 10 

pH 532 5.64 8.60 7.91 0.02 7.98 6 ↑

Salinity (ppt) 584 3.10 39.80 20.81 0.31 21.42 9 

TN (ppm) 444 0.01 2.47 0.61 0.02 0.55 3 * 

TP (ppm) 468 0.01 0.57 0.08 0.00 0.06 4 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 348 0.10 34.10 4.83 0.24 3.00 3 

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 202 1 280 9.61 1.71 2 1 

Turbidity (NTU) 475 0.02 21.00 1.76 0.07 1.58 2 

Color (PCU) 475 2.00 200.00 31.99 1.20 25.00 5 ↑

1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

161

Table 10.10: Status and Trends Summary for San Carlos Bay 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 352 0.06 9.00 1.69 0.07 1.40 4 * 

Temp (deg. C) 737 6.09 33.28 24.44 0.18 25.32 7 

DO (mg/L) 740 2.12 87.30 6.59 0.12 6.31 6 

pH 655 7.37 8.60 8.06 0.01 8.02 3 

Salinity (ppt) 743 0.00 50.81 28.05 0.26 29.58 4 

TN (ppm) 465 0.01 2.93 0.55 0.02 0.49 2 * 

TP (ppm) 512 0.01 0.82 0.07 0.00 0.05 1 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 469 0.01 68.00 3.69 0.20 2.5 1 

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 308 1 274 9.14 1.32 2 1 

Turbidity (NTU) 533 0.10 120.00 2.72 0.24 2.00 5 

Color (PCU) 531 0.70 160.00 21.43 0.90 16.00 1 1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

162

Figure 10.8: Lower Caloosahatchee Basin NPDES and Wastewater Sites. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

163

Table 10.11: Status and Trends Summary for Tidal Caloosahatchee 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 321 0.30 2.60 0.87 0.02 0.80 11 ↓

Temp (deg. C) 368 14.80 34.22 25.73 0.23 26.60 12 ↓

DO (mg/L) 369 2.00 14.90 7.18 0.11 7.30 1 

pH 252 5.60 9.07 7.68 0.03 7.75 12 

Salinity (ppt) 366 0.00 31.55 6.28 0.41 2.51 12 

TN (ppm) 292 0.34 2.66 1.14 0.02 1.10 12 * 

TP (ppm) 292 0.02 0.43 0.11 0.00 0.10 7 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 287 0.50 120.00 9.63 0.86 4.73 9 ↓

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 39 2 88 11.44 2.83 4 5 * 

Turbidity (NTU) 292 0.48 21.00 3.78 0.20 2.36 7 

Color (PCU) 292 12.70 272.00 83.25 3.18 66.60 12 ↓

1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 

2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 

level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

164

E. Estero Bay and Its Basin 

Including Estero Bay Estuary Region 

1. Background 

 Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve includes Estero Bay from Fort Myers Beach south 

to Bonita Springs. There are six tributaries (Hendry, Mullock, and Spring Creeks, 

Caloosahatchee, Estero and Imperial Rivers) and four Gulf Passes (Matanzas, Big 

Carlos, New and Big Hickory). The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high 

waterline of the Bay and the tributaries up-stream to tidal influence. Estero Bay is 

approximately 14 km (9 mi) long and 3 km (2 mi) wide, with an area of approximately 43 

km2

 (10,730 acres). It is the smallest and shallowest of the estuaries in the region. The 

aquatic preserve, located in Lee County, is adjacent to the urban areas of Fort Myers, 

Fort Myers Beach and Bonita Springs. Seagrasses are a critical submerged habitat 

within Estero Bay, comprising over 12 km2

 (3,031 acres), growing to an average depth 

of 0.9 m (FMRI 2007; EBAP 2001 – 2007 seagrass data). 

 The Estero Bay watershed extends to the headwaters of the creeks and the 

lower drainage area of the Caloosahatchee River and is approximately 1,024 km2

(253,143 acres) in size. The ratio of watershed land area to open water estuary area is 

approximately 24:1. Based on 2005 data from SFWMD, the largest land use in the 

watershed is wetlands (40%), followed by urban/developed (34%) and agriculture (15%) 

then upland forested (8%; note: water areas were not included for calculating 

percentages). As of 2000, there were 126,094 residents living within the Estero Basin, 

with a projected increase in population of 461% by 2020 (based on the 1970, 1980, 

1990 and 2000 censuses). There are 68 domestic wastewater discharges, one 

industrial wastewater discharge, 448 NPDES sites, and seventeen water withdrawals 

permitted in the basin (Figure 10.9; FDEP 2008). 

2. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for Estero Bay 

 Water quality in Estero Bay ranked moderately compared to other estuary 

regions within the study. It was tied with Pine Island Sound and San Carlos Bay for the 

lowest median TP value (0.05 ppm) and had the lowest median temperature (24.35°C). 

Estero Bay had the third highest turbidity levels in the region (3.0 NTU), and the second 

lowest median DO value (5.40 mg/L). However, the DO levels significantly increased 

over the study period, and Estero Bay had significant decreases in pH, chlorophyll a

and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations over the seven-year period. 

The primary factor contributing to light attenuation for Secchi depth values within 

the Estero Bay region was turbidity (R2

=0.085). However, when regressed against Kd, 

turbidity and color were significant (R2

=0.068), with only turbidity in the dry season 

(R2=0.029), and color then turbidity during the rainy season (R2=0.250). Status and 

trends results for Estero Bay are shown in Table 10.12. 

Estero Bay had the greatest number of exceedances of state water quality 

criteria for turbidity (site EBV001, 4-Aug-03, 120 NTU; site EBV004, 2-Jan-07 and 7-

May-07, 60 and 57 NTU, respectively; and EBV006, 2-Jan-07, 54 NTU). Chlorophyll a

and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state standards during the study 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

165

period. In addition, Estero Bay frequently exceeded criteria for DO (39% for 5.0 mg/L 

and 17% for 4.0 mg/L). Region specific water quality status results are shown in 

Appendix A. 

3. Discussion 

Water quality conditions in Estero Bay were generally average. Results indicate 

that the parameters of concern for the region include: turbidity and below-average DO 

concentrations. Turbidity was the primary factor leading to light attenuation in Estero 

Bay. However, Estero Bay is a shallow wind-driven lagoon, in which increased turbidity 

levels are primarily the result of re-suspended sediments (Tapping et al. 2005). Lower 

than average DO concentrations may be a result of inflow from the Estero River, and 

other tributaries, and may be sources of degraded water quality within the region. 

The most effective resource management goals for Estero Bay should address 

storm water management, and the resulting runoff; and differentiating between natural 

and anthropogenic sources of nitrogen and turbidity. Reductions in turbidity, as well as 

quantifying natural DO conditions and restoring them to this level, would contribute to 

reestablishing declining seagrasses within the Bay. There needs to be continued 

acquisition and management of preserve lands within the watershed in order to help 

offset the rapid urbanization of the region. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

166

Figure 10.9: Estero Basin NPDES and Wastewater Sites. 
Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Estuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

167

Table 10.12: Status and Trends Summary for Estero Bay 

 N Min Max Mean SE Median 

Median Rank 

within the 

Charlotte 

Harbor 

Esturaries1

Trend 

Results2

Secchi (m) 363 0.10 9.00 1.40 0.08 1.10 8 

Temp (deg. C) 586 2.00 41.90 23.96 0.20 24.35 1 

DO (mg/L) 582 1.50 10.35 5.51 0.07 5.40 11 ↑

pH 542 6.10 8.80 7.97 0.02 8.00 4 ↓

Salinity (ppt) 583 0.00 39.80 26.33 0.40 29.20 5 

TN (ppm) 493 0.05 4.05 0.69 0.02 0.66 7 * 

TP (ppm) 512 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 1 * 

Chl a (ug/L) 427 0.01 114.00 5.21 0.37 3.80 5 ↓

Coliform (cfu/100mL) 520 1 800 35 4 6 6 ↓

Turbidity (NTU) 527 0.13 60.00 4.15 0.22 3.00 10 

Color (PCU) 527 1.00 140.00 31.19 1.08 25.00 5 1 Ranking of median value in ascending order compared to each estuary region median within the CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN 

2↓ Significantly decreasing at the .05 level 2↑ Significantly increasing at the .05 level 

* Does not meet the minimum criteria for trend analysis 
Conclusions Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

168

XI. Conclusions 

This report presents water quality status and trends results for the CHEVWQMN 

and CCHMN from 2001 through 2007 across the six Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay 

Aquatic Preserves, and surrounding regions. Eleven water quality parameters were 

analyzed across twelve estuary regions characterized by relatively homogenous 

hydrologic conditions. Combined, these water quality parameters reflect health of the 

estuaries and affect the habitats located there, including factors limiting light availability 

to seagrasses. 

To characterize water quality as it relates to estuarine health, CHEVWQMN and 

CCHMN results were compared within the region and to each other. Additionally, 

comparisons were made to state criteria in order to aid in interpretation of water quality 

results. Seasonal, nonparametric trend tests were used to detect trends in water quality 

from 2001 through 2007 for each estuary region. 

 Across the region, results varied by parameter seasonally, spatially and over 

time, as well as by program. The DO concentrations had frequent exceedances below 

Florida Surface Water Criteria of 5.0 mg/L, but few below 4.0 mg/L. There were few 

observations from either program exceeding other State of Florida criteria. Significant 

decreasing trends in pH, chlorophyll a, fecal bacteria and increases in DO 

concentrations were observed for many estuaries from 2001 through 2007. Significant 

relationships between light-limiting factors and clarity, as measured by both Secchi 

depth and Kd, were observed. However, the percent contribution of each parameter 

varied across the region and between the rainy and dry seasons. Strong relationships 

between salinity and many other parameters including color, nutrients and bacteria were 

also observed and quantified. Although results varied by program, much of this 

variability could be explained due spatial and temporal sampling biases incorporated 

into the programs. 

Across the twelve estuary regions analyzed in this report, water quality in the 

tidal portions of the major tributaries was below average compared to other estuary 

regions within the Charlotte Harbor area. In addition, salinities, pH and lower water 

clarity, as measured by both Kd and Secchi depth, as well as higher color and TN 

values were observed in these regions. Higher levels of TP were also observed near 

the mouths of the Myakka and Peace Rivers, most likely from the associated geological 

material at their headwaters. In Estero Bay, decreasing trends in chlorophyll a and fecal 

coliform bacteria were observed. 

 Future considerations for these monitoring programs need to include the 

contributions of non-point sources, while making efforts to quantify their relative 

contribution to water quality within Charlotte Harbor. In addition, best management 

practices and official water quality (and clarity) criteria need to be adopted in order to 

best protect the resources within and around the estuary. 

 These three programs are valued by resource managers in the region. The data 

are used to guide policy and management decisions, for education and outreach, for 

regulatory purposes, and for research by many agencies in the area. This study will be 

used by the CHNEP and the six Aquatic Preserves to aid in these purposes. 

CHAP and EBAP will make modifications and improvements to their programs as 

they deem necessary.
References Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

169

XII. References 

American Public Health Association (APHA). 1998, 20 ed. Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water and Wastewater. 

Anderson, I. C., M. W. Rodes, and H. I. Kator. 1979. Sublethal stress in Escherichia 

coli: a function of salinity. Applied Environmental Microbiology 38:1147-1152 

Baker, S., D. Heuberger, E. Phlips and L. Sturmer. April 2002. Water quality and its role 

in clam production. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences Cooperative Extension Service Technical Bulletin. 

Benitez-Nelson, C. R. 2000. The biogeochemical cycling of phosphorus in marine 

systems. Earth-Science Reviews 51: 109-135 

Boggs, S. Jr. 2006. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. 4th Edition. 

Prentice Hall, NJ. 662 p. 

Bortone, S.A., A.J. Martignette and J.P. Spinelli. 2006. Spotted seatrout (Family 

Sciaenidae) growth as an indicator of estuarine conditions in San Carlos Bay, 

Florida. Florida Scientist 69 (supp. 2): 127‐139. 

Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). 2005. Florida County Rankings. 

12th Edition. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.

Byrne, M.J. and J.N. Flanigin. 2005. Surface water salinity mapping of Estero Bay and 

San Carlos Bay, Lee County Florida. USGS: Proceedings of Florida Integrated 

Science Center Meeting. Orlando, Florida. 

Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. 1998. The study of seasonal and spatial patterns of 

hypoxia in Upper Charlotte Harbor. Final Report to: Surface Water Improvement 

and Management Section, Southwest Florida Water Management District, 

Tampa, FL. 

Castro, M. S, C.T. Driscoll, T. E. Jordan, W. G. Reay, and W.R. Boynton. 2003. Sources 

of nitrogen to estuaries in the United States. Estuaries 26 (3): 803-814.

Chamberlain, R.H. and Doering, P.H. 1998. Preliminary estimate of optimum freshwater 

inflow to the Caloosahatchee Estuary: A resource-based approach. Proceedings 

of the Charlotte Harbor Public Conference and Technical Symposium. Charlotte 

Harbor National Estuary Program Technical Report No. 98-02, 274. 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2008. Committing to Our Future – A 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Up-date 2008. Available 

from CHNEP in Fort Myers, FL. www.chnep.org 
References Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

170

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2004. Coastal Charlotte Harbor 

Monitoring Network: Description and Standard Operating Procedures. Internal 

SOP. Revised March 2004. 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 1999. Synthesis of technical information 

Volume 1. Technical Report No. 99-02. 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 1999. Basin Boundaries. Internal GIS 

shapefile. 

Colling, A. 2006. Seawater: Its Composition, Properties and Behavior. 2nd Edition. 

Butterworth – Heinemann. Oxford, England. 168 p. 

Corbett, C.A., P.H. Doering, K. A. Madley, J. A. Ott, and D. A. Tomasko. 2005. In 

Estuarine Indicators. Ed. S. A. Bortone. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 

Corbett, C.A. and J.A. Hale. 2006. Development of Water Quality Targets for Charlotte 

Harbor, Florida using Seagrass Light Requirements. Corbett, C. A, Peter H. 

Doering and Ernest Estevez (Guest Editors). Florida Scientist, Vol. 69(00S2), p. 

36-50. 

Day, J., C. Hall, W. M. Kemp, and A.Y. Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley 

and Sons, Inc. USA. 

de Jorge, V. N., J. E. E. van Beusekom. 1995. Wind- and tide-induced resuspension of 

sediment and microphytobenthos from tidal flats in the Ems estuary. Limnology 

Oceanography. 40 (4): 766-778. 

Dixon, L. K. and G. J. Kirkpatrick. 1999. Causes of light attenuation with respect to 

seagrasses in Upper and lower Charlotte Harbor. Final Report. Submitted to: 

Southwest Florida Water Management District, Surface Water Improvement and 

Management Program. 7601 US Hwy 301 North, Tampa, Florida. 

Doering, P.H. and R. H. Chamberlain. 1999. Water quality and source of freshwater 

discharge to the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 35 

(4): 793-806. 

Doering, P.H., R.H. Chamberlain, and K.M. Haunert. 2005. Spatial variability in the 

response of chlorophyll a to nutrient loading and freshwater discharge in the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary. Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit. February 2005, 

Punta Gorda, FL. 

Doering, P. H., R. H. Chamberlain, and K. M. Haunert. 2006. Chlorophyll a and its use 

as a indicator of eutrophication in the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Florida 

Scientist 69: 51-72. 
References Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

171

Duffey, R., R.E. Leary and J. Ott. 2007. Charlotte Harbor & Estero Bay Aquatic 

Preserves Water Quality Status & Trends for 1998 – 2005. FDEP/CHAPs 

Technical Report #2. 

Enfield, D.B., A.M. Mestas-Nunez and P.J. Trimble. 2001. The Atlantic multidecadal 

oscillation and its relation to rainfall and river flows in the continental U.S.. 

Geophysical Research Letters 28:10. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A 

Methods Manual. EPA, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Washington, 

DC. 

Estero Bay Marine Laboratory. 1996. Estero Bay, Lee County Southwestern Florida 

1995-1996 Hydrological, Biological and Geological Studies. Fort Myers Beach, 

FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), BIS/GIS Section. 2008. PWS 

Surface Water Intakes. DEP/WRM/BWM. 

FDEP, BIS/GIS Section. 2008. PWS Plants. DEP/WRM/BWM. 

FDEP, CHAP. 1997. CHEVWQMN Comprehensive Quality Assurance Project Plan. 

Internal QAPP. Updated 1999. 

FDEP, CHAP. 1998. CHEVWQMN Field Methods Manual. Internal SOP. Updated 

2005. 

FDEP, CHAP. 2007. Standard Procedures for Seagrass Monitoring for the Charlotte 

Harbor Aquatic Preserves Seagrass Transect Monitoring Program. Internal 

SOP. Revised September 2007. 

FDEP, OTIS/GIS Section. 2008. DEP.AQUATIC_PRESERVES_AREAS_2008. 

Updated from FMRI/CARMA. 

FDEP, DEP/WRM/ WAFR Section. 2008. Wastewater Sites from WAFR IMS. 

FDEP, WAFR/STW/IMS/SP/VW Section. 2008. NPDES Stormwater Facilities and 

Activities. NPDES Stormwater Program. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

(FWC-FMRI), Center for Spatial Analysis. 2007. FLORIDA'S STATEWIDE 

SEAGRASS. http://research.myfwc.com/. Taken from the World Wide Web 19 

August, 2008.

Fourqurean, J.W. and Y. Cai. 2001. Arsenic and phosphorus in seagrass leaves from 

the Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Botany. 71: 247-258. 
References Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

172

Forelich, P.N., Kaul, L.W. Byrd, J.T. Andreae, M.O, and Roe, K.K. 1985. Arsenic, 

barium, germanium, tin, dimethylsulfide and nutrient biogeochemistry in Charlotte 

Harbor, Florida. A phosphorus enriched estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science, 20. in McPherson et. al. 1996. 

Fujioka, R. S., H. H. Hashimoto, E. B. Siwak, and R. H. Young. 1981. Effect of sunlight 

on survival of indicator bacteria in seawater. Applied Environmental Microbiology 

41:690-696. 

Garcia, H. E., and L. I. Gordon. 1992. Oxygen solubility in seawater: Better fitting 

equations. Limnology and Oceanography, 37, 1307-1312. 

Greenawalt-Boswell, J.M, J.A. Hale, K.S. Fuhr, J. A. Ott. 2006. Seagrass species 

composition and distribution in relation to salinity fluctuations in Charlotte Harbor, 

Florida. Florida Scientist: 69: 24-35. 

Hammett, K.M. 1990. Land use, water use, streamflow characteristics, and water-quality 

characteristics of the Charlotte Harbor inflow area, Florida. USGS Survey Water 

Supply Paper 2359-A. 

Helsel, D. R. and R. M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. U.S. 

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior. 

Helsel, D.R., D.K. Mueller and J.R. Slack. 2006. The Computer Program for the Kendall 

Family of Trend Tests. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 

Hirsch, R.M., and Slack, J.R., 1984, A nonparametric trend test for seasonal data with 

serial dependence. Water Resources Research 20(6): 727-732. 

Hirsch, R. M., J. R. Slack, and R. A. Smith. 1982. Techniques of trend analysis for 

monthly water quality data. Water Resource Research 18:107-121. 

Hirsch, R.M., R.B. Alexander, and R.A. Smith. 1991 Selection of Methods for the 

Detection and Estimation of Trends in Water Quality. Water Resources Research

27 (5): 803-813. 

Jaworksi, N.A. 1981. Sources of nutrients and the scale of eutrophication problems in 

estuaries, in Neilson, B.J., and Cronin, L.E., eds., Estuaries and nutrients: New 

Jersey, Humana Press, p. 83-110. 

Kirk, J.T.O. 1983. Light and Photosynthesis in Aquatic Systems. Cambridge University 

Press. 

Mallin, M. A. and C.A. Corbett. 2006. How Hurricane Attributes Determine the Extent of 

Environmental Impacts: Multiple Hurricanes and Different Coastal Systems. 

Estuaries and Coasts 29(S). 
References Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

173

Martin, D.F. and Kim, Y.S. 1977. Long Term Peace River Characteristics as a 

Measure of Phosphate Slime Spill Impact. Water Resources Research. 11: 

963-970. 

Martin, D.M., Morton, T., Dobrzynski, T., and Valentine, B. 1996. Estuaries on the 

Edge: The Vital Link Between Land and Sea. American Oceans Campaign 

report. Washington, D.C. 297 p. Taken from World Wide Web 7 Oct. 2006. 

http://riverwoods.ces.fau.edu/Education/EstuaryFacts.pdf. 

McPherson, B. F and R. L. Miller. 1987. The vertical attenuation of light in Charlotte 

Harbor, a shallow, subtropical estuary, southwestern Florida. Estuar. Coast Shelf 

Sci. 25: 721-737. 

McPherson, B.F and R.L. Miller, 1990. Nutrient distribution and variability in the 

Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, Florida: Water Resources Bulletin. 26 (1): 67-

80. 

McPherson, B. F. and R. L. Miller. 1994. Causes of light attenuation in Tampa Bay and 

Charlotte Harbor, Southwestern Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 30: 43–53. 

McPherson, B.F, R.L. Miller, and Y.E. Stoker. 1996 Physical, Chemical, and Biological 

Characteristics of the Charlotte Harbor Basin and Estuarine System in 

Southwestern Florida–A Summary of the 1982-89 U.S. Geological Survey 

Charlotte Harbor Assessment and Other Studies. United States Geological 

Survey, Water Supply Paper 2486. 

McPherson, B. F., R. T. Montgomery, and E. E. Emmons. 1990. Phytoplankton 

productivity and biomass in the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, Florida. 

Water Resources Bulletin 26: 787–800. 

Montgomery, R.T, B.F. McPherson and E. E. Emmons. 1991. Effects of nitrogen and 

phosphorus addition on phytoplankton productivity and chlorophyll a in a 

subtropical estuary, Charlotte Harbor, Florida. United States Geological Survey, 

Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4077. 

Morrison, G., R.T. Montgomery, A. Squires, R. Starks, E. DeHaven and J. A. Ott. 1998. 

Nutrient, chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen concentrations in Charlotte Harbor: 

Existing conditions and long term trends. Proceedings of the Charlotte Harbor 

Public Conference and Technical Symposium: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary 

Program Technical Report No. 98-02: 201-218. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services 

Center (CSC). 2000. BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS FOR THE STATE OF 

FLORIDA AND SURROUNDING AREAS. 
References Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

174

http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp Taken from the World Wide 

Web 04 June, 2007. 

NOAA. 2005. NERR SWMP fact sheet. 

Ott, J.A., R. M. Duffey, S. E. Erickson, K. S. Fuhr, B. A. Rodgers and M. A. Schneider. 

2006. Comparison of light limiting water quality factors in six Florida aquatic 

preserves. Florida Scientist: 69: 73-91. 

Rhode, M.W., and H. Kator. 1988. Survival of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. in 

 estuarine environments. Applied Environmenta 

Senga, Y., K. Mochida, R. Fukumori, N. Okamoto, and Y. Seike. 2006. N2 

accumulation in estuarine and coastal sediments: the influence of H2S on 

dissimilatory nitrate reduction. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 67: 231-

238. 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 2008. DBHYDRO Browser. 

http://glades.sfwmd.gov/pls/dbhydro_pro_plsql/. Taken from the World Wide 

Web 26 April, 2008. 

SFWMD. 2007. SFWMD 2004-05 Land Use. 

http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp Taken from the World Wide 

Web 20 November, 2008. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 2008. Hydrologic Data. 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/wmdbweb/picktype.htm. Taken from the 

World Wide Web 24 April, 2008. 

SWFWMD. 2007. SWFWMD 2006 Land Use. 

http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp Taken from the World Wide 

Web 18 November, 2008. 

Squires, A.P., H. Zarbock, and S. Janicki. 1997. Proceedings of the Charlotte Harbor 

Public Conference and Technical Symposium. Charlotte Harbor National 

Estuary Program. March 15-17, 1997 Punta Gorda, FL. 

Stevens, P.W., D.A. Blewett, and J.P. Casey. 2006. Short-term effects of a low 

dissolved oxygen event on estuarine fish assemblages following the passage of 

Hurricane Charley. Estuaries and Coasts 29(6A): 997-1003. 

Stickney, R.R. 1984. Estuarine Ecology of the Southwestern United States and Gulf of 

Mexico. Texas A&M University Press. 

Stoker, Y.E. 1992. Salinity distribution and variation with freshwater inflow and tide, and 
References Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

175

potential changes in salinity due to altered freshwater inflow in the Charlotte 

Harbor Estuarine System, Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water 

Resources Investigations Report 92-4062. 

Tapping, H.J., T.C. Winter, and J.C. Mallon. Sediment particle flux and grain-size 

analysis in Estero Bay, Southwestern Florida. Charlotte Harbor Watershed 

Summit. February 2005, Punta Gorda, FL. 

Tomasko, D.A and M. O. HALL. 1999. Productivity and biomass of the seagrass 

Thalassia testudinum along a gradient of freshwater influence in Charlotte 

Harbor, Florida. Estuar. 22(3A): 592-602.

Tomasko D.A, D.L. Bristol and J.A. Ott. 2001. Assessment of Present and Future 

Nitrogen Loads, Water Quality, and Seagrass (Thalassia testudinum) Depth 

Distribution in Lemon Bay, Florida. Estuaries 24: 6a. 

Tomasko, D.A., C. Anastasiou, and C. Kovach. 2006. Dissolved oxygen dynamics in 

Charlotte Harbor and its contributing watershed, in response to Hurricanes 

Charley and Frances and Jeanne – Impacts and Recovery. Estuaries and Coasts 

29(S). 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Census Block Group Centroids, 1970. 

http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp Taken from the World Wide 

Web 26 June, 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Census Block Group Centroids, 1980. 

http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp Taken from the World Wide 

Web 26 June, 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Census Block Group Centroids, 1990. 

http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp Taken from the World Wide 

Web 26 June, 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2000 Census Blocks. 

http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp Taken from the World Wide 

Web 04 June, 2007. 

Verdi, R.J., S.A. Tomlinson, and R.L. Marella. 2006. The Drought of 1998-2002: 

Impacts on Florida’s Hydrology and Landscape. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1295, 34 p. 

