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

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, 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 stat us and trends result s for the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN from 2001 through 2007 across the si x Charlotte Harbor and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves, and surrounding regions. Eleven water quality parameters were analyzed across twelve estuary regions ch aracterized by relatively homogenous hydrologic conditions. In addition, another five parameters were measured in the CCHMN. Combined, these water quality param eters reflect health of the estuaries and affect the habitats located there, including factors limiting light availability to seagrasses. The Charlotte Harbor est uaries region extends from Venice south to Bonita Springs, encompassing over 900 km 2 

# (~225,000 acres) of diverse submerged habitats. North to south, the six Florida Aquatic Pres erves 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 findi ngs 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 highli ght parameters and region s of concern. The water quality parameters evaluat ed 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 com pared 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 conduct ed to aid in the understanding of water quality conditions and trends acro ss the region. Summaries of status and trend results for each parameter and est uary region are presented. Across the region, results varied by par ameter 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 ot her State of Florida cr iteria. Significant decreasing trends in pH, chlorophyll a , fecal bacteria and increases in DO concentrations were observed for many es tuaries from 2001 through 2007. Significant relationships between light-limiting factor s and clarity, as m easured by both Secchi depth and K d 

# , were observed. However, the per cent contribution of each parameter varied across the region and between the rain y and dry seasons. Strong relationships between salinity and many other par ameters including color, nu trients and bacteria were also observed and quantified. Across the twelve estuary regions analyz ed in this report, water quality in the tidal portions of the major tributaries wa s below average compar ed to other estuary regions within the Charlotte Ha rbor area. In addition, sa linities, pH and lower water clarity, as measured by both K d 

# and Secchi depth, as well as higher color and TN values were observed in these regions. Hig her 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, decr easing 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 ac ross the Charlotte Harbor Estuary. CHEVWQMN and CCHMN results are used to c haracterize the relationships between water quality parameters and factors affecting estuarine health, including changes in freshwater inflows and influences from wa tershed land uses. The primary use of the dataset is to guide resource management goals fo r the six Aquatic Preserves in order to preserve the health of the system. These three programs are valued by res ource managers in the region. The data are used to guide policy and management decis ions, 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 si x Aquatic Preserves to aid in these purposes. CHAP and EBAP will make modifications an d improvements to their programs as they deem necessary.

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection iv 

# Table of Contents Section Pa ge I. Introduc tion ......................................................................................................... 3 II. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuar ies Regi on .................................... 6 III. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Network (CHE VWQMN) ........................................... 8 IV. Description of the Coastal Char lotte Harbor Monitoring Network (CCHMN) .......................................................................................................... 10 V. Description of the Seagrass Transect Monitoring Program (STMP) and Methods .......................................................................................................... 12 VI. Methods Used by Both the CHEVWQM N & CCHM N ...................................... 14 A. Introduc tion .............................................................................................. 14 B. Quality Assura nce Met hods .................................................................... 15 C. Field Me thods ........................................................................................... 16 D. Laboratory Methods ................................................................................. 18 E. Data Preparation and Exploratory An alysis .......................................... 19 F. Methods Used to Determi ne Water Qualit y Status ................................ 21 G. Analysis Methods Used to Determine Trends ....................................... 23 H. Methods Used to Determine Re lationships between Water Quality Paramete rs ............................................................................................... 26 VII. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN: 2001 – 2007 ....................................................................................... 27 A. Introduc tion .............................................................................................. 27 B. Secchi depth ............................................................................................. 29 C. Temper ature ............................................................................................. 38 D. Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................... 46 E. pH... .......................................................................................................... 55 F. Salin ity ...................................................................................................... 64 G. Total Ni trogen ........................................................................................... 72 H. Total Phosphorus ..................................................................................... 81 I. Chlorophyll a ............................................................................................ 88 J. Fecal Colifo rm Bacter ia ........................................................................... 97 K. Turbidity .................................................................................................. 104 L. Colo r ........................................................................................................ 112 VIII. Results of Water Quality Relationships within the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN ........................................................................................................ 120 A. Introduc tion ............................................................................................ 120 B. Relationship between Rainfall and Selected Pa rameters ................... 121 C. Relationship between Salinity and Selected Pa rameters ................... 123 D. Nutrient and Chlorophyll a Relationshi ps ............................................ 127 IX. Segmentation Scheme fo r the CCHMN & CH EVWQMN ............................... 131

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

v 

# Table of Contents, cont.

Section Pa ge X. Summaries of Status and Trends Results for Each Estuary Region Based on Both the CCHMN & CHEVW QMN ................................................. 134 A. Introduc tion ............................................................................................ 134 B. Lemon Bay and its Basins .................................................................... 141 C. Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Har bor and Cape Haze and Their Associated Basins ................................................................................. 141 D. Pine Island Sound, Matlacha P ass, San Carlos Bay and Tidal Caloosahatchee and Their Associated B asins .................................... 155 E. Estero Bay and Its Associated Basin ................................................... 165 XI. Conclu sions .................................................................................................... 169 XII. Refere nces ...................................................................................................... 171

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection vi 

# List of Figures and Tables in Text

Section P age I. Introduction Figure 1.1 Fixed monitoring sites and A quatic Preserves of the Charlotte Harbor r egion ............................................................................................... 2 II. Description of the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Region Figure 2.1: Aquatic Preserves & wate rshed basins for the Charlotte Harbor region ........................................................................................................... 5 Table 2.1: .. Florida Aquatic Preserve s 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 Summa ry ............................................................. 17 Table 6.2: Summary of values reported as the minimum detection limit (MDL) ......................................................................................................... 19 Table 6.3: Description of regulat ions 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 Se cchi depth results for each aquatic Preserve ..................................................................................................... 25 VII. Water Quality Status and Trends Results for the CHEVWQMN & CCHMN Table 7.1: Average annual rain fall (m) by wate rshed regi on ..................... 28 Figure 7.1: Average annual ra infall by waters hed region .......................... 28 Table 7.2: CHEVWQMN summary and stat us 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 re gion ............................................................................................ 32 Figure 7.2: CHEVWQMN Secchi depth (m) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 7.3: CCHMN Secchi depth (m) box plot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 7.4: CHEVWQMN seasonal Secchi depth (m) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 34 Figure 7.5: CCHMN seasonal Secchi depth (m) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 34 Figure 7.6: CHEVWQMN time series pl ot of Secchi depth (m) for 2001 through 2007 .............................................................................................. 35 Figure 7.7: CCHMN time series pl ot of Secchi depth (m) for 2001 through 2007 .......................................................................................................... 36 Table 7.4: CHEVWQMN Secchi depth (m) trend result s ............................ 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 re gion ............................................................................................ 40

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection vii 

# List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont.

Section P age Figure 7.8: CHEVWQMN tem perature (°C) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 40 Figure 7.9: CHEVWQMN seasonal temperat ure (°C) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 41 Figure 7.10: CCHMN temperature (°C) box plot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 7.11: CCHMN seasonal temperatur e (°C) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 42 Figure 7.12: CHEVWQMN time series pl ot of temperatur e (°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 temperat ure (°C) trend result s ............................ 45 Table 7.8: CCHMN temperatur e (°C) trend result s..................................... 45 Table 7.9: CHEVWQMN summary and st atus of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) results for eac h estuar y .............................................................................. 49 Table 7.10: CCHMN summary and status of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) results for each es tuary ......................................................................................... 49 Figure 7.14: CHEVWQMN dissolved oxyg en (mg/L) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 50 Figure 7.15: CHEVWQMN seasonal dissolv ed oxygen (mg/L) boxplot results for each estuar y regi on .............................................................................. 50 Figure 7.16: CCHMN dissolved oxygen (mg/L) boxplot re sults for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 51 Figure 7.17: CCHMN seasonal dissolved oxygen (mg/L) boxplot results for each estuary region .................................................................................... 51 Figure 7.18: CHEVWQMN time series pl ot 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 ox ygen (mg/L) tren d results .............. 54 Table 7.12: CCHMN dissolved o xygen (mg/L) trend results ...................... 54 Table 7.13: CHEVWQMN summary and stat us of pH results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 57 Table 7.14: CCHMN summary and status of pH results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 58 Figure 7.20: CHEVWQMN pH boxplot re sults for each estuary region ...... 58 Figure 7.21: CHEVWQMN seasonal pH boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 59 Figure 7.22: CCHMN pH boxplot resu lts for each es tuary r egion............... 59 Figure 7.23: CCHMN seasonal pH boxpl ot 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 P age Figure 7.25: CCHMN time series pl ot of pH for 2001 through 2007 ........... 62 Table 7.15: CHEVWQMN pH trend re sults ................................................ 63 Table 7.16: CHEVWQMN pH trend re sults ................................................ 63 Table 7.17: CHEVWQMN summary and stat us of salinity (psu) results for each est uary .............................................................................................. 66 Table 7.18: CCHMN summary and status of salinity (psu) results for each estuar y ....................................................................................................... 66 Figure 7.26: CHEVWQMN salinity (psu) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 67 Figure 7.27: CHEVWQMN seasonal salini ty (psu) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 67 Figure 7.28: CCHMN salinity (psu) boxplot results for each estuary region 68 Figure 7.29: CCHMN seasonal salinity (p su) 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 salinit y (psu) trend result s ................................. 71 Table 7.20: CCHMN salinity (psu) trend re sults ......................................... 71 Table 7.21: CHEVWQMN summary and stat us of total nitrogen (ppm) results for each estuar y 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) box plot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 75 Figure 7.33: CHEVWQMN seasonal TN (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 76 Figure 7.34: CCHMN TN (ppm) boxplo t 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 result s .............................. 80 Table 7.24: CHEVWQMN summary and stat us of TP (ppm) results for each estuar y ....................................................................................................... 83 Table 7.25: CCHMN summary and status of TP (ppm) results for each estuar y ....................................................................................................... 83 Figure 7.38: CHEVWQMN TP (ppm) box plot 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 P age Figure 7.39: CHEVWQMN seasonal TP (ppm) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 84 Figure 7.40: CCHMN TP (ppm) boxplo t 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 pl ot 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 ( μ g/L) results for each estuar y regi on .............................................................................. 91 Table 7.27: CCHMN summary an d status of chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) results for each estuary region .................................................................................... 91 Figure 7.44: CHEVWQMN Chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 92 Figure 7.45: CHEVWQMN seasonal chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) boxplot results for each estuary region .................................................................................... 92 Figure 7.46: CCHMN Chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) boxplot results for each estuary region ......................................................................................................... 93 Figure 7.47: CCHMN seasonal chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) boxplot results for each estuary re gion ............................................................................................ 93 Figure 7.48: CHEVWQMN time se ries plot of chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) for 2001 through 2007 .............................................................................................. 94 Figure 7.49: CCHMN time seri es plot of chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) for 2001 through 2007 .......................................................................................................... 95 Table 7.28: CCHMN chlorophyll a ( μ g/L) trend result s ............................... 96 Table 7.29: CHEVWQMN summary and st atus of fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) results for each estuary region ............................................... 99 Table 7.30: CCHMN summary and stat us of fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) results for each estuary region ............................................... 99 Figure 7.50: CHEVWQMN fecal coliform bac teria (cfu/100mL) boxplot results for each es tuar y region ............................................................................ 100 Figure 7.51: CHEVWQMN seasonal feca l coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) boxplot results for each estuary regi on .................................................... 100 Figure 7.52: CCHMN fecal coliform bacteri a (cfu/100mL) boxplot results for each estuary region .................................................................................. 101 Figure 7.53: CCHMN seasonal fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) boxplot results for each es tuary regi on ................................................................. 101 Figure 7.54: CHEVWQMN time series plot of fecal coliform bacteria (cfu/100mL) for 2001 through 200 7 .......................................................... 102 Table 7.31: CHEVWQMN fecal colifo rm 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 P age 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 regi on .......................................................................................... 106 Figure 7.55: CHEVWQMN turbidity (NTU) boxplot results for each estuary region ....................................................................................................... 107 Figure 7.56: CHEVWQMN seasonal turbid ity (NTU) boxplot results for each estuary regi on .......................................................................................... 107 Figure 7.57: CCHMN turbidity (NTU) box plot results for each estuary region ....................................................................................................... 108 Figure 7.58: CCHMN seasonal turbidity (NTU) boxplot results for each estuary regi on .......................................................................................... 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 re sults .................................... 111 Table 7.36: CHEVWQMN summary and stat us of color (PCU) results for each estuary region .................................................................................. 114 Table 7.37: CCHMN summary and status of color (PCU) results for each estuary regi on .......................................................................................... 114 Figure 7.61: CHEVWQMN color (PCU) boxplot results for each estuary region ....................................................................................................... 115 Figure 7.62: CHEVWQMN seasonal colo r (PCU) boxplot results for each estuary regi on .......................................................................................... 115 Figure 7.63: CCHMN color (PCU) boxpl ot 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 re sults ................................ 119 Table 7.39: CHEVWQMN color (PCU) trend re sults ................................ 119 VIII. Results of Water Quality Rela tionships 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 to tal nitrogen as predicted by salinity .... 125 Figure 8.4: Scatterplot results of tu rbidity as predicted by salinity ............ 126 Figure 8.5: Scatterplot results of fe cal coliform bacteria as predicted by

# Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection xi 

# List of Figures and Tables in Text, cont.

Section P age 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 re sults ........................................ 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 Wa tershed Population De nsities/Urban Areas ........................................................................................................ 135 Figure 10.2: Venice Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewat er Sites ............. 138 Figure 10.3: Lemon Bay Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites ...... 139 Table 10.1: Status and trends summary for Lem on Bay .......................... 140 Figure 10.4: Myakka Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewat er Sites ............ 146 Table 10.2: Status and trends su mmary for Tidal Myakka ....................... 147 Figure 10.5: Peace River Basin NPD ES Sites and Wastewater Sites..... 148 Table 10.3: Status and trends su mmary for Tidal Peace ......................... 149 Table 10.4: Status and trends summary for We st Wall ............................ 150 Table 10.5: Status and trends su mmary for East Wall ............................. 150 Figure 10.6: Charlotte Harbor Ba sin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites ........................................................................................................ 152 Table 10.6: Status and trends summa ry for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze ........................................................................................................ 153 Table 10.7: Status and trends summary for Lower Charlotte Harbor ....... 154 Figure 10.7: Pine Island Basin NPDE S Sites and Wastewater Sites ...... 159 Table 10.8: Status and trends summa ry for Pine Island Sound ............... 160 Table 10.9: Status and trends su mmary for Matl acha Pass ..................... 161 Table 10.10: Status and trends su mmary for San Ca rlos Bay ................. 162 Figure 10.8: Lower Caloosah atchee Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewater Sites ..................................................................................... 163 Table 10.11: Status and trends summa ry for Tidal Caloosahatchee ........ 164 Figure 10.9: Estero Basin NPDES Sites and Wastewat er Sites .............. 167 Table 10.12: Status and trends summary for Este ro 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 Nu merical 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 Volunt eer 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 Laborator y Accreditation Conference NOAA: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NO x 

# : 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 Environm ental 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 Char lotte 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 descri be water quality conditions throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuaries region of southw est 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 r egions. Water quality data used in the analyses were collected by the Charlotte Ha rbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Network (CHEVWQMN), the Charlo tte Harbor National Estuary Program’s (CHNEP) Coastal Charlotte Harbor Moni toring Network (CCHMN), and the southwest Florida Seagrass Transect Monitoring Pr ogram (STMP) from 2001 through 2007. The Charlotte Harbor est uaries region extends from Venice south to Bonita Springs, encompassing over 900 km 2 

# (~225,000 acres) of diverse submerged habitats (Fig. 1.1). North to south, the six Florida Aquatic Preserve s 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 Pr eserve Program is to preserve Florida's submerged resources in their essentially nat ural condition for future generations. The primary activities of the Aquatic Preser ve Program are resource monitoring and management, and education and outreac h. 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 findi ngs 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 highli ght parameters and region s of concern. The report comprises descriptions of the Charlotte Harbor estuaries regions (Section II), the CHEVWQMN, CCHMN and STMP programs (Secti ons III - V), and the methods used (Section VI). The seven-year trends for eac h parameter, as well as comparisons of the CCHMN and CHEVWQMN are given in Secti on VII, followed by the segmentation scheme (Section VIII) and relationships bet ween the parameters in Section IX. Summaries of water quality and management c onsiderations 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 res ource managers in the region. The data are used to guide policy and management decis ions, 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 si x 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 an d 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 estuar ies region (Figure 1.1), loca ted 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 km 2 

# (~250,000 acres) of coastal and estuarine h abitats. The greater Charlotte Harbor watershed is approximately 16,600 km 2 

# (~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 Riv er in Lake Hancock, and the Franklin Locks on the Caloosahatchee River downstrea m to the Charlotte Harbor estuaries (Figure 2.1). The Charlotte Harbor est uaries are located within three counties: Sarasota, Charlotte and Lee. The watershed also includes two FDEP Districts (South and Southwest) and two Water Management Distr icts (South [SFWMD] and Southwest [SWFWMD]). Additionally, the region is also part of the CHN EP and the National Wildlife Refuge System (F igure 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 My akka 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 t he estuary through a comp lex of passes, from Stump Pass south to Big Hickory Pass. Est uarine waters mix with fluvial inputs from three major rivers - Myakka, Peace and Calo osahatchee Rivers. In addition to the larger rivers, there are numer ous smaller tributaries within the estuarine complex. The water exchange between these areas creates lar ge variations in water quality conditions around the region, seas onally 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 est uary are import ant 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 2 005). 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 pa stimes that depend on the health of the estuary and its wa ter quality. Along with recreational and commercial uses of the estuary, water quality and quantity within the Charlotte Harbor estuar ies depend on land use and activities within the adjacent basins. The seve rity 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 distanc e to the estuary vary fo r each sub-basin of the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed. Sub- basin uses and rainfall/runoff conditions throughout the watershed influence the downstr eam 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 obtai n baseline resource information and to address citizens' concerns for the health of local estuaries. Or iginally, 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 gr ants from the CHNEP to expand and maintain the monitoring program region-wide and to incl ude laboratory analyses. The monitoring program is administered th rough the CHAP office in Punta Gorda, Florida. The primary purpose of t he CHEVWQMN is to collect consistent, technically sound water quality data throughout the Charlo tte Harbor estuaries region. The CHEVWQMN was designed to characterize baseline water quality conditions throughout the region. The details of CHE VWQMN methods are summarized in Section VI of this report. The six specific objecti ves of the CHEVWQMN are: • Describe baseline water quality condition s throughout the six aquatic preserves • Identify the most critical, regional water quality locations, parameters and trends relative to estuarine health • Complement CHAP seagrass and regional water quality monitoring program results in order to define aquatic preserve resource management needs • Enhance public understanding and stew ardship of the aquatic preserves • Improve aquatic preserves managers’ understanding of citizen concerns regarding local estuaries • Encourage the development of pa rtnerships between agencies to conduct uniform water monitoring throughout the region. 

# B. Sampling Design

Each month, on the first Monday within tw o 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 th e 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 samp ling time, surface water samples were collected, as well as field measurements and observations made for ten physical and chemical parameters: wind speed and direct ion, wave height, tide stage, water depth, Secchi depth, water temper ature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO) and salinity. Water samples were collected for seven additiona l 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), tota l Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate/nitrite (NO x 

# ), and fecal coliform bacteria. To assist with interpreting the results and id entifying resource conditions for each estuary, sampling sites were grouped into twel ve 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 re latively homogeneous hydrologic regions of the estuary. Grouping the CHEVW QMN 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 CHEVW QMN data were conducted using Microsoft Access and Excel and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) following specific data management criteria described in Sect ion.... 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 moni tors 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 ar e 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 ar e identified. For quality assurance purposes, dupl icate 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 Monitori ng 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 Apr il 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 addi tional 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, temp erature, salinit y, specific conductance, DO, pH, color, turb idity, TSS, TO C, chlorophyll a , TN, TKN, ammonia, NO x 

# , 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. Theref ore, 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 diffe rent 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 co mparability of the water quality data collected within this network with the fi sheries data collected by FMRI-Fisheries Independent Monitoring (FIM) program in th e future. The grid system and regional delineations are shown in Figure .... Single samples for water quality parameter s 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 sa mple 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. fo r 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 attenuati on 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 opt imal. The details of CCHMN methods are summarized in Section VI of this report. 

# C. Quality Assurance Methods

The program manager for t he 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 CC HMN meetings in order to resolve outstanding issues that arose from the audi ts. All laboratories involved in the CCHMN follow all applicable federal and state gui delines for quality assurance and quality control of water quality analyses, including the use of appropriate duplicate samples and equipment blanks. The l aboratories also participate in quarterly inter-laboratory splitsample exercises with the Southwest Flor ida Regional Ambient Monitoring Program (RAMP) in order to help ensure region- wide data comparability (CHNEP 2004). Additional quality assurance meas ures 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 sust aining the diversity and health of marine environments. SAV, incl uding seagrasses, provide primary food sources as well as shelter, spawning and nur sery 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 chlo rophyll from phytoplankton. Epiphytic growth on the seagrass blades also reduces li ght available for growth. Together, these factors largely regulate which SAV species gr ow 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 zonati on relative to depth and water quality. Therefore, CHAP, EB AP and the FDEP South District sample seagrasses along fixed transects located throughout the estuary r egions. 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 poi nt on shore is located using previous flagging tape, PVC stake and/or known GPS c oordinates. The shallow, shoreward point for the transect is then found by measuring the s pecified distance (called the “offset”) and direction from the referenc e point and/or using GPS coor dinates for the zero point PVC stake. The zero point of each trans ect is determined when the transect is first established. This point becomes the bas eline, shoreward edge of seagrass growth. From the zero point, a compass heading, poi nt 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 dire ction of travel from the fl agging to the zero point (i.e. perpendicular, etc.). Each transect is then sa mpled 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 recor ded 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 pili ngs. 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 est ablished 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, res pectively. On the data sheet each quadrat is denoted as being at the beginning, middl e or end of the seagrass bed. At each quadrat, water depth, sediment type, specie s 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 determi ned for each species, as well as for the quadrat as a whole, using t he 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 spec ies. Blade lengths should be randomly picked and measured from the begi nning of the base to the ti p. 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, sedim ent types and tide and water chemistry techniques. Abundance estimates must be pr acticed 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, technicall y sound water quality data, both the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN adhere to strict m onitoring protocols. The quality assurance, field and laboratory methods are described in detail in the CHEVWQMN Comprehensive Quality Assurance Proj ect Plan (FDEP 1997, Updated 1999), CHNEP standard operating procedures (SOPs; CHN EP 2004), and in FDEP and EPA SOPs, and summarized here. In addition, data pr eparation 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 in to the federal STORET water quality data base, making them acce ssible nationwide. 

# B. Quality Assurance Methods
Consistent with the CHEVWQMN Qua lity 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. Spec ific quality assurance procedures include: • Duplicate and blank field samples are collected for laboratory analyzed parameters at 10% (or for one site per sample trip fo r 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 (N ELAC) certified laboratories. Beginning in 2003, FDEP required NELAC certification and laboratories were given 18 months to comply. Prior to that date laboratory analyses were conducted following APHA Standard Methods which became the basis for NELAC protocols. • Replicate and blank la boratory analyses are conduc ted on 10% of samples each month • Data are reviewed fo r 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 Assuranc e Project Plan, written field procedures are followed by the CHEVWQMN water moni tors, and are described in detail in the CHEVWQMN Field Methods Manual (1998, updat ed 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 mont hly sampling, field measurements are made for six parameters and water samples are coll ected for laboratory analyses of additional analytes from each site. Field pr ocedures used by both CHEVWQMN and CCHMN during monthly sampling events include: • Surface water "grab" samples are co llected 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 par ameters measured were in situ, including: water depth, water clarity, tem perature, pH, DO and salinity (see below for methods used by programs) • Surface water samples are collected in cl ean sample bottles (pre-acidified as needed) for laboratory analysis of seven par ameters, including: color, turbidity and chlorophyll a , 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, nitr ate, 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 μ E/cm 2 

# /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 po ssible, otherwise profiling at 0.2 m increments was used. From these th ree 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
C HEVWQM N Depth (m) Secchi depth (m) Temperature (deg C) DO (mg/l) pH Salinity (ppt)

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

Comments value 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 laborat ories 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 laborator y parameters are colle cted in the field for 10% of the CHEVWQMN sites and for each sampling trip within the CCHMN, and are then analyz ed in the laboratory. • Apparent color is measured in plati num cobalt units (PCU) and determined by visual comparison without filtration us ing the platinum cobalt method (APHA 2120 B and USEPA 110.2). • Turbidity is measured in Nephelometr ic units (NTU) using the Nephelometric method and is estimated by comparing the amount of light scattered through the sample to a reference standard under the same conditions (APHA 2130 B and USEPA 180.1). • Chlorophyll a is measured in μ g/l and determined spectrophotometrically without pheophytin correction (APHA SM 10200 H). Due to time and funding constraints, chlorophyll a analyses were not conducted from December 2001 through December 2002 fo r the CHEVWQMN. • Total phosphorus (TP) samp les are preserved with 5 N sulfuric acid in the field, then measured in ppm as the combi nation of orthophosphate, condensed phosphates and organically bound phosphates (USEPA 365.4 and APHA 4500 P-E).

• Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) samples are preserved with 1 N hydrochloric acid in the field, then measured in mg/L as the sum of organic nitrogen plus ammonia (USEPA 351.2 and APHA 4500-N org 

# B). • Nitrate and nitrite (NO x 

# ) samples are preserved in the field with 1 N hydrochloric acid, then measured collectively in ppm (USEPA 353.2 and APHA 4500-NO 3 

# B ). 

# • Total nitrogen (TN) was calculated as the sum of total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrate plus nitrite values. • Fecal coliform bacteria values were meas ured 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 elevat ed temperature (APHA 9222 D).

# Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistica l 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 anal yses have been completed according to quality assurance procedures, CHEVWQMN, CCHMN, and seagrass (STMP) data are entered into databases. For th is 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 th rough May and the rainy seasons were June through October (Montgomery 2005). Average annual rainfall data were collected for the region using DBHYDRO from South Fl orida Water Management District (SFWMD 2007) and from the USGS Drainage Basin To tal Summaries provided by Southwest Florida Water Management District (S WFWMD 2007). Data preparation and exploratory analyses were conducted to: 1) scr een for errors 2) dete rmine the suitability for statistical applications and 3) group sites in to 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 t he 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 exam ple pH greater t han 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 recogniz ed 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 di stribution of the data was assessed to determine the need to use parametric or nonpar ametric statistical methods. Visual assessment of histograms and quantitative a ssessment of skewness were conducted. Similar to patterns found in other water qua lity datasets, multiple sampling levels (by estuary region, season, year etc.) exhibited non-normal distri butions. Because the data were not normally distributed and there were large outlying values, nonparametric statistics were used to make comparisons between groups, quantify relationships between variables, and estimate trends. In general, nonparamet ric tests are less affected by outlying values, normal distribut ion violations, and minimal censoring of laboratory results. Following adjustments to the MDLs and evaluation of data distribution, the CHEVWQMN, CCHMN, and STMP sampling sites were grouped into twelve estuary Parameter TKN (ppm) NOX (ppm) TP (ppm) ChlA ( μ g/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 Statistica l 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 re sults 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 inter agency CCHMN established by the CHNEP. The CCHMN hydrologic strata were developed using the best available information and professional judgment of sci entists throughout the Charlotte Harbor estuaries. The twelve estuary regions used for this report we re chosen to most accurately represent spatial relationships between biological and physical parameters and watershed influences for each estuary, as well as refl ect resource management jurisdictions for each aquatic preserve. The regions are: Le mon Bay, Tidal Myakka River, Tidal Peace River, the West Wall and East Wall region s 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 c onditions within each estuary region and reinforce estuary region delineations, an exploratory k-means cluster analysis was conducted using SPSS. The twelve estuar y regions include sites from six aquatic preserves, as shown in Figure 6.1.

# Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistica l 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 qua lity 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 sampl ed most often for both the CCHMN and CHEVWQN. The parameters are: Secchi dept h (SD), temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, salinity, TN, TP, chlorophyll a (Chl a ), fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity (Turb) and color (colored dissolved organic matte r, CDOM). Water quality status was evaluated by comparing result s 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 medi an. 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 bet ween estuaries for a given parameter. Estuary results are compared to water qua lity classifications as described below and displayed in tables by parameter in the Results section.
2. Comparisons of Water Quality C onditions within the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries

The first method to be used to descri be regional water quality status based on program results will quantif y 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 AN OVA which compares differences between two or more groups. To quantify di fferences between individual estuaries, a post hoc comparison was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. The MannWhitney U test is a nonparametric versi on 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 plot s will be provided for a visual analysis of seasonal and regional comparisons. Bo x plot data tables are provided in the following sections with detailed resu lts 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 re sults to available Florida water quality criteria and standards. Florida Surface Water R egulations (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 Statistica l 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 criteri on. 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 Co nditions Between the CCHMN & CHEVWQMN
To estimate differences between program s within the entire region the KruskalWallis test will be used. To quantify differe nces 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 ana lyses will aid in ill uminating program lim itations and aid in modifying programs in order to better m anage the estuaries withi n the study area.
5. Comparisons of Water Clarity Co nditions 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. Fo r this study, Kruskal-Wallace tests will be conducted for the monthly median of the paramet ers one month prior to the STMP observations (based on design by Catherine Corbett; Note: this form of analysis coul d 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 back g round conditions Florida Surface Water Re g ulations 62-302.530 Class III Fresh and Marine

# Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistica l 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 nonparam etric test is used for its robustness to deviations from a normal distribution and outlying values. T he 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 seasonal ity across the time series. The test, developed by Hirsch, Slack and Smit h 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 ran ks the differences between seasonal data pairs to calculate the test statistic and variance which produces the correlation coefficient tau and respective significance value. For this report, a season was defined as one month. The test statistic (S) is t he sum of differences bet ween all months across the series, in which January is only compared to January, February to February, etc, for the study period. The test statistic is then standardized and divided by the standard deviation to estimate the correlation coeffici ent and two tailed significance value. When a significant trend (p<0.05) is detected, t he slope of the trend line is estimated. The trend slope is the median of all slopes of the monthly data pairs used to estimate the initial test statistic (S). For trend analysis of the data, the seasonal Kendall trend test will be conducted using the USGS, “Computer Program for t he 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 pa tterns in the data. These conditions may increase the possibility of Type I or Type II errors in the results. Prediction of the significance value of a trend depends on the absence of serial correlation in the time series (Helse l and Hirsch 2002). Serial correlation (or autocorrelation) is defined as the degree to which the previous result influences the subsequent result. Autocorrelation can ex ist both intra-annually as a seasonal type affect, and inter-annually as serial corre lation across the time series. When autocorrelation does exist, it is necessary to adjust the series for seasonal or interannual effects. To accurately determine aut ocorrelation, as a means to adjust the significance value of the trend, the dataset must contain at least ten years of data (Helsel and Hirsch 2002). Because only seve n years of data will be analyzed in this study, autocorrelation cannot be accurately quantified either seas onally 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 th is report as a preliminary indicator of

# Data Preparation, Exploratory Analysis and Statistica l Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 23 possible water quality trends, which will be r eevaluated following collection of three more years of data. Two additional considerations for inte rpreting trends in the results are the frequency of laboratory results reported as the MDL and the percent of Secchi depths observed as greater than tota l depth. The seasonal Kendall trend test is robust to censoring of data only if t he MDLs do not change during the study. In this study, the MDLs changed frequently for all laboratory par ameters, primarily as a function of changes in laboratories conducting the analyse s. Therefore, fo r trend analyses only, within this report all values reported as le ss 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 analysi s was conducted. Frequent observations, in which Secchi depth ex ceeds 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 par ameter. 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 relations hips and the time series plots provide a visual reference for long-term trends within the series. The seasonal Kendall trend test wa s 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 ( μ g/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 Statistica l 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% A ll 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 Statistica l Methods Final Program Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 25 

# H. Methods Used to Determine Re lationships between Water Quality Parameters

An additional analysis will be conducted to describe the relationships between water quality variables for each estuary colle ctively and for each season. Relationships between water quality variables were quant ified using both the Spearman’s rho correlation test and stepwise linear regressions. Spearman’s rho is a nonparametric correlation analysis that characterizes relation ships using ordered ranking of results. Reported statistics will include sample size, significance value and Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Evaluations of re lationships were conducted on selected parameters for the entir e study region and for each estuary. Results are included in tables and scatter plots in Sect ion 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 paramet ers that contribute significantly to changes in the dependent va riable are added to the regression equation. Addition of parameters into the regressi on model was set at p<0.05 and parameters were removed from the regression when p>0.10. Statistics reported include: F, R, R 2



# , R 2 

# adjusted, R 2 

# change, and SE.

# 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 wa ter quality status and trends results for the CHEVWQMN and CCHMN from 2001 through 2007. Thirteen parameters were analyzed for each estuary region an d are included in this section. Summary statistics and status results ar e provided in tables included in the sections for each parameter. Seasonal a nd spatial comparisons are included to describe significant differences bet ween estuaries and seasons for each parameter. Comparison result s 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 anal yses for the CHEVWQMN were conducted on the West Wall or Tidal Caloosahatchee, due to no CHEVWQMN sampling being conducted in those regions. Howe ver, analyses for these regions within the CCHMN are presented. To accurately interpret water quality status and trends results, consideration should be given to hydr ologic effects and watershed influences outside of the estuarine system . Specifically, land uses in the adjacent basins affect water quality conditions in each of t he 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 infl uence. Altering hydrologic regimes, such as incr easing channelizatio n and the amount of impervious surfaces within the watershed, as well as changes in discharges and withdrawals, impact water quality and estuar ine health within t he system, as well. Additionally, when interpreting water qua lity results, it is important to consider weather patterns which occu rred during the study period and their potential effects upon water quality. Incr eases in freshwater inflow can have various effects on water quality parameter s, including increasing the loads of dissolved organic matter, nutrients, pollu tants and sediments delivered to the system. As a result, large scale tempor al patterns in climate, and subsequently hydrological conditions, can have signi ficant impacts on the results presented within this report. Theref ore, the reader should k eep in mind larger scale influences, particularly climate and prec ipitation 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 th erefore are not included in this discussion. For seagrass summary statis tics, 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 e r a g e A n n u a l R a i n f a l l ( m )

? ?

? ? ?

?

? > > >

> >

>

> & & & & &

&

& $ $ $

$ $

$

$ H H H

H H

H

H 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 wate r 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 sout hwest Florida have shown that decreases in water clarity may result in dec reased seagrass abundance (e.g. EPA 1993). CHEVWQMN Secchi depth values may be affected by shallow sample depths at some sites and tide stages, as we ll as the early morning, low sunlight sampling time, whereas CCHMN Secchi depth measurements were typically taken during mid-day in open water. Ther efore, analyses of Secchi depth results were limited to sites and dates wher e water depth exceeded Secchi depth. When Secchi depth was great er than water depth, t he 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 phot osynthesis (Kirk 1983). As a result, Secchi depth should serve as an estimate of light available for photosynthetic growth, not the absolute quantit y or quality of light avail able. Results were not corrected for tidal stage or wind speed/direction.

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results
Secchi depth summary statistics and st atus results fr om the CHEVWQMN for 2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlotte Har bor 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 vari ed significantly between all estuary regions (p <0.05). The est uary 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 se ction of Upper Charlotte Harbor with median values of 0.8 m. Seasonally, Secchi depth varied signific antly (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 re sults 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 over view of censoring and criteria for trend analysis. Four estuary regions qualif ied for trend analyses: Tidal Peace, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. Of t hese, 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 m edian value of 1.1 m and a mean value of 1.3 m. Se cchi depth varied significantly between all estuary regions (p <0.05). The estuary r egion 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 signific antly (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 Ba y, Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace, East Wall, West Wall, Gasparilla Sound/C ape 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 statistica l 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 Pa ss and Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, with Lemon Bay, the East Wall and Lower Charlo tte Harbor being significantly lower. The percent difference between the two pr ograms ranged from -27% in Estero Bay for the CHEVWQMN, to 148% for the East Wall (CCHM N: CHEVWQMN). The highest Secchi depth values often occu rred at deeper sites, further offshore, and for the CCHMN. Secchi depth values we re 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 Se cchi depth values occurred at sites near Tidal Peace, Myakka and Caloosahatchee Ri vers. Due to trend analyses only being conducted for estuaries where a minimum of 50% of Secchi depth samples resulted in measurable values, only est uary 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, ch anges 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 dec reased water clarity and Secchi depth. CDOM, chlorophyll a , and turbidity levels can be influenced by various changes in the estuarine environment and watershed, in cluding: 1) fluvial inputs, such as the Peace, Myakka and Caloosahatchee Riv ers, as well as smaller tributaries (Doering and Chamberlain 1999, Doering et. al. 2006, McPherson and Miller 1990, McPherson et. al 1990); 2) resuspensi on of sediment or particulates from dredging and wind/wave action; and 3) r unoff 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 Se cchi 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 h i D e p t h ( m )



# Figure 7.2: Secchi depth Box plot re sults for each estuary region for the CHEVWQMN. Outliers and ex tremes 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 h i D e p t h ( m )



# Figure 7.3: Seasonal Secchi depth Box pl ot 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 h i D e p t h ( m )



# Figure 7.4: Secchi depth Box plot re sults 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 h i D e p t h ( m )



# Figure 7.5: Secchi depth Box plot re sults 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

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

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

1.00 2.00 3.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



## Date 1.00 2.00 3.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



## Date



# Figure 7.6: Time series plot of Secchi (m) for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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 h i D e p t h ( m )



### 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

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



### 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# 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 im portant properties in water (e.g. Stickney 1984; Colling 2006). It is a cont rolling 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 st age changes in many finfish and shellfish species. In general, temperature vari es 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 stratificati on due to increased freshwater inflows.

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results
Temperature summary statistics and status results fr om the CHEVWQMN for 2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlotte Har bor region are shown in Tables 7.5 and 7.7 and Figures 7.8, 7.9 and 7.12. Th roughout the study region and period, temperature ranged from 9.0 o 

# – 32.0 o 

# C, with a median value of 24.5 o 

# C and a mean value of 23.6 o 

# C. Temperature did not vary significantly between estuaries, with median values ranging from 23.8 o 

# - 25.0 o 

# C. In addition, since there are no temperature water quality criteria in the Charlotte Harbor area, no regulatory comparisons were made. Fo r region specific temperature summary statistic and status resu lts, see Appendix A. Dry season temperature values were significantly (p<0.05) lower than rainy season values in all ten estuary r egions and the region as a whole. For the entire region, the median dry season temperature was 21.0 o 

# C and the median rainy season value was 28 o 

# C. For a visual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.9, with detai led statistical resu lts in Appendix B. Adequate temperature sample sizes were collected, throughout the study region and period to conduct trend analyses fo r each estuary. No region showed any significant changes in temperature. For visual trend asse ssment, 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 8.7 o 

# – 35.9 o 

# C, with a median value of 25.4 o 

# C and a mean value of 24.8 o 

# C. Temperature varied signifi cantly between estuaries, with median values ranging from 24.0 o 

# – 26.2 o 

# C. In addition, since there are no temperature water quality criteria in t he 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 estuar y regions and the region as a whole. For the entire region, the median dr y season temperature was 21.7 o 

# C and the median rainy season value was 29.4 o 

# 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 regi on, period and by program s, temperature, did not vary greatly. Temperature was signi ficantly 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 t he only region that was not significantly lower (p=0.17). The percent differenc e between the two pr ograms ranged from - 3% in Estero Bay for the CCHMN, to 8% for Tidal Myakka (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The differences in temperature are most lik ely 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 temper ature (°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 temper ature (°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 e r a t u r e ( d e g . C )



# Figure 7.8: CHEVWQMN temperature box pl ot 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 e r a t u r e ( d e g . C )



# Figure 7.9: CHEVWQMN Seasonal temperat ure 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 e r a t u r e ( 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 e r a t u r e ( d e g . C )



# Figure 7.11: CCHMN Seasonal temperatur e 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 p e r a t u r e ( 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 p e r a t u r e ( de g. C )



### 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Te m p e r a t u r e ( de g. C )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Te m p e r a t u r e ( de g. C )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.12: Time series plot of te mperature (°C) for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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 p e r a t u r e ( de g. C )



### 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Te m p e r a t u r e ( de g. C )



### 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Te m p e r a t u r e ( de g. C )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Te m p e r a t u r e ( de g. C )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.13: Time series plot of te mperature (°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 si g nificant 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 fo r 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, howev er 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 photosynthes is 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 communi ty 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 bo ttom and surface water layers remain separated due to density differences asso ciated with salinity or temperature variations (e.g. Camp et al. 1998). Once stratifi ed, decreased oxygen in the lower layer occurs as a result of bent hic respiration and decomposition of organic material and a lack of mixing with surface waters. In Charlo tte Harbor, hypoxic conditions occur in deeper areas of U pper Charlotte Harbor due to summer stratification (Morrison, et al. 1998, Camp et. al. 1998).

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results
The DO concentrations summary stat istics and status results from the CHEVWQMN for 2001 - 2007 throughout the C harlotte 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 r egions, 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 si gnificantly higher in the dry season in all estuary regions. For a visual comparis on 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. Howe ver, samples with median values less than 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L for each est uary 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 report ed 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 concent rations 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 re gulatory 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 increa se ranging from less than 0.1 mg/L to approximately 0.2 mg/L per year, respecti vely. 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 stat istics and status results from the CCHMN for 2001 - 2007 throughout the Charlo tte 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 statisti c 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 si gnificantly higher in the dry season in all estuary regions. For a visual comparis on of seasonal results, see Figure 7.17, with detailed statistical results in Appendix B. As with the CHEVWQMN, CCHMN DO re sults 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 ar e 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 repor ted 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 t he 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L standards more often during the rainy season, with the exception of San Carl os 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 re gulatory criteria fo r 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 se ries plots are included in Figure 7.19, with detailed analysis resu lts in Table 7.12.