Volety, A. K., and V. G. Encomio. 2006. Biological effects of suspended sediments on 

shellfish in the Charlotte Harbor Watershed –implications for water releases and 

dredging activities. Final Report Submitted to Charlotte Harbor National Estuary 

Program. 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

I 

Appendix Table of Contents 

 Page 

Appendix A: Summary Statistics for Each Estuary 

Table A.1: Seasonal summary statistics for all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN IV 

Table A.2: Annual summary statistics for all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN __ V 

Table A.3: Summary statistics for all sites in Lemon Bay _______________________ VI 

Table A.4: Summary statistics for all sites in Tidal Myakka _____________________ VII 

Table A.5: Summary statistics for all sites in Tidal Peace ______________________ VIII 

Table A.6: Summary statistics for all sites in the West Wall _____________________ IX 

Table A.7: Summary statistics for all sites in the East Wall ______________________ X 

Table A.8: Summary statistics for all sites in Gasparilla/Cape Haze _______________ XI 

Table A.9: Summary statistics for all sites in Lower Charlotte Harbor _____________ XII 

Table A.10: Summary statistics for all sites in Pine Island Sound ________________ XIII 

Table A.11: Summary statistics for all sites in Matlacha Pass ___________________ XIV 

Table A.12: Summary statistics for all sites in Tidal Caloosahatchee River ________ XV 

Table A.13: Summary statistics for all sites in San Carlos Bay __________________ XVI 

Table A.14: Summary statistics for all sites in Estero Bay _____________________ XVII 

Table A.15: Seagrass summary statistics ____________________________ XVIII-XXV 

Table A.15: Seagrass deep edge means and medians by year __________ XXVI-XXVIII 

Appendix B: Water Quality Comparisons 

Table B.1: Non parametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis) results between programs for the entire 

study duration _____________________________________________ XXIX 

Table B.2: Non parametric t-test (Mann-Whitney) results between programs within individual 

regions _____________________________________________ XXVIII-XXX 

Table B.3: Non parametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis) results between regions for the entire 

study duration _____________________________________________ XXXI 

Table B.4: Non parametric t-test (Mann-Whitney) results between the rainy and dry season 

XXXII-XXXIV 

Table B.5: Means and Medians by Program _______________________ XXXV-XXXIX 

Appendix C: Comparison of Results to Numerical Water Quality Criteria 

Table C.1: Regional CCHMN exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site per 

Florida Surface Water Regulations ______________________________ XLI 

Table C.2: Regional CHEVWQMN exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site per 

Florida Surface Water Regulations _____________________________ XLII 

Table C.3: Regional combined exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site per 

Florida Surface Water Regulations _____________________________ XLIII 

Table C.4: Regional CCHMN exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site per 

Florida Surface Water Regulations _____________________________ XLIV 

Table C.5: Regional CHEVWQMN exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site per 

Florida Surface Water Regulations _____________________________ XLV 

Table C.6: Regional combined exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site per 

Florida Surface Water Regulations _____________________________ XLVI 

Table C.7: Annual CCHMN mean exceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida Impaired 

Waters Rule for each estuary region ___________________________ XLVII 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

II 

Table C.8: Annual CHEVWQMN mean exceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida 

Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region ____________________ XLVIII 

Table C.9: Annual combined mean exceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida Impaired 

Waters Rule for each estuary region ____________________________ XLIX 

Table C.10: Regional geometric means for fecal coliform bacteria per Florida Surface Water 

Regulations ______________________________________________ L-LXV 

Table C.11: Regional percentage of fecal coliform bacteria reported over 400 cfu/100 mL per 

Florida Surface Water Regulations _____________________________ LXVI 

Table C.12: Dates and location of fecal coliform bacteria reported over 800 cfu/100 mL 

per Florida Surface Water Regulations __________________________ LXVI

Appendix D: Water Quality Relationships 

Table D.1: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables for the entire study region and 

duration _________________________________________________ LXVIII 

Table D.2: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in the rainy season for the entire 

study region _______________________________________________ LXIX 

Table D.3: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Lemon 

 Bay__ _______ _____________________________________________LXX 

Table D.4: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal Myakka 

 River__ _ __________________________________________________LXXI 

Table D.5: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal Peace 

 River ____________________________________________________ LXXII 

Table D.6: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in the West Wall 

 ________________________________________________________ LXXIII 

Table D.7: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in the East Wall 

 _______________________________________________________ LXXIV 

Table D.8: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Gasparilla 

 Sound/Cape Haze _________________________________________ LXXV 

Table D.9: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Lower 

 Charlotte Harbor __________________________________________ LXXVI 

Table D.10: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Pine 

 Island Sound ____________________________________________ LXXVII 

Table D.11: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Matlacha 

 Pass __________________________________________________ LXXVIII 

Table D.5: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal 

 Caloosahatchee River _____________________________________ LXXIX 

Table D.13: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in San Carlos 

 Bay _____________________________________________________ LXXX 

Table D.14: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Estero 

 Bay ____________________________________________________ LXXXI 

Table D.15: Spearman's rho correlation for seagrass variables versus water clarity medians (1 

month lag) ______________________________________________ LXXXII 

Appendix E: Rainfall Relationships 

Table E.1: Spearman's rho correlation for rainfall vs. selected variables for the entire 

study region and duration __________________________________ LXXXIV 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

III 

Appendix A: Summary Statistics for Each Estuary and Site 

 Page 

Table A.1: Seasonal summary statistics for all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN IV 

Table A.2: Annual summary statistics for all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN __ V 

Table A.3: Summary statistics for all sites in Lemon Bay _______________________ VI 

Table A.4: Summary statistics for all sites in Tidal Myakka _____________________ VII 

Table A.5: Summary statistics for all sites in Tidal Peace ______________________ VIII 

Table A.6: Summary statistics for all sites in the West Wall _____________________ IX 

Table A.7: Summary statistics for all sites in the East Wall ______________________ X 

Table A.8: Summary statistics for all sites in Gasparilla/Cape Haze _______________ XI 

Table A.9: Summary statistics for all sites in Lower Charlotte Harbor _____________ XII 

Table A.10: Summary statistics for all sites in Pine Island Sound ________________ XIII 

Table A.11: Summary statistics for all sites in Matlacha Pass ___________________ XIV 

Table A.12: Summary statistics for all sites in Tidal Caloosahatchee River ________ XV 

Table A.13: Summary statistics for all sites in San Carlos Bay __________________ XVI 

Table A.14: Summary statistics for all sites in Estero Bay _____________________ XVII 

Table A.15: Seagrass summary statistics ____________________________ XVIII-XXV 

Table A.16: Seagrass deep edge means and medians by year __________ XXVI-XXVIII 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

IV 

Table A.1: Seasonal summary statistics for all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 3398 9912 9872 9750 9899 6473 6757 6292 3041 6878 6875 

Min 0.0 2.0 0.1 -4.0 0.0 0.000 0.005 0.01 1 0.0 1 

 Max 10.1 35.9 87.3 163.0 48.4 45.400 3.710 205.00 2850 120.0 507 

 Median 1.2 25.0 6.3 7.9 26.8 0.671 0.095 4.40 4 2.3 30 

 Mean 1.3 24.5 6.2 7.9 24.6 0.775 0.159 7.67 39 3.1 45 

 SE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.010 0.002 0.16 2 0.0 1 

Rainy N 1567 3982 3962 3944 3976 2680 2747 2493 1235 2815 2809 

 Min 0.0 6.1 0.1 -4.0 0.0 0.000 0.005 0.01 1 0.1 1 

 Max 10.1 34.5 87.3 17.0 41.8 45.400 2.600 205.00 2150 120.0 507 

 Median 1.0 29.0 5.4 7.9 23.2 0.780 0.118 6.00 4 2.3 40 

 Mean 1.2 28.8 5.2 7.9 21.5 0.893 0.183 10.36 38 3.0 69 

 SE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.021 0.003 0.34 3 0.1 1 

Dry N 1831 5930 5910 5806 5923 3793 4010 3799 1806 4063 4066 

 Min 0.1 2.0 0.6 5.6 0.0 0.000 0.008 0.01 1 0.0 1 

 Max 5.2 35.9 14.5 163.0 48.4 10.100 3.710 149.00 2850 66.0 250 

 Median 1.3 21.5 6.9 7.9 28.2 0.604 0.084 3.70 5 2.2 20 

 Mean 1.4 21.6 6.8 8.0 26.7 0.692 0.142 5.90 41 3.1 28 

 SE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.008 0.003 0.13 3 0.1 0 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

V 

Table A.2: Annual summary statistics for all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

2001 N 175 260 258 259 256 338 348 399 187 440 425 

 Med 0.9 26.0 4.7 8.1 28.9 1.06 0.15 8.00 14 3.7 50 

 Min 0.4 19.0 1.4 5.8 0.0 0.05 0.02 1.00 1 0.6 3 

 Max 3.9 32.0 7.5 8.6 41.2 6.63 1.02 84.00 476 34.2 507 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.04 0.01 0.59 5 0.2 4 

2002 N 385 1119 1113 1089 1118 1018 1046 624 421 1053 1053 

 Med 1.2 26.5 5.6 7.9 27.2 0.55 0.10 5.00 8 2.2 20 

 Min 0.2 11.0 1.0 7.0 0.0 0.06 0.01 0.01 1 0.1 1 

 Max 5.0 33.4 11.5 8.8 41.6 45.40 2.33 64.30 800 26.0 300 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.05 0.01 0.32 7 0.1 1 

2003 N 588 1905 1900 1892 1906 1080 1127 1079 414 1129 1128 

 Med 1.2 26.0 6.2 7.9 24.4 0.65 0.07 4.80 4 1.9 32 

 Min 0.4 4.0 0.3 -4.0 0.0 0.01 0.00 0.01 1 0.1 1 

 Max 4.4 34.2 87.3 163.0 39.4 3.01 1.60 45.70 240 120.0 400 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.02 0.00 0.17 2 0.1 2 

2004 N 669 1895 1882 1817 1890 1169 1177 1112 503 1175 1175 

 Med 1.1 25.4 6.4 7.9 26.8 0.74 0.10 4.00 6 2.3 30 

 Min 0.1 12.5 0.1 6.1 0.0 0.03 0.01 0.50 1 0.0 1 

 Max 5.2 33.1 14.9 9.9 40.7 4.60 1.50 120.00 1720 26.0 400 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.29 5 0.1 1 

2005 N 686 1963 1952 1962 1962 1263 1268 1257 580 1254 1267 

 Med 1.0 24.5 6.5 7.9 23.3 0.76 0.13 4.30 5 2.3 37 

 Min 0.0 12.6 0.1 4.0 0.0 0.03 0.01 0.50 1 0.2 1 

 Max 10.1 35.9 15.9 17.0 37.2 10.10 3.71 205.00 1100 64.9 240 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.55 3 0.1 1 

2006 N 668 2004 2002 1967 2004 1269 1322 1310 683 1316 1316 

 Med 1.3 24.6 6.3 7.9 27.9 0.61 0.09 4.00 4 2.2 24 

 Min 0.1 2.0 0.1 5.6 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.50 1 0.0 1 

 Max 5.1 34.5 12.2 9.3 48.4 3.51 2.60 168.00 2850 34.0 350 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.00 0.37 7 0.1 1 

2007 N 227 766 765 764 763 336 469 511 253 511 511 

 Med 1.3 21.7 6.7 7.9 32.9 0.47 0.06 3.20 4 2.2 15 

 Min 0.4 13.0 0.9 6.5 7.3 0.11 0.01 0.50 1 0.2 1 

 Max 4.7 28.4 11.0 9.0 41.4 1.91 1.20 78.30 2180 60.0 80 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.26 12 0.2 1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

VI 

Table A.3: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Lemon Bay for CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 469 1492 1483 1455 1485 890 946 870 592 974 973 

 Median 1.1 24.5 5.3 7.9 32.8 0.691 0.090 4.81 20 2.6 20 

 Mean 1.4 24.0 5.3 8.0 29.3 0.746 0.137 6.48 106 3.5 31 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.016 0.004 0.21 11 0.1 1 

Rainy N 251 594 590 572 592 377 380 333 236 392 392 

 Median 1.0 28.3 4.5 7.9 30.4 0.740 0.100 6.54 23 2.5 30 

 Mean 1.2 28.3 4.5 7.9 27.0 0.830 0.141 8.67 99 3.1 46 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.029 0.006 0.42 15 0.1 2 

Dry N 218 898 893 883 893 513 566 537 356 582 581 

 Median 1.2 21.5 6.0 7.9 33.6 0.650 0.087 3.97 20 2.6 15 

 Mean 1.6 21.2 5.8 8.0 30.8 0.684 0.134 5.12 111 3.8 21 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.018 0.006 0.20 15 0.2 1 

2001 N 56 81 79 75 79 55 56 66 35 73 72 

 Med 0.8 26.0 3.7 8.0 30.4 0.92 0.07 8.05 48 3.3 37 

 Mean 1.4 25.9 4.0 8.0 25.7 0.921 0.100 10.91 63 4.2 55 

 SE 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.07 0.01 1.36 11 0.3 6 

2002 N 69 174 171 165 174 148 149 69 86 147 147 

 Med 1.2 25.0 4.7 8.0 31.5 0.55 0.07 6.00 14 2.2 13 

 Mean 1.7 24.1 4.8 8.1 28.5 0.61 0.12 7.64 122 3.4 15 

 SE 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.03 0.01 0.77 25 0.3 1 

2003 N 85 259 256 252 259 136 139 139 79 139 139 

 Med 1.2 26.0 5.3 7.8 32.1 0.70 0.07 5.45 12 2.5 20 

 Mean 1.4 24.5 5.4 7.9 28.6 0.87 0.13 6.54 46 3.9 28 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.05 0.02 0.42 7 0.5 3 

2004 N 80 276 276 272 274 145 145 137 86 146 146 

 Med 1.2 26.0 5.5 7.9 33.0 0.70 0.14 3.87 20 3.4 20 

 Mean 1.3 24.3 5.4 8.0 30.1 0.72 0.16 5.04 101 3.7 30 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.03 0.01 0.38 25 0.2 3 

2005 N 85 281 280 276 279 184 184 180 119 184 184 

 Med 1.1 23.5 5.5 8.0 30.8 0.79 0.16 4.33 24 2.2 20 

 Mean 1.1 23.7 5.4 8.0 26.8 0.82 0.18 5.90 82 2.8 43 

 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.03 0.01 0.39 13 0.1 4 

2006 N 76 309 309 303 310 197 208 202 137 208 208 

 Med 1.1 24.0 5.6 7.8 34.0 0.70 0.08 4.75 20 2.6 20 

 Mean 1.5 24.2 5.3 8.0 31.2 0.69 0.11 6.82 146 3.7 31 

 SE 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.03 0.01 0.46 33 0.3 2 

2007 N 18 112 112 112 110 25 65 77 50 77 77 

 Med 1.1 21.9 6.0 7.9 35.4 0.46 0.06 3.47 20 2.8 15 

 Mean 1.2 21.4 5.7 8.0 33.9 0.51 0.12 4.57 164 3.4 21 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.04 0.02 0.39 55 0.2 2 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

VII 

Table A.4: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Tidal Myakka River from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 276 635 636 622 635 445 466 455 103 467 467 

 Median 0.8 25.4 6.7 7.8 15.0 0.930 0.500 6.82 12 3.3 60 

 Mean 0.8 24.7 6.7 7.8 14.3 1.021 0.515 9.65 37 4.0 98 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.033 0.007 0.46 5 0.1 4 

Rainy N 119 260 260 260 260 184 190 185 40 194 194 

 Median 0.7 28.9 5.7 7.8 6.7 1.050 0.500 7.80 31 3.4 150 

 Mean 0.7 28.8 5.5 7.7 9.7 1.048 0.504 11.63 48 3.8 157 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.037 0.002 0.92 9 0.1 7 

Dry N 157 375 376 362 375 261 276 270 63 273 273 

 Median 0.9 22.0 7.5 7.8 18.3 0.845 0.500 6.10 8 3.3 50 

 Mean 0.9 21.8 7.5 7.8 17.4 1.002 0.522 8.29 30 4.1 56 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.051 0.012 0.44 7 0.2 2 

2001 N 2 7 7 7 7 38 38 41 6 42 37 

 Med 0.6 25.0 4.0 7.8 11.7 1.06 0.50 8.00 82 4.0 216 

 Mean 0.6 24.6 4.2 7.6 12.0 1.409 0.502 11.45 97 4.3 208 

 SE 0.1 1.1 0.5 0.1 3.8 0.13 0.00 1.69 33 0.3 22 

2002 N 17 45 45 45 45 68 73 61 11 73 73 

 Med 0.7 18.2 6.7 7.8 7.4 0.71 0.50 7.00 78 4.6 45 

 Mean 0.7 21.9 6.6 7.8 8.7 0.93 0.54 11.76 82 4.8 84 

 SE 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.09 0.02 1.50 25 0.3 9 

2003 N 46 129 129 129 129 66 72 72 9 72 72 

 Med 0.8 26.5 7.0 7.8 13.7 1.04 0.50 5.40 36 2.8 84 

 Mean 0.8 25.5 6.7 7.8 12.4 1.01 0.50 6.90 41 3.7 128 

 SE 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.07 0.00 0.62 12 0.3 12 

2004 N 62 131 131 122 131 83 83 81 21 83 83 

 Med 0.8 25.5 7.0 7.8 17.0 0.97 0.50 5.51 10 3.2 60 

 Mean 0.8 25.2 6.8 7.8 15.0 1.02 0.50 6.84 40 3.6 85 

 SE 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.04 0.00 0.79 14 0.2 7 

2005 N 69 139 140 140 139 84 84 83 24 79 84 

 Med 0.8 26.0 6.8 7.8 11.2 0.95 0.50 6.94 8 3.0 67 

 Mean 0.8 25.0 6.9 7.8 10.8 1.07 0.54 7.98 17 4.0 87 

 SE 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.12 0.04 0.52 5 0.4 6 

2006 N 57 133 133 128 133 81 83 82 22 83 83 

 Med 0.8 24.0 6.6 7.8 18.8 0.95 0.50 10.00 11 3.1 50 

 Mean 0.9 24.8 6.6 7.8 17.0 0.94 0.51 14.19 24 3.8 85 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.05 0.00 1.69 9 0.3 9 

2007 N 23 51 51 51 51 25 33 35 10 35 35 

 Med 0.9 22.7 6.5 7.8 24.6 0.83 0.50 9.00 6 4.0 33 

 Mean 0.9 22.3 6.6 7.8 25.0 0.83 0.50 9.31 21 4.2 35 

 SE 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.05 0.00 0.77 11 0.3 2 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

VIII 

Table A.5: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Tidal Peace River from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 482 949 943 928 946 665 701 650 330 712 718 

 Median 0.9 25.1 6.2 7.8 17.4 0.984 0.500 7.12 20 3.2 60 

 Mean 0.9 24.5 6.3 7.8 16.0 1.087 0.565 10.81 47 4.1 84 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.025 0.007 0.48 5 0.1 3 

Rainy N 212 375 375 377 374 276 285 257 136 296 296 

 Median 0.8 28.8 4.9 7.7 11.7 1.200 0.500 7.42 23 3.1 100 

 Mean 0.9 28.6 4.9 7.7 12.2 1.202 0.562 10.83 49 4.0 128 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.040 0.007 0.65 9 0.2 5 

Dry N 270 574 568 551 572 389 416 393 194 416 422 

 Median 1.0 22.0 7.1 7.9 20.3 0.890 0.500 7.00 20 3.3 49 

 Mean 1.0 21.8 7.2 7.8 18.5 1.006 0.567 10.79 46 4.3 53 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.032 0.010 0.68 6 0.2 2 

2001 N 28 34 35 34 33 51 55 58 28 66 66 

 Med 0.7 25.5 4.8 7.8 18.7 1.32 0.50 10.75 44 3.9 100 

 Mean 0.7 25.4 4.6 7.7 18.4 1.657 0.532 15.81 69 5.2 135 

 SE 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.15 0.01 2.15 13 0.5 14 

2002 N 51 90 90 90 89 116 121 69 57 121 121 

 Med 0.9 25.6 5.5 7.7 16.6 0.67 0.50 7.00 28 3.0 35 

 Mean 0.9 23.3 5.6 7.7 15.5 0.87 0.58 9.41 69 3.5 62 

 SE 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.06 0.02 0.80 16 0.2 6 

2003 N 91 188 186 189 188 111 116 115 52 116 116 

 Med 0.8 26.4 6.6 7.8 14.7 1.00 0.50 6.70 19 2.7 67 

 Mean 1.0 25.2 6.5 7.8 12.8 1.09 0.53 8.44 32 3.1 104 

 SE 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.06 0.01 0.62 5 0.2 8 

2004 N 90 177 177 166 177 118 118 113 56 118 118 

 Med 0.8 26.1 6.3 7.9 17.9 1.08 0.50 7.23 29 3.4 60 

 Mean 0.9 25.1 6.8 7.8 16.3 1.17 0.59 10.63 67 4.8 84 

 SE 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.05 0.02 1.11 22 0.4 6 

2005 N 101 191 187 191 191 120 120 118 55 114 120 

 Med 0.8 24.0 6.2 7.7 14.0 1.20 0.50 7.14 16 3.6 70 

 Mean 0.9 24.2 6.3 7.7 13.0 1.19 0.59 10.55 29 4.5 95 

 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.04 0.01 0.95 4 0.3 5 

2006 N 88 197 196 186 196 122 125 126 58 126 126 

 Med 0.9 24.5 6.3 7.8 19.8 0.94 0.50 8.00 12 3.1 50 

 Mean 1.0 24.8 6.1 7.8 18.3 0.95 0.56 12.94 30 4.4 69 

 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.05 0.01 1.59 6 0.3 6 

2007 N 33 72 72 72 72 27 46 51 24 51 51 

 Med 1.0 22.0 6.9 7.9 27.3 0.66 0.50 5.90 16 3.3 30 

 Mean 1.1 22.2 6.7 7.9 25.3 0.80 0.56 8.04 35 4.2 36 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.07 0.02 1.34 10 0.5 3 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

IX 

Table A.6: Summary Statistics for All Sites in the West Wall from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 225 1051 1050 1024 1051 552 565 564 563 563 

 Median 1.5 25.1 6.9 7.9 23.8 0.712 0.500 4.72 2 30.0 

 Mean 1.6 24.6 6.6 7.9 22.6 0.813 0.514 7.83 3 57.2 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.021 0.003 0.47 0 2.6 

Rainy N 91 404 404 402 404 219 232 231 232 230 

 Median 1.0 29.2 6.0 7.8 19.9 0.834 0.500 6.00 2.4 70 

 Mean 1.3 29.2 5.5 7.8 18.9 0.973 0.521 10.36 3.1 94 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.039 0.006 1.04 0.2 5 

Dry N 134 647 646 622 647 333 333 333 331 333 

 Median 1.7 21.2 7.3 7.9 25.1 0.640 0.500 4.00 2.1 30 

 Mean 1.9 21.7 7.3 7.9 24.9 0.709 0.510 6.08 3.1 32 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.023 0.004 0.31 0.1 1 

2001 N 56 56 56 56 54 

 Med 1.18 0.50 10.50 3.5 90 

 Mean 1.379 0.507 14.59 4.3 120 

 SE 0.10 0.00 1.62 0.4 13 

2002 N 12 70 70 70 70 79 86 86 86 86 

 Med 1.8 26.0 6.2 7.9 22.7 0.64 0.50 4.38 2.8 29 

 Mean 1.8 25.3 5.8 7.9 21.6 0.76 0.53 7.21 3.4 54 

 SE 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.06 0.01 0.87 0.3 6 

2003 N 47 223 223 221 223 90 96 96 96 96 

 Med 1.4 26.0 6.4 7.9 23.1 0.82 0.50 3.56 1.6 45 

 Mean 1.6 25.3 6.1 7.9 20.5 0.91 0.51 5.60 2.5 77 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.06 0.01 0.45 0.2 7 

2004 N 48 222 222 201 222 91 91 91 91 91 

 Med 1.4 25.6 6.6 7.9 25.4 0.76 0.50 3.73 1.5 30 

 Mean 1.6 24.5 6.6 7.9 23.4 0.80 0.51 5.15 2.5 46 

 SE 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.04 0.01 0.47 0.2 5 

2005 N 50 217 216 217 217 96 96 95 94 96 

 Med 1.1 23.7 7.3 7.9 20.5 0.59 0.50 3.84 2.5 40 

 Mean 1.3 24.1 7.2 7.9 19.1 0.69 0.52 6.95 3.1 52 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.2 4 

2006 N 52 237 237 233 237 99 99 99 99 99 

 Med 1.8 24.6 6.8 8.0 25.3 0.56 0.50 6.00 2.4 23 

 Mean 1.7 25.1 6.3 8.0 24.3 0.66 0.51 11.44 3.5 39 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.04 0.00 2.15 0.3 4 

2007 N 16 82 82 82 82 41 41 41 41 41 

 Med 1.9 21.2 7.1 7.9 31.4 0.57 0.50 3.00 1.4 15 

 Mean 2.1 21.8 7.4 7.9 31.0 0.60 0.50 4.41 2.2 15 

 SE 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.03 0.00 0.37 0.3 1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

X 

Table A.7: Summary Statistics for All Sites in the East Wall from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 204 1141 1142 1118 1140 617 631 619 67 634 635 

 Median 1.7 25.0 6.5 7.9 25.8 0.620 0.500 3.63 20 2 30.0 

 Mean 1.9 24.7 6.4 7.9 24.8 0.701 0.505 6.57 60 3 44.8 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.018 0.001 0.30 16 0 1.8 

Rainy N 90 447 447 446 446 253 262 254 28 264 264 

 Median 1.2 29.5 5.8 7.9 21.6 0.750 0.500 5.28 20 2.2 58 

 Mean 1.5 29.4 5.4 7.9 21.4 0.858 0.506 8.84 82 3.2 71 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.033 0.002 0.65 33 0.3 4 

Dry N 114 694 695 672 694 364 369 365 39 370 371 

 Median 2.2 21.2 7.1 8.0 27.1 0.530 0.500 3.00 24 1.6 21 

 Mean 2.3 21.7 7.1 7.9 27.0 0.591 0.505 5.00 45 2.5 26 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.018 0.002 0.20 13 0.1 1 

2001 N 2 7 7 7 7 56 57 59 6 60 60 

 Med 0.6 26.0 3.9 7.8 23.8 1.01 0.50 8.00 66 4.4 64 

 Mean 0.6 26.1 3.6 7.6 20.4 1.162 0.501 11.64 120 5.0 88 

 SE 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.1 5.0 0.09 0.00 1.31 58 0.4 9 

2002 N 13 76 77 77 76 98 99 86 12 99 99 

 Med 2.0 25.8 5.9 7.9 25.7 0.54 0.50 5.00 26 2.4 25 

 Mean 1.8 23.8 6.1 7.9 24.7 0.58 0.51 7.19 124 3.1 35 

 SE 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.03 0.00 0.54 67 0.2 3 

2003 N 42 243 243 243 243 100 107 107 10 107 107 

 Med 1.4 28.3 6.2 7.9 24.3 0.74 0.50 3.00 12 1.4 36 

 Mean 1.8 25.7 5.9 7.9 22.5 0.87 0.50 4.96 14 2.0 65 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.06 0.00 0.34 4 0.1 6 

2004 N 45 242 242 219 241 107 107 106 11 107 107 

 Med 1.9 25.7 6.4 7.9 26.5 0.69 0.50 3.00 20 1.4 20 

 Mean 1.8 24.7 6.3 7.9 25.6 0.70 0.51 5.37 72 2.1 38 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.04 0.00 0.58 46 0.1 4 

2005 N 46 244 244 243 244 112 112 111 11 111 112 

 Med 1.5 24.9 7.2 8.0 22.5 0.56 0.50 3.74 24 1.7 30 

 Mean 1.8 24.8 7.1 8.0 21.9 0.60 0.50 5.96 26 3.2 43 

 SE 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.03 0.00 0.50 6 0.6 3 

2006 N 41 229 229 229 229 104 105 105 12 105 105 

 Med 2.3 24.9 6.5 8.0 26.8 0.56 0.50 3.31 25 1.8 22 

 Mean 2.2 25.2 6.2 8.0 26.4 0.58 0.50 7.84 43 2.6 31 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.03 0.00 1.22 19 0.3 3 

2007 N 15 100 100 100 100 40 44 45 5 45 45 

 Med 2.5 21.0 7.1 8.0 32.1 0.46 0.50 3.00 10 1.4 15 

 Mean 2.8 21.7 7.2 8.0 32.1 0.51 0.50 3.95 20 1.7 15 

 SE 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.03 0.00 0.29 10 0.1 1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XI 

Table A.8: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 170 625 620 622 625 431 458 441 134 467 460 

 Median 1.4 25.6 6.8 8.1 32.0 0.630 0.500 4.00 6 3 20.0 

 Mean 1.4 24.9 6.6 8.1 30.2 0.713 0.502 7.16 22 3 31.1 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.023 0.002 0.41 4 0 1.5 

Rainy N 82 244 242 245 244 171 186 178 54 191 188 

 Median 1.2 29.6 6.0 8.1 29.4 0.690 0.500 5.94 4 2.8 35 

 Mean 1.2 29.5 5.7 8.1 27.8 0.750 0.500 10.06 20 3.4 48 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.035 0.000 0.89 6 0.2 3 

Dry N 88 381 378 377 381 260 272 263 80 276 272 

 Median 1.5 21.5 7.4 8.0 32.9 0.600 0.500 3.01 9 2.3 18 

 Mean 1.5 22.0 7.2 8.1 31.7 0.689 0.504 5.19 24 3.0 20 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.030 0.003 0.26 4 0.1 1 

2001 N 9 14 14 14 14 35 36 40 10 42 35 

 Med 1.2 27.5 4.3 8.2 34.1 0.56 0.50 9.40 3 4.3 40 

 Mean 1.3 25.8 4.2 8.2 30.1 0.736 0.500 13.37 17 4.9 69 

 SE 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.10 0.00 1.90 9 0.5 11 

2002 N 14 48 49 48 48 72 76 55 18 76 76 

 Med 1.4 26.4 5.7 8.1 31.1 0.55 0.50 5.00 16 2.8 18 

 Mean 1.3 24.4 5.6 8.1 29.8 0.58 0.50 9.17 49 3.4 22 

 SE 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.04 0.00 1.07 17 0.2 2 

2003 N 26 125 125 125 125 62 71 71 12 71 71 

 Med 1.3 27.0 6.1 8.0 31.5 0.73 0.50 3.77 9 2.0 30 

 Mean 1.3 25.6 6.3 8.0 29.6 0.85 0.51 6.19 12 2.8 39 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.07 0.01 0.60 3 0.3 5 

2004 N 42 121 120 122 121 76 76 74 22 76 76 

 Med 1.3 25.1 7.2 8.0 30.4 0.70 0.50 3.50 13 2.7 30 

 Mean 1.2 24.8 6.8 8.0 29.8 0.82 0.50 6.42 40 3.0 32 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.05 0.00 0.66 13 0.2 3 

2005 N 39 142 140 141 142 81 84 84 31 84 84 

 Med 1.5 25.3 6.8 8.1 30.8 0.65 0.50 3.00 4 2.3 20 

 Mean 1.5 25.3 6.7 8.1 28.8 0.71 0.50 4.71 12 2.7 29 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.05 0.00 0.40 2 0.2 3 

2006 N 28 121 118 119 121 81 83 82 30 83 83 

 Med 1.5 25.5 7.2 8.2 32.2 0.60 0.50 4.00 4 2.5 18 

 Mean 1.6 25.2 7.0 8.2 31.0 0.65 0.50 7.59 11 3.1 24 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.05 0.00 1.47 2 0.3 2 

2007 N 12 54 54 53 54 24 32 35 11 35 35 

 Med 1.5 22.2 7.7 8.1 35.4 0.63 0.50 3.01 4 2.3 10 

 Mean 1.6 22.5 7.5 8.1 35.1 0.64 0.50 5.28 17 2.7 15 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.04 0.00 0.84 9 0.2 1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XII 

Table A.9: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Lower Charlotte Harbor from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 286 1421 1415 1420 1419 639 653 625 195 664 664 

 Median 2.0 26.0 6.3 7.8 30.6 0.470 0.500 3.00 2 1 16.8 

 Mean 2.1 24.8 6.3 7.9 29.2 0.537 0.501 5.41 10 2 26.7 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.012 0.001 0.21 1 0 0.9 

Rainy N 152 613 608 613 613 278 279 265 81 286 286 

 Median 1.7 29.3 5.5 7.8 27.0 0.590 0.500 4.00 2 1.4 30 

 Mean 2.0 29.3 5.5 7.9 26.7 0.659 0.501 6.74 9 1.8 39 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.022 0.001 0.42 2 0.1 2 

Dry N 134 808 807 807 806 361 374 360 114 378 378 

 Median 2.0 21.2 7.0 7.8 31.6 0.390 0.500 3.00 3 1.4 14 

 Mean 2.2 21.4 6.8 7.9 31.2 0.444 0.501 4.43 11 2.2 18 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.012 0.001 0.18 2 0.1 1 

2001 N 11 19 18 18 19 7 8 14 16 16 16 

 Med 1.0 26.0 4.0 8.2 27.4 1.01 0.50 5.05 2 3.2 38 

 Mean 1.3 25.5 4.5 8.2 29.0 0.999 0.500 5.82 24 3.3 42 

 SE 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.12 0.00 0.89 10 0.4 7 

2002 N 49 218 218 219 218 103 103 71 33 103 103 

 Med 2.0 28.9 5.8 7.9 30.8 0.46 0.50 3.20 4 1.4 19 

 Mean 2.2 26.6 6.0 7.9 29.7 0.49 0.50 6.54 15 2.4 28 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.03 0.00 0.58 5 0.2 3 

2003 N 66 281 281 280 281 123 123 123 31 123 123 

 Med 1.8 26.0 6.4 7.7 29.0 0.52 0.50 4.79 2 1.5 22 

 Mean 1.9 24.9 6.3 7.8 27.1 0.56 0.50 7.12 5 2.1 31 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.03 0.00 0.56 1 0.1 2 

2004 N 46 269 264 269 268 123 123 119 30 123 123 

 Med 1.5 26.0 6.4 7.9 30.0 0.71 0.50 3.00 4 1.4 15 

 Mean 1.9 25.0 6.5 7.9 28.5 0.73 0.50 5.53 13 1.8 32 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.03 0.00 0.43 4 0.1 3 

2005 N 37 238 237 237 237 114 114 113 36 114 114 

 Med 2.1 26.2 6.3 8.0 28.5 0.53 0.50 3.00 2 1.4 20 

 Mean 2.3 24.9 6.2 8.0 27.7 0.56 0.50 4.57 7 1.7 27 

 SE 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.02 0.00 0.29 2 0.1 2 

2006 N 60 278 279 280 278 130 133 133 36 133 133 

 Med 2.1 26.4 6.2 7.8 31.6 0.34 0.50 3.00 2 1.4 13 

 Mean 2.2 24.6 6.2 7.8 31.0 0.40 0.50 4.52 9 1.8 20 

 SE 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.02 0.00 0.58 3 0.1 1 

2007 N 17 118 118 117 118 39 49 52 13 52 52 

 Med 2.6 21.6 6.6 7.8 34.8 0.24 0.50 3.00 2 1.4 12 

 Mean 2.5 21.2 6.7 7.8 33.9 0.25 0.50 3.57 4 2.1 15 

 SE 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.01 0.00 0.25 1 0.2 1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XIII 

Table A.10: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Pine Island Sound from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 264 583 575 578 583 538 553 497 551 570 570 

 Median 1.3 25.0 6.2 8.2 31.2 0.615 0.500 4.06 2 2 17.1 

 Mean 1.4 24.1 6.1 8.2 30.4 0.704 0.505 6.87 10 3 24.8 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.020 0.004 0.37 1 0 1.1 

Rainy N 126 241 237 238 241 224 224 196 230 234 234 

 Median 1.3 28.0 5.4 8.2 29.2 0.742 0.500 7.18 2 2.0 25 

 Mean 1.4 28.3 5.2 8.2 28.3 0.835 0.513 9.75 10 2.6 34 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.036 0.010 0.79 3 0.1 2 

Dry N 138 342 338 340 342 314 329 301 321 336 336 

 Median 1.4 21.5 7.0 8.2 32.4 0.550 0.500 3.00 2 1.8 15 

 Mean 1.5 21.2 6.7 8.2 31.8 0.611 0.500 5.00 10 2.8 18 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.020 0.000 0.27 2 0.2 1 

2001 N 22 31 31 31 31 12 12 20 27 26 26 

 Med 1.2 26.0 5.9 8.5 31.6 1.11 0.50 6.81 2 4.3 25 

 Mean 1.2 25.4 5.7 8.4 32.4 1.211 0.500 8.52 22 5.4 29 

 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.09 0.00 1.41 9 1.0 3 

2002 N 32 73 68 71 73 70 70 7 67 70 70 

 Med 1.4 25.0 6.0 8.4 33.7 0.47 0.50 3.20 2 1.6 10 

 Mean 1.5 23.7 5.6 8.3 32.7 0.51 0.50 6.26 22 3.1 17 

 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.04 0.00 1.79 7 0.4 2 

2003 N 21 87 84 84 86 81 81 81 80 81 81 

 Med 1.7 25.0 6.0 8.4 30.8 0.60 0.50 5.53 2 1.7 19 

 Mean 1.8 23.7 5.9 8.3 29.5 0.70 0.50 7.48 7 2.1 27 

 SE 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.05 0.00 0.58 3 0.1 2 

2004 N 49 101 102 102 101 102 102 98 101 102 102 

 Med 1.2 25.1 6.5 8.1 31.0 0.63 0.50 3.99 2 1.9 15 

 Mean 1.4 24.3 6.3 8.1 29.9 0.70 0.50 6.15 6 2.4 24 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.03 0.00 0.48 1 0.1 2 

2005 N 54 124 123 124 124 124 124 124 121 124 124 

 Med 1.3 25.3 6.4 8.1 29.0 0.78 0.50 4.68 2 2.0 20 

 Mean 1.4 24.6 6.3 8.1 27.5 0.88 0.50 7.64 8 2.7 30 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.04 0.00 0.97 2 0.3 3 

2006 N 63 126 127 125 127 123 129 127 123 127 127 

 Med 1.4 27.0 6.1 8.2 31.5 0.54 0.50 3.00 2 1.7 20 

 Mean 1.5 24.8 6.1 8.1 30.7 0.66 0.52 7.00 10 2.6 26 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.05 0.02 0.90 4 0.3 3 

2007 N 23 41 40 41 41 26 35 40 32 40 40 

 Med 1.4 22.0 6.8 8.2 35.8 0.37 0.50 3.00 2 2.0 10 

 Mean 1.4 20.7 6.7 8.2 35.4 0.37 0.50 3.88 8 2.9 13 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.02 0.00 0.32 3 0.3 1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XIV 

Table A.11: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Matlacha Pass from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 194 554 546 532 551 444 468 348 202 475 475 

 Median 1.4 25.2 6.0 8.0 21.7 0.550 0.500 5.29 2 2 25.0 

 Mean 1.5 24.5 6.0 7.9 21.1 0.612 0.500 16.66 10 2 32.1 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.018 0.000 1.58 2 0 1.2 

Rainy N 107 236 231 221 235 185 193 123 79 191 191 

 Median 1.0 28.6 5.2 7.8 15.8 0.634 0.500 10.00 2 1.9 35 

 Mean 1.2 28.2 5.1 7.8 16.6 0.719 0.500 30.50 11 2.3 45 

 SE 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.035 0.000 3.96 2 0.1 2 

Dry N 87 318 315 311 316 259 275 225 123 284 284 

 Median 1.8 22.0 6.6 8.0 25.4 0.480 0.500 4.03 2 1.4 20 

 Mean 1.8 21.8 6.6 8.0 24.4 0.536 0.500 9.09 9 1.9 23 

 SE 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.018 0.000 0.74 2 0.1 1 

2001 N 14 20 20 20 19 9 9 14 16 16 16 

 Med 1.3 27.0 5.0 8.0 22.5 1.05 0.50 5.00 6 2.9 35 

 Mean 1.3 25.8 5.0 8.1 23.6 1.088 0.500 6.44 15 3.4 39 

 SE 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.13 0.00 1.31 4 0.5 4 

2002 N 40 103 103 101 103 70 77 13 40 81 81 

 Med 1.5 27.8 5.5 7.9 19.2 0.47 0.50 3.00 3 1.4 15 

 Mean 1.5 25.9 5.7 7.9 21.3 0.50 0.50 5.51 9 1.6 19 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.03 0.00 1.33 3 0.1 1 

2003 N 36 95 95 93 95 84 86 41 30 86 86 

 Med 1.6 26.1 6.1 8.0 20.6 0.53 0.50 5.00 2 1.6 20 

 Mean 1.7 24.3 6.1 8.0 18.4 0.61 0.50 6.63 6 2.0 27 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.05 0.00 0.84 3 0.1 2 

2004 N 42 87 80 84 86 81 83 65 33 80 80 

 Med 1.2 25.2 5.7 7.9 22.8 0.65 0.50 3.58 2 1.4 20 

 Mean 1.3 25.1 5.6 8.0 21.8 0.67 0.50 5.60 12 2.0 31 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.05 0.00 0.53 3 0.1 3 

2005 N 36 104 103 103 104 88 88 88 30 88 88 

 Med 1.1 23.3 6.4 7.9 15.1 0.71 0.50 6.09 4 1.9 43 

 Mean 1.3 23.6 6.3 7.8 16.2 0.71 0.50 34.34 6 2.2 52 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.04 0.00 5.17 1 0.1 3 

2006 N 23 108 108 93 107 88 92 91 36 88 88 

 Med 1.6 23.0 6.0 7.9 24.7 0.42 0.50 12.20 2 1.8 25 

 Mean 1.7 24.5 6.1 7.8 22.7 0.57 0.50 18.24 8 2.2 35 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.04 0.00 2.25 2 0.2 3 

2007 N 3 37 37 38 37 24 33 36 17 36 36 

 Med 2.0 22.5 6.3 8.1 33.6 0.31 0.50 6.05 4 1.4 15 

 Mean 2.1 21.6 6.4 8.0 33.2 0.39 0.50 8.80 22 1.7 19 

 SE 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.03 0.00 2.11 16 0.1 1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XV 

Table A.12: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Tidal Caloosahatchee River from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 247 286 286 252 286 292 292 287 39 292 292 

 Median 0.8 26.1 7.2 7.8 1.2 1.100 0.500 4.73 4 2 66.6 

 Mean 0.9 25.5 7.1 7.7 5.3 1.143 0.500 9.97 11 4 83.3 

 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.023 0.000 0.85 3 0 3.2 

Rainy N 102 118 118 99 118 124 124 124 16 124 124 

 Median 0.7 29.5 5.7 7.5 0.2 1.215 0.500 4.22 2 2.1 123 

 Mean 0.8 29.3 5.7 7.5 2.1 1.263 0.500 12.03 14 3.5 121 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.034 0.000 1.73 6 0.3 5 

Dry N 145 168 168 153 168 168 168 163 23 168 168 

 Median 0.9 22.3 7.9 7.8 5.0 0.970 0.500 5.00 6 2.6 53 

 Mean 1.0 22.8 8.1 7.8 7.5 1.055 0.500 8.39 10 4.0 55 

 SE 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.030 0.000 0.69 2 0.3 2 

2001 N 

 Med 

 Mean 

 SE 

2002 N 26 41 41 16 41 47 47 47 47 47 

 Med 0.8 29.2 6.4 7.7 0.2 1.13 0.50 9.62 2.6 110 

 Mean 0.8 27.4 6.1 7.8 3.1 1.15 0.50 12.29 3.4 133 

 SE 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.06 0.00 1.60 0.3 8 

2003 N 54 61 61 52 61 61 61 61 61 61 

 Med 0.8 28.6 6.8 7.7 0.7 1.03 0.50 5.70 2.1 81 

 Mean 0.9 26.5 7.0 7.6 4.2 1.05 0.50 8.53 2.6 92 

 SE 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.04 0.00 1.05 0.2 6 

2004 N 57 60 60 60 60 60 60 55 60 60 

 Med 0.8 24.6 8.0 7.9 4.0 1.05 0.50 6.61 1.9 58 

 Mean 0.8 24.8 7.8 7.8 5.3 1.19 0.50 17.52 3.6 81 

 SE 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.06 0.00 3.59 0.5 7 

2005 N 58 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 

 Med 0.8 24.8 7.6 7.6 0.2 1.40 0.50 4.80 5.3 74 

 Mean 0.8 24.9 7.2 7.6 2.5 1.38 0.50 8.57 6.3 84 

 SE 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.05 0.00 1.18 0.6 6 

2006 N 41 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 27 48 48 

 Med 0.9 25.0 7.2 7.8 5.0 0.94 0.50 3.00 6 2.2 38 

 Mean 1.0 24.9 7.1 7.7 7.4 1.01 0.50 3.35 13 3.3 41 

 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.04 0.00 0.10 4 0.4 4 

2007 N 11 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 12 15 15 

 Med 1.0 22.9 7.8 7.9 19.0 0.74 0.50 5.80 2 2.3 33 

 Mean 1.2 22.5 7.1 7.8 20.2 0.76 0.50 7.73 7 2.8 32 

 SE 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.04 0.00 1.42 3 0.5 3 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XVI 

Table A.13: Summary Statistics for All Sites in San Carlos Bay from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 283 663 666 657 669 467 512 469 308 533 531 

 Median 1.5 25.0 6.3 8.0 30.0 0.490 0.500 3.00 2 2 16.0 

 Mean 1.6 24.3 6.5 8.3 28.6 0.684 0.501 8.43 9 3 22.9 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.103 0.001 0.88 1 0 0.9 

Rainy N 117 257 258 258 257 191 193 173 128 203 202 

 Median 1.3 29.2 5.6 8.0 27.4 0.550 0.500 3.70 2 1.8 20 

 Mean 1.4 28.8 6.0 8.0 26.3 0.956 0.500 13.22 8 3.1 30 

 SE 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.251 0.000 2.23 1 0.6 2 

Dry N 166 406 408 399 412 276 319 296 180 330 329 

 Median 1.7 21.8 6.8 8.0 31.2 0.460 0.500 3.00 2 2.1 15 

 Mean 1.7 21.5 6.9 8.5 30.0 0.496 0.501 5.62 10 2.7 18 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.016 0.001 0.41 2 0.1 1 

2001 N 25 26 26 26 26 10 11 16 22 22 22 

 Med 1.0 26.3 5.7 8.2 31.1 1.08 0.50 5.00 4 3.9 26 

 Mean 1.2 26.0 5.6 8.3 30.1 1.031 0.500 4.90 22 4.6 34 

 SE 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.10 0.00 0.37 12 0.6 5 

2002 N 43 132 132 133 133 95 93 57 45 98 98 

 Med 1.4 27.4 5.8 8.0 30.5 0.45 0.50 3.00 2 1.7 10 

 Mean 1.4 25.9 5.9 8.0 29.2 1.14 0.50 3.45 15 2.5 14 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.50 0.00 0.19 5 0.2 1 

2003 N 40 141 144 145 144 93 102 100 39 104 103 

 Med 1.7 25.8 6.3 8.0 29.2 0.55 0.50 4.00 2 1.7 15 

 Mean 1.8 24.6 7.2 9.0 27.2 0.60 0.50 5.41 10 3.3 21 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.05 0.00 0.39 4 1.1 1 

2004 N 35 104 103 92 104 75 81 68 35 81 81 

 Med 1.9 23.1 6.4 8.1 31.9 0.48 0.50 3.00 4 2.3 12 

 Mean 1.9 23.2 6.6 8.1 30.3 0.47 0.50 3.54 11 2.7 21 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.03 0.00 0.23 3 0.2 3 

2005 N 42 115 116 117 117 88 90 89 42 90 89 

 Med 1.4 23.5 6.5 8.0 27.9 0.57 0.50 4.37 2 2.6 30 

 Mean 1.4 23.8 6.5 8.0 26.3 0.63 0.50 23.40 6 3.2 38 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.03 0.00 4.13 1 0.2 3 

2006 N 66 104 104 103 104 81 98 98 84 97 97 

 Med 1.7 23.4 6.4 8.0 30.3 0.47 0.50 3.00 2 1.6 20 

 Mean 1.7 24.6 6.3 8.0 28.5 0.54 0.50 6.74 6 2.2 23 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.03 0.00 0.95 1 0.1 2 

2007 N 32 41 41 41 41 25 37 41 41 41 41 

 Med 1.7 20.5 7.0 8.2 33.9 0.41 0.50 3.00 2 1.7 15 

 Mean 1.7 20.4 6.7 8.2 33.0 0.41 0.50 3.70 5 2.8 15 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.02 0.00 0.33 1 0.3 1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XVII 

Table A.14: Summary Statistics for All Sites in Estero Bay from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

 (m) (C) (mg/L) (ppt) (ppm) (ppm) (μg/L) (cfu/100mL) (NTU) (PCU) 

All N 329 544 541 542 541 493 512 467 520 527 527 

 Median 1.1 24.0 5.4 8.0 29.5 0.664 0.500 3.80 6 3 25.0 

 Mean 1.2 23.6 5.4 8.0 26.4 0.693 0.501 5.67 35 4 31.9 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.018 0.001 0.36 4 0 1.0 

Rainy N 137 213 212 213 212 198 199 174 207 208 208 

 Median 1.1 28.0 4.6 8.0 26.0 0.730 0.500 5.10 6 2.6 35 

 Mean 1.1 27.8 4.6 7.9 23.0 0.778 0.500 6.00 29 3.2 44 

 SE 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.033 0.000 0.28 4 0.1 2 

Dry N 192 331 329 329 329 295 313 293 313 319 319 

 Median 1.1 21.0 6.0 8.0 31.0 0.610 0.500 3.10 5 3.3 20 

 Mean 1.2 21.0 6.0 8.0 28.6 0.635 0.502 5.47 39 4.8 24 

 SE 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.019 0.002 0.54 5 0.3 1 

2001 N 12 27 27 27 27 9 10 15 21 21 21 

 Med 0.9 25.0 4.5 8.1 30.4 0.94 0.50 3.74 28 3.4 30 

 Mean 1.0 24.8 4.4 8.1 26.5 1.101 0.500 4.96 70 4.3 40 

 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.22 0.00 0.84 25 0.8 6 

2002 N 25 55 55 54 54 52 52 3 52 52 52 

 Med 1.2 25.5 4.4 8.2 30.6 0.45 0.50 7.60 11 2.7 12 

 Mean 1.2 24.2 4.5 8.1 28.4 0.47 0.50 7.20 69 3.2 16 

 SE 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.05 0.00 1.63 22 0.3 1 

2003 N 39 79 79 79 78 73 73 73 72 73 73 

 Med 1.4 25.0 4.9 8.0 27.6 0.60 0.50 5.34 8 2.1 27 

 Mean 1.3 24.0 5.0 8.0 23.9 0.75 0.50 6.80 27 3.3 33 

 SE 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.05 0.00 0.55 5 0.4 3 

2004 N 77 108 108 108 108 108 108 105 108 108 108 

 Med 1.0 24.1 5.4 7.9 29.0 0.74 0.50 3.60 9 3.6 30 

 Mean 1.0 23.3 5.6 7.9 25.9 0.77 0.50 6.30 32 4.7 35 

 SE 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.02 0.00 1.06 6 0.4 2 

2005 N 73 112 110 112 112 111 111 111 111 111 111 

 Med 1.1 24.3 6.0 7.9 27.0 0.76 0.50 4.00 4 3.3 30 

 Mean 1.1 23.8 5.9 7.9 23.3 0.82 0.50 5.93 35 4.1 39 

 SE 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.04 0.00 1.01 8 0.3 3 

2006 N 79 120 119 120 120 115 119 117 118 119 119 

 Med 1.2 24.1 5.6 8.0 30.3 0.50 0.50 3.00 4 3.0 26 

 Mean 1.2 24.1 5.6 8.0 28.0 0.58 0.50 4.31 28 3.5 31 

 SE 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.03 0.00 0.22 6 0.2 2 

2007 N 24 43 43 42 42 25 39 43 38 43 43 

 Med 1.0 21.0 6.0 8.0 33.9 0.44 0.50 4.23 3 3.0 20 

 Mean 1.2 20.9 5.8 8.1 33.2 0.45 0.50 5.35 11 7.6 21 

 SE 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.02 0.00 0.48 4 2.1 2 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XVIII 

Table A.15: Seagrass summary statistics from STMP. 

Region Year Shoots_m2 BLAve TotAbun CorrDepth 

GSCH 2001 N 41.0 43.0 

 Mean 20.8 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.3 0.1 

 Median 17.4 0.8 

 2002 N 44.0 48.0 

 Mean 18.8 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.4 0.1 

 Median 16.2 0.8 

 2003 N 42.0 47.0 

 Mean 16.9 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.2 0.1 

 Median 14.7 0.9 

 2004 N 41.0 52.0 53.0 

 Mean 15.9 1.5 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.4 0.2 0.1 

 Median 13.6 1.0 0.9 

 2005 N 34.0 34.0 39.0 39.0 

 Mean 346.0 21.8 2.0 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 84.5 2.2 0.3 0.1 

 Median 49.5 18.2 1.0 0.9 

 2006 N 46.0 40.0 46.0 46.0 

 Mean 282.5 19.8 2.1 1.1 

 Std. Error of Mean 59.0 1.5 0.2 0.1 

 Median 135.8 16.3 2.0 0.9 

 Total N 80.0 242.0 137.0 276.0 

 Mean 309.5 18.9 1.9 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 49.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 

 Median 86.7 16.2 2.0 0.9 

Estero Bay 2002 N 47.0 53.0 

 Mean 15.7 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.3 0.0 

 Median 14.2 0.9 

 2003 N 2.0 98.0 104.0 

 Mean 0.0 7.9 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.0 0.5 0.0 

 Median 0.0 7.4 0.9 

 2004 N 67.0 82.0 

 Mean 10.0 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.7 0.0 

 Median 8.2 1.0 

 2005 N 88.0 105.0 

 Mean 11.2 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.9 0.0 

 Median 8.3 0.8 

 2006 N 84.0 51.0 97.0 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XIX 

Estero Bay, cont. 