4. Discussion Throughout the study region, period and by programs, DO varied greatly. DO was significantly higher (p<0.05) fo r the CCHMN throughout t he 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 diffe rence between the two programs for DO ranged from ~6% in Matlacha Pass for t he 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 progr ams displayed some interesting results. Within the CHEVWQMN, Lemon Bay and Lower Charlo tte Harbor, as well as the entire region as a whole, demonstrated in creasing 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 reme mber 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 st andards of 5.0 and 4.0 mg/L. In Charlotte Harbor, lower DO val ues 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 ant hropogenic 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 m eans 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 di ssolved 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

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



# Figure 7.14: CHEVWQMN DO bo x 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

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



# Figure 7.15: CHEVWQMN seas onal 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

D i s s o l v e d O x y 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

D i s s o l v e d O x y 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 )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



## Date 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

D O ( m g / L )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



## Date



# Figure 7.18: Time series plot of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/point r epresents the monthl y 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 l v d. O x y g e n ( m g/ L )



### 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

D s l v d. O x y g e n ( m g/ L )



### 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

D s l v d. O x y g e n ( m g/ L )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

D s l v d. O x y g e n ( m g/ L )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.19: Time series plot of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) for 2001 through 2007 for the CCHMN. Each line/point represent s 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 qua lity that potentially affects many chemical processes is pH (Stickney 1984) . The pH of natural surface waters varies primarily with salinit y, 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 salinitie s depending on the mi xing of freshwater from rivers with salt water from oceans, therefore pH varies spatially, daily and seasonally within estuaries, generally rangi ng 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. Wri ght 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 agai nst 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 t he East Wall had the lowest median pH (7.8). For region-specific pH summary st atistics and status re sults, see Appendix A. The seasonal variation of pH fo r 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 t he 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 vis ual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.21, with detailed statistica l 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 th ree 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 analys is 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 dr y season for seven estuary regions: Tidal Peace, the East Wall, West Wall, Ma tlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay, Tidal Caloosahatchee and Estero Bay. For a vis ual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.23, with detailed statisti cal 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 se ries plots are included in Figure 7.25, with detailed analysis resu lts 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. T he 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 CHE VWQMN, and are possibly due to the method employed, since the lowest pH values would be expected around sunrise. Trend analyses for the two pr ograms displayed decreasing trends within different regions, in general. Howeve r, 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 fo r 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 source s, 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 resu lts 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 pl ot 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 regi on. 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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



## Date 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50

p H

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



## Date



# Figure 7.24: Time series plot of pH for 2001 through 2007 fo r 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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 6.00 7.00 8.00 pH

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# 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 m any 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 le ss than 1 to greater than 40 psu (Stickney 1984). Freshwater sources in estuaries include watershed runoff, direct fluvial input, and precipitation. During the rain y season, within the northern portion of Charlotte Harbor, vertical salinity strati fication 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 m any 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). A dditionally, 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 r egion, 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). Va riation in salinity over the entire study duration was greatest in Lemon Bay, Ti dal Peace and Estero Bay. Salinity variability from 2001 through 2007 was lowe st in Lower Charlotte Harbor and San Carlos Bay. For region specific su mmary 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 t he 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 co mparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.27, with detailed statistical resu lts given in Appendix B. From 2001 through 2007, salinity signific antly increased in Tidal Myakka at a rate of 0.95 psu per year. For vis ual trend assessment, ti me series plots are included in Figure 7.30, wit h 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), wher eas 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 t he 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 decr eased significantly within Pine Island Sound at a rate of approximatel y 2.2 psu per year. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are includ ed in Figure 7.31, with detailed analysis results given in Table 7.20.

4. Discussion Throughout the study regi on, period and by progr ams, salinity varied greatly. Salinity was significantly higher (p<0.05) for the CHEVWQMN throughout the entire region and study per iod. 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 differenc e in the remaining estuary regions. In addition, analyses by season across all r egions 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 erro r 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 hydrologi c regimes including changes in runoff patterns, hydrologic alterations (Sto ker 1992) and discharges and withdrawals from its tributaries (Cham berlain and Doering 1998). Disruptions in natural salinity regimes pose a risk to sessile or ganisms 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. Stok er 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 sa linity (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 a l i n i t y ( 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 a l i n i t y ( 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 a l i n i t y ( p s u )



# Figure 7.28: CCHMN salinity box plot resu lts 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 a l i n i t y ( p s u )



# Figure 7.29: CCHMN seasonal salinity box pl ot 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

Sa l i n i t y ( 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

Sa l i n i t y ( ps u )



### 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Sa l i n i t y ( ps u )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Sa l i n i t y ( ps u )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.30: Time series plot of salinity (psu) for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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

Sa l i n i t y ( ps u )



### 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

Sa l i n i t y ( ps u )



### 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

Sa l i n i t y ( ps u )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

Sa l i n i t y ( ps u )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# 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 estuari ne environments are nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus. Dissolved inorgan ic nitrogen primarily exists in estuarine systems in three forms; ammonia (NH 3 

# ), nitrite (NO 2 - 

# ) and nitrate (NO 3 - 

# ; Stickney 1984). However, the nitrogen cycl e 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 s ource 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 proxim ity of sources and sinks. For example, decreases in DO c oncentrations may inhibit the nitrification of ammonia and nitrite to nitrate, result ing in increased concentrations of nitrite and ammonia (EPA 1993). Nitrogen may be influenced by salinity concentrations as well, with observed decreas es 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 measur ed 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 st atus results are given in Table 7.21 and Figures 7.32, 7.33 and 7.36. Tota l 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 st atus results, see Appendix A. Total nitrogen varied seasonally throughout the region. Total nitrogen was significantly higher (p<0.05) during the ra iny 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 Figur e 7.33, with detailed statis tical 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, tr end 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 assessm ent, 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 stat us 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 ar ea, ranging from 0.01 to 10.1 ppm. For region specific summary statistic and st atus 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 gi ven in Appendix B. Trend analyses were not conducted for Pine Island Sound, San Carlos and Estero Bays TN due to over 50% of ni trate 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 C harlotte Harbor, Matlacha Pass and Tidal Caloosahatchee, as well as for the region as a whole. The greatest rate of decrease was detected in Tidal Caloosahat chee, at a rate of approximately -0.1 ppm per year. The remaining estuary r egions did not demonstr ate any statistical trends. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are shown in Figure 7.37, with detailed analysis result s given in Table 7.23.

4. Discussion Throughout the study regi on, 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 s howed 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 Ma tlacha 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 compar ed 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 organism s during the daylight hours. Significant seasonal vari ation 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 dur ing dry seasons and drought y ears. Nitrogen primarily enters Charlotte Harbor via freshwater in flow from major tr ibutaries: Peace (55%), Caloosahatchee (40%) and Mya kka River (5%; Hammett 1990). The distribution and quantity of nitr ogen in the region is larg ely 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 C harlotte Harbor region may include both point and nonpoint source s of urban and agricultural runoff and atmospheric deposition (Castro et al. 2003). Excess nitrogen could have serious impacts on the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, primar ily due to increased algal production and lowered water clarity (Doering et. al 2006, Montgomery et al. 1991, Jaworksi 1981), and consequently decrease the availabi lity 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 *Rankin g

of median value in ascendin g

order com p

ared to each estuar y re g ion median within the stud y 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 o t a l N i t r o g e n ( p p m )



# Figure 7.32: CHEVWQMN TN box plot resu lts 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 o t a l N i t r o g e n ( p p m )



# Figure 7.33: CHEVWQMN seasonal TN box pl ot 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 o t a l N i t r o g e n ( p p m )



# Figure 7.34: CCHMN TN box plot results for each estuary regi on. 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 o t a l N i t r o 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 o t a l N i t r o 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 o t a l N i t r o g e n ( p p m )



### 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.36: Time series plot of TN (ppm) for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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 o t a l N i t r og e n ( p p m )



### 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

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



### 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# 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 essentia l for all aquatic life. Phosphorus is considered to be the ultimate limiting nutri ent 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 loca l geology, Charlotte Harbor and the surrounding region are enriched with phosp horus (Froelich et al 1985). Phosphorus enters the aquatic system mostly in inorganic forms (P 2 

# O 4 

# and PO 4 3- 

# ) from fluvial sources due to crusta l 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 fr om the system (Benite z-Nelson 2000). For this study, phosphorus is the total concent ration of organic and inorganic forms of phosphorus. Phosphorus levels in estuaries are a function of physical processes that occur naturally within the aquatic envir onment. For example, when under low DO conditions, phosphorus bound to sediment particles is released back into the water column, resulting in increased di ssolved 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, ra ther than phosphorus, limits production, although the relationship varies (Montgomery et al 1991). Although phos phorus is not the primary limiting nutrient in Charlotte Harbor, excess phosphorus in the system could pose serious risks to t he region (Martin and Kim 1977).

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results Phosphorus summary statistics and st atus results are given in Table 7.24 and Figures 7.38, 7.39 and 7.42. Tota l 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 stat us 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 vi sual comparison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.39, with detailed statistica l results given in Appendix B. Trend analysis was not conducted on TP because over 50% of samples were reported as equal to or lesser t han the highest MDL. For visual trend assessment, time series plot s are shown in Figure 7.42.

3. CCHMN Status and Trends Results Phosphorus summary statistics and st atus results are given in Table 7.25 and Figures 7.40, 7.41 and 7.43. Tota l 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 stat us 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 t han the highest MDL. For visual trend assessment, time series plot s are shown in Figure 7.43.

4. Discussion Throughout the study regi on and period, TP varied greatly. TP was significantly higher (p<0.05) fo r 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 si gnificantly 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 Ga sparilla Sound/Cape Haze (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest TP values typically o ccurred 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 wast e 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 (Morris on 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 tota l 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 *Rankin g

of median value in ascendin g

order com p

ared to each estuar y re g ion median within the stud y 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 o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )



# Figure 7.38: CHEVWQMN TP box plot resu lts 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 o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )



# Figure 7.39: CHEVWQMN seasonal TP box pl ot 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 o t a l P h o s p h o r u s ( p p m )



# Figure 7.40: CCHMN TP box plot results for each estuary regi on. 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 o t a l P h o s p h o r u 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

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

## 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

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



### 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.42: Time series plot of TP (ppm) for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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 o t a l P h o s . ( p p m )



### 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

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



### 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# 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 wa ter body. The amount of chlorophyll a within an estuary varies seasonally and spatially based on responses to temperature, nutrient levels and light availability. Increased le vels of chlorophyll
a generally result from an excess of nutrient s, primarily nitrogen in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, within the water colu mn (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 e t. 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 differ ent (p<0.05) across the study region and period, ranging from 0.01 to 119.00 μ g/L. Tidal Peace and Myakka Rivers had the highest chlorophyll a values of all ten estuary regions, with median values greater than 6.00 μ g/L. Chlorophyll a concentrations were lowest in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. For site specific summary statistics and stat us results, see Appendix A. Chlorophyll a varied seasonally across the study region, with the exception of Tidal Peac e and Caloosahatchee Rivers. During the rainy season the chlorophyll a median value of 5.98 μ g/L was significantly higher (p<0.05) than the dry season median value of 4.18 μ g/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 st ate regulatory criteria to characterize the status of CHEVWQMN re sults. The Impaired Waters Rule, 62- 303.353 FAC states that estuarine waters are impaired if annual mean chlorophyll a levels exceed 11 μ g/L, or data indicate an increase of 50% or more from historical values for at leas t two consecutive years. Annual mean exceedances, as well as frequency of exceedances over 11 μ g/L were analyzed for each estuary region. For annual means exceeding 11 μ g/L, see Appendix C. Chlorop hyll a annual means exceeded 11 μ g/L in all regions for at least one year except in Pine Island Sound and Estero Bay. Annual means exceeded 11 μ g/L most frequently in 2002, with no ex ceedances 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 μ g/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 le ss than the highest MDL. For visual trend assessment, time series pl ots 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 differ ent (p<0.05) across the study region and period, ranging from 0.01 to 168.00 μ g/L. Tidal Peace had the highest chlorophyll a values of all twelve estuary regions, with a median value of 7.00 μ g/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 μ g/L was significantly higher (p<0.05) than the dry s eason median value of 3.00 μ g/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, wit h 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 resu lts. Chlorophyll a annual means exceeded 11 μ g/L in all regions for at least one year except in Lower Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Soun d, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Estero Bay. Annual means exceeded 11 μ g/L most frequently in 2001, with no exceedances in 2003 or 2007. Tidal Mya kka was the only region to exceeded chlorophyll a standards three years (2001, 2002, and 2006). For annual means exceeding 11 μ g/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 le ss 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 μ g/L per year. For visual trend assessm ent, time series plots are shown in Figure 7.49, with detailed analysis re sults given in Table 7.28.