 Mean 13.0 3.3 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.0 0.3 0.0 

 Median 9.2 4.0 0.7 

 Total N 2.0 384.0 51.0 441.0 

 Mean 0.0 11.1 3.3 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 

 Median 0.0 8.5 4.0 0.8 

Lower Charlotte 2001 N 31.0 44.0 

 Mean 17.8 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.3 0.1 

 Median 17.0 0.6 

 2002 N 22.0 28.0 

 Mean 19.6 0.6 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.3 0.0 

 Median 21.0 0.6 

 2003 N 37.0 43.0 

 Mean 16.1 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.0 0.1 

 Median 15.4 0.6 

 2004 N 38.0 43.0 45.0 

 Mean 17.9 1.8 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 2.0 0.3 0.1 

 Median 13.3 1.0 0.7 

 2005 N 37.0 31.0 37.0 37.0 

 Mean 226.3 18.7 1.8 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 77.4 2.3 0.3 0.1 

 Median 33.0 14.6 1.0 0.7 

 2006 N 43.0 36.0 43.0 43.0 

 Mean 197.7 17.5 1.9 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 55.3 1.2 0.2 0.1 

 Median 53.0 17.8 2.0 0.7 

 Total N 80.0 195.0 123.0 240.0 

 Mean 210.9 17.8 1.8 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 46.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 

 Median 49.0 16.2 2.0 0.6 

Lemon Bay 2001 N 36.0 45.0 

 Mean 14.4 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.0 0.1 

 Median 12.5 1.0 

 2002 N 40.0 47.0 

 Mean 16.8 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.0 0.1 

 Median 16.3 0.9 

 2003 N 38.0 43.0 

 Mean 16.9 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.3 0.1 

 Median 14.7 1.1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XX 

Lemon Bay, cont. 

 2004 N 44.0 53.0 53.0 

 Mean 16.4 1.4 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.2 0.2 0.1 

 Median 17.4 0.5 1.0 

 2005 N 33.0 38.0 41.0 42.0 

 Mean 444.6 22.3 2.1 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 154.9 1.7 0.2 0.1 

 Median 47.0 23.0 2.0 1.0 

 2006 N 50.0 42.0 55.0 55.0 

 Mean 359.3 16.9 1.9 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 128.1 1.5 0.2 0.1 

 Median 82.0 15.1 2.0 1.1 

 Total N 83.0 238.0 149.0 285.0 

 Mean 393.2 17.3 1.8 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 98.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 

 Median 54.0 16.3 1.0 1.0 

Matlacha Pass 2001 N 23.0 26.0 

 Mean 12.6 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.4 0.1 

 Median 11.0 0.7 

 2002 N 2.0 33.0 5.0 39.0 

 Mean 283.5 15.4 0.7 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 283.5 1.0 0.2 0.1 

 Median 283.5 14.2 1.0 0.7 

 2003 N 4.0 42.0 5.0 46.0 

 Mean 460.8 16.5 1.0 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 184.5 0.8 0.3 0.1 

 Median 535.0 15.9 1.0 0.7 

 2004 N 5.0 44.0 53.0 53.0 

 Mean 314.0 17.3 1.7 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 250.9 0.9 0.2 0.1 

 Median 80.0 18.7 2.0 1.0 

 2005 N 38.0 32.0 34.0 39.0 

 Mean 179.7 13.7 0.8 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 61.0 1.3 0.1 0.1 

 Median 44.0 12.6 1.0 0.9 

 2006 N 40.0 40.0 45.0 45.0 

 Mean 385.2 21.7 2.2 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 79.2 1.1 0.3 0.1 

 Median 167.5 20.3 2.0 0.8 

 2007 N 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

 Mean 507.4 14.2 1.7 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 404.2 5.3 0.9 0.3 

 Median 164.8 15.4 1.0 0.7 

 Total N 93.0 218.0 147.0 253.0 

 Mean 303.7 16.6 1.6 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 48.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXI 

Matlacha Pass, cont. 

 Median 85.0 16.2 1.0 0.8 

Pine Island Sound 2001 N 54.0 61.0 

 Mean 16.9 1.1 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.8 0.1 

 Median 15.3 1.1 

 2002 N 49.0 61.0 

 Mean 19.8 1.2 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.1 0.1 

 Median 19.8 1.1 

 2003 N 54.0 71.0 

 Mean 18.8 1.2 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.8 0.1 

 Median 18.6 1.2 

 2004 N 73.0 87.0 87.0 

 Mean 17.8 1.6 1.3 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.9 0.2 0.1 

 Median 17.4 1.0 1.2 

 2005 N 64.0 58.0 69.0 73.0 

 Mean 119.4 35.1 1.6 1.2 

 Std. Error of Mean 42.4 7.5 0.2 0.1 

 Median 21.0 17.2 1.0 1.2 

 2006 N 66.0 60.0 76.0 76.0 

 Mean 291.0 22.4 2.4 1.2 

 Std. Error of Mean 56.3 1.3 0.2 0.1 

 Median 91.0 21.7 2.0 1.1 

 Total N 130.0 348.0 232.0 429.0 

 Mean 206.5 21.8 1.9 1.2 

 Std. Error of Mean 36.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 

 Median 48.3 18.5 1.0 1.1 

San Carlos Bay 2001 N 11.0 48.0 21.0 55.0 

 Mean 148.8 16.0 2.0 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 41.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 

 Median 70.0 14.3 2.0 1.0 

 2002 N 143.0 189.0 157.0 195.0 

 Mean 110.4 21.5 1.4 1.1 

 Std. Error of Mean 13.8 0.8 0.1 0.0 

 Median 33.0 18.4 1.0 1.0 

 2003 N 173.0 229.0 184.0 232.0 

 Mean 218.3 20.6 1.7 1.1 

 Std. Error of Mean 17.3 0.7 0.1 0.0 

 Median 160.0 18.2 2.0 1.0 

 2004 N 73.0 134.0 142.0 142.0 

 Mean 171.8 14.5 1.5 1.1 

 Std. Error of Mean 18.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 

 Median 120.0 13.2 1.0 1.1 

 2005 N 68.0 59.0 72.0 73.0 

 Mean 89.3 11.5 1.1 1.1 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXII 

San Carlos Bay, cont. 

 Std. Error of Mean 18.6 0.7 0.1 0.1 

 Median 18.0 11.0 1.0 1.0 

 2006 N 55.0 51.0 63.0 63.0 

 Mean 347.5 19.1 2.2 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 63.0 1.5 0.2 0.1 

 Median 196.7 15.4 2.0 0.9 

 Total N 523.0 710.0 639.0 760.0 

 Mean 177.6 18.5 1.6 1.1 

 Std. Error of Mean 10.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 

 Median 80.0 16.4 1.0 1.0 

Tidal Myakka 2001 N 17.0 30.0 

 Mean 7.1 0.5 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.4 0.0 

 Median 6.8 0.5 

 2002 N 24.0 33.0 

 Mean 6.8 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.4 0.0 

 Median 7.2 0.6 

 2003 N 14.0 36.0 

 Mean 7.7 0.6 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.6 0.0 

 Median 7.5 0.6 

 2004 N 22.0 40.0 40.0 

 Mean 7.6 0.2 0.5 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.5 0.0 0.0 

 Median 7.1 0.1 0.5 

 2005 N 28.0 20.0 28.0 28.0 

 Mean 23.5 8.2 0.3 0.5 

 Std. Error of Mean 5.7 0.6 0.1 0.0 

 Median 11.5 7.7 0.5 0.4 

 2006 N 28.0 21.0 28.0 28.0 

 Mean 44.8 7.6 0.5 0.6 

 Std. Error of Mean 12.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 

 Median 16.5 7.8 0.5 0.6 

 Total N 56.0 118.0 96.0 195.0 

 Mean 34.2 7.5 0.3 0.5 

 Std. Error of Mean 6.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 

 Median 13.0 7.3 0.1 0.6 

Tidal Peace 2001 N 20.0 35.0 

 Mean 7.5 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.7 0.0 

 Median 6.6 0.8 

 2002 N 24.0 34.0 

 Mean 7.9 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.7 0.0 

 Median 7.0 0.7 

 2003 N 11.0 36.0 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXIII 

Tidal Peace, cont. 

 Mean 9.1 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.9 0.0 

 Median 8.4 0.8 

 2004 N 14.0 47.0 47.0 

 Mean 7.4 0.1 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.5 0.0 0.0 

 Median 7.4 0.0 0.7 

 2005 N 31.0 16.0 32.0 32.0 

 Mean 10.8 8.1 0.2 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 3.7 0.6 0.1 0.0 

 Median 0.0 8.2 0.1 0.8 

 2006 N 37.0 18.0 37.0 37.0 

 Mean 38.1 8.3 0.3 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 10.9 0.8 0.1 0.0 

 Median 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.8 

 Total N 68.0 103.0 116.0 221.0 

 Mean 25.7 8.0 0.2 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 6.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 

 Median 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.7 

West Wall 2001 N 34.0 44.0 

 Mean 9.4 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.7 0.0 

 Median 8.7 0.7 

 2002 N 34.0 47.0 

 Mean 12.0 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.9 0.0 

 Median 11.1 0.6 

 2003 N 41.0 51.0 

 Mean 10.6 0.6 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.6 0.0 

 Median 10.4 0.5 

 2004 N 41.0 53.0 53.0 

 Mean 10.1 1.0 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.6 0.1 0.0 

 Median 9.0 0.5 0.8 

 2005 N 49.0 35.0 49.0 49.0 

 Mean 81.9 17.4 1.0 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 19.0 7.2 0.2 0.0 

 Median 12.0 9.8 0.5 0.8 

 2006 N 50.0 36.0 51.0 51.0 

 Mean 224.5 13.6 1.4 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 76.6 1.0 0.2 0.0 

 Median 14.0 12.4 0.5 0.7 

 Total N 99.0 221.0 153.0 295.0 

 Mean 153.9 12.1 1.1 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 40.3 1.2 0.1 0.0 

 Median 12.0 10.0 0.5 0.7 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXIV 

East Wall 2001 N 28.0 36.0 

 Mean 10.9 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.7 0.0 

 Median 10.0 0.8 

 2002 N 31.0 34.0 

 Mean 18.3 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.4 0.0 

 Median 19.0 0.8 

 2003 N 27.0 30.0 

 Mean 14.3 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.8 0.1 

 Median 14.8 0.7 

 2004 N 26.0 33.0 33.0 

 Mean 13.4 1.5 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 0.8 0.2 0.0 

 Median 13.2 2.0 0.9 

 2005 N 29.0 19.0 27.0 30.0 

 Mean 101.2 12.0 1.3 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 29.5 0.9 0.3 0.0 

 Median 7.0 12.0 0.5 0.9 

 2006 N 27.0 23.0 27.0 27.0 

 Mean 316.6 16.9 2.2 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 69.2 1.6 0.4 0.1 

 Median 185.0 13.8 1.0 1.0 

 Total N 56.0 154.0 87.0 190.0 

 Mean 205.0 14.5 1.7 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 39.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 

 Median 45.0 13.0 1.0 0.9 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 2001 N 62.0 17.0 71.0 71.0 

 Mean 2.9 6.9 0.2 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 

 Median 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.7 

 2002 N 48.0 77.0 93.0 93.0 

 Mean 89.6 7.1 0.7 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 28.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 

 Median 3.0 7.0 0.5 0.7 

 2003 N 191.0 203.0 229.0 229.0 

 Mean 176.5 9.6 0.8 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 15.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 

 Median 100.0 9.8 1.0 0.7 

 2004 N 83.0 83.0 91.0 91.0 

 Mean 163.1 8.3 1.0 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 22.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 

 Median 100.0 7.0 1.0 0.7 

 2005 N 16.0 17.0 19.0 19.0 

 Mean 196.4 7.2 0.8 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 36.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 

 Median 165.0 7.4 1.0 0.7 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXV 

Tidal Caloosahatchee, 

cont. 

 2006 N 27.0 20.0 27.0 27.0 

 Mean 333.0 10.6 1.1 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 89.5 1.0 0.2 0.1 

 Median 190.0 9.1 1.0 0.6 

 Total N 427.0 417.0 530.0 530.0 

 Mean 149.6 8.7 0.7 0.7 

 Std. Error of Mean 11.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 

 Median 49.0 7.8 1.0 0.7 

Total 2001 N 73.0 349.0 92.0 490.0 

 Mean 24.9 14.0 0.6 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 8.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 

 Median 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.8 

 2002 N 193.0 614.0 255.0 712.0 

 Mean 107.0 16.4 1.1 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 12.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 

 Median 30.0 14.4 1.0 0.8 

 2003 N 370.0 836.0 418.0 968.0 

 Mean 198.2 14.5 1.2 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 11.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 

 Median 120.0 12.6 1.0 0.8 

 2004 N 161.0 627.0 694.0 779.0 

 Mean 171.7 13.5 1.3 1.0 

 Std. Error of Mean 15.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 

 Median 110.0 11.4 1.0 0.8 

 2005 N 427.0 447.0 447.0 566.0 

 Mean 155.6 16.9 1.3 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 18.7 1.2 0.1 0.0 

 Median 21.0 11.6 1.0 0.8 

 2006 N 469.0 471.0 549.0 595.0 

 Mean 265.7 16.6 1.9 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 23.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 

 Median 60.0 14.6 1.0 0.8 

 2007 N 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

 Mean 507.4 14.2 1.7 0.8 

 Std. Error of Mean 404.2 5.3 0.9 0.3 

 Median 164.8 15.4 1.0 0.7 

 Total N 1697.0 3348.0 2460.0 4115.0 

 Mean 186.5 15.2 1.4 0.9 

 Std. Error of Mean 8.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 

 Median 50.0 12.8 1.0 0.8 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXVI 

Table A. 16: Seagrass deep edge means and medians by year. 

Region YearID Mean Median Std. Error of Mean 

East Wall 2001 0.95 0.95 0.27 

2002 1.25 1.25 0.04 

2003 1.29 1.29 0.23 

2004 1.31 1.31 0.04 

2005 1.43 1.43 0.15 

2006 1.41 1.41 0.04 

Total 1.27 1.28 0.07 

Estero Bay 2002 0.99 1.09 0.08 

2003 1.04 0.94 0.11 

2004 1.16 1.25 0.12 

2005 0.82 0.87 0.15 

2006 0.81 0.60 0.17 

Total 0.95 0.89 0.06 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 2001 1.48 1.61 0.22 

2002 1.79 1.77 0.28 

2003 1.61 1.83 0.21 

2004 1.87 1.91 0.09 

2005 1.88 1.82 0.14 

2006 1.95 1.95 0.13 

Total 1.73 1.80 0.08 

Lemon Bay 2001 1.53 1.57 0.15 

2002 1.53 1.68 0.11 

2003 1.66 1.64 0.14 

2004 1.51 1.42 0.18 

2005 1.72 1.75 0.23 

2006 1.59 1.61 0.17 

Total 1.58 1.61 0.07 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 2001 0.87 0.46 0.32 

2002 0.81 0.81 0.27 

2003 0.99 0.84 0.33 

2004 1.11 0.85 0.40 

2005 1.39 1.09 0.39 

2006 1.30 1.24 0.36 

Total 1.09 0.88 0.14 

Matlacha Pass 2001 1.27 1.28 0.13 

2002 1.40 1.40 0.08 

2003 1.26 1.22 0.11 

2004 1.50 1.51 0.13 

2005 1.20 1.16 0.19 

2006 1.38 1.41 0.16 

2007 1.80 1.80 . 

Total 1.35 1.39 0.06 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXVII 

Pine Island Sound 2001 1.60 1.62 0.15 

2002 1.65 1.64 0.19 

2003 1.69 1.50 0.16 

2004 1.85 1.64 0.13 

2005 1.74 1.81 0.11 

2006 1.84 1.73 0.14 

Total 1.74 1.70 0.06 

San Carlos Bay 2001 1.61 1.59 0.07 

2002 1.78 1.78 0.06 

2003 1.65 1.65 0.06 

2004 1.65 1.47 0.12 

2005 1.66 1.81 0.17 

2006 1.47 1.51 0.20 

Total 1.65 1.69 0.04 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 2001 0.71 0.61 0.08 

2002 1.01 1.07 0.11 

2003 0.89 0.86 0.07 

2004 0.77 0.70 0.08 

2005 0.73 0.73 0.26 

2006 0.61 0.61 0.02 

Total 0.85 0.78 0.04 

Tidal Myakka 2001 0.55 0.69 0.16 

2002 0.82 0.78 0.08 

2003 0.71 0.72 0.09 

2004 0.79 0.77 0.09 

2005 0.61 0.59 0.17 

2006 0.81 0.88 0.13 

Total 0.72 0.75 0.05 

Tidal Peace 2001 0.81 0.82 0.04 

2002 0.94 0.95 0.05 

2003 0.85 0.91 0.15 

2004 0.74 0.68 0.08 

2005 0.85 0.86 0.02 

2006 0.74 0.85 0.13 

Total 0.82 0.86 0.04 

West Wall 2001 1.32 1.40 0.21 

2002 1.18 1.20 0.26 

2003 1.04 1.04 0.11 

2004 1.41 1.47 0.12 

2005 1.37 1.31 0.20 

2006 1.20 1.16 0.12 

Total 1.24 1.24 0.07 

Total 2001 1.24 1.29 0.07 

2002 1.36 1.28 0.05 
Appendix A Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXVIII 

2003 1.24 1.23 0.05 

2004 1.35 1.36 0.06 

2005 1.28 1.26 0.07 

2006 1.36 1.28 0.07 

2007 1.80 1.80 . 

Total 1.30 1.28 0.03 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXIX 

Appendix B: Water Quality Comparisons 

 Page 

Table B.1: Non parametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis) results between programs for the entire 

study duration from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN ____________________ XXVII 

Table B.2: Non parametric t-test (Mann-Whitney) results between programs within individual 

regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN _____________________ XXVIII-XXX 

Table B.3: Non parametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis) results between regions for the entire 

study duration form CHEVWQMN & CCHMN ____________________ XXXI 

Table B.4: Non parametric t-test (Mann-Whitney) results between the rainy and dry season 

XXXII-XXXIV 

Table B.5: Means and Medians by Program From CHEVWQMN & CCHMN XXXV-XXXIX 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXX 

Table B.1: Kruskal-Wallis results between programs for the entire study duration from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

Chi-Square 16 228 1783 1075 146 150 4 21 113 54 35

df 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

p (2 tailed) 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0610 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Bold values significant at the .05 level 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXI 

Table B.2: Mann-Whitney results between programs from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

All Regions Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 1657.1 5186.2 5668.5 4288.7 4813.5 3034.25 3411.52 3074.2 1169 3307.2 3332

CHEVWQMN 1758.8 4367.0 3036.1 6363.1 5302.6 3637.38 3318.29 3299.7 1601 3672.7 3625

Sum of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 3280968.0 36992932.5 40399075.5 29986684.5 34354284.5 13038157.00 15010699.00 13138961.0 658406 14511777.5 14609685

CHEVWQMN 2493933.0 12135895.5 8334052.5 17549440.5 14645765.5 7914944.00 7821204.00 6658817.0 3966955 9145103.5 9026565

Mann Whitney U 1319778.0 8273085.5 4565167.5 5539156.5 8882331.5 3803904.0 5042301.0 4003286.0 499640.0 4882311.5 4993380.0

Z -2.985 -12.803 -41.119 -32.786 -7.637 -12.267 -1.873 -4.598 -10.625 -7.339 -5.896

p (2 tailed)* 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0610 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Lemon Bay Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 280.8 771.8 1013.0 546.1 895.4 334.68 389.16 413.5 579.6 334

CHEVWQMN 195.0 698.8 504.5 868.5 596.6 525.45 529.38 451.6 429.8 582

Sum of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 35094.0 489303.5 642225.0 346196.5 567697.0 124836.50 146712.00 152185.5 217360.0 124979

CHEVWQMN 61047.0 577226.5 412653.0 713043.5 488634.0 271658.50 301219.00 226699.5 257465.0 348872

Mann Whitney U 11906.0 235675.5 77682.0 144901.5 152844.0 55085.5 75459.0 84289.5 77765.0 54854.0

Z -6.415 -3.278 -22.921 -14.539 -13.462 -10.924 -7.729 -2.206 -8.088 -13.451

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0274 0.0000 0.0000

Tidal Myakka Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 135.2 332.5 340.3 315.2 313.7 224.05 235.76 227.3 252.7 235

CHEVWQMN 156.7 245.6 210.5 293.5 339.2 218.75 225.00 231.0 168.8 229

Sum of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 31644.5 175897.0 180038.5 162351.0 165970.5 79985.00 86761.00 83183.0 91724.5 85457

CHEVWQMN 6581.5 26033.0 22527.5 31402.0 35959.5 19250.00 22050.00 20557.0 17553.5 23822

Mann Whitney U 4149.5 20362.0 16749.5 25624.0 25785.5 15334.0 17199.0 16022.0 12093.5 18361.5

Z -1.616 -4.452 -6.664 -1.141 -1.306 -0.346 -2.165 -0.239 -5.591 -0.425

p (2 tailed)* 0.1062 0.0000 0.0000 0.2541 0.1915 0.7293 0.0304 0.8110 0.0000 0.6711

Tidal Peace Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 233.9 511.4 551.9 477.9 458.2 343.39 352.54 320.4 396.8 365

CHEVWQMN 249.5 409.8 326.3 441.4 501.1 319.48 349.10 332.9 310.1 353

Sum of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 57531.0 311438.5 336098.0 280540.0 279061.5 129116.50 136434.50 123346.5 151191.0 141312

CHEVWQMN 58872.0 139336.5 108998.0 150516.0 168869.5 92328.50 109616.50 88228.5 102637.0 116809

Mann Whitney U 27150.0 81366.5 53053.0 92205.0 93316.5 50423.5 60161.5 49041.5 47691.0 61863.0

Z -1.233 -5.475 -12.162 -2.003 -2.311 -1.592 -0.285 -0.840 -5.615 -0.790

p (2 tailed)* 0.2174 0.0000 0.0000 0.0452 0.0208 0.1115 0.7758 0.4008 0.0000 0.4296

East Wall Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 104.9 574.4 594.5 573.0 573.5 303.51 317.00 309.0 318.7 311

CHEVWQMN 24.8 517.2 213.7 353.6 521.9 362.92 306.98 320.3 307.6 381

Sum of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 20761.0 616341.0 637907.0 601126.0 615403.5 169966.50 180056.00 174596.0 180687.0 176399

CHEVWQMN 149.0 35170.0 14746.0 24395.0 34966.5 20686.50 19340.00 17294.0 20608.0 25532

Mann Whitney U 128.0 32824.0 12331.0 21980.0 32688.5 12886.5 17324.0 14701.0 18330.0 14802.5

Z -3.274 -1.388 -9.297 -5.471 -1.246 -2.397 -1.160 -0.464 -0.480 -2.984

p (2 tailed)* 0.0011 0.1651 0.0000 0.0000 0.2129 0.0165 0.2462 0.6425 0.6310 0.0028
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXII 

Table B.2, cont. 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 79.1 326.8 367.8 273.3 311.2 197.46 230.86 228.3 239.1 222 

CHEVWQMN 96.1 267.2 114.0 440.7 319.1 265.77 226.00 199.8 221.7 250 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 8385.0 156883.0 176548.5 131169.0 149356.5 62001.00 76183.00 74888.5 78901.0 71810 

CHEVWQMN 6150.0 38742.0 15961.5 62584.0 46268.5 31095.00 28928.00 22572.5 30377.0 34220 

Mann Whitney U 2714.0 28157.0 6091.5 15729.0 33916.5 12546.0 20672.0 16131.5 20924.0 19484.0 

Z -2.185 -3.486 -14.751 -9.760 -0.464 -5.063 -1.659 -2.119 -1.268 -2.048 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0289 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.6429 0.0000 0.0972 0.0341 0.2047 0.0406 

Lower Charlotte Harbor Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 160.5 730.7 743.4 627.5 728.2 283.43 327.99 284.7 296.0 295 

CHEVWQMN 106.4 589.3 492.8 1223.0 597.8 420.10 324.50 395.2 419.6 422 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 31467.0 893652.5 903259.5 766763.5 889125.0 132643.00 153498.50 132392.0 138538.5 138137 

CHEVWQMN 9574.0 116678.5 98560.5 242146.5 118365.0 71837.00 60032.50 63233.0 82241.5 82644 

Mann Whitney U 5479.0 96977.5 78460.5 19510.5 98664.0 22897.0 42827.5 24047.0 28792.5 28390.5 

Z -5.147 -4.499 -8.038 -18.961 -4.153 -8.286 -1.410 -7.271 -8.423 -7.845 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1585 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Pine Island Sound Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 128.0 312.0 348.6 172.7 242.1 223.15 276.14 217.9 249 249.5 240 

CHEVWQMN 137.2 277.4 242.7 374.8 328.5 307.39 277.67 278.3 294 311.9 319 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 17276.5 76748.0 85752.0 42146.0 59547.5 54002.50 66826.00 52515.5 55388 60131.5 57908 

CHEVWQMN 17703.5 93488.0 79848.0 125185.0 110688.5 90988.50 86355.00 71237.5 96689 102603.5 104828 

Mann Whitney U 8096.5 36535.0 25563.0 12256.0 29166.5 24599.5 37423.0 23354.5 30634.5 30970.5 28746.5 

Z -0.987 -2.449 -7.563 -14.413 -6.117 -6.254 -0.760 -4.834 -4.145 -4.564 -5.691 

p (2 tailed)* 0.3234 0.0143 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4471 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Matlacha Pass Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 68.2 293.7 283.5 196.7 273.1 174.86 234.82 206.3 98 204.0 199 

CHEVWQMN 111.6 248.3 255.0 394.2 281.2 300.77 234.00 133.5 102 289.0 296 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 4297.0 104567.0 100361.5 67672.0 97237.5 48261.00 67392.00 40427.0 1081 58144.0 56831 

CHEVWQMN 14618.0 49168.0 48969.5 74106.0 54838.5 50529.00 42354.00 20299.0 19422 54906.0 56220 

Mann Whitney U 2281.0 29467.0 30441.5 8332.0 33691.5 10035.0 25883.0 8671.0 1015.0 17389.0 16075.5 

Z -5.046 -3.200 -2.013 -14.178 -0.570 -10.032 -0.794 -6.812 -0.204 -6.949 -7.525 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0014 0.0442 0.0000 0.5687 0.0000 0.4271 0.0000 0.8384 0.0000 0.0000 

San Carlos Bay Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 136.1 348.8 370.8 236.0 335.4 183.04 257.27 221.6 123 218.8 207 

CHEVWQMN 143.1 302.9 267.7 488.5 334.2 298.56 255.50 255.3 164 327.6 339 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 6262.5 146514.5 157584.5 97940.0 142899.0 47774.00 74607.00 62726.5 8714 64994.5 61176 

CHEVWQMN 33923.5 73601.5 64526.5 118213.0 81216.0 61504.00 56721.00 47488.5 38873 77316.5 80071 

Mann Whitney U 5181.5 43955.5 35365.5 11620.0 51570.0 13583.0 31968.0 22540.5 6157.5 20741.5 17515.5 

Z -0.531 -2.977 -6.642 -16.476 -0.079 -9.191 -1.239 -2.903 -3.744 -8.255 -10.080 

p (2 tailed)* 0.5951 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 0.9373 0.0000 0.2155 0.0037 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 

 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXIII 

Table B.2, cont. 

Estero Bay Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

CCHMN vs. 

CHEVWQMN Mean 

Rank 

CCHMN 125.8 289.5 365.4 184.9 265.9 218.51 256.00 208.4 212 215.2 224 

CHEVWQMN 201.6 260.4 203.3 333.4 274.7 271.11 256.90 258.0 296 300.7 294 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

CCHMN 20009.5 65432.0 82571.0 41784.0 60085.5 49383.50 57856.00 47098.5 46621 48624.5 50546 

CHEVWQMN 34275.5 82808.0 64040.0 105369.0 86525.5 72387.50 73472.00 62179.5 88840 90503.5 88583 

Mann Whitney U 7289.5 32087.0 14270.0 16133.0 34434.5 23732.5 32205.0 21447.5 22310.5 22973.5 24894.5 

Z -7.242 -2.130 -11.895 -10.925 -0.647 -4.085 -0.889 -4.097 -6.475 -6.385 -5.292 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0331 0.0000 0.0000 0.5175 0.0000 0.3740 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXIV 

Table B.3: Kruskal-Wallis results between estuary regions for the entire study duration from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

Chi-Square 1039 75 969 1329 4208 1046 3044 540 782 1197 1954 

df 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 

p (2 tailed) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3175 0.9435 0.0000 

Bold values significant at the .05 level 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXV 

Table B.4: Mann-Whitney results between the rainy and dry season from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

All Aquatic 

Preserves Mean 

Rank 

Rain 1502 7704 3222 4502 4089 3659 3700 3646 1502 3442 4277 

Dry 1868 3111 6086 5130 5528 2939 3159 2819 1534 3438 2858 

Sum 

of 

Ranks

Rain 2353726 30678499 12765236 17754123 16257807 9806664 10163657 9090236 1854891 9687928 12015191 

Dry 3421175 18450330 35967892 29782002 32742244 11146437 12668247 10707542 2770471 13968954 11621060 

Mann Whitney U 1125198 864915 4914533 9974583 8351531 3951116 4626192 3489442 1091661 5712938 3352849 

Z -10.869 -78.345 -48.943 -10.815 -24.560 -15.280 -11.198 -17.683 -1.000 -0.071 -29.173 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3175 0.9435 0.0000 

Lemon Bay Mean 

Rank 

Rain 217.3 1147.3 550.6 697.9 621.7 480.24 491.10 539.2 291 470.5 612 

Dry 255.4 481.4 868.4 747.5 823.5 419.97 461.69 371.2 300 499.0 403 

Sum 

of 

Ranks

Rain 54530.0 681483.0 324869.5 399168.5 368017.5 181049.00 186617.00 179561.5 68655 184425.0 239963 

Dry 55685.0 432295.0 775516.5 660071.5 735337.5 215446.00 261314.00 199323.5 106874 290400.0 233888 

Mann Whitney U 22904.0 28644.0 150524.5 235290.5 192489.5 83605.0 100853.0 54870.5 40688.5 107397.0 64817.0 

Z -3.049 -29.230 -13.989 -2.207 -8.879 -3.456 -1.623 -9.588 -0.648 -1.551 -11.450 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0273 0.0000 0.0005 0.1045 0.0000 0.5168 0.1210 0.0000 

Tidal 

Myakka Mean 

Rank 

Rain 102.6 496.0 176.8 277.4 219.7 251.67 237.08 247.1 60 237.3 319 

Dry 165.7 194.6 416.5 336.0 386.2 202.79 231.04 214.9 47 231.6 173 

Sum 

of 

Ranks

Rain 12203.5 128971.0 45955.0 72115.0 57111.5 46308.00 45045.00 45713.0 2398 46042.0 61966 

Dry 26022.5 72959.0 156611.0 121638.0 144818.5 52927.00 63766.00 58027.0 2959 63236.0 47312 

Mann Whitney U 5063.5 2459.0 12025.0 38185.0 23181.5 18736.0 25540.0 21442.0 942.5 25835.0 9911.0 

Z -6.557 -20.364 -16.179 -4.016 -11.248 -3.949 -1.466 -2.574 -2.157 -0.450 -11.548 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.1428 0.0100 0.0310 0.6530 0.0000 

Tidal Peace Mean 

Rank 

Rain 208.2 739.6 261.1 375.5 362.4 378.71 369.45 325.0 164 340.8 474 

Dry 267.6 302.1 611.2 525.4 546.2 300.57 338.36 325.8 166 367.7 279 

Sum 

of 

Ranks

Rain 44142.5 277349.5 97919.0 141549.5 135524.0 104523.00 105294.50 83519.5 22355 100877.0 140274 

Dry 72260.5 173425.5 347177.0 289506.5 312407.0 116922.00 140756.50 128055.5 32261 152951.0 117848 

Mann Whitney U 21564.5 8400.5 27419.0 70296.5 65399.0 41067.0 54020.5 50366.5 13038.5 56921.0 28594.5 

Z -4.667 -24.039 -19.320 -8.376 -10.116 -5.168 -2.537 -0.057 -0.180 -1.719 -12.394 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0112 0.9542 0.8570 0.0857 0.0000 

West Wall Mean 

Rank 

Rain 82.2 844.0 322.5 425.0 374.4 328.45 291.88 265.2 ** 293.5 371 

Dry 133.9 327.4 652.5 569.1 620.7 242.34 276.81 217.3 ** 274.0 221 

Sum 

of 

Ranks

Rain 7482.0 340992.0 130278.5 170850.5 151249.0 71930.00 67716.50 45888.0 ** 68088.5 85297 

Dry 17943.0 211834.0 421496.5 353949.5 401577.0 80698.00 92178.50 64327.0 ** 90677.5 73469 

Mann Whitney U 3296.0 2206.0 48468.5 89847.5 69439.0 25087.0 36567.5 20371.0 ** 35731.5 17858.0 

Z -5.855 -26.841 -17.156 -7.613 -12.796 -6.206 -2.400 -4.077 ** -1.418 -10.790 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0164 0.0000 ** 0.1561 0.0000 

East Wall Mean 

Rank 

Rain 73.0 912.5 345.3 504.9 389.7 369.94 318.84 373.4 34 353.2 418 

Dry 125.8 351.1 717.0 595.7 686.7 266.64 313.98 265.9 34 292.1 247 

Sum 

of 

Ranks

Rain 6572.5 407868.0 154328.0 225194.5 173794.5 93594.50 83537.00 94845.5 953 93236.0 110317 

Dry 14337.5 243643.0 498325.0 400326.5 476575.5 97058.50 115859.00 97044.5 1325 108059.0 91613 

Mann Whitney U 2477.5 2478.0 54200.0 125513.5 74113.5 30628.5 47594.0 30249.5 545.0 39424.0 22607.0 

Z -6.341 -28.091 -18.592 -4.606 -14.866 -7.080 -0.925 -7.743 -0.013 -4.244 -11.606 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3548 0.0000 0.9898 0.0000 0.0000 

*Bold values significant at the .05 level 

**Fecal Coliform Bacteria was not sampled in the West Wall region 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXVI 

Table B.4, cont. 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

Gasparilla/Cape 

Haze Mean 

Rank 

Rain 69.4 496.8 222.4 334.6 247.8 231.14 227.22 271.2 61 253.7 305 

Dry 100.5 195.3 366.9 296.5 354.8 206.04 231.06 187.0 72 220.4 179 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

Rain 5692.5 121209.5 53812.5 81980.0 60456.0 39525.50 42263.00 48277.5 3290 48454.5 57285 

Dry 8842.5 74415.5 138697.5 111773.0 135169.0 53570.50 62848.00 49183.5 5755 60823.5 48746 

Mann Whitney U 2289.5 1644.5 24409.5 40520.0 30566.0 19640.5 24872.0 14467.5 1805.0 22597.5 11617.5 

Z -4.119 -20.361 -9.803 -2.587 -7.227 -2.047 -1.434 -7.020 -1.635 -2.628 -10.061 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0097 0.0000 0.0407 0.1515 0.0000 0.1021 0.0086 0.0000 

Lower Charlotte 

Harbor Mean 

Rank 

Rain 130.9 1085.8 430.6 703.4 546.1 390.88 328.00 371.4 95 298.3 410 

Dry 157.8 426.7 917.0 715.9 834.7 265.41 326.25 270.0 100 358.4 274 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

Rain 19896.5 665574.5 261815.5 431183.5 334761.0 108665.50 91512.00 98424.5 7693 85311.0 117302 

Dry 21144.5 344756.5 740004.5 577726.5 672729.0 95814.50 122019.00 97200.5 11418 135469.0 103479 

Mann Whitney U 8268.5 17920.5 76679.5 242992.5 146570.0 30473.5 51894.0 32220.5 4371.5 44270.0 31847.5 

Z -2.746 -29.987 -22.164 -0.569 -13.140 -8.518 -0.775 -7.556 -0.682 -4.447 -9.184 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0060 0.0000 0.0000 0.5694 0.0000 0.0000 0.4384 0.0000 0.4951 0.0000 0.0000 

Pine Island 

Sound Mean 

Rank 

Rain 128.0 445.8 190.9 289.4 229.6 318.15 279.94 328.4 274 288.3 360 

Dry 136.6 183.6 356.1 289.6 336.0 234.80 275.00 197.3 277 283.5 234 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

Rain 16123.0 107447.5 45244.5 68871.5 55331.0 71264.50 62706.00 64370.5 63011 67462.5 84184 

Dry 18857.0 62788.5 120355.5 98459.5 114905.0 73726.50 90475.00 59382.5 89066 95272.5 78551 

Mann Whitney U 8122.0 4135.5 17041.5 40430.5 26170.0 24271.5 36190.0 13931.5 36445.5 38656.5 21935.0 

Z -0.925 -18.521 -11.738 -0.015 -7.511 -6.131 -2.430 -10.268 -0.329 -0.346 -9.112 

p (2 tailed)* 0.3549 0.0000 0.0000 0.9881 0.0000 0.0000 0.0151 0.0000 0.7422 0.7291 0.0000 

Matlacha Pass Mean 

Rank 

Rain 72.8 410.6 167.5 225.7 180.3 252.04 235.21 219.7 103 278.5 313 

Dry 127.8 178.7 351.2 295.5 347.2 201.40 234.00 149.8 100 210.8 188 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

Rain 7794.5 96908.0 38699.0 49870.0 42363.0 46627.50 45396.00 27026.5 8157 53191.5 59768 

Dry 11120.5 56827.0 110632.0 91908.0 109713.0 52162.50 64350.00 33699.5 12347 59858.5 53282 

Mann Whitney U 2016.5 6106.0 11903.0 25339.0 14633.0 18492.5 26400.0 8274.5 4720.5 19388.5 12812.0 

Z -6.792 -16.865 -13.442 -5.172 -12.172 -4.101 -1.194 -6.316 -0.369 -5.543 -9.781 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2326 0.0000 0.7124 0.0000 0.0000 

Tidal 

Caloosahatchee Mean 

Rank 

Rain 99.8 215.9 83.7 95.6 100.9 174.27 146.50 142.2 19 135.0 201 

Dry 141.0 92.7 185.5 146.5 173.4 126.00 146.50 145.4 21 155.0 106 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

Rain 10182.5 25473.0 9879.5 9468.5 11907.5 21610.00 18166.00 17630.0 296 16735.0 24889 

Dry 20445.5 15568.0 31161.5 22409.5 29133.5 21168.00 24612.00 23698.0 484 26043.0 17889 

Mann Whitney U 4929.5 1372.0 2858.5 4518.5 4886.5 6972.0 10416.0 9880.0 160.0 8985.0 3693.0 

Z -4.487 -12.403 -10.245 -5.407 -7.349 -4.830 0.000 -0.330 -0.730 -2.010 -9.427 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.7416 0.4655 0.0444 0.0000 

San Carlos Bay Mean 

Rank 

Rain 118.2 515.2 209.2 303.4 273.1 260.56 256.82 265.2 154 256.3 318 

Dry 158.8 216.0 412.1 345.6 373.6 215.62 256.30 217.3 155 273.6 234 

Sum 

of 

Ranks 

Rain 13831.5 132400.5 53977.0 78273.5 70189.0 49767.50 49567.00 45888.0 19684 52035.0 64314 

Dry 26354.5 87715.5 168134.0 137879.5 153926.0 59510.50 81761.00 64327.0 27902 90276.0 76932 

Mann Whitney U 6928.5 5094.5 20566.0 44862.5 37036.0 21284.5 30721.0 20371.0 11428.0 31329.0 22647.0 

Z -4.111 -19.593 -13.258 -2.786 -6.542 -3.541 -0.357 -4.077 -0.130 -1.279 -6.313 

p (2 tailed)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0053 0.0000 0.0004 0.7214 0.0000 0.8962 0.2010 0.0000 

*Bold values significant at the .05 level 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXVII 

**Fecal Coliform Bacteria was not sampled in the West Wall region 

Table B.4, cont. 

 Secchi Temp DO pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

Estero Bay Mean 

Rank 

Rain 159.7 424.5 189.3 262.3 216.0 275.45 256.00 276.9 265 232.1 336 

Dry 168.8 174.7 323.7 277.5 306.4 227.90 256.82 208.5 257 284.8 217 

Sum of 

Ranks 

Rain 21881.5 90428.5 40129.0 55864.0 45800.0 54539.50 50944.00 48185.0 54894 48282.0 69897 

Dry 32403.5 57811.5 106482.0 91289.0 100811.0 67231.50 80384.00 61093.0 80567 90846.0 69231 

Mann Whitney U 12428.5 2865.5 17551.0 33073.0 23222.0 23571.5 31044.0 18022.0 31425.5 26546.0 18191.0 

Z -0.853 -18.107 -9.762 -1.107 -6.565 -3.633 -0.797 -5.467 -0.593 -3.883 -8.805 

p (2 tailed)* 0.3936 0.0000 0.0000 0.2681 0.0000 0.0003 0.4252 0.0000 0.5532 0.0001 0.0000 

*Bold values significant at the .05 level 

**Fecal Coliform Bacteria was not sampled in the West Wall region 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXVIII 

Table B.5: Mean and Median by Program for CCHMN & CHEVWQM Highlight those that are significantly different

Region Secchi Depth Temperature Salinity 

 

CCHM

N CHEVWQMN 

CCHM

N CHEVWQMN CCHMN CHEVWQMN 

GSCH Mean 1.3 1.5 25.3 23.7 30.2 30.2 

 Median 1.3 1.5 25.7 24.0 31.9 32.1 

Estero Bay Mean 1.0 1.3 24.1 23.4 26.5 26.3 

 Median 1.0 1.3 24.3 24.0 29.8 29.5 

Lower 

Charlotte Mean 2.2 1.7 25.0 23.6 29.4 27.9 

 Median 2.1 1.4 26.1 24.0 30.9 28.6 

Lemon Bay Mean 1.4 1.1 24.5 23.6 33.3 26.3 

 Median 1.3 1.0 24.0 24.0 34.1 30.2 

Matlacha Pass Mean 1.2 1.6 24.9 23.8 20.9 21.3 

 Median 1.0 1.6 26.2 24.5 21.4 22.0 

Pine Island 

Sound Mean 1.4 1.5 24.6 23.8 29.0 31.4 

 Median 1.3 1.4 25.3 25.0 30.0 32.6 

San Carlos Bay Mean 1.6 1.6 24.7 23.7 28.6 28.6 

 Median 1.5 1.5 25.6 24.5 29.9 30.2 

Tidal Myakka Mean 0.8 0.9 25.0 23.0 14.1 15.3 

 Median 0.8 0.9 25.7 23.8 14.7 17.0 

Tidal Peace Mean 0.9 0.9 25.1 23.5 15.5 17.0 

 Median 0.8 0.9 25.5 24.0 17.2 18.6 

West Wall Mean 1.6 24.6 22.6 

 Median 1.5 25.1 23.8 

East Wall Mean 2.0 0.8 24.8 24.1 24.9 23.0 

 Median 1.8 0.8 25.1 25.0 25.8 24.8 

Tidal 

Caloosahatchee Mean 0.9 25.5 5.3 

 Median 0.8 26.1 1.2 

Total Mean 1.3 1.3 24.8 23.6 24.3 25.4 

 Median 1.1 1.2 25.4 24.5 26.3 28.5 

 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XXXIX 

Table B.5, cont. Highlight those that are significantly different 

Region Dissolved Oxygen pH Total Nitrogen 

 CCHMN CHEVWQMN CCHMN CHEVWQMN CCHMN CHEVWQMN 

GSCH Mean 7.2 4.6 8.0 8.2 0.64 0.95 

 Median 7.2 4.5 8.0 8.2 0.55 0.78 

Estero Bay Mean 6.4 4.8 7.8 8.1 0.62 0.78 

 Median 6.5 4.8 7.8 8.2 0.54 0.74 

Lower Charlotte Mean 6.4 5.5 7.8 8.2 0.47 0.74 

 Median 6.4 5.7 7.8 8.2 0.41 0.67 

Lemon Bay Mean 6.4 4.3 7.8 8.1 0.57 0.91 

 Median 6.4 4.3 7.8 8.2 0.50 0.83 

Matlacha Pass Mean 6.1 5.8 7.8 8.2 0.48 0.85 

 Median 6.1 5.8 7.8 8.2 0.45 0.81 

Pine Island 

Sound Mean 6.8 5.6 8.0 8.4 0.58 0.83 

 Median 6.9 5.9 8.0 8.5 0.51 0.72 

San Carlos Bay Mean 6.8 6.0 7.9 8.3 0.44 0.72 

 Median 6.5 6.0 8.0 8.2 0.40 0.67 

Tidal Myakka Mean 6.9 5.6 7.8 7.8 1.02 0.99 

 Median 6.9 5.8 7.8 7.8 0.94 0.92 

Tidal Peace Mean 6.8 5.4 7.8 7.7 1.14 1.05 

 Median 6.9 5.3 7.8 7.8 1.05 0.96 

West Wall Mean 6.6 7.9 0.81 

 Median 6.9 7.9 0.71 

East Wall Mean 6.5 4.6 7.9 7.8 0.69 0.81 

 Median 6.6 4.4 7.9 7.8 0.61 0.76 

Tidal 

Caloosahatchee Mean 7.1 7.7 1.14 

 Median 7.2 7.8 1.10 

Total Mean 6.6 5.1 7.9 8.1 0.73 0.87 

 Median 6.7 5.1 7.9 8.2 0.61 0.78 

 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XL 

Table B.5, cont. Highlight those that are significantly different 

Region TKN NOx Total Phosphorus 

 CCHMN CHEVWQMN CCHMN CHEVWQMN CCHMN CHEVWQMN 

GSCH Mean 0.62 0.88 0.03 0.05 0.13 0.09 

 Median 0.53 0.75 0.03 0.01 0.10 0.07 

Estero Bay Mean 0.60 0.73 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.07 

 Median 0.52 0.69 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 

Lower Charlotte Mean 0.45 0.70 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.12 

 Median 0.40 0.64 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.11 

Lemon Bay Mean 0.55 0.85 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.15 

 Median 0.48 0.80 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.12 

Matlacha Pass Mean 0.35 0.79 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09 

 Median 0.30 0.79 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.08 

Pine Island 

Sound Mean 0.57 0.76 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.08 

 Median 0.51 0.68 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 

San Carlos Bay Mean 0.32 0.63 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.07 

 Median 0.30 0.60 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.06 

Tidal Myakka Mean 1.00 0.94 0.04 0.03 0.27 0.21 

 Median 0.91 0.88 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.19 

Tidal Peace Mean 1.05 0.96 0.09 0.09 0.40 0.40 

 Median 0.95 0.90 0.05 0.05 0.35 0.34 

West Wall Mean 0.78 0.04 0.23 

 Median 0.68 0.02 0.17 

East Wall Mean 0.68 0.77 0.03 0.04 0.18 0.17 

 Median 0.58 0.74 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.15 

Tidal 

Caloosahatchee Mean 1.00 0.15 0.11 

 Median 0.98 0.13 0.10 

Total Mean 0.68 0.81 0.05 0.06 0.16 0.15 

 Median 0.57 0.75 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.09 

 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLI 

Table B.5, cont. Highlight those that are significantly different 

Region Chlorophyll a Turbidity Color 

 CCHMN CHEVWQMN 

CCH

MN CHEVWQMN CCHMN CHEVWQMN 

GSCH Mean 7.1 5.5 3.2 2.8 31 29 

 Median 4.0 3.5 2.5 2.4 20 23 

Estero Bay Mean 4.6 5.8 2.9 5.1 26 35 

 Median 3.1 4.5 2.3 3.6 20 30 

Lower Charlotte Mean 3.9 6.7 1.4 2.2 22 33 

 Median 2.4 5.1 1.0 1.9 13 30 

Lemon Bay Mean 6.1 6.8 4.6 2.8 18 39 

 Median 4.4 5.0 3.4 2.4 10 30 

Matlacha Pass Mean 3.8 5.2 1.4 2.3 26 41 

 Median 2.2 3.8 1.2 1.9 20 32 

Pine Island 

Sound Mean 4.5 6.9 1.9 3.0 17 29 

 Median 2.9 5.0 1.6 2.1 13 20 

San Carlos Bay Mean 3.0 4.7 2.0 3.6 14 30 

 Median 2.0 3.3 1.4 2.6 10 20 

Tidal Myakka Mean 9.6 8.8 4.3 2.9 102 83 

 Median 6.8 6.9 3.6 2.6 60 60 

Tidal Peace Mean 10.9 10.3 4.7 3.4 91 76 

 Median 7.0 7.4 3.7 2.9 60 59 

West Wall Mean 7.4 3.0 57 

 Median 4.7 2.2 30 

East Wall Mean 6.1 4.8 2.6 2.1 44 48 

 Median 3.5 3.8 1.8 1.7 28 40 

Tidal 

Caloosahatchee Mean 9.6 3.8 83 

 Median 4.7 2.4 67 

Total Mean 6.6 6.8 3.0 3.2 46 42 

 Median 4.0 4.9 2.1 2.4 25 30 

 
Appendix B Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLII 

Table B.5, cont. Highlight those that are significantly different 

Region Coliform Bacteria 

 CCHMN CHEVWQMN 

GSCH Mean 22 

 Median 6 

Estero Bay Mean 15 49 

 Median 2 9 

Lower Charlotte Mean 10 

 Median 2 

Lemon Bay Mean 106 

 Median 20 

Matlacha Pass Mean 29 9 

 Median 2 2 

Pine Island 

Sound Mean 4 14 

 Median 2 2 

San Carlos Bay Mean 5 10 

 Median 2 4 

Tidal Myakka Mean 37 

 Median 12 

Tidal Peace Mean 47 

 Median 20 

West Wall Mean 

 Median 

East Wall Mean 60 

 Median 20 

Tidal 

Caloosahatchee Mean 11 

 Median 4 

Total Mean 10 46 

 Median 2 7 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLIII 

Appendix C: Comparison of Results to Numerical Water 

Quality Criteria 

 Page 

Table C.1: Regional CCHMN exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site 

per Florida Surface Water Regulations ___________________________ XLI 

Table C.2: Regional CHEVWQMN exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per 

site per Florida Surface Water Regulations _______________________ XLII 

Table C.3: Regional combined exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site 

per Florida Surface Water Regulations __________________________ XLIII 

Table C.4: Regional CCHMN exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site 

per Florida Surface Water Regulations __________________________ XLIV 

Table C.5: Regional CHEVWQMN exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per 

site per Florida Surface Water Regulations _______________________ XLV 

Table C.6: Regional combined exceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site 

per Florida Surface Water Regulations __________________________ XLVI 

Table C.7: Annual CCHMN mean exceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida 

Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region ____________________ XLVII 

Table C.8: Annual CHEVWQMN mean exceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida 

Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region ____________________ XLVIII 

Table C.9: Annual combined mean exceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida 

Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region _____________________ XLIX 

Table C.10: Regional geometric means for fecal coliform bacteria per Florida Surface 

Water Regulations _________________________________________ L-LXV 

Table C.11: Regional percentage of fecal coliform bacteria reported over 400 cfu/100 

mL per Florida Surface Water Regulations _______________________ LXVI 

Table C.12: Dates and location of fecal coliform bacteria reported over 800 cfu/100 mL 

per Florida Surface Water Regulations __________________________ LXVI
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLIV 

 

Table C.1: Number and % of CCHMN dissolved oxygen samples under 4 mg/L per Florida Surface Water Regulations 

 ALL DRY RAIN 

 Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % 

Lemon Bay 25 634 4% 1 395 0% 24 239 10% 

Tidal Myakka 20 529 4% 1 312 0% 19 217 9% 

Tidal Peace 43 609 7% 3 374 1% 40 235 17% 

East Wall 63 1073 6% 1 655 0% 62 418 15% 

West Wall 84 1050 8% 7 646 1% 77 404 19% 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 9 480 2% 0 296 0% 9 184 5% 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 19 1215 2% 1 690 0% 18 525 3% 

Pine Island Sound 8 246 3% 3 154 2% 5 92 5% 

Matlacha Pass 21 354 6% 1 202 0% 20 152 13% 

San Carlos Bay 2 424 0% 2 268 1% 0 156 0% 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 23 286 8% 1 168 1% 22 118 19% 

Estero Bay 12 226 5% 4 141 3% 8 85 9% 

Total 329 7126 5% 25 4301 1% 304 2825 11% 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLV 

Table C.2: Number and % of CHEVWQMN dissolved oxygen samples under 4 mg/L per Florida Surface Water 

Regulations 

 ALL DRY RAIN 

 Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % 

Lemon Bay 319 818 39% 126 487 26% 193 331 58% 

Tidal Myakka 20 107 19% 3 64 5% 17 43 40% 

Tidal Peace 48 334 14% 2 194 1% 46 140 33% 

East Wall 28 69 41% 3 40 8% 25 29 86% 

 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 49 140 35% 16 82 20% 33 58 57% 

Lower Charlotte 31 200 16% 8 117 7% 23 83 28% 

Pine Island 51 329 16% 21 184 11% 30 145 21% 

Matlacha Pass 17 192 9% 4 113 4% 13 79 16% 

San Carlos Bay 5 241 2% 1 140 1% 4 101 4% 

 

Estero Bay 81 315 26% 25 188 13% 56 127 44% 

Total 649 2745 24% 209 1609 13% 440 1136 39% 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLVI 

Table C.3: Number and % of dissolved oxygen samples under 4 mg/L per Florida Surface Water Regulations (all) 

 ALL DRY RAIN 

 Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % 

Lemon Bay 344 1452 24% 127 882 14% 217 570 38% 

Tidal Myakka 40 636 6% 4 376 1% 36 260 14% 

Tidal Peace 91 943 10% 5 568 1% 86 375 23% 

East Wall 91 1142 8% 4 695 1% 87 447 19% 

West Wall 84 1050 8% 7 646 1% 77 404 19% 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 58 620 9% 16 378 4% 42 242 17% 

Lower Charlotte harbor 50 1415 4% 9 807 1% 41 608 7% 

Pine Island Sound 59 575 10% 24 338 7% 35 237 15% 

Matlacha Pass 38 546 7% 5 315 2% 33 231 14% 

San Carlos Bay 7 665 1% 3 408 1% 4 257 2% 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 23 286 8% 1 168 1% 22 118 19% 

Estero Bay 93 541 17% 29 329 9% 64 212 30% 

Total 978 9871 10% 234 5910 4% 744 3961 19% 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLVII 

Table C.4: Number and % of CCHMN dissolved oxygen samples under 5 mg/L per Florida Surface Water Regulations 