4. Discussion Throughout the study region, peri od and for programs, chlorophyll a varied greatly. Chlorophyll a was signific antly higher (p <0.05) for the CHEVWQMN. However post hoc comparisons revealed that there were no significant differences in Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peac e or the East Wall, and that the CCHMN was higher for Matlacha Pass and Gas parilla 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 Lowe r Charlotte Harbor, to over 28% in the East Wall (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest chlorophyll a values typically occurred within the tri butaries. The difference between the two programs is possibly due the diurnal natur e of phytoplankton, however one would expect the CCHMN to have gr eater values in all regions for this reason. Chlorophyll a was frequently observed above stat e regulatory criteria of 11 μ g/L. Tidal Peace and Myakka had the highest median chlorophyll a concentrations and had annual means greater than 11 μ g/L most often. Trends for the CCHMN showed that chlorophyll a concentrations are generally decreasing during the study period. In the Charlotte Harbor region, previ ous 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 Flori da vary seasonally and spatially with nutrient levels, freshwater inputs and light attenuation (Doering et al. 2006, Montgomery et al. 1991). Effe cts of increas ed chlorophyll a levels in the Charlotte Harbor region include: increas ed 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 (

μ g/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 *Rankin g

of median value in ascendin g

order com p

ared to each estuar y re g ion median within the stud y area

Table 7.27: CCHMN Summary and status of chlorophyll a (

μ g/L) results for each estuary region

N Min Max Mean SE Median Median Rank within the Charlotte

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



### 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.48: Time series plot of chlorophyll a for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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

C hl o r o phy l l a ( ug / L)



### 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00

C hl o r o phy l l a ( ug / L)



### 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00

C hl o r o phy l l a ( ug / L)

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00

C hl o r o phy l l a ( ug / L)

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# 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 (

μ g/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 microorganism s 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 pollu tion and may indicate the presence of pathogens and viruses that pose risks to human health. Fecal coliform concentrations in coastal waters are cont rolled by an array of physical, chemical and biological factors (e.g. Du ffey et al 2007). The presence of coliform bacteria in the estuarine environment decreases as salinity and temperature increase (Rhode and Kator 1988). Moreover, incr eased 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 es tuarine 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, r anging from 2 to 2,850 cfu/100mL. The median coliform val ue 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 colif orm counts were not significantly different between rainy season and dry season. However, post hoc analyses showed that in Tidal Myakka the rainy s eason was significantly higher. For a visual comparison of results, see Figure 7.51 with detailed s easonal comparisons in Appendix B. Additional analyses comparing results to state regulator y 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/100m L standard. For detailed results of state fe cal criteria, see Appendix C. Fecal coliform counts significantly changed from 2001 through 2007 in two estuary regions. Coliform counts signifi cantly decreased in Tidal Myakka and Peace at 8 and 4 cfu/100mL per year, respec tively. For visual trend assessment, time series plots are included in Figure 7.54, with detailed anal ysis 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, Matl acha 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 colif orm counts were not significantly different between rainy season and dry seas on. 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 s easonal comparisons in Appendix B. Additional analyses comparing results to state regulator y 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 resu lts of state fecal cr iteria, see Appendix C. Fecal coliform trends could not be conducted, due to the limited sample size.

4. Discussion Throughout the study regi on and period, fecal coliforms did not vary greatly. However, between programs, fe cal coliforms did vary significantly (p<0.05), with the CHEVWQMN having hi gher coliform levels then the CCHMN. However, post hoc analyses revealed no stat istical difference for Matlacha Pass. The percent difference between the two pr ograms for fecal coliforms ranged from -69% in Pine Island Sound, to ov er 203% in Matlacha Pass (CCHMN: CHEVWQMN). The highest coliform values typically occurred within the inLemon Bay. The difference between the two programs is possibly due photodegradation of fecal bact eria during the day. Fecal coliform bacteria were generally bel ow detection limits for most sites across the Charlotte Harbor estuaries for the study period and by program. Individual fecal coliform bacteria count s exceeded state standards in Lemon Bay and Tidal Peace River. No signific ant difference was observed between seasonal medians, with the ex ception of Tidal Myakka. Two trends in fecal coliform were observed in the CHEVW QMN 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 requi re future investigations. However, the relationship between s ources of fecal pollution and the presence of fecal coliform bacteria within the estuarine envir onment are not well understood in the Charlotte Harbor region. Thorough exam inations 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 *Rankin g

of median value in ascendin g

order com p

ared to each estuar y re g ion median within the stud y area

Table 7.30: CCHMN Summary and status of fecal colifor m 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 a l C o l i f o r m B a c t e r i a ( c f u / 1 0 0 m L )



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



# Figure 7.52: CCHMN fecal coliform box pl ot 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 a l C o l i f o r m ( c f u / 1 0 0 m L )



# Figure 7.53: CCHMN seasonal fecal colifo rm 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

c f u / 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

c f u / 1 0 0 m L



### 0.00 250.00 500.00 750.00

c f u / 1 0 0 m L

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 250.00 500.00 750.00

c f u / 1 0 0 m L

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.54: Time series plot of fecal coliform for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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 sus pended particulate matter, including both organic and inorganic material, within the water column. Increases in turbidity can result from resuspension of sedi ments due to wind and wave action, storm water runoff from the waters hed, erosion, etc. Excessive turbidity in estuaries has a variety of physical and biologic al effects, including increased light attenuation (Kirk 1983, McPherson and Mille r 1994, Ott et al 2006), as well as potentially decreasing growth and productivi ty, 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 signific antly (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 m edian turbidity value of 3.6 NTU. Turbidity levels varied seasonally acro ss 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 m edian of 2.3 NTU. Although turbidity varied seasonally across the entire study region, post hoc comparisons revealed only Tidal Peace, Estero Bay and Matlac ha Pass exhibited significant (p<0.05) seasonal differences. For visual com parison of seasonal results, see Figure 7.56, with detailed seasonal co mparisons in Appendix B. A generalized analysis comparing results to state regulator y criteria was conducted to characterize the status of turbidity for each site. Florida Surface Water Quality Standards stat e that turbidity shall nev er exceed 29 NTU, or above natural background conditions. Due to the absence of defined background turbidity levels in the Charlotte Ha rbor region, 29 NTU was used for the regulatory analyses. Only six samp les 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 tu rbidity 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 co mparisons revealed th at 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 tu rbidity 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 significant ly 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 ar e included in Figure 7.60, with detailed analysis results given in Table 7.35.

4. Discussion Throughout the study r egion and programs, turb idity varied greatly. However, between seasons, turbidity did not vary significantly for the region, with exception of the East Wall, Gaspar illa 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 gr eater for Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka and Tidal Peace, while there were no statis tical differences in the East Wall or Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze. The perc ent difference between the two programs for turbidity ranged from -44% for San Ca rlos Bay, to approximately 58% in Lemon Bay (CCHMN: CHEVWQM N). 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 wate r column result from a diverse assortment of sources, including: sedim ent loading from fluvial sources, coastal erosion, resuspension due to wind, wave and boat action, tidal influences, and dredging activities. The relative contributio n 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 sour ces 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 Beusek om 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 ty pe 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 *Rankin g

of median value in ascendin g

order com p

ared to each estuar y re g ion median within the stud y area
Table 7.33: CCHMN Summary and status of tu rbidity (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 u r b i d i t y ( N T U )



# Figure 7.55: CHEVWQMN turbidity box pl ot 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 u r b i d i t y ( N T U )



# Figure 7.56: CHEVWQMN seasonal turbidit y 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 u r b i d i t y ( N T U )



# Figure 7.57: CCHMN turbidity box plot resu lts 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 u r b i d i t y ( 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 u r b i d i t y ( 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 u r b i d i t y ( N T U )



### 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.59: Time series plot of turbidity for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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

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



### 0.00 10.00 20.00

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



### 0.00 10.00 20.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 10.00 20.00

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

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.60: Time series plot of tu rbidity 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 assessm ent of not only dissolved matter within the water column, but also suspended ma tter. Color may include metal ions, humus or peat, plankton, aquatic vegetati on, and industrial wastes (APHA 1998). Dissolved organic matter, as measured by appar ent color, is largely the result of tannins, and related compounds (gelbstoff), leached from vegetation in upland and submerged habitats. In southwest Flor ida, mangroves and salt marshes, as well as upstream cypress swamps, are t he primary contributors to tannins. Tannin-rich water enters the estuary primarily from fluvial sources and direct runoff from the adjacent wate rshed. 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 fres hwater inflow as it relates to the health of an estuary.

2. CHEVWQMN Status and Trends Results
Color summary statistics and status re sults 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 s eason 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 es tuary region, with differences between seasonal medians ranging from 10 P CU 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 du ring 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 Har bor 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 resu lts from the 2001 - 2007 CCHMN are given in Tables 7.37 and 7.39, and Fi gures 7.63, 7.64 and 7.66. Color varied significantly (p<0.05) across the ten es tuary 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 site s across the Charlotte Harbor study area was 25 PCU. Tidal Caloosahatchee had t he 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 s eason 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 compar isons, see Appendix B. Color concentrations significantly decreased during this period in Lemon Bay, Tidal Peace, Tidal Myakka, East Wa ll, 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 incl uded in Figure 7.66 wit h 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 colo r 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 Chamber lain 1999; Tomasko and Hall 1999, Duffey et al 2007). Moreover, decreasi ng trends in color from 2001 through 2007 correspond to increasing salinity pattern s and decreased freshwater flow during study period. The decreases in flow correspond to decreases in rainfall associated with a drought that has affect ed the Charlotte Harbor region during recent years. In the Charlotte Ha rbor 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 *Rankin g

of median value in ascendin g

order com p

ared to each estuar y re g ion median within the stud y 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 l o 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 l o 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 l o r ( P C U )



# Figure 7.63: CCHMN color box plot result s 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 l o 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 o l o r ( 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 o l o r ( P C U )



### 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00

C o l o r ( P C U )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00

C o l o r ( P C U )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date



# Figure 7.65: Time series plot of color for 2001 through 2007 for the CHEVWQMN. Each line/poin t 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

C ol o r ( P C U )



### 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00

C ol o r ( P C U )



### 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00

C ol o r ( P C U )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00

C ol o r ( P C U )

2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# Date 2 9 - A U G - 2 0 0 2

3 0 - M A R - 2 0 0 4

2 9 - O C T - 2 0 0 5

3 1 - M A Y - 2 0 0 7



# 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 withi n estuarine systems. These associations can fluctuate both spatially and temporally, allowing the portrayal of both regional and seasonal influences upon water quality parameters withi n the Charlotte Harbor Estuary. Spearman’s rho correlation analyses were conducted to enumerate relationships between parameters of interest for both seas onally and spatially. Additional stepwise regressions were conducted to quantify the contribution of nutrients to changes in chlorophyll a concentrations, a proxy of phytopl ankton production. Correlation and regression results for specific water qualit y relationships are presented in tables throughout the text, with detail ed 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 param eters, 2) the interact ions between salinity and selected parameters, and 3) the relations hips between nutrients and phytoplankton productivity, as represented by chlorophyll a concentrations. Significant relationships were detected for many param eters 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 Ra infall and Selected Parameters 1. Background Variations in rainfall patterns can alte r 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 co liform 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 t he 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 es tuary regions: Lemon Bay, Tidal Myakka, West Wall, Matlacha Pass and Tidal Caloos ahatchee. The pH within the Charlotte Harbor estuaries was not significantly corre lated to rainfall. However, post hoc comparisons showed rainfall and pH to be si gnificantly 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 Gaspar illa Sound/Cape Haze. However, post hoc comparisons did show a significant correla tion between total phosphorus and rainfall within only Tidal Peace, West Wall, Ma tlacha Pass, Tidal Caloosahatchee and San Carlos Bay (correlation coefficients: 0.251, 0.328, 0.356, 0.502, and 0.324, respectively). Within the entir e 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, t he 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 significa ntly correlated to fecal coliform bacteria throughout the entire region, howev er post hoc analyses showed it to be significantly and negatively correlated withi n 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 (c orrelation 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. Result s for pH did not vary spatially, and was not significantly correlated to sub-estuaries, wit h the exception of Tidal Cal oosahatchee. 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. T he 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 impacti ng 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 Sa linity and Selected Parameters 1. Background As previously discussed, salinity influences many chemical, physical and biological processes within estuaries. Natu ral 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 c hanges to the hydrology of the watershed, can have serious negative impacts upon the water quality and biological communities within an estuary. Therefore, under standing potential effects of salinity changes upon other water quality parameters is essential to descr ibing the status, and thereby the health, of the Charlotte Harbor estuarie s (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 sa linity; including nutrients, color, turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria. Strong relationships between salinity and these variables help to characterize est uarine interactions. In addition, because decreases in salinity are related to in creased 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 corre lated (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 freshwat er influence, including Tidal Myakka, Tidal Peace, West and East Walls, and Tidal Caloosahatchee. S ee Figure 8.1, with det ailed 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 salin ity were stronger during the rainy season (correlation coefficients -0.424 and -0.451, respectively) and in estuaries with strong freshwater influence in cluding Tidal Peace (correla tion 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 negativ ely correlated to turbidity (correlation coefficient -0.084), although the relationship wa s 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 A ppendix D for detailed results. Fecal coliform was significantly and negativ ely 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 seas ons (correlation coefficient -0.323). However, post hoc analyses revealed that co liform 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 est uary regions as well, particularly for TP, turbidity and fecal coliforms. All estuar y regions showed significant negative relationships between salinity and TN and color. Results indicate that increases in color and TN are significantly related to salinity de clines 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 l o 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 o t a l _ P h o s p h o r u 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 o t a l _ N i t r o 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 u r b i d i t y

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % %

% %

%

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$

$ $$$$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $
% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% %

%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
%

% %

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % %

%% % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $
$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%%%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % %% %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %

% % % %% % % % %% % %
% % % % %

% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %% % % % % %% % % % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %%

% % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %% %% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %%

% %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % % %

% % % %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %

% % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % % % % % %% % $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $
$$ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$ $ % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %% % % % % %%

% %

% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%

% % % % %

% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% %% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %

% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % %
% %

%%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % %% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$

$$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $
$ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $

$ % %% %%

% %

% %

% % % % %% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %% %% % % % % % % %

% % % %% % %

% %% % % % % % % % %%

%% % % % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % %
%% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % %%% % % % % % %

% % % % % % %% % % % % %

%% % % % % % % %%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %
% % % % % %% %% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %

% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 

### 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 o l i f o r m _ B a c t e r i a

%% %% % %

%% %

%%% % % % % % % % %

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %
% % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % %% % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%% % % % % $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $$$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $

$$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $
$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ % % %% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % % % % % %

% % %% % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % %%

%

%% % %

% %% % % %%

% % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %

%% % % %% % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $
$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % %% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %

%% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% %%
% % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % %%%% % %% % % %% %% % % % %

% % % % %

%

% % % % %

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$
$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % %

% % % % % % %% % % % % %
% % %% % %% % %

% % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %
% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %

% % %% % % % % %

% %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %%% % % % %% % % $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ %% % %% % %% % %% % %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % %%%% % % %% % %% % %% % % %

% % % % % % %% % % %
% % %% % %% %

% %

%

% % %% %

% % % %% % % % %%%% % %% % %%%% % % % % % % %%%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %

%

% % % % %

% % % % % %% % % % %

% % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % %

% % %% % % %
%% % % %

% % % %% % %% %

%% % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % %%%%% % %% %% %% % $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$$$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ 

### Fecal_Coliform_Bacteria = 140.05 + -3.89 * Salinity R-Square = 0.08



# Figure 8.5: Scatter plot results of feca l 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. Du ffey 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 twel ve estuary regions. Quantifying the contributions of nitrog en and phosphorus to fluctuations in chlorophyll a concentrations allows resource managers to target eit her 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 st udy period. However, it should be noted that the str ength of these relationships was minimal. Across the study area, chlorophyll a concentrations significantly increased as both TN and TP increased. For all regions, the relations hip between TP and chlorophyll a (correlation coefficient 0.258) was slightly stronger t han nitrogen correlations (correlation coefficient 0.221) and changes in phosphorus levels expl ained the most variability (R 2 

# =0.014) in chlorophyll a

. However, during the dry season this relationship was stronger (R 2 

# =0.039). Total nitrogen was the only parameter maximizing explained variation in chlorophyll a concentrations in Lemon Bay (R 2 

# =0.024), Matlacha Pass (R 2 

# =0.020), Tidal Caloosahatchee (R 2 

# =0.062) and Estero Bay (R 2 

# =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 variabi lity than TP in Lower Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound. Alternately, in Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, only phosphorus concentrations (R 2 

# =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 result s for each estuary regions and season in Appendix D. Fo r 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 vari ed both seasonally and spatially, with TN typically having greater influence on chlorophyll a . However, in 1991, Montgomery et al noted that nitrogen is t he limiting nutrient in the Charlotte Harbor estuaries, although the relationship between nutrients and phytoplankt on 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 th e rates at which nutrients are cycled through the system and the inability of this study to distinguish between natural inputs of nutrients, particularly p hosphorus, and anthropogenic sources, as well as Redfeildratios. However, ten of the twel ve estuary regions show nitrogen to be the primary nutrient influencing phytoplankton producti vity, as measured by chlorophyll a

. Therefore, management activiti es 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

C hl or op hy l l _a

% % %% % % % % % %% %%% % % % % %

%
% %

% %

% % % % % % %

% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %% % % %
% % % %

% %
% % %

% % % % % % % % %

% %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %

%
% % % %
% % % % % % % %

%

% %

% %

% % %
% %

% %

% % % % %

% % %

% %% %

% % % %

% %

% % % % %

% % %

%% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % %% % %

% % % % % % %

% % %

% % % % % % % %

% %

% % % % $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $
$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$
$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$

$$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $
$ $ $$
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %
%%%%% % % %

% % % %

% %
% % % % % % % %

%

% %

% % % % % % % % %

% %

% %

% % % % % % %

% %

% % %

%

% % % % % % % % % % % %
%

% % % %

% % % % % %
% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %%% % % %
% %

% % % % % %
%% % %

%

% % % % % % % % %

%
% %

% % % % % % % %%
% % %
% % %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % %

%

% %
% % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %% % % % % %

% % % % %

% % %% % % % %

% % % % % % % %
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $
$ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $
$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %% % % % %

% % % %% % % % % % % % % %

% % % % %

% % % % % %

% %% % % % % % % %
% % % % % % % % %
% % %

% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % %% % % % %

% %
%% % % % % % %

% % %

% %
% % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % %

% % % %% % %% % %

% %% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %%%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % %

% %

%

% % % % % % % % % %

%
% % % % % %% % %%%% %

% % %% %% % % % % % %% % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %%

% % % % % % %
% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $$ $

$$$ $ $ $
$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$

$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$

$ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %%

% % % %%%% % % % % % % % % % % %
% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %% %%

%

% %% % % % % % % % % %% % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %

%

% % %% %

% % % %

% % % %

% % %% %% %% % %% % % %% % %

% % % % % %

% % % %
% % % % % % % % %% %% %% % % % % % % %

% % %

% % % % %%

% % % % %

% %

%

% % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % %

% % % % % %

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % % % % %

% % % % % % %

% % %

% %% % % % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %

% % %

% % % % % %

% % %% % %%

% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % %
% % %% % % % % %

% %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % % % $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $
$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$

$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $$$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$$$ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$$$

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$$ $ $$$$$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

% % % % % % % % % % %% % % %% % % % % % % % % %% %

% %

% % % %

% % % % % %%

% % % %% % % % % % % % %

% % % %

% % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % %

% %

% %

% % % %

% % %

% % % % % %% %

% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % %%%

% % % % % %

% % % %

% % %

% % % %% % % % % % %

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %

%

%

% % % % % % % % % % % %

%

%

% %

%

% % % % % % % % % %

% %% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % %

% % %%
% %

% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% %

%

% % %

%

% % %% % % % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % %

%% % % % % % % % %% %% % %

% % % % % % %%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % %

% %% %

% % % %% % % % % %% % % %% %% % % % % % % %
%% % %% %

% % %

%

% % % %

% %

% % % % % % % % %

% % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %
% % %% % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %% % % % % %

%% %%

% %

% % %

% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % %

% %%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%

% % % $

$ $
$ $ $

$ $ $ $$

$ $

$$ $

$

$ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$

$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $$ $

$$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $$

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $$$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ % % %

% % %

% % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % %% % %% % % % %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % %% %% %

% %%

% %% %%

% % % %

% % % % % %% % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % %

% % % %

% % % % % % %
% % %

%

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % %% % % % % % % % % % % %

% % %

%

% % % %

% % % % % %% % % % % %% % % % %%% % % %%% % %%

% % %%

% % % %% %
% % % % % % % %

% %

%

% % %

% % %

% %

% % %

% % % % %%

% % % % % % % % % %

%% % % % % % %

% %
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %% % % %% % % %% % % % % % % %

%
% %

%%%% % % % % % %

% % % % %

% % % %

% %

%

% % % % % % % % %

% % %%

% % % % % %% %% % %

% %

% %

% % %

%

% % %

%% % % % % % % % % %

% % %

% % % %

% % %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % %

%%% % % % % % % % % %% %

% % % % %

%% % % % %

% % % % % %

% % % %

% % %

% % % %

% % % % % % % %

% % % % %% % % % % % % %

%% %

% % % % % %

% %

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %% % % % % %

% % % % % % %% % % % % % % %

% % % % %

% % % % % $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $

$ $ $ $
$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$

$ $

$ $ $ $$ $ $

$ $

$ $$$ $ $ $

$ $$ $ $

$$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $
$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $$$$ $ $$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$

$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$ $$ $$

$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $

$
$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ 

## 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

C h l o r o p h y l l a ( u g / 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 Order 1 

# Parameter F R R 2 

# R 2 

# Change Adjusted R 2 

# 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

1 

# Only parameters that contribute significant ly (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 iss ues, the current CCHMN segmentation scheme was evaluated. The flow patterns docum ented in Sheng 2002 and Zheng and Weisberg 2004 were used as the basis for the segment ation 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 signific antly, 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 ot her established segment s were statistically significantly different from their neighb ors based on salinity and followed the flow patterns set forth in the literature, and we re 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 t he table is based on parametric statistics although the data were not distri buted 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 A

symp. Sig. (2- tailed) 1.070E-41 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2- tailed) 2.929E-19 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2- tailed) 6.955E-117 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2- tailed) 1.312E-80 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2- tailed) 1.015E-05 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2- tailed) 4.881E-05 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2- tailed) 4.326E-89 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2- tailed) 1.596E-134 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1.136E-52 A symp. 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 A

symp. Sig. (2-tailed) 6.347E-03 A symp. 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 Es tuary 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 char acterized 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 est uary regions and analyzed in this report. This section characterizes water quality conditions fo r 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 considerati ons are also provided based on the unique hydrologic conditions and inte ractions within eac h estuary. For this summary, the twelve estuary regions are grouped based on Aquatic Preserve boundaries and watershed influences in to 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 Aquat ic Preserve includes the Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Tidal Myakka and Peace River s, 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 ti mes of high rates of flow. Finally, there is a section on Estero Bay and it s associated Aquatic Preserve and Basin.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 134 Figure 10.1: Charlotte Harbor Wate rshed Population Dens ities/Urban Areas.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary 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 ex tends 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 (Alligat or, 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 sout h. The aquatic preserve bou ndary follows the mean high waterline of the Bay and the tribut aries upstream to SR 776/SR 775. Lemon Bay is approximately 28 km (~15 mi) long and averages 1 km (~3/4 mile) wid e, with an area of 27 km 2 

# (6,660 acres). The Bay is narrow and shallow, averaging approximately 1.4 m deep at mean high water. Within the es tuary, the largest submerged habitat is seagrass, comprising nearly 13 km 2 

# (3,179 acres) growing to approximately 1.6 m deep. The Aquatic Preserve includes two count ies (Sarasota and C harlotte) and the urban areas of South Venice, Englewood and Pl acida (FWC-FMRI 2007, CHAP 2001 – 2007 STMP data). The watershed for Lemon Bay includes both the Coastal Venice and Lemon Bay Basins, and extends downstrea m from the headwater s of the seven tributaries and is approximately 496 km 2 

# (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 urba n (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 wa stewater 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 indicat ed 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 t he region for DO and fecal coliform bacteria. In addition, Lemon Bay ranked 10 th 

# of 12 for TN, TP and chlorophyll a . Results showed frequent exceedances of Florida Surfac e Water Standards for DO, chlorophyll a and fecal coliform bacteria. Trend results for t he Lemon Bay region indicate increases in DO, pH, and salinity, and a decrease in turbidity. The primary factors contributing to li ght attenuation for both Secchi depth and K d 

# values are turbidity and color (R 2 

# =0.397 and R 2 

# =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 re sults for the region. The region had the greatest percentage of DO values less than bot h 4.0 mg/L (24%) and 5.0 mg/L (43%), as well as having the greates t number of fecal coliform bac teria exceedances greater

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary 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 wa s the only year during the study period that Lemon Bay exceeded an annual mean of 10 μ g/L (11.13 μ g/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 stat us results are shown in Appendix A.

3. Discussion Results for Lemon Bay were typically av erage to below-average compared to the other estuary regions in the area, and across both progr ams. 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 tribut aries, 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 t he most variability in water clarity. The chlorophyll a criteria was 12.60 μ g/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 goal s 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. Natu ral and anthropogenic sources of color, such as from runoff, need to be identif ied and quantified. Natural and anthropogenic sources of turbidity, incl uding wind-driven and boat ing-related, should be investigated and quantified. However, trend results for turbid ity 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 l and uses, such as septic systems and stormwater runoff, should be identified, quantified, prioritized and remediated.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 137 Figure 10.2: Venice Basin NPDE S Sites and Wastewater Sites.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 140 

# C. Gasparilla Sound–Charlotte Har bor and Cape Ha ze and Their Associated Basins

Including Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, Ti dal Peace and Myakka Rivers, the East and West Walls, and Lower Char lotte Harbor Estuary Regions
1. Background
The Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves are discussed together in the following secti on because the two aquatic preserves share a common estuary and basins. Together, the two aquatic pr eserves extend from the Myakka and Peace River mouths southwest to Boca Grande Pass. The boundary of the aquatic preserves follows the mean high water line of t he 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 Co sta 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 km 2 

# (99,206 acres) of submerged lands

. Charlotte Harbor proper is the largest and deepest of t he 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 sm aller tributaries, including Alligator, Catfish and Whidden Creeks. Charlotte Ha rbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves are located in Charlotte and Lee Co unties, adjacent to the comm unities 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 sh oreline areas, and comprises over 90 km 2 

# (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 Wa ll of the Harbor, to 1.8 m in Cape Haze (FWC-FMRI 2007, CHAP 2001 – 2007 STMP data). The watershed for Gasparilla Sound-Char lotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves begins for the Peace River at Lake Hancock in Polk County and for the Myakka River at Flatford Swamp in Sarasota County. Including the seven tributaries and rivers, the watershed ar ea is approximately 8,482 km 2 

# (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 wetl ands (16%) then upland forest (12%; note: water areas were not included for calculati ng percentages). A large percentage of the estuary shoreline is managed un der the Charlotte Harbor Pr eserve 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 Lak e 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 industria l wastewater discharges, 61 active power plant wastewater discharges, 138 active phosphate mining wastewater discharges, 402

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary 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 Tre nds Results for Tidal Myakka River Water quality in Tidal Myakka was gener ally below average compared to other sub-estuaries in the region. Tidal Myakka was tied with Tidal Ca loosahatchee for the lowest median Secchi value and had the hi ghest 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 st udy period, with DO increasing at a rate of 0.28 mg/L per year. Feca l coliform bacteria and color significantly decreased for Tidal Myakka, as well. The primary factors contributing to li ght attenuation for both Secchi depth and K d 

# values are color and turbidity (R 2 

# =0.380 and R 2 

# =0.557, respectively). Neither fecal coliform bacteria nor turb idity 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 μ g/L, N=41; 2002=11.76 μ g/L, N=61; 2006=14.19 μ g/L, N=82). Salinity in Tidal Myakka significantly increased over t he study duration and was the second lowest recorded median value across all estuary re gions. 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 Tr ends Results for Tidal Peace River Water quality in Tidal Peace was generally below average compared to other sub-estuaries in the region; however th is 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 in creasing at a rate of 0.18 mg/L per year. Fecal coliform bacteria valu es significantly decreased for Tidal Peace, at a rate of 4 cfu/100 mL per year as well. The primary factors contributing to li ght attenuation for both Secchi depth and K d 

# values are color and turbidity (R 2 

# =0.367 and R 2 

# =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 t he 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 μ g/L, N=58; 2006=12.94 μ g/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 Tr ends 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 Es tuary 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 li ght attenuation for both Secchi depth and K d 