 ALL DRY RAIN 

 Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % 

Lemon Bay 94 634 15% 11 395 3% 83 239 35% 

Tidal Myakka 43 529 8% 3 312 1% 40 217 18% 

Tidal Peace 98 609 16% 8 374 2% 90 235 38% 

East Wall 119 1073 11% 8 655 1% 111 418 27% 

West Wall 151 1050 14% 31 646 5% 120 404 30% 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 27 480 6% 7 296 2% 20 184 11% 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 114 1215 9% 5 690 1% 109 525 21% 

Pine Island Sound 25 246 10% 5 154 3% 20 92 22% 

Matlacha Pass 78 354 22% 17 202 8% 61 152 40% 

San Carlos Bay 28 424 7% 6 268 2% 22 156 14% 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 45 286 16% 2 168 1% 43 118 36% 

Estero Bay 39 226 17% 10 141 7% 29 85 34% 

Total 861 7126 12% 113 4301 3% 748 2825 26% 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLVIII 

Table C.5: Number and % of CHEVWQMN dissolved oxygen samples under 5 mg/L per Florida Surface Water 

Regulations 

 ALL DRY RAIN 

 Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % 

Lemon Bay 525 818 64% 251 487 52% 274 331 83% 

Tidal Myakka 36 107 34% 6 64 9% 30 43 70% 

Tidal Peace 130 334 39% 27 194 14% 103 140 74% 

East Wall 39 69 57% 10 40 25% 29 29 100% 

 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 83 140 59% 40 82 49% 43 58 74% 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 71 200 36% 28 117 24% 43 83 52% 

Pine Island Sound 88 329 27% 30 184 16% 58 145 40% 

Matlacha Pass 48 192 25% 10 113 9% 38 79 48% 

San Carlos Bay 32 241 13% 5 140 4% 27 101 27% 

 

Estero Bay 174 315 55% 73 188 39% 101 127 80% 

Total 1226 2745 45% 480 1609 30% 746 1136 66% 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

XLIX 

Table C.6: Number and % of dissolved oxygen samples under 5 mg/L per Florida Surface Water Regulations (all) 

 ALL DRY RAIN 

 Under Total % Under Total % Under Total % 

Lemon Bay 619 1452 43% 262 882 30% 357 570 63% 

Tidal Myakka 79 636 12% 9 376 2% 70 260 27% 

Tidal Peace 228 943 24% 35 568 6% 193 375 51% 

East Wall 158 1142 14% 18 695 3% 140 447 31% 

West Wall 151 1050 14% 31 646 5% 120 404 30% 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 110 620 18% 47 378 12% 63 242 26% 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 185 1415 13% 33 807 4% 152 608 25% 

Pine Island Sound 113 575 20% 35 338 10% 78 237 33% 

Matlacha Pass 126 546 23% 27 315 9% 99 231 43% 

San Carlos Bay 60 665 9% 11 408 3% 49 257 19% 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 45 286 16% 2 168 1% 43 118 36% 

Estero Bay 213 541 39% 83 329 25% 130 212 61% 

Total 2087 9871 21% 593 5910 10% 1494 3961 38% 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

L 

Table C.7: Chlorophyll a annual means greater than 11 μg/L per Florida's Impaired Waters Rule (CCHMN) 

 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Estuary Region N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean 

Lemon Bay 38 13.79 

Tidal Myakka 36 11.94 60 11.87 61 14.74 

Tidal Peace 37 20.51 68 15.09 

West Wall 56 14.59 99 11.44 

East Wall 54 12.33 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 31 15.67 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 

Pine Island Sound 

Matlacha Pass 

San Carlos Bay 

Tidal Caloosahatchee N/A 47 12.29 55 17.52 

Estero Bay 

All regions 252 14.61 

 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LI 

Table C.8: Chlorophyll a annual means greater than 11 μg/L per Florida's Impaired Waters Rule (CHEVWQMN) 

 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Estuary Region N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean 

Lemon Bay 7 12.26 

Tidal Myakka 21 12.51 

Tidal Peace 5 12.34 55 13.27 

East Wall 1 11.40 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 1 12.60 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 2 19.00 

Pine Island Sound 

Matlacha Pass 3 13.87 

San Carlos Bay 

Estero Bay 

All regions 

 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LII 

 

Table C.9: Chlorophyll a annual means greater than 11 μg/L per Florida's Impaired Waters Rule (all) 

 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Estuary Region N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean 

Lemon Bay 66 11.13 

Tidal Myakka 41 11.45 61 11.76 82 14.19 

Tidal Peace 58 15.81 126 12.94 

West Wall 56 14.59 99 11.44 

East Wall 59 11.64 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 40 13.37 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 

Pine Island Sound 

Matlacha Pass 

San Carlos Bay 

Tidal Caloosahatchee N/A 47 12.29 55 17.52 

Estero Bay 

All regions 399 11.39 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LIII 

Table C.10: Regional geometric means for fecal coliform bacteria per Florida Surface Water Regulations 

 CHEVWQMN CCHMN ALL 

Region Year Month N 

Geometric 

Mean N 

Geometric 

Mean N 

Geometric 

Mean 

Lemon Bay 2001 Jun 6 11.8471 NA NA 6 11.8471 

 Jul 5 31.2621 NA NA 5 31.2621 

 Aug 6 42.9994 NA NA 6 42.9994 

 Sep 6 18.2495 NA NA 6 18.2495 

 Nov 5 28.3993 NA NA 5 28.3993 

 Dec 7 50.3319 NA NA 7 50.3319 

 2002 Jan 7 59.5114 NA NA 7 59.5114 

 Feb 7 10.3656 NA NA 7 10.3656 

 Mar 8 31.8195 NA NA 8 31.8195 

 Apr 8 29.7228 NA NA 8 29.7228 

 May 8 6.7896 NA NA 8 6.7896 

 Jun 6 5.7690 NA NA 6 5.7690 

 Jul 7 48.7675 NA NA 7 48.7675 

 Aug 6 7.4126 NA NA 6 7.4126 

 Sep 8 54.3980 NA NA 8 54.3980 

 Oct 8 38.8232 NA NA 8 38.8232 

 Nov 8 25.4312 NA NA 8 25.4312 

 Dec 5 10.8963 NA NA 5 10.8963 

 2003 Feb 7 15.7242 NA NA 7 15.7242 

 Mar 7 19.9795 NA NA 7 19.9795 

 Apr 8 13.9106 NA NA 8 13.9106 

 May 8 8.7723 NA NA 8 8.7723 

 Jun 7 5.2154 NA NA 7 5.2154 

 Jul 7 26.4950 NA NA 7 26.4950 

 Aug 7 21.4002 NA NA 7 21.4002 

 Sep 8 31.0199 NA NA 8 31.0199 

 Oct 5 22.9809 NA NA 5 22.9809 

 Nov 8 6.6520 NA NA 8 6.6520 

 Dec 7 6.0070 NA NA 7 6.0070 

 2004 Jan 8 38.3213 NA NA 8 38.3213 

 Feb 8 63.1980 NA NA 8 63.1980 

 Mar 8 42.4850 NA NA 8 42.4850 

 Apr 7 21.5331 NA NA 7 21.5331 

 May 8 29.1585 NA NA 8 29.1585 

 Jun 7 5.6772 NA NA 7 5.6772 

 Jul 5 7.7567 NA NA 5 7.7567 

 Aug 8 29.5436 NA NA 8 29.5436 

 Sep 6 58.1438 NA NA 6 58.1438 

 Oct 8 20.5631 NA NA 8 20.5631 

 Nov 6 12.6253 NA NA 6 12.6253 

 Dec 7 9.4133 NA NA 7 9.4133 

 2005 Jan 7 18.0547 NA NA 7 18.0547 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LIV 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Lemon Bay 2005 Feb 8 43.2827 NA NA 8 43.2827 

 Mar 8 31.7067 NA NA 8 31.7067 

 Apr 8 14.1938 NA NA 8 14.1938 

 May 12 16.4438 NA NA 12 16.4438 

 Jun 12 55.8420 NA NA 12 55.8420 

 Jul 10 21.9196 NA NA 10 21.9196 

 Aug 12 13.8723 NA NA 12 13.8723 

 Sep 11 50.2405 NA NA 11 50.2405 

 Oct 10 17.4813 NA NA 10 17.4813 

 Nov 12 33.6898 NA NA 12 33.6898 

 Dec 9 30.1125 NA NA 9 30.1125 

 2006 Jan 12 20.4769 NA NA 12 20.4769 

 Feb 11 32.0607 NA NA 11 32.0607 

 Mar 12 34.3836 NA NA 12 34.3836 

 Apr 12 17.9302 NA NA 12 17.9302 

 May 11 11.4179 NA NA 11 11.4179 

 Jun 11 6.1451 NA NA 11 6.1451 

 Jul 11 35.9093 NA NA 11 35.9093 

 Aug 13 21.6243 NA NA 13 21.6243 

 Sep 11 38.5252 NA NA 11 38.5252 

 Oct 9 15.4152 NA NA 9 15.4152 

 Nov 11 79.1427 NA NA 11 79.1427 

 Dec 13 43.0698 NA NA 13 43.0698 

 2007 Jan 9 131.9553 NA NA 9 131.9553 

 Feb 10 66.4034 NA NA 10 66.4034 

 Mar 8 26.7999 NA NA 8 26.7999 

 Apr 12 11.8114 NA NA 12 11.8114 

 May 11 14.8115 NA NA 11 14.8115 

Tidal Myakka 2001 Jun 1 10.0000 NA NA 1 10.0000 

 Jul 1 112.0000 NA NA 1 112.0000 

 Aug 1 102.0000 NA NA 1 102.0000 

 Sep 1 62.0000 NA NA 1 62.0000 

 Nov 1 242.0000 NA NA 1 242.0000 

 Dec 1 55.0000 NA NA 1 55.0000 

 2002 Jan 1 96.0000 NA NA 1 96.0000 

 Feb 1 80.0000 NA NA 1 80.0000 

 Mar 1 122.0000 NA NA 1 122.0000 

 Apr 1 24.0000 NA NA 1 24.0000 

 May 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Jun 1 78.0000 NA NA 1 78.0000 

 Jul 1 132.0000 NA NA 1 132.0000 

 Aug 1 58.0000 NA NA 1 58.0000 

 Sep NA NA 

 Oct 1 15.0000 NA NA 1 15.0000 

 Nov 1 7.0000 NA NA 1 7.0000 

 Dec 1 288.0000 NA NA 1 288.0000 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LV 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Tidal Myakka 2003 Feb 1 16.0000 NA NA 1 16.0000 

 Mar 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Apr 1 36.0000 NA NA 1 36.0000 

 May 1 28.0000 NA NA 1 28.0000 

 Jun NA NA 

 Jul 1 44.0000 NA NA 1 44.0000 

 Aug 1 92.0000 NA NA 1 92.0000 

 Sep 1 102.0000 NA NA 1 102.0000 

 Oct 1 46.0000 NA NA 1 46.0000 

 Nov NA NA 

 Dec 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 2004 Jan 1 64.0000 NA NA 1 64.0000 

 Feb 2 34.8712 NA NA 2 34.8712 

 Mar 2 30.8545 NA NA 2 30.8545 

 Apr 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 May 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Jun 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Jul 1 14.0000 NA NA 1 14.0000 

 Aug 2 64.8074 NA NA 2 64.8074 

 Sep 2 104.3072 NA NA 2 104.3072 

 Oct 2 17.3205 NA NA 2 17.3205 

 Nov 2 6.0000 NA NA 2 6.0000 

 Dec 2 3.1623 NA NA 2 3.1623 

 2005 Jan 2 8.8318 NA NA 2 8.8318 

 Feb 2 23.6643 NA NA 2 23.6643 

 Mar 2 17.6635 NA NA 2 17.6635 

 Apr 2 7.4833 NA NA 2 7.4833 

 May 2 4.0000 NA NA 2 4.0000 

 Jun 2 33.9411 NA NA 2 33.9411 

 Jul 2 5.6569 NA NA 2 5.6569 

 Aug 2 17.0294 NA NA 2 17.0294 

 Sep 2 4.2426 NA NA 2 4.2426 

 Oct 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Nov 2 4.8990 NA NA 2 4.8990 

 Dec 2 4.2426 NA NA 2 4.2426 

 2006 Jan 2 12.4900 NA NA 2 12.4900 

 Feb 2 5.4772 NA NA 2 5.4772 

 Mar 2 3.4641 NA NA 2 3.4641 

 Apr 2 10.9545 NA NA 2 10.9545 

 May 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Jun 2 2.0000 NA NA 2 2.0000 

 Jul 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Aug 2 43.4281 NA NA 2 43.4281 

 Sep 2 80.7960 NA NA 2 80.7960 

 Oct 2 15.4919 NA NA 2 15.4919 

 Nov 2 12.6491 NA NA 2 12.6491 

 Dec 2 10.9545 NA NA 2 10.9545 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LVI 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Tidal Myakka 2007 Jan 2 20.9762 NA NA 2 20.9762 

 Feb 2 20.0000 NA NA 2 20.0000 

 Mar 2 6.3246 NA NA 2 6.3246 

 Apr 2 6.9282 NA NA 2 6.9282 

 May 2 4.0000 NA NA 2 4.0000 

Tidal Peace 2001 Jun 4 8.1222 NA NA 4 8.1222 

 Jul 5 36.1188 NA NA 5 36.1188 

 Aug 5 99.5421 NA NA 5 99.5421 

 Sep 5 10.8077 NA NA 5 10.8077 

 Nov 4 51.9237 NA NA 4 51.9237 

 Dec 5 105.1550 NA NA 5 105.1550 

 2002 Jan 5 99.0540 NA NA 5 99.0540 

 Feb 5 14.2559 NA NA 5 14.2559 

 Mar 5 74.7711 NA NA 5 74.7711 

 Apr 5 9.8380 NA NA 5 9.8380 

 May 5 10.4207 NA NA 5 10.4207 

 Jun 5 9.8216 NA NA 5 9.8216 

 Jul 5 87.2334 NA NA 5 87.2334 

 Aug 4 25.8482 NA NA 4 25.8482 

 Sep 4 5.7005 NA NA 4 5.7005 

 Oct 5 10.0274 NA NA 5 10.0274 

 Nov 5 56.1985 NA NA 5 56.1985 

 Dec 4 87.1659 NA NA 4 87.1659 

 2003 Feb 5 37.6179 NA NA 5 37.6179 

 Mar 5 17.4587 NA NA 5 17.4587 

 Apr 5 11.3150 NA NA 5 11.3150 

 May 5 8.9374 NA NA 5 8.9374 

 Jun 5 5.2780 NA NA 5 5.2780 

 Jul 4 55.7822 NA NA 4 55.7822 

 Aug 4 17.6896 NA NA 4 17.6896 

 Sep 5 32.1960 NA NA 5 32.1960 

 Oct 5 23.7068 NA NA 5 23.7068 

 Nov 5 14.8867 NA NA 5 14.8867 

 Dec 4 3.2532 NA NA 4 3.2532 

 2004 Jan 5 35.6025 NA NA 5 35.6025 

 Feb 4 46.2475 NA NA 4 46.2475 

 Mar 5 28.4657 NA NA 5 28.4657 

 Apr 5 18.9334 NA NA 5 18.9334 

 May 5 14.8648 NA NA 5 14.8648 

 Jun 3 28.4551 NA NA 3 28.4551 

 Jul 5 17.9771 NA NA 5 17.9771 

 Aug 5 69.4647 NA NA 5 69.4647 

 Sep 4 113.4890 NA NA 4 113.4890 

 Oct 5 44.0789 NA NA 5 44.0789 

 Nov 5 15.3923 NA NA 5 15.3923 

 Dec 5 11.2820 NA NA 5 11.2820 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LVII 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Tidal Peace 2005 Jan 4 10.9423 NA NA 4 10.9423 

 Feb 3 68.0046 NA NA 3 68.0046 

 Mar 4 37.8297 NA NA 4 37.8297 

 Apr 5 17.7072 NA NA 5 17.7072 

 May 5 9.9187 NA NA 5 9.9187 

 Jun 5 54.8427 NA NA 5 54.8427 

 Jul 4 20.7202 NA NA 4 20.7202 

 Aug 5 9.4086 NA NA 5 9.4086 

 Sep 5 10.6413 NA NA 5 10.6413 

 Oct 5 7.7647 NA NA 5 7.7647 

 Nov 5 15.0284 NA NA 5 15.0284 

 Dec 5 29.5480 NA NA 5 29.5480 

 2006 Jan 5 15.7451 NA NA 5 15.7451 

 Feb 5 25.7650 NA NA 5 25.7650 

 Mar 5 9.1607 NA NA 5 9.1607 

 Apr 5 10.1267 NA NA 5 10.1267 

 May 4 3.3636 NA NA 4 3.3636 

 Jun 5 3.4822 NA NA 5 3.4822 

 Jul 5 17.3380 NA NA 5 17.3380 

 Aug 5 7.6146 NA NA 5 7.6146 

 Sep 5 50.6862 NA NA 5 50.6862 

 Oct 5 7.6146 NA NA 5 7.6146 

 Nov 5 50.4292 NA NA 5 50.4292 

 Dec 4 19.1470 NA NA 4 19.1470 

 2007 Jan 5 80.5304 NA NA 5 80.5304 

 Feb 5 18.9715 NA NA 5 18.9715 

 Mar 5 10.8963 NA NA 5 10.8963 

 Apr 5 4.5948 NA NA 5 4.5948 

 May 4 25.6087 NA NA 4 25.6087 

East Wall 2001 Jun 1 14.0000 NA NA 1 14.0000 

 Jul 1 42.0000 NA NA 1 42.0000 

 Aug 1 166.0000 NA NA 1 166.0000 

 Sep 1 20.0000 NA NA 1 20.0000 

 Nov 1 90.0000 NA NA 1 90.0000 

 Dec 1 385.0000 NA NA 1 385.0000 

 2002 Jan 1 334.0000 NA NA 1 334.0000 

 Feb 1 54.0000 NA NA 1 54.0000 

 Mar 1 28.0000 NA NA 1 28.0000 

 Apr 1 24.0000 NA NA 1 24.0000 

 May 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Jun 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Jul 1 800.0000 NA NA 1 800.0000 

 Aug 1 12.0000 NA NA 1 12.0000 

 Sep 1 35.0000 NA NA 1 35.0000 

 Oct 1 14.0000 NA NA 1 14.0000 

 Nov 1 20.0000 NA NA 1 20.0000 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LVIII 

Table C.10, Cont. 

East Wall 2002 Dec 1 162.0000 NA NA 1 162.0000 

 2003 Feb 1 28.0000 NA NA 1 28.0000 

 Mar NA NA 

 Apr 1 8.0000 NA NA 1 8.0000 

 May 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Jun 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Jul 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Aug 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Sep 1 20.0000 NA NA 1 20.0000 

 Oct 1 34.0000 NA NA 1 34.0000 

 Nov 1 24.0000 NA NA 1 24.0000 

 Dec 1 16.0000 NA NA 1 16.0000 

 2004 Jan 1 36.0000 NA NA 1 36.0000 

 Feb 1 37.0000 NA NA 1 37.0000 

 Mar NA NA 

 Apr 1 9.0000 NA NA 1 9.0000 

 May 1 15.0000 NA NA 1 15.0000 

 Jun 1 7.0000 NA NA 1 7.0000 

 Jul 1 10.0000 NA NA 1 10.0000 

 Aug 1 60.0000 NA NA 1 60.0000 

 Sep 1 530.0000 NA NA 1 530.0000 

 Oct 1 20.0000 NA NA 1 20.0000 

 Nov 1 6.0000 NA NA 1 6.0000 

 Dec 1 63.0000 NA NA 1 63.0000 

 2005 Jan 1 24.0000 NA NA 1 24.0000 

 Feb 1 60.0000 NA NA 1 60.0000 

 Mar 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Apr 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 May 1 20.0000 NA NA 1 20.0000 

 Jun NA NA 

 Jul 1 40.0000 NA NA 1 40.0000 

 Aug 1 12.0000 NA NA 1 12.0000 

 Sep 1 5.0000 NA NA 1 5.0000 

 Oct 1 60.0000 NA NA 1 60.0000 

 Nov 1 30.0000 NA NA 1 30.0000 

 Dec 1 24.0000 NA NA 1 24.0000 

 2006 Jan 1 28.0000 NA NA 1 28.0000 

 Feb 1 24.0000 NA NA 1 24.0000 

 Mar 1 12.0000 NA NA 1 12.0000 

 Apr 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 May 1 26.0000 NA NA 1 26.0000 

 Jun 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Jul 1 20.0000 NA NA 1 20.0000 

 Aug 1 40.0000 NA NA 1 40.0000 

 Sep 1 240.0000 NA NA 1 240.0000 

 Oct 1 70.0000 NA NA 1 70.0000 

 Nov 1 30.0000 NA NA 1 30.0000 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LIX 

Table C.10, Cont. 

East Wall 2006 Dec 1 20.0000 NA NA 1 20.0000 

 2007 Jan 1 60.0000 NA NA 1 60.0000 

 Feb 1 20.0000 NA NA 1 20.0000 

 Mar 1 10.0000 NA NA 1 10.0000 

 Apr 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 May 1 8.0000 NA NA 1 8.0000 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 2001 Jun 2 4.8990 NA NA 2 4.8990 

 Jul 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Aug 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Sep 2 4.4721 NA NA 2 4.4721 

 Nov 2 12.5698 NA NA 2 12.5698 

 Dec 2 13.3041 NA NA 2 13.3041 

 2002 Jan 1 31.0000 NA NA 1 31.0000 

 Feb 2 5.6569 NA NA 2 5.6569 

 Mar 1 106.0000 NA NA 1 106.0000 

 Apr 2 8.0000 NA NA 2 8.0000 

 May 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Jun 2 5.6569 NA NA 2 5.6569 

 Jul 1 6.0000 NA NA 1 6.0000 

 Aug 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Sep 2 18.9737 NA NA 2 18.9737 

 Oct 1 11.0000 NA NA 1 11.0000 

 Nov 2 33.5410 NA NA 2 33.5410 

 Dec 2 200.4395 NA NA 2 200.4395 

 2003 Feb 1 12.0000 NA NA 1 12.0000 

 Mar 1 34.0000 NA NA 1 34.0000 

 Apr 2 7.0711 NA NA 2 7.0711 

 May 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Jun 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Jul 1 12.0000 NA NA 1 12.0000 

 Aug 1 26.0000 NA NA 1 26.0000 

 Sep 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Oct 1 8.0000 NA NA 1 8.0000 

 Nov 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Dec 1 24.0000 NA NA 1 24.0000 

 2004 Jan 1 88.0000 NA NA 1 88.0000 

 Feb 1 68.0000 NA NA 1 68.0000 

 Mar 1 48.0000 NA NA 1 48.0000 

 Apr 1 44.0000 NA NA 1 44.0000 

 May 1 24.0000 NA NA 1 24.0000 

 Jun 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Jul 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Aug 2 7.7460 NA NA 2 7.7460 

 Sep 2 91.6515 NA NA 2 91.6515 

 Oct 3 43.7952 NA NA 3 43.7952 

 Nov 3 11.4471 NA NA 3 11.4471 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LX 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 2004 Dec 3 3.6342 NA NA 3 3.6342 

 2005 Jan 3 13.2077 NA NA 3 13.2077 

 Feb 3 14.4097 NA NA 3 14.4097 

 Mar 3 6.6039 NA NA 3 6.6039 

 Apr 3 4.5789 NA NA 3 4.5789 

 May 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Jun 2 11.3137 NA NA 2 11.3137 

 Jul 3 5.2415 NA NA 3 5.2415 

 Aug 2 18.3848 NA NA 2 18.3848 

 Sep 3 4.9324 NA NA 3 4.9324 

 Oct 3 4.4480 NA NA 3 4.4480 

 Nov 3 7.9581 NA NA 3 7.9581 

 Dec 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 2006 Jan 3 10.4830 NA NA 3 10.4830 

 Feb 3 11.8167 NA NA 3 11.8167 

 Mar 3 8.7590 NA NA 3 8.7590 

 Apr 2 6.9282 NA NA 2 6.9282 

 May 3 3.1748 NA NA 3 3.1748 

 Jun 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Jul 3 5.0397 NA NA 3 5.0397 

 Aug 2 4.0000 NA NA 2 4.0000 

 Sep 3 10.3850 NA NA 3 10.3850 

 Oct 2 4.0000 NA NA 2 4.0000 

 Nov 2 4.8990 NA NA 2 4.8990 

 Dec 2 9.7980 NA NA 2 9.7980 

 2007 Jan 3 21.7605 NA NA 3 21.7605 

 Feb 1 4.0000 NA NA 1 4.0000 

 Mar 2 5.6569 NA NA 2 5.6569 

 Apr 3 4.0000 NA NA 3 4.0000 

 May 2 4.0000 NA NA 2 4.0000 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 2001 Jun 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jul 3 2.8845 NA NA 3 2.8845 

 Aug 3 5.4288 NA NA 3 5.4288 

 Sep 2 5.2915 NA NA 2 5.2915 

 Nov 2 69.1954 NA NA 2 69.1954 

 Dec 3 13.9864 NA NA 3 13.9864 

 2002 Jan 2 16.7332 NA NA 2 16.7332 

 Feb 2 10.9545 NA NA 2 10.9545 

 Mar 2 23.6643 NA NA 2 23.6643 

 Apr 3 6.7240 NA NA 3 6.7240 

 May 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 Jun 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jul 3 10.4830 NA NA 3 10.4830 

 Aug 3 3.8259 NA NA 3 3.8259 

 Sep 3 4.9324 NA NA 3 4.9324 

 Oct 3 3.4200 NA NA 3 3.4200 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXI 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 2002 Nov 3 2.7144 NA NA 3 2.7144 

 Dec 3 9.8648 NA NA 3 9.8648 

 2003 Feb 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Mar 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 Apr 3 3.6342 NA NA 3 3.6342 

 May 3 2.2894 NA NA 3 2.2894 

 Jun 3 2.8845 NA NA 3 2.8845 

 Jul 2 6.0000 NA NA 2 6.0000 

 Aug 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Sep 3 4.5789 NA NA 3 4.5789 

 Oct 3 7.4169 NA NA 3 7.4169 

 Nov 3 4.1602 NA NA 3 4.1602 

 Dec 3 2.8845 NA NA 3 2.8845 

 2004 Jan 3 6.3496 NA NA 3 6.3496 

 Feb 1 19.0000 NA NA 1 19.0000 

 Mar 3 3.4200 NA NA 3 3.4200 

 Apr 2 2.0000 NA NA 2 2.0000 

 May 3 2.2894 NA NA 3 2.2894 

 Jun 1 3.0000 NA NA 1 3.0000 

 Jul 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Aug 3 23.1956 NA NA 3 23.1956 

 Sep 2 28.2843 NA NA 2 28.2843 

 Oct 3 4.3089 NA NA 3 4.3089 

 Nov 3 6.2145 NA NA 3 6.2145 

 Dec 3 6.9521 NA NA 3 6.9521 

 2005 Jan 3 6.3825 NA NA 3 6.3825 

 Feb 3 9.6976 NA NA 3 9.6976 

 Mar 3 6.1972 NA NA 3 6.1972 

 Apr 3 4.9324 NA NA 3 4.9324 

 May 3 3.3019 NA NA 3 3.3019 

 Jun 3 3.1748 NA NA 3 3.1748 

 Jul 3 5.9250 NA NA 3 5.9250 

 Aug 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 Sep 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Oct 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 Nov 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Dec 3 4.3089 NA NA 3 4.3089 

 2006 Jan 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Feb 3 6.2145 NA NA 3 6.2145 

 Mar 3 3.4200 NA NA 3 3.4200 

 Apr 3 5.8480 NA NA 3 5.8480 

 May 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jun 3 2.7144 NA NA 3 2.7144 

 Jul 3 5.6041 NA NA 3 5.6041 

 Aug 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 Sep 3 3.1748 NA NA 3 3.1748 

 Oct 3 9.8648 NA NA 3 9.8648 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXII 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 2006 Nov 3 5.9250 NA NA 3 5.9250 

 Dec 3 4.8203 NA NA 3 4.8203 

 2007 Jan 3 5.4288 NA NA 3 5.4288 

 Feb 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Mar 3 3.1748 NA NA 3 3.1748 

 Apr 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 May 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

Pine Island Sound 2001 Jun 5 2.0000 NA NA 5 2.0000 

 Jul 5 2.0000 NA NA 5 2.0000 

 Aug 5 13.3878 NA NA 5 13.3878 

 Sep 5 6.7809 NA NA 5 6.7809 

 Nov 2 8.4853 NA NA 2 8.4853 

 Dec 5 10.8402 NA NA 5 10.8402 

 2002 Jan 5 30.6291 NA NA 5 30.6291 

 Feb 6 4.9927 NA NA 6 4.9927 

 Mar 3 9.1577 NA NA 3 9.1577 

 Apr 6 3.3968 NA NA 6 3.3968 

 May 6 2.2449 NA NA 6 2.2449 

 Jun 6 3.6342 NA NA 6 3.6342 

 Jul 5 19.5955 NA NA 5 19.5955 

 Aug 6 3.2951 NA NA 6 3.2951 

 Sep 6 2.2894 NA NA 6 2.2894 

 Oct 6 2.9596 NA NA 6 2.9596 

 Nov 6 7.4197 NA NA 6 7.4197 

 Dec 6 7.8937 NA NA 6 7.8937 

 2003 Feb 6 2.5198 NA NA 6 2.5198 

 Mar 5 3.1037 NA NA 5 3.1037 

 Apr 6 2.4019 NA NA 6 2.4019 

 May 6 2.9356 NA NA 6 2.9356 

 Jun 5 2.9515 NA NA 5 2.9515 

 Jul 4 2.0000 NA NA 4 2.0000 

 Aug 5 2.0000 NA NA 5 2.0000 

 Sep 6 8.0713 5 2.0000 11 4.2808 

 Oct 6 4.4721 5 3.6411 11 4.0732 

 Nov 5 3.6040 5 2.0000 10 2.6848 

 Dec 6 3.1748 5 4.3379 11 3.6588 

 2004 Jan 5 9.9658 6 2.6960 11 4.8844 

 Feb 2 2.0000 5 2.0000 7 2.0000 

 Mar 4 3.5566 5 4.5948 9 4.1004 

 Apr 4 3.3636 5 2.0000 9 2.5198 

 May 3 7.0940 6 3.5255 9 4.4508 

 Jun 3 3.5303 5 2.7595 8 3.0265 

 Jul 4 3.4641 5 2.0000 9 2.5530 

 Aug 4 3.2237 5 2.0000 9 2.4727 

 Sep 1 15.0000 4 8.2391 5 9.2880 

 Oct 2 2.0000 5 2.6390 7 2.4380 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXIII 

Table C.10, Cont.

Pine Island Sound 2004 Nov 4 2.7356 5 2.0000 9 2.2987 

 Dec 4 2.0000 5 3.1698 9 2.5831 

 2005 Jan 3 3.1748 5 2.9515 8 3.0334 

 Feb 6 9.3634 5 2.2974 11 4.9439 

 Mar 5 7.1889 5 2.0000 10 3.7918 

 Apr 4 2.9907 5 2.0000 9 2.3916 

 May 5 6.4542 5 2.0000 10 3.5928 

 Jun 5 2.2974 5 3.1698 10 2.6986 

 Jul 6 3.7578 5 2.0000 11 2.8212 

 Aug 5 2.6390 5 2.0000 10 2.2974 

 Sep 6 2.5198 5 2.0000 11 2.2686 

 Oct 6 3.0262 5 2.4915 11 2.7702 

 Nov 5 3.5652 5 2.0000 10 2.6703 

 Dec 5 5.3463 5 2.8619 10 3.9116 

 2006 Jan 3 3.8259 5 5.1017 8 4.5798 

 Feb 5 2.0000 6 2.4019 11 2.2101 

 Mar 5 2.0000 5 2.0000 10 2.0000 

 Apr 5 2.0000 5 2.0000 10 2.0000 

 May 6 2.6153 5 2.0000 11 2.3151 

 Jun 6 2.6153 5 2.2974 11 2.4657 

 Jul 5 2.7595 5 2.6390 10 2.6986 

 Aug 6 4.4571 6 2.0000 12 2.9857 

 Sep 6 6.1854 5 2.0000 11 3.7024 

 Oct 5 5.5189 5 2.0000 10 3.3223 

 Nov 3 9.9329 6 3.1748 9 4.6434 

 Dec 5 5.9240 5 4.6779 10 5.2642 

 2007 Jan 3 2.0000 3 2.0000 6 2.0000 

 Feb 

 Mar 4 2.0000 5 9.0755 9 4.6338 

 Apr 5 3.8073 5 3.5652 10 3.6843 

 May 2 2.0000 5 2.0000 7 2.0000 

Matlacha Pass 2001 Jun 3 4.0000 NA NA 3 4.0000 

 Jul 3 9.7259 NA NA 3 9.7259 

 Aug 3 5.6041 NA NA 3 5.6041 

 Sep 2 2.0000 NA NA 2 2.0000 

 Nov 2 5.4772 NA NA 2 5.4772 

 Dec 3 29.5945 NA NA 3 29.5945 

 2002 Jan 3 6.9521 NA NA 3 6.9521 

 Feb 3 6.4792 NA NA 3 6.4792 

 Mar 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 Apr 3 2.0000 5 3.1698 8 2.6670 

 May 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jun 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jul 3 18.1064 NA NA 3 18.1064 

 Aug 3 9.8648 NA NA 3 9.8648 

 Sep 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXIV 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Matlacha Pass 2002 Oct 3 4.5789 NA NA 3 4.5789 

 Nov 2 9.0554 NA NA 2 9.0554 

 Dec 3 11.8878 NA NA 3 11.8878 

 2003 Feb 3 2.8845 NA NA 3 2.8845 

 Mar 3 4.3089 NA NA 3 4.3089 

 Apr 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 May 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jun 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jul 2 13.7113 NA NA 2 13.7113 

 Aug 2 2.0000 NA NA 2 2.0000 

 Sep 3 3.1748 NA NA 3 3.1748 

 Oct 2 4.0000 NA NA 2 4.0000 

 Nov 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Dec 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 2004 Jan 3 5.0397 NA NA 3 5.0397 

 Feb 2 12.1655 NA NA 2 12.1655 

 Mar 3 4.3089 NA NA 3 4.3089 

 Apr 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 May 2 7.0711 NA NA 2 7.0711 

 Jun 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jul 3 2.2894 NA NA 3 2.2894 

 Aug 3 38.5389 NA NA 3 38.5389 

 Sep 1 44.0000 1 2.0000 2 9.3808 

 Oct 3 4.3089 NA NA 3 4.3089 

 Nov 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Dec 3 4.2358 NA NA 3 4.2358 

 2005 Jan 3 2.7144 NA NA 3 2.7144 

 Feb 3 6.8399 NA NA 3 6.8399 

 Mar 3 6.9521 NA NA 3 6.9521 

 Apr 3 4.0000 NA NA 3 4.0000 

 May 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Jun 3 7.7639 NA NA 3 7.7639 

 Jul 2 2.0000 NA NA 2 2.0000 

 Aug 3 2.2894 NA NA 3 2.2894 

 Sep 2 3.1623 NA NA 2 3.1623 

 Oct 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Nov 2 6.3246 NA NA 2 6.3246 

 Dec 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 2006 Jan 3 7.3186 NA NA 3 7.3186 

 Feb 3 7.6517 NA NA 3 7.6517 

 Mar 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Apr 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 May 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jun 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 Jul 3 6.0000 NA NA 3 6.0000 

 Aug 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Sep 3 22.1858 NA NA 3 22.1858 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXV 

Table C.10, Cont. 

Matlacha Pass 2006 Oct 3 4.0000 NA NA 3 4.0000 

 Nov 3 4.3089 NA NA 3 4.3089 

 Dec 3 4.8203 NA NA 3 4.8203 

 2007 Jan 3 4.8203 NA NA 3 4.8203 

 Feb 2 5.4772 5 7.6893 7 6.9790 

 Mar 3 4.3089 NA NA 3 4.3089 

 Apr 3 2.5198 NA NA 3 2.5198 

 May 1 21.0000 NA NA 1 21.0000 

San Carlos Bay 2001 Jun 3 3.6342 NA NA 3 3.6342 

 Jul 4 6.1772 NA NA 4 6.1772 

 Aug 4 5.9052 NA NA 4 5.9052 

 Sep 4 4.8990 NA NA 4 4.8990 

 Nov 3 12.9901 NA NA 3 12.9901 

 Dec 4 7.3257 NA NA 4 7.3257 

 2002 Jan 4 8.2551 NA NA 4 8.2551 

 Feb 4 6.8796 NA NA 4 6.8796 

 Mar 3 5.8480 NA NA 3 5.8480 

 Apr 4 7.3660 NA NA 4 7.3660 

 May 3 2.8845 NA NA 3 2.8845 

 Jun 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Jul 4 13.8654 NA NA 4 13.8654 

 Aug 4 3.1302 NA NA 4 3.1302 

 Sep 4 4.1893 NA NA 4 4.1893 

 Oct 4 9.7444 NA NA 4 9.7444 

 Nov 4 2.0000 NA NA 4 2.0000 

 Dec 4 5.3447 NA NA 4 5.3447 

 2003 Feb 3 8.8280 NA NA 3 8.8280 

 Mar 4 4.1195 NA NA 4 4.1195 

 Apr 4 2.8284 NA NA 4 2.8284 

 May 4 2.6321 NA NA 4 2.6321 

 Jun 4 2.9907 NA NA 4 2.9907 

 Jul 3 4.5789 NA NA 3 4.5789 

 Aug 2 15.4919 NA NA 2 15.4919 

 Sep 4 7.5585 NA NA 4 7.5585 

 Oct 4 3.4641 NA NA 4 3.4641 

 Nov 4 3.1302 NA NA 4 3.1302 

 Dec 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 2004 Jan 3 10.0794 NA NA 3 10.0794 

 Feb 2 4.4721 NA NA 2 4.4721 

 Mar 4 5.7432 NA NA 4 5.7432 

 Apr 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 May 4 5.0297 NA NA 4 5.0297 

 Jun 4 2.3784 NA NA 4 2.3784 

 Jul 3 4.7622 NA NA 3 4.7622 

 Aug 4 10.4030 NA NA 4 10.4030 

 Sep NA NA 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXVI 

Table C.10, Cont. 

San Carlos Bay 2004 Oct 2 4.4721 NA NA 2 4.4721 

 Nov 3 4.3089 NA NA 3 4.3089 

 Dec 3 9.1098 NA NA 3 9.1098 

 2005 Jan 4 3.7606 NA NA 4 3.7606 

 Feb 4 6.8872 NA NA 4 6.8872 

 Mar 1 2.0000 NA NA 1 2.0000 

 Apr 4 2.3784 NA NA 4 2.3784 

 May 4 2.3784 NA NA 4 2.3784 

 Jun 3 10.2599 NA NA 3 10.2599 

 Jul 4 2.8284 NA NA 4 2.8284 

 Aug 4 3.3636 NA NA 4 3.3636 

 Sep 4 3.6002 NA NA 4 3.6002 

 Oct 3 2.0000 NA NA 3 2.0000 

 Nov 3 8.4902 NA NA 3 8.4902 

 Dec 4 5.4216 NA NA 4 5.4216 

 2006 Jan 2 2.8284 NA NA 2 2.8284 

 Feb 4 7.4008 NA NA 4 7.4008 

 Mar 4 4.4721 NA NA 4 4.4721 

 Apr 4 3.4641 NA NA 4 3.4641 

 May 4 2.3784 5 2.0000 9 2.1601 

 Jun 4 2.3784 6 2.0000 10 2.1435 

 Jul 2 2.8284 6 3.0668 8 3.0054 

 Aug 3 4.8203 6 2.0000 9 2.6815 

 Sep 3 5.4288 6 9.1216 9 7.6727 

 Oct 3 4.0000 7 2.2082 10 2.6390 

 Nov 2 5.4772 5 6.6939 7 6.3210 

 Dec 3 13.0920 5 2.7595 8 4.9476 

 2007 Jan 3 2.5198 7 3.8884 10 3.4139 

 Feb 4 4.8990 5 2.0000 9 2.9782 

 Mar 4 5.5663 6 2.0000 10 3.0119 

 Apr 4 3.3636 7 3.2813 11 3.3110 

 May 1 4.0000 1 4.0000 

Tidal Caloosahatchee 2006 May NA 5 6.2583 5 6.2583 

 Jun NA 5 9.0868 5 9.0868 

 Jul NA 5 5.1017 5 5.1017 

 Sep NA 3 4.4480 3 4.4480 

 Oct NA 3 2.0000 3 2.0000 

 Nov NA 3 12.0000 3 12.0000 

 Dec NA 3 9.5244 3 9.5244 

 2007 Feb NA 3 5.9250 3 5.9250 

 Mar NA 3 2.0000 3 2.0000 

 Apr NA 3 4.9324 3 4.9324 

 May NA 3 4.5789 3 4.5789 

Estero Bay 2001 Jun 3 3.6342 NA NA 3 3.6342 

 Jul 3 5.6877 NA NA 3 5.6877 

 Aug 3 22.2236 NA NA 3 22.2236 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXVII 

Table C.10, Cont. 

 Estero Bay 2001 Sep 4 8.7118 NA NA 4 8.7118 

 Nov 4 43.2595 NA NA 4 43.2595 

 Dec 4 114.6312 NA NA 4 114.6312 

 2002 Jan 3 123.4593 NA NA 3 123.4593 

 Feb 4 22.7981 NA NA 4 22.7981 

 Mar 4 11.6745 NA NA 4 11.6745 

 Apr 4 16.6368 NA NA 4 16.6368 

 May 2 3.4641 NA NA 2 3.4641 

 Jun 5 3.4822 NA NA 5 3.4822 

 Jul 5 12.0876 NA NA 5 12.0876 

 Aug 4 3.5566 NA NA 4 3.5566 

 Sep 5 14.7221 NA NA 5 14.7221 

 Oct 6 10.9083 NA NA 6 10.9083 

 Nov 5 40.3128 NA NA 5 40.3128 

 Dec 5 38.3748 NA NA 5 38.3748 

 2003 Feb 4 22.7859 NA NA 4 22.7859 

 Mar 5 16.2090 NA NA 5 16.2090 

 Apr 4 9.3467 NA NA 4 9.3467 

 May 6 3.4852 NA NA 6 3.4852 

 Jun 5 4.1289 NA NA 5 4.1289 

 Jul 4 10.7575 NA NA 4 10.7575 

 Aug 5 16.6776 NA NA 5 16.6776 

 Sep 5 13.7410 5 7.2103 10 9.9537 

 Oct 5 22.0063 4 14.4884 9 18.2755 

 Nov 5 8.7816 5 4.6232 10 6.3717 

 Dec 5 5.9751 5 59.9313 10 18.9234 

 2004 Jan 6 25.2139 5 29.5474 11 27.0987 

 Feb 6 29.2411 5 4.6508 11 12.6782 

 Mar 4 13.6366 5 2.0000 9 4.6941 

 Apr 3 19.8658 5 2.8619 8 5.9184 

 May 5 6.2074 5 4.6779 10 5.3886 

 Jun 4 4.2295 5 7.7961 9 5.9407 

 Jul 3 8.1633 5 11.8752 8 10.3181 

 Aug 2 72.6636 5 4.2236 7 9.5218 

 Sep 2 100.9950 5 11.2374 7 21.0443 

 Oct 4 17.7184 5 4.8516 9 8.6279 

 Nov 5 12.4772 5 8.9752 10 10.5823 

 Dec 4 9.6855 5 3.9487 9 5.8835 

 2005 Jan 4 12.4092 5 3.1037 9 5.7461 

 Feb 4 38.8214 5 2.2974 9 8.0712 

 Mar 3 17.4132 5 2.0000 8 4.5027 

 Apr 5 10.1701 5 2.7595 10 5.2975 

 May 4 8.6506 5 5.2276 9 6.5392 

 Jun 3 17.6731 5 30.7158 8 24.9657 

 Jul 5 6.7869 5 14.2329 10 9.8284 

 Aug 4 14.3524 5 13.8560 9 14.0744 

 Sep 5 10.3879 5 4.0723 10 6.5041 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXVIII 

Table C.10, Cont. 

 Estero Bay 2005 Oct 4 31.7735 5 5.4038 9 11.8752 

 Nov 5 10.8468 5 9.7119 10 10.2637 

 Dec 5 8.5835 5 8.9554 10 8.7675 

 2006 Jan 4 11.9158 6 13.1861 10 12.6625 

 Feb 3 20.0067 5 4.6779 8 8.0672 

 Mar 5 10.9635 5 2.4915 10 5.2264 

 Apr 4 3.9360 5 3.7443 9 3.8283 

 May 6 5.9308 5 2.0000 11 3.6185 

 Jun 5 2.4915 5 2.6390 10 2.5642 

 Jul 6 10.3313 5 4.3379 11 6.9638 

 Aug 5 5.9851 5 3.6768 10 4.6911 

 Sep 4 24.5681 5 11.0755 9 15.7814 

 Oct 5 13.2908 5 2.2974 10 5.5258 

 Nov 6 22.6142 5 4.1826 11 10.5009 

 Dec 4 39.6196 5 2.7595 9 9.0175 

 2007 Jan 3 8.6177 3 8.6177 

 Feb 3 20.1571 5 2.2974 8 5.1872 

 Mar 5 15.0657 5 2.4915 10 6.1266 

 Apr 4 5.0297 5 3.2308 9 3.9332 

 May 3 3.1748 5 2.4915 8 2.7285 

Does not meet the minimum criteria of 10 samples 
Appendix C Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXIX 

Table C.11: Regional percentage of fecal coliform bacteria reported over 

400 cfu/100 mL per Florida Surface Water Regulations 

 CHEVWQMN CCHMN ALL 

Lemon Bay 5.41% 0.00% 5.41%

Tidal Myakka 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Tidal Peace 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

East Wall 0.61% 0.00% 0.61%

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Lower Charlotte Harbor 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Pine Island Sound 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Matlacha Pass 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

San Carlos Bay 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Estero Bay 1.67% 0.00% 0.96%

All regions 1.65% 0.00% 1.35%

Table C.12: Dates and location of fecal coliform bacteria reported over 800 cfu/100 mL per Florida Surface Water Regulations 

 N Dates 

Lemon Bay 9 Jan-04, Oct-04, Feb-05, Mar-06, May-06, Jul-06, Nov-06, Jan-07 & Feb-07 

Tidal Myakka 0 

Tidal Peace 1 Sep-04 

East Wall 0 

Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 0 

Lower Charlotte Harbor 0 

Pine Island Sound 0 

Matlacha Pass 0 

San Carlos Bay 0 

Estero Bay 0 

All regions 10 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXX 

Appendix D: Water Quality Relationships 

 Page 

Table D.1: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables for the entire study region 

and duration ______________________________________________ LXVIII 

Table D.2: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in the rainy season for the 

entire study region __________________________________________ LXIX 

Table D.3: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Lemon 

 Bay__ _______ _____________________________________________LXX 

Table D.4: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal Myakka 

 River__ _ __________________________________________________LXXI 

Table D.5: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal Peace 

 River ____________________________________________________ LXXII 

Table D.6: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in the West Wall 

 LXXIII 

Table D.7: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in the East Wall 

 LXXIV 

Table D.8: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Gasparilla 

 Sound/Cape Haze _________________________________________ LXXV 

Table D.9: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Lower 

 Charlotte Harbor __________________________________________ LXXVI 

Table D.10: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Pine 

 Island Sound ____________________________________________ LXXVII 

Table D.11: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Matlacha 

 Pass __________________________________________________ LXXVIII 

Table D.5: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal 

 Caloosahatchee River _____________________________________ LXXIX 

Table D.13: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in San Carlos 

 Bay _____________________________________________________ LXXX 

Table D.14: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Estero 

 Bay ____________________________________________________ LXXXI 

Table D.15: Spearman's rho correlation for seagrass variables versus water clarity 

medians (1 month lag) _____________________________________ LXXXII 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXI 

Table D.1: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables for the entire study region and duration 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.122 0.526 -0.449 -0.408 -0.313 -0.332 -0.500 -0.553 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 3398 3370 3377 3057 3169 2943 1628 3238 3248 

DO Coefficient 0.122 1.000 0.025 -0.153 -0.057 -0.081 -0.343 -0.007 -0.182 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 . 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.605 0.000 

 N 3370 9872 9833 5598 5871 5422 2988 5997 6007 

Salinity Coefficient 0.526 0.025 1.000 -0.426 -0.455 -0.288 -0.342 -0.084 -0.748 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.013 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 3377 9833 9899 5619 5889 5436 3005 6014 6024 

TN Coefficient -0.449 -0.153 -0.426 1.000 0.338 0.221 0.231 0.259 0.527 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 3057 5598 5619 6473 6460 5907 2716 6437 6435 

TP Coefficient -0.408 -0.057 -0.455 0.338 1.000 0.258 0.375 0.243 0.510 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 3169 5871 5889 6460 6757 6173 2898 6728 6725 

ChlA Coefficient -0.313 -0.081 -0.288 0.221 0.258 1.000 0.190 0.341 0.398 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 2943 5422 5436 5907 6173 6292 2563 6269 6267 

Coliform Coefficient -0.332 -0.343 -0.342 0.231 0.375 0.190 1.000 0.128 0.370 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 

 N 1628 2988 3005 2716 2898 2563 3041 3034 3034 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.500 -0.007 -0.084 0.259 0.243 0.341 0.128 1.000 0.282 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.605 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 

 N 3238 5997 6014 6437 6728 6269 3034 6878 6861 

Color Coefficient -0.553 -0.182 -0.748 0.527 0.510 0.398 0.370 0.282 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 

 N 3248 6007 6024 6435 6725 6267 3034 6861 6875 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXII 

Table D.2: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in the dry vs. the rainy season for the entire study region 

 Rainy season 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Dry Season 

Secchi Coefficient 0.160 0.619 -0.458 -0.453 -0.206 -0.385 -0.392 -0.637 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 1554 1557 1384 1420 1286 776 1473 1473 

DO Coefficient -0.062 0.040 -0.171 -0.071 0.075 -0.458 -0.051 -0.144 

 p (2-tailed) 0.008 0.012 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.013 0.000 

 N 1816 3946 2256 2314 2067 1216 2385 2384 

Salinity Coefficient 0.386 -0.218 -0.424 -0.451 -0.180 -0.409 -0.114 -0.762 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 1820 5887 2263 2321 2071 1221 2390 2389 

TN Coefficient -0.408 -0.026 -0.384 0.363 0.141 0.280 0.251 0.533 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.126 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 1673 3342 3356 2675 2382 1144 2663 2657 

TP Coefficient -0.345 0.041 -0.440 0.291 0.172 0.396 0.247 0.527 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 1749 3557 3568 3785 2437 1153 2734 2728 

ChlA Coefficient -0.355 -0.007 -0.283 0.210 0.286 0.116 0.382 0.270 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.706 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 1657 3355 3365 3525 3736 977 2485 2479 

Coliform Coefficient -0.276 -0.348 -0.323 0.218 0.372 0.240 0.142 0.469 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 852 1772 1784 1572 1745 1586 1230 1230 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.636 -0.015 -0.080 0.263 0.247 0.337 0.118 0.311 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.361 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 1765 3612 3624 3774 3994 3784 1804 2809 

Color Coefficient -0.442 0.035 -0.712 0.477 0.497 0.396 0.357 0.284 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 1775 3623 3635 3778 3997 3788 1804 4052 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXIII 

Table D.3: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Lemon Bay 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.418 0.480 -0.365 -0.487 -0.239 -0.480 -0.137 -0.486 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 

 N 469 462 462 311 323 289 211 336 336 

DO Coefficient 0.418 1.000 0.377 -0.364 -0.298 -0.244 -0.371 0.193 -0.541 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 462 1483 1474 790 846 771 584 875 875 

Salinity Coefficient 0.480 0.377 1.000 -0.394 -0.499 -0.303 -0.563 0.162 -0.654 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 462 1474 1485 793 847 771 585 877 877 

TN Coefficient -0.365 -0.364 -0.394 1.000 0.274 0.211 0.337 -0.025 0.541 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.452 0.000 

 N 311 790 793 890 888 787 509 886 885 

TP Coefficient -0.487 -0.298 -0.499 0.274 1.000 0.240 0.484 -0.025 0.437 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.451 0.000 

 N 323 846 847 888 946 844 561 944 943 

ChlA Coefficient -0.239 -0.244 -0.303 0.211 0.240 1.000 0.277 0.252 0.412 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 289 771 771 787 844 870 495 868 867 

Coliform Coefficient -0.480 -0.371 -0.563 0.337 0.484 0.277 1.000 0.069 0.530 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.093 0.000 

 N 211 584 585 509 561 495 592 591 591 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.137 0.193 0.162 -0.025 -0.025 0.252 0.069 1.000 0.015 

 p (2-tailed) 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.452 0.451 0.000 0.093 . 0.636 

 N 336 875 877 886 944 868 591 974 973 

Color Coefficient -0.486 -0.541 -0.654 0.541 0.437 0.412 0.530 0.015 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.636 . 