# values in the West Wall region are color followed by turbidity (R 2 

# =0.464 and R 2 

# =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 therefor e 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 a nd 8% for 4.0 mg/L) and for chlorophyll a (2001=14.59 μ g/L, N=56; 2006=11.44 μ g/L, N=99). Region-specific water quality status results are shown in Appendix A.
5. Water Quality Status and Tr ends 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. Signi ficant decreasing trends for t he 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 li ght attenuation for Secchi depth values within the East Wall region are color, turbidity and followed by chlorophyll a (R 2 

# =0.335). However, when regressed against K d 

# , only color and chlorophyll a were statistically significant (R 2 

# =0.390). This apparent inconsistency is most likely due to seasonal changes, as turbidity was statistically significant (R 2 

# =0.477) versus K d 

# during the dry season, whereas in the rainy season only color was significant (R 2 

# =0.361). Status and trends results for the East Wa ll 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 fo r DO occasionally (14% for 5.0 mg/L and 8% for 4.0 mg/L) and for chlorophyll a (2001=11.64 μ g/L, N=59). The East Wall never exceeded state standards for fecal coliform bacteria. Region-specific water quality status results ar e 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 thir d highest median values for DO of all estuary regions. A significant decreasi ng 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 li ght attenuation for Secchi depth values within Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze region are color, turbidity and followed by chlorophyll a (R 2 

# =0.334). However, when regressed against K d 

# , only color and turbidity were statistically significant (R 2 

# =0.393), much like the East Wall. However, unlike the East Wall, this inconsistency cannot be ex plained by seasonality, as both color and

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 143 turbidity were statistically significant (R 2 

# =0.269) versus K d 

# during the dry season, and only color was significant (R 2 

# =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 exceedanc es of state water qu ality 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 μ g/L, N=40). Region-specific water quality status results ar e 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 thr ee other regions; 2 cfu/100 mL), and turbidity (1.21 NTU) of all estuary r egions. Lower Charlotte Harbor had a significant decreasing trend for chlorophyll a during the study period. In addi tion, pH values had significantly increased. The primary factors contributing to li ght attenuation for Secchi depth values within Lower Charlotte Harbor region are color and turbidity (R 2 

# =0.407). However, when regressed against K d 

# , color, turbidity and chlorophyll a were statistically significant (R 2 

# =0.528), much like other regions. However, when looking at seasonality, both color and turbidity were statistically significant versus K d 

# during the dry season (R 2 

# =0.330), and both color and turbidity were significant (R 2 

# =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 qua lity criteria. Turbidity, chlorophyll a , and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state standards during the study period. In addition, it exceeded cr iteria 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 prim ary parameters most often c ontributing most to light attenuation across the r egion, with chlorophyll a contributing only occasionally and regionally. Nutrients, including nitr ogen 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 val ues, 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 Gas parilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor and Cape Haze Aquatic Preserves and their waters hed 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 Es tuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 144 sources of high nitrogen and fecal coliform bac teria 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 ident ification of source s 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 seag rass 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 μ g/L for Tidal Peace and 6.87 μ g/L for Tidal Myakka. El sewhere, the calculated values were: 21.15 μ g/L for the East Wall, 5.35 μ g/L for the West Wall, 5.07 μ g/L for Gasparilla Sound/Cape Haze, and 2.13 μ g/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. Ca lculated color targets for the Tidal Peace and Myakka were high (60.00 and 60.00 PCU, re spectively), 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 t he state standards of 29 NTU and 11 μ g/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 lesse r 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 Es tuary 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 147 Figure 10.5: Peace River Basi n NPDES and Wastewater Sites.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Ma tlacha Pass Estuary Regions
1. Background
Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass surround Pine Island from north to south and are bordered by barriers islands and Pine Is land to the west. Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve extends from Boca Grande Pass south to Sanibel, between Pine Island and four barrier islands. There is one primary tributary (Caloosahatchee River) and four Gulf passes (Boca Grande, Captiv a, Red Fish and Blind). The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high water line of the Sound. Pine Island Sound is approximately 32 km (20 mi) long and 8 km (5 mi) wide, with an area of approximately 229 km 2 

# (56,483 acres). It is the second larges t of the estuaries in the region. The aquatic preserves are locat ed in Lee County and the City of Sanibel is the only incorporated area on the Sound. Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve is loca ted between Pine Island and Cape Coral, extending north-south along the length of the island. The primary tributary is the Caloosahatchee River. The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high waterline of the Pass, with the exclus ion 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 km 2 

# (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, seagra sses comprise approximately 142 km 2 

# (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 km 2 

# (192,258 acres) in size. The ratio of watershed land area to open water estuary area is slightly over 2:1. Based on 2005 dat a from SFWMD, the largest land use in the watershed is ur ban/developed (43%), fo llowed by wetlands (40%) and upland forest (7%) then agriculture (4%; note: water areas were not included for calculating percentages). A la rge portion of the shoreline is managed for preservation under the Charlotte Harbor Preser ves 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 domes tic wastewater discharges, fourteen industrial wastewat er discharges, 75 NPDES sites and 20 water supplies permitted in the basin (Figure 10.7; FDEP 2008). San Carlos Bay, while not an aquatic pr eserve itself, connects three adjacent aquatic preserves: Matlacha Pass, Pi ne Island Sound and Estero Bay Aquatic Preserves. San Carlos Bay receives wa ters from both the Pine Island and Lower

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary 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 Cal oosahatchee River, its primary tributary. San Carl os Bay is approximately 8 km (5 mi) long and 5 km (3 mi) wide, and is approximately 66 km 2 

# (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, seagrasse s compromise approximately 37 km 2 

# (9,260 acres) of submerged land, averaging approximately 1.7 m deep (FMRI 2007; CHAP 2001 – 2007 seagrass data). Tidal Caloosahatchee is located from t he 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 km 2 

# (18,009 acres). It is located in Lee Count y and the primary urban ar eas adjacent to the estuary region are the Cities of Cape Coral and Fort Meyers. Within the estuary, seagrasses compromise less than 0.1 km 2 

# (~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 km 2 

# (271,794 acres) in size. T he Tidal Caloosahatchee River region is located entirely wit hin the Lower Caloosahatc hee Basin. The ratio of watershed land area to open water estuary area wit hin the basin is approximately 15:1. Based on 2005 data from SFWMD and 2006 dat a from SWFWMD, the largest land use in the basin is urban/developed (43%), fo llowed by wetlands (19%) and agriculture (17%) then upland forested (14%; note: water areas were not included for calculating percentages). As of 2 000, 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 industr ial wastewater discharges, fifteen active power-plant wastewater discharges, 34 acti ve water withdrawals and 335 active NPDES sites permitted in the basin (Figure 10.8; FDEP 2008).
2. Water Quality Status and Tre nds 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 Is land Sound had significant decreasing trends for chlorophyll a , pH and fecal coliform bacteria during the study period. The primary factors contributing to li ght attenuation for Secchi depth values within the Pine Island Sound region are turbidity, chlorophyll a , and color (R 2 

# =0.166). However, when regressed against K d 

# , no parameters were stat istically significant. Status and trends results for Pine Isl and 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 Es tuary 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 Tr ends 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 thr ee 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 duri ng the study period. The primary factors contributing to li ght attenuation for Secchi depth values within the Matlacha Pass region are color and chlorophyll a (R 2 

# =0.308). However, when regressed against K d 

# , 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 occa sionally (23% for 5.0 mg/L and 7% for 4.0 mg/L). Region specific water qua lity status results are shown in Appendix A.
4. Water Quality Status and Tr ends 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 (t ied 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 μ g/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 a ttenuation for Secchi depth values within the San Carlos Bay region was color (R 2 

# =0.093). However, when regressed against K d 

# , both turbidity and color were statistically significant (R 2 

# =0.615), with only turbidity in the dry season (R 2 

# =0.559) and both turbidity and color in the rainy season (R 2 

# =0.706). Status and trends results for San Carl os Bay are shown in Table 10.10. San Carlos Bay had very few exceedances of state water qua lity 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 signific ant decreasing trends for Secchi depth, temperature, chlorophyll a , and color during the study period.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 157 The primary factors contributing to li ght attenuation for Secchi depth values within Tidal Caloosahatchee were turbidity and color (R 2 

# =0.508). However, when regressed against K d 

# , color then turbidity were statistically significant (R 2 

# =0.302), with turbidity and chlorophyll a in the dry season (R 2 

# =0.277) and only color in the rainy season (R 2 

# =0.341). Status and trends results for Tidal Caloosahatchee River are shown in Table 10.11. Tidal Caloosahatchee had few exceedances of state water qua lity criteria. Turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria levels never exceeded state standards during the study period. It exceeded stat e criteria for chlorophyll a twice; 2002 (12.29 μ g/L, N=47) and 2004 (17.52 μ g/L, N=55). In addition, Tidal Ca loosahatchee 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 r egions within Charlotte Harbor, whereas Tidal Caloosahatchee was typically below av erage. 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 prim ary parameter causing light attenuation in Pine Island Sound. Co lor 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 except ion 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 μ g/L. Chlorophyll a criteria calculated for Pine Isl and Sound and Matlacha Pass were 1.38 and 2.90 μ g/L, respectively. The calculated value for San Carlos Bay was 0.30 μ g/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 syst em. The color criteria were substantially lower for Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pa ss and San Carlos Bay: 17.15, 25.00 and 16.00 PCU, respectively. Once again it is im portant to note that all of the turbidity and chlorophyll a criteria are less than the st ate standards of 29 NTU and 11 μ g/L. In Tidal Caloosahatchee seagrass meadows are declining and sources of high nitrogen need to be identified an d reduced. To maintain the relatively good water quality conditions throughout Pine Island So und, Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay and Tidal Caloosahatchee, resource management goals should focus on reducing nutrient runoff, particularly nitrogen, from the incr easing urban and agricultural areas. Due to the close proximity to urban areas, additi onal design considerations should be incorporated in storm water management measures. Additionally, natural and anthropogenic sources of turb idity and color in the region should be identified and quantified, and remediated as needed.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 Es tuary 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 Es tero Bay from Fort Myers Beach south to Bonita Springs. There are six tri butaries (Hendry, Mullo ck, and Spring Creeks, Caloosahatchee, Estero and Imperial Rivers) and four Gulf Passes (Matanzas, Big Carlos, New and Big Hickory). The aquatic preserve boundary follows the mean high waterline of the Bay and the tributaries up-st ream to tidal influence. Estero Bay is approximately 14 km (9 mi) long and 3 km (2 mi) wide, with an ar ea of approximately 43 km 2 

# (10,730 acres). It is the sm allest and shallowest of the es tuaries in the region. The aquatic preserve, located in Lee County, is adj acent to the urban areas of Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach and Bonita Springs. S eagrasses are a critical submerged habitat within Estero Bay, comprising over 12 km 2 

# (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 Caloosahat chee River and is approximately 1,024 km 2 

# (253,143 acres) in size. The ratio of wa tershed 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 2 000, 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 wast ewater discharges, one industrial wastewater discharge, 448 NPDES sites, and seventeen water withdrawals permitted in the basin (F igure 10.9; FDEP 2008).
2. Water Quality Status and Tr ends 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 t he lowest median tem perature (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 (R 2 

# =0.085). However, when regressed against K d 

# , turbidity and color were significant (R 2 

# =0.068), with only turbidity in the dry season (R 2 

# =0.029), and color then turbidity during the rainy season (R 2 

# =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-A ug-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 Es tuary Final Programs Comparisons Report 2009

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves, Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

# 165 period. In addition, Estero Bay frequently e xceeded criteria for DO (39% for 5.0 mg/L and 17% for 4.0 mg/L). Region specific wa ter quality status results are shown in Appendix A.

3. Discussion Water quality conditions in Estero Bay we re generally average. Results indicate that the parameters of concer n for the region include: turbidity and below-average DO concentrations. Turbidity was the primary fact or leading to light attenuation in Estero Bay. However, Estero Bay is a shallow win d-driven lagoon, in which increased turbidity levels are primarily the result of re-s uspended 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 r unoff; 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 le vel, would contribute to reestablishing declining seagrasses within the Bay. There needs to be continued acquisition and management of preserve land s within the watershed in order to help offset the rapid urbaniz ation of the region.

# Summaries of Status and Trends Results for each Es tuary 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 Es tuary 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 Esturaries 1 

# Trend Results 2 

# 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 result s 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 ch aracterized by relatively homogenous hydrologic conditions. Combined, these wa ter quality parameters reflect health of the estuaries and affect the habitats located there, including factor s limiting light availability to seagrasses. To characterize water quality as it re lates 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 we re used to detect trends in water quality from 2001 through 2007 for each estuary region. Across the region, results varied by par ameter 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 ot her State of Florida cr iteria. Significant decreasing trends in pH, chlorophyll a , fecal bacteria and increases in DO concentrations were observed for many es tuaries from 2001 through 2007. Significant relationships between light-limiting factor s and clarity, as m easured by both Secchi depth and K d 

# , were observed. However, the per cent contribution of each parameter varied across the region and between the rain y and dry seasons. Strong relationships between salinity and many other par ameters including color, nu trients and bacteria were also observed and quantified. Although resu lts varied by program, much of this variability could be explained due spatial an d 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 wa s below average compar ed to other estuary regions within the Charlotte Ha rbor area. In addition, sa linities, pH and lower water clarity, as measured by both K d 

# and Secchi depth, as well as higher color and TN values were observed in these regions. Hig her 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, decr easing 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 clar ity) criteria need to be adopted in order to best protect the resources wit hin and around the estuary. These three programs are valued by res ource managers in the region. The data are used to guide policy and management decis ions, 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 si x Aquatic Preserves to aid in these purposes. CHAP and EBAP will make modifications an d 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 (APH A). 1998, 20 ed. Standar d Methods for the Examination of Wate r and Wastewater.

Anderson, I. C., M. W. Rodes, and H. I. Kator. 1979. Sublethal stress in Escherichia coli : a function of salinity. Applied En vironmental Microbiology 38:1147-1152
Baker, S., D. Heuberger
, E. Phlips and L. Sturmer. April 2002. Water quality and its role in clam production. University of Flor ida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension Service Technical Bulletin.