 N 336 875 877 885 943 867 591 973 973 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXIV 

Table D.4: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal Myakka River 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.254 0.659 -0.285 -0.117 0.064 -0.512 -0.202 -0.654 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.293 0.001 0.001 0.000 

 N 276 275 274 262 273 271 41 271 276 

DO Coefficient 0.254 1.000 0.205 -0.156 -0.088 -0.038 -0.364 0.189 -0.230 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 . 0.000 0.003 0.089 0.470 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 275 636 634 358 379 369 103 380 385 

Salinity Coefficient 0.659 0.205 1.000 -0.227 -0.151 0.046 -0.259 -0.002 -0.764 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.003 0.381 0.008 0.976 0.000 

 N 274 634 635 357 378 368 102 379 384 

TN Coefficient -0.285 -0.156 -0.227 1.000 0.229 -0.047 -0.002 0.125 0.311 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.003 0.000 . 0.000 0.331 0.984 0.009 0.000 

 N 262 358 357 445 445 429 87 440 440 

TP Coefficient -0.117 -0.088 -0.151 0.229 1.000 -0.005 . 0.026 0.046 

 p (2-tailed) 0.053 0.089 0.003 0.000 . 0.920 . 0.571 0.325 

 N 273 379 378 445 466 450 97 461 461 

ChlA Coefficient 0.064 -0.038 0.046 -0.047 -0.005 1.000 -0.053 0.261 0.076 

 p (2-tailed) 0.293 0.470 0.381 0.331 0.920 . 0.625 0.000 0.106 

 N 271 369 368 429 450 455 89 450 450 

Coliform Coefficient -0.512 -0.364 -0.259 -0.002 . -0.053 1.000 -0.202 0.035 

 p (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.984 . 0.625 . 0.040 0.724 

 N 41 103 102 87 97 89 103 103 103 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.202 0.189 -0.002 0.125 0.026 0.261 -0.202 1.000 0.141 

 p (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 0.976 0.009 0.571 0.000 0.040 . 0.002 

 N 271 380 379 440 461 450 103 467 462 

Color Coefficient -0.654 -0.230 -0.764 0.311 0.046 0.076 0.035 0.141 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.325 0.106 0.724 0.002 . 

 N 276 385 384 440 461 450 103 462 467 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXV 

Table D.5: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal Peace River 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.142 0.639 -0.381 -0.524 -0.020 -0.233 -0.391 -0.591 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.681 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 482 477 478 431 459 423 225 467 471 

DO Coefficient 0.142 1.000 0.200 -0.058 -0.103 0.151 0.002 0.195 -0.279 

 p (2-tailed) 0.002 . 0.000 0.175 0.013 0.000 0.965 0.000 0.000 

 N 477 943 937 551 587 536 322 599 604 

Salinity Coefficient 0.639 0.200 1.000 -0.522 -0.571 -0.024 -0.305 -0.217 -0.756 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.574 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 478 937 946 554 590 541 325 602 607 

TN Coefficient -0.381 -0.058 -0.522 1.000 0.394 0.099 0.187 0.318 0.502 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.175 0.000 . 0.000 0.015 0.001 0.000 0.000 

 N 431 551 554 665 663 604 288 658 664 

TP Coefficient -0.524 -0.103 -0.571 0.394 1.000 0.073 0.228 0.320 0.378 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 . 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 459 587 590 663 701 637 314 695 701 

ChlA Coefficient -0.020 0.151 -0.024 0.099 0.073 1.000 0.021 0.341 0.137 

 p (2-tailed) 0.681 0.000 0.574 0.015 0.066 . 0.740 0.000 0.000 

 N 423 536 541 604 637 650 264 644 650 

Coliform Coefficient -0.233 0.002 -0.305 0.187 0.228 0.021 1.000 0.090 0.156 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.965 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.740 . 0.102 0.005 

 N 225 322 325 288 314 264 330 330 330 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.391 0.195 -0.217 0.318 0.320 0.341 0.090 1.000 0.246 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.102 . 0.000 

 N 467 599 602 658 695 644 330 712 712 

Color Coefficient -0.591 -0.279 -0.756 0.502 0.378 0.137 0.156 0.246 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 . 

 N 471 604 607 664 701 650 330 712 718 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXVI 

Table D.6: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in West Wall 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.164 0.722 -0.381 -0.318 -0.485 . -0.610 -0.715 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 

 N 225 223 224 220 225 225 0 224 225 

DO Coefficient 0.164 1.000 0.127 -0.233 0.103 0.049 . -0.087 -0.187 

 p (2-tailed) 0.014 . 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.361 . 0.105 0.000 

 N 223 1050 1050 343 353 353 0 352 353 

Salinity Coefficient 0.722 0.127 1.000 -0.262 -0.255 -0.383 . -0.258 -0.812 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 

 N 224 1050 1051 344 354 354 0 353 354 

TN Coefficient -0.381 -0.233 -0.262 1.000 0.164 0.134 . 0.126 0.379 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.002 . 0.003 0.000 

 N 220 343 344 552 552 551 0 550 550 

TP Coefficient -0.318 0.103 -0.255 0.164 1.000 0.023 . 0.128 0.174 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 . 0.587 . 0.002 0.000 

 N 225 353 354 552 565 564 0 563 563 

ChlA Coefficient -0.485 0.049 -0.383 0.134 0.023 1.000 . 0.387 0.355 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.361 0.000 0.002 0.587 . . 0.000 0.000 

 N 225 353 354 551 564 564 0 562 562 

Coliform Coefficient . . . . . . . . . 

 p (2-tailed) . . . . . . . . . 

 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.610 -0.087 -0.258 0.126 0.128 0.387 . 1.000 0.284 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.105 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.000 . . 0.000 

 N 224 352 353 550 563 562 0 563 561 

Color Coefficient -0.715 -0.187 -0.812 0.379 0.174 0.355 . 0.284 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 . 

 N 225 353 354 550 563 562 0 561 563 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXVII 

Table D.7: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in East Wall 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.170 0.737 -0.272 -0.207 -0.592 -0.600 -0.507 -0.700 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.285 0.000 0.000 

 N 204 204 203 200 203 201 5 203 203 

DO Coefficient 0.170 1.000 0.279 -0.305 0.017 -0.089 0.071 -0.100 -0.316 

 p (2-tailed) 0.015 . 0.000 0.000 0.739 0.078 0.566 0.044 0.000 

 N 204 1142 1140 390 403 391 67 406 407 

Salinity Coefficient 0.737 0.279 1.000 -0.263 -0.167 -0.393 -0.202 -0.246 -0.805 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.106 0.000 0.000 

 N 203 1140 1140 388 401 390 65 404 405 

TN Coefficient -0.272 -0.305 -0.263 1.000 0.042 0.115 -0.035 0.103 0.372 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.303 0.005 0.793 0.011 0.000 

 N 200 390 388 617 617 602 57 616 617 

TP Coefficient -0.207 0.017 -0.167 0.042 1.000 0.059 -0.084 0.074 0.137 

 p (2-tailed) 0.003 0.739 0.001 0.303 . 0.145 0.513 0.063 0.001 

 N 203 403 401 617 631 615 63 630 631 

ChlA Coefficient -0.592 -0.089 -0.393 0.115 0.059 1.000 -0.010 0.412 0.374 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.005 0.145 . 0.945 0.000 0.000 

 N 201 391 390 602 615 619 54 618 619 

Coliform Coefficient -0.600 0.071 -0.202 -0.035 -0.084 -0.010 1.000 0.061 0.227 

 p (2-tailed) 0.285 0.566 0.106 0.793 0.513 0.945 . 0.622 0.065 

 N 5 67 65 57 63 54 67 67 67 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.507 -0.100 -0.246 0.103 0.074 0.412 0.061 1.000 0.346 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.011 0.063 0.000 0.622 . 0.000 

 N 203 406 404 616 630 618 67 634 634 

Color Coefficient -0.700 -0.316 -0.805 0.372 0.137 0.374 0.227 0.346 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.065 0.000 . 

 N 203 407 405 617 631 619 67 634 635 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXVIII 

Table D.8: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 -0.006 0.418 -0.284 0.100 -0.543 -0.220 -0.404 -0.484 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.941 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.000 0.097 0.000 0.000 

 N 170 168 170 154 160 157 58 166 166 

DO Coefficient -0.006 1.000 0.159 -0.255 0.136 -0.129 -0.095 -0.087 -0.321 

 p (2-tailed) 0.941 . 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.015 0.284 0.091 0.000 

 N 168 620 619 346 368 354 129 377 377 

Salinity Coefficient 0.418 0.159 1.000 -0.153 0.010 -0.237 0.132 0.016 -0.615 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 . 0.004 0.845 0.000 0.130 0.763 0.000 

 N 170 619 625 350 372 358 133 381 381 

TN Coefficient -0.284 -0.255 -0.153 1.000 -0.037 -0.030 -0.018 -0.066 0.304 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.004 . 0.446 0.541 0.846 0.174 0.000 

 N 154 346 350 431 431 407 115 431 424 

TP Coefficient 0.100 0.136 0.010 -0.037 1.000 -0.089 . -0.068 -0.057 

 p (2-tailed) 0.209 0.009 0.845 0.446 . 0.065 . 0.144 0.225 

 N 160 368 372 431 458 433 126 458 451 

ChlA Coefficient -0.543 -0.129 -0.237 -0.030 -0.089 1.000 -0.040 0.263 0.358 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.541 0.065 . 0.673 0.000 0.000 

 N 157 354 358 407 433 441 112 441 434 

Coliform Coefficient -0.220 -0.095 0.132 -0.018 . -0.040 1.000 0.124 -0.034 

 p (2-tailed) 0.097 0.284 0.130 0.846 . 0.673 . 0.154 0.699 

 N 58 129 133 115 126 112 134 134 134 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.404 -0.087 0.016 -0.066 -0.068 0.263 0.124 1.000 0.234 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.091 0.763 0.174 0.144 0.000 0.154 . 0.000 

 N 166 377 381 431 458 441 134 467 460 

Color Coefficient -0.484 -0.321 -0.615 0.304 -0.057 0.358 -0.034 0.234 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.225 0.000 0.699 0.000 . 

 N 166 377 381 424 451 434 134 460 460 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXIX 

Table D.9: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Lower Charlotte Harbor 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.025 0.502 -0.400 -0.111 -0.573 -0.470 -0.480 -0.492 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.679 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 286 283 282 270 276 263 85 281 281 

DO Coefficient 0.025 1.000 -0.001 -0.207 0.098 -0.143 -0.257 0.095 -0.175 

 p (2-tailed) 0.679 . 0.982 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 

 N 283 1415 1410 624 638 611 193 648 648 

Salinity Coefficient 0.502 -0.001 1.000 -0.451 -0.127 -0.462 -0.211 -0.119 -0.684 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.982 . 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.000 

 N 282 1410 1419 620 634 608 191 645 645 

TN Coefficient -0.400 -0.207 -0.451 1.000 0.049 0.424 0.155 0.163 0.505 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.215 0.000 0.043 0.000 0.000 

 N 270 624 620 639 639 602 170 639 639 

TP Coefficient -0.111 0.098 -0.127 0.049 1.000 0.134 . 0.001 0.091 

 p (2-tailed) 0.065 0.013 0.001 0.215 . 0.001 . 0.988 0.020 

 N 276 638 634 639 653 615 184 653 653 

ChlA Coefficient -0.573 -0.143 -0.462 0.424 0.134 1.000 0.196 0.403 0.535 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 . 0.013 0.000 0.000 

 N 263 611 608 602 615 625 159 625 625 

Coliform Coefficient -0.470 -0.257 -0.211 0.155 . 0.196 1.000 0.045 0.204 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.043 . 0.013 . 0.531 0.004 

 N 85 193 191 170 184 159 195 195 195 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.480 0.095 -0.119 0.163 0.001 0.403 0.045 1.000 0.233 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.015 0.002 0.000 0.988 0.000 0.531 . 0.000 

 N 281 648 645 639 653 625 195 664 664 

Color Coefficient -0.492 -0.175 -0.684 0.505 0.091 0.535 0.204 0.233 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.004 0.000 . 

 N 281 648 645 639 653 625 195 664 664 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXX 

Table D.10: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Pine Island Sound 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.170 0.168 -0.206 . -0.312 -0.104 -0.449 -0.169 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.006 0.006 0.001 . 0.000 0.099 0.000 0.006 

 N 264 261 263 245 248 225 253 260 260 

DO Coefficient 0.170 1.000 0.017 -0.257 -0.110 -0.419 -0.248 0.013 -0.450 

 p (2-tailed) 0.006 . 0.687 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.759 0.000 

 N 261 575 571 527 541 490 538 557 557 

Salinity Coefficient 0.168 0.017 1.000 -0.222 -0.093 -0.206 -0.059 0.110 -0.413 

 p (2-tailed) 0.006 0.687 . 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.171 0.009 0.000 

 N 263 571 583 533 548 492 546 565 565 

TN Coefficient -0.206 -0.257 -0.222 1.000 0.096 0.344 0.125 0.175 0.398 

 p (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 0.000 . 0.026 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 

 N 245 527 533 538 538 467 516 534 534 

TP Coefficient . -0.110 -0.093 0.096 1.000 0.111 0.146 0.027 0.131 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.011 0.029 0.026 . 0.015 0.001 0.534 0.002 

 N 248 541 548 538 553 481 531 549 549 

ChlA Coefficient -0.312 -0.419 -0.206 0.344 0.111 1.000 0.091 0.286 0.428 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 . 0.048 0.000 0.000 

 N 225 490 492 467 481 497 476 495 495 

Coliform Coefficient -0.104 -0.248 -0.059 0.125 0.146 0.091 1.000 0.017 0.215 

 p (2-tailed) 0.099 0.000 0.171 0.004 0.001 0.048 . 0.699 0.000 

 N 253 538 546 516 531 476 551 548 548 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.449 0.013 0.110 0.175 0.027 0.286 0.017 1.000 0.045 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.759 0.009 0.000 0.534 0.000 0.699 . 0.283 

 N 260 557 565 534 549 495 548 570 570 

Color Coefficient -0.169 -0.450 -0.413 0.398 0.131 0.428 0.215 0.045 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.283 . 

 N 260 557 565 534 549 495 548 570 570 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXXI 

Table D.11: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Matlacha Pass 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.261 0.533 -0.147 -0.081 -0.370 -0.040 -0.211 -0.374 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.278 0.000 0.650 0.004 0.000 

 N 194 190 192 170 180 129 128 186 186 

DO Coefficient 0.261 1.000 0.217 -0.211 -0.026 -0.124 -0.098 -0.170 -0.199 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.573 0.022 0.174 0.000 0.000 

 N 190 546 542 434 457 340 195 467 467 

Salinity Coefficient 0.533 0.217 1.000 -0.317 -0.068 -0.251 -0.128 -0.180 -0.625 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 0.146 0.000 0.073 0.000 0.000 

 N 192 542 551 441 463 343 198 469 469 

TN Coefficient -0.147 -0.211 -0.317 1.000 -0.068 -0.165 0.085 0.274 0.486 

 p (2-tailed) 0.056 0.000 0.000 . 0.153 0.003 0.263 0.000 0.000 

 N 170 434 441 444 444 323 173 436 436 

TP Coefficient -0.081 -0.026 -0.068 -0.068 1.000 . . 0.009 0.044 

 p (2-tailed) 0.278 0.573 0.146 0.153 . . . 0.853 0.352 

 N 180 457 463 444 468 339 186 460 460 

ChlA Coefficient -0.370 -0.124 -0.251 -0.165 . 1.000 -0.029 0.233 0.307 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.003 . . 0.721 0.000 0.000 

 N 129 340 343 323 339 348 157 344 344 

Coliform Coefficient -0.040 -0.098 -0.128 0.085 . -0.029 1.000 0.211 0.176 

 p (2-tailed) 0.650 0.174 0.073 0.263 . 0.721 . 0.003 0.013 

 N 128 195 198 173 186 157 202 200 200 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.211 -0.170 -0.180 0.274 0.009 0.233 0.211 1.000 0.522 

 p (2-tailed) 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.853 0.000 0.003 . 0.000 

 N 186 467 469 436 460 344 200 475 475 

Color Coefficient -0.374 -0.199 -0.625 0.486 0.044 0.307 0.176 0.522 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.352 0.000 0.013 0.000 . 

 N 186 467 469 436 460 344 200 475 475 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXXII 

Table D.12: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Tidal Caloosahatchee River 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.202 0.490 -0.572 . 0.043 0.347 -0.481 -0.516 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.001 0.000 0.000 . 0.508 0.056 0.000 0.000 

 N 247 247 247 247 247 242 31 247 247 

DO Coefficient 0.202 1.000 0.383 -0.184 . 0.356 -0.452 0.215 -0.431 

 p (2-tailed) 0.001 . 0.000 0.002 . 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 

 N 247 286 286 286 286 281 39 286 286 

Salinity Coefficient 0.490 0.383 1.000 -0.515 . 0.096 -0.107 -0.186 -0.731 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 . 0.107 0.515 0.002 0.000 

 N 247 286 286 286 286 281 39 286 286 

TN Coefficient -0.572 -0.184 -0.515 1.000 . -0.025 0.234 0.375 0.480 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.002 0.000 . . 0.672 0.152 0.000 0.000 

 N 247 286 286 292 292 287 39 292 292 

TP Coefficient . . . . . . . . . 

 p (2-tailed) . . . . . . . . . 

 N 247 286 286 292 292 287 39 292 292 

ChlA Coefficient 0.043 0.356 0.096 -0.025 . 1.000 -0.027 0.185 0.036 

 p (2-tailed) 0.508 0.000 0.107 0.672 . . 0.869 0.002 0.541 

 N 242 281 281 287 287 287 39 287 287 

Coliform Coefficient 0.347 -0.452 -0.107 0.234 . -0.027 1.000 0.002 0.196 

 p (2-tailed) 0.056 0.004 0.515 0.152 . 0.869 . 0.992 0.233 

 N 31 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.481 0.215 -0.186 0.375 . 0.185 0.002 1.000 0.087 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 . 0.002 0.992 . 0.138 

 N 247 286 286 292 292 287 39 292 292 

Color Coefficient -0.516 -0.431 -0.731 0.480 . 0.036 0.196 0.087 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.541 0.233 0.138 . 

 N 247 286 286 292 292 287 39 292 292 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXXIII 

Table D.13: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in San Carlos Bay 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 0.175 0.198 -0.224 . -0.205 -0.294 -0.389 -0.286 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.003 0.001 0.000 . 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 283 279 282 243 259 225 274 274 274 

DO Coefficient 0.175 1.000 -0.078 -0.222 0.005 -0.085 -0.116 -0.177 -0.201 

 p (2-tailed) 0.003 . 0.044 0.000 0.917 0.068 0.044 0.000 0.000 

 N 279 666 664 460 505 463 302 527 525 

Salinity Coefficient 0.198 -0.078 1.000 -0.251 -0.072 -0.053 -0.057 0.130 -0.538 

 p (2-tailed) 0.001 0.044 . 0.000 0.105 0.252 0.322 0.003 0.000 

 N 282 664 669 462 507 465 304 529 527 

TN Coefficient -0.224 -0.222 -0.251 1.000 . 0.154 0.217 0.361 0.461 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 . . 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 243 460 462 467 458 410 276 462 461 

TP Coefficient . 0.005 -0.072 . 1.000 0.023 . -0.023 0.028 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.917 0.105 . . 0.624 . 0.604 0.524 

 N 259 505 507 458 512 451 292 511 509 

ChlA Coefficient -0.205 -0.085 -0.053 0.154 0.023 1.000 0.101 0.219 0.316 

 p (2-tailed) 0.002 0.068 0.252 0.002 0.624 . 0.106 0.000 0.000 

 N 225 463 465 410 451 469 257 468 467 

Coliform Coefficient -0.294 -0.116 -0.057 0.217 . 0.101 1.000 0.319 0.219 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.044 0.322 0.000 . 0.106 . 0.000 0.000 

 N 274 302 304 276 292 257 308 307 307 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.389 -0.177 0.130 0.361 -0.023 0.219 0.319 1.000 0.223 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.604 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 

 N 274 527 529 462 511 468 307 533 531 

Color Coefficient -0.286 -0.201 -0.538 0.461 0.028 0.316 0.219 0.223 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.524 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 

 N 274 525 527 461 509 467 307 531 531 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXXIV 

Table D.14: Spearman's rho correlation for selected variables in Estero Bay 

 Secchi DO Salinity TN TP ChlA Coliform Turbidity Color 

Secchi Coefficient 1.000 -0.206 -0.098 -0.051 . -0.157 0.265 -0.485 0.068 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.000 0.075 0.379 . 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.224 

 N 329 329 329 304 316 293 317 323 323 

DO Coefficient -0.206 1.000 0.103 -0.220 -0.013 -0.319 -0.247 -0.008 -0.387 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 . 0.017 0.000 0.777 0.000 0.000 0.862 0.000 

 N 329 541 537 489 508 463 516 523 523 

Salinity Coefficient -0.098 0.103 1.000 -0.356 0.024 -0.143 -0.506 0.202 -0.639 

 p (2-tailed) 0.075 0.017 . 0.000 0.594 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 329 537 541 491 509 465 517 524 524 

TN Coefficient -0.051 -0.220 -0.356 1.000 0.022 0.236 0.248 0.177 0.493 

 p (2-tailed) 0.379 0.000 0.000 . 0.628 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

 N 304 489 491 493 493 438 486 493 493 

TP Coefficient . -0.013 0.024 0.022 1.000 . . 0.023 0.015 

 p (2-tailed) . 0.777 0.594 0.628 . . . 0.603 0.727 

 N 316 508 509 493 512 457 505 512 512 

ChlA Coefficient -0.157 -0.319 -0.143 0.236 . 1.000 0.158 0.199 0.239 

 p (2-tailed) 0.007 0.000 0.002 0.000 . . 0.001 0.000 0.000 

 N 293 463 465 438 457 467 461 467 467 

Coliform Coefficient 0.265 -0.247 -0.506 0.248 . 0.158 1.000 -0.028 0.435 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.001 . 0.528 0.000 

 N 317 516 517 486 505 461 520 520 520 

Turbidity Coefficient -0.485 -0.008 0.202 0.177 0.023 0.199 -0.028 1.000 0.096 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.862 0.000 0.000 0.603 0.000 0.528 . 0.027 

 N 323 523 524 493 512 467 520 527 527 

Color Coefficient 0.068 -0.387 -0.639 0.493 0.015 0.239 0.435 0.096 1.000 

 p (2-tailed) 0.224 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.727 0.000 0.000 0.027 . 

 N 323 523 524 493 512 467 520 527 527 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix D Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXXV 

Table D.15: Spearman's rho correlation for seagrass variables versus water clarity medians (1 month lag). 

 CHLA_median TURB_median COLOR_median 

Abundance Correlation Coefficient 0.390 -0.223 -0.065 

 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.265 0.485 0.840 

 N 10 12 12 

Shoots per m2 Correlation Coefficient 0.143 -0.536 -0.393 

 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.760 0.215 0.383 

 N 7 7 7 

Blade Len. Ave. Correlation Coefficient 0.349 -0.364 -0.200 

 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.358 0.270 0.555 

 N 9 11 11 

Corrected Depth Correlation Coefficient -0.523 -0.462 0.375 

 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.121 0.131 0.230 

 N 10 12 12 

Total Abundance Correlation Coefficient 0.651 0.222 -0.272 

 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.113 0.597 0.515 

 N 7 8 8 

Deep Edge Correlation Coefficient . . . 

 Sig. (2-tailed) . . . 

 N 0 0 0 
Appendix E Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXXVI 

Appendix E: Rainfall Relationships 

 Page 

Table E.1: Spearman's rho correlation for rainfall vs. selected variables for the entire 

study region and duration _________________________________ LXXXIV 

Table E.1: Spearman's rho correlation for rainfall for the entire region and individual regions for the duration of the study 
Appendix E Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXXVII 

 Secchi pH Salinity TN TP Chl a Coliform Turbidity Color 

ALL Coefficient -0.097 -0.032 -0.164 0.256 0.154 0.224 -0.026 0.043 0.275 

 p (2-tailed) 0.005 0.345 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.464 0.189 0.000 

 N 854 900 907 896 905 858 774 914 914 

Lemon Bay Coefficient -0.153 0.171 -0.312 0.266 0.173 0.517 -0.042 -0.065 0.439 

 p (2-tailed) 0.199 0.152 0.008 0.024 0.146 0.000 0.732 0.589 0.000 

 N 72 72 72 72 72 72 70 72 72 

Tidal Myakka Coefficient -0.279 -0.135 -0.277 0.170 0.222 0.055 0.176 0.214 0.254 

 p (2-tailed) 0.031 0.258 0.018 0.157 0.061 0.646 0.153 0.071 0.031 

 N 60 72 72 71 72 72 67 72 72 

Tidal Peace Coefficient -0.015 -0.017 -0.210 0.295 0.251 0.078 -0.034 0.061 0.190 

 p (2-tailed) 0.902 0.884 0.077 0.012 0.033 0.515 0.782 0.611 0.110 

 N 72 72 72 72 72 72 70 72 72 

West Wall** Coefficient -0.493 -0.251 -0.669 0.344 0.328 0.269 . 0.126 0.580 

 p (2-tailed) 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.023 . 0.294 0.000 

 N 56 56 57 72 72 72 1 72 72 

East Wall*** Coefficient -0.175 -0.012 -0.205 0.344 0.143 0.198 -0.127 0.175 0.267 

 p (2-tailed) 0.181 0.921 0.084 0.003 0.230 0.098 0.306 0.141 0.023 

 N 60 72 72 72 72 71 67 72 72 

Gasparilla/Cape Haze* Coefficient -0.137 0.184 -0.092 0.178 0.113 0.190 -0.241 0.137 0.350 

p (2-tailed) 0.268 0.122 0.440 0.135 0.344 0.109 0.045 0.251 0.003 

 N 67 72 72 72 72 72 70 72 72 

Lower Charlotte Harbor* Coefficient 0.055 0.049 -0.210 0.410 0.211 0.381 -0.226 -0.179 0.265 

 p (2-tailed) 0.653 0.681 0.077 0.000 0.080 0.001 0.060 0.136 0.026 

 N 70 72 72 69 70 68 70 71 71 

Pine Island Sound‡ Coefficient 0.216 0.182 -0.206 0.459 0.195 0.545 -0.119 -0.007 0.299 

 p (2-tailed) 0.077 0.125 0.082 0.000 0.111 0.000 0.331 0.957 0.012 

 N 68 72 72 68 68 60 69 70 70 

Matlacha Pass‡ Coefficient -0.189 -0.030 -0.470 0.276 0.356 0.209 0.056 0.198 0.456 

 p (2-tailed) 0.123 0.800 0.000 0.021 0.003 0.113 0.645 0.099 0.000 

 N 68 72 72 70 70 59 70 71 71 

Tidal Caloosahatchee‡‡ Coefficient -0.219 -0.319 -0.533 0.334 0.502 0.060 0.014 -0.071 0.499 

 p (2-tailed) 0.098 0.020 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.651 0.967 0.590 0.000 

 N 58 53 59 60 60 59 11 60 60 

San Carlos Bay‡‡ Coefficient -0.001 -0.154 -0.161 0.248 0.324 0.089 -0.058 0.095 0.195 

 p (2-tailed) 0.994 0.199 0.180 0.041 0.007 0.478 0.639 0.436 0.106 

N 71 71 71 68 69 66 69 70 70 

Estero Bay Coefficient 0.067 0.124 -0.213 0.247 0.111 0.356 0.077 -0.294 0.310 

 p (2-tailed) 0.580 0.300 0.073 0.042 0.363 0.006 0.525 0.014 0.009 

N 71 72 72 68 69 58 70 70 70 

* Average annual rainfall for Charlotte Harbor 

** Average annual rainfall for Charlotte Harbor + Myakka 

*** Average annual rainfall for Charlotte Harbor + Tidal Peace 

‡ Average annual rainfall for Charlotte Harbor + Tidal Caloosahatchee 

‡‡ Average annual rainfall for Tidal Caloosahatchee 

Bold values significant at the 0.05 level 
Appendix F Final Program Comparisons Report 2009 

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

LXXXVIII