Benitez-Nelson, C. R. 2000. The biogeochemical cycling of phosphorus in marine systems. Earth-Scienc e Reviews 51: 109-135
Boggs, S. Jr. 2006. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. 4 th 

# Edition. Prentice Hall, NJ. 662 p.
Bortone, S.A., A.J. Martignette and J.P. Spi nelli. 2006. Spotted seatrout (Family Sciaenidae) growth as an indicator of es tuarine conditions in San Carlos Bay, Florida. Florida Scientist 69 (supp. 2): 127

‐ 139.

Bureau of Economic and Busi ness Research (BEBR). 2005. Florida County Rankings. 12 th 

# Edition. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida

. 

# Byrne, M.J. and J.N. Flanigin. 2005. Surface water salinit y mapping of Estero Bay and San Carlos Bay, Lee County Florida. US GS: Proceedings of Florida Integrated Science Center Meetin g. Orlando, Florida.
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. 1998. The st udy of seasonal and spatial patterns of hypoxia in Upper Charlotte Harbor. Final Report to: Surface Water Improvement and Management Section, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL.

Castro, M. S, C.T. Driscoll, T. E. Jordan, W. G. Reay, a nd W.R. Boynton. 2003. Sources of nitrogen to estuaries in the Unit ed States. Estuaries 26 (3): 803-814.
Chamberlain, R.H. and Doering, P.H. 1998. Preliminary estimate of optimum freshwater inflow to the Caloosahatchee Estuary: A resource-based approach. Proceedings of the Charlotte Harbor Public Conference and Technical Symposium. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Technical Report No. 98-02, 274.
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Progr am. 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 Progr am. 2004. Coastal Charlotte Harbor Monitoring Network: Description and St andard 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. Seaw ater: Its Composition, Properties and Behavior. 2 nd 

# Edition. Butterworth – Heinemann. Oxford, England. 168 p.
Corbett, C.A., P.H. Doering, K. A. Madl ey, J. A. Ott, and D. A. Tomasko. 2005. In Estuarine Indicators. Ed. S. A. Bortone. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.
Corbett, C.A. and J.A. Hale. 2006. Development of Water Quality Targets for Charlotte Harbor, Florida using Seagrass Light Requirements. Corbett, C. A , Peter H. Doering and Ernest Estevez (Guest Editors). Florida Scientist, Vol. 69(00S2), p. 36-50.
Day, J., C. Hall, W. M. Ke mp, and A.Y. Arancibia. 1989. Es tuarine Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. USA.
de Jorge, V. N., J. E. E. van Beusekom. 1995. Wind- and tide-induced resuspension of sediment and microphytobenthos from tidal flats in the Ems estuary. Limnology Oceanography. 40 (4): 766-778.

Dixon, L. K. and G. J. Kirk patrick. 1999. Causes of light attenuation with respect to seagrasses in Upper and lower Charlotte Harbor. Final Report. Submitted to: Southwest Florida Water Management Dis trict, Surface Water Improvement and Management Program. 7601 US Hwy 301 North, Tampa, Florida.
Doering, P.H. and R. H. C hamberlain. 1999. Water quality and source of freshwater discharge to the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 35 (4): 793-806.
Doering, P.H., R.H. Chamberlain, and K.M. Haunert. 2005. Spatial variability in the response of chlorophyll a to nutrient loading and freshwater discharge in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Charlotte Ha rbor Watershed Summit. February 2005, Punta Gorda, FL.
Doering, P. H., R. H. Chamberlain , and K. M. Haunert. 2006. Chlorophyll a and its use as a indicator of eutrophication in the Ca loosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Florida Scientist 69: 51-72.

# 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 Har bor & 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. Trimbl e. 2001. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its relation to rainfall and river flows in the continental U.S.. Geophysical Research Letters 28:10.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA, Oceans and Coasta l Protection Division, Washington, DC.
Estero Bay Marine Laboratory. 1996. Estero Bay, Lee County Southwestern Florida 1995-1996 Hydrological, Biologic al and Geological Studies. Fort Myers Beach, FL.
Florida Department of Envir onmental Protection (FDEP), BI S/GIS Section. 2008. PWS Surface Water Intakes. DEP/WRM/BWM.

FDEP, BIS/GIS Section. 2008. PWS Plants. DEP/WRM/BWM.
FDEP, CHAP. 1997. CHEVWQMN Comprehensiv e Quality Assurance Project Plan. Internal QAPP. Updated 1999.

FDEP, CHAP. 1998. CHEVWQMN Field Met hods Manual. Internal SOP. Updated 2005.
FDEP, CHAP. 2007. Standard Procedures fo r Seagrass Monitoring for the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves Seagrass Tr ansect Monitoring Program. Internal SOP. Revised September 2007.

FDEP, OTIS/GIS Section. 2008. DEP.AQUATIC_PRESER VES_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 Commi ssion-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. Aquat ic 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 es tuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 20. in McPherson et. al. 1996.
Fujioka, R. S., H. H. Hashimot o, E. B. Siwak, and R. H. Young. 1981. Effect of sunlight on survival of indicator bacteria in seaw ater. Applied Environm ental Microbiology 41:690-696.
Garcia, H. E., and L. I. Gor don. 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 sa linity fluctuations in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Florida Scientist: 69: 24-35.

Hammett, K.M. 1990. Land use, wa ter use, streamflow charac teristics, and water-quality characteristics of the Charlo tte Harbor inflow area, Florida. USGS Survey Water Supply Paper 2359-A.
Helsel, D. R. and R. M. Hir sch. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. D epartment of Interior.

Helsel, D.R., D.K. Mueller and J.R. Slack. 2006. The Computer Program for the Kendall Family of Trend Tests. United Stat es Geological Survey (USGS).

Hirsch, R.M., and Slack, J.R. , 1984, A nonparametric trend test for seasonal data with serial dependence. Water Resources Research 20(6): 727-732.

Hirsch, R. M., J. R. Slack, and R. A. Smith. 1982. Tech niques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data. Water Resource Research 18:107-121.

Hirsch, R.M., R.B. Alexander , and R.A. Smith. 1991 Selection of Methods for the Detection and Estimation of Trends in Wa ter Quality. Water Resources Research 27 (5): 803-813.

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 Hurri cane Attributes Determine the Extent of Environmental Impacts: Multiple Hurri canes 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 ve rtical 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. M iller, 1990. Nutrient distribut ion and variability in the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, Florida: Water Resources Bulletin. 26 (1): 67- 80.

McPherson, B. F. and R. L. Miller. 1994. Causes of light attenuation in Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor, Southwestern Flori da. Water Resources Bulletin 30: 43–53.

McPherson, B.F, R.L. Mille r, and Y.E. Stoker. 1996 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of the Charlotte Ha rbor Basin and Estuarine System in Southwestern Florida–A Summary of the 1982-89 U.S. G eological Survey Charlotte Harbor Assessment and Other Studies. United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2486.
McPherson, B. F., R. T. Montgomery, and E. E. Emmons. 1990. Phytoplankton productivity and biomass in the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 26: 787–800

. 

# Montgomery, R.T, B.F. McPherson and E. E. Emmons. 1991. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus addition on phytoplankton productivity and chlorophyll a in a subtropical estuary, Charlo tte Harbor, Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4077.
Morrison, G., R.T. Montgomery, A. Squires, R. Starks, E. DeHaven and J. A. Ott. 1998. Nutrient, chlorophyll and dissolved oxy gen concentrations in Charlotte Harbor: Existing conditions and long term trends. Proceedings of the Charlotte Harbor Public Conference and Tec hnical Symposium: Charlott e Harbor National Estuary Program Technical Repor t No. 98-02: 201-218.
National Oceanographic and Atmos pheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center (CSC). 2000. BATHYMETR IC 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/explo rer.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. N 2 

# accumulation in estuarine and coasta l sediments: the influence of H 2 

# S on dissimilatory nitrate reduction. Estuar ine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 67: 231- 238.
South Florida Water Management District (S FWMD). 2008. DBHYDRO Browser. http://glades.sfwmd.gov/ pls/dbhydro_pro_plsql/. Take n from the World Wide Web 26 April, 2008.

SFWMD. 2007. SFWMD 2004-05 Land Use. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explo rer.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/explo rer.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 Sym posium. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. March 15- 17, 1997 Punta Gorda, FL.

Stevens, P.W., D.A. Blewett, and J.P. Casey. 2006. Shor t-term effects of a low dissolved oxygen event on estuarine fish assemblages following the passage of Hurricane Charley. Estuaries and Coasts 29(6A): 997-1003.
Stickney, R.R. 1984. Estuarine Ecology of t he Southwestern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press.
Stoker, Y.E. 1992. Salinity distribution and vari ation 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 pa rticle flux and grain-size analysis in Estero Bay, Southwestern Florida. Charlotte Harbor Watershed Summit. February 2005, Punta Gorda, FL.

Tomasko, D.A and M. O. HALL. 1999. Pr oductivity and biomass of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum along a gradient of freshwat er influence in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Estuar. 22(3A): 592-602.

Tomasko D.A, D.L. Bristol and J.A. Ott. 2001. Assessment of Present and Future Nitrogen Loads, Water Quality, and Seagrass ( Thalassia testudinum ) Depth Distribution in Lemon Bay, Flor ida. Estuarie s 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. Cens us Block Group Centroids, 1970. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explo rer.jsp Taken from the World Wide Web 26 June, 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Cens us Block Group Centroids, 1980. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explo rer.jsp Taken from the World Wide Web 26 June, 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Cens us Block Group Centroids, 1990. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explo rer.jsp Taken from the World Wide Web 26 June, 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2000 Census Blocks. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explo rer.jsp Taken from the World Wide Web 04 June, 2007.

Verdi, R.J., S.A. Tomlins on, and R.L. Marella. 2006. The Drought of 1998-2002: Impacts on Florida’s Hydrology and Landsc ape. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1295, 34 p.
Volety, A. K., and V. G. Encomio. 2006. Biol ogical effects of suspended sediments on shellfish in the Charlotte Harbor Waters hed –implications for water releases and dredging activities. Final Repo rt Submitted to Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program.

# Appendix 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 statisti cs for all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN IV Table A.2: Annual summary statistics fo r all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN __ V Table A.3: Summary statistics fo r 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 a ll sites in the West Wall _____________________ IX Table A.7: Summary statistics for a ll sites in the East Wall ______________________ X Table A.8: Summary statistics for a ll sites in Gasparilla/Cape Haze _______________ XI Table A.9: Summary statistics for all si tes in Lower Charlotte Harbor _____________ XII Table A.10: Summary statistics for a ll sites in Pine Island Sound ________________ XIII Table A.11: Summary statistics fo r all sites in Matlacha Pass

___________________ XIV Table A.12: Summary statistics for all si tes in Tidal Caloosahatchee River ________ XV Table A.13: Summary statistics for a ll 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-Wa llis) 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 ex ceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations

______________________________ XLI Table C.2: Regional CHEVWQMN exceedances of dissolved oxy gen 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 ex ceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations

_____________________________ XLIV Table C.5: Regional CHEVWQMN exceedances of dissolved oxy gen 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 exc eedances 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 ex ceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region ____________________ XLVIII Table C.9: Annual combined mean ex ceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region ____________________________ XLIX Table C.10: Regional geometric m eans for fecal coliform bacteri a per Florida Surface Water Regulations ______________________________________________ L-LXV Table C.11: Regional percentage of fecal coliform bacteria repor ted over 400 cfu/100 mL per Florida Surface Water Regulations _____________________________ LXVI Table C.12: Dates and location of fecal co liform 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 select ed 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 correlati on 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 fo r 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 correlati on for selected variables in Lower Charlotte Harbor __________________________________________ LXXVI Table D.10: Spearman's rho correlati on 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 seagra ss 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 statisti cs for all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN IV Table A.2: Annual summary statistics fo r all regions from CHEVWQMN & CCHMN __ V Table A.3: Summary statistics fo r 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 a ll sites in the West Wall _____________________ IX Table A.7: Summary statistics for a ll sites in the East Wall ______________________ X Table A.8: Summary statistics for a ll sites in Gasparilla/Cape Haze _______________ XI Table A.9: Summary statistics for all si tes in Lower Charlotte Harbor _____________ XII Table A.10: Summary statistics for a ll sites in Pine Island Sound ________________ XIII Table A.11: Summary statistics fo r all sites in Matlacha Pass

___________________ XIV Table A.12: Summary statistics for all si tes in Tidal Caloosahatchee River ________ XV Table A.13: Summary statistics for a ll 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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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) ( μ g/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-Wa llis) 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 Pr ogram From CHEVWQM N & 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 bet ween estuary regions for the entire st udy 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 A ll 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 ex ceedances of dissolved oxygen under 4 mg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations

___________________________ XLI Table C.2: Regional CHEVWQM N 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 ex ceedances of dissolved oxygen under 5 mg/L per site per Florida Surface Water Regulations

__________________________ XLIV Table C.5: Regional CHEVWQM N 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 exc eedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region ____________________ XLVII Table C.8: Annual CHEVWQMN mean ex ceedances of 11 ug/L chlorophyll a per Florida Impaired Waters Rule for each estuary region ____________________ XLVIII Table C.9: Annual combined mean ex ceedances 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 bac teria per Florida Surface Water Regulations _________________________________________ L-LXV Table C.11: Regional percentage of fecal coliform bacteri a reported over 400 cfu/100 mL per Florida Surface Water Regulations _______________________ LXVI Table C.12: Dates and location of fecal co liform 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 μ g/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 μ g/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 μ g/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 colifor m 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 repor ted 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 sele cted variables for the entire study region and duration ______________________________________________ LXVIII Table D.2: Spearman's rho correlation for sele cted 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 fo r 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 correlati on for selected variables in Lower Charlotte Harbor __________________________________________ LXXVI Table D.10: Spearman's rho correlati on 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 select ed 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 se lected 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 va riables 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 entir e 